**PrepubHeat-ion issue for EPA libraries
and State Solid Waste Management Agencies
ASSESSMENT OF INDUSTRIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE PRACTICES:
PAINT AND ALLIED PRODUCTS INDUSTRY
CONTRACT SOLVENT RECLAIMING OPERATIONS,
AND FACTORY APPLICATION OF COATINGS
This final report (SW-119o) describes work performed
for the Federal solid waste management program
under contract no. 68-01-2656
and is reproduced as received from the contractor
Copies will be available from the
National Technical Information Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
Springfield, Virginia 22161
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1976
-------
This report has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents
necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, nor does mention of coriinercial products constitute
endorsement by the U.S. Government.
An environmental protection publication (SW—ll9c) In the solid waste
management series.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Mr. Matthew A. Straus, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs,
Hazardous Waste Management Division, was the EPA Project Officer re-
sponsible for monitoring this program. Mr. Francis Scofield acted as
WAPORA’s principal investigator, and Mr. James E. Levin was program
manager. Mrs. Gene V. Beeland and Mr. Tony S. Laird were key techni-
cal staff and particpated in all phases of the program’s activities.
The cooperation of the National Paint and Coatings Association
through their Assistant Technical Director, Mr. Raymond Connor, is
greatly appreciated. The participation of the Association’s Task
Force on Solid Waste, Chaired by Mr. Earl Baumhart, was also of great
help.
Appreciation is also extended to Mr. Gabriel Malkin of the Federa-
tion of Societies for Coatings Technology for reviewing draft reports.
iii
-------
TAELE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
I. GENERAL INTRODUCTION 1
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5
III. PROJECT METHODOLOGY 19
IV. HAZARDOUS WASTE PRACTICES OF THE PAINT AND
COATINGS MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY 31
Description of the Paint and Allied
Products Manufacturing Industry 31
Introduction 31
Products of the Industry 31
Economic Structure 33
Future Trends and Developments 35
Paint and Coatings Industry Characterization 39
Introduction 39
Number and Distribution of Establishments
Manufacturing Paint and Coatings 40
Plant Size Distribution 45
Plant Distribution by Age 45
Distribution of Products Manufactured 45
Distribution of Production 52
Paint and Coatings Manufacturing Waste
Characterization 55
Introduction
Criteria for the Determination of
a Potentially Hazardous Waste 56
Manufacturing Processes 61
Formulations 63
Industry Subcategories 64
Waste Sources 80
Raw Materials Usage 86
Potentially Hazardous Materials 96
Quantities of Potentially Hazardous
Waste 101
Projected Growth in Production and
Wastes 134
Summary 163
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page
Iv.
(cont ‘d.)
Treatment and Disposal Technology 165
Introduction 165
Description of Present Treatment
Technologies 166
Description of Present Disposal
Technologies 168
On—Site vs. Off—Site Disposal 172
Safeguards Used in Disposal 172
Private Contractors and Service
Organizations 174
Levels of Treatment and Disposal
Technology for Potentially Hazardous
Waste Streams 174
Cost Analysis 182
Introduction 182
Treatment and Disposal Coats 132
Siimm ry 187
V. HAZARDOUS WASTE PRACTICES OF SOLVENT RECLAMATION
OPERATIONS 189
Description of Solvent Reclamation Operations 189
Introduction 189
On—Site Reclamation at Paint Plants 189
Solvent Reclamation by Private Contractor 190
Economic Evaluation 191
Future Trends and Developments 194
Characterization of Solvent Reclamation
Operations 195
Introduction 195
Number and Distribution of Facilities 195
Size Distribution 197
Age Distribution 198
Production Distribution 198
Future Trends 200
Solvent Reclaiming Waste Characterization 200
V
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page
V.
(Cont’d)
Introduction 200
Feedstock Sources and Quantities 200
Solvent Reprocessing Methods 201
Waste Sources 206
Waste Quantities from Solvent
Reclamation 210
Treatment and Disposal Technology 211
Introduction 211
Description of Present Technology 214
Analysis of Number of Locations
and Percentage of Total Wastes
Disposed 215
Levels of Treatment and Disposal Tech-
nology for the Potentially Hazardous
Waste Stream 215
Future Trends 217
Cost Analysis 217
VI. HAZARDOUS WASTE PRACTICES IN FACTORY-APPLIED
COATINGS OPERATIONS 221
Description of Factory—Applied Coatings
Operations 221
Introduction 221
Economic Structure 221
Future Trends and Developments 222
Factory—Applied Coatings Operations
Characterization 224
Introduction 224
Number, Size, and Distribution of
Manufacturing Plants 224
Process Distribution 225
Annual Coatings Usage 225
Factory—Applied Coatings Operations Waste
Characterization 226
Introduction 226
Application Methods 226
vi
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page
VI.
(cont’d.)
Coating Technology in Specific
Industries 236
Types of Coatings Used 238
Wastes as a Function of Application
Method 238
Quantity of Wastes 239
Wastes as Function of Materials Coated 240
Treatment and Disposal Technology 242
Cost Analysis 242
VII. REFERENCES 245
VIII. I GLOSSARY 248
LIST OF APPENDICES
A Plant Survey Report Form 257
B Detailed SIC Breakdown of Paints and
Allied Products 261.
C Explanation of Toxicity Ratings Excerpted
from Clinical Toxicology of Commercial
Products 263
D Potentially Hazardous Materials — Data
Suary Sheets 267
E Basis for Waste Characterjzatjor 1 Tables 271
F Private Waste Contractors and Service Organizations 275
c Contract Solvent Reclaiming Plants 279
H Properties and Uses of Hazardous Raw Materials 285
vii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Paint and Coatings Manufacture — Summary of
Total Wastes — 1974 9
2 Paint and Coatings Manufacture — Suimnary of
Total Wastes — 1977 11
3 Paint and Coatings Manufacture — Summary of
Total Wastes — 1983 12
4 Paint and Coatings Manufacture — Levels I, II, and II I
Waste Treatment and Disposal Technology 14
5 Summary of Estimated Quantities of Wastes from Solvent
Recovery Operations 16
6 Projected Changes in Percentage of Factory—Applied
Coatings Market Held by Product Category 38
7 Estimated Number and Distribution of Establishments 41
8 Estimated Distribution of Plant Size by Employment 46
9 Estimated Distribution of Plant Ages 48
10 Plant Age Comparison Between Three Rapidly Developing
States and Three with Relatively Stable Urban Populations 50
11 Estimated Distribution of Product Manufacture 51
12 Estimated Annual Production Rates in 1972 53
13 Definition of Toxicity Rating 58
14 Typical Formulation Changes to Achieve a Variety of 65
Coatings
15 Estimated Pigment Usage by Paint Industry, 1972 87
16 Estimated Resin Usage by Paint Industry, 1972 91
17 Estimated Drying Oil Usage by Paint Industry, 1972 93
18 Estimated Solvent Usage by Paint Industry, 1972 94
19 Estimated Miscellaneous Materials Usage, 1972 97
viii
-------
LIST OF TABLES — Cont’d.
Table
20 Toxicity of Raw Materials Used in Surveyed Paint Plants 99
21 Constants Used and Assumptions Based on Data 104
22 Quantities of Total Paint and Coatings Industry
Wastes by State — 1974 112
23 Quantities of Total Paint and Coatings Industry
Wastes by EPA Region — 1974 113
24 Quantities of Waste Streams by Source — 1974
(Solvent—Thinned Trade Sales Paints) 115
25 Quantities of Wastes from Manufacture of Solvent—
Thinned Trade Sales Paints by State — 1974 116
26 Quantities of Wastes from Manufacture of Solvent—
Thinned Trade Sales Paints by EPA Region — 1974 117
27 QuantIties of Toxic Metallic Elements in Solvent—
Thinned Trade Sales Paint Wastes — 1974 118
28 Quantities of Waste Streams by Source — 1974
(Water—Thinned Trade Sales Paints) 120
29 Quantities of Wastes from Manufacture of Water—
Thinned Trade Sales Paints by State — 1974 121
30 Quantities of Wastes from Manufacture of Water—
Thinned Trade Sales Paints by EPA Region — 1974 122
31 Quantities of Toxic Metallic Elements in Water—
Thinned Trade Sales Paint Wastes — 1974 - 123
32 Quantities of Waste Streams by Source — 1974
(Industrial and Non—Industrial Lacquers) 124
33 Quantities of Wastes from Manufacture of Industrial
and Non—Industrial Lacquers by State — 1974 125
34 Quantities of Wastes from Manufacture of Industrial
and Non—Industrial Lacquers by EPA Region — 1974 126
35 Quantities of Toxic Metallic Elements in Industrial
and Non—Industrial Lacquer Wastes — 1974 128
ix
-------
LIST OF TABLES — Cont’d.
Table Page
36 Quantities of Waste Streams by Source — 1974
(Factory—Applied Coatings) 129
37 Quantities of Wastes from Manufacture of Factory—
Applied Coatings by State — 1974 130
38 Quantities of Wastes from Manufacture of Factory—
Applied Coatings by EPA Region — 1974 131
39 Quantities of Toxic Metallic Elements in Factory—
Applied Coating Wastes — 1974 132
40 Quantities of Waste Streams by Source — 1974
(Putty and Miscellaneous Paint Products) 133
41 Quantities of Wastes from Manufacture of Putty
and Miscellaneous Paint Products by State — 1974 135
42 Quantities of Wastes from Manufacture of Putty
and Miscellaneous Paint Products by EPA Region — 1974 136
43 Quantities of Total Paint & Coatings Industry Wastes
by State — 1977 137
44 Quantities of Total Paint & Coatings Industry Wastes
by State — 1983 138
45 Quantities of Total Paint & Coatings Industry Wastes
by EPA Region — 1977 & 1983 139
46 Quantities of Wastes from Manufacture of Solvent—
Thinned Trade Sales Paints by State — 1977 142
47 Quantities of Wastes from Manufacture of Solvent—
Thinned Trade Sales Paints by State — 1983 143
48 Quantities of Wastes from Manufacture of Solvent—
Thinned Trade Sales Paints by EPA Region — 1977 & 1983 144
49 Quantities of Waste Streams by Source — 1977 & 1983
(Solvent—Thinned Trade Sales Paints) 145
50 Quantities of Wastes from Manufacture of Water—
Thinned Trade Sales Paints by State — 1977 146
51 Quantities of Wastes from Manufacture of Water—
Thinned Trade Sales Paints by State — 1983 147
x
-------
LIST OF TABLES - Cc.nt’d.
Table Page
52 Quantities of Wastes from Manufacture of Water—
Thinned Trade Sales Paints by EPA Region — 1977 & 1983 148
53 Quantities of Waste Streams by Source — 1977 & 1983
(Water—Thinned Trade Sales Paints) 150
54 Quantities of Wastes from Manufacture of Industrial
and Non—Industrial Lacquers by State — 1977 151
55 Quantities of Wastes from Manufacture of I idustria1
and Non—Industrial Lacquers by State — 1983 152
56 Quantities of Wastes from Manufacture of Industrial
and Non—Industrial Lacquers by EPA Region — 1977 & 1983 153
57 Quantities of Waste Streams by Source — 1977 & 1983
(Industrial and Non—Industrial Lacquers) 154
58 Quantities of Wastes from Manufacture of Factory—
Applied Coatings by State - 1977 156
59 Quantities of Wastes from Manufacture of Factnry—
Applied Coatings by State — 1983 157
60 Quantities of Wastes from Manufacture of Factory—
Applied Coatings by EPA Region — 1977 & 1983 158
61 Quantities of Waste Streams by Source — 1977 & 1983
(Factory—Applied Coatings) 159
62 Quantities of Wastes from Manufacture of Putty
and Miscellaneous Paint Products by State — 1977 160
63 Quantities of Wastes from Manufacture of Putty
and Miscellaneous Paint Products by State — 1983 161
64 Quantities of Wastes from Manufacture of Putty and
Miscellaneous Paint Products by EPA Region — 1977 & 1983 162
65 Quantities of Waste Streams by Source — 1977 & 1983
(Putty and Miscellaneous Paint Products) 164
66 Comparison of Current On—Site and Off—Site Disposal
Practices 173
67 Raw Materials Packaging Waste Disposal 176
68 Disposal of Waste Products Including Spills and Spoiled
Batches 177
xi
-------
LIST OF TABLES — Cont’d.
Table Page
69 Wastewater Sludge Disposal 178
70 Organic Cleaning Solvent Waste Disposal 179
71 Disposal of Dust from Air Pollution Abatement Equipment 180
72 Estimated Costs for Levels of Treatment TechnolOgy 188
73 Total National Costs to the Paint Industry for
Waste Disposal 188
74 Level I Treatment and Disposal Costs for a “Typical”
Large Plant 188
75 Operating Costs for a Solvent Reclaiming System in a
Paint Manufacturing Plant 193
76 Estimated Size Classification of Solvent Reclaiming
Contrac -tors 199
77 Analytical Characteristics of Still Bottoms Samples
Collected from Solvent Reclaiming Operations 209
78 Estimated Total Waste from Solvent Reclaiming Operations 212
79 Analysis of Ash from Incinerated Still Bottoms 213
80 Solvent Reclaiming Still Bottoms Waste Disposal 216
81 Summary of Estimated Quantities of Wastes from Solvent
Recovery Operations 218
82 1972 Census of Manufactures Shipments of Industrial
Finishes 223
83 Total Solid Waste in an Appliance Plant 241
xii.
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1 Number of Establishments Manufacturing Paint and
Coatings Products 36
2 EstImated Distribution of U.S. Paint and Allied
Products Establishments 44
3 Solvent—Thinned Paint Manufacturing Flow Diagram 66
4 Typical Solvent—Thinned Paint Formulation 67
5 Water—Thinned Paint Manufacturing Flow Diagram 69
6 Typical Water—Thinned Paint Formulation 71
7 Lacquer Manufacturing Flow Diagram 72
8 Typical Lacquer Formulation 74
9 Typical Factory—Applied Coatings Operation 75
10 Factory—Applied Coatings Formulations 76
11 Powder Coatings Manufacturing Flow Diagram 78
12 Putty Manufacturing Flow Diagram 79
13 Typical Putty Formulation 81
14 Plant Size vs. Total Waste Generation 105
15 Plant Age vs. Total Waste Generation 106
16 Modified Plant Age vs. Total Waste Generation 107
17 Summary of Total Quantities of Waste from Paint and
Coatings Industry 109
18 Toxic Chemical Compounds in Waste — 1974 lii.
19 U.S. Distribution of Contract Solvent Reclaimers 196
20 Steam Coil Still 203
21 Scraped Surface Distillation Plant 204
22 Thin—Film Solvent Recovery Plant 205
23 Typical Solvent Recovery System 207
xiii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES — Cont’d.
Figure Page
24 Conventional Spray in Water—Wash Booth 227
25 Final Touchup of Locker Doors with Conventional Air—
Atomized Spray Gun 228
26 Coil Coating Applying Wood Grain 231
27 Fluidlzed Bed Powder Coating of Pipe 233
28 Electrostatic Powder Coating 234
29 Electrocoating Bomb Fins 235
xiv
-------
SECTION I
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
The Resource Recovery Act of 1970 (P.L. 91—512) gave the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency the general mandate to promote the
demonstration, construction, and application of solid waste management
and resource recovery systems which preserve and enhance the quality
of air, water, and land resources. More specifically, a portion of
the Act directs EPA to investigate and report on potentially hazardous
waste generation and disposal techniques.
In 1972, the EPA Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
(OSWMP) commissioned the following programs to determine an overview
of the industrial hazardous waste problem in the United States:
A Study of Hazardous Waste Materials, Hazardous Effects and
Disposal Methods , Booz—Allen Applied Research, Inc., July 1973
Recommended Methods of Reduction Neutralization, Recovery or
Disposal of Hazardous Waste , TRW Systems Group, August 1973
Public Attitudes Toward Hazardous Waste Disposal Facilities ,
Human Resources Research Organization, June 1973
Alternatives to the Management of Hazardous Wastes at National
Disposal Sites , Arthur D. Little, Inc., May 1973
Program for the Management of Hazardous Wastes , Battelle Pacific
Northwest Laboratories, July 1973
One of these studies (Program for the Management of Hazardous
Wastes) was undertaken to assess hazardous waste generation in each
major industrial sector. For example, the report estimated that 18,000
kkg (20,000 tons) per year of solvent—thinned paint sludge are gener-
ated along with 14,000 kkg (15,000 tons) per year of water—thinned
paint sludge. The report further stated that these sludges contain
chromium, cadmium, selenium, cyanide, and mercury. These materials
were classified as potentially hazardous pending further study.
As a follow—up to these findings, OSMP has sponsored a number
of studies to conduct more detailed assessments of the hazardous
waste practices in the individual industries which were determined
by Battelle to have the most significant hazardous waste disposal
problems. These studies will provide information on the generation,
management, treatment, disposal, and costs related to wastes
considered to be “potentially hazardous.” This particular study
covers the paint and coatings manufacturing industry as defined by
-------
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 285. This classification
includes the production of water—thinned paints, solvent—thinned
paints, lacquers, industrial coatings, putty, and a few miscellaneous
paint—related products. SIC 285 and 2851 are identical and may bc
referred to interchangeably.
One objective of this program was to compile Information that
could be used by EPA for guidelines development work for the manage-
ment of potentially hazardous wastes generated by the paint and
coatings industry. To this end, data were accumulated to document:
1. Overall characteristics of the paint and coatings industry.
2. Total wastes currently generated by all segments of the
industry and estimated waste generation in 1977 and 1983.
3. Potentially hazardous nature of constituents of waste
streams and the total waste stream.
4. Current treatment and disposal practices for each potentially
hazardous waste stream.
5. Best treatment and disposal practice for each potentially
hazardous waste stream along with practices deemed environmentally
adequate for each.
6. Costs of each level of treatment and disposal technology.
It should be kept in mind that no final judgments have been
made on defining the classifications “hazardous wastes” or “potentially
hazardous wastes.” It is recognized and understood that additional
information will be required on the actual fate of such materials in
a given disposal environment before a final definition of “hazardous
waste” evolves and is applied. For example, EPA is currently support-
ing other studies designed to investigate the leaching characteristics
of certain waste streams identified in this report in various soil and
moisture conditions.
Approximately three months after initiating this study, EPA and
the contractor agreed to redirect the program objectives to include
an investigation of t other industrial categories which are inter-
related with paint manufacture, and to reduce the level of effort
originally contemplated for paint and coatings waste disposal tech-
nology and cost analysis. This was deemed appropriate because the
quantities of process wastes generated by the paint Industry were
found to be substantially less than those emanating from other major
industrial categories —— i.e., inorganic and organic chemical industries;
thus, the magnitude of the hazardous waste problem in the paint and
coatings industry was not considered sufficient for a continued in—
depth study.
2
-------
Instead, overview studies of the solvent reclaiming industry
and factory—applied coatings operations were suhsequt.ntly undertnk n.
The objectives of these studies were to:
1. Estimate the quantity and characteristics of potential]y
hazardous wastes in these industries.
2. Determine the hazardous waste treatment and disposal
technology used by these operations and estimate their costs.
Thus, this report is the culmination of efforts in the three
basic industries: paint and coatings manufacture, solvent reclaiming,
and factory—applied coatings operations. An Executive Summary
covering the overall program immediately follows this introduction.
After that, a discussion of the methodology used in achieving the
study results is presented. Major sections on the hazardous waste
practices of the three industrial activities are then presented
separately. These sections are followed by a detailed reference list
and glossary of terms used in the report which are specific to the
paint and coatings industry.
Within the major chapter on hazardous waste practices in the
paint and coatings industry, Section IV, the topics discussed include
a description and characterization of the industry itself, process
waste sources and quantities, and waste treatment and disposal
technology, plus an analysis of treatment and disposal costs. Sections
V and VI deal with the hazardous waste practices of solvent reclaiming
and factory—applied coatings operations, respectively, and are
organized similarly to the section on the paint and coatings industry.
3
-------
SECTION II
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This industry study is one of a series by the Office of Solid
Waste Management Programs, Hazardous Waste Management Division. The
studies were conducted for information purposes only and not in re-
sponse to a Congressional regulatory mandate. As such, the studies
serve to provide EPA with: 1) an initial data base concerning current
and projected types and quantities of industrial wastes and applicable
disposal methods and costs; 2) a data base for technical assistance
activities; and 3) a background for guidelines development work pur-
suant to Sec. 209, Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended.
The definition of “potentially hazardous waste” in this study was
developed based upon contractor investigations and professional judg—
inent. This definition does not necessarily reflect EPA thinking since
such a definition, especially in a regulatory context, must be broadly
applicable to widely differing types of waste streams. Obviously, the
presence of a toxic substance should not be the major determinant in
defining a waste as hazardous if there are mechanisms to represent or
illustrate actual effects of wastes in specified envirornnenta. Thus,
the reader is cautioned that the data presented in this report constitute
only the contractor’ s assessment of the hazardous waste management
problem in these industries. EPA reserves its judgements pending a speci-
fic legislative mandate.
This report characterizes waste management practices for the
paint and coatings manufacturing industry, solvent reclaiming facilities,
and factory—applied coatings operations. It describes these industries
in terms of plant distribution by geographic region, size, age, and
products; analyzes the types of potentially hazardous wastes generated
and estimates their present and projected quantities; and discusses the
various methods used to treat and dispose of these waste streams and
those alternative methods needed to treat, dispose, or reuse each waste
stream in an environmentally adequate manner. The costs of both pre-
sent and alternative disposal practices were estimated based on data
collected during plant surveys and information published in other EPA
reports (32, 35, 36, 37).
The paint and coatings industry was chosen by OSWMP for in—depth
study because earlier work, described in the General Introduction,
5
I :i
-------
identif led paint manufacturing plants as sources of sludges and other
wastes containing compounds of lead, chromium, mercury, and zinc (36).
These wastes are ultimately disposed of on land. In addition, the
likelihood that even more waste sludge will be generated as effluent
limitations and standards are applied to the industry underscored the
need for this study.
As the study of the paint industry progressed, it soon became
apparent that there was almost complete uniformity in their practices
of handling potentially hazardous wastes. It also became clear that
these plants generate relatively small quantities of waste compared to
some other major industries, such as petroleum refining, steel produc-
tion and the production of various organic chsmicals and toxic metallic
compounds. At this point, EPA and the contractor agreed to redirect the
balance of the study because: 1) sufficient data had been developed
to provide an adequate basis upon which to characterize waste manag nent
practices in the paint industry; 2) more definitive knowledge of the
total paint oriented wastes deposited on land in this country would
derive from adding a study of the waste handling practices of the major
reclaimers of paint industry wastes —— contract solvent recovery facili-
ties, and the largest users of paint —— factory—applied coating opera-
tions.
The solvent reclaiming industry reprocesses about 230 million
liters (60 million gal.) per year of spent solvents from several in-
dustries, including the paint and coatings industry, and generates
sludges containing solvents and heavy metals. The factory—applied
coatings operations are located in thousands of manufacturing installa-
tions producing numerous varieties of products. In order to cover
these two areas, the level of effort originally scheduled for the study
of hazardous waste disposal methods and their costs in the paint and
coatings Industry was substantially limited to reporting information
collected during the paint plant surveys.
PAINT AND COATINGS INDUSTRY
The paint and coatings industry as defined for this study con-
sists of the manufacture of products within Standard Industrial Classi-
fication (SIC) 285. This includes the production of exterior and
interior organic solvent—thinned trade sales paint (SIC 28511 and
SIC 28513), exterior and interior water—thinned trade sales paint
(SIC 28512 and SIC 28514), industrIal and non—industrial lacquers
(SIC 28515 and SIC 28517), industrial finishes (SIC 28516), putty (SIC
28518), and miscellaneous paint products (SIC 28519).
This is an industry made up primarily of small businesses generally
located in the larger urban areas close to its customers. Although
the industry employs approximately 65,000 people which include about
37,000 production workers, more than half of the 1544 manufacturing
establishments employ less than 20 employees each. In general, the
distribution by size is relatively uniform throughout the country.
6
—C)
-------
ApproxImately 3.6 million kkg (4 million tons) of paint and coatings
were produced in the United States in 1972.
The total number of plants is decreasing gradually, with almost
all the decrease coming in the very small plants —— usually those
with less than ten employees. They are usually entrepreneur opera-
tions where the loss of the owner results in the closing down of the
business. Further, such small plants usually have very little capital
and circumstances calling for a substantial cash outlay can put them
out of business. Reasons for these outlays include fire hazard re-
ductions, air or water pollution abatement, OSHA requirements, moving
the plant operations due to urban renewal, or highway construction
programs. Many paint companies, especially the smaller ones, also
may have only one or two large and Important customers. If one of
these customers changes his source of supply, moves, or goes out of
business, this may easily cause a small company to go out of business.
Paint and coatings production basically consists of mixing or
blending various raw materials in batch operations. These raw materials
include pigments, pigment extenders, solvents, diluents, resins or
vehicles, and miscellaneous additives. Depending on the type of paint
and its end use, these additives may be plasticizers, preservatives,
fungicides, driers, or anti—skinning agents, among others. The waste
streams generated due to these manufacturing operations are as follows:
1. Raw materials packaging — bags, pails, drums, pellets, and
other packaging components in which pigments, extenders, and other
raw materials are received. An ounce or two of raw material remains
in a bag when it is discarded.
2. Cleaning wastes — water or organic solvents used to clean
blending tanks, thinning tanks, and other processing equipment. Clean-
ing solvent is normally used several times prior to disposal. In
the few plants where water pollution control equipment Is used, water—
based cleaning wastes constitute the major portion of wastewater
treatment sludges.
3. Dust from air pollution control equipment — particulate
from air filters used in the processing area.
4. Waste finished product — spoiled batches of paint that
cannot be reworked back into the process, spilled material normally
cleaned up manually with sawdust or some other absorbent, or other un—
saleable product packaged In small containers.
All cleaning wastes, dust collected by filters, and waste product
are considered potentially hazardous because they may contain variable
concentrations of compounds which:
1. Are assigned a toxicity rating of 3 or greater In the
reference work Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products (Gleason,
M.N., Gosselin, R. E., Hodge, C., and Smith, R.P., 3rd Edition, Williams
and Wilkens Co., BaltImore, 1969).
7
-------
2. Are rated as toxic by other reliable literature sources
(38, 44, 45, 46, 47).
3. Contain substances which EPA believes, on the basis of
initial analysis, to have the potential for health and envi onniental
problems, but the toxicity of the compound itself could not be verified
within the scope of this project.
4. Have a flash point lower than 27°C (80°F).
Raw materials bags containing residue compounds which qualify as po-
tentially toxic under any of the first three criteria above are also
considered potentially hazardous; bags in which innocuous materials
such a titanium dioxide and extender pigments were delivered are con-
sidered non—hazardous. The latter designation Is also applied to
other packaging components of this waste stream such as cans or pails
which are washed, pallets, wrapping paper, etc. This type of waste
accounts for over 65 percent of the total generated.
The types and quantities of potentially hazardous substances used
vary in any given paint plant with the kinds of products produced,
specific formulations, and numerous other factors. These variations
are reflected in the number and concentration of potentially hazardous
materials in each waste stream. Typical fl inm ble solvents used by
the paint industry include mineral spirits, toluene, xylene, acetone,
and methyl ethyl ketone. Pigments used which contain toxic heavy
metals include lead chromate, phthalocyanine blue, chrome yellow, and
cuprous oxide.
Table 1 shows total national quantities of wastes generated
in 1974 by waste stream and the quantity of each waste stream that
is potentially hazardous. The amounts of hazardous solvents and
toxic chemical compounds, as defined above, contained in each potenti-
ally hazardous stream are then quantified.
It will be noted that the potentially hazardous waste stream is
greater than the total of the hazardous solvents and the toxic chemical
compounds. This is because they are distributed in and contaminate other
materials. Cleaning wastes provide a good illustration. While 82,000 kkg
(90,000 tons) are generated per year, a very large portion of this stream
Is water and other non—hazardous substances containing only 13,600 kkg
(15,000 tons) of hazardous solvents and 590 kkg (650 tons) of toxic chemical.
compounds which are not separable from the total. in waste handling.
The quantity of the potentially hazardous waste stream, on the
other hand, is most frequently identical to the amount of total, waste.
This occurs similarly because the hazardous stream is distributed
throughout the total stream and cannot be segregated. The exception is
raw materials packaging, in which bags containing toxic materials can
8
-------
TABLE 1
Waste Stream
Cleanings
Raw Material Packaging
Air Pollution Collection
Spoiled Batches
Spills
Total Waste
82,000(90,000)1
302,000(333,000)
1,600(1,700)
4, 900(5, 400)2
5 , 400(6,000)
395,900(436,100)2
Potentially
Hazardous
Waste Stream
82,000(90,000)1
2,000(2,200)
1, 600 (1, 700)
4,900(5,400)2
5,400(6,000)
95 ,900(105,30O)
580(640)
85(94)
14,265(15,734)
Toxic
Chemical
Compounds
In Waste
590(650)
128(140)
80(88)
41(45)
5(5)
844(928)
* Minor differences in totals between Tables 1, 22, and 23 are due to rounding.
i-Includes about 25% water. 2 lncludes about 5% water. 3 lncludes about 6% water.
4 lncludes about 22% water.
PAINT AND COATINGS MANUFACTURE
SUMMARY OF TOTAL WASTES - 1974*
kkg/yr (tons/yr)
(Wet Weight)
0
Hazardous
Solvents
In Waste
13,600(15,000)
TOTAL
-------
be segregated from those containing non—hazardous chemical compounds
and other innocuous materials, as discussed above.
The quantity of finished product wastes requiring disposal is not a
function of the amount of paint produced. Instead it reflects the degree
of housekeeping efficiency, the kinds of products produced, or both. Many
coatings produce few product wastes due to the fact that the cost of their
raw materials justifies the effort to rework them.
It can be seen from Table 1 that approximately 395,000 kkg (436,
000 tons) of solid waste and 95,000 kkg (105,000 tons) of hazardous waste
were produced in 1974 by the paint and coatings industry. Projections
indicating waste generation in 1977 and 1983 are shown in Tables 2 and
3. No significant industry Impact is anticipated from the proposed
effluent guidelines.
The vast majority of the paint industry wastes are combined in a
single handling system and discarded in off—site landfills by private
contractors. This practice constitutes Level I technology — the most
prevalent current industry practice —— for all paint and coatings waste
streams. Few plants have on—site disposal facilities due to lack of
land availability. Based on data collected during plant surveys, about
35 percent of the waste organic solvent generated by this industry
nation—wide is reproce8sed off—site by solvent reclaiming contractors.
This consitqtes Level [ I technology for this waste stream which is
defined as the best treatment and disposal technology currently practiced.
About 20 percent of the wastéwater treatment sludge destined for land dis-
posal undergoes some dewatering prior to disposal in a landfill, consti-
tuting the best available, or Level II, technology applied to this poten-
tially hazardous waste stream. Roughly 15 percent of the dust from air
filters is reused as pigment extender in low grades of paint. This is
the best technology currently applied to this waste stream (Level II).
Spoiled batches and spills, along with raw materials packaging, are
sent to off—site landfills and/or dumps, a practice which constitutes
both Level I and Level II technologies for these t o waste streams.
Level III technology is defined as the method or methods which will
provide environmentally adequate treatment and disposal of specific haz-
ardous waste streams. Level III technology for waste organic solvents
consists of solvent reclamation with incineration of still bottoms and
disposal of collected ash in a secured landfill. (“Incineration”
means combustion in units which comply with all applicable air pollution
standards. A secured landfill is one which provides impervious waste
containment, monitoring and’ treatment of leachate, divergio of surface
water, and registration of Its location once filled.)
Chemically—aided sedimentation and dewatering followed by disposal
in a secured landfill is the Level III technology established for waste—
water treatment sludge. Level III technology for dust from air filters
is either reuse in lower grade paints or disposal In a secured landfill.
Raw materials packaging can be separated into non—hazardous and poten-
tially hazardous portions. Level III then consists of incineration of
packaging of potentially hazardous materials with the ash being sent to
10
-------
TABLE 2
Waste Stream
Cleanings
Raw Material Packaging
Air Pollution Collection
Spoiled Batches
Total Waste
94,800(104,500)1
341,400(376,400)
1,790(1,970)
5,470(6,030)2
6,360(7 ,000)
449,820(495 ,900)
Potentially
Hazardous
Waste Stream
94,800(104,500)1
2, 000(2, 250)
1,790(1,970)
5,470(6,030)2
6,360(7,000)
110,420(121 ,750)
640 (700)
86(95)
15,156(16,695)
Toxic
Cheinica 1
Compounds
In Waste
650 700)
145(160)
90 (100)
45(49)
9(8)
939(1017)
* Minor differences in totals between Tables 2, 43, and 45 are due to rounding.
‘Includes about 28% water. 2 lncludes about 5% water. 3 lncludes about 6% water.
4 lncludes about 24% water.
PAINT AND COATINGS MANUFACTURE
SUMMARY OF TOTAL WASTES - 197 7*
kkg/yr (tons/yr)
(Wet Weight)
I -I
Hazardous
Solvents
In Waste
14,430(15,900)
Spills
TOTAL
-------
TABLE 3
Waste Stream
C leanings
Raw Material Packaging
Air Pollution Collection
Spoiled Batches
Spills
Total Waste
130,000(143,300)1
466,800(514,700)
2,460(2,700)
7,140(7,870)2
8, 580(9 , 460)
614 , 980 (678 , 030)
Potentially
Hazardous
Waste Stream
130,000(143,300)1
2,880(3,200)
2,460(2,700)
7,140(8,870)2
8580(9,460)
151,060(167,530)5
Toxic
Chemical
Compounds
__________— In Waste
818(900)
—— 180(200)
—— 115(125)
440(490) 57(63)
77(85) 7(7 )
15,937(17,575 1,171(1,295)
* Minor differences in totals between Tables 3, 44, and 45 are due to rounding.
1 lncludes about 32% water. 2 lncludes about 6% water. 3 lncludes about 8% water.
4 lncludes about 7% water. 5 lncludes about 28% water.
PAINT AND COATINGS MANUFACTURE
STJZ 1MaRY OF TOTAL WASTES — 1983*
kkg/yr (tons/yr)
(Wet Weight)
-l
Hazardous
Solvents
In Waste
15,420(17,000)
TOTAL
-------
a secured landfill. Level III technology for disposal of spoiled
batches and spills also consists of incineration followed by ash
disposal in a secured landfill or disposal in a secured landfill
directly.
Table 4 summarizes Levels I, II, and III treatment and disposal
technologies for the potentially hazardous waste streams of the paint
industry.
Cost data evaluated were supplied by paint plants and represent
their costs for off—site waste disposal by a contractor. These costs
range from $3 to $60/kkg ($3—$50/tonr of waste depending on the quan-
tities handled, the nature of waste, the disposal method, and local
regulations.
Costs for Level I and Level II technologies are approximately
the same. Presently costs for land disposal of individual potentially
hazardous waste streams range from an average of $6/kkg ($5/ton) for
spoiled batches or spills to $20/kkg ($ 2 O/ton) for raw materials pack-
aging, which has a high volume to weight ratio, and up to an average
of $50/kkg ($50/ton) for waste organic solvents which require special
handling. These costs for Level I and Level II technology are estimates
provided by plant personnel during on—site surveys. Actual cost data
were sparse. Estimated costs to achieve Level III technology for
each potentially hazardous waste stream range from $20 to $60/kkg
C$20—50/ton). This level of technology is not practiced in the industry
and these estimates are based on previous EPA studIes. (32, 35, 36, 37)
The cost of disposal of non—hazardous wa8tes from paint plants is
in the range of $6 to $20/kkg ($5—20/ton),
The costs of ste disposal to a large paint plant producing 3.8
million liters (1.0 million gal.) per year of various products to use
Level I technology are about $10,000 per year. Level II and Level III
technology are marginally more expensive. Overall, the cost to the
entire paint industry for using Level I technology is $10.4 million per
year. This value equals about 0.2 percent of the value of shipments
by the industry for 1972 ($3.9 billion). The impact of waste disposal
is thus quite small.
SOLVENT RECLAMATION
Contract operators reclaim about 270,000 kkg/year (300,000 tons/yr)
of the waste organic solvents generated by the manufacture of paint
and coatings, metals finishing, and degreasing operations, among others.
Based on a contractor search, approximately 80—100 establishments operate
distillation or evaporation equipment to produce solvent which can be
reused for wash—up, often by the same plants that generate the waste
* All cost data of greater than $10 Is rounded—off to the nearest
$10 increment.
13
-------
TABLE 4
PAINT AND COATINGS MANUFACTURE
LEVELS I, II, AND III WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGY
Waste Stream Level I Level LI Level III
Raw Materials Packaging Off—site landfill Same as Level I Segregation and incineration
of bags containing hazardous
materials. Ash to secured
landfill.
Waste Products Including Off—site landfill Same as Level I 1. Incineration with ash to
Spills and Spoiled Batches secured landfill
2. Off—site secured lAndfill.
Wastewater Treatmet t Off—site landfill Sludge settled & Chemical settling & derater—-
Sludge sent to landfill ing of sludge followed by
Z secured landfill
Dust from Air Pollution Off—site landfill Recycle into lower 1. Recycle into lower grade
Abatement Equipment grade product product
2. Off—site secured landfill
Organic Cleaning Solvent Off—site landfill Solvent reprocessing Level [ I with ash to secured
with incineration landfill
of still bottoms
followed by landfill
disposal of ash
-------
solvent. There is currently little use of solvent fractionation, a pro-
cess which will be required to produce reclaimed solvents capable of all
of the same uses for which virgin solvents are presently employed.
Survey visits showed that distillation and evaporation units gener-
ate still bottoms as the only process waste which represents roughly 25
percent of the feedstock reprocessed — — i.e., it is estimated that 56
million liters or 55,000 kkg (]5 million gal. c r 60,000 tons) of still
bottoms are generated annually from 2 0 million liters (60 mill:ion gal.)
of feedstock. Current waste quantities and projections for 1977 and 1983
are shown ,n Table 5.
About 15 percent of the still bottoms are disposed of off—site in
landfills, while another 80 percent is incinerated on—site or off—site
and the ash is deposited in a landfill, usually off—site. The latter
practic constitutes Level I and II disposal technology for these wastes.
Level I and Level II technology costs $lO—$40/kkg ($lO—40/ton). There
are insufficient data available to estimate with any accuracy the pro-
portion of wastes which are incinerated on—site versus those incinerated
by contractors. The limited use of still bottoms as asphalt extender
or concrete block filler accounts for less than 0.1 percent of the total
waste on a national basis.
Since the still bottoms or the ash from their incineration contain
varying concentrations of potentially hazardous materials, such as halo—
genated hydrocarbons and salts of heavy metals, all of these wastes are
considered to be potentially hazardous. Compliance with Department of
Transportation (DOT) regulations (CFR 8173.28) requires the use of new or
reconditioned drums which have undergone pressure tests for the hauling
or disposal of spent or reclaimed solvents which have a flash point be-
low 38°C (100°F). It appears that in many areas these DOT regulations
are not enforced and that old drums are being used to ship solvents to
and from reclaimers. Strict enforcement of these regulations could add
up to 13C/liter (SOc/gal.) to the total cost of hauling solvents in drums
to and from reclaimers.
Level III technology for solvent reclaiming wastes consists of
still bottoms incineration followed by ash disposal on a secured land-
fill. This practice is expected to cost about $40/kkg ($40/ton).
With the volume of waste approximately one—third that of the sale-
able product, the cost of waste disposal is between 0.5 to 1.3 per liter
(2—5c /gal.) This plays a significant part in the overall economics of
the process, considering that the wastes represent such a significant
fraction of the feedstock.
FACTORY—APPLIED COATINGS OPERATIONS
There are roughly 45,000 manufacturing establishments which have
attendant coatings operations in this country. These operations use
about 1.7 million kkg/yr (1.9 million tons/yr) of industrial coatings
15
-------
Total Waste
1974 55,000(60,000)
72,000(80,000)
97,000(107,000)
Ash to Landfill
940 (1030)
1,240(1,370)
1,660(1,830)
Total Waste
to Landfill
8,500(9,400)
11,200(12,300)
15,200(16,700)
*All of these wastes are considered potentially hazardous.
**Note: Wet Weight = Dry Weight
1977
1983
TABLE 5
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED QUANTITIES OF WASTES
FROM SOLVENT RECOVERY OPERATIONS*
kkg/yr (tons/yr)
Glet Weight)**
________________ Waste Incinerated
47,000(52,000)
62,500(69,000)
83,400(92,500)
Waste to Landfill
7,600(8,400)
10,000(11,000)
13,500(15,000)
‘-I
-------
and lacquers and employ various ating application techniques. The
quantity of waste generated is largely a function of the application
method used. The most widely used technique is the spray booth which
is also one of the least efficient methods in terms of the amounts of
waste coating generated which requires disposal. Others, such as
roller and powder coating produce little or no waste since all non—
adhering coating is collected and recycled.
Based on data accumulated during survey visits, it is estimated that
between 115,000 and 216,000 kkg/yr (125,000 and 240,000 ton/yr) of paint
waste are generated from factory—applied coatings operations on a dry
weight basis. The paint wastes are included in a total waste stream from
the painting area of between 300,000 and 1,000,000 kkg/yr (320,000 and
1,100,000 tons/yr). This total waste stream includes large quantities
of paper, air filters, wash solvents, containers, etc. During the sur-
vey visits, It was observed that most plants mix their paint wastes
with the various other process wastes generated. These wastes are
normally stored in open trash containers on the plant site.
Level I treatment and disposal technology for factory—applied coat-
ings wastes is contractor disposal. in a landfill. While the data in hand
do not permit precise identification of Level II and III technology, the
following observations based on the character of the wastes can be made:
Segregated waste coatings which contain no toxic
or flammable constituents are suitable for disposition
In a sanitary landfill. Other wastes which contair such
materials in small quantities should be handled as
potentially hazardous wastes. A large portion of those
streams can be incinerated with the potentially toxic ash
going to a secured landfill. The non—combustible portion
of this waste, —— i.e., wastewater treatment sludge —
should be dewatered and disposed of in a secured landfill.
The reported costs f or disposal of paint wastes in surveyed
plants varied from $4 to $l00/kkg ($4 to $lOO/ton), depending on the
nature of the coating material, the disposal method, and the factors
included in the cost assessment. The higher values represent the total
cost of waste management while lower figures are simply charges made by
landfill operators for depositing solid material in their landfill.
17
-------
SECTION III
PROJECT METHODOLOGY
The basic methodology used for this research project was the col-
lection of data from the industries involved —— paint and allied products
manufacture, solvent reclaiming operations, and factory application of
coatings. Other information sources included the U.S. Bureau of the
Census, the National Paint and Coatings Association, the Federation of
Societies for Coatings Technology, raw materials manufacturers, pertinent
literature, and related EPA reports (32, 35, 36, 37).
The information gathered was extrapolated by methods outlined with-
in the report to describe the national character of these three indus-
trial activities in terms of geographic distribution, size and age range,
nature and quantity of wastes, and the practices utilized for waste treat-
ment and disposal and their associated costs.
HAZARDOUS WASTES PRACTICES OF TUE PAINT AIW ALLIED PRODUCTS INDUSTRY
Industry Characterization
The first task of this portion of the project was to character-
ize the paint and coatings industry as embraced in Standard Industrial
Classification 285 by state, EPA region, and nationally according to the
4—digit SIC code —— i.e., solvent—thinned paints, water—thinned paints,
factory—applied finishes, putty, and miscellaneous products. The 1972
Census of Manufactures provided the primary source of information. It
groups over 1550 establishments in SIC 285 and provided the basis for
many of the breakdowns by regions and states. The Census tabulations
do not, however, show the number of plants when only a few establish-
ments are located In those states nor do they segregate by 4—digit SIC
category. As a result, the figures used in both of these cases are
all estimates. They were derived through industry directories, trade
associations, contractor experience, and plant surveys.
The 1972 Census of Manufactures also identifies the number of
plants with 20 or less production workers by geographic region and, in
some cases, by state. The figures reported for individual states were
used, although it was necessary to estimate the less—than—20 employee
plants for the other states as well as the state breakdown of larger
plants. These were also derived from industry directories; trade
19
-------
association questionnaires; WAPORA plant surveys; and in—house know-
ledge. Since apparently all sources did not use the same definition of
“employees,” care was necessary in interpreting sometimes conflicting
data. The breakdown into SIC categories according to size is based
entirely on contVactor estimates and extrapolations.
Available relevant information on plant age is sparse. The Bureau
of the Census does not report on the age of plants, and, although this
kind of information was sought in a recent National Paint and Coatings
Association questionnaire (13), the results were weighted with more returns
from the larger and newer plants and do not represent a good random
sample of the industry. Consequently, the estimated distribution re-
quired by EPA was necessarily extrapolated from the usable information
on plant age developed by the questionnaire and by 71 plant surveys.
It was derived as follows:
1. The surveyed plants In each state were placed in their
respective age ranges. The total number of surveyed plants in each age
bracket was divided by the total number of plants surveyed in that state.
Each fraction was then multiplied by the number of plants in the state
and then weighted by a factor placing more importance on state and local
trends. The reason for this was that state and local variables such as
site incentives (tax, business climate, etc.), environmental considera-
tions, availability of personnel, and market proximity would exert an
influence on locating a plant in a particular state and locality and
thus deserved more weight.
2. The total number of surveyed plants in each age bracket in
the region embracing the state was divided by the total number of sur-
veyed plants In that region. This ratio was then multiplied by the to-
tal plants in the state.
3. The total number of surveyed plants in each age bracket in
the nation was divided by the total number of plants. The ratio was then
multiplied by the total number Qf plants in the state. The resultant
was then multiplied by a weighted factor giving less importance to the
national results.
4. The numbers from Steps 1, 2, and 3 were added and divided
by three to determine the total number in each age range in the state.
The estimated distribution of plants by separate product is essen-
tially the same as distribution by SIC, a product—oriented classifica-
tion. Varnishes and stains were added to those enumerated above to
complete the Industry’s product line. All estimates are again based on
Census data, trade association questionnaires, Industry directories, and
contractor experience.
It can be assumed that at least a small amount of varnishes of one
kind or another are made by practically all coatings manufacturers,
either by cooking resins and oils together or (in the vast majority of
cases) by simple cold—blending of purchased materials. To arrive at
20
-------
this distribution, the number of varnish manufacturers was assumed to
be identical with the number of solvent—thinned paint producers due to
the sn 1 all difference between varnish and solvent—thinned paint formula-
tions as was found during the survey visits.
The definition of “stains” is obscure. The products so described
may range from a dye dissolved in a solvent to a thin paint, and there
is no general agreement as to when a product ceases to be a paint and
becomes a stain. Creosote stains are generally produced by the coal
tar chemicals industry rather than the paint industry.
There are no Census figures available on this classification.
The numbers of estimated stain manufacturers represent 10 percent of
the solvent -thinned paint manufacturers (rounded off to the nearest
whole number). This assumption is based primarily on contractor know-
ledge and experience.
The number of lacquer plants was derived from production figures
modified by contractor knowledge.
There are no directly pertinent state and regional data available
to support a breakdown by quantities of production. However, it was
possible to arrive at the dispersion breakdown as follows:
The 1972 Census of Manufactures gives national production in mil-
lions of gallons for S,IC categories 28511 through 28517. The value
of product shipments is provided by Census region and some larger states,
as well as for the country as a whole, broken down by SIC classification.
Assuming that value of production is distributed among the various
products in each region and state in the same ratio as it is distri-
buted in the country as a whole it is possible to estimate value of
production and thus quantities produced, by region and state. The na-
ture of dispersion in the paint industry is such that this conclusion
is likely to be valid.
However, it is necessary In some cases to group smaller states to-
gether. Census tabulations do not provide individual state totals when
to do so might disclose individual plant data. For example, in the New
England division (EPA Region I), state totals are given for Massachu-
setts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. The total for Maine, New Hampshire,
and Vermont may be obtained by subtracting this from the total for the
New England Division. These states are, therefore, grouped together.
Where groupings are necessary they were placed within the boundaries
of EPA regions rather than Census regions.
The quantity by state was estimated by multiplying the dollar value
for each state (or group of states) by the ratio of total gallons pro-
duced to total dollar value in the nation. The value for product cate-
gories was determined by dividing quantities given for each product
in the 1972 Census by the total national quantity, then multiplying the
ratio by the quantity for the state.
No method for approximating the break—down of production in SIC
21
-------
groups 28518, 28519, or 28510 (paints and related products not speci-
fied by kind) is available. The value of shipments for 28518 is 3.9
percent of the total; 28519 is 10.0 percent; and 28510 is 8.5 percent.
The total of the three is 22.4 percent of the value of production of
all SIC 285 materials, a number of which are conventionally reported
by weight, rather than volume.
Waste Characterization
At the outset of the waste characterization phase of the study,
a list of potentially hazardous materials was compiled. This list was
comprised of substances proposed by EPA and others which the contractor
felt also warranted consideration. These materials were selected on the
basis of potential toxicity or f1 TmnRbi1ity since paint raw materials
do not exhibit other hazardous tendencies such as radioactive, explosive,
or biological propoerties.
The list was incorporated into an interview format developed for
use in on—site paint plant visits to foster collection of the same
kinds of information from each plant in a uniform presentation. A
copy of the format appears in Appendix A.
Next, a list of candidate plants for survey was prepared utiliz-
ing industry directories, trade associations, telephone inquiries, and
contractor experience. When final selections for plant visits were
made, age, size, geographic location, and product lines were considered
and a range in each category was chosen. Seventy—one plants, represent-
ing approximately 5.9 percent of the industry’s production, were sur-
veyed on site. They range in age from .5 to 114 years and in size from
two to 340 employees. In addition, data were gathered by phone on
approximately 10 other individual plants and from corporate spokesmen
of the 20 largest paint manufacturers representing roughly 55 percent
of the industry’s production.
Most surveyed plants were able to supply reliable figures for
total production (within ±6 percent). Raw materials usage was also
reported, the accuracy of which varies depending on the inventory sys-
tem used and other factors; the average accuracy of these figures is
estimated to be in the ±10 percent range. Some quantitative data were
also available on some waste streams and estimates were provided on
others. It is estimated that the accuracy of total waste figures is
in the range of +5 percent to —20 percent.
The quantities of wastes generated by the whole industry were ex-
trapolated from the survey data by state, EPA region, and nationally
on the basis of numbers of plants, numbers of employees, and produc-
tion. These extrapolations include the total waste stream, total po ten—
tially hazardous waste streams, and the total amount of hazardous consti-
tuents. The 1974 waste estimates were projected to 1977 and 1983 on the
22
-------
basis of Census Bureau quantity information, on product class growth
rates, and contractor experience. No significant impact from the effluent
guidelines is anticipated.
Estimates of Total National Waste Quantities
Fifty—one of the plants surveyed —— representing 5.1 percent of
the industry’s total production —— provided total waste data which could
be used with confidence in an assessment of the industry. These 51
plants employ 2598 people to produce 193 million liters (51.1 million
gal.) of paint and generate 18,820 kkg (21.851 tons) of waste per year.
Breakdown from plant survey data were developed as follows:
Spills — Spills of finished product reported from 57 surveyed
plants, representing 5.7 percent of the industry’s production, totalled
23,000 liters (6100 gal.) It was assumed that the spills contained an
average of 20 percent solids, the average solid content of paint. Com-
pounds which contain salts of heavy metals and other potentially hazard-
ous constituents represent 6.2 percent of the total pigments and other
solids used in the industry (18, 20, 27). Since the mixing production
processes used do not change the nature or quantity of them, it was
assimied that 6.2 percent of the 20 percent solids contained In spills
are hazardous compounds. Thus, the national total of toxic chemical
constituents derived from this source can be extrapolated to 6.3 kkg
(7.0 tons) in a 12—month period.
Spoiled Batches —— Using the above assumptions on the nature and
quantity of solids in finished paint products, the 162,000 liters
(42,800 gal.) of spoiled batcheu reported from 59 surveyed plants can
be extrapolated to 41 kkg (45 tons) from this source each year.
Cleanings —— The total cleaning stream is extrapolated to 66.6
million liters (17.6 million gal.) of spent organic solvents and wash
water and 583 kkg (643 tons) of solids. Solvents account for 40.1 mIl-
lion liters (10.6 million gal.) of the total fluid content. It is
estimated that 13.6 million liters (3.6 million gal.) of this are re-
claimed leaving 26.5 million liters (7 million gal.) for disposal.
It Is somewhat more difficult to estimate the solids content of
this stream since precise analytical data for evaluating this portion
are not generally available. In addition, because individual waste
streams are not segregated it was necessary to arrive at the solids
which derive solely from cleaning operations indirectly by calculating
total solids and deducting those attributable to spills and spoiled
batches. Estimates were based on industry experience; the following
factors were assumed:
1. Since water is an inexpensive solvent, the solid content
in water washing will be low.
2. Where wastewater treatment is practiced, the sludges in-
cluded in solid waste will have a high solid content.
23
-------
3. Most solvent reclaimers specify a maximum solids content
(usually 10 percent).
In evaluating the solids in the total 66.6 million liters (17.6
million gal.) of cleanings the following percentages were used:
13.6 millIon liters (3.6 million gal.) organic solvent @
10 percent solids (reclaimed)
22.7 million liters (6 million gal.) organic solvent @
10 percent solids
3.8 million liters (1 million gal.) organic solvent @
25 percent solids
15.1 million liters (4 million gal.) water waste @
6.5 percent solids
11.4 million liters (3 million gal.) water waste @
25 percent solids
This yields a total of 10,100 kkg (11,100 tons) of solids of which 630
kkg (695 tons) are toxic chemical constituents. Subt action of the
41 kkg (45 tons) accounted for by spoiled batches and 6.3 kkg (7 tons)
for spills yields a total of 583 kkg (643 tons) of toxic chemical
materials from all cleaning operations. These figures do not include
hazardous materials leaving paint plants in sanitary sewers.
Raw Materials Packaging —— This total waste stream is comprised of
295,100 kkg (324,600 tons) per year of raw materials bags, residual pig-
ments and other materials retained in them when they are emptied. Also
included are steel or plastic pails, steel drums, wooden pallets, wire
wrapping paper, and other packaging components. The hazardous portion of
this waste stream Is estimated at 2050 kkg (2250 tons) annually and con-
sists of bags in which toxic pigments and other hazardous materials are
delivered. This figure is derived as follows:
Approximately 51,000 kkg (56,000 tons) of such materials are sup—
plied in bags each year. When emptied, each of these bags retains
about 30 to 60 gr (1 to 2 oz), or 0.25 percent of its initial 23—kg
(50—ib) content. This permits extrapolation of the toxic chemical con-
tent to 130 kkg (140 tons). The remainder of the 2050—kkg (2250—ton)
of potentially hazardous waste is the weight of the bags themselves
calculated on the basis of an average bag weight of 0.9 kg (2 lb).
Since pails are easily cleaned and, according to lnauscry spotes—
men, are most often reclaimed either on—site or off—site for further
use they are not included in the potentially hazardous waste stream.
Used drums were likewise excluded since many are returend to the
shipper and some non—returnable drums are sold to drum reclaimers or
24
-------
.1 p d e.i I rs . I’d I is or d ruins used Lu cl i ol o t I i’ i in. it t r In I • ire
Inc luLkd in t lie rcpresenLat1vi aflte .1rt’ iin . I’,i I I c 1 , wi re , wi •ipp [ ii
paper, and s imilar innocuous materials are also considered tion—hazardous.
Dust from Air Pollution Control Systems —— Data from 13 dust col—
lection systems indicate that 2.2 kg (4.9 pounds) of dust are collected
in the production of 2800 liters (1000 gal.) of paint. The survey data
also reveal that dust collection is employed in about 65 percent of
paint production, and the remaining production is in smal] well—venti-
lated plants where dust collection is not required. These figures
indicate that 1300 kkg (1400 tons) of material are collected in dust
systems in the paint industry each year of which an estimated 6.2
percent, 81 kkg (90 tons), consists of hazardous materials. Some of
this material is reworked back into the process, but since no estimates
are available on the amount, this tonnage is accepted as the maximum
amount which goes to disposal.
National Totals of Individual Toxic Chemical Constituents
in Paint and Coatings Wastes
There is considerable variation in raw material usage among plants
making essentially the same product. This is explained primarily by
differences in the relative proportions of the different compounds
employed. However, sufficient data were available from the plant sur-
veys to permit calculations of national usage of indivudual toxic
chemical raw materials which compare favorably with published industry
figures. For example, the estimate of lead usage based on this study
is within two percent of the industry’s published value (20).
The usage data were then employed to estimate the quantities of
individual toxic chemical constituents, exclusive of solvents, contained
in the total of such materials from all waste streams, 841 kkg (952
tons) per year. The quantities were determined according to the propor-
tion of the constituent within the total potentially hazardous compounds
used. Again using lead as the example, the surveyed plants reported
use of 4714 kkg (5197 tons) of potentially hazardous materials per year
of which 29.3 percent is lead contained in lead salts. Application of
this percentage to the national total of 841 kkg (925 tons) of toxic
chemical materials, exclusive of solvents, indicates that they contain
246 kkg (271 tons)
The accuracy of these national figures for potentially hazardous
solids is estimated to be in the range of +10 percent to —25 percent
of the figures given.
National Totals of Hazardous Solvents in
Paint and Coatings Wastes
From survey data and industry publications it is estimated that
25
-------
total non-water solvents used in the paint and coatings industry as
defined by SIC 285 is 1469 million liters (388 million gal.) per year,
of which 940 million liters (250 million gal.) fall within the defini-
tion of hazardous solvents. It has been assumed that the latter
constitute the same proportion —— i.e., 65 percent —— of the solvents
in the waste. This assumption is probably high since the hazardous
solvents are in general more volatile and are more likely to be lost
to the atmosphere. This percentage has been used, however, because of
a lack of any comprehensive quantification data to support an alterna-
tive appraoch.
Thus, total hazardous solvents in the waste are calculated to be
17 million liters (4.5 million gal.) per year, or 65 percent of 26.5
million liters (7 million gal.). The accuracy of these figures is
estimated to be in the range of +0 to —30 percent.
Descriptions of manufacturing processes and typical formulations
utilized in the various SIC classifications and projections of future
trends in products specific to SIC category involved the literature, in-
dustry information, and contractor knowledge as well as the plant surveys.
Treatment and Disposal Technology
The treatment and disposal practices of the industry as a whole
were extrapolated from the data on waste disposal practices of surveyed
plants. While the base sample is small, the results may be considered
to be relatively accurate as compared to waste quantity extrapolations
because of the uniformity of disposal practices within the industry.
Thus, Level I technology —— technology currently employed by typical
facilities —— was easily and conclusively established.
Level II technology —— the best process from an environmental and
health standpoint currently in use in at least one location — — was also
dictated, except in the case of organic wash solvents, to a large ex-
tent by the lack of viable alternatives in use by the industry. Severa.L
curient methods for handling wash solvents were available for consider-
ation as Level II technology.
Level III technology —— technology necessary to provide adequate
health and environmental protection which may include pilot or bench
scale processes —— was influenced by the fact that the degree of tox-
icity of some of the waste materials, and their ultimate environmental
effects, cannot be established without qualification within the frame-
work of today’s knowledge of their behavior under all conditions. Thus,
in terms of economic necessity, as more such information is developed,
Level III may be found to be more restrictive than necessary or desir-
able in some cases.
26
(1
-------
Due to the altered scope of the project, the actual practices of
off—site land disposal operators —— private or public —— were not in-
vestigated on site and the limited descriptions offered at the paint
plants must be substituted. Similarly, other factors which are in the
purview of the land disposal agent rather than the paint plant such as
energy requirements, implementation time for each level of technology,
and monitoring techniques and facilities were not covered.
Waste Disposal Costs
Cost figures gathered during the plant surveys plus those avail-
able in the literature were analyzed to establish costs as applicable
to the services provided to individual paint plants. They do not in-
clude any breakdown of the cost structure of contractors’ operations.
Cost data from related EPA reports were used to determine the capital
and operating costs of Levels II and III technology implementation
(32, 35, 36, 37).
HAZARDOUS WASTE PRACTICES OF SOLVENT RECLAMATION
During this portion of the project a list of about 15 contract
solvent reclaimers was compiled from data gathered during the study
of the paint and coatings industry, from manufacturers of distillation
equipment, and the yellow pages of metropolitan telephone directories.
In addition, a number of paint plants which recover solvents on—site
were included.
To gather detailed information on as many types of these opera-
tions as possible within the scope of the added contract element, 16
plant visits were made. These included four paint plants, two plants
which recover chlorinated hydrocarbons exclusively, and 10 others which
reclaim a mixture of solvents. Data from two paint plants previously
surveyed which provided information on solvent reclamation were also
used. A geographical cross section was achieved by visits to major
industrial areas such as Newark, New Jersey; Chicago, Illinois; and
Cleveland, Ohio; as well as less industrialized locations in the Caro-
linas, Indiana, Kentucky, and Texas.
In view of the fact that many of these plants occupy a highly
competitive position in industrial areas and that some have been re-
peatedly subjected to various kinds of studies, the overall degree of
cooperation was outstanding. Some plant owners and operators were very
cooperative and spent considerable time showing survey personnel over
their premises and providing detailed information. Only two plants
contacted refused to supply any information and declined to entertain
the possibility of a plant visit. Between these extremes were a number
of people who met with us and cordially supplied as much information as
they felt they could without divulging proprietary information. No
waste samples were obtainable from proprietary operations and data on
quantities of feedstock and waste were sparse.
27
-t I
-------
Geographical areas not covered by actual site visits were sur-
veyed by telephone inquiry. Data from these surveys are less reliable
and not as complete, but the aim was to identify any significant varia-
tion in technology or mode of operation in these areas. Information on
11 plants was gathered in this manner.
Samples of still bottoms were gathered at as many plants as pos-
sible for analysis for hazardous properties. At plants where more than
one recovery operation was in progress a sample was obtained from each
process. A total of 16 different samples was gathered and evaluated.
It must be emphasized that the general reliability of data gener-
ated from these samples is minimal since in all cases they were grab
samples representative of the operation at that time only and not a com-
posite representative of total operation. They can only serve as an
indicator of the character of solvent recovery wastes. In many cases
these samples do not represent the final waste from a solvent reclaim-
ing plant since in practice the still bottoms go directly to an incin-
erator from which there is little waste.
Two manufacturers of solvent recovery equipment were visited dur-
ing the study to discuss technology, future developments, availability
of equipment, and cost data. Both manufacturers were extremely helpful
In providing this information and in identifying solvent reclaimers.
Information on a third, type of distillation equipment was supplied by
another manufacturer after a telephone request.
HAZABDOUS WASTE PRACTICES OF FACTORY—APPLIED COATING OPERATIONS
The major users of factory—applied coatings were identif led from
the 1972 Census of Manufactures which reports end uses of these pro-
ducts by quantity and dollar value. Because of the very large number
of individual operations in this general category, variously estimated
in the tens of thousands, those uses which account for the largest
volumes of coatings were singled out for the closest scrutiny, along
with the use of powdered coatings, a relatively new technology and one
reported to be enyironmentally beneficial. The following types of
coatings operations evolved:
Automotive
Furniture
Container
Appliance
Farm Machinery
Coil
Concrete
Decorative Metal
Job
Powdered
28
-------
Next a cognizant group of trade associations and one trade publi-
cation were contacted for assistance in selecting operations for site
visits which could be considered typical of those within a segnent.
These included:
Nationa] Forest Products Association
Chemical Coaters Association
Accoustical and Board Products Association
National Coil Coaters Association
National Concrete Masonry Association
Hardwood Plywood Association
Southern Furniture Manufacturers Association
Industrial Finishing Magazine
Finally, two automotive and two furniture finishing operations
were selected for survey plus one in each of the remaining segments for
a total of 13. Cooperation was excellent and a greai deal of useful
information was elicited.
Based on these data, a description of the amount of wastes typi-
cally generated by the various application processes was developed and
representative disposal methods (Level I technology) were identified.
No extrapolations to industry—wide waste generation performance were
undertaken because the limited scope of this investigation did not re-
veal sufficient information on the,wide variation in size among the large
number of factory—applied coatings operations or the distribution of
coating processes employed. Levels II and III disposal technology were
not identified because coatings wastes are presently seldom segregated
from wastes produced from a whole series of production processes, and
with the data in hand it is not possible to isolate these technologies
for coating wastes alone.
29
-------
SECTION IV
HAZARDOUS WASTE PRACTICES OF THE PAINT AND
COATING MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
DESCRIPTION OF THE PAINT AND ALLIED PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
Introduction
In this section, the term “paint” is defined as it is used in this
report and the uses of the products of the paint and coatings industry
are identif led. “Trade sales products” and ‘ 1 industrial finishes, 1 ’
designations applied to broad product categories by the industry and the
Department of Commerce, are also defined. The Standard Industrial Clas-
sifications (SIC) which segregate various products for statistical
purposes according to end use and/or composition are introduced. These
classifications will be used in this report to present and compare
statistics describing various segments of this industry, their production,
and wastes.
The economic structure of the industry in terms of plant size, age,
and geographic distribution is generally outlined; these factors are
addressed in more detail later in this section. Future growth trends
and developments in raw material and product changes are also fore-
cast.
Products of the Industry
Definition of Paint and Allied Products Industry
Within the scope of this study, the “paint and allied products
industry” is defined as those manufacturing facilities covered in the 1972
Census of Manufactures by SIC 285 which defines them as: “Establishments
primarily engaged in manufacturing paints (in paste and ready—mixed form);
varnishes; lacquers; enamels and shellac;* putties, wood fillers, and
sealers; paint and varnish removers; paint brush cleaners; and allied
paint products.” SIC 285 does not include pigment or resin manufacture,
*She].lac is a form of the lac resin, manufactured in India, and describes
the appearance of the solid material —— i.e., shell lac, as opposed to
button lac or stick lac. No shellac, so far as the contractor is aware,
is manufactured in the United States.
31
-------
or the manufacture of printing ink, artists’ colors, calking compounds
and seaiants, or roof coatings (bituminous).
The industry covered by SIC 285 is frequently referred to in this
report as the “paint and coatings” industry, the current terminology.
Definition of Paint
In common usage the word ttpalntll is subject to various interpreta-
tions. In its narrowest definition, paint is defined as a pigmented pro-
duct such as wall paint, exterior house paint, masonry paint, and traffic
paint. Other coatings are referred to as enamel, undercoater, primer
(industrial), sealer, varnish, lacquer, filler, stain, etc. (2), How-
ever, in spite of movements to adopt other nomenclature, “paint” remains
established as the general term for all of these coatings (2)(3) and
will be generally used in this manner in this report. When narrower
allied product classes are specifically discussed, they will be so
identified.
Use of Paint
Paint is applied to wood, metals, concrete, and other substrates In
virtually all of the myriad of current uses of these materials. In some
form it is a universal substance in its applications in dwellings, places
of work, furnishings, transportation, tools, appliances, other structures,
and objects of ‘ iaily use.
While paint is generally acknowledged to protect and decorate, it
can also serve many other useful purposes. Lighter colors with higher
reflectance values can enhance lighcing; white paint promotes cleanli-
ness by increasing the visibility of dirt and a hard glossy paint
surface is easier to clean than more porous ones; safety is furthered
through painted traffic indicators, fire retardance of construction
materials, color coding of machinery parts and pipes (2)(3), and non-
skid paints. Outside paint may aid interior temperature control —— light
colors reflect and darker colors absorb heat —— and special paints are
also used to preserve wood and to provide electrical insulation or con-
ductance, military camouflage, luminescence, and grain simulation (wood,
hammered metals, leather, wrinkled textures, etc.) (2)(3).
Classification of Products
The products of the paint and allied products industry are clas-
sified in several different ways. Perhaps the most frequently used
classification scheme by the industry is defined as “trade sales products t ’
and “industrial finishes.” Trade sales products, as defined by the
Department of Commerce, are “stock—type commodities generally distributed
through wholesale—retail channels.” These are sold in small packages ——
32
-------
.2 to 7.6 liters (1/2 pt. to 2 gal.) to the public in paint, hardware
and variety stores (4). Industrial finishes are “products specifically
formulated to meet the conditions of application and use of the product
to which applied and are generally applied as part of the manufacturing
process.” These highly specialized products are sold in large quantities
to industries such as the automobile, aircraft, furniture, and electrical
appliance (4). Maintenance paints sold for the upkeep of industrial
and public structures and equipment fall within the Commerce Department’s
definition of trade sales products (2).
The most connnonly used classification by the government is the
Standard Industrial Classification. This was established by the Execu-
tive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, and is as
follows (5):
28511 — Exterior Oil Type Trade Sales Paint Products
28512 — Exterior Water Type Trade Sales Paint Products
28513 — Interior Oil Type Trade Sales Paint Products
28514 — Interior Water Type Trade Sales Paint Products
28515 — Trade Sales Lacquers
28516 — Industrial Product Finishes, Except Lacquers
28517 — Industrial Lacquers
28518 — Putty and Allied Products
28519 — Miscellaneous Paint Products
28510 — Paints and Allied Products, Not Specified by Kind
Narrower SIC breakdowns are shown in Appendix B.
The National Paint and Coatings Association (NPCA) has recently
categorized the various products to reflect new technologies, the in-
creasing use of which may influence the characteristics of this indus-
try’s wastes in the future (6). In addition to conventional solvent—
thinned coatings, these classifications include 1)coatings reformulated
to comply with air pollution control restrictions on the use of photo—
chemically reactive solvents; 2) water—soluble and water emulsion coat-
ings In which non—reactive organic solvents account for 30 percent or
less of total volatile content; 3) coatings containing 70 percent solids
content (by volume) or higher, including finishes formulated for ultra-
violet curing; and 4) dry powder coatings.
The last four are termed “emerging technologies” and offer oppor-
tunities for pollution reduction due to the smaller quantities of
solvents involved as compared with the amounts used In conventional
coatings and the less hazardous nature of those which will be used (6).
Economic Structure
The paint industry is comprised of about 1200 companies which
operate more than 1500 manufacturing establishments (7). Overall, the
33
-------
industry employs approximately 65,000 people, of whom roughly 37,000
are production workers (5). It is primarily an industry of small
businesses since about half the paint manufacturing facilities in the
country have fewer than 20 employes and only a handful have more than
500 production workers. One reason for this is that the cost of trans-
porting raw materials in bulk is much less than transporting finished
paints in cans or drums so it is usually more economical to make the
products as close to the customer as possible. Thus, even the larger
companies tend to scatter their operations among several small plants
close to a broader range of customers rather than consolidate them in
one area. Another reason is that, by comparison with other manufactur-
ing operations, little equipment is used and only a small capital
investment is required. Up to now, the economies of scale have not been
significant. Today, however, the emergence of new raw materials has
increased the complexity of paint technology and the minimum economic
size is increasing in scale. Total capital expenditures during 1972 were
$85.7 million, a 21 percent increase over the capital expenditures of
$70.7 million in 1967 (5).
The result of the economics of transportation is that plants tend
to concentrate near high density populations. Only four states (North
Dakota, South Dakota, Hawaii, and Wyoming) do not appear to have any
paint manufacture within their borders. Several other states of rela-
tively small population such as Arkansas, Idaho, and Nevada have only
one or two plants. There are more than a hundred in some larger states,
usually grouped around centers of population and industry. Although
there are several large companies in the paint industry (five firms are
believed to have annual sales of over $100 million each), these are all
multi—plant companies, and expansion is usually achieved by adding addi-
tional plants close to other markets rather than by expansion of existing
plants.
The distribution of plants by size appears to be re1at vely uniform
throughout the United States. There are apparently no especially high
concentrations of small plants in any specific areas, except possibly
in areas of rapid population growth such as Florida, California, and
Texas. In some cases, what appears to be an exception in distribution
patterns turns out to be a peculiarity of geography. NetiJersey, for
example, has a much higher proportion of large plants than does New
York, but, in this instance, it means that factors affecting a large
plant serving the New York metropolitan area such as state and local tax
laws are more favorable in northern New Jersey than in New York City.
Small plants are less affected by some of these considerations. In addi-
tion, most of the large industrial paint users in the New York City area,
such as petroleum refineries, can manufacturing, etc., are located in
New Jersey.
Approximately 2.98 billion liters (786 million gal.) of paint and
coatings were produced in the United States in 1972 at a value of $3.875
billion. Roughly 75 percent of this production occurred in EPA Regions
34
-------
r, II, III, IV & V —— the Eastern sector of the nation. In the past,
the paint and coatings industry has demonstrated a steady and reliable
growth rate. Between 1958 and 1971, the dollar value of paint sales in-
creased at an average annual rate of 4.5 percent as compared to 6.8 per-
cent for the Gross National Product (GNP) and 1.3 percent for population.
Over this same period, the quantity of paint sold grew by an average 3.0
percent per year (7).
The age of plants in the paint industry runs the entire gamut. In
general, as might be expected, there is a slightly higher concentration
of new plants in those areas that have experienced recent, rapid growth,
as noted above, and more old plants in states embracing established
urban areas such as Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland.
Future Trends and Developments
Figure 1 shows that a decline in the number of establishments manu-
facturing paint and coatings has taken place sinc the early 1960’s and
is projected to continue into the late ‘70’s. There are several reasons
for this.
One is that many of the older paint plants were or are located
downtown in metropolitan areas. With the advent of more restrictive
fire or nuisance ordinances many have been faced with the choice of
moving or closing. In other cases, a small operation is sold to a larger
company who purchases it only for its community goodwill and the local
marketing ability of the seller. In these cases the plant is often
closed.
Another reason is that there was a great number of small paint
plants established during and shortly after World War I. In situations
where these were essentially one-man operations, the owner’s age would
have become a factor in either selling or closing the business during
the last decade.
While the contractor has found no evidence of plant closings which
are directly attributable to environmental control requirements, this
tendency could develop in the future. Under certain conditions, such
as small operations which are already marginally profitable or non-
economic, the cost of pollution control regulation may hasten a pre-
destined closure.
This subject has been studied under another EPA contract (8) and it
was found that with the application of proposed effluent standards (9)
the major factors relating to economic impact affecting shutdown deci-
sions would be:
Ratio of treatment cost to net income
Cash flow including treatment costs
Ratio of treatment investment to fixed assets
35
-------
FIGURE 1
Number of Establishments Manufacturing Paint and Coatings Products
1960 1965 19’lO 191!75
l9 0
Source: 1972 Census of Manufactures Industry Series Preliminary Report. Extrapolation based
on Economic Analysis of Proposed Effluent Guidelines.
2000
1900
1800
1700
1600
1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
1955
-------
Degree of integration (paint/pigment/resin manufacture)
Emotional commitment
Ownership (private or multi—company)
This study concludes that, based on these criteria, 323 plants have
a high probability of closure (8). This figure is recognized as a maxi-
mum and the number of plants in this high range is reduced to 243 when
those with a high emotional commitment to remain in business are elimi-
nated.
The total number of production employees in the industry peaked in
1970 at nearly 40,000 (10). A decline of nearly 2000 took place by 1971
and a further, but smaller, reduction from 1971 to 1972 placed the
latter total at about 37,000. A small, but steady, decline may be pre-
dicted with a degree of certainty to continue at least through this
decade. As “strong—arm” labor becomes more expensive there will be in-
creasing use of various expedients to reduce personnel costs. Some of
these are the use of forklift trucks, automated equipment, and pre—
dispersed pigments.
The recent drop in number of plants and total production employees
has not been accompanied by a reduction in value of industry shipments
which increased by $1 billion from 1967 to 1972. C. H. Kline & Co.
predicts that sales will increase at an annual rate of 5.1 percent
through 1980 (7).
Table 6 illustrates the changes which are expected to take place by
1977—1980 in the percentage of the total industrial coatings market held
in 1972—73 by the NPCA product categories enumerated above (11). It can
be seen that the most dramatic drop is predicted in solvent—thinned
industrial coatings as improvements are incorporated in water—thinned
and other industrial paints (11). This trend will be furthered by the
significant economies to be gained by reduced use of organic solvents.
In fact, the push to reduce or eliminate solvents has been responsible
for hastening the development of new coatings systems such as emulsions,
electro—deposited coatings, powder coatings, and others (12). While
such systems accounted for only about 13 percent of industrial finishes
in 1973, their use is expected to triple by 1980. One exception is in
the coating of wood products. Many wood furniture manufacturers do not
see a suitable water—based coating for their products on the horizon
because of the Inherent effect of water on wood grain. However, It is
understood that water—thinned materials are presently being used on
decorative wood paneling in two industrial operations.
It is predicted that solvent shortages will inhibit the growth of
exempt solvent coatings (11). “Exempt,” or conforming, solvents are those
which meet Los Angeles County, California, Rule 66 and similar standards
which place limits on the photochemically reactive characteristics of
solvents which may be used.
The production of water—thinned trade sales paints will steadily
37
-------
TABLE 6
PROJECTED CHANGES IN PERCENTAGE OF FACTORY—APPLIED
COATINGS MARKET HELD BY PRODUCT CATEGORY ( O)
Type of Coating 1972—73 1977—80
Conventional solvent—thinned coatings 64% 18%
Exempt solvent—thinned coatings 26% 35%
Water—borne with less than 20% exempt solvents 6% 30%
High—solids (80% solids by volume or more) 1% liz
Powder coatings 3% 6%
38
-------
increase due to their popularity with “do—it—yourself” painters and other
factors enumerated later in Section IV.
Nitrocellujose lacquers are predicted to give way to thermo—setting
or oxidizing coatings. Cooked varnishes are gradually disappearing and
cold—blended varnishes will be more widely used in trade sales coatings.
Putty competes with calking compounds, very similar products which are
not currently included in SIC 285. Improvements in putty formulation
may tend to move more of its production into the calking compound classi—
f icat ion.
Growth trends and anticipated changes in raw materials usage and
finished products are discussed in considerable detail later in this
report.
PAINT AND COATINGS INDUSTRY CHARACTERIZATION
Introduction
In this section the industry is characterized by SIC classification
according to:
1. Number and distribution of establishments manufacturing
paint and coatings
2. Size distribution in terms of number of employees
3. Age distribution
4. Product manufacture distribution
5. Distribution in quantities produced
This classification was selected for use in characterizing the industry
over the other classification schemes discussed earlier in this section
because: 1) the Census of Manufactures provides at least limited data
according to these classifications which is not amenable to other break-
downs; 2) these classifications provide logical and orderly product
groupings; and 3) they also lend uniformity of presentation among con-
current hazardous waste studies.
The basis used for extrapolating available information by state and
EPA region to arrive at national totals as required by EPA is described.
Several sources of information were used in addition to the U.S. Census,
the most reliable and up—to—date being the surveys performed on 70+ plants
during the course of the study. Other sources included returns from two
recent questionnaires (13, 14) sent to the industry for other studies and
major industry directories (7, 15).
39
-------
Some SIC categories were grouped together for this presentation
bec.tu’ ’ the diflcrencc’s ill Wdste geizerated by them were not sufficiently
sigiiific.iiit to warrant separate characterization. No distinction is
made between inLerior and exterior paints, although solvent—thinned.
and water—thinned paints are segregated because of the differences
in their waste characteristics. Approximately 60 percent of the solvent—
thinned trade sales paints are classified as exterior (28511) as compared
to about one—third of the water—thinned paints (28512) used for this
purpose.
Because of their similarities in formulations, processing, and waste
characteristics, industrial and non—industrial lacquers are grouped
together. Trade sales lacquers constitute about 25 percent and Indus-
trial finish lacquers about 75 percent of the total.
Number and Distribution of Establishments Manufacturing Paint and Coatings
Table 7 shows the total estimated number and distribution of estab—
lishineiits manufacturing paint and allied products in the United States by
state, EPA region, and nationally. It also shows similar breakdowns by
SIC product category as discussed above. The column breakdowns do not,
of course, “add” to the national total since many plants manufacture
multiple products which fall within more than one SIC.
It was necessary to use some estimates to overcome discrepancies in
the available data pertaining to distribution of plants and it should
be noted that as the numbers of estimated establishments in Table 7
gel smal]er, the potential for relative accuracy probably declines.
This is true of the data on paint plants in all SIC categories in states
containing only a few establishments since the Census of Manufactures
does not segregate the data in these cases. In addition, the number
of putty manufacturers is very small in all states and these numbers
may he in error by perhaps one or two plants per state. Recent activity
in opening or closing plants, which is easily accomplished in some
cases, could seriously affect the estimate.
The final column dealing with the production by state of miscel-
laneous products falling within the SIC 285 paint classification should
be similarly used with caution. It is felt, however, that the national
totals for both putty and miscellaneous products manufacturers are
reasonably accurate.
The breakdowns by SIC are to a degree supported by the following
rationales:
1. Most companies manufacturing trade sales products make both
so]verit— and water—thinned paints. A few companies, such as those
specializing i.n marine coatings, make only solvent—thinned paints, and
a few plants (mostly small ones) only produce water—thinned paints.
About 10 percent of the companies make only factory—applied coatings
40
-------
TABLE 7
SIC 28 i PAINT AND ALLIED PRODUCTS
ESTIMATED NUNSER AIJO DISTRIBUTION OF ESTABLISHMENTS
SIC ?8511 6 28513 SIC 2832 6 28514 SIC 28315 & 28517 SIC 28516 SIC 28518 SIC 28519
EPA TOTAL INDUSTRIAL AND FACTORY APPLIED PUTTY ODMPOUND MD MISCELLAHEDUS
STATES RECIOH NO. SOLVENT THIIr.1ED PAINTS IMTER TIIINIFT) PAIR-rs KON-I VUSThIAL LACQUIRS FINISHES ALLIED PRODUCTS PAINT PRODUCTS
1AI. 9 7 7 2 6 1 1
2AE x 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
3 7 7 7 3 5 1 3
4A& vi 7 5 3 5 1 1
s CA i x 213 187 188 60 172 2 13
6c0 VIII 11 8 8 3 7 1 1
7CT I 1.2 10 10 5 10 1 2
81JE III 4 4 2 3 0 0
9DC III 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
10 69 68 68 20 55 1 2
11 GA IV 37 32 32 11 29 2 3
12111 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
131D X 2 2 2 1 2 0 0
14 IL V 143 122 124 41 113 2 4
15 1N V 30 25 25 9 24 1 1
161A VII 10 9 9 4 8 2 3
17KS VII 6 4 4 1 2 0 0
18 KY IV 23 19 19 7 18 1 2
19LA VI 13 11 11 2 8 1 2
2011E 1 2 2 2 0’ 0 0
21 ND III 27 22 22 8 22 1 2
22 i* i 52 47 48 13 43 2 4
23 NI v 6a 58 58 19 54 1 2
24 : V 24 20 20 7 19 1 2
25MS IV 3 1 1 1 2 0 1
26 MO VII 59 51 51 17 47 3 6
27}1T VIII 1 1 1 0 1 1 1
‘SUB vu 2 1 1 0 2 0 0
29KV IX 1 1 1 0
30NH I 2 1 1 1 2 0 0
-------
TABLE 7 - Cont’d.
SIC 2851 PAINT IIIID ALLIED PRODUCTS
ESTIMATED NU)ISER A ID DISTRIDUTION OP ESTA3L1SW4 TS
SIC 28511 6 28i13 SIC 28512 6 28514 SIC 28515 6 28517 SIC 28516 SIC 28518 SIC 28519
EPA TOTAL TJDUS IRTAL A U) FACTORY APPL .D urrv eonrotim A?!D I ISC1 T.LA’ro ’s
sT.VrES REcIo : :o. SOLV}PIT TuI’Ilr.D PAINTS k’ATER Ti I’4n rAI!lTs ) O —IHDt STRIAL ucrn;i s r l!:IsI!t s ALLIED PRODUCTS PAINT I’Rfl!ECTS
ii ii 149 129 130 43 119 5 10
32’ i VI 1 1 1 0 1 0 0
33 y II 145 127 128 41 116 1 2
34 NC IV 17 15 15 8 14 1 3
35ND v i i i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
36 0 1 1 V 97 83 83 27 78 5 10
370K VI 11 9 9 2 6 1 2
38 OR x 16 14 14 4 13 0 1 c i
39 PA ‘fl 66 58 60 22 55 5 10
4Oiu I 9 7 7 3 7 0 0
41SC IV 5 4 4 0 2 0 0
42SD VIII 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
43 m iv 19 16 16 5 15 1 2
44 TX VI 86 74 75 24 69 1 4
45trr VIII 2 2 2 1 2 1 1
46VT I 2 2 1 2 0 0
47 VA III 18 15 15 2 14 2 4
48 VA X 25 22 22 7 20 1 2
49W III 3 2 2 0 2 0 0
so ri v 3 1 26 26 9 25 1 2
51WT VIII 0 o 0 0 o o o
NATIONAL 1544 1333 1342 439 1221 51 109
EPA .LGIO’I
i 69 70 23 64 3 6
II 294 256 258 84 235 6 12
III 120 102 104 34 96 8 16
IV 182 162 162 54 141 7 14
V 393 334 336 112 315 11 21
vi 118 100 1 )1 31 89 4 9
Vii 77 65 65 22 59 5 9
VIII 14 11 11 4 10 3 3
I X 221 195 196 63 177 3 16
x 44 39 39 12 35 1 3
-------
and about five percent specialize in putties, other related products, or
lacquers only.
2. Most large companies, and many smaller ones, make either
factory—applied coatings, or Industrial maintenance paints (SIC 28516),
or both although they represent only a small part of the production of
many of these plants.
3. Lacquer manufacture is often segregated from other paint
operations due to the flammability of the solvents used. For this and
other reasons many of the smaller companies do not make lacquers.
4. Putties, paint removers, and other allied products are
often produced by plants that make no other products.
The table illustrates, as expected, that the concentration of paint
plants is directly related to urban density, both established and de-
veloping. States embracing nine of the 10 largest metropolitan areas are
among the 12 states containing the greatest numbe r of plants, collecti vely
representing about 77 percent of the paint manufacturing establishments
in the country. Among the other four, Florida, Georgia, and Texas
represent both new population growth and increased industrialization,
while Ohio is a heavily populated area of several older urban centers.
The twelve states, in descending order of number of plants, are as
follows;
California
New Jersey
New York
Illinois
Ohio
Texas
Florida
Michigan
Pennsylvania
Missouri
Massachusetts
Georgia
The District of Columbia metropolitan area, the tenth largest in
the country, does not alter this pattern. While Washington, D.C. it-
self, which supports little industrialization, has only one paint plant,
the neighboring states of Maryland and Virginia together account for
45 establishments.
At the other end of the scale, no paint manufacture was found in
Hawaii, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming, as noted earlier. The
number of establishments per state is shown graphically In Figure 2.
The pattern established for total paint operations does not vary
43
-------
FIGURE 2
Estimated Distribution of U.S. Paint and Allied Products Establishments
UNITED STATES
%t I U
CL E A RTYPE
STATE OUTLINE
AI.? (OMPA V. INC.
-------
appreciably when the breakdown by SIC production is estimated. The
more populated areas sti]1 represent the greatest production in every
case except putty and miscellaneous products. Market patterns may vary
substantially from time to time in these two categories, a thorough
study of which was not within the scope of this project.
Plant Size Distribution
Table 8 shows the distribution of paint plants by size in terms of
the number of employees per establishment. The ranges identified are
from 1—20, 21—50, 51—100, and 100+. Further breakdowns are not required
in view of the very small number of plants employing in excess of 100
employees.
The pattern developed by the table is that the largest numbers of
plants in each category employ between one and 20 persons. The numbers
of plants generally decline in the larger employment ranges, frequently
descending sequentially as the employment range rises. The few excep-
tions, such as certain categories of plants in Illinois, Michigan, and
Pennsylvan a,arenot sufficiently significant to alter the general
observation that smaller plants are in the majority in this industry.
In Michigan, for instance, a number of medium size plants are explained
by the substantial amount of production of automobfle coatings, a large
but very localized user. Again, columns in Table 8 do not “total” due
to overlapping between SIC classifications.
Plant Distribution by A&e
Table 9 shows the distribution of paint plants by age. This param-
eter is a highly variable consideration in that older structures may
not have been consistently used for paint manufacture, older paint
plants may have been updated to the performance of news ones, etc. For
purposes of this table, plant age is defined, a nearly as this is
possible, as the number of years during which paint has been manufactured
at a specific location.
The age of paint plants is nearly evenly distributed over the past
fifty years, reflecting both a gradual growth rate for the industry
and an orderly replacement of plants which close down for various rea-
sons. States such as Texas, Florida, and California which have rapid
overall industrial growth show only a slightly larger incidence of very
new plants than states like Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Illinois
where population has been more stable in the last decade. Table 10 shows
an across—the—board comparison of plant ages in these six states demon—
strating this fact.
Distribution of Products Manufactured
Table 11 shows the estimated distribution of paint and coatings manu-
facture by separate product such as water—thinned paints, solvent—thinned
paints, varnish, stains, lacquers, industrial finishes, putty and glazing,
45
-------
TABLE 8
-S
SIC 2851 PAINT !D ALLIED PRODUCTS
ESTIMATED DIS1 I1lrrXo: OP PLANT SIZE BY I3 PL0Y)0’2.T
EPA
SIC 28311 6 28513
SOLVFNT TI1INUED PAINTS
SIC
WATER
28512 4 28514
TPINNED PAI :TS
SIC
VJD.&
28515 6 28517
SIC 28516
SIC
28518
SIC
28519
STAIPS Ri ION
1—20 21—30 51—100 100+
1—20
51—100 100+
1—20
21-Sfl 51-100 1004
1—20 21—50
FINISHFS
51—100 100+
PUT!! 6
1—20 21—50
ALLIED
51—100
PROD.
100+
MISC.
1—20
PAINT
PPODUCTS
51—100 i2!
1AL V
2AX X
3AZ IX
4AR VI
5 CA IX
1 1 1
1 0 0 0
4 2 1 0
3 1 0 .&
118 34 22 13
4
1
4
3
119
1
0
2
1
34
1 1
0 0
1 0
0 1
22 13
1
0
2
1
40
0 1 0
0 0 0
1. 0 0
1 0 1
10 6 4
3 1
0 0
2 2
2 2
112 31
1 1
0 0
1 0
0 1
19 10
1 0
0 0
1 0
1 0
1 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
1
5
0
0
1
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
2 1
SCOVIII
7CT I
SPE Ill
9DC III
loll IV
3 2 1 2
8 1 0 1
3 0 1 0
0 0 1 0
54 10 4 0
3
8
4
0
54
2
1
0
0
10
1 2
0 1
0 0
1 0
4 0
2
5
1
0
12
0 1 0
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
6 2 0
3 1
8 1
2 0
0 0
42 9
1 2
0 1
1 0
0 0
4 0
1 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
I1CA IV
l2Ht IX
1313 X
14 IL V
isir: V
‘6 7 6 3
0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0
61 31 10 20
16 3 3 3
16
0
2
62
16
7
0
0
32
3
6 3
0 0
0 0
10 20
3 3
3
0
1
23
3
3 2 1
0 0 0
0 0 0
9 3 6
2 2 2
14 6
0 0
2 0
56 29
15 3
6 3
0 0
0 0
10 20
3 3
2 0
0 0
0 0
1 1
1 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
36 1A VII
17KS VII
18KY IV
i9L VI
2O: C I
3 3 2 1
2 1 0 1
4 9 3 3
5 5 1 0
1 1 0 0
3
2
4
5
1
3
1
9
5
1
2 1
0 1
3 3
1 0
0 0
1
0
0
0
0
1 1 1
0 0 1
1 1 5
1 1 0
0 0 0
3 2
0 1
2 7
4 3
0 0
2 1
0 1
3 6
1 0
0 0
2 0
0 0
1 0
1 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
2i D II!
22?!A I
23 !I V
241*: V
25 S IV
8 6 1 7
7 9 8 3
31 9 16 2
12 5 2 1
1 0 0 0
8
28
31
12
1
6
9
9
5
0
1. 7
8 3
16 2
2 1
0 0
3
6
9
2
0
2 1 2
4 2 1
5 4 1
2 2 1
1 0 0
6 6
27 9
27 9
11 5
1 1
2 8
3 4
16 2
2 1
0 0
0 1
2 0
1 0
1 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
2
1
2
1
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
26M0 VII
27!!TVIII
8 ; VII
29 V IX
30 !H 1
28 12 8 3
0 0 1 0
1 0 0 0
1 0 0 0
1 0 0 0
28
0
1
1
1
12
0
0
0
0
8 3
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
5
0
0
0
0
4 5 3
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
1 0 0
26 11
0 0
2 0
0 0
7 3
1 0
0 0
0 0
2 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
‘.0
-------
TABLE 8 — Cont’d.
SIC 2351 rAT:r rn ALLICD raonurns
tS?fl!ATED oxsti i rrior or i’i . .a sizi. rx I2n’T.oY:!r’.T
SIC 28511 6 28513 SIC 28512 & 28514 SIC 28515 6 28517 SIC 2 316 SIC 23518 SIC 519
LPA S0LV flT TDI!:::rn FAIUTS rri ,,itw:ro FAulTS t; .& ::o —i n.i cr’uri s rAcT.! rri.Irn RilfisliPs rum’ i ALLIED PROD. pusc. p. I; r rt o’vcrs
FTATFS RECION i o 21—50 51—100 100+ 1—20 21—50 51—100 100+ 1—20 21-50 51—100 100+ 1—20 21—50 51—100 100+ 1—20 21—50 51—100 100+ 1—20 2L— C 51—100 100+
31 t.J II 72 35 14 8 73 34 14 9 25
32fl( VI 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
33 Y II 93 25 7 2 93 26 7 2 29
34EC IV 6 5 3 1 6 5 3 1 1
3SKDVIII 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
36 C l i V 40 21 14 8 40 21 14 8 15
370K VI 6 2 1 0 6 2 1 0 0
3805 2 6 7 1 0 6 7 1 0 2
39 PA III 28 15 4 11 30 15 4 11 11
40RH I 3 1 0 1 5 1 0 1 3
41SC IV 3 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 0
42SDv11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
43T Z IV 9 4 2 1 9 4 2 1 3
44 T X VI 39 14 14 7 40 14 14 7 14
4SUTVUI 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1
46VT I 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1
47V4 III 5 5 3 0 3 6 4 0 2
48W X 12 3 4 1 12 3 4 1 3
49WV III 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0
50WI V 17 5 2 2 17 5 2 2 5
siw vixx 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
pz iio mu . 762 298 165 108 770 300 163 109 237
EPA REGION
I 43 13 8 5 44 13 8 5 15
1 165 60 21 10 166 F , 21 11 54
III 45 26 13 18 48 27 ii 18 17
IV 97 37 19 9 97 37 19 9 22
V 177 74 47 36 178 75 47 36 57
VI 53 22 17 8 54 22 17 8 15
VII 34 16 10 5 34 16 10 5 6
VIII 4 2 2 3 4 2 2 3 3
IX 123 36 23 13 124 36 23 13 42
X 21 12 5 1 21 12 5 1 6
5 5 54 32 1Q 13
0 0 0 0 1 0
4 2 89 15 9 3
3 2 3 4 4 3
0 0 0 0 0 0
4 2 38 19 13 8
1 0 4 1 1 0
0 0 6 6 1 0
2 4 27 14 4 10
0 0 5 1 0 1
O 0 1 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 8 4 2 1
4 2 35 14 13 7
0 0 1 0 0 1
0 0 1 1 0 0
0 0 5 5 4 0
1 1 11 4 4 1
0 0 1 0 1 0
1 1 16 5 2 2
0 0 0 0 0 0
61 48 676 266 162 117
5 2. 1 46 17 3 8
14 9 7 139 43 26 15
7 4 6 41 25 14 18
14 10 8 74 33 20 14
26 16 13 163 70 46 36
7 6 3 45 20 16 8
5 6 5 31 14 9 5
0 1 0 4 1 2 3
11 6 4 114 33 20 10
4 1 1 19 10 5 1
3 1 1 0 6 2 2 0
O 0 C 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0
2 2 1 0 4 3 2 1
1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
4 1 0 0 7 2 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 2 0 1 1
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 1 0 0 2 1 1 0
1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
38 9 3 1 73 21 11 4
3 0 0 0 5 1 0 0
4 1 1 0 8 2 2 fl
5 3 0 0 9 5 2 0
7 0 0 0 14 0 0 0
7 3 1 0 13 4 3 1
6 0 0 0 6 1 1 1
4 1 0 0 7 2 0 0
1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1
2 1 0 0 7 5 2 1
1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0
p.
8
0
6
2
0
6
1
2
5
0
0
0
1
4
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
93
-------
TABLE 9
SIC 2831 PAINT AND ALLIED PRODUCTS
ESTINATED DISTRIBUTION OP PLANT ACES
iLL IV 2
2AX X 0
3A1 IX 2
4M1 VI 1
5CA IX 64
6C0 VII ! 2
7CT I 1
8DE III 1
9DC III 0
1OFI. IV 16
11CP IV 9
12111 IX 0
13ID X 0
141L V 27
15I : v 7
161A VII 2
liES VII 1
1SKY IV 3
I9LA VI 6
2O E 1 0
21-v III 5
22’I. I 6
23’!! V 15
24’C V 6
25 :S iv 0
26 NO VII 13
27 ‘fI VIII 0
28 ‘.8 v:t 0
29EV 17 0
30l I 1
1 3 1 2 1
O 1 0 0 0
1 3 1 2 1
1 3 0 1 1
31 60 32 64 31
1 3 2 2 1
2 6 1 1 2
1 1 1 1 1
1 0 0 0 1
24 19 9 16 24
7 11 5 9 7
O 0 0 0 0
0 2 0 0 0
22 38 35 27 22
3 7 8 7 3
1 3 3 2 1
O 2 1 1 0
2 6 8 3 2
2 2 1 6 2
0 1 1 0 0
5 8 4 5 5
14 19 8 6 14
7 20 16 15 7
4 6 4 6 4
O 1 0 0 0
3 1 0 1 1 0 1
1 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 1 1 0 1 1 1
3 0 1 0 2 0 1
61 32 21 10 19 10 59
3 2 1 0 1 1 1
6 1 0 1 3 1 1
1 1 1 0 1 0 1
O 0 0 0 0 0 0
19 9 5 7 6 2 12
11 5 3 2 4 2 8
o 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 1 0 0
39 36 9 7 13 12 26
7 8 2 1 3 3 6
3 3 1 0 2 1 2
2 1 0 0 1 0 0
6 8 2 1 2 2 3
2 1 1 0 1 0 5
1 1 0 0 0 0 0
8 4 2 2 3 1 5
20 8 1 4 6 2 5
20 16 5 2 7 5 14
8 4 2 1 2 2 6
1 0 0 0 1 0 0
4 2 6 5 12
0 0 0 0 0
O 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
1. 0 0 0 2
1 3
0 0
1 2
1 3
28 36
1 3
2 6
1 1
0 0
20 15
7 9
0 0
0 2
20 36
3 7
1 3
0 2
2 6
1 2
0 0
5 8
14 18
6 19
4 5
1 1
5 15 15
0 1 0
0 2 0
0 0 0
O 0 0
O 0 1 0
O 0 0 0
1 0 1 1
0 0 1 0
5 2 4 2
0 0 1 0
0 1 1 0
0 0 0 0
o 0 0 0
0 1 1 0
1 1 1 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
1 1 1. 1
o 0 0 1
1 0 1 1
o 0 0 0
0 0 1 1
1 0 1 0
0 0 0 0
0 1 1 0
1 1 2 0
0 0 1 1
1 0 1 0
0 0 1 0
0 1 1 1 1 2 2
0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SIC 28511 & 28313 SIC 28512 & 28514 SIC 28515 & 28317 SIC 28516 SIC 28518 SIC 28519
SOLVENT THINNED PAINTS JATER TRIN ’ED PAI .TS I’ D.& No- —I1m.L co jrp FAcT.AFPLIED FINXSNFS PTJITY & ALLIFD PROD. . )‘ISC. PAINT PPODtICTS
EPA ACL i :c (YEs) cs !‘x:cE (a4 AGF RM.CF (YES) ACE r A.cr (T s) ACE RANCE (YRS) AGE RA CL (YPS)
STATLS RECI0I 0—10 11-20 21—50 50+ 0—10 11—20 21—50 50+ 0—10 11—20 21—30 •• _ 0—10 11—20 50+ 0—10 11—20 21—50 50+ 0—10 11—20
1 0 0 1 0
O 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 1 0
29 1 0 1 0
2 0 0 1 0
1 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0. 0 0
8 0 1 0 0
5 1 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
33 1 0 1 0
8 0 0 0 1
2 0 0 1 1
0 0 0 0 0
7 0 0 0 1
O 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
4 0 0 1 0
6 0 1 1 0
15 0 0 1 0
4 1 0 0 0
O 0 0 0 0
6 16 16 13 6 16 16
O 1 0 0 0 1 0
O 1 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 1 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 1 0 0 0
-------
Table 9 — Cont’d.
SIC 2851 PAINT AND ALLIED PRODUCTS
ESTIMATED DISTRIBUTION OF PLANT ACES
31 J II 35
32 3I VI 1
33 ;Y xi 16
i4 i C IV 6
35 D VIII 0
3 (.1 V 17
37Oi VI 4
3SOR X 4
39PA III 11
40R1 I 1
41SC IV 1
42 SD VIII 0
43T: iv 4
i4TX VI 16
45 U VIII 0
46VT I 1
47VA III 6
48’!k X 3
49 UV III 1
50w 1 V -
51 1” ’ VIII 0
N .Tio:I;.L 322
tPA ‘EGIO.I
I
II.
III
I?
V
VI
VIE
VIII
x
7 11
9 34
6 13
13 19
20 35
8 13
2 9
0 2
10 20
O 8
3 10 18 23 B
23 47 24 94 70
7 23 20 33 20
S 34 37 46 24
33 72 56 96 91
1 25 28 32 4
6 14 6 22 17
1 1 1 5 3
11 60 29 58 30
2 5 2 22 6
O 1 2 0 1 2 3 0
2 0 3 1 3 1 5 3
2 1 4 1 4 4 6 2
2 1 3 1 4 2 7 1
3 1 3 4 4 4 6 7
2 0 2 0 3 1 5 C
1 0 2 2 2 1 3 3
O 0 3 0 0 0 3 0
1 0 2 0 6 2 5 3
0.0 1 0 0 0 3 0
SIC 28511 6 28513 SIC 23512 6 28514 SIC 28515 & 28517 SIC 28516 SIC 23518 Sic 28519
SOLVFI1T T1II’fl fl) p. r1Ts UATr! mr ;ii pAx :Ts rrn.t. N(r.—Iun.IAr(.II ; i c rLrr.APPI.1I 0 rr nn s PUTTY & A1.T.DI) pitan. plI C. rAn:T prnnur’c
Er!. ci ;v i.r. ; t .r. .tj (y cJ i v ;i ( )_ , c.r iu :.c.j_ (as) ACI• i:;cr CYRS) Acr KArCI (u sJ
ST,vri S !:LCfO’I 0—10 11—20 21—SC 50+ 0—10 11—20 21j0 50+ n—In ]1—?A 21—50 S0+ 0 .-JO 11—20 71—50 0—10 12—20 J50 504 0 _ in 1170 2150 504
0
5 16
O 0
4 18
1 3
O 0
6 8
O 1
0 3
4 8
2 1
o 0
O 0
1 2
8 9
0 1
O 1
o 1
O 4
O 0
3 2
o o
75 164
11 32 12 44 31
O 1 0 0 0
14 15 12 50 39
1 5 2 5 2
0 0 0 0 0
8 15 17 23 23
0 3 1 2 0
0 3 1 8 1
6 11 10 20 14
O 1 2 3 1
O 1 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0
1 4 4 6 I.
1 15 25 25 4
O 0 0 1 1
O 1 0 1 0
0 5 4 3 2
2 2 1 12 5
O 1 0 1 0
3 5 6 6 8
0 0 0 0 0
97 291 221 436 273
13 48 33 35 13 49 33 11
O 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
13 55 43 17 13 55 43 5
2 5 2 6 2 5 2 3
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
19 24 23 17 19 24 23 5
1 3 1 4 1. 3 1 1
1 8 1 4 1 8 1 1
11 21 3 .3 12 11 22 15 4
2 3 1 1 2 3 1 0
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 6 2 4 4 6 2 1
27 27 4 16 28 27 4 6
0 1 1 00 1 1 0
O 1 0 1 0 1 0 0
4 3 2 6 4 3 2 1
1 12 6 3 1 12 6 1
O 1 0 1 0 1 0 0
8 6 5 5 8 - 5 1
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
243 470 298 324 244 475 299 103
13 16 30 11 10 18 31 11 2
51 26 103 76 52 26 104 76 16
24 22 34 22 25 22 35 22 8
41 41 52 28 41 41 52 28 14
77 63 133 91 77 63 103 92 24
26 31 35 6 28 32 35 6 9
16 7 22 20 16 7 22 20 5
2 1 5 3 2 1 5 3 1
66 32 C3 34 66 32 64 34 22
7 2 23 7 7 2 23 7 2
2 0
O 0
O 0
1 0
O 0
1 1
1 0
O 0
1 1
O 0
O 0
0 0
0 0
O 0
0 0
O 0
1 0
0 0
O 0
0 0
0 0
13 4
2 1 3 1 4 2
O 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 1 1
O 0 2 0 1 0
O 0 0 0 0 0
1 2 2 2 3 3
0 0 1 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 1 0
2 1 2 2 4 2
O 0 0 0 0 0
O 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 1 0 1 0
1 0 1 1 2 0
1 0 0 0 1 0
O 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 2 1 1 0
1 0 0 0 2 0
O 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 1 0 1
O 0 0 0 0 0
25 9 27 17 46 19
-------
TABLE 10
PLANT AGE COMPARISON BETWEEN THREE RAPIDLY DEVELOPING ST&TES
AND THREE WITH RELATIVELY STABLE URBAN POPULATIONS
(FRACTION IN AGE RANGE)
0—10 11—20 21—50 50+
Texas .22 .36 .37 .05
Florida .24 .35 .28 .13
California .35 .16 .32 .17
Massachusetts .13 .30 .40 .17
Pennsylvania .19 .19 .36 .26
Illinois .22 .18 .31 .29
50
-------
TABLE 1].
SIC 2851. PAI1rI M D M.L1F PRCIDUCIS
LSTVIAI LU DISILI BUTION 01 . lltoL’w..”r 1 A1UV? TLI C
SOIXINT VATHI
LIA TIINNII) TN INTU IuflL’S IM . NITTY & ti’ I I I :
PL!J !! PAI L VAJO!SII STAINS LAC( U1J . fI15IuI c 1A711:C 1 •I(jS
IAL IV 7 7 7 1 6 1 1
2AIt * 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 (1
3M IX 7 7 7 3 s 1
VI 5 5 3 1 3 5 1 3
3 C.’. IX 187 1 118 187 19 60 172 2 13
6 V II ! 8 8 8 1 3 7 1 1
7CT 1 10 10 10 1 5 10 1
8DE III 4 4 4 0 2 3 0 0
9DC il l 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
10 I ’!. IV 68 68 68 •7 20 53 1 2
11 .A IV 32 32 32 3 12 29 2 3
12111 I X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13 ID X 2 2 2 2 1 2 0 0
14 IL V 122 124 122 12 41 115 2 4
15 u: V 25 25 25 3 9 V. 1 1
16I VII 9 9 9 1 4 8 2 3
171 S VII 4 4 4 0 1 2 0
18 K IV 19 19 19 2 7 16 1 2
I9LA V I 11 U 11 1 2 5 1 2
20 1 1L 1 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0
21 lW III 22 22 22 2 8 22 1 2
22 NA I 47 48 47 5 13 43 2 A
23 lit V 58 58 58 6 19 54 1 2
26 191 V 20 20 20 2 7 19 1. 2
23) IV 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 1
26 MO VII 51 51 51 3 17 47 b
27)11 VIII 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1
as :a vtt 1 1 1 0 0 2 0 0
29 1 1V IX 1 1 1 0 C) 0 0 0
30N1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 0
31 NJ I I 129 130 129 13 63 11 , 5 10
32 l I V I 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0
33 ‘.T 11 127 328 127 13 41 116 1 2
34 C IV 15 15 15 2 8 1.4 1 3
33;:D VIII 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0
36 01 ! V 83 83 83 8 27 78 5 10
37CX VI 9 9 9 1 2 6 1 2
38 08 X 14 14 14 1 4 13 0 1
39 PA UI 58 60 58 6 22 35 5 10
4081 1 7 7 7 0 3 7 0 0
4 ISC IV 4 4 4 0 0 2 0 0
425D VIII 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
43 T I! IV 16 16 16 2 3 13 1 2
44 TX VI 74 75 74 7 24 G9 1 4
45)72 VIII 2 2 2 0 1 2 1 1
46VT 1 2 2 2 0 1 1 0 0
47 VA UI 15 15 15 2 2 14 2 4
48 WA X 22 22 22 2 7 20 1 2
49VV III 2 2 2 0 0 2 0 0
50 VI V 26 26 ‘6 3 9 23 1 2
S1 T VIII 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
UTIONA I . 1333 1342 1333 135 439 1221 51 109
EPA RECION
1 69 70 69 6 23 64 3 6
II 236 258 256 26 84 235 6 12
III 102 304 102 10 34 96 8 16
IV 161 162 161 17 54 141 7 16
V 334 336 334 34 112 315 11 21
VI 100 101 100 10 31 39 4 9
VII 65 65 65 6 22 39 3 9
VIII 11 11 11 1 4 1 3 3
XX 195 196 195 20 63 177 3
1 39 39 39 5 12 35 1 3
51
-------
and other products. Essentially, this table also shows the distribution
of ph’nts by manufacturing process because the processes used in this
industry are not highly variable, and the minor differences which do
occur are attributable to product requirements. For example, production
of a pigmented material requires grinding or dispersion while the manu-
facture of a non—pigmented material does not.
Table 11 shows that the number of plants manufacturing solvent—thinned
paints, water—thinned paints, and varnish is identical in almost every
state by virtue of the fact that the majority of installations which makes
one of them produces all three. So to the extent that these estimates
may be valid, there are only nine plants which manufacture water—thinned
products exclusively —— one each in California, Massachusetts, New
Jersey, New York, and Texas, and two in Illinois and Pennsylvania.
Most industrial finishes are also manufactured by the plants which
make the above products as well, although all of those plants, as shown
by Table 11, do not make industrial finishes. In only two cases do the
numbers of plants making industrial finishes outnumber those in the other
categories —— in Mississippi and New Hampshire.
There is no discernible correlation between the percentage of plants
making industrial finishes in conjunction with other products and the
degree of the State’s industrialization. While a great many of them are
engaged in this production in industrial states such as Illinois, Michi-
gan, New Jersey, etc., the same is true in many states not noted for
industrial activities.
Distribution of Production
Table 12 illustrates the state—by—state distribution of various pro-
ducts in terms of their annual production rates. Illinois produces the
largest amount of paint and coatings at 384 kk]. (102 million gal.)
per year with California, which has the largest number of paint plants,
following close behind with 383 kkl (101 million gal.) per year. Highly
industrialized states such as New Jersey and Ohio annually manufacture
311 kkl (82 million gal.) and 290 kkl (77 million gal.), respectively.
Other populated and industrialized states also produce relatively large
amounts of coatings as compared to the smaller states which generally pro-
duce less than 3.8 kkl (1.0 million gal.) each per year. The smaller
states include Maine, West Virginia, and Arizona.
Factory—applied coatings are manufactured in greater quantities
than any other type of paint. About 1057 kkl (279 million gal.) were
produced in 1972 with Illinois and California each accounting for
136 kkl (36 million gal.). Solvent—thinned trade sale paints were
nexL in production volume at 799 kkl (211 million gallons) with water—
thinned trade sale paints following closely behind at 751 kkl (198
mu] iorr gallons). As was pointed out earlier, water—thinned paints
are gradually taking over a larger part of the trade sale paint business.
52
-------
TABLE 12
SIC 2851 PAINT AND ALLIED PRODUCTS
ESTIMATED ANMiAL PRODUCTION RATES IN 1972
SIC 28511 & 28313 SIC 28512 & 28514 SIC 28515 6 28517 SIC 28516
QUANTITY OF SIIII 9 NT SOLVENT THINNED PAINTS WATER THIN ED PAINTS LACQUERS FACTORY APPLIED F 1 NISTIES
STATES - EPA REGIONS 0CL (C ii. x 10 ) EEl. (Cal. x 106) KKT. (Ca1. x 106) EEL (Cal. x 106) KR!. (Cal. x 10
1 AL. .S IV 18. (5.00) 5.07 (1.34) 4.77 (1.26) 2.35 (0.62) 6.74 (1.78)
2 AN, OR I 13.59 (3.57) 3.63 (0.96) 3.40 (0.90) 1.67 (0.44) 4.81 (1.27)
3 AZ IX 3.59 (0.95) 0.98 (0.26) 0.91 (0.24) 0.45 (0.12) 1.29 (0.34)
4 AR, LA, OK VI 24.56 (b. 9) 6.59 (1.74) 6.21 (1.64) 3.03 (0.80) 8.74 (2.31)
S CA IX 382.93 (101.17) 102.91 (27.19> 96.63 (25.55) 47.27 (12.49) 135.99 (35.93)
6 CO VIII 13.06 (3.45) 3.52 (0.93) 3.29 (0.87) 1.63 (0.43) 4.66 (1.23)
7 C i I 7.84 (2.04) 2.12 (0.56) 1.97 (0.52) 0.98 (0.26) 2.76 (0.73)
8 DE,DC,W 2 III & IV 8.59 (2.27) 2.31 (0.61) 2.16 (0.57) 1.06 (0.28) 3.07 (0.81)
9 DC Ut See Delaware (See Note)
10 FL IV 44.51 (11.76) 11.96 (3.16) 11.24 (2.97) 5.49 (1.45) 15.78 (4.17)
11 CA IV 100.34 (26.51) 26.99 (7.13) 25.32 (6.69) 12.38 (3.27) 35.65 (9.42)
12 III IX No Paint Planta
13 ID, NT, NV, X ,VII1,& IX
121 ,UT VI, VIII 9.99 (2.64) 2.69 (0.71) 2.34 (0.67) 1.25 (0.33) 3.56 (0.94)
14 IL V 384.25 (101.52) 103.29 (27.29) 97.00 (25.63) 47.46 (12.54) 136.49 (36.06)
15 n; V 47.50 (12.55) 12.76 (3.37) 11.99 (3.17) 5.87 (1.55) 16.88 (4.46)
16 IA VII 40.46 (10.69) 10.86 (2.87) 10.23 (2.70) 4.50 (1.32) 14.38 (3.80)
17 KS, NB VI I 7.57 (2.00) 2.04 (0.54) 1.93 (0.51) 0.95 (0.25) 2.69 (0.71)
18 KY , I V 133.19 C35.19) 35.81 (9.46) 33.65 (8.89) 16.46 (4.35) 47.31 (12.50)
19 LA VI See Atkan as (See Note)
23 NE.NH,VT I 4.13 (1.09) 0.76 (0.20) 1.06 (0.28) 0.49 (0.13) 1.48 (0.39)
21 .1D III 61.09 (16.14) 16.43 (4.34 15.44 (4.08) 7.53 (1.99) 21.69 (5.73)
22 NA 1 52.65 (13.91) 14.16 (3.74) 13.29 (3.51) 6.51 (1.72) 18.70 (4.94)
23 MI V 184.59 (48.77) 49.62 (13.11) 46.59 (12.31) 22.79 (6.02) 63.56 (17.32)
24 O V 30.17 (7.97) 6.10 (2.14) 7.61 (2.01) 3.71 (0.98) 10.71 (2.83)
25 S IV See Alabama (See hot.) -
26 0 VII 125.59 (33.18) 33.76 (8.92) 31.71 (8.38) 15.52 (4.10) 44.63 (11.79)
21 NT VIII See Idaho (Se. ote)
25 NB VII See Kansaa (See Note)
29 NV IX See Idaho (Sac Note)
30 U I See Maine (See Note)
NOTES WITHHELD (BY CENSUS) TO AVOID DISCLOSING FIGURE FOR INDIVIDUAL COMPANIES.
-------
table 12 Cont’d.
SIC 2851 PAINT AND ALLIED PRODUCTS
ESTIRATED ANNUAL PRODUCTION RATES IN 1972
- SIC 28511 & 28513 SIC 28512 & 28514 SIC 28515 & 28517 SIC 28516
QUANTITY OP STIIPVENT SOLVENT ThINNED PAINTS WATER tuuircn PAINTS LACQUFES . VACTOI IY APPLIED PNISIWS
STATES EPA REGIONS EEL. (Cal. x 106) UT. (Cat. 106) ELI. (Ca l. x 1& ) UI. (Cal. x 1Q ) EEL (Cal. x 10’ )
31 NJ 11 311.47 (82.29) 83.12 (22.12) 78.65 (20.78) 38.46 (10.16) 110.64 (29.23)
32 IRI VI See Idaho (See Note)
33 NY U 161.81 (42.75) 43.49 (11.49) 40.84 (10.79) 19.98 (5.28) 57.46 (15.18)
34 NC IV 53.91 (14.26) 14.50 (3.83) 13.63 (3.60) 6.66 (1.76) 19.19 (5.07)
35 ND VIII No Paint Plants
36 OR V 289.63 (76.52) 77.86 (20.31) 73.13 (19.32) 35.77 (9.45) 102.88 (27.18)
37 OX VI See Arkenaae (See Note)
38 OR X See Alaska (See Note)
39 PA Ifl 181.68 (48.00) 48.83 (12.90) 45.87 (12.12) 22.45 (5.93) 64.33 (17.05)
40 R I I 5.60 (1.48) 1.48 (0.39) 1.40 (0.37) 0.68 (0.18) 2.00 (0.53)
41 SC IV See Delaware (See Note)
42 SD VIII Rn Paint Plants
43 15 IV 20.33 (5.37) 5.45 (1.44) 3.15 (1.36) 2.50 (0.66) 7.22 (1.91)
44 Tx VI 167.49 (44.25) 45.00 (11.89) 42.21 (11.17) 20.67 (5.46) 59.30 (15.72)
45 UT VIII See Idaho (See Note)
46 VT I See Maine (See Note)
47 VA II I 23.35 (6.17) 6.28 (1.66) 5.90 (1.56) 2.88 (0.76) 8.29 (2.19)
48 WA x 21.65 (5.72) 5.83 (1.54) 5.45 (1.44) 2.69 (0.71) 7.68 (2.03)
49 WV II I See Delaware (See Note)
50 VI V 39.44 (10.42) 10.60 (2.80) 9.95 (2.63) 4.88 (1.29) 14.00 (3.70)
51 VT VIII No Paint Plants
NATIONAL 2975.54 (786.09) 799.40 (211.20) 751.28 (198.49) 367.36 (97.08) 983.19 (259.77)
EPA REGIONS 1 70.22 (18.55) 18.52 (4.89) 17.72 (4.68) 8.66 (2.29) 24.94 (6.50)
II 473.24 (124.04) 127.21 (33.61) 119.49 (31.57) 58.44 (15.44) 168.10 (44.41)
III 247.97 (65.48) 70.77 (18.70) 66.64 (17.59 35.6? (9.42) 74.89 (19.77)
IV 385.17 (101.83) 106.92 (28.23) 100.12 (26.50) 48 ‘5 (12.63) 129.88 (34.47)
V 915.58 (257.73) 262.23 (59.28) 246.27 (65.07) 120.48 (31.83) 346.52 (91.55)
170.28 (44.95) 50.01 (13.20) 47.08 (12.43) 22.46 (5.93) 50.73 (13.39)
VI I 173.20 (45.87) 46.66 (12.33) 43.87 (11.59) 20.97 (5.67) 61.70 (16.30)
VIII 15.86 (4.20) 4.62 (1.21) 4.34 (1.15) 2.07 (0.55) 4.83 (1.28)
IX 355.90 (94.00) 102.47 (27.10) 96.34 (25.43) 45.96 (12.13) 111.13 (29.34)
X 34.36 (9.07) 9.99 (2.64) 9.41 (2.48) 4.49 (1.19) 10.47 (2.76)
NOTE: W1INRELD (BY CENSUS) TO AVOID DISCLOS INC FIGURE FOR INDIVIDUAL CG!PANIES.
-------
Approximately 367 kkl (97 million gal.) of industrial and non—industrial
lacquers were made in 1972. The quantities of putly and miscellaneous
products manufactured were not readily available fron census data or
other reliable sources.
PAiNT AND COATINGS MANUFACTURING WASTES C}1ARACTER ZATTON
Introduction
This section characterizes the wastes of the paint and coatings in—
dustry destined for land disposal in terms of: sources, constituents,
quantities, and potentially hazardous nature. The criteria for deter-
mining the hazardous or non—hazardous nature of a waste stream are set
forth and the rationale for selecting this approach over other alterna-
tive criteria is presented.
The term “waste stream” is used to designate a source of waste
generated within a paint plant. There are, however, no “waste streams”
in paint plants in the usual sense of a continuous process stream. This
is essentially a mixing Industry, the processes of which do not In them-
selves create wastes. The wastes derive from raw materials packaging,
finished products which must be discarded, air and water pollution
control residues, and solvents used to clean equipment. Because of
this, use of the term “process waste” is avoided in this report since
it is misleading nomenclature in this industry.
The major components which in some combination form various types
of paints and coatings — — pigments, binders, and solvents —— are dis—
cusscd along with the additives used to impart special properties. The
term “solvents” embraces both organic solvents and water, the latter
providing the solvent or diluent for many modern paints.
There are thousands of raw materials which can interchangeably
serve the functions of these basic components. Legal restraints on
the use of lead and mercury compounds are also set forth.
The manufacturing processes employed by the industry are detailed
and process flow diagrams are introduced. The curre .it quantities
of waste generated, which in this industry are more closely related
to product manufactured than to the process used, are calculated from
plant survey data on three bases:
1. Total waste
2. Total potentially hazardous waste
3. Total amount of hazardous constituents
These are extrapolated to state, EPA region, and national totals.
Future production trends and raw material changes in the industry
are taken into account in projecting waste totals for 1977 and 1983.
55
-------
Tables give quantities of total wastes since there is presently no
segregation of hazardous and non—hazardous waste in this industry.
Criteria for the Determination of a Potentially Hazardous Waste
There are many definitions of “hazardous materials” in use today.
They are variously designed for application in implementing the Clean
Air Act, the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Worker’s Compensation Act, and
Department of Transportation regulations. Others are built into pend-
ing legislation on solid waste disposal and still others have been
adopted for purposes of EPA studies similar to this one but relating to
other industries (35). The two considerations, stated or implied, most
cotmuon to all of them are the potential for acute or chronic adverse
effects. This concept is also inherent in the hazardous c:lteria
applied throughout this report.
Five basic categories of hazardous characteristics of materials
were established by EPA’s Report to Congress, Disposal of Hazardous
Waste (16), submitted in accordance with the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
They are: toxic chemical, flammable, radioactive, explosive, and
biological. The characteristics of materials used in the paint in-
dustry which may be classified as hazardous fall, so far as is known,
within the first two categories. There are no radioactive or explo-
sive raw materials used in the manufacture of paint and any biological
activity in discarded paint wastes amounts to a simple fermentation
process.
It was concluded, therefore, that the measure of toxicity and
flammability provided the most direct means of defining substances as
hazardous or non—hazardous insofar as this industry is concerned. As
more data are developed on other complex effects —— bioconcentration,
reactivity, and genetic change, for example —— which might occur as a
result of the improper disposal of paint manufacturing wastes, these
definitions may require revision.
Toxicity
The first criterion applied to a paint raw material in determining
its hazardous nature was the measure of its toxicity. The following
toxic effects which may occur in an acute and/or chronic form and
jeopardize the health and welfare of humans and the safety and propaga-
tion of terrestrial or aquatic life forms were considered:
Oral toxicity
Inhalation toxicity
Dermal penetration toxicity
Dermal irritation reaction
Aquatic toxicity
Phytotoxicity
56
-------
For purposes of this study, oral toxicity was accepted as the basis for
defining a toxic substance because there are generally much more data
available to support published conclusions based on this parameter.
A major toxicological reference work, Clinical Tcxicology of Com-
mercial Products (1) was adopted for use in the criteria for determining
the toxic, and thus potentially hazardous, nature of a material. This
volume rates the toxicity of various compounds used in industry on a
scale of 1 to 6. This numerical rating represents toxic levels from
“practically non—toxic” to “super toxic” and is shown in Table 13. The
implications and limitations which should be taken into account in using
the table are outlined in Appendix C.
This volume (authored by Gleason, Gosselin, lodge, and Smith) is
generally accepted and is the most comprehenisve publication found. How-
ever, in selec-ting its rating system for use in this study, certain de-
ficiencies, in this particular application, were recognized. It does
not in all cases agree with the findings of other equally reputable
researchers; and, in a few instances, a relevant compound is assigned
different ratings in different portions of the book. The difference is
between the estimate of toxicity of a product as it is marketed and the
inherent toxicity of a single ingredient. The fc’ mer is considered the
more realistic in terms of clinical exposure and where conflicts occur
is the one presented here.
Such deficiencies are not confined to this volume alone and in
general are true of the body of toxicological literature which was
searched. It is replete with descriptions and documentation of the tox-
icity of the elemental parent substances. But reliable information on
certain specific compounds used by the paint industry is sparse or
apparently non—existent on some compounds which have only recently come
into use, and multiple references are frequently in conflict with one
another.
The most serious deficiency of the literature for purposes of this
project is that it is nearly all occupationally or laboratory oriented.
The result is that toxic effects documented are responses to higher con-
centrations than levels which could be expected to accrue from deposi-
tion of relatively small quantities of these substances in a landfill.
Few epideiniological facts are available and within the scope of this
project, information developed on the basis of occup tiona1 or labora-
tory exposure must be substituted.
It was decided that Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products (1)
offered a source of data which is essentially a compilation of data de-
veloped from a much broader selection of material than could be researched
and evaluated within the project schedule. Its uidespread acceptance
also supported the adoption of its toxicity ratings as the yardstick of
toxicity in determining the hazardous nature of individual materials.
57
-------
TABLE 13
DEFINITION OF TOXICITY RATING (1)
In
6 —
5 —
JI. 1
0=
3 —
2 —
TOXICITY RATING OR CLASS
.
PROBABLE
LETHAL DOSE (HUMAN)
mg/k ___
for 70-kg man (150—ib)
super toxic
extremely toxic
4—verytoxic
moderately toxic
a taste (less than 7 drops)
between 7 drops & 1 tsp.
betweenltsp&loz.
between 1 oz & 1 pt (or 1 lb.)
between 1 Pt & 1 qt
less
5 —
500 —
5 —
than 5
50
5 gm/kg
15 gm/kg
slightly toxic
1 —
practically non—toxic
above
15 gm/kg
more than 1 qt
N
-------
A rating of 3 on this scale is “moderately toxic.” This rating
means, according to Gleason, et al., that a dose of between 0.03 liters
(1 oz) and 0.5 liters (1 Pt) or 0.5 kg (1 ib) of a subsLance with this
rating would probably be lethal to a 70—kg (150—ib) man; one—tenth of
this dose might be expected to result in a “clinically significant
illness.” In this report, any material with a toxictty rating of 3 or
above is defined as potentially hazardous.
This is a conservative approach and is based more on unknown fac-
tors than known ones. It may result in the classification of some
compounds as toxic which, because of their own individual physical or
chemical characteristics —— insolubility, particle size, or degree of
purity —— may or may not share the extreme toxicity of their parent
elements. In addition, ascribing certain toxic .ffects to substances
encapsulated in resins or resinous materials is not necessarily an
accurate gauge of their toxic effects in a landfill. However, in view
of the unknow is of their behavior under all environmental conditions
including synergism or inhibition, the narrower criterion of a 4 or
above rating seems unwise.
In the absence of a rating by Gleason, et al., data were sought
from other literature sources on the materials used by surveyed plants
which contain one or more of the substances listed On Page 99 and
those found were used where necessary. Such compounds on which no
expert consensus of non—toxicity was found in Gleason or elsewhere are
considered to be at least moderately toxic and thus potentially hazard-
ous for purposes of this study.
The rating of 3 embraces numerous materials whose toxic effects
may be reduced somewhat by exposure in the open air, especially solvents.
These flammable materials are volatile and can evaporate to a large ex-
tent if they are spread over the ground. However, part of the solvents
can seep into the ground, posing a potential hazard due to flammability
or contamination of groundwater supplies.
Wastes containing only constituents with ratings of 2 or 1 are
considered non—hazardous from a toxicity standpcint. It was concluded
that a base line rating of 2 or 1 is without justification, from
either a margin of safety or an economic point of view. Circumstan-
ces in which one subject would ingest or otherwise receive sufficient
quantities of substances in these classes from the land, ambient air,
or water to generate toxic effects are not envisioned.
Flammability
The second criterion applied to the raw materials of paint in de—
termining their hazardous nature was the measure of flammability. Any
substance with a flash point of 27°C (80°F) or iess as measured by the
Tag Open Tester is deemed potentially hazardous. This is the limit
59
-------
which has been used by the Department of Transportation to des nate
the hazardous flammable solvents which require a red l be1 warning.
(Since the data for this study were gathered, this limit has beei raised
to 38°C (100°F).
The application of the measure of flammability to organic 3olvents
is quite precise. This information is widely available in chemical and
supplier literature. The flash point of mixed solvents is not s well
established although a new test procedure has been developed (11). For
purposes of this study, however, any mixture of organic solvEnt 3 con-
taining material with a flash point of 27°C (80°F) or below s onsid—
ered potentially hazardous.
It will be noted that in subsequent discussions and tables on quan-
tities of potentially hazardous wastes, they are divided into toxic
chemical and hazardous solvent categories. This is done to tdeiitify
separ.itely the quantities of flammable substances to be dealt w th in
disposal, although they may also fall within the toxic characteyizatjon
as well. This is explained more fully in ensuing pages.
Definition of Potentially Hazardous Waste Streams
A waste stream generated within a paint plant is, for purpo;es of
this study, defined as a potentially hazardous waste if it cont,tins or
may contain, according to production, one or more materials def .ned as
toxic and/or flammable according to the above criteria. This broad
definition lacks precision. However, it was the alternative ch’sen
over others which appeared less environmentally adequate. For !xamp1e,
if a criterion were applied based on the percentage level of to ic
or flammable constituents, materials could theoretically be ren’ ered
non—hazardous by dilution since the concentration of hazardous ‘onstitu—
ents may vary over a wide range in common practice. Such a conmept is
not acceptable, however, as dilute constituents may be concentr ted
during handling or Incineration or after disposal in a landfill A
human experience criterion was likewise discarded because while there
may be no recorded evidence of morbidity or mortality effects resulting
from the constituents of a given waste stream, neither is there any docu-
mented evidence to the contrary. Within the scope of this projcct, the
contractor is not prepared to estimate the alternative probabiLities.
Any attempt to use either of these two criteria or a combination of
both would be seriously hampered by several additional factor ;. A major
one is the scarcity of correlation in the literature between cori:eri—
trations of materials and morbidity and mortality data. Most fri—
quently an episode —— ranging from simple irritation to death —-- is
described without reference to the amount of the compound which
engendered it. In the few cases where this information is given on
60
-------
paint raw materials, the concentrations are in a]inost all instances
those attendant to the manufacture of the raw material or to other long
time, intimate exposure to high indoor indu8trial atmospheric concen-
trations of several hundred to several thousand parts per million,
levels which viii not be reached in the ambient air as a result of dis-
posing of small quantities of wastes on land. In addition, as discussed
previously in connection with toxicological informatiox, relevant mor-
bidity and mortality references are often in conflict and they offer
little in the way of substantiation (38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46,
47).
Another inhibiting factor in the use of constituent percentage or
human health criteria for defining a waste stream as potentially hazard-
ous or non—hazardous is that while some of the compounds used in paint
might be considered non—hazardous In the form employed, the possibility
exists that they will be changed into other, highly toxic compounds in
the disposal environment. In view of all the foregoing circumstances,
the broader definition is preferred.
It should be noted that this definition embraces coatings which account
for a large percentage of the industry’s production, yet which are only
assigned a toxicity rating of 2 as finished products (1). These include
latex interior and exterior paints and some lacquers and anti—corrosion
paints. This Is dictated, however, by the potential presence of mercury
as an additive in these products, and the fact that they are seldom seg-
regated from other waste streams in disposal.
Manufacturing Processes
The production of all types of coatings is accomp 1 .ished by mixing,
a process which can be achieved in several ways, any of which Is rela-
tively simple compared to the complexity of many other Industrial technol-
ogies. While some paint manufacturers produce their own resins or other
raw materials, this study is concerned only with the potentially hazardous
waste generated by the production of paint itself as defined by SIC 285.
Thus, this process description assumes that the final product is made
entirely of purchased raw materials. However, the data generated by
the plant surveys no doubt include, in some cases, wastes from resin
manufacture since they are not always segregated.
The type of equipment used in paint production depends upon the
ease with which mixing can be achieved. This process includes the
breaking up of aggregates of solid particles (18) and the wetting of
solid surfaces by the liquids. Grinding may also be employed depending
on the form In which the pigment is received. It is necessary to re-
duce the particle size of some pigments by grinding and others can be
incorporated into the binder or vehicle without grinding. Most pig-
ments today fall into the latter category. The need for grinding has
61
-------
1so been diminfslicd by the development of more effectivc wetting
1gt. II t
The equipment used is also governed by the product formulation.
Many formulations can be processed on more than one type of equipmE’ t
although or some formulations one type mill is distinctly super: ox to
another in effecting dispersion.
The sniount of mixing needed to produce a suitable dispersion oE
pigmented materials depends upon the ingredients. Some pigments, .sich
as red lead and aluminum powder, will disperse in certain liquid:; with
only enough stirring to assure a uniform distribution. At the oi.her
extreme, some carbon blacks are so difficult to disperse and wet pry—
perly that few paint plants undertake the job, preferring to purchase
pre—dispersed materials from companies specializing in that work.
The qarious mixing machines used include roller mills, ball ox
pebble mills, sand mills, a few high—speed stone mills, and a vavie y
of simple mixers such as stirrers and Banbury mixers. Each of the
has itsown characteristics, which deter nine, in specific cases, which
ones are ised.
If dispersion alone is required a roller mill may be utilized.
The three-roll mill, consisting of three rotating cylindrical drums, is
most commDn, and requires premixing of the materials to be disperse!
(18).
Pebble and ball mills are capable of both mixing and grinding.
Their se is dwindling with reduced grinding requirements. Dispersion
in these devices is achieved by the tumbling action of steel balls Ln
the latter and non—metallic media, such as natural flint pebbles or
porcelain balls, in pebble mills.
The 1ewest dispersion equipment is the sand mill, a perpendicuLar,
cylindrical shell containing sand or small porcelain balls as itt;
grinding media. While this process is a Continuous operation, ii:, :oo,
requires remixing and a batch tank for this purpose is integral to the
process (18).
High-speed disc impellers, which resemble milk shake mixers or
home—type blenders, are used to some extent for pigments in which t e
particles are easily separated and which can be dispersed in coarser
form. Th se devices are employed primarily for interior and exteri )r
wall paints. Certain products such as putty are mixed in machines
similar t ’ commercial dough mixers, or in such mixers themselves
When tinting or thinning is required, these steps immediatcly pre-
cede the packaging step. Tinting pigments are almost always predi;persed,
and a hi h—spced disc impeller or other mechanical stirring device is
usually employed.
62
-------
In the manufacture of clear finishes with no pigment, the disper-
sion step is not needed. Only enough stirring to a sure a uniform mix
of resin solution (or varnish), thinners, and additives Is required.
The various types of equipment have other characteristic differ-
ences. These include the amount of supervision needed —— pebble nulls,
for example, are often allowed to operate over—night unattended —— the
rate of through—put, the fineness of pigment dispersion achieved, the
temperature reached during the operation (some pigments and vehicles
are heat—sensitive), and other factors. The choice of the proper
machine to achieve desired results is one of the major functions of a
plant manager.
At the end of the process he paint is packaged in cans —— from
0.1 liter (1/4 pint) up to 7.6 liters (2 gal.) —— pails of 18.9 and
27.8 liters (5 and 10 gal.), or steel drums of up to 208 liters (55
gal.). A few large scale manufacturers deliver some products to large
customers in 11,000—liter (3000—gal.) tank trucks. In the smaller
plants, all filling is done by hand, but in most plants cans are filled
automatically. Pails, drums, and tank trucks are almost always filled
manually.
(A Task Force of the NPCA and a Committee of the Federation of
Societies for Coating Technology (FSCT) are discussing container sizes
to be adopted in the future. These will undoubtedly be round numbers
based on the liter, but several points remain to be resolved.)
There are many variations in the above practices, determined by
the equipment available, customer requirements, and ther factors.
Some plants may manufacture some of their raw materials, and others
will purchase partially finished products for finishing and repacking
in their plants.
Formulations
A plant producing a relatively complete line of paints, including
factory—applied coatings, may utilize between 1500 nd 5000 different
raw materials depending on the size of the manufacturing operations.
This is explained to a large degree by the fact that the formulation of
any paint or coating is a compromise among the various properties that
users want or require. Since these characteristics vary in compatibil-
ity some kind of “trade—off” is usually necessary.
A simple case can be illustrated by conventional flat wall paints.
These should be washable, so that dirt and stains can be removed with-
out difficulty r damage to the paint coat, and, at the same time, the
paint should have the highest possible hiding power, so that any back-
ground can be covered in one coat. These two properties are essentially
imconipatibie —— the higher the pigment content is, the better the
hiding power will be, and the higher the vehicle content, the better
the washability. Each paint formulator makes his paint with an eye to
the balance of these two which he feels his customers prefer.
63
-------
In addition, he must consider brushability, color, color retention,
drying Lime, gloss, etc. Since each of these combinations may be
achieved by different sets of raw materials, it is no wonder that dif-
ferent formulators utilize different raw materials to make essentially
the same final product and thus lengthen the list of chemicals used.
Other constraints are placed on factory—applied coatings which will
be used on established production lines. A proposed coating must be
adapted to the application method used —— a spray gun or other device ——
and must flow out, level, and dry within the time limit provided by the
production line, in some cases only a few seconds. In addition, many
commercial uses demand a specific color within a very close tolerance.
After such specialized requirements are met, often with specific raw
materials, the formulation is adjusted to achieve the best combination
of other properties.
Some typical formulas are given in Table 14 to illustrate the way
in which the formulations may be changed to achieve: 1) variations in
gloss for an interior alkyd; 2) variations in floor finishes ranging
from a clear varnish to an oak stain to a brown enamel; and 3) varia-
tions in a clear and pigmented lacquer in shades of blue. Composition
is given in percent by weight of each ingredient. Certain minor
ingredients such as anti—settling agents, fungicides, and levelling
agents are omitted. The kind and amount of these used can vary widely
depending upon specific end use of the product and they do not affect
the principle illustrated. The amounts are always less than one percent.
Industry Subcategories
Solvent—thinned Trade Sales Paints
Manufacturing Processes
A typical flow diagram of the manufacture of solvent—thinned trade
sales paints is shown in Figure 3. Possible variations in equipment
used and the particular ingredients are determined by the specific pro-
duct being manufactured, the available equipment, and other factors.
Roller mills and sand mills are used for pigment dispersion while peb-
ble or ball mills are used for mixing and grinding. The use of high
speed disc impellers in conventional mixing tanks is also popular.
Typical Formulation
A typical formulation for a white gloss interior enamel is given
in Figure 4. Light colors, or tints, are produced by adding color
pigment to the titanium dioxide. As an alternative, many manufacturers
make the white base and supply dispersed tinting colors so that the
64
-------
TABLE 14
TYPICAL FORMULATION CHANGES TO ACHIEVE
A VARIETY OF COATINGS
(PERCENTAGE BY WEIGHT)
Typical Alkyd Finishes
Flat
Titanium dioxide 30.0 25.0 20.0
Extenders 10.0 25.0
Alkyd solids 40.0 30.0 19.0
Solvents 28.0 33.5 35.0
Driers 2.0 1.5 1.0
100.0 100.0 100.0
Typical Floor Finishes
Clear Oak Stain Brown Pnasniel
Yellow iron oxide 5.0
Brown iron oxide 20.0
Extenders 5.0
Resin solids 50.0 28.0 40.0
Solvents 47.5 60.0 38.0
Driers 2.5 2.0 - 2.0
100.0 100.0 100.0
Typical Lacquers
Clear Dk.Blue Lt.Blue White
Titanium dioxide 3.0 10.0 12.5
Blue pigment 2.0 1.0
Nitrocellulose 12.5 10.0 10.0 10.0
Resin/plasticizer 12.5 10.0 10.0 10.0
Solvents 75.0 75.0 69.0 67.5
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
65
-------
‘PIGMENT AND
EXTENDER
I [ STORAGE
I _____
I STORAGE MIXERS
OIL HIGH SPEED
I ____________________________________________ ____________________________________________ _______________________ ______________________
I RESIN BALL OR _______________ ____
I {HINNING I PACKAGING
I STORAGE PEBBLE MILLf. AND TINTING( I OPERATION
TANKS ___________
I I L _ _ l
I ______ ______ I _______ _______
I PLASTICIZER PREMIXING I SAND
____ BATCHES
I OR SPOILED
‘,D
STORAGE }‘ •‘ [ TANKS ROLLER MILLSt TO DISPOSAL
I _____ __ __ i I
r I CLEANING I
I ADDITIVES I SOLVENT TO I
AGE I RECLAIMING I
I STOR bR DISPOSAL
I ___________________________________________________________
SOLVENT _________________________________________
STORAGE
IBAGS & DUST
TO
DISPOSAL
FIGURE 3
SOLVENT-THINNED PAINT MANUFACTURING FLOW DIAGRAM
-------
FIGURE 4
TYPICAL SOLVENT-THINNED PAINT FORMULATION
COMPOS IT ION
MATERIAL WEIGHT PERCENT VOLUME PERCENT
PIGMENT:
TITANIUM DIOXIDE 29 9
SOLVENT:
MINERAL SPIRITS 15 22
RESIN:
LONG OIL,TALL OIL ALKYD (70%NVM) 52 65
ADDITIVES:
SUSPENSION AND FLOW AGENT
-------
retailer can add pigment at the point of sale to make the color the
customer desires and avoid large inventories. Darker colors involve
the substitution of the appropriate color pigment for some or all of
the titanium dioxide. Semi—gloss and fla t paints are obtained by in-
creasing the ratio of pigment to vehicle. Since more hiding power is
not normally required, the pigment is usually supplemented with trans-
parent extender pigments (talc, calcium carbonate, etc.)
Other resins may be substituted for alkyds to achieve specific
desired properties. Epoxy resins contribute adhesion and chemical
resistance and are often used in floor and deck enamela, for example.
Urethane resins contribute abrasion ‘resistance and are frequently used
in coatings where a high degree of washability is required. Acrylic
resins have excellent color retention, and, in particular, resist
yellowing. Each of these resins represents a group of materials with
a range of properties so these descriptions are only generalities. Any
paint ingredient has drawbacks, as well as advantages, and part of the
art of formulation is to bland various ingredients to achieve the larg-
est number of benefits and the smallest number of disadvantages.
Exterior paints usually contain either a straight drying oil (lin-
seed, soybean, or safflower) or a different alkyd resin from that used
in interior paints (generally a higher oil content).
In addition to the above there are many other solvent—thinned trade
sales products which do not fit into the “typical formula” even with
modifications. These include clear coatings and stains, and the formu-
lations for which are illustrated in Table 14. Others are marine paints,
traffic paints, metallic paints, and numerous special products.
Water—thinned Trade Sales Paints
Manufacturing Processes
A typical flow diagram of the manufacture of water—thinned trade
sales paints is shown in Figure 5. The factors governing the selection
of equipment are much the same as those for solvent—thinned trade sales
paints. The principal difference between the two operations is that in
water—thinned paints often all, or most, of the resin (latex) is with-
held from the mechanical dispersion operation, since many latexes will
be destabilized by this process. In general, the pigment is dispersed
in water along with additives such as emulsifiers which will help to
wet the pigment. The bulk of the latex, other additives, and additional
water, if required, will then be added in the thinning tank. if pre—
dispersed pigments are used, as is the case where pigments are purchased
in bulk as a slurry, the entire dispersion operation is dispensed with,
and all the mixing is done in the thinning tank.
Some water—thinned paints are made by making a more—or—less con-
ventional solvent—thinned paint with less than the usual amount of
68
-------
FIGURE 5
WATER-THINNED PAINT MANUFACTURING FLOW DIAGRAM
-------
solvent and emulsifying with water after manufactu c. This is fbi coin—
mon today. In another variation of waler—thinned painis, linseed oil
or varnish vehicle is utilized which contains little or no water. This
is treated, however, so that it is water—emulsifiable and the paint carL
be thinned with water, and brushes and other tools can be cleaned with
water. This type of formulation has not had wide—spread use.
Typical Formulation
Figure 6 shows a typical water—thinned interior formulation. As
has been discussed previously, the choice of the kind and amount of pig-
ment and extender is determined by the color, gloss, and other proper-
ties desired. The latex used may be polyvinyl acetate, as in the
example, or, alternatively, an acrylic or butadiene—styrene emulsion.
Increasingly, there is a tendency to use copolymers or terpolymers of
several different monomers, in the hope of incorporating the virtues of
several materials into one product.
In the case of trade sales products, solvents are rarely incorpo-
rated as such, but appear as significant parts of the various additives.
Antifreezes are essentially organic solvents, a- are many antifoarns.
Dispersants, fungicides, and thickeners are often dispersed in organic
solvents as purchased. Exterior latex paints are usually made from
acrylic or polyvinyl acetate latexes and usually with a 1ifferent grade
of titanium dioxide to control chalking. Most latex paints dry to a flat
finish, but recently semi—gloss latexes have been developed. These
usually have less pigment and less extender. Additives to improve flow
and levelling are usually also included.
Lacquers
Manufacturing Processes
Figure 7 shows a flow diagram for a typical plant manufacturing
nitrocellulose lacquer. Some operators purchase pre—dispersed pigments,
in which case the dispersion step can be eliminated. Clear lacquers,
of course, do not contain pigments, and all the ingredients are fed
into the batch mixing tank. Lacquers are usually expected to produce
a thin, uniform coating and, therefore, all large particles, either of
pigments or agglomerations of “seeds” from the vehicle, must be removed.
A centrifuge may be used for clear lacquers or, alternatively, filter-
ing may be employed to remove this suspended material. Centrifuging is
rarely used for pigmented materials, since the pigments are usually
heavier than the vehicle and will separate, regardless of size.
Typical Formulation
Figure 8 gives a typical formulation for a clear nitrocellulose
lacquer. Opaque and colored lacquers are obtained by adding suitable
pigments as shown in Table 14. Since opaque and colored lacquers are
70
-------
FIGURE 6
TYPICAL WATER-THINNED PAINT FORMULATION
COMPOSITION
MATERIAL WEIGHT PERCENT VOLUME PERCENT
PIGMENT AND EXTENDER:
TITANIUM DIOXIDE 21 7
CLAY 17 9
SOLVENT:
WATER 20 28
RESIN:
VINYL ACETATE 38 51
ADDITIVES:
DISPERSANTS 2 3
ANTIFREEZE I 2
THICKENER
-------
MI X I NG
DRY -‘p1 TANK
I [ STORAGE BALL OR I
IPEBBLE MILL
r————- PIGMENT _________ I
RESIN
STORAGE I
ROLLER I
{ FILTERS
I 0 MILL __________
____________ BATCH ___________
________ __________________ PACKAGING
MIXING
I H _____
____________ ____________ OPERATION
TANK S
I __________ __________
I I
I CELLULOSE ICENTRIFUGES ]
MAGAZINE ____________ ___________
I CLEANING
___ _ j
I __________ I SOLVENT TO I
IREPROCESSING I - ——
I ‘ PLASTICIZE ____________
FOR DISPOSAL I SPOILED
R TO DISPOSAL
LSTORAGE
BATCHES
SOLVENT
STO RAGE
I ____________________________________________
I ____________________________________________
I DILUENT
I STORAGE
BAGS a DUSTJ
TO
I DISPOSAL I
FIGURE 7
LACQUER MANUFACTURING FLOW DIAGRAM
-------
required to bide in a very thin film, extenders are rarely used, except
in semi—transparent or translucent materials.
Lacquers, by definition, are coatings that dry solely by evaporation
of the solvent. Nitroceilu].ose is the traditional resin used, but in
recent years other resins such as solvent—thinned vinyl and acrylic resins
have been used extensively. In both these resins, blends may be used to
produce a wide range of hardness and flexibility. In effect, the plasti-
cizer is incorporated in the resin and an additional plasticizer may not
be needed. With resins other then nitrocellulose, the clear—cut distinc-
tion between “solvent” and “diluent” disappears. Blends of two or more
solvents are often used to obtain the evaporation rate and other proper-
ties desired, but it is difficult to classify them separately as either
solvents of diluents.
Certain other coatings, such as shellac varniuh and some bituminous
coatings, also dry entirely by solvent evaporation, but are rarely re—
f erred to as lacquers. They are, however, manufactured essentially
according to the flow diagram given in Figure 7.
Factory—Applied Coatings
Manufacturing Process
There is almost no difference in the manufacturing process between
most industrial paints and trade sales solvent—thinned paints. What
difference there is tends to be quantitative rather than qualitative.
For example, since industrial paints generally dry more rapidly, and,
therefore, use lower boiling solvents, more of them are made in closed
mills to reduce solvent loss. These include ball or pebble mills, or
sand mills, as opposed to three—roll mills, high—speed mixers, and
other open mills. A typical flow diagram of the manufacture of factory—
applied coatings is shown in Figure 9.
Formulations
No typical formulation is given for industrial finishes, since over
5000 different formulas are used in conventional products, and it is
doubtful that any one of them represents a significant portion of the
total . In fact, many of these products are tailored to a particular
assembly line on which they are to be used, and any change in that line
may call for coating reformulation.
However, a few formulations are given in Figure 10 to show some
general principles and the types of hazardous materials which may be
used. Differences between these formulations and solvent—thinned trade
sales products tend to be quantitative rather than qualitative. Lower
boiling solvents are often used in factory—applied finishes, and there-
fore the fire hazard may be greater. Many industrial coatings are
cured by baking, and require less drier. Therefore, the amount of
73
-------
FIGURE 8
TYPICAL LACQUER FORMULATION
COMPOSITION
MATERIAL WEIGHT PERCENT VOLUME PERCENT
FILM FORMING MATERIAL:
NITROCELLULOSE 22 10
ALKYD RESIN 5 6
PLASTICIZER:
TRICRESYL PHOSPHATE II 10
SOLVENTS;
METHYL ETHYL KETONE 6 8
METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE 6 8
BUTYL ALCOHOL 3 3
ISOPROPYL ALCOHOL 3 4
DILUENTS:
TOLUENE 33 37
ACETONE II 14
100 100
74
-------
r
-J I
U I
a
FIGURE 9
1
CLEANING
SOLVENT TO
RECLAIMING
OR DISPOSAL
/
BAGS & DUST
TO
DISPOSAL
FACTORY—APPLIED COATtNG MANUFACTURING FLOW DIAGRAM
-------
FIGURE 10
FACTORY-APPLIED COATINGS FORMULATIONS
Weight Percent Volume Percent
INDUSTRIAL BAKING ENAMEL:
Titanium dioxide, Rutile 28 8
Alkyd resin, 50% solids 42 51
Urea resin, 50% solids 14 17
Xylene 16 24
100 100
EPOXY CLEAR COATING:
Tall oil, epoxy ester, 50% solids 72
Melamine resin solution, 50% solids 8
Catalyst, 10% solids 1
Xy lene 13
Butanol 6
100
FAST BAKING BROWN OXIDE PRIMER:
Brown iron oxide 44 12
Modified phenolic varnish 0 -) 42 66
Urea resin, 60% solids 6 8
VM and P naphtha 6 12
6% manganese naphthenate 1 1
24% lead naphthenate 1 1
100 100
Note: (1) Modified phenolic varnish composition:
Modified phenolic resin 100 lbs.
Tung oil 12.5 gal.
Bodied linseed oil 12.5 gal.
Mineral spirits 46 gal.
76
-------
cobalt, lead, and manganese is likely to be lower in industrial coatings.
Fewer lead pigments are also used in factory—applied coatings. Other-
wise, the content of toxic metal compounds will be determined by the
color required, and will be similar to that of trade sales products.
Powder Coatings
The large scale manufacture of powder coatings for industrial use
is relatively new and many of the manufacturing details remain proprie-
tary. Fundamentally, the process consists of the dispersion of suitable
pigments in a thermo—plastic resin with a fairly high melting point.
The resin must be liquefied for this purpose, which may be done by heat-
ing or by dissolving in a small amount of a strong solvent.
When heat is employed, the mixture is chilled after dispersion and
reduced to suitable particle size by grinding. This heating—chilling
process, shown in Figure Li, is a closed system which should produce no
waste. The ground pigment is passed through a classifier from which
over—size particles are returned to the grinder and under—size particles
are heated again and returned to the mixer. Pigment bags and dust from
additive storage are, in theory, the only process wastes generated.
The use of a solvent is probably a less common method of powder
coatings manufacture. This procedure also utilizes a closed system and
should in theory have no waste with all unused materials being returned
to process according to the manufacturers.
Since a suitable resin is absolutely essential to a satisfactory
product, powder coating manufacture is often carried out as an adjunct
to resin manufacture, and any wastes that do occur, in fact, are usually
combined with other wastes of the resin manufacturing operation and are
outside the scope of this report.
Putty and Miscellaneous Paint Products
Hanufacturing Process
Practically all putty is made by a process similar to the mixing
of dough in a bakery or in the home. Either a heavy roller passes
over the mixture, which is gathered together and folded over for the
next pass, or else a slowly rotating mixing arm (or arms) mixes the
pigment and binder. It is mixed only to the point of desired
consistency. Figure 12 shows a flow diagram of a typical putty manu-
facturing operation, and probably describes more than 90 percent of
theni.
The general class of miscellaneous materials which are part of the
total production of the paint industry is sufficiently diverse in
77
-------
I 03
‘BAGS & DUST
TO
DISPOSAL
FIGURE 1 ].
POWDER COATINGS MANUFACTURING FLOW DIAGRAM
- Ov
-------
PIGMENT
I STORAGE
VEHICLE
I STORAGE
I J MIXING J PACKAGING
I __________ TANK OPERATION
I SOLVENT
STORAGE
ADDITIVES _______
STORAGE p
BAGS & DUST
TO
DISPOSAL
FIGURE 12
PUTTY MANUFACT1JRU G FLOW DIAGRAM
-------
nature from one product to another to preclude useful discussion here.
It includes several hundred different products, no one of which consti-
tutes as much as 10 percent of the total miscellaneous products. A
fairly large proportion of these materials derives from repackaging
already manufactured products, possibly with some thinning or tinting.
In some cases, the products are manufactured and packaged by some other
company, under the label of the seller, and the seller acts merely as
an agent. Many aerosol products are handled In this fashion. Most of
these operations do not lend themselves to flow diagrams.
Typical Formulation
A typical putty formulation is shown in Figure 13. The only real
difference between putties and calking compounds Is in the consistency.
Calking compound, which is usually thinner In consistency, is normally
applied with a calking gun, while a knife is utilized for putty. Less
solvent and frequently no drier Is used in calking compound. In the
past, putty was often made from calcium carbonate and linseed oil, and,
occasionally, white lead. The latter was added to produce a harder
putty, but this practice has been discontinued. Today mineral oil has
to a large extent replaced linseed oil in “commercial putty” since this
makes it very easy to apply and is favored by commercial glaziers. How-
ever, this formulation remains very soft indefinitely and is easily
marred.
There are no “typical” formulations for sufficient quantities of
miscellaneous paint products to serve a useful purpose here.
Waste Sources
As noted earlier, the processes used in manufacturing paints do not
in themselves create wastes. However, there are five principal sources
of process wastes. They are (a) raw materials packaging; Lb) sludges
from water pollution control equipment; (c) solids from air pollution
control equipment; (d) discarded finished products and spills; and
(e) wash solvents.
These are discussed In this order in this portion of the report.
However, in the subsequent section on waste quantities, data on wash sol-
vents and wastewater sludges are combined and information on discarded
waste products Is broken down Into spoiled batches and spills. Reasons
for this presentation will be set forth In introducing the tables on
waste quantities.
All of these wastes are batch wastes. The only one which can be
related in quantity to the amount of product produced Is raw materials
packaging since the amount Is essentially proportional.
80
-------
FIGURE 13
TYPICAL PUTTY FORMULATION
COMPOSITION
MATERIAL WEIGHT PERCENT
PIGMENTS:
CALCIUM CARBONATE 25
CLAY 25
VEHICLE:
VEGETABLE OIL 35
SOLVENT:
MINERAL SPIRITS 10
ADDITIVES:
COBALT AND ZINC DRIER 5
100
81
-------
Raw Materials Packages
Pigments are usually supplied in 23—kg (50—ib) multi—wall paper
bags. A few large operations, particularly water—thinned paint manu-
facturers, may obtain a portion of their pigments in bulk, usually as
a water slurry, but this represents a very small part of the total.
Some expensive pigments, used in small quantities, may be delivered in
steel or plastic 19—liter (5—gal.) pails. Dry resins are usually also
supplied in paper bags. Semi—solid or liquid resins come either in
pails or 208—liter (55—gal.) steel drums. Most additives and specialty
solvents arrive in pails or drums. The commoner solvents are usually
delivered in tank wagons, directly into bulk storage. Some plants
handle oils and some resins in this manner. Containers — — pints,
quarts, gallons, etc. —— are usually wrapped in kraft or similar paper
or in transparent plastic. Many of these materials are delivered on
wooden pallets, handled by forklift trucks.
While raw materials packaging, attendant wrappings, pallets, etc.,
may account for approximately 65 percent of the total solid wastes of ,j
a paint plant, none of the packaging materials is hazardous and the
only associated potential hazard is the small amount of pigmett or other
material that is not cleaned out of a bag or other container. It has
been estimated, and confirmed by tests at two paint companies, that 28
to 56 gr (1 to 2 oz) of material remain in an emptied bag which held
23 kg (50 ib) of delivered material. When this residual material is
classified as hazardous by application of the criteria set forth in
this section, then the entire portion of the waste stream containing
it is designated as potentially hazardous. When the contents of a
container are an innocuous material such as titanium dioxide (Ti0 2 ),
that portion of this waste stream is non—hazardous.
This can be illustrated by examining the raw materials packaging
in a typical large plant producing 3,800,000 liter (1,000,000 gal.) of
paint per year —— including trade sales water— and solvent—thinned
paints and factory—applied coatings. The total bag waste (not includ-
ing wrapping, pallets, etc.) will amount to about 34 kkg (37 tons); of
this, only about 2.0 kkg (2.2 tons) will constitute a hazardous waste
stream. - This includes approximately 0.1 kkg (0.1 ton) of toxic chemi-
cal material and 1.9 kkg (2.1 ton) of bags containing this material.
The remaining 32 kkg (35 tons) is accounted for by bags containing
Ti0 2 along with clays and other innocuous extender pigments. All these
wastes are essentially dry materials with a moisture content of less
than five percent.
Segregation of the toxic and innocuous streams is rarely practiced
and therefore the hazardous constituents of the combined waste stream
are us ia1ly dilute. This will var r, however, from plant to plant and
from batch to batch in the same plant depending upon the raw materials
of the products being manufactured. For example, in a light blue paint
phthalocyanine blue, a potentially hazardous substance, may constitute
82
-------
one percent of the pigment with Tb 2 and extender pigment accounting
for the other 99 percent. The production of blue paint may, at one
time, constitute one percent or less of the total plant production.
other times, it could represent the majority of the plant’s output.
Sludges from Water Pollution Control Equipment
At
Water pollution control in paint plants usually consists of waste—
water sedimentation, sometimes aided by a floccula.it. The wastewaters
treated derive from the production of water—thinned paints which, com-
pared to solvent—thinned products, contain only a few hazardous materials.
This is particularly true of white water—based paint in which the
pigments used today are non—hazardous (mostly titanium dioxide), and
the hazardous potential consists of not more than 0.01 percent of
mercurials which may be used as a preservative and fungicide. The
sludges from colored water—based paint also contain a small amount of
pigments (up to about five percent) classed as potentially hazardous
materials.
Thus, while this waste stream is a minor one, it Is considered
potentially hazardous. In the typical plant producing 3,800,000 liters
(1,000,000 gal.) per year described above, this waste stream represents
approximately 85 kkg (94 tons) of cleanings —— 12 kkg (13 tons) dry
weight —— which contain 0.6 kkg (0.7 ton) of toxic chemical constitu-
ents.
Solids from Air Pollution Control Equipment
When air pollution control equipment is used in paint plants, it
is usually limited to an air filter. Dust accumulated from operations
such as the emptying of raw mater? ials bags consists almost entirely of
pigments and Is primarily composed of non—hazardous extender pigment
such as calcium carbonate. There is no segregation of hazardous and
non—hazardous dust. Dust from 13 air filter units indicate that 2.2 kg
(4.9 ib) of dust are collected In the production of 2300 liters (1000
gal.) of paint. In the above typical plant this would amount to about
2 kkg (2 tons) per year and would contain about 0.1 kkg (0.1 ton) of
toxic pigment. It is thus characterized as a potentially hazardous
waste stream. -
The use of such a mixture of dusts is restricted in that it can
only be used in low grade products. In most cases It is more economical
to discard this dust along with other solid wastes and only small quan-
tities are used at present. These wastes are dry with a moisture con-
tent of less than five percent.
83
-------
Waste Products
This category of wastes consists of finished products which are
not saleable and cannot be economically reworked Into some useful form.
They include small quantities of spoiled batches, spills, unsold ware-
house stocks, and retained samples which contain a wide variety of
materials.
Spoiled batches can normally be returned to process in a later
product and are discarded only In occasional instances where product
quality specifications are too stringent. The total quantity of
spoiled batches disposed of by 59 surveyed plants over a 12—month
period amounted to 162,000 liters (43,000 gal.) or 0.2 percent of total
production.
Spills are likewise salvaged to the extent possible and frequently
the amount contained in or on final clean—up absorbent materials Is the
only quantity discarded. Fifty—seven surveyed plants reported a 12—
month total of 23,000 liters (6000 gal.) of spilled material discarded.
Warehouse stocks which have not been sold within their expected
shelf life and which are packaged in larger containers may be reclaimed.
However, it is not economical in labor and time to open and empty for
reuse .5—liter (1—pt) cans of retained samples or unsold merchandise
in containers of 3.8 liters (1 gal.) or less.
The quantity of finished product wastes generated by a paint plant
is not a function of the amount of paint produced. It is instead a
measure of the level of care and housekeeping In a given plant, of the
kind of products manufactured, or a combination of these factors. For
example, manufacture of factory—applied coatings generally produces a
much greater quantity of product wastes than the production of other
types of coatings because of more demanding quality control, particu-
larly in color, and there are rarely second—line products to absorb
spoiled batches. On the other hand, although larger in volume these
wastes contain little or no metallic driers since they are not commonly
used in industrial coatings. Paints which do contain significant amounts
of toxic metals usually generate fewer product wastes because the cost
of these materials often justifies more effort to rework them.
The vast majority of paint plants manufactures more than one type
of coating, and the resulting product wastes, while generated separate-
ly, are not commonly segregated for storage and disposal. Thus the
total of all waste products is characterized as a potentially hazardous
waste stream because these products may contain any of a great diversity
of toxic chemicals and/or flammable materials, ranging through the whole
gamut of paint raw materials so classified. These substances are
usually present in small amounts which will vary from plant to plant,
and from product to product.
84
-------
In the typical plant producing 3,800,000 liters (1,000,000 gal.)
of mixed product annually, spoiled batches and spills would amount to
about 10 kkg (11 tons) per year containing 0.4 kkg (0.5 ton) of hazard-
ous solvents and 0.05 kkg (0.06 ton) of other toxic chemical constitu-
ents.
Waste Wash Solvents
When equipment is to be shut down, or a substantial change in color
or type of product is planned, the paint remaining ii, the equipment must
be removed. In the case of organic solvent—based products, a suitable
solvent is used for the wash—up. It may be the same solvent used in
the manufacture of the product, although in many cases material with a
higher boiling point but essentially the same solvency may be used
(mineral spirits for a product dissolved In VM&P naphtha, for instance).
The higher—boiling solvents are usually cheaper and there is less loss
by evaporation.
There is little relationship between the amount of paint manufac-
tured and the volume of solvent washings which require disposal. As
frequently as it is feasible, the solvent is retained and reused in a
later product. In other cases, the solvent is reclaLned on—site either
through distillation or sedimentation or is sent to a contract reclaimer
who processes the material and then returns it for reuse. Only thq
still bottoms from on—site reclamation are included with and quantifted
as plant wastes. Contaminated solvent sent to a solvent reclaiming con-
tractor is deducted from the wastes of the paint manufacturing Industry.
In the case of water—thinned paints, equipment is usually washed
with water, possibly with an added detergent. Since water is an
inexpensive solvent, relatively large quantities can be used in washing
and the concentration of solids in water washes will be low. However,
where wastewater treatment is practiced, the settled sludge will have
a high solids content (about 10 percent). In cases where wastewater
will not be acceptable to a municipal sewer after treatment, more in-
tensive use is usually made of the wash water as a thinner in subse-
quent batches of the same type of paint. Not all wastewater can be
used in this manner, however, since problems of color and compatability
may arise. In particular, the color of the wastewater and the color of
the material in which it is used should not seriously differ. Wash
water from very dark colors, experimental or spoiled batches, or other
unusual materials must usually be drummed and deposited in a landfill.
In a typical 3,800,000—liter (1,000,000—gal.) per year plant pro-
ducing both water— and solvent—based products, about 83 kkg (94 tons)
of cleaning wastes —— 62 kkg (68 tons) dry weight —— would be generated
per year. This waste material would contain approximately 9 kkg (10
tons) of hazardous solvents and 0.6 kkg (0.7 tons) of toxic chemicals.
85
-------
Because there is no segregation of waste wash solvents to isolate those
containing no hazardous constituents, all washings are considered
potentially hazardous.
Raw Materials Usage
Paint is a dispersion of pigment in a liquid “vehicle.” The ve-
hicle consists of a volatile solvent and a non—volatile portion called
the binder. Organic solvents or water may be used as the former and
resins or oils function as a binder (2)(3)(4). This section briefly
describes the nature of these principal paint components and includes
detailed lists of the estimated quantities of the actual materials used.
Physical and chemical properties of the major raw materials are pro-
vided in Appendix D, while discussions of the uses of these materials
are given in Appendix H.
Pigments
Pigments are, in general, finely divided, insoluble organic and
inorganic powders which contribute color, opacity, consistency, and
durability to paint. They may be described as white, transparent,
colored, and metallic. The pigment section of the NPCA Raw Materials
Index (19) lists several thousand different materials, but many of these
differ only slightly in color, particle size, or surface treatment.
There are probably five hundred different pigments available to the
paint industry, many of which are used in only very small amounts for
specialty products. The amount of pure pigments required can be re-
duced by the use of cheaper materials which are classified as extend-
ers. These include calcium carbonate and talc. Table 15 lists the
major pigments used in paint and coatings and shows estimated usage
in 1972. This table was derived from the NPCA Raw Materials Usage
Survey (20). The reported usage listed in this publication is estimated
to represent about half of actual usage and the total amounts shown in
the table were estimated on this basis.
Resins
Resins are the usual binders which contribute to the durability,
adhesion, flexibility, and gloss of coatings. They may be purchased
either as solutions or as solids and fall into three general classes ——
1) those used in lacquers which dry purely by the evaporation of solvent
(cellulose derivatives, acrylic, vinyl, and bituminous resins); 2) those
which dry by a chemical reaction with air (alkyds) or moisture (ure-
thanes); and 3) those which dry (or set) at high temperature (phenolics
and others). Many coatings involve blends of more than one type of
resin, and the division between classes is not always sharp. The Resin
86
-------
TABLE 15
ESTIMATED
PIGMENT USAGE BY PAINT INDUSTRY, 1972 a
USAGE
million lbs/yr thousand kkg/yr
LEAI )
*Basjc lead carbonate 0.91 0.41
*flagjc white lead silicate 2.44 1.10
lead 5.94 2.70
* *Other lead pigments 4.70 2.13
WHITES
*Ant ony oxide 0.52 0.24
Lithopone 4.78 2.17
Titanium dioxide, pure 592.69 268.84
Titanium dioxide, extended
(usually 50% T102) 26.26 11.91
*Zinc oxide, leaded 0.70 0.32
Zinc oxide (pure) 22.22 10.08
Other white pigments 0.71 0.32
BLACKS
Carbon black 6.08 2.76
Lamp black 2.03 1.00
Other black pigments (except
black iron oxide) 1.57 0.77
YELLOWS and ORANGES — INORGANIC
*C.P. cadmium oranges and reds 0.07 0.04
*Cadmium lithopone 0.04 0.02
*Chrome yellow 29.06 14.35
*Molybdate orange 5.02 2.48
*Strontju chromate 0.64 0.32
*Zjnc chromate 7.33 3.62
Other inorganic yellow and orange
pigments 9.17 4.53
Organic yellows and oranges 1.67 0.83
BLUES and VIOLETS
Iron blue (Mi1orj —Chinese—Prussian) 0.55 0.27
Ultramarine blue 0.49 0.24
Other inorganic blues and violets 0.10 0.05
*Phthalocyanine blue 1.14 0.56
Other organic blues and violets 0.13 0.07
*Indjcates hazardous materials.
aBased on National Paint and Coatings Association Raw Materials
Usage Survey (20).
87
-------
TABLE 15 — Cont’d.
_____ USAGE
1 t1iousandk 7
GREENS
*Chrome green 0.90 0.44
*Chromjum oxide and hydrated
chromium oxide 2.31 1.14
*Phtha1ocyai jne green 1.09 0.54
Pigment green B 0.02 0.01
REDS and MAROONS — INORGANIC
(except iron oxide) 3.68 1.82
REDS and MAROONS — ORGANIC
B. 0. N. maroon 0.37 0.17
Chlorinated para reds 0.21 0.10
Lithol red and rubine 0.15 0.07
Other organic reds and maroons 3.98 1.80
FLUSHED COLORS 2.48 1.12
AQUEOUS DISPERSIONS
Hansa yellow 0.84 0.38
Iron oxides 12.51 5.67
*Phthalocyanjne blue 0.41 0.18
*Phthalocyanjne green 0.49 0.22
Toluidine red 0.11 0.05
Other aqueous dispersions 5.38 2.44
Other pigment dispersions 5.85 2.65
METALLIC
Aluminum pastes io.io 4.85
Aluminum powder 0.33 0.15
Bronze powders 0.21 0.09
*Copp . powders 0.16 0.07
Other metallic flakes 0.80 0.36
IRON OXIDES
Synthetic iron oxides (reds) 12.91 5.86
Synthetic iron oxides (yellows) 17.46 7.92
Synthetic iron oxides (other) 4.95 2.25
Natural iron oxides 6.05 2.74
Ochres, siennas, and umbers 3.41 1.55
EXTENDERS
Calcium carbonate — precipitated 75.78 34.37
Calcium carbonate — natural 185.18 84.00
Magnesium silicate (talca) 137.11 62.19
Barytes — natural 50.02 22.69
Diatomaceoug earths 31.11 14.11
88
-------
TABLE 1-5 — Cont’d.
USAGE
EXTENDERS — Cont’d. million lbs/yr thousand kkg/yr
Koalin (calcined and other clays) 160.17 72.65
Mica, dry and water—ground 20.14 9.14
Silicas, ground 154.56 70.11
Other extender pigments 75.66 34.32
MISCELLANEOUS
*Cuprous oxide 3.35 1.52
Fluorescent pigments 0.15 0.07
Zinc dust 28.59 13.00
Other miscellaneous pigments 4.78 2.17
89
-------
Section of the NPCA Raw Materials Index (21) lists approximately thirty
different types of resins, many of which are primarily used by other
industries.
Table 16 shows estimated resin usage by the U.S. paint i.idustry in
1972. This table was also derived from the NPCA Raw Materials Usage
Survey (20) in the manner described above.
Oils
Traditionally, before the present resins were developed, drying
oils —— primarily linseed with lesser amounts of soybean, tung, oiticica,
perilla, and dehydrated castor —— were used as paint vehicles, either
by themselves or cooked with natural resins as varnishes. The newer
resins, some of which (particularly alkyds) incorporate some of these
oils, have largely replaced the straight oils in everything except out-
side house paints. Due to cost advantages, the decline in consumption
of oils by the paint Industry of recent years is expected to continue.
A few non—drying oils, such as coconut and cottonseed, are used in
small amounts, usually In alkyds. Quantities of various oils used in
paints in 1972 are given in Table 17.
Solvents
The primary function of solvents used in coatings is to adjust the
viscosity for easy application. Since the solvent does not form a part
of the final film and contributes little to the properties of that film,
the cheapest material which will dissolve the resin and will evaporate
at the desired rate is usually chosen. Other properties which are some-
times considered in the choice of solvents include odor, air pollution
control regulations, and “solvent balance.” This term means that if a
mixture of solvents is used, they should be chosen so that any change
of solvency due to the lower boiling solvent coming off first, will not
have an adverse effect on the performance of the coating. Other things
being equal, a petroleum fraction of suitable boiling range —— mineral
spirits, VN&P naphtha, textile spirits, etc.—— are used. When these
will not dissolve the resin, aromatic solvents, such as toluene or
xylene, esters (ethyl acetate, etc.), or ketones (methyl ethyl ketone,
etc.,) are employed. A few alcohol—soluble resins, such as shellac,
are dissolved in ethanol or isopropanol. Water is used for a few water—
soluble resins, and to thin emulsions. Small amounts of other solvents
are used in paint and varnish removers, spirit stains, and other miscel—
laneous materials. Solvent usage in the paint Industry in 1972 is summar-
ized In Table 18.
Plasticizers
Many of the resins used by the coatings industry, such as cellulose
- 90
-------
TABLE 16
ESTIMA TED
RESIN USAGE BY PAINT INDUSTRY, 1972 a
USAGE
* million lbs/yr thousand
RESINS FOR SOLVEI T-THINNED VEIIICLESb ( Dry WeightJC lckg/yr
Acrylic, lacquer type 8.41 3.82
Acrylic, thermo—setting type 43.36 19.67
Alkyds 211.41 95.89
Epoxy resins 68.84 31.22
Epoxy ester resins 7.27 3.30
Hydrocarbon resins 19.10 8.66
Maleic resins 7.27 3.30
Phenolic resins, pure 9.84 4.46
Polyurethane resins 12.99 5.89
Silicone resins 2.85 1.29
Urea and melamine formaldehyde resins 16.50 7.48
Vinyl (formal and butyra] .) acetal resins 4.22 1.91
Vinyl acetate solution—type copolymers 9.65 4.38
Other solvent—phase resins 14.85 6.74
WATER B !ULS IONS *
Acrylic emulsions 215.03 97.53
Casein 1.01 0.47
Polyvinyl acetate emulsions 89.81 40.74
Polyvinyl chloride emulsions 0.42 0.19
Styrene—butadiene emulsions 3.18 1.44
Other emulsions 60.55 27.46
Cout’d.
Based on National Paint and Coatings Association Raw Materials
Usage Survey t20).
b Substantial amounts of cellulose nitrate, cellulose acetate,
cellulose butyrate, and ethyl cellulose are used as resins in
coatings, particularly lacquers. However, producti3n data on
these products are withheld to protect the interests of a very
limited number of producers.
C Most of these resins are normally sold in solution, so, on the
average, it can be assumed that they are accompanied by an equal
weight of solvent.
*None of these materials are considered hazardous.
91
-------
TABLE 16 — Cont’d. USAGE
million lbs/yr thousand
WATER-SOLUBLE RESINS* ( Dry Weight)C ________
Water—soluble oil and a].kyd types 6.56 2.97
Other water—soluble types 0.54 0.24
MISCELLANEOUS *
Asphalt and coal—tar pitch 64.71 29.35
Chlorinated paraff ins 1.23 0.56
Natural resins (Manila, Dm r, Copal, etc.) 2.46 1.12
Shellac 0.32 0.14
Waxes 6.22 2.82
Other miscellaneous resins and polymers 5,35 2.52
92
-------
TABLE 17
ESTIMATED
DRYING OIL USAGE BY PAINT INDUSTRY, 1972 a
____________USAGE
OILS* million lbs/yr thousand kkg/yr
Castor oil, raw 3.50 1.59
Castor oil, dehydrated 8.08 3.67
Tung oil 15.21 6.90
Coconut oil 6.24 2.83
Linseed oil 88.63 40.20
Safflower oil 15.32 6.95
Soybean oil 62.16 28.20
Fish oil 1.17 0.53
Other oils 22.22 10.08
PATTY ACIDS*
Coconut 0.62 0.28
Linseed 6.06 2.75
Soybean 4.55 2.06
Tall oil 46.87 21.26
Other fatty acids. 8.36 3.79
a Based on National Paint apd Coatings Association Raw
Materials Usage Survey (20).
*None of these materials are considered hazardous.
93
-------
TABLE 18
ESTIMATED
SOLVENT USAGE BY PAINT INDUSTRY, 1972 a
USAGE
Million gal./yr Million liters/yr
ALIPHATIC HYDROCARBONS
*Mineral spirits, regular and
low odor 63.74 241.26
*Minera]. spirits, odorless 12.28 - 46.48
*Kerosene 1.66 6.28
*Mineral spirits, heavy 5.17 19.57
*Other aliphatic hydrocarbons 30.69 116.16
AROMATIC and NAPHTHENIC HYDROCARBONS
*Benzene 0.96 3.63
*To luene 52.73 199.55
*Xy lene 66.92 253.29
*Naphtha, high flash 13.90 52.61
*Other aromatic hydrocarbons 29.57 111.92
TERPENIC HYDROCARBONS
(Pine Oil and Turpentine) 0.98 3.71
KETONES
*Acetone 134.70 509.84
*I1ethyl ethyl ketone (MEK) 144.78 547.99
*Nethyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK) 57.75 218.58
*Other ketones 10.29 38.94
ESTERS
*Ethyl acetate 6.01 22.75
*Isopropy l acetate 5.81 22.14
*No l butyl acetate 65.36 247.39
*Other esters 43.12 163.21
aBased on National Paint and Coatings Association Raw Materials
Usage Survey (20).
*Indjcates hazardous material.
94
-------
nitrate, many phenolics, vinyls, and others, are, by themselves, too
brittle to have adequate adhesion or exterior durability. For that rea—
son, they are usually mixed with plasticizers, a procedure which will
yield flexible films. The plasticizers are relatively soft materials
which resist oxidation on exposure and provide continuing compatibility
with the resin so it will remain plasticized. One must be selected
which will not come off the film at high temperatures. Some of the
common plasticizers are esters, such as castor, or polyinerized oils.
Alkyds made with non—drying oils are often used to plasticize urea
resins. While these materials are sold under numerous trade names,
they are all manufactured by a very limited number of companies. For
this reason, the confidentiality of plant data is protected by the
Bureau of the Census and other data sources. Therefore, few figures
are available on plasticizer use.
Additives
A wide variety of materials are added to many paint formulations
in small amounts for specific purposes. Driers are used to accelerate
the oxidation (or !‘drying”) of drying oils and alkyd resins. They are
organic soaps of cobalt, lead, manganese, or other metals. The organic
portion confers solubility in the organic solvents used, but otherwise
does not appear to affect the catalyst properties which are determined
by the metal. A few non—metallic materials are also used as driers.
Anti—skinning agents are the reverse of driers in that they delay
the drying of oils or alkyds in the can with the formation of a “skin.”
They are usually volatile, so that they evaporate rapidly after the
coating is applied.
Various mercury compounds have, historically, been used as preserv—
.atives and fungicides. Water—thinned paints are, for various reasons,
excellent food for many bacteria and, without a preservative, many of
these paints will decay in the can. Both water— and solvent—thinned
paints are susceptible, after application, to an aesortment of fungi,
which are often called “mildew,” although there is some doubt about this
nomenclature. Mercury is effective, both as a bactericide and a fungi-
cide, and, for that reason, is preferred by paint manufacturers. Al-
though a wide variety of non—mercurial bactericides and fungicides are
available, they rarely perform both functions and their durability on
exposure have been found to be poor compared to that of mercury compounds.
A wide variety of materials, generally classified as surface—active
agents, are used to adjust the mixing and dispersing of pigments, con-
sistency of the paint, settling properties, ease of application, and
flow and lcve]ling of the applied coatings. These are often proprie-
tary compounds whose composition is not disclosed. The proper use of
these material.s is more an art than a science, and often small amounts
of several may be used in the same formulation.
95
-------
Finally, small amounts of zinc stearate are often used to improve
the sanding properties of sanding sealers.
Total paint industry miscellaneous materials usage is estimated for
1972 in Table 19.
Physical/Chemical
Properties of Raw Materials
A literature search was employed to establish the physical/chemical
properties of raw materials reported in use by surveyed paint plants
which will influence their potential environmental behavior when dis-
posed of on land. These data appear in Appendix D. There are occa-
sional gaps in this table which are explained by the fact that after a
reasonable search no reliable references were found to establish one or
another characteristic of a particular compound.
Appendix D lists compounds by both the chemical name and co non
name, gives the formula, and identifies the industrial use of each. The
physical/chemical properties described include ajpearance, specific
gravity, boiling point, melting point, water and alcohol solubii.ity,
flash point, toxicity rating, and threshold lethal value (TLV). None
of these materials, so far as is known, contains radioactive, explosive,
or biological ingredients.
Potentially Hazardous Materials
Before initiating paint plant surveys a working list of potentially
hazardous materials was compiled. The list included, first, eight ele-
mental substances and four classes of compounds which EPA believes, on
the basis of initial analysis, to have the potential for producing
serious public health and environmental problems when contained in
wastes. They are:
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Zinc
Asbestos
Cyanides
Halogenated Hydrocarbons
Organic Pesticides
96
-------
TABLE 19
ESTIMATED
MISCELLANEOUS MATERIALS USAGE, 1972 a
USAGE
million lbs/yr thousand kkg/yr
ANTI-SKINNING AGENTS 4.90 2.23
METALLIC SOAPS
Aluminum stearate 0.32 0.15
*Zjnc stearate 1.52 0.69
Calcium stearate 0.23 0.10
Other metallic soaps 0.28 0.12
BODYING AGENTS, SOLVENT SYSTF
(other than above) 4.91 2.23
BODYING AGENTS, WATER SYST 1S
Carboxymethyl cellulose (C.M.C.) 0.44 0.20
Hydroxethyl cellulose 9.34 4.23
Methyl cellulose 2.15 0.98
Others 2.37 1.08
DISPERSING and MIXING AIDS 25.51 11.57
DRIERS
Calcium soaps 1.90 0.86
*Cobalt soaps 3.97 1.80
*Lead soaps 5.40 2.45
Manganese soaps 1.53 0.69
*Zjrconjum soaps 1.73 0.78
Other driers 1.55 0.70
FUNGICIDES, GERMICIDES, and NILDEWCIDES
*Phenols, halogenated phenols, and
their salts 0.41 0.19
*Phenyl mercuric acetate 0.88 0.40
*Phenyl mercuric o1e& te 0.19 0.09
Others 3.19 1.45
aBased on National Paint and Coatings Association Raw Materials
Usage Survey (20).
*Indjcates potentially hazardous materials.
97
-------
The contrac tQr added other substances which appeared to justify
consideration. Those with a toxic chemical potential were: antimony,
barium, and cobalt. In addition, low—flash solvents with a proclivity
to flammability on land waste disposal sites, some of which are also
moderately toxic, were included.
The list was incorporated into the plant survey format (Appendix A),
the development of wh .ch is described in the “Methodology” section. This
form was then used by survey personnel to elicit information from plant
personnel on the names of specific compounds used which contain one or
more of these substances. The information developed on the survey forms
was used as the basis for the list of compounds shown in Table 20, which
also summarizes available information on their toxicity. The numbers in
parentheses are the references from which the data are drawn; the ques-
tion marks indicate that the authors considered the data inadequate for
an unqualified rating. Other toxicological reference works utilized are
shown in the References (38 — 47).
It will be remembered that the criteria set forth previously for
defining, a material as potentially hazardous on the basis of its tox-
icity are: 1) it has a toxicity rating of 3 or above, according to
Gleason, et al. (1); 2) it is rated as toxic by other reliable litera-
ture; 3) it contains one or more of the above substances and no reliable
reference as to its toxicity was found. Application of these criteria
results in the classification of all materials shown in Table 20 as toxic,
and thus hazardous, except antimony trisulfide, zinc naphthenate, zinc
peroxide, and ethyl acetate.
No surveyed plant employs compounds containing arsenic, beryllium,
or cyanides.
Information on the industrial uses of specific potentially hazard-
ous materials is shown in Appendix H.
98 1
-------
TABLE 20
TOXICITY OF RAW MA TERIALS USED
IN SURVEYED PAINT PLANTS
Toxicity Rating or Des criptioii
Antimony Trioxide 5 (1)
Antimony Trisulfide Low toxicity (22)
Asbestos Varies with form
Barium Carbonate 3, 4, or 5 (1)
Barium Lithol No reference
Barium Metaborate Low toxicity -. No chronic effects
Cadmium Selenide 5* — 6 If inhaled (1)
Chlorinated Paraffin No reference
Chlorinated Rubber No reference
Chrome Oxide 3 (1)
Cobalt Naphthenate No reference
Copper Naphthenate 3* (1)
Cuprous Oxide 4 (1)
Lead Carbonate No reference
Lead Chromate 4 (1)
Lead Molybdate 3 (1)
Lead Monoxide 3 or 4 (1)
Lead Naphthenate 3* or 4 (1)
Lead Phosphate Poisonous (23)
Lead Sillcochromate 3
Lead Sulfate No reference
Lead Tetroxide 3
Mercury Drier No reference
Pentach lorophenoj. 4
PMA 5 (l)(Not substantiated by other
literature)
PMO No reference
Copper Phthalocyanine No reference
Phenyl Mercuric Succinate No reference
Strontium Chromate Low order of toxicity (22)
Tributyl Tin Fluoride No reference
Zinc Chromate 4 (After 6 months) (1)
Zinc Naphthenate 2 — 3
Zinc Peroxide Similar to zinc oxide which is
2 — 3 (1)
Zinc Phosphate No reference
Zinc Resinate No reference
Zinc Stearate 3 (1)
*Indicates inadequate data for positive rating
99
-------
TABLE 20 — Cont’d.
Solvents Toxicity Rating or Description
Acetone 3 (1)
N—Butyl Acetate 3 (1)
Ethanol 2 (1)
Diacetone Alcohol 3 (1)
Ethyl Acetate 2—3 (1)
Heptane Narcotic in high concentrations (22)
Hexane 3 (1)
Isopropanol 3 (1)
?IEK 3 (1)
MIBK 3 (1)
Methanol 3 (1)
Mineral Spirits 3 (1)
Toluene 4(Toxic only at high concentrations)(j.)
VM&P Naphtha 3 (1)
Xylene 3 (1)
100
-------
Quantities of Potentially Hazardous Waste
The quantity of potentially hazardous wastes generated in the paint
manufacturing industry is relatively small when ccmpared to the amounts
of such materials produced by some other major inc ustries. The poten-
tially hazardous substances used which become waste through the sources
described earlier amount to about one—third of the total waste, although
in some cases they constituted an entire waste stream under the definitions
used in this report.
In order to determine current quantities of potentially hazardous
wastes, the total waste produced in 1974 was first estimated. For pur-
poses of this report, this total includes all wastes —— solid, semi-
solid, or liquid —— which were ultimately disposed of on land. It does
not include materials which escaped to the ambient atmosphere or which
entered a stream or municipal sewer system for disposal.
The potentially hazardous portion of the total waste is then quanti-
f led and the amounts of hazardous solvents and toxic chemical compounds
contained therein are Identif led. While it is recognized that many
of these solvents are toxic as well as flammable, they are segregated
In all tabulations from other toxic substances so that disposal require-
ments for flammable materials can be more precisely determined.
The quantity of the potentially hazardous waste stream Is identical
to the total waste stream in case of waste products and spills, cleaning
wastes, and dust collected in air pollution control equipment. This
is because the potentially hazardous portion is distributed throughout
the total stream and cannot besegregated in waste handling. This
is not true of raw materials packaging where bags containing toxic
chemical compounds can be separated from those containing non—hazardous
substances and from other non—hazardous packaging materials such as
cans or pails which are washed free of any potentially hazardous materials,
drums which are sent for reconditioning, pallets, wrapping paper, etc.
On the other hand, the potentially total hazardous waste stream
is greater than the sum of its hazardous solvent and toxic chemical
constituents. This is because they similarly contaminate the larger
body of waste and thus render the whole potentially hazardous.
The waste quantities estimated are extrapolations of information
provided by the plant surveys. The methodology used in the various
extrapolations is explained on a case—by—case basis. Quantities are
expressed in metric tons containing 1016 kilograms (kkg); short tons
(tons) of 2000 pounds; liters of 1.06 liquid quarts; and gallons of
four quarts.
As discussed in Section III, most plants were able to supply
figures for total production within ± 5 percent reliability. Raw
materials usage was also generally reported, the accuracy of which
101
-------
depends on the inventory system used. It is estimated to be in the
± 10 percent range. In addition, some quantitative data were avail-
able on three potentially hazardous waste streams —— cleanings, raw
material bags, and air pollution control residues —— and estimates
were offered on spoiled batches and spills.
For purposes of this discussion of quantities, those streams are
defined as follows:
1. Cleanings Stream —— All materials collected in tEe clean-
ing of mixing tanks, grinding equipment, transfer lines, pumps, can—
filling machines, and small spills. These wastes may derive from
water—thinned or solvent—thinned production or a combination of both
depending on the type of products being manufactured. Quantities of
cleanings presented in this report also include wastewater treatment
sludges when these materials are included with the solid waste, but
do not include sludges going directly to city sewers. This grouping
is necessary because separate quantitative data are not available on
wastewater treatment sludges and cleanings are their primary source.
The small spills included in this waste stream are those involving
less than 0.2 liter (1/2 pint) and splashes of paint.
2. Bags -— Manually emptied raw materials bags and small
quantities of residual pigment or other material left in discarded
bags. This stream does not include cans and drums which are cleaned,
wrapping paper, or wooden skids used to handle raw materials.
3. Air Pollution Control Residues — All dust and particulate
matter collected in filter systems which are usually associated with
the emptying of bags into process mixers. Small plants do not normally
employ this equipment.
4. Spoiled Batch —— Spoiled batches of paint that go to dis-
posal; normally, the majority of spoiled batches can be reworked into
a different product and do not require disposal. Unusable spoiled
batches tend to be concentrated in a small number of plants with par-
ticularly tight quality requirements.
5. Spills —— Large quantities of spilled paint collected with
rags, saw dust, or some similar absorbent material. Although both
spills and spoiled batches are finished products, spills are separated
from spoiled batches because the paint in spills is diluted by a large
quantity of non—hazardous absorbent material.
The quantity of spoiled batches and spills estimated during the
plant surveys are necessarily experienced guesses by plant personnel
because no monitoring equipment exists for their measurement. The
accuracy of these quantities is believed to be ±50 percent. This
broad spread does not introduce significant inaccuracies, however,
since the hazardous materials from these sources constitute only six
102
-------
percent of the total potentially hazardous wastes.
Information on the quantities of total waste çroduced was often on
a volume basis —— i.e., the volume of the waste container used times the
frequency with which it is emptied. The conversion to total weight of
solid and semi—solid waste is influenced by compaction equipment (if
any) and on the contractural system employed. For exau.ple, some con-
tainers are emptied only when full and others after a fixed period of
time regardless of the fractional content. Therefore, it was necessary
to acquire as much information as possible on the individual character
of each waste and handling method used to provide a basis for quantify-
ing wastes for each plant. Fluids in the total waste were more accu-
rately assessed in that they are usually contained within drums or
tanks of known capacity.
Where estimates had to be made they were kept high so that wastes
were not underestimated. Actual total waste quantities may vary from
those given by as much as +5 percent to —20 percent. The skew distri-
bution results from utilizing assumptions which maximize quantities.
Table 21 summarizes assumptions made in analyzing the data.
Estimates of Total National Waste Quantities
Using linear extrapolation of survey plant data, it is estimated
that a total of 388,000 kkg (428,000 tons) per year of waste were
produced by the paint and coatings industry. The axtrapolation is
mainly in terms of plant numbers and production.
No relationship was found between waste characte Lstics and plant
size in terms of number of employees (Figure 14), so this factor should
not affect the accuracy of the extrapolation. While a random spread
of characteristics was observed, no direct correlation could be identi-
fied.
In addition, investigation of plant age and elapsed time since
major expansion or modification similarly revealed no influence of these
factors on waste quantities. The results of this study are shown in
Figures 15 and 16.
An investigation of waste characteristics versus geographic loca-
tion also determined that this factor would not be likely to upset the
above extrapolation of total waste.
The plant surveys in three areas of the country represent almost
complete coverage of local paint manufacturing operations. Almost all
of the Baltimore, Maryland paint plants were visited as were the major-
ity of those in Dallas, Texas. In addition, eight of the 11 paint manu-
facturing plants in the state of Colorado were surveyed.
103
-------
TABLE 21
CONSTANTS USED AND ASSUMPTIONS BASED ON DATA
Density Data
kg/liter lb/gal .
Solvents:
VM&P Naphtha 0.75 6.2
MEX 0.80 6.7
Toluene 0.86 7.2
Xylene 0.86 7.2
Textile Spirits 0.68 5.7
All Others 0.78 6.5
Paint 1.38 11.5
Epoxy 1.26 10.5
Putty 1.56 13.0
Dust from Air Pollution
Control Equipment 1.50 30 lb/fiber drum
Drummed Solvent-Sludge Mix-
tures (based on 10% total
solids concentration) 1.20 10.0
Loose Waste 0.12 200 lb/cu. yd.
Compacted Waste 0.30 500 lb/cu. yd.
Paint Manufacturing Industry Statistics
Total Production 3.6 billion liters/yr
970 million gallons/yr
Total Employees 67,000
Production Employees 36,700
104
-------
FIGURE 14
PLANT SIZE VS. TOTAL WASTE GENERATION
0
1600 —
I 4OO —
1200—
0
-J
-J
x
0
1000—
8 0 0.
600 —
0
caD
0
i0O——— 0- -- —
00 ®
0
000
200-
00 ®¼ J
“!i C;)
60 120 180 2 i0 300
PLAIIT SIZE - TOTAl. EIIPLOVEES
105
-------
FIGURE 15
PLANT AGE VS. TOTAL WASTE GENERATION
0
1600—- ®
1 i00 —
1200 —
U,
a
-J
--I
0
1000—
-J
z
U) 0
a
I—
:::
— --- - -- --——
C;) 0
0 0
0 0
200-
0 0
® 0
0
0 0
I I
20 110 60 80 100
PLAI1T AGE - YEARS
106
-------
FIGURE 16
MODIFIED PLANT AGE VS. TOTAL WASTE GENERATION
0
1600 —
1400 -
1200 —
-J
0
-J
-J
—
0
I—
U I
I-
800 —
-J
I.—
0
600 0
O
liOO — — — — — - -— -0-.— — - -
0 0
0 0
0
200-
0
O ®®
)O ®®
0
20 30 40 50
PLAWI AGE - YEARS SINCE MAJOR tIODhlICAl IONS
107
f -i
-------
Data parameters were averaged in each area to give regional
characteristics and the three areas were compared. The average size of
plants in the Baltimore area was found to be greater than for the other
two areas, but an average time of 12 years since a major rebuild or
modification was characteristic of all three areas.
Plants in the Colorado area were in general smaller in size than
Baltimore or Dallas plants. The percentage of water—based paint pro-
duction was similar in Dallas and Colorado but was lower in the older
Baltimore area. The technology and materials used were similar in all
areas.
A comparison of waste characteristics in the three areas did not
reveal any significant differences. In Baltimore an average 334 kkg
(368 tons) of waste were produced in the manufacture of 3.9 mil-
lion liters (1 million gal.) of paint while in Dallas and Colorado
areas the corresponding figures were 350 and 336 kkg per 3.8 million
liters (386 and 370 tons per million gal.), respectively. Other waste
parameters are correspondingly similar. Although these figures indi-
cate a small variation, the spread of results is within the accuracy
of the data used to compute these averages.
On the other hand, the characteristics of the waste produced by
the manufacture of different types of paints will vary considerably.
They were evaluated by selecting plants which concentrate almost all of
their production on a particular type of paint and then averaging the
waste characteristics from plants making similar products. The specific
values of waste parameters are included in the discussions of each
subcategory of paint products.
In extrapolating survey data parameters to obtain national figures,
care was taken not to extrapolate non—representative data. For example,
when one plant within the survey group was found to be a major contri-
butor to any given parameter, the extrapolation excluded that particular
plaiiL and its contribution was then added to the result to give the
national total. -
Figure 17 illustrates the breakdown of the 1974 national waste total
estimated above —— i.e., 389,000 kkg (428,000 tons) —— into total poten-
tially hazardous wastes and total hazardous solvent and toxic chemical
constituents. These breakdowns are based on plant survey data extrapo-
lations. The national totals of spills and spoiled batches total 5400 kkg
(6000 tons) per year and 4900 kkg (5400 tons) per year, respectively.
The total cleaning stream is extrapolated to 67 million liters (18 mil-
lion gal.) of spent organic solvents and wash water containing 583 kkg
(643 tons) of solids. Solvents account for 40.1 million liters (10.6
million gal.) of the total fluid content. It is estimated that 13.6 mil-
lion liters (3.6 million gal.) of this are reclaimed, leaving 26.5 million
liters (7.0 million gal.) for disposal.
108
-------
TOTAL WASTE
89 ,0OO
POTENTIALLY
HAZARDOUS
WASTE STREAM
96,000
HAZARDOUS TO1AL TOXIC
SOLVENTS CHEMICAL
14,200 COMPOUNDS
I 841
_______ ____________ _______ I I
FIGURE 17
SUMMARY OF TOTAL QUANTITIES OF WASTE
FROM PAINT AND COATINGS INDUSTRY
(kkg/yr)
(WET WEIGHT)
109
-------
Total raw materials packaging wastes are comprised of 295,000 kkg
(325,000 tons) per year of raw materials bags, residual pigments and
other materials retained in them when they are emptied. Also included
are steel or plastic pails, steel drums, wooden pallets, wire, wrapping
paper and other packaging components. The hazardous portion of this
waste stream is estimated at 2050 kkg (2250 tons) annually and consists
of bags in which toxic pigments and other hazardous materials are delivered.
Dust from air pollution collection devices in the paint industry
amount to 1600 kkg (1700 tons) per year, of which an estimated 81 kkg
(90 tons) consists of hazardous materials.
The quantities are in substantial agreement with other studies of
hazardous constituents in the wastes from paint manufacture (32)(33).
They are also supported by the contractor’s laboratory analysis of still
bottoms from solvent reclamation operations which indicated relative
proportions of elements similar to those shown in Figure 18. These
analyses are discussed in the section of this report on reclaiming of
solvents.
Estimates of Total Waste by State
The proportion of estimated national production in 1974 accounted
for by a given state was used to estimate total waste quantities by
state (Table 22). Since waste quantities do not necessarily correlate
with production levels, the accuracy of the individual state figures
is reduced, probably to the order of +15 percent to —35 percent for any
individual state. Once again, the probable range is asymetrical because
the assumptions made tend to maximize quantities.
Where states and combinations of states have very few paint plants
and the projected quantity of a particular hazardous waste is very
small, the accuracy of the extrapolation becomes even more questionable
since one plant making a specialty paint not identified in this study
could seriously affect the result8. Hence, no figures are included
where their reliability is not within 50 percent or where the quantity
is significantly below 10 kilograms (22 pounds) per state per year.
It should be noted that, in some cases, comparable quantities in
separate tables may differ, usually by less than one percent. This is
due to rounding off data or applying factors to calculate waste quanti-
ties by state.
Waste Totals by EPA Region
Table 23 shows total 1974 waste quantities by EPA region. The
foregoing explanatioils of the various waste streams are, of course, also
applicable to this tabulation as well.
Wastes Generated by Industry Subcategory
Solvent—Thinned Trade Sales Paints
Two principal wastes result from the manufacture of solvent—thinned
110 4
-------
841
246
0 —
U)
o I —
Z
o
I i i
U)
U) Z
4 0 -
U
0
U)
D I
o 0 0
o
91
4 4 — U)
N N 0
. 4
I— 2
x X z 2 I — 0
U i U)
Ri 4 —
4 4 0 4 I-
U i
4 32 0 z o 0 x
o 0 LU 0 4 L i i
__ 0 0
1 18 14 4 2 1.5 I ____
I I I L Ii i
FIGURE 18
TOXIC CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS IN WASTE
(kkg/yr)
(WET WEIGHT)*
*Note: Wet Weight = Dry Weight
111
-------
TABLE 22
i i 1T1i ; oi 11)141. r 1 U8r
4 1W IOU IM.5 INDUSTRY 4 .II.S IIY SIAn: — 1914
SIC Ii .: .
1kg /yr (+onuf%t)
(Wet WcI 5 IiI)
STA ri S
AL, MS
Ak, OR
A?
AR, LA. 01
CA
CU
CT
DL .UC,WV,SL
DC
FL
GA
I II
ID,HT .l V ,
N!I,UT
IL
IN
IA
KS ,\B
ICY
LA
MI. ,J( ,VT
M D
H . ”
HI
MN
MS
MO
MT
ND
NV
Nil
NJ
NH
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
VA
WV
WI
VT
U’A RLGIO.S
IV
x
Ix
VI
IX
VIII
I
111 ,IV
III
IV
IV
IX
X,VI1I.Ix
VI,VjII
V
V
2,750 (3,025)
1,830 (2,013)
480 (528)
3.200 (3,520)
51.000 (56,210)
1.8*0 (2,068)
940 (1,034)
1,090 (1,199)
See Delayer. (See Note)
6,380 (7,018)
14,370 (15,810)
No Feint Plant.
1,220 (1,340)
48,270 (53,100)
5,970 (6,570)
VII 5,510 (6,060)
VII 1,030 (1,130)
iv ig,;oo (21,670)
VI See Arkan ,a (See Nob)
502 (550)
Ill 8,750 (9.620)
1 6,430 (7.070)
V 23,190 (25,510)
V 4,110 (4.520)
IV See Alabama (Soc Note)
v i i 16,500 (18,150)
VIII See Idaho (See Mote)
VII See K naa. (See Note)
IX See Idaho (See lot.)
I See Main. (See Note)
I I 39,490 (43,440)
VI See Idaho (See rote)
II 20,520 (22,570)
iv 7,730 (8,500)
VIII No Paint Plant,
V 36,380 (40,020)
VI See Arka taae (Sea lots)
X See Alaaka (See hors)
III 23,040 (25,340)
I 680 (750)
See DelayeTs (See Note)
No Paint Plant.
3,000 (3,300)
21.330 (24,010)
See Idaho (See Note)
See Maine (Sec Note)
3.350 (3,680)
2,920 (3,2L0)
See Delay.ra (See Note)
4,950 (5,440)
ilo Paint Plent.
388.992 (427 ,975)l
POTrSil AL’.Y
IIAZV (LXW’
WASFI STr r M
740 (810) 109 (120)
5,390 (5,920) 797 (871)
T0’C?C (‘IICMICAI.
Co’ IPOrNI,c
IN i .’ crt
5.9 (6.5)
3.9 4.3)
1.0 (1.1)
6.9 (7.6)
111.4 (122.5)
4.1 (6.5)
2.0 (2.2)
2.3 (2.5)
13.7 (15.1)
31.0 (34.1)
6.5 (7.2)
47.0 (31.7)
TOTkL W%STE
HAZAP I1OUS SOLVENTS
IN ‘ AS1E
100
67
18
11• ’
1,875
69
33
40
232
563
(110)
(74)
(19)
(128)
(2,060)
(76)
(39)
(44)
(255)
(620)
(750)
(300)
(130)
(370)
(13,800)
(510)
(230)
(300)
( .650)
(3,900)
(330)
(13.100)
(1,620)
(1,300)
(270)
(5,340)
(130)
(2,480)
(1,740)
(6.290)
(1,120)
680
450
120
790
12,600
460
230
270
1,540
3,540
300
11,900
1,470
1,360
230
4,800
120
2,160
1 ,38
5,720
1,020
4,070
9,750
5,070
1 .910
50 (55)
1,750 (1.925)
273 (303)
200 (220)
38 (42)
714 (785)
19 (21)
317 (348)
232 (255)
840 (924)
149 (164)
2.6 (2.9)
304.0 (114.4)
12.9 (14.2)
11.9 (13.1)
2.2 (2.4)
42.4 (46.v.)
1.1 (1.2)
18.8 (20.7)
13.8 (15 2)
i9.9 (54.9)
d.8 (9.7)
(4,480) 619 (681) 36.8 (40.5)
(10,720)
(5,580)
(2,100)
1,432 (1,375)
744 (818)
280 (308)
85.1 (93.6)
44.2 (48.6)
16.7 (18.4)
8.980 (9.870) 1,320 (1,452) 78.6 (86.2)
5,680 (6,250)
160 (180)
IV
VIII
IV
VI
VIII
III
X
III
V
VIII
835 (919)
24 (26)
49.6 (54.6)
1.5 (1.7)
l,ATIOI AL
830
720
(910)
(790)
120
106
(132)
(116)
7.2
6.3
(7.9)
(6.9)
1,220
(1,340)
181
(199)
10.7
(11.8)
h.UTI: WIThIIILD (ST CLYSIZ) TO AVOID DISCL0 ,1rC FIGURE FOR INDIVIDUAl. (‘flSIJ ’ANIES.
23.
T ib . 73.
95,8802 (105,570) 14,264 (15.684) 84(1.6 (924.8)
112
-------
TABLE 23
QUANTITIES OF TOTAL PAINT
AND COATINGS INDUSTRY WASTES BY EPA REGION - 1974
SIC 285
kkg/yr (tons/yr)
(Wet Weight)
EPA Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
Ix
x
NATIONAL
Total Waste
8,552 (9,404)
60,010(66,010)
35,788(39,458)
54,071(59,615)
122,870(135,160)
25,285(27,878)
23,040 25,348)
2,334(2,573)
51,737(57,042)
5,057(5,576)
388,744(428,056)1
Potentially
Hazardous
Waste Stream
2,090(2,300)
14,820(16,300)
8,833(9,739)
13,345(14,713)
30,310(33,340)
6,242(6,882)
5,680(6,250)
576(635)
12,769(14,078)
1,248 (1, 376)
Hazardous
Solvents
In Waste
310(341)
2,174(2,393)
1,311(1,445)
1,981(2,184)
4,515(4,967)
926(1 ,021)
8 7 (943)
85(94)
1,895(2,089)
185 (204)
Toxic
Chemical
Compounds
In Waste
18.4(20.3)
129.3(142.2)
77.3(85.2)
116.9(128.9)
264.7(291 .2)
54.6(60.2)
50.9(56.0)
5.1(5.6)
111.8(123.3)
10.9(12.0)
839.9(924.9)
I - .’
95,913(105,613)214,241(15,681)
‘Contains approximately 5% water.
2 Contains approximately 22% water.
-------
trade sales paints. One is the small amount of raw materials left in
discarded paper bags and the other is solvents used for clean—up of
manufacturing equipment. Only about five percent of the raw materials
.ire purchased in sufficient quantities to justify bulk handling, a
practice which would reduce this waste source. The amount of solvent
can be controlled by careful housekeeping and scheduling of production.
If the same product is being made repeatedly in the same batch equip-
ment, little washing is necessary. In many cases, wash solvent may be
incorporated in the formulation of a succeeding batch. Smaller plants,
which must use the same equipment for a variety of products, may have
more difficulty in controlling waste wash solvent.
Other wastes include batches which cannot be reworked into sale-
able products, spills which cannot be recovered, and residues from air
pollution control equipment. The amount of these wastes is determined
by the amount of care and attention devoted to housekeeping, pro-
duction, and the quality of the products being manufactured, which
determines whether spoiled batches or spills can be reworked profitably.
In general, the amount of such wastes tends to be relatively small
since large losses from any of these sources cannot be tolerated eco-
nomically.
Table 24 illustrates the 1974 national distribution of wastes
attendant to the production of solvent—thinned trade sales paints by
waste stream.
The figures used in Table 24 and similar ones presented subse-
quently on other subcategories are necessarily estimates since the
individual waste streams are not monitored. Data gathered from about
70 plants or 8.6 percent of the total paint production in the country
provided the basis for this series of tables. National totals for each
waste stream are estimated to be within +40 percent. No breakdown of
individual compounds by waste stream is given as no reasonable estimate
can be made from the data available.
Similarly, insufficient data are available within the scope of
this study to break down individual waste stream quantities by state.
Extrapolations to each state on the basis of production were abandoned
because the relevant data available is not sufficiently reliable.
Table 25, however, shows the estimated 1974 state distribution of
solvent—thinned trades sales paint wastes according to waste character-
ization as opposed to waste source. This table and its counterparts in
ensuing pages are also based on plant survey information which is shown
in Appendix F. Table 26 shows the same breakdown by EPA region.
The 1974 quantities of toxic metallic elements in solvent—thinned
trade sales paints are shown by state in Table 27.
I 1inor differences in comparable totals for Tables 24 through 27
are due to rounding off of individual state data.
114
-------
TABLE 24
QUANTITIES OF WASTE STREAMS BY SOURCE — 1974
SOLVENT-THINNED TRADE SALES PAINTS
SIC 28511 & 28513
kkg/yr (tons/yr)
(Wet Weight)*
Toxic
Potentially Hazardous Chemical
Hazardous Solvents Compounds
Waste Stream Total Waste Waste Stream In Waste In Waste
I -I
U i
Cleanings 19,600(21,610) 19,600(21,610) 4,350(4,796) 251(277)
Raw Material Packaging 69,920(76,912) 880(970) 55(61)
Air Pollution Collection 370(408) 370(408) 34(37)
Spoiled Batches 920(1,014) 920(1,014) 187(206) 18(20)
Spills 1,290(1,422) 1,290(1,422) 27(30) 2(2 )
TOTAL 92,100(101,366) 23,060(25,424) 4,564(5,032) 360(397)
* Note: Wet Weight = Dry Weight
-------
TABLE 25
QUANTITIES OF WASTES FROM MANUFACT1JRE OF
SOLVENT-THINNED TRADE SALES PAINTS BY STATE - 1974
SIC 28511 6-28513
kkg/yr *
(Wet Weight)**
POTENTIALLY TOXIC
HAZARDOUS HAZARDOUS CHEMICAL
EPA TOT WASTE SOLVENTS COMPOUNDS
S!A!E REGION WAS. STREAM IN WASTE IN WASTE
AL,MS IV 654 163 32 2.6
AK,OR X 433 IQ8 2 1-7
AZ IX 111 .4
AR,LA.OK VI 755 189 37 3.0
CA IX 12074 3015 598 47.2
Co VIII 442 110 22 1.?
CT 221 55
DE.DC,WV,SC II,IV 258 64
1.0
DC III SEE DELAhARE - -
Ft. ZV 1474 368 73 5.8
GA IV 3398 849 168 13.3
HI IX NO PAINT PLANTS- -
D tJT NV V fffIX 286 - - 14 1.1
IL V 11420 285k .566 44.6
f N V 1409 352 70 5.5
A VI I 1308 327 65 5.1
KS NB VII -239 60 12 .9
i c r IV 4660 1164 231 18.2
LA VI SEE -ARKANSAS --
ME,N i4,VT I 120 30 .
MO fII 2072 8 8.1
MA
1520 0 5.9
MI V 3489 1371 21.5
MN V ?T6 244
MS IV SEE ALABAMA.
V I 3905 975 194 15.3
MT VLII SEE IDAHO - -
NB SEE KASSAS
MV SEE IDAHO
NH I SEE MAINE
NJ 9348 2334 463 36.5
NM SEE-IDAHO - -.
PlY 4863 12 4 241 19.0
NC IV 1833 438 91 7.2
ND VIII NO PAINT PLANT
opt V
8611 - - 21 1 427 3347
OK VI SEE ARKANSAS -
OR X SEE ALASKA
PA III 5452 1362 -270 21.3
RI I 157 39 8 .6
SC IV
SEE DELAWARE - -
SO VII I NOP INT PLANT 35 2.8
TN IV
TX VI 516? 1290 -256 20.2
VT
UT 1111 SEE IDAHO
VA SEE MAINE
792 198 39
UELAWARE 173 34 2.
M v III SE
WI V 1170 292. 58 4,6
WY VIII NO-PAINT PLANTS- -
NATIONAL 92017 22981 4558 359.8
* To convert data to to n e/y r , multiply by 1.1.
** Note: Wet Weight = Dry Weight.
116
-------
TABLE 26
QUANTITIES OF WASTES FROM MANUFACTURE
OF SOLVENT—THINNED TRADE SALES PAINTS BY EPA REGION — 1974
SIC 28511 & 28513
kkg/yr (tons/yr)
(Wet Weight) *
Toxic
EPA Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
NATIONAL
Total Waste
2,018(2,220)
14,211(15,632)
8,473(9,342)
12,802(14,115)
29,075(31,982)
5,987(6,601)
5,452(5,997)
553 (610)
12,249(13,505)
1,197 (1, 320)
92,017(101,324)
Potentially
Hazardous
Waste Stream
504 (554)
3,548(3,903)
2,116(2,333)
3,197(3,525)
7,262(7,988)
1,495(1,648)
1,362(1,498)
138 (152)
3,059(3,373)
299 (330)
22, 980(25,304)
Hazardous
Solvents
In Waste
100(110)
704(774)
420 (4 63)
639 (700)
1,441(1,585)
297 (327)
27 1(298)
27(30)
607 (669)
59(65)
4,565(5,021)
Chemical
Compounds
In Waste
7.9(8.7)
55.5(61 .1)
33.1(36.5)
50.0(55.1)
11 3,. 7(125. 1)
23.4 (25. 8)
21. 2(23.4)
2.2(2.4)
47. 9 (52. 8)
4.7(5.2)
359.7(306.2)
* Note: Wet Weight = Dry Weight
-------
TABLE 27
QtPANTrrIrs ov ToxIc METALLIC PMR S
IN S0LVI —TIItl IW ‘TMDE SALkS PAINT WASTES — 1974
SIC 18511 & 28513
kg/yra
(Vet Weight) **
STAlES EPA ItECZO\S CHROMIUM ZARIUM COBALT 0TIIEI S
AL, 11$ IV 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.06 0.02 0.03
AR, OR X 0.5 0.2 0.07 0.04 0.01 0.02
AZ IX 0.2 0.06 0.07 0.0L
AR, LA, O K VI 1.0 0.4 0.1 0.07 0.02 0.03
CA IX 15.4 5.8 1.9 1.1 0.3 0.5
CO VIII 0.5 0.2 0.07 0.06 0.01 0.02
C V 1 0.3 0.1 0.04 0.02 0.01
DE,DC,WV,SC III,IV 0.4 0.3. 0.04 0.02 0.01
DC III
P 1. IV 1.9 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.04 0.06
CA IV 4.3 1.6 0.5 0.3 0.08 0.2
RI IX
ID,flT,l. V, X,VIII,IX
HM,UT VI,VIZI 0.4 0.1 0.05 0.03 0.01
IL V 14.2 5.3 1.8 1.0 0.3 0.5
IN V 1.8 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.03 0.06
IA VII 1.6 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.03 0.05
15,113 VII 0.3 0.1 0.04 0.02 0.01
KY IV 5.7 2.1 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.2
LA VI
WE,M11,VT I 0.1 0.04 0.01
10) III 2.6 1.0 0.3 0.2 0.05 0.1
MA I 1.9 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.04 0.07
MI V 6.8 2.6 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.2
hR V 1.2 0.3 0.2 0.08 0.02 0.06
MS IV
MO VII 3.0 1.9 0.6 0.3 . 0.09 0.2
NT VIII
NB VII
NV IX
MR I
NJ II 11.7 4.4 1.5 0.8 0.2 0.4
MR VI
NY II 6.0 2.3 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.2
NC IV 2.3 0.9 0.3 0.2 0.04 0.08
MD VIII
Oil V 10.8 4.0 1.3 0.7 0.2 0.4
OX VI
OR X
PA III 6. 2.6 0.9 0.5 0.1 0.3
RI I 0.2 0.07 0.02 0.01
SC IV
SD V i i i
IN IV 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.06 0.02 0.03
TX VI 6.3 3.4 0.8 0.5 0.1 0.2
JI. VIII
VT I I
VA III 1.0 0.4 0.1 0.07 0.02 0.03
VA X 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.06 0.02 0.03
Sly III
VI V 1.3 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.03 0.05
VT VIII
115.3 42.8 14.4 8.0 2.1 4.0
C To convert data to Lone/yr. t iu1tip1y by 0.O(a1i.
** Note: Wet Weight = Dry Weight.
118
-------
Water—Thinned Trade Sales Paints
The sources of wastes in the manufacture of water—thinned trade
sales paints are essentially the same as those described under solvent—
thinned trade sales paints —— i.e., raw materials packages and clean—up
of mixers, mills, and tanks. The volume of the wastes is likely to
be substantially larger than those from solvent—thinned paints because
the mills and tanks are usually washed out with water, which can be
used economically in large quantities. However, relatively large volumes
facilitate the settling of the paint ingredients as a sludge from the
water. The other principal differences in the character of the wastes
are that those from water—thinned paints are less likely to contain
lead compounds since they are rarely used in this type of coating, and
it is also uncommon to find drier metals. Preservatives or bacteriacides
are almost always used, and mercury—based compounds are the most common
additives for this purpose, although they are used in very small con-
centrations. Similar compounds are used in solvent—thinned paints.
Table 28 illustrates the 1974 national distribution of wastes atten-
dant to the production of water—thinned trade sales paints by waste
source. Table 29 shows the estimated state distribution of the wastes
of this subcategory according to their characteristics. These estimates
were derived in the same manner as those for solvent—thinned products.
Data used in the preparation of Table 29 are shown in Appendix E. Ta-
ble 30 shows the characteristics distribution by EPA region. -
The 1974 quantities of toxic metallic elements in water—thinned
paints are shown by state in Table 31.
Minor differences in comparable totals for Tables 28—31 are due to
rounding off of individual state data.
Industrial and Non—Industrial Lacquers
In general, wastes from the manufacture of lacquers follow the
same pattern as those from solvent—thinned trade sales paints —— i.e.,
residue from the raw materials used and clean—up solvent from mills and
tanks. The nature of the potentially hazardous wastes are similar, but
the quantities of wastes are generally much smaller. Care is taken not
to waste the more expensive raw materials and wash solvents which are
used in lacquers such as methyl ethyl ketorie, methyl isobutyl ketone,
butyl alcohol and isopropyl alcohol.
Table 32 illustrates the 1974 national distribution of wastes atten—
dant to the production of industrial and non—industrial lacquers by
waste source. Table 33 shows the estimated state distribution of the
wastes of this subcategory according to their characteristics and Table
34 shows totals by EPA region. See Appendix E for data used to derive
this information. The 1974 quantities of toxic metallic elements
119
-------
TABLE 28
QUANTITIES OF WASTE STREAMS BY SOURCE — 1974
WATER-THINNED TRADE SALES PAINTS
SIC 28512 & 28514
kkg/yr (tons/yr)
(Wet Weight)
Waste Stream
Cleaxiings
Raw Material Packaging
Air Pollution Collection
Spoiled Batches
Spills
Total Waste
24,500(27,012)1
87,160(96,097)
460 (507)
1,150 (1,268)2
1.610(1,775)2
114,880(126,659)2
Potentially
Hazardous
Waste Stream
24,500(27,012)1
120(132)
460(507)
1,150(1,268)2
1,610(1,775)2
27,840(30,694)3
Toxic
Chemical
Compounds
In Waste
36 (40)
8 (9)
5 (6)
2 (2)
0.5(0.6 )
51.5 (56. 6)
Hazardous
Solvents
In Waste
-4
0
C’.1
T 1
TOTAL
‘Contains 85 water.
2 Contains approximately 20Z water.
3 Contains approximately 70% water.
-------
TASLE 29
QUANTITIES OF WASTES FROM MANUFACTURE OF
WATER—TWINNED TRADE SALES PAINTS BY STATE - 1974
SIC 28512 & 28514
kk8/yr*
(Wet Weight)
POTENTIALLY TOW rç
HAZARDOUS HAZARDOUS CHE LCAL
EPA TOT8I. WASTE SOLVENTS COMPOUNDS
STATE REGION WASTE STRCA IN WASTE IN WASTE
AL.MS jV 816 198 .4
&K.OR 540 131 . .2
AZ I X ‘30 33 s .1
AR.LA.OK VI •42 ZZ8 , .4
CA IX 15061 3650 , 6.8
. •2
VIII 1 . .
S •I
•IV 322
.DC,WV,Sc SEE DELAWAQE
1530 445 . .8
4239 1027 , 1.9
Ma X NO PAINT PLANTS
iP lfI 34
IL V 14
V . .8
S ST
,NB 72 . .1
ICY TV 5813 1409 2,6
8 9 1 SEE ARKANSAS
MEeNH,VT I ‘49 36 ——————b 5’
MD I II 2 85 626 ——————. i.2
MA 1896 4 9 ——————. .8
M7 v 6847 1659 . 3.j
Mr V 1218 295 .
MS V SEE ALABAMA
MO T 489 1180 . 2.2
MT V I! SEE QAHO
NB V SEE KANSAS
MV I SEE IDAHO
NH SEE MAINE
NJ 11660 2826 . 5.2
NM V
NY S EoLD WHO
1 ;X S
M C 2286 . 1.0
ND VIII NO PAINT PLANTS
OH V 10741 - 2603 ——————S 4.8
OK VI EC ARKANSAS
OR A SEE ALASKA
PA I II 6801 1648 3.0
RI
195 47 .1
SC V SE DELAWARE
SO LIII NO PAINT PLANTS
TN TV 885 .4
TA 91 6445 1 . 2.9
UT VII ! SEE IDAHO
VT SEE MaINE
VA II 988 239 . .4
WA 862 209 .4
WV III SEE DELAWARE
81 V 1459 354 . .7
WY VIII MO PAINT PLANTS
NATIONAL 150,7791 278122 51.3
1 Contain, approximately 202 water. 2 Contain , approximately 752 water.
*To convert data to tone/yr. multiply by 1.1.
121
-------
TABLE 30
QUANTITIES OF WASTES FROM MANUFACTURE OF WATER—THINNED TRADE SALES PAINTS BY EPA REGION — 1974
SIC 28512 & 28514
kkg/yr (tons/yr)
(Wet Weight)
Toxic
Potentially Hazardous Chemical
Hazardous Solvents Compounds
EPA Region Total Waste Waste Stream In Waste In Waste
I 2,516(2,768) 609(670) 1.1(1.2)
II 17,726(19,499) 4,2 (4,72 ) 7.9(8.7)
III 10,569(11,653) 2,561(2,824) 4.7(5.2)
IV 15,968(17,605) 3,870(4,267) 7.2(7.9)
V 36,268(39,895) 8, 89(9,668) 16.3(18.0)
VI 7,467(8,233) 1,810(1,996) 3.3(3.6)
VII 6,801(7,481) 1,647(1,812) 3.0(3.3)
VIII 689(760) 167(184) 0.3(0.3)
IX 15,280(16,847) 3,703(4,083) 6.9(7.6)
X 1493(1,646) 362(399 ) ___________ 0.7(0.8 )
NATIONAL 114,777(126,387)1 27,840(30,629)2 51.4(56.6)
‘Contains approximately 20% water. 2 Contains approximately 75% water.
-------
TABLE 31
QUANTITIES OF TOXIC METALLIC ELMSESTS
IN WAThR-THINNED TRADE SALES PAINT WASTES - 1974
SIC 28512 6 28314
k$/yr*
(Wet W.iIht)**
ICITOGRAMS
STATIS EPA RCGI0::S BARIUM COPPER CAU ’f [ UN
AL ,HS IV 44
AK,OR X 30
AZ I X 9
AR, LA. OK VI 51
CA I X 830 75 75 75
CO VIII 30
CT I 15
DE,DC,WV,SC III,IV 19
DC III
FL IV 90
CA IV 230 20 20 20
MI IX
ID,MT,NV, X,VIII,IX
NM,UT Vt,VIII 22
IL V 770 70 70 70
IN V 95
IA VII 88
VII 17
KY IV 315 30 30 30
LA VI
ME,MI.VT I 8
I D III 140 10 10 10
MA I 10
MI V 370 30 30 30
[ U I V 65
MS IV
MO VII 270 25 25 25
[ IT VIII
KB VII
NV IX
NH I
NJ II 630 60 60 60
1W VI
NY I I 330 30 30 30
NC IV 125 10 10 10
[ ID VIII
OH V 580 50 50 50
OX VI
OR X
PA II I 370 35 35 35
RI I 11
SC IV
SD VIII
T&’I IV 48
TX VI 350 30 30 30
UT VIII
VT I
VA II I 54
VA I 46
WV III
WI V 80
WY VIII
NATI0 IAL 5942 475 475 475
* To convert data to tone/yr. multiply by 0.0011
** Note: Wet Weight = Dry Weight
123
-------
TABLE 32
QUANTITIES OF WASTE STREANS BY SOURCE — 1974
INDUSTRIAL AND NON-INDUSTRIAL LACQUERS
SIC 28515 & 28517
kkg/yr (tons/yr)
(Wet Weight)*
Toxic
Potentially Hazardous Chemical
Hazardous Solvents Compounds
Waste Stream Total Waste Waste Stream In Waste In Waste
Cleanings 5,590(6,163) 5,590(6,163) 2,540(2,800) 5.8(6.3)
Raw Naterial Packaging 19,910(21,951) 21(23) 1.3(1.4)
I -I
Air Pollution Collection 105 (116) 105 (116) 0.8(0.9)
Spoiled Batches 260(287) 260(287) 112(123) 0.4(0.4)
Spills 365(402) 365(402) 16(18) 0.06(0.07 )
TOTAL 26,230(28,919) 6,341(6,991) 2,668(2,941) 8.4(9.1)
*Note: Wet Weight = Dry Weight
-------
TABLE 33
JANTITIES OP WASTES PR I MANUFACTURE OP INDUSTRIAL
Aim lION—INDUSTRIAL LACQUERS BY S LATE - 1974
SIC 28515 6 28517
kkg/yr*
(Wet Weight)**
POTENTIALLY TOX IC
RDOUS HAZAROQUS CHEMICAL
* TOT SOLVENiS COMPOUNDS
STATE 6ION WAS! S!RE IN WASTE IN WAS!E
AL,HS IV l 45 9 .1
AIC,OR X 123 30 £3 0
AZ I X 3 0 3 0
AR,LA.Ok .I
CA 1* 34 831 3
y 126 30 1 0
0
63
PDC UVTSC III,IV 73 7 0
P 1 . SE 2 ELAwAPE 11 43 .1
TV 968 234 99 .3
NO PAINT PLANTS
81 20 !
IL V 3253 786 33 1.0
N V 40 97 •1
A V T 37 90
S,NB Vt
0
LA I S&1 RKANSAS 3 135 .4
MY
34 4 j
Mg.NN.VT II
MA
1563 .1
.5
Mr. V 278 67 .1
MS IV SEE ALABAMA
MO VT 1 siP!DaMo 269 113 .4
MT V I SEE MANSAS
NV II SEE IDAHO
NB V
NH I SEE MAINE
NJ 266? 644 271 .8
NM SEC LOAHO
NY Ii 1 8 335 14 .4
NC v 522 126 5 .2
ND VIII NO PAINT PLAM9 3 ..
OH V 2453 5
OK Vj SEC ARMANSAS
OR * S
PA III E 5 LA5MA 375 158 .5
MI 1 11 5 0
SC IV SEC DELAIME
SD V XJI NO PAINT PLANTS
TN 202 49 .1
1472 356 .D
UT VIII SEE IDAHO
VT SEC MAINE
VA II 2 ,4 55 23
WA 1 7 48 20
WV III SEE DELAWARE
WI V 333 81 34 .1
WY VIII NO PAINT PLANTS
NATIONAL 26,206 6,337 2,668 8.2
C To convert data to tone/yr, multiply by 1.1.
** Note: Wet Weight — Dry Weight
125
-------
TABLE 34
QUANTITIES OF WASTES FROM MANUFACTURE
OF INDUSTRIAL AND NON—INDUSTRIAL LACQUERS BY EPA REGION — 1974
SIC 28515 & 28517
kkglyr (tons /yr)
(Wet Weight) *
EPA Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
Ix
x
NATIONAL
Total Waste
575(632)
4,047(4,452)
2,413(2,660)
3,646(4,020)
8,281(9,100)
1, 705 (1,880)
1,5 52(1, 707)
157(173)
3,489(3,847)
341 (376)
26,206(28,856
Potentially
Hazardous
Waste Stream
139(153)
97 9(1,077)
583(643)
881(971)
2,002(2,202)
412 (454)
375(412)
38(42)
843 (9 29)
83(92)
6,335(6,9 75)
Hazardous
Solvents
In Waste
5 8(64)
412(453)
246 (271)
371(409)
843(9 27)
174 (192)
158 (17 4)
16(18)
355 (391)
35(39)
2,668(2,938)
Toxic
Chemical
Compounds
In Waste
0.1(0.1)
1. 2(1. 3)
0.8(0.9)
1.2(1.3)
2.6(2.9)
0.5(0.6)
0.5(0.6)
0.1(0.1)
1.1(1.2)
0.1(0.1 )
8. 2(9.1)
‘ -I
*Note Wet Weight- = Dry - Weight- - - -
-------
in lacquers are shown by state in Table 35. Where quantities are es-
timated to be less than 10 kg (11 ib) they have not been included because
of the inaccuracy of the extrapolation to such small quantities.
Factory—Applied Coatings
Table 37, which shows the quantities of wastes attendant to the
manufacture of industrial coatings nationally and by state, bears out
the fact that the toxic chemical content of these products is similar
to that of solvent—thinned coatings. As discussed earlier, the formula-
tions of factory—applied coatings are usually quite similar to trade sales
solvent—thinned coatings. These estimates were derived in the manner de-
scribed earlier for similar tables; additional data is shown in Appendix F.
Totals by EPA region are shown in Table 39.
Table 36 illustrates the national distribution of this subcate—
gory’s wastes by waste stream. It will be noted that the quantity of
spoiled (or rejected) batches produced by the manufacture of factory—
applied coatings may be somewhat greater than is the case with the pro-
duction of other coatings since, in general, the quality control of
industrial paints is higher, and the opportunity to work off batches
that do not meet the standard is lower —— particularly in color, which
is the prime cause of rejection of industrial batches. Also, since in-
dustrial batches often are larger than trade sales, it is more diff i—
cult to work off a whole batch.
The 1974 quantities of toxic metallic elements in factory—applied
coatings wastes are shown by state in Table 39.
Putty and Miscellaneous Products
There are few potentially hazardous wastes associated with the manu-
facture of putty. First, since the material is handled in the form of a
stiff paste, there is little spillage or other accidental loss. Any
that occurs can be gathered up easily and re—incorporated in the pro-
cess. Further, since putty does not require either specific color or
fineness of grind, stray particles of dirt, etc., do not cause any
problem. The manufacture of putty rarely requ}res any equipment clean-
ing since, in general, the mixers are used only for the one product and
any material left from one batch can be incorporated in the succeeding
one. Any unusable material which is discarded conte ins no hazardous
ingredients.
Table 40 illustrates the 1974 national distribution of wastes
attendant to the production of putty and miscellaneous paint products
by waste source. The columns tabulating cleanings, air pollution col-
lection, spoiled batches, and spills apply to the production of miscel—
laneous products since there are essentially no wastes of these types
127
-------
TABLE 35
QUANTITIES OF TOXIC METALLIC ELEMENTS
IN INDU TRIAL & NON-INDUSTRIAL LACQUER WASTES - 1974
SIC 28515 & 28517
kg/yr*
(Wet Weight)**
KII.OCI 1AMS
SThTE5 EPA ILCIONS COPPi R A IIUM LEAD CHROMIUM QTII
AL,MS IV
AK,Oft X
A Z IX
AR,LA,OK VI
IX 25 30 120 50 50
co VIII
CT I
DE.DC,WV,SC II!, IV
DC I
FL IV 15
GA IV 10 30 10 10
HI IX
ID,MT,NV. X.ViII,IX
NM,UT VI,VIIt
IL V 20 45 100 45 45
IN V 10
I A VII 10
IC$,NB V I
LV 10 20 SO 20 20
LA VI
I
MD III 20
I is
HI V 10 20 50 20 20
MN V 10
MS IV
t40 VII 20 40 20 20
N V VIII
MS VII
NV IX
N H I
NJ II 20 40 90 40 40
MN VI
10 20 50 20 20
NC IV 20
ND VIII
V 20 30 90 30 30
OK VI
OR X
PA II I 10 20 50 20 20
RI I
SC IV
SD VIII
TN IV
TX VI 10 20 50 20 20
UT VIII
VT
VA LII 10
WA X
NV Ill
WI V 10
VT VIII
RATIONAL 135 295 840 295 295
* To convert data to tons/yr, multiply by 0.0011.
** Note: Wet IJeight = Dry Weight
128
-------
TABLE 36
QUANTITIES OF WASTE STREAMS BY SOURCE - 1974
FACTORY-APPLIED COATINGS
SIC 28516
kkg/yr (tons fyr)
(Wet Weight)*
Toxic
Potentially Hazardous Chemical
Hazardous Solvents Compounds
Waste Stream Total Waste Waste Stream In Waste In Waste
Cleanings 23,400(25,799) 23,400(25,799) 5,280(5,821) 239(264)
‘Raw Material Packaging 87,100(96,031) 830(915) 52(57)
Air Pollution Collection 460(507) 460(507) 33(36)
‘0 Spoiled Batches 2,150(2,370) 2,150(2,370) 222(245) 17(19)
Spills 1,610(1,775) 1,610(1,775) 32(35) 2(2 )
TOTAL 114,720(126,482) 28,450(31,366) 5,534( 6,101) 343(378)
*Note: Wet Weight = Dry Weight
-------
TABLE 37
QU 7ITITIES OF WASTES FROM MANUFACTURE OF
FACTORY—APPLIED COATINGS BY STATE — 1974
SIC 28316
kkg/y *
(Wet Weight)**
POTENTIALLY
RDOUS MAZAP000S CAL
PA TOTAl SOLVENtS çOMPOU 0S
S!ATE R EGION IASY STREAI IN WASiE N WAS E
AL,MS IV 8 r 202
1 .OR X 53 134 11
A ‘ 4 2:8
A •LA.OK I 3f 7 2m
CA I X iSOf
so
Co VIII 5 l 1.6
80 16 1.0
.oc,WV•sc III,IV
I. S I 3 CLAWARE 55 89 5.5
5* p 4233 1050 204 12.7
NO PAINT !LAN!5
1?
14225 35 8 686 41:1
TN V 79S 435 9
Vff 404 7
cS,NB V 74 4 .9
KY V 5805 1440 2 0 17.4
L.A I SEC ARKANSAS
MD II 2 81 640 7.7
MR.N 14,VT ‘49 37 .4
MA 1 89 469 5.7
683r 1696 20.4
Mu V 1216 302 3.6
MS
MO S 6 LABAMA 1206 235 14.5
NT V I
v SEE IDANO
SEE KANSAS
MV I SEC I0 H0
NJ 11644 2880 562 34.8
MM SEC MAINE
NM S C 404H0
NY
if 2 18.1
0 6.8
ND VIII g,ftINT PLANTS
SE ARKANSAS 518 32.1
OR A SE ALASKA
PA III 6,91 1684 328 20.3
A 1 T ‘95 48 9 .6
Iv SE DELAWARE
V IZ NO PAINT PLANTS
TM 883 9 43 2.6
TX 6436 1 6 311 19.2
UT VIII SEE IDAHO
VT SU 8 AINE 45 48
VA
WA A 860 13 42 .6
WV III SEE DELAWARE
W V ‘457 361 70 4.4
W VI II P 46 PAINT PLANTS
NATIONAL 114,616 28,424 5550 342.5
* To convert data to tons/yr multiply by 1.1.
*0 Nmta: Wet Weight — Dry Weight
130
-------
TABLE 38
QUANTITIES OF WASTES FROM MANUFACTURE OF FACTORY-APPLIED COATINGS BY EPA REGION - 1974
- SIC 28516
kkglyr (tons /yr)
(Wet Weight)*
Toxic
EPA Region
Total Waste
Potentially
Hazardous
Waste Stream
Hazardous
Solvents
In Waste
Chemical
Compounds
In Waste
I
II
iii:
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
Ix
x
NATIONAL
2,512 (2,763)
17,701(19,471)
10,554(11,636)
15,946(17,581)
36,216(39,838)
7,457(8,222)
6,791(7,470)
688 (759)
15,258(16,822)
1,491(1, 644)
114,614(126,206)
622(684)
4,390(4,829)
2,617(2,885)
3,955(4,361)
9,019(9,944)
1,849(2,039)
1, 684 (1, 850)
171(189)
3, 784 (4, 172)
370 (408)
28,461(31,363)
120 (132)
854 (939)
509(561)
769(848)
1, 755 (1,935)
360(397)
328(361)
33(36)
736 (811)
72(79)
5,536(6,099)
7.5(8.3)
52. 9 (58. 2)
31.5 (34. 7)
47.7 (52. 6)
108. 7 (119. 8)
22.3(24.6)
20.3(22.3)
2.2(2.4)
45 .6 (50. 3)
4.5(5.0)
343. 2(378.0)
I —I
I- ’
*Note: Wet Weight = Dry Weight
-------
TABLE 39
QUANTITIES OF TOXIC METALLIC ELEMENTS
IN FACTORY -APPLIED COATING WASTES - 1974
SIC 28516
kg/yr*
(Wet Weight)**
STATES 1’A RECIONS LEAD CHROMIUM ZINC BARIUM COBALT OTHERS
AL, MS IV 0.8 0.3 0.1 .05 .01 .03
AX, OR X 0.5 0.2 0.06 .04 .01 .02
AZ IX 0.2 0.06 0.02 .01 .01
AR, LA, OK VI 0.9 0.3 0.1 .06 .02 .03
CA IX 14.6 5.5 1.8 1.0 .3 .5
CO VIII 0.5 0.2 0.07 .04 .01 .02
CT I 0.3 0.1 0.03 .02 .01
DC,DC.WV,SC I!I V 0.4 0.1 0.04 .02 .01 .01
DC II I
F l. 1.8 0.7 0.2 .1 .03 .06
GA IV 4.1 1.5 0.5 .3 .08 .1
II I IX
ZD,MT,NV . I X,VIIX,IX
NM ,UT VI,V1II 0.4 0.1 0.05 .03 .01 .01
IL V 13.5 5.1 1.7 .9 .25 .5
IN V 1.7 0.6 0.2 .1 .03 • .06
IA VII 1.5 0.6 0.2 .1 .03 .05
KS .N3 VII 0.3 0.1 0.04 .02 .01 .01
KY IV 5.6 2.1 0.7 .4 .1 .2
LA VI
ME,!.H,VT I 0.1 0.05 0.02 .01
MD I I I 2.5 0.9 0.3 .2 .05 .09
HA 1 1.8 0.7 0.2 .1 .03 .06
MI V 6.5 2.4 0.8 .4 .1 .2
MN V 1.2 0.4 0.1 .08 .02 .04
MS IV
MO V I I 4.8 1.8 0.6 .3 .09 .2
NT VIII
NB VII
NV IX
1*1 1
NJ II 11.1 4.2 1.4 .7 .2 .4
NM VI
NY I X 5.8 2.2 0.7 .4 .1 .2
NC IV 2.2 0.8 0.3 .2 .04 .08
ND VIII
OH V 10.2 3.8 1.3 .7 .2 .4
OK VI
OR z
I II 6.5 2.4 0.8 .4 .1 .2
RI 1 0.2 0.07 0.02 .oi .01
SC XV
SD VIII
TN IV 0.8 0.3 0.1 .06 .02 .03
TX VI 6.1 2.3 0.8 .4 .1 .2
UT VIII
VT I
VA XII 1.0 0.4 0.1 .07 .02 .03
WA X 0.8 0.3 0.1 .06 .01 .03
WV III
WI V 14 0.5 0.2 .09 .03 .05
.WY VIII
NATIONAL 110.1 41.1 13.6 7.4 2.0 3.8
* To convert data to tons/yr , multiply by 0.0011.
** Note: Wet Weight — Dry Weight
132
-------
TABLE 40
QUANTITIES OF WASTE STREAMS BY SOURCE — 1974
PUTTY AND MISCELLANEOUS PAINT PRODUCTS
SIC 28518 & 28519
kkg/yr (tons/yr)
(Wet Weight)*
Toxic
Potentially Hazardous Chemical
Hazardous Solvents Compounds
Waste Stream Total Waste Waste Stream In Waste In Waste
Cleanings 8,680(9,570) 8,680(9,570) 1,410(1,555) 54(60)
Raw Material Packaging 30,910(34,079) 190(209) 12(13)
Air Pollution Collection 160(176) 160(176) 7(8)
I- .
Spoiled Batches 410(452) 410(452) 60(66) 4(4)
Spills 570(628) __ 570(628) — 10(11) 0.5(0.6 )
TOTAL 40,730(44,905) 10,010(11,035) 1,480(1,632) 77.5(85.6)
*Note: Wet Weight = Dry Weight
-------
in putty manufacture. Table 41 shows the estimated state distribution
of the wastes of this subcategory according to their characteristics
and this distribution by EPA region Is presented in Table 42. (See
Appendix F.)
Projected Growth in Production and Wastes
• According to the Bureau of the Census, the paint and coatings in-
dustry has been growing in recent years at an average rate of 4.6 per-
cent per year. This growth rate has been used to project the production
of this industry to 1977 and 1983 which is estimated at 4156 million
liters (1098 million gal.) and 5318 million liters (1405 million gal.)
respectively. The national waste totals for these years shown in Ta-
bles 43 and 44 were derived by extrapolating 1974 data shown in Table
22 up to the increased production. Totals by EPA region are shown in
Table 45.
State totals in Tables 43 and 44 reflect the fact that growth rates
vary considerably in different parts of the country and from state to
state. For example, the rate is almost zero in New England and up to
eight percent per year In some southern states. Thus, state totals in
these tables are proportionate to their share of total growth rather
than total projected production.
There is also a range of growth among different products. The
most recently available Census data (1967—1972) which was used in ex-
trapolation of growth rates by SIC subcategory is as follows:
SIC Code 28511 and 28513 — growth of interior and exterior
solvent—thinned trade sales paints, 4.1%/yr.
SIC Code 28512 and 28514 — growth of interior and exterior
water—thinned trade sales paints, 8 .l%/yr.
SIC Code 28515 and 28517 — growth of industrial/non-.jndustrja l
lacquers, 5.0%/yr.
SIC Code 28516 — growth of factory applied coatings, 2.7%/yr.
SIC Code 28518 and 28519 — growth of putty and miscellaneous
paint products, 6.3%/yr,
Growth in production of specific products is discussed in more de-
tail under the various industry subcategories.
In calculating wastes on direct relationship to production in
Tables 43 and 44 it must be remembered that the proportional use of some
of the potentially hazardous materials may be affected by government
regulation, the direction of which is unclear at this time, and, in view
of the present economic recession, the pace of growth may slacken which
134
-------
TASLE 41
QUANTITIES OF WA8TES FROM
MANUFAeTURE OP PUTFY AND MISCELLANEOUS PAINT PRODUCTS ST STATE - 1974
SIC 28518 8 28519
kkg/yr*
(Vet Weight)**
POTENTIALLY
ROOUS NAZARD U5 A CAb
PA TOTOI, SOLVEN S COMPOUN S
STATE REGION WA 5 S REAM IN WASTE IN WASTE
.4
*t..MS V 289 7 1
A ,OR 1 4
.
AR,LA,OK I 34
CA IX 540 1312 1
VIII 16 48 I
8 r
L.DC.WV.SC II IV &14 8
DC SC DELAWARE
V 652 160 24 1.2
NI N N AINT PLANTS
8* V 5$3 369 59 2.9
.2
184 9.6
IL
‘N V 19 I
4
. S.NS V 6 2
C V V 20 1 5G7 75 3.9
LA I SE ARKANSAS
ND
PS jNH,VT 53 :
II
24 .6
N V .42 06 .8
MS V SEç 2 9LABANA 424 63 3.3
NO
MT V 1 1 1 S C IDahO
MS Vj S KANSAS
NV I S IDaHO
NM I SEE MAINE
4 34 1016 150 7.9
NJ
NM
S t?1D O 1 9 9 1.
MV
99 8 4,J 1
NC
ND VII! NO PAINT PLANS
OH V 80 36 138 7.2
OK VI S C ARKANSAS
K 9 E ALASKA
A III 411 593 88 4.6
69 17 3 .1
S E OE W RE
TN i i N 3 I - LANT ,
T M I 225 52
UT VIII IDAHO
VT E MAINE
VA II 3 5 g 86 3 .7
75 1 .6
N. III SE DELAWARE
U I V 5 7 27 19 1.0
NY VIII NO AINT !I.AN S
NATIONAL 40739 10010 1480 77.5
a 7 convert data to tons/yr, u1tip1y by 1.1.
** Note: Wet Weight — Dry Weight
135
-------
TABLE 42
QUANTITIES OF WASTES FROM MANUFACTURE OF PUTTY AND MISCELLANEOUS PAINT PRODUCTS BY EPA REGION - 1974
SIC 28518 & 28519
kkg/yr (tons/yr)
(Wet Weight)*
Toxic
Potentially Hazardous Chemical
Hazardous Solvents Compounds
EPA Region Total Waste Waste Stream In Waste In Waste
I 892(981) 219(241) 33(36) 1.7(1.9)
II 6,285(6,914) 1,545 1,7OO) 228(251) 12.0(13.1)
III 3,747(4,131) 921(1,015) 136(150) 7.1(7.8)
IV 5,662(6,243) 1,391(1,534) 206(227) 10.8(11.9)
V 12,859(14,145) 3,160(3,476) 468(515) 24.4(26.8)
VI 2,648(2,920) 651(718) 96(106) 5.0(5.5)
VII 2,411(2,652) 59 (652) 88(97) 4.6(5.1)
VIII 244(269) 60(66) 9(10) 0.5(0.6)
IX 5,417(5,972) 1,331(1,467) 197(217) 10.3(11.4)
X 530(584) 130(143) 19(21) 1.0(1.1 )
NATIONAL 40,695(44,811) 10,000(11,010) 1,480(1,631) 77.4(85.2)
*Note: Wet Weight = Dry Weight
-------
TABLE 43
QUARUTIES OP TOTAL PAINT & COATINCS INDUSTRY WASTES DY STATE - 1917
SIC 283
kkg/yr (tons/yr)
(W a W.ight)
POTENTIALLY TOXIC CHEMICAL
TOTAL WASTE HAZARDOI$ HAZARDOUS 50LVU TS C O NFOUN DS
STA EPA REGIONS J4ETRIC TONS/TEAR — WASTE STREAM IN WASTE IN WAST E
AL, I s IV 3.700 (4 .070) 910 (1,000) 117 (128) 7.7 (8.4)
Al, OR 1 2,190 (2.410) 340 (600) 72 (80) 4.3 (3.0)
AZ IX 630 (700) 160 (170) 19 (21) 1.3 (1.4)
AR, LA, OK fl 3,610 (3,970) 890 (980) 122 (134) 7.5 ( 5,3)
I X 61,120 (67,230) 1.3,100. (16,600) 2,030 (2,230) 128.6 (141.3)
GO VIII 2,490 (2 .730) 610 (670) 77 (84) 3.2 (3.8)
CT 1 980 (1,080) 240 (270) 37 (40) 2.0 (2.2)
DE,X,UV,EC 11I,IV 1,190 (1.310) 290 (320) 40 (49) 2.4 .(2.7)
tC III S os Dalants (S .. Not.)
8,360 (9,200) 2,070 (2,270) 260 (283) 17.3 (19.1)
IV 18,840 (20,720) 4,660 (3,120) 640 (700) 39.2 (43.2)
HE IX No Paint Plants
ThJft,NY, X,VIII,U
5 1,07 VI,VIII 1,460 (1,610) 360 (390) 34 (60) . 3.0 (3.3)
a V 31,620 (36,790) 12,700 (14,000) 1,790 (1,970) 107.3 (118.1)
V 6,390 (7,030) 1,380 (1,740) 280 (308) 13.3 (14.6)
IA VII 6,390 (7,250) 1,620 (1,780) 218 (240) 13 ,7 (13.1)
a a vxt 1.230 (1,360) 300 (330) 38 (42) 2.3 (2.8)
a Iv 27,190 (29,900) 6,700 (7,400) 840 (923) 36.5 (62.1)
LA VI Sss Arkansan (S.. Not.)
NE,I5,VT 1 320 (580) 130 (150) U 1.1 (1.2)
I C I II 11.470 (12,620) 2,830 (3,120) 362 (398) 23.8 (26.2)
I 6.730 (7.400) 1,670 (1,830) 234 (237) 13.9 (13.3)
26,670 (29,340) 6,600 (7,200) 860 (940) 31.3 (36.7)
V 4,920 (5,410) 1,210 (1.330) 160 (178) 10.2 (U.2)
p . v San Alabana (See Not.)
NO VII 19,730 (21,710) 4,870 (3,330) 670 (740) 42.3 (46.7)
NT VIII 8.. Idaho (San I.e.)
NE VII Rae lansas (S.. Set.)
NV U Sac Idaho (Sea Not.)
I I I 1 Sn Mains (S.. Note)
NJ 11 43,140 (47,460) 10,700 (11,700) 1,480 (1.620) 89.7 (98.7)
mc VI Se. Idaho (Sn Not.)
22,420 (24,660) 3,500 (6,100) 770 (850) 46.6 (51.3)
xv 10,130 (11,130) 2,300 (2,730) 320 (350) 21.1 (23.2)
ND VIII No Paint Plants
08 V 38.910 (42,800 9,600 (10,600) 1,340 (1,480) 80.9 (82.0)
OX V I Sos Arkansas (S.. Not.)
OR I Sn Alaska (Sea Nots)
PA IL l 23,170 (27,690) 6,200 (6,800) $60 (950) 52.3 (57.3)
SI I 710 (780) 180 (200) 26 (28) 1.3 (1.7)
SC IV Sn Dslawars (S n Note)
SD VIII No Paint Plants
V T IV 4,140 (4.550) 1,020 (1,120) 128 (140) S.? (9.3)
VI 24,600 (27,060) 6,080 (6,680) 830 (910) 31.1 (36.2)
0? VIII Sos Idaho (Sn Rots)
VT I Sea Maine (Es. Hots)
VA III 4,390 (4,831)) 1,090 (1,200) 136 (130) 9.1 (10.0)
WA I 3.490 (3,840) 810 (950) 114 (123) 7.3 (8.0)
WV III Es. Dslawars (So. ots)
V 3,290 (5,820) 1,320 (1,440) 184 (202) 11.0 fli.2)
UT VIII No Paint Plant.
NATI OKAL 450,0201 (495,060)1 111,1002 (122,160) 15,129 (16,6p) 934.3 (1028.2)
NOTE: WIT1EIILLD (ST CTZSCS) TO AVOID DISCLOSI’t PICUR C POP IflJCVTDVAI. Cfl?WMII!5,
‘Contains approictsatsly 62 s,ter. 2 Contgina .s.’;roxl.w.itely 241 ‘ateg.
1.37
-------
TABLE 44
QUANTITIES OP TOTAL PAINT & COATINGS INDUSTRY WASTES BY STATE - 1983
SIC Z8
Mig/yr ‘(tone/yr)
(Wet Weight)
POTENTIALLY TOXIC CFEMICAL
TOTAL WASTE HAZARDOUS HAZARDOUS SOLVENTS co wo os
STATFS EPA RICIOUS METRIC TONS/YEAR WASTE STREAM ‘ IN WASTE - n; WASTE .
Al., MS IV 6,780 (7,460) 1,670 (1,860) 133 (146) 13 (14)
AK, OR X 3,200 (3,520) 790 (870) 77 (84) 6 (7)
AZ IX 1,120 (1,240) 270 (300) 21 (23) 2 (2)
AR, LA, OK VI 4,640 (5,110) 1,140 (1,250) 128 (141) 9 (10)
CA IX 89,280 (98,210) 22,100 (24,300) 2,180 (2,400) 172 (189)
Co V III 4,400 (4,840) 1,090 (1,200) 86 (95) 8 (9)
CT I 1,070 (1,180) 260 (280) 37 (40) 2 (2)
DE,DC,WV,SC III,IV 1,410 (1,559) 350 (380) 40 (44) 3 (3)
DC III See Delaware (Se . Note)
FL IV 14,630 (16,090) 3,560 (3,910) 294 (323) 28 (31)
GA l v 32,950 (36,250) 8,150 (8,960) 710 (780) 63 (69)
I II IX 110 Paint Plante
ID,MT,HV, X,VIII,IX
NN,UT VI,VIII 2,130 (2,340) 530 (580) 61 (67) 4 (4)
IL V 39,490 (65,440) 14,700 (16,200) 1,830 (2,010) 113 (125)
IN V 7,360 (8,090) 1,820 (2,010) 284 (313) 14 (15)
IA VII 9,800 (10,780) 2,420 (2.660) 234 (257) 19 (21)
KS,fl3 VII 1,830 (2,010) 460 (550) 40 (44) ( )
KY IV 52,550 (57,810) 13,000 (14,300) 960 (1,060) 100 (110)
LA VI See Arknnoaa (See Note)
) ,N1I,VT 1 570 (630) 140 (150) 21 (23) 1 (1)
ND 1 11 20,070 (22,070) 4,960 (5,450) 406 (447) 38 (42)
No 1 7,320 (8,050) 1,810 (1,9 0) 234 (257) 14 (15)
MI V 28,580 (31.440) 7,070 (7,770) 874 (960) 54 (60)
MN V 7,310 (8.040) 1,810 (1,990) 178 (195) 14 (15)
MS IV See Alabama (See Note)
MO VII 29,340 (32,280) 7,250 (8,000) 721 (794) 58 (64)
MT VIII See Idaho (See Note)
NB VII See 1{aneaa (Sea Note)
NV IX See Ida) ,., (See Note)
NH I See Maine (See Note)
NJ fl 51,130 (56,240) 12,600 (1,3,900) 1,520 (1,670) 97 (107)
NM VI See Idaho (See Note)
N T II 26,570 (29,230) 6,560 (7,220) 790 (870) 51 (56)
NC IV 17,730 (19,500) 2,990 (3,290) 360 (400) 34 (37)
l ID VIII No Paint Plante
OH V 44,830 (49,320) 4,380 (4,820) 1,370 (1,500) 85 (94)
OK VI See Arkanaaa (See Note)
OR X See Aleoka (Sec Note)
PA III 29,830 (32,820) 11,100 (12,200) 890 (980) 57 (62)
RI I 770 (850) 200 (220) 26 (28) 2 (2)
St. IV See Delaware (See Note)
SD VIII No Paint I ’lante
TN IV 8,000 (8,800) 1,980 (2,170 147 (162) 15 (17)
TX VI 31,670 (34,840) 7,830 (8,610) 870 (960) 60 (66)
UT VIII See Idaho (See Note)
V i ’ I See Maine (Sea Note)
VA III 7,680 (8,450) 1,900 (2,090) 145 (160) 15 (16)
WA X 5,100 (3,610) 1,260 (1,390) 122 (134) 10 (11)
WV III See Delaware (See Note)
WI V 6,100 (6,710) 1,500 (1,660) 187 (206) 12 (13)
WY VIII No Paint Plante
NATI0 AL 615,24& (676,800)1 147,6502 (162,510)2 15,976 (17,573) 1176 (129
NOTE: WITHHF.LD (BY CENSUS) TO AVOID DISCLOSING FIGURE FOR INDIVIDUAL COMPANIES.
‘Contains approximately 72 water. 2 Containe approximately 281 water.
138
-------
TABLE 45
QUANTITIES OF TOTAL PAINT AND COATINGS INDUSTRY WASTES BY EPA REGION — 1977 & 1983
SIC 285
kkg/yr (tons/yr)
(Wet Weight)
Potentially
Hazardous
Waste Stream
Hazardous
Solvents
In Waste
Toxic
Chemical
Compounds
In Waste
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
NATIONAL
8,940(8, 940)
65,560(72,440)
41,852(46,1 )
72,903(80,378)
133,800(147,190)
28,351(31,258)
27 ,550(30,32Q)
2,700(2,977)
62,103(68,471)
5 , 850(6,4 QL
449 609(4 95,147)
2,220(2,450)
16,200(17,809)
10,332(11,391)
17,998(19,843)
33,010(36,310)
6,999 (7 ,717)
6,790(7,460)
667 (735)
15,332(16,904)
1,445(1,593)
110,993 (122,203) 2
318 (348)
2,250(2,470)
1,406(1,550)
2,449(2,700)
4,614(5,078)
953(1,051)
926(1,022)
91(100)
2,087(2,301)
197(217)
15,291(16,837)
18.5(20.4)
136.3 (150. 0)
86.9(95.8)
151.3(166.8)
274.2(301.8)
58.8(64.8)
57.7(64.6)
5.6(6.2)
128.9(142.1)
12.1(13.3)
930.3(1,025.8)
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
Ix
x
NATIONAL
9,730(10,710)
77,700(85,470)
58,448(64,441)
132,277(145,840)
153,670(169,040)
36,914(40,699)
40,970(45,070)
5,537(6,105)
91,056(100,393)
8,613(9,496)
614 , 915 (677 , 264)
2,410(2,640)
19,160(21,120)
14,440(15,921)
32,680(36,031)
37,795(41,533)
9,120(10,055)
10,130(11,210)
1, 368 (1, 508)
22,496(24,803)
2,128(2,346)
l5l,727(167,167)
318(348)
2,310(2,540)
1,515(1,670)
3,429(3,781)
4,723(5,184)
957(1,055)
1, 995 (1, 095)
144(159)
2,361(2,603)
223(246)
16,975(18,681)
19. 0(20. 0)
148.0(163.0)
111.7 (123. 2)
252.8(278.7)
292.0(322.0)
70.6(7 7.8)
80 .0(89 .0)
10.6(11.7)
174.0(191.8)
16. 5 (18. 2)
1,175 .2 (1,29 5. 4)
lcontains approximately 6% water.
4 Contains approximately 28% water.
2 Contalns approximately 24% water.
3 Contains
1977
EPA Region
Total WaBte
I - .
0
1983
approximately 7% water.
-------
would cause the overall quantities of waste predicated on these levels
of production to exceed those actually generated.
Increased use of water pollution control equipment will result in
additional potentially hazardous waste sludges requiring disposal on
land. If plants which presently discharge wastewater treatment wastes
directly to a municipal treatment system are required to remove solids
from this stream, large additional amounts of sludge will be generated
for disposal with solid wastes. When calculating future waste quanti-
ties, it has been assumed that this change will not occur suddenly and
that its influence will be partially offset by the development of new
technology to treat or utilize wastewater sludges.
As discussed in more detail later, the use of solvents will be
influenced by the slow trend towards water—based paints and new tech-
niques in factory—applied coatings. The amount of solvents contained
in wastes will also be affected by the growth in solvent recovery
operations engendered by changing economics and virgin solvent avail-
ability.
While the use of solvents is estimated to increase at a rate of
over four percent per year, the increase in solvent waste will be re-
duced to less than two percent in the near future, and will stabilize
by 1983. The increase will be distorted geographically due to varying
economics in different areas.
The extraplation of figures of this nature three and nine years
into the future necessarily contains many unknowns which introduce
unavoidable inaccuracies. The resulting estimates are as good as can
be accurately predicted considering the many variables, but they are
inherently less accurate than 1974 calculations given earlier.
Future Trends in Industry Subcategories
Solvent—Thinned Trade Sales Paints
The future for solvent—thinned trade sales paints appears to prom-
ise a steady decrease of the ratio of their production to water—thinned
paints. The ease of application of the latter, the bright colors, the
applicability over damp surfaces, and the ease of clean-up has made them
very popular with do—it—yourself painters, a growing proportion of the
trades sales market.
There are, of course, some uses in which water—thinned paints are
not comparable, as yet, with solvent—thinned coatings. These include
surfaces where high gloss (automobile refinishing), abrasion resistance
(floor and deck paints), prolonged water immersion (marine paints), and
a few other special properties are required, and a technological break-
through will be necessary before water—thinned paints are widely used
140
-------
in these areas. However, most conventional trade sales paints are
shifting to water, and this shift is likely to continue for the next
few years. It is estimated that by 1980 the production of solvent—
thinned trade sales paints, except in certain specified fields, will
be less than half what it is today.
En the manufacturing area, roller mills appear to be generally on
their way out. Those still in use are employed only because they are
on hand; it is doubtful that many more will be bought. While pebble
mills are still used for industrial paints, and may be used for trade
sales products, if available, their use should decrease. Increasing use
of sand mills, high—speed stone mi].].s, and high—speed mixers may be
expected. Expanded use of more easily dispersed (stir—in) pigments and
pre—dispersed pigments may also be anticipated. Except for constituents
which contain lead and mercury whose use may be regulated, little change
in the use of potentially hazardous compounds may be expected in the
manufacture of solvent—thinned trade sales paints.
The wastes of this subcategory are projected nationally and by
state for 1977 and 1983 in Tables 46 and 47 and by EPA region in Table
48. These estimates include total waste, totalpotentially hazardous
wastes, and total hazardous constituents. Tables 46 and 47 were derived
in the same manner as the estimates In Table 43 and 44.
The projected national distribution of solvent—thinned trade sales
paint wastes by waste stream in 1977 and 1983 is shown in Table 49.
Projected production growth and waste data of surveyed plants were used
in these extrapolations.
Water—Thinned Trade Sales Paints
Is is probable that the production of water—thinned coatings will
continue to expand until it accounts for most trade sales products ex-
cept those discussed above under solvent—thinned trades sales materials.
Little change in the character or amount of waste per unit of product
is to be expected in water—thinned coatings, unless mercury is con-
trolled as discussed previously, although technological breakthroughs
are always possible.
The above comments on trends in equipment usage in the production
of solvent—thinned trade sales paints are also applicable to this sub—
category.
The wastes of this subcategory are projected nationally and by
state to 1977 and 1983 in Tables 50 and 51 and by EPA region in Table
52. These estimates include total waste, total potentially hazardous
wastes, and total hazardous constituents. Tables 50 and 51 were derived
in the same manner as the estimates in Table 43 and 44.
141
-------
TABLE 46
OF
STA+E — 1917
SIC lSSl 28513
kkg yr
(w We1( JeLgbt) ‘
POT ENT 11 R’ j TO C
oouc C IC4O C
WAZARD NHAiARDOU5)OUiCI4EMICAL
TOTA l 2 T 2 f 1 STRE ,d15 T 5 ( A$TCOMPOUpiD$
SYA?C *T*?E Q 4 ZCN AST . • STREA WASTE IN WASTE
0
Lct S IL,NS ! IV • 7 12 4 40 ? , 3.3
A oOR Ak ,OR 506 II! 7 1 24 oO 2.0
7 AZ Ill If 6 .6
c (oo R.LA,O g v 827 658 55.0
CA £ 4Q3 1*
(,5 Q 3.2
Y
II o9 2.2
22Y 57 i ç 27
LC 0 ,DC.WV SCo l 1 269
0
SEZ DE
(3C C i z 482 90 7
I.
r M I
GA F 1 330 3 2tM toes 203 203 17 0 17.0,
f, O PAZ LANTS
V Jft I .
v 67 I 4 u 69
509 fl 69 5 9 5.8
2 211 h I
279 L ::: ‘ L.1
V 6 24.5
I 1 SE L is
I
A
31 6 0o
287 3 24 0
660 1 4
1 3 2
45 S A%.ABAJS * 1134 212 17.7
V SEt Al
SEE Ir 5 ,Zo wo
s
s 1 s IO .Hq
I I s r %Et MAI4lE 2483 3°0 38,8
99 0
Szz
146
1289 9 o 1 Ifl.Z
583 9.1
IZI
‘ 3 939 2239 419 35.0
v i S
B 5EI. A 5
in -‘p” 777 L* 1447 271 22.6
f
V sa 41 8 .6
2 8 45 3.7
I 1416 265
I n SEZ SE .E,4AINE,S 4
11)13 254
202 38 3.2
III SE OCI AdAAE
V S 306 57
VIU - AN S
.0i34% 0334 , •589 ise,i 4851 405.1
; To. jj dat. to’ tOnW/y t itt 1 j ,j , I)v 1 • 1.
. Not.:
Yw IN
ii i i
g SoN0 KS.Ne U
rZY KY
l A L.A
I o M D
1A MA
NI
rW MN
3 MS s’t,
MO
T NT
r 5 N8 VX
r 5 NV
h NH
1 J NJ
NM
WV NY
WC MC x v
t D NO
PW OH
Ol OK
! OR B
2 PA
RI 0
Sc
L SD
• ! TM
TA v i
iJ UT
VT
VA
,‘ WA
- WV
1 VI
-0 WY
A . NAtI0NAL
.5
10.3
6.1
24,0
4.4
342142
-------
TAZLE 41
QUANTITIES OF WASTES FRC! MAMIVACTURE OF
SOLVE1fE—ThINNED TRADE SALES PAurrS ST STATE — 1983
SIC 28511 6 22513
kk 1 /yr
(Wet Veight)**
POTE11TIALLY To*!C
HAZAgDOUS MAZA, 00U5 CHEMICAb
EPA TOT L wASTE - SOLVENTS COMPOUN S
STATE REGION USE S EA IN WAS! IN IASTE
AL,MS IV 1438 56 5.?
A .OR X 6 0 27 2.7
IX 2..5 •59 9 .9
AR,LA.OK VI 981 246 36 3.9
c* IX 18975 4759 741 75.2
r 2 236 3? 3.7
22 56 9 .9
•DC,WV.SC II•IV 301 75 12 1.2
I SEE OELAWA .E
P 1 . II 3060 768 119 12.1
U IV 7009 1758 274 27.8
,NV AX NO PAINT PLAPITE
IX
NN.U VI Ii 115 1.8
IL V 12645 3 2 44 50.1
TN V 1569 394 6 6.2
Ia V c O?9 522 8 8.2
392 98
2801 4. 1
LA I ARKANSAS -
118 3 S .5
N ,NH,VT II 4c63 1 6 126 16.9
MA •. 1556 90
MI 6061 1525 233
MN V 1556 390 61
MS IV SEE ALABAMA
MO VII 6238 1565 243 24.7
MT V II SEE IOAP$O - -
NB V SEE KANSAS
NV 1! SEE IO.eMO
NJ 10661 2726 424 43.0
NH I SEE MAINE
NM Et IDAHO
NT I 5649 1417 29 22.4
NC V 3766 945 14 14.9
NO VIII NO PAINT PLANTS
OH V 9533 2391 372 37.6
OK VI SEE ARKANSAS -
OR X S ALASKA
PA III - •2 1591 248 25.1
70 43 7 .7
RI - IV Sd DELAWARE
SC
SD VIII NO PAINT PLANTS
1700 - 426 66 6.;
TN
TX I 6735 1689 263 26.
SEE MAINE
VT
UT li ii SEE IDAHO
VA II 1635 430 64 6.5
0B5 2 2 42 4.3
WA
WV II I S.C OELAWAR(
WI V 295 325 51 5.1
WY VIII Mu PAINT PLANTS
NATIONAL 130743 32795 3104 518.0
*7 convert data to toca/yr. multiply by 1.1.
**Uote: Wet Weight — Dry Weight
143
-------
TABLE 48
QUANTITIES OF WASTES FROM MANUFACTURE OF SOLVENT-ThINNED TRADE SALES PAINTS BY EPA REGION - 1977 & 1983
d c
kkglyr (tons/yr)
(Wet Weight) *
1977
EPA Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
Ix
x
NATIONAL
1983
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
Ix
x
NATIONAL
Total Waste
2,066(2,273)
15,056(16,636)
9,611(10,596)
16,741(18,458)
30,732(33,805)
6,510(7,178)
6,314(6,945)
620(684)
14,260(15,722)
1,343(1,481)
103,253(113,778)
2,066(2,273)
16,516(18,168)
12,423(13,699)
28,115(30,998)
32,679(35,947)
7,846(8,650)
8,709(9,580)
1,177 (1,298)
19,354(21,338)
1,831(2,019 )
130,716(143,970)
Potentially
Hazardous
Waste Stream
517 (569)
3,772(4,149)
2,408(2,655)
4,194(4,624)
7,700(8,470)
1,631 (1,798)
1,582 (1,740)
155 (171)
3,573 (3,939)
337 (371)
25,869(28,486)
519 (571)
4,143(4,557)
3,116(3,436)
7,052(7,775)
8,197(9,017)
1,968(2,170)
2,185(2,404)
295 (325)
4,854(5,352)
4,590(5,061 )
32,757(36,112)
Hazardous
Solvents
In Waste
98(108)
706(777)
451 (497)
785(865)
1,441(1,585)
305(336)
296 (326)
29(32)
669 (738)
63(69)
4,843(5,334)
82(90)
644(708)
485 (535)
1,098 (1, 211)
1, 276 (1,407)
306(337)
329 (37 3)
46(51)
755 (832)
71(78)
5,102(5,622)
Toxic
Chemical
Compounds
In Waste
8.1(8.9)
59. 0(64.9)
37 .7 (41. 6)
65 .6 (72. 3)
120.5(132.5)
25 .5 (28. 1)
24.7(27.2)
2.4(2.6)
55.9(61.6)
5.3(5.8)
404.7(446.2)
8.3(9.1)
65.4(71.9)
49.2 (54. 2)
111.4(122.8)
129.5(142.4)
31.1(34.3)
34. 5(38.0)
4.7(5.2)
76.7 (84. 6)
7.2(7.9)
518.0(570.2)
-l
*Note: Net Weight = Dry Weight
-------
TABLE 49
QUANTITIES OF WASTE STREAMS BY SOURCE — 1977 & 1983
SOLVENT-ThINNED TRADE SALES PAINTS
SIC 28511 & 28513
kkg/yr (tons/yr)
(Wet Weight) *
Waste Stream
Total Waste
Potentially
Hazardous
Waste Stream
Hazardous
Solvents
In Waste
Toxic
Chemical
Compounds
In Waste
Cleanings
Raw Material Packaging
Air Pollution Collection
Spoiled Batches
Spills
22,000(24,256)
78,400(86,439)
400 (441)
1,000(1,103)
1.500(1,654)
103,300(113,893)
27,900(30,761)
99,230(109,405)
520(573)
1, 300 (1,433)
1,820(2,007)
130,770(144,179)
22,000(24,256)
990(1,092)
400 (441)
1,000(1,103)
1,500(1,654)
25,890(28,546)
27,900(30,761)
1, 260 (1, 389)
520(573)
1,300(1,433)
1,820(2,007 )
32,800(36.163)
200(221)
28(31)
4,848(5,34 6)
20(22)
11(12)
5,101(5,624)
280(309)
62(68)
40(44)
20(22)
3(3)
405(446)
360(397)
80(88)
50(55)
25(28)
3(3)
518(571)
1977
Cleanings
Raw Material Packaging
Air Pollution Collection
Spoiled Batches
Spills
TOTAL
1983
4,620(5,094)
TOTAL
5,070(5,590)
*Note: Wet Weight = Dry Weight
-------
TM LE 50
QUA iTLTIES OF WASTES PROM NANUFACTL.’RE O
WATFR—TMINNED TRADE SALES PAINTS BY STATE — 1977
SIC 28512 & 28514
kkg/yr*
(Wet Weight)
POTENTIALLY TO)IIC
HA2ARDOUS HAZARDOUS CHEMICAL
EPA TOTAl, WASTE SOLVENTS COMPOUNDS
S!ATE REGION WASTt s!REAr IN WAS!E IN WASTE
AL,MS IV 1184 287 - .5
AX,OR 708 171 .3
az ?02 49
£R,L.A.OIC v i 1i55 280 .5
CA I X 19606 4748 9.1
Co VIII 794 192
CT 318 77
DE,DC,WV,SC II.IV 3?5 91
DC III SEE DELAWARE
IV 2686 650 1.2
GA IV 6050 1465 2.8
NI IX NO PAINT !I .ANTS
462 1 1 .2
IL
16562 4010 7.7
V 2050 496
1* VII 2108 510
K ,NB VII 390 94 .2
IV 8721 2112 4,0
LA VI SEE ARKANSAS
.NH.VT I ‘73 42
MO fIX 3&82 891
MA 2166 524 L.0
MI V B 62 2073 4,0
MN V 1574 381 .7
MS p SEE ALABAMA -
MO p 6324 1531 2,9
MT V II SEE IDAHO
NB V II SEE IcA’4SAS
NV IX SEE IDAHO.
NH I SEE MaINE
NJ I I 13847 3353 6.4
NM VI SEE IDAHO
T19 174’ 3.3
NC LV 324 78? 1.5
NO PAINT PLANTS
ND VIII 12490 - 3C24 5.8
ON V
oic VI SEt MKA’4SAS
OR SEE ALAS cA
PA III 8071 1954 3.7
RI I 231 56 .1
SC IV SEE DELAWAcE
SD V I I T NO PAINT PLANTS
TN p 1328 322 .6
!A z 7898 1912 3.7
UT ‘VIII SEE IDAHO
SEE MAINE
VT I
VA ill 1415 363 .7
WA Jj26 273 .5
iv III Str. DELA A Z
WI V 1704 413 .8
WY VIII NO PAINT PLANTS
NATIONAL 1444fl4 1 349642 66.8
Alo convert data to tons/yr, u1tip1y by 1.1.
‘Contains eppru t.’ te1y SU4 wj er. 2 Lon Lns oppro m C ly 751 w.iter.
146
-------
TABLE 51
QUANTITIES OF WASTES FROM NANUFACTURC OF
WATER—THINNED TRADE SALES PAInTS BY STATE — 1983
SIC 28512 & 28514
kkg/yr*
CVet Weight)
POTENTIALLY Tu XIC
HAZAI O’)US HAZARDOUS ChEMICAL
EPl TOTçL. W aSTE SOLVENTS COI’POUMJS
STATE RE3ION WASE 5!REA IN WASTE IN cASTE
AL,NS IV 2535 614 1.1
A ,OR X 1198 290 .5
4 5 100 .2
AR,LA,QI( I 178 419
CA I X 33435 8098 14.9
CO VIII 1659 402
CT 392 95 •2
DE,OC,WV.SC II.IV 530 128 .2
III SEE DELA . A.E
I. V 5392 1306 2.4
GA IV 12351 2991 - 5.5
P 11 X NO PAINT PLANTS
IO.MT,NV X ,VIII,IX
NN,UT VI,VIII 8)7 195 .4
It. V 22283 5397 10.0
I N V 2765 670 1.2
A VII 3664 887 1.6
Rs,NB VII 6 ’ 167 .3
1967 4766 8,6
LA I SEE AP ANSAS
ME,NM,VT I 207 50 .1
N 7512 1819 3.4
NA 2742 664 1.2
NI V 10715 2595 4.6
MN V - 2742 664 1.2
IV SEE ALABAMA
1 992 2662 4.9
MT V 1I SEE IU ’)
NB V I SEE KA’.SAS
NV IX SEE IDAHO
NH I SEE ‘ AINE
NJ I; 19 49 4638 8,6
NM V. SE IDAHO
NY II 9955 2411 4.4
NC IV 6636 1607 3.0
ND VIII NO PAINT PLANTS
ON V 16798 4069 7 ,5
O K VI SEE AR ANSA5
OH K SEE ALAS A
PA III 11176 2707 5.0
I 300 73 .1
S V SEE DELA A E
SD VIII NO PAINT PLANTS
TN IV 2996 726
TX VI 11867 2874
UT VIII SEE IOA lO
VT I SE MAINE
2880 69d 1.3
VA I I I 1913 463 • .9
WA X
c v III SEE DELAMARE
i i V 2281 553 1.0
VIII NO PAInT PLANTS
NATIONAL 2303851 557982 102.8
I
Contains oppro’cimately 201 water. COntatns dppro irnJte1y 751 sater.
*To convert dato tn tons/yr multtpl> b 1.1
14
-------
TABLE 52
QLANTITIESOF WASTES FROM MANUFACTURE OF WATER—THINNED TRADE SALES PAINTS BY EPA REGION - 1977 & 1983
SIC 28512 & 28514
kkg/yr (tons/yr)
(Wet Weight)
1977
EPA Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
Ix
x
NATIONAL
1983
Total Waste
2,888(3,184)
21,038(23,142)
13,428(14,805)
23,391(25,789)
42,942(47,236)
9,097(10,030)
8,822(9,704)
8,660(9,548)
19,926(21,969)
1,877(2,069)
144,275(158,883)1
699(771)
5,094(5,603)
3,251(3,584)
5,663(6,244)
10,397 (11,437)
2,202(2,428)
2,135(2,348)
210 (232)
4,825(5,320)
455(502)
34,931(38,468)2
Hazardous
Solvents
In Waste
Toxic
Chemical
Compounds
In Waste
1.3(1.4)
9. 7 (10. 7)
6.2(6.8)
10. 8(11. 9)
20. 0 (22. 1)
4.2(4.6)
4.1(4.5)
0.4(0.4)
9. 3(10. 3)
0.9(1.0)
66.9(73 .8)
I
[ I
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
Ix
x
NAT IONAL
3,641(4,005)
29,104(32,014.)
21,891(24,136)
49,542(54,622)
57,584 (63,342)
13,826(15,244)
15,347(16,882)
2,074(2,287)
34,104(37,601)
3,226(3,557)
230 , 339 (253 , 688)
882(970)
7,049(7,754)
5,302(5,846)
11,999(13,229)
13,948(15,343)
3,349(3,692)
3,716(4,088)
502(553)
8,260(9,107)
781(861)
55,788(6l,444)
1.6(1.8)
13.0(14.3)
9. 8 (10. 8)
22. 1(24. 4)
25.7(28.7)
6.2(6.8)
6.8(7.5)
0.9(1.0)
15. 3 (16. 9)
1.4(1.5)
102.8(113.4)
1 ’ofltains approximately 20% water. 2 Contains approximately 75% water.
4 CorLtalns approximately 75% water.
Potentially
Hazardous
Waste Stream
1
‘ -I
3 Contains approximately 20% iater.
-------
The projected national distribution of water—thinned trade sales
paint wastes by waste stream in 1977 and 1983 is shown in Table 53.
Projected production growth and waste data of surveyed plants were used
in these extrapolations.
Lacquers
The production of nitrocellulose lacquers has been decreasing in
recent years, and it is expected that this trend will continue. There
is a growing tendency to replace nitrocellulose with other resins such
as acrylics, styrenated alkyds, and urea or melamine coatings.
Lacquers by definition have the disadvantage ot remaining soluble
in the solvent with which they are made. Thus, therniosetting or oxidiz-
ing coatings are more attractive when they can be produced with proper-
ties competitive with lacquers. The trend in the Industry to reduce the
solvent content of coatings, encouraged by air pollution control regu—
lations encourages the replacement of lacquers with other coatings.
Most of the non—nitrocelluse lacquers are highly specialized coat-
ings and only the availability of non—lacquers with suitable properties
will reduce their use. However, the quantity is so small that it will
have little effect on the overall trends.
The wastes of this subcategory are projected nationally and by
state to 1977 and 1983 in Tables 54 and 55 and by EPA region in Table
56. These estimates include total wastes, total potentially hazardous
wastes, and total hazardous constituents.
Tables 54 and 55 were derived in the same manner as the estimates
in Tables 43 and 44.
The projected national distribution of lacquer wastes by waste
stream for 1977 and 1983 is shown in Table 57. Projected production
growth and waste data of surveyed plants were used in these extrapo-
lations.
Factory—Applied Coatings
The NPCA has estimated a substantial reduction in the manufacture
of solvent—thinned paints for industrial use by 1980, with a concomi-
tant increase in the use of high—solids, water—thinned, and powder coat-
ings. A moving force behind this trend has been pressure from customers
initiated by the adoption of Rule 66 by Los Angeles County in 1966, and
the spread of similar regulations in recent years to about 16 states.
This type of regulation restricts the use of solvents on the basis of
their relative photochemical reactivity. Another reason for this de-
cline is customer pressure to reduce or eliminate flammable or toxic
149
-------
TABLE 53
QUANTITIES OF WASTE STREAMS BY SOURCE — 1977 & 1983
WATER-THINNED TRADE SALES PAINTS
SIC 28512 & 28514
kkg/yr (tons lyr)
(Wet Weight)
Toxic
Waste Stream
Total Waste
Potentially
Hazardous
Waste Stream
Hazardous
Solvents
In Waste
Chemical
Compounds
In Waste
Cleanings
Raw Material Packaging
Air Pollution Collection
Spoiled Batches
Spills
30,760(33,914)1
109 ,590 (120,827)
580 (639)
1,440 (1,588)2
2 ,020(2,227)2,
144,390(159,195)2
30,760(33,914)1
160(176)
580 (639)
1,440 (1,588) 2
2,020(2 ,227)2
34 , 960 (38 ,544)3
46(51)
10(11)
6(7)
3(3)
1(1)
66(7 3)
1983
C leanings
Raw Material Packaging
Air Pollution Collection
Spoiled Batches
Spills
49,100(54,135)1
174,880(192,811)
920 (1,014)
2,300(2,536)2
3,230(3,561)2
230,430(254,057)2
49,100(54,135)1
260 (287)
920(1,014)
2,300 (2 ,536)2
3,230(3 ,561)2
55 ,810(6l,533)
1977
TOTAL
a
C
Lfl
-I
TOTAL
72(79)
16(18)
10(11)
(6)
., ,-,
103(114)
‘Contains approximately 92% water. 2 Contains approximately 20% water. 3 Contains approxin .- te1y 75.’ ‘ater.
-------
TABLE 34
QUANTITIES OF WASTES FROM MANUFACTURE OP
INDUSTRIAL B NON—INDUSTRIAL LACQUERS BY STATE — 1977
SIC 28515 & 28517
kk4/yr*
(Wet Weight)
POTENTIALLY
HAZ6RDOUS HAZARDOUS
‘PA T0761 W6 5 1E SOLVENTS COMPOUN S
S!ATC kGION WASi SIREAM IN WAS!E IN AS!
AL.N5 IV 247 24 .1
14 0
A I X 42 0 0
A ,OR X 14 5
A .LA,0K VI 24’ 8
CA 4o! 98! 391
V I I I 166 40 1; .1
68 16 0
.DC.WV,SC j 1 IV 76 19 0
I . S 9 JELAWARE 135 54 .2
1262 305 121 .4
NO PAINT PLANTS
VHf,IX 96 23 4
I L V 3456 835 33
TN V 420 103 - 41
VII 440 106 42 .
.NB V Si 20 I
I C ? TV 1820 440 174 •6
LA 91 SEE ARI(ANSAS
NQ II 7 S
ISEpNN.VT 36 ii :
1767
V 326
MS
MQ S!c 2 LABANA 319 126 .4
SEE IDAHO
MT V I SEE KANSAS
MS V
NV SEE IDAHO
NM
SEE 8 AINE 699 276 .9
U s 1 OaHO 363 19 .5
164 6 .2
ND VIII NO PAINT PLANT
V 2606 - 6. 0 249 .6
VI SEE ARIC..NSAS
r
hi 9 6 ALASICA 7 161 .5
N 48 12 S 0
V SEE 0EL WARE
I
;i i NO IN PLANTS
i2 a
UT VIII SEE IDAHO
VT I SEC MAINE
VA I I 295 71 25
WA ‘35 5? 22
IV III SC DELAWARE
IT 3 56 86 34 .1
I, III NO PAINT PLANTS
NATIONAL 30130 7283 2878
•To coevert data to tone/yr. multiply by 1.1.
**Thee: Vet Weight • Dry Weight
151
-------
TA3L! 55
QUAIITITIES OF WASTES FROM MAIlUFAL URE OP
INDUSTRIAL & NON-INDUSTP.IAJ. LACQUERS BY STATE - 1983
SIC 28515 6 28517
kkg/yr*
(Wet U.ight) **
P0T ITIALLT
WA R0OUS MAZ*RD9US
£ S0LV NiS C0MP0uN
ST*T 1ON 5 RCiiiM IN WAS!E IN WASTE
AI..NS jV 12 :1
I .?
44
,DC.IIV, I I I 2 9
FL Sc huiiv SCE’LLAWARE 2 .
938 226 72 .3
p J IIIT fLANi 7 184 .7
VHliIZ
V 31 9 2 3
N V
I ’
A Vfl 3111
LA SC! ARKANSAS 824
9
ND
‘M!,1X,VT II 13
“8
MN V
NA
113. 37
MS V S ALASANA 460 146 .6
Mt
P S SU’1D I40 -
S ! tAMSAS
SC IDAHO
802 855 1.1
.6
MD VIII NO P 1 IN! PLANTS
V 2 704 224 1.0
VI KANSAS
468 14 .6
N SCE CLAWARE 13 4 0
NO PAINT PLANTS
:
UT VIII SEC 10*140
VT SCç 0 AINC 121 4
VA II
N. III DELAWARE
3 80
W V 3 98 30 .1
VIII NO AINT PLANTS
NATIONAL 4O 8 9649 3069 13.1
*To convert data to tons/yr, nultiply by 1.1.
*âWots: Net Weight — Dry Wuight
1.52
I
-------
TABLE 56
QUANTITIES OF WASTES FROM MANUFACTURE OF INDUSTRIAL AND NON-INDUSTRIAL LACQUERS BY EPA REGION - 1977 & 1983
SIC 28515 & 28517
kkg/yr (tons/yr)
(Wet Weight) *
EPA Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
Ix
x
NATIONAL
Total Waste
602(664)
4,389(4,828)
2,802(3,089)
4,881(5,381)
8,961 (9,857)
1,898(2,093)
1,841(2,025)
181(200)
4,158(4,584)
392 (432)
30,105 (33,153)
Potentially
Hazardous
Waste Stream
146(161)
1, 062 (1, 168)
677(746)
1,180(1,301)
2,165 (2,382)
459(506)
445 (490)
44(49)
1, 005 (1, 108)
95(105)
7,278(8,015)
Hazardous
Solvents
In Waste
57(63)
419 (464)
268(295)
467 (515)
856 (942)
181(200)
176 (194)
17(19)
397(438)
37(41)
2,875(3,170)
Toxic
Chemical
Compounds
In Waste
0.1(0.1)
1.4(1.5)
0.9(1.0)
1.5(1.7)
2.8(3.1)
0.6(0.7)
0.5(0.6)
0.1(0.1)
1.3(1.4)
0.1(0.1 )
9.3(10.3)
1983
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
Ix
x
NATIONAL
633 (696)
5,067 (5 ,567)
3,807(4.197)
8,615(9,498)
10,014(11,015)
2,404(2,650)
2,668(2,933)
361(398)
5,930(6,538)
561(619)
40,054(44,114)
153(168)
1,219(1,341)
917(1,011)
2,075(2,288)
2,413(2,660)
580 (639)
642 (7 06)
87(96)
1,427(1,573)
135 (149)
9,648(10,632)
49(54)
388(427)
292 (32 2)
660 (728)
76 8(84 5)
184 (203)
204(224)
28(31)
454 (501)
43(47)
3,070(3,381)
0.2(0.2)
1. 7(1. 9)
1.2(1.3)
2.8(3.1)
3.4(3.7)
0.8(0.9)
0.8 ( 0.9)
0.1(0.1)
1.9(2.1)
0.2(0.2 )
13. 1(14. 4)
1977
U,
*Note: Wet Weight = Dry Weight
-------
TABLE 57
QUANTITIES OF WASTE STREANS BY SOURCE — 1977 & 1983
INDUSTRIAL AND NON-INDUSTRIAL LACQUERS
SIC 28515 6 28517
kkglyr (tons/yr)
(Wet Weight) *
Waste Stream
1977
Total Waste
Potentially
Hazardous
Waste Stream
Hazardous
Solvents
In Waste
Toxic
Chemical
Compounds
In Waste
Cleanings
Raw Material Packaging
Air Pollution Collection
Spoiled Batches
Spills
6,420(7,078)
22,870(25,215)
120 (132)
300(331)
420(463)
6,420(7,078)
24(26)
120(132)
300 (3 31)
420 (463)
130(143)
16(18)
6.7(7.4)
1.5(1.7)
1.0(1.1)
0.4(0.4)
1983
TOTAL
30,130(33,219)
7,284(8,030)
2,886(3,182)
9.6(10.6)
8,500(9,372)
30,450(33,572)
160 (176)
400(441)
560 (617)
8,500(9,372)
32(35)
160(176)
400(441)
560 (617)
103(114)
20(22)
9.0(9.9)
2.0(2.2)
1.0(1.1)
1.0(1.1)
TOTAL
40,070(44,178)
9,652(10,641)
3,043 (3,355)
13.0 (14. 3)
2,740(3,021)
ir
‘-4
Cleanings
Raw Material Packaging
Air Pollution Collection
Spoiled Batches
Spills
2,920(3,219)
*Note: Wet Weight = Dry Weight
-------
solvents for reasons of fire hazards and increasing insurance costs.
Industrial hygiene and odor problems in the neighborhood and, recently,
serious shortages and increased costs of petroleum—derived solvents
have all also contributed to this trend as well.
At the present time, the above emerging technologies have been
adopted by certain industries for certain purposes, but are not neces-
sarily useful for all industries f or all purposes. For example, powder
coatings cannot be used on any substrates which cannot be heated to the
fusion point of the resin. This, in general, rules out the use of these
coatings on wood or paper. Electrocoating, which uses a water—thinned
coating, is often only effective for a single coat, usually the primer.
Today, a solvent—thinned paint must still be used for the top coat.
Ultimately, solvent—thinned paints will be largely replaced by other
coatings, which will reduce or eliminate the use of solvents, but the
time when this conversion is complete is difficult to foresee.
The vastes of this subcategory are projected nationally and by
state for 1977 and 1983 in Tables 58 and 59 and by EPA region In Table
60. These estimates include total wastes, total potentially hazardous
wastes, and total hazardous constituents. Tables 58 and 59 were derived
in the same manner as the estimates In Tables 43 and 44.
The projected national distribution of factory—applied coatings
wastes by waste stream in 1977 and 1983 is shown in Table 61. Projected
production growth and waste data of surveyed plants were used in these
extrapolations.
Putty and Miscellaneous Products
It is probable that calklng compounds will replace putty in some
uses in the future. Calking is more flexible and shows less tendency
to crack with age, particularly on somewhat flexible substrates. It is
estimated that the production of putty will remain at about the current
level over the next 10 years even though total paint production in-
creases. Any technical improvements in putty are likely to move more
of its production over into the calking compound SIC grouping which is
outside SIC 285. The growth rate of miscellaneous paint products in-
cluding thinners, aerosol paints, and pigment dispersions, is expected
to increase at a modest rate of about six percent over the next eight
years.
The waste of this subcategory are projected nationally and by state
to 1977 and 1983 in Tables 62 and 63 and by EPA region in Table 64.
These estimates include total wastes, total potentially hazardous wastes,
and total hazardous constituents. Tables 62 and 63 were derived in the
same manner as the estimates in Tables 43 and 44.
155
-------
TABLE 58
QUANTITIES OF WASTES FROM MANUFACTURE OF
FACTORY-APPLIED COATINGS BY STATE - 1977
SIC 28516
kkg/yr
(Wet Weight)**
POTENTIALLY TOXIC
RDOUS HAZARDOUS CHEMICAL
EPA fOT , - SOLVENTS COMPOUNDS
S!ATE REGION WA5 SIREAM ZN WASTE ZN WASTE
AL.NS IV I 1O 249 47 3.0
X 149 23 1.8
AZ IX 42 8 .5
AR,LA,OK VI 46 2.9
CA I x 16721 4B2 0 780 - 50,0
77 167 32 2.0
VIII T1 67 f 3 •8
, c.wv,sc fii,tv 320 79 5 1.0
DC II SEE OELA ARE
V 2290 564 107 6.8
GA IV 5159 1271 241 15.4
IX NO PAINT PLANTS
RO$ NV 14123 6 9 4c ,2
97 1 1.2
V 1 48 43 82
44 84
A 32 82 6
k$ 1 eNB
V 7437 1833 3 7 22.
LA SEC ARICANS S - - 2
%.NH VT 4a 36 7 .4
II U’
Nt $6
N j 3 179 341 21.8
MN V 32 331 63 4.0
MS V S E ALASANA
$0 ff 393 1329 252 16.1
NT V SEE IDAhO
NB V 1 I SEE KANSAS
NV SEC IDAHO
NH I SEE MAINE
NJ 11808 2910 551
NM V 3 OAHO 286 18.3
N IV 2770 1.29 0.3
ND VIII NO PAINT PLANTS
OH V
10651 - 2624 497 31.8
OK VI SEE ARKANSAS
OR 1 SEE ALASKA
PA . III 6883 1696 321 20.6
197 49 9 .6
S V SE DELAWARE
SD 611 NO PAINT PLANTS
279 53 3,4
1 1660 314 20.1
UT VIII SEE IDAHO
VT
SEE MAINE
VA II 1207 297 56 3.6
N SEP 8 ELAwARE
237 45 2.9
W I V 453 358 68 4.3
W Y VIII N PAINT PLANTS
NATIONAL 123141 30345 5747 367.8
*10 convert data to tone/yr 1 nultipty by 1.1.
* 1 .oto W. . u ight — Dry Weight
156
-------
TABLE 59
QUANTITIES OF WASTES FROM MANUFACTURE OF
FACTORY—APpLIW COATINCS BY STATE - 1983
SIC 28516
kkg/yr*
(Vat Weight)**
POTENTIALLY TUXIC
HAZARDOUS HAZARDOUS CHEMICAL
EPA TOTAt. *s E
SOLVENTS COMPOUNDS
STATE EGION lAST STRC*J4 IN WASTE IN WASTE
AL,M$ IV 1586 394 65
AII,OR A 750 18.. 3
AZ I x 260 64 •8
1082 3.2
LA.Oic 20925 5 92 861 62.7
VII I 1038 258 43 3.3
61
.Dc.wv,sc 1 11 .iv 32 8 U 1:0
SEE - DELAWARE
I. V 3375 037 139 10.1
IA V 7730 1918 318 23.2
MI NO PAINT PLANT..
I •MT NV ,VIIJ,IX
NM•U V .V 505 125 21
II. V 13945 3460 574 4A.8
V 73 71 5.2
A 293 5..9 94 6.9
V 43 107 18
12316 3056 507
LA I EE AUKANSAS
M Ep NH p VT
32 5
1166 194 14.1
MA I Jl 6 ‘26 5,3
MI V 06 1664 2 20.1
MN V 1716 426 71 5.1
MS IV SEE ALABAMA
MO V 6879 1707 283 20,6
MT I ’ SEE IDAHO
ND SE ANSAS
N SEE DAHO
NJ
NH Sç MAINE 2973 493 35.9
NM
£ IDAHO
N Y 6230 1546 256 ‘8.7
NC V 413 0 o 171 12.4
MO VII I P lO PAINT PLANTS
OH V
10513 2608 433 31.5
OK VI SEE ARKANSAS
OR A SE ALASKA
PA 6994 1735 288 21.0
RI I 187 47 0 .6
SC IV SEE DELAWARE
SO VIII NO PAINT ‘LANT5
TN XV 3875 465 17
A 421 1843 306
UT VIII SEE IDAHO
SEE MAINE
VA II 1803 447 74 5.4
WA 1197 297 49 3.6
WV XII SE D(L*WA E
WI V 428 54 59 4.3
WY VIII P1 PAINT PLAN S
MATIONAL 1.44183 33772 5936 432.0
‘To convert data to tona/yr, multiply by 1.1.
“Note: Wet Weight Dry Weight
157
-------
TABLE 60
QUANTITIES OF WASTES FROM MANUFACTURE OF FACTORY—APPLIED COATINGS BY EPA REGION - 1977 & 1983
1977
EPA Region
I
It
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
Ix
x
NATIONAL
1983
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
NATIONAL
Total Waste
2,463(2,709)
17,946(19,734)
11,451(12,625)
19,947(21,992)
36,619(40,455)
7, 757 (8, 552)
7,523(8,275)
739 (815)
16,992(18,734)
1,601 (1, 765)
123,032(135,484)
2,278(2,506)
18,214(20,035)
13,700(15,105)
31,005(34,184)
36,039(39,643)
8,653(9,540)
9,605(10,565)
1, 298 (1,431)
21,343(23,531)
2,019(2,226)
144,154(158,766)
28516
(tons/yr)
Weight) *
Potentially
Hazardous
Waste Stream
607 (665)
4,431(4,863)
2,822(3,111)
4,915(5,419)
9,023(9,925)
1,911(2,107)
1,854(2,039)
182(201)
4,187(4,616)
394(434)
30,316(33,385)
5 66(623)
4,519(4,97 1)
3,399(3,748)
7,693(8,482)
8,941(9,835)
2,147(2,367)
2,397(2,643)
322 (355)
5,295(5,838)
501 (552)
35,780(39,414)
Hazardous
Solvents
In Waste
115 (127)
837 (921)
534 (589)
930(1,025)
1, 710(1, 881)
362 (399)
352(387)
34(37)
793 (874)
75(83)
5,742(6,323)
94(103)
74 9(824)
564 (622)
1, 276 (1,407)
1,484(1,636)
356 (393)
39 5(434)
53(58)
879 (969)
83(92)
5,933(6,5 37)
Toxic
Chemical
Compounds
In Waste
7.3(8.0)
53. 6(59. 0)
34.2(37.7)
59. 6 (65. 7)
109. 3(120. 2)
23.2(25.6)
22.5(24.8)
2.2(2.4)
50. 8(56.0)
4.8(5.3)
367. 5(404.7)
6. 8(7. 5)
54. 6(60. 1)
41.0(45.2)
93.0(102.5)
108.0(119.1)
25. 9 (28. 6)
28. 8(31.7)
3.9(4.3)
63. 9 (70. 5)
6.1(6.7)
432.0(476.1)
SIC
kkg/yr
(Wet
It.
‘ -I
*Note: Wet Weight = Dry Weight
-------
TABLE 61
QUANTITIES OF
WASTE STREAMS BY SOURCE — 1977 & 1983
FACTORY-APPLIED COATINGS
SIC 28516
kkg/yr (tons/yr)
(Wet Weight)*
Toxic
Waste Stream
1977
Total Waste
Potentially
Hazardous
Waste Stream
Hazardous
Solvents
In Waste
Chemical
Compounds
In Waste
25,230(27,817)
93,460(103,043)
490(540)
2,230 (2 ,459)
1,720(1,896)
25,230(27,817)
670 (739)
490(540)
2,230(2,459)
1,720(1,896)
1983
TOTAL
123,130(135 ,755)
30,340(33,451)
5,742(6,331)
368(406)
Cleanings
Raw Material Packaging
Air Pollution Collection
Spoiled Batches
Spills
29,700(32,745)
109,490(120,717)
580 (639)
2,440(2,690)
2,000(2,205)
29,700(32., 745)
1,060(1,169)
580 (639)
2,440(2,690)
2,000(2,205 )
300 (331)
66(73)
42(46)
21(23)
3(3)
TOTAL
144,210(158,996)
35,780(39,448)
5,935(6,544)
432 (476)
Cleanings
Raw Material Packaging
Air Pollution Collection
U’ Spoiled Batches
‘C Spills
56(62)
35(39)
240(265)
18(20)
32(35
3(3
5,660(6,240)
240(265)
35(39)
*Note: Wet Weight = Dry Weight
-------
TANLE 62
QUANTITIES OF WASTES FR t MANUFACTURE OF
PUTIT a NISCELLANEOTJS PAINT PRODUCTS ST STATE — 1977
SIC 28518 a 28519
kk /yr*
( N.E VsiIhL)**
POTEIPrIALLY
A R0OUS HAZARDOUS
PA TOT £ 0LVEN!5 C0NPOUN S
S!ATC EGZON WAS StREAM IN WAS1E IN ASTC
AL,NS IV 40* 91 16 .7
9 0R 5 J .4
.
* 8 , 1 . 8,9K VI d i 16 h a 1
CA I X 6
VIII ?6g 66 9 .5
.OC.wV.Sc IaIv
7 .4 4 .
I SEC OCLAbARE
910 223 31 1.6
2049 03 70 3.6
N X NO PAINT PLAN,S
IX 58 S
V S O9 13 6 193 9.
V f 96 14
1.4
11
54 725
1 .8 I SIC ARKANSAS -
MR,NH,VT
ND
59 14 4
ft 111
N V 5
9 E LAUANA 526 74 3.8
N V I I SE& IDA’lO
SE DM 10
9 ?4SA5
N .J
NH 5U 9 P1A1NE 1151 161 8.2
NM
SEC DAHO
NT 143 598 84 4.3
MC 100 270 38 1.9
ND VIII PAINT P1.A 38 145 7.4
SM V
VI S E I 3 L ICAN1*S
N qç 3 LASI A 671 94 4.8
A - III
SEE’I WpE 19 3 .1
fl MOP NTS
AI - LA is
26 92
V
UT VIII SU IDAHO
VA II 479
SE .. MAINE •8
4 .7
Mo P 6 EL.AuaaC
V III SE
W V S
77 142 20 1.0
U VIII NO PAINT fI .ANTS
NATIONAL
48906 1.2001 1.679 85.9
‘To convert data to tone/yr 1 uitLp1y by 1.1.
“Notei Net Weight — Dry Weight
160
-------
TABLE 63
QUANTITIES OF WASTES FR(W4 MANUFACTURE OP
PUTTY 6 MISCELLANEOUS PAINT PRODUCTS BY STATE — 1983
SIC 28518 & 28519
kkgfyr*
(Wet Weight)**
POTENTLALLY ToAIç
HAZARDOUS HAZARDOUS C IEMLCAL
EPA TOTA , WASTE SOLVENTS COMPOUNDS
STATE REGION WASTt ST Ea IN WASTE IN WASTE
AL,NS 1 V 64 18? 20 1.2
A sO
89 10 .6
AZ IX 3 •2
AR,I.A,OK VI 14
CA I X 10 269
f VIII BOO 1 3 9 .A
118 c9 .2
§Ei DC.WV,S
.IV 160 39 4 .3
C 1626 398 43 2.6
SEt DELAWARE
fV 3725 912 99 5,9
H X NO PAINT PLANTS
D,M sNV V fffIX 60 6
IL V 6721 1646 179 10.7
I N V Q 34 4 22
A V 1 1 1 O5
V O9 51
.3
KY IV 5935 1454 159 9.5
LA VI SEE ARKANSAS
MD II 2266 5 5 61 3.6
WE.NN,VT 63 S 2 .1
MA 827 O3 2? 1.3
M I 32. Z 9
N V 627
MS IV SEE ALA8AMA
MO V 11 3315 12 89 5.3
MT V I SEE IDAHO
MS V
SE KANSAS
NV IX SEE IDAHO
NJ
NM SEE 1 06H0
NH S 9 MAINE 1414 154 9.2
NY 320 735 60
NC !VOL 490 33
ND VIII NO PAINT PLANTS
OH V 5067 1241 135 8.1
OK VI SEE ARKANSAS
OR * SEE ALASKA
A III 3371 825 90 5.4
RI I 90 22 2 .1
S V SEE DELAWARE
S1 VIII NO PAINT PLANTS
IV 903 221 24
A VI 3979 877 96
UT VIII CEE IOAII,
VT I SEE *INC
VA III 869 213 23 1.4
X 577 141 15 .9
MV III SEE DELA.A E
WI V 688 168 1.1
NY VIII NO PAINT PLANIS
NATIONAL 69484 17018 1852 110.8
*70 co.%vert data to torialyr, multiply by 1.1.
**tlota: Wet Weight • Dry Weight
161
-------
TABLE 64
QUANTITIES OF WASTES FROM MANUFACTURE OF
PUTTY AND MISCELLANEOUS PAINT PRODUCTS BY EPA REGION — 1977 & 1983
SIC 28518 & 28519
kkg/yr (tons lyr)
(Wet Weight) *
1977
EPA Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
Vt I
VIII
Ix
x
NATIONAL
1983
Total Waste
978(1,078)
7,125(7,838)
4,548(5,014)
7,922(8,734)
14,543(15,997)
3,081(3,397)
2,988(3,287)
293 (323)
6,748(7,440)
636(701)
48,862(53,800)
Potentially
Hazardous
Waste Stream
239(263)
1,749(1,932)
1,116(1,230)
1,944(2,143)
3,569(3,926)
756 (834)
7 33 (806)
72(79)
1,656(1,826)
156(172)
11,990(13,210)
Hazardous
Solvents
In Waste
34(37)
245 (270)
156 (172)
272(300)
500(550)
106(117)
104(114)
10(11)
232 (256)
22(24)
1,681(1, 852)
Toxic
Chemical
Compounds
In Waste
1.7(1.9)
12.5(13 .8)
8.0(8.8)
13.9(15.3)
25.5(28.0)
5.4(6.0)
5.3(5.8)
0.5(0.6)
11.9 (13. 1)
1.1(1.2)
85.8(94.5)
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
Ix
x
NATIONAL
1,098 1,208)
8,777(9,655)
6,602(7,279)
14,942(16,474)
17,369(19,106)
4,170(4,598)
4,629(5,092)
626 (690)
10,286(11,341)
973 (1, 073)
69,472(76, 516)
269(296)
2,149(2,364)
1,617 (1, 783)
3,659(4,034)
4,253(4,678)
1,021(1,126)
1, 134(1, 247)
153(169)
2,520(2,778)
238 (262)
17,013(18,737)
29(32)
234 (258)
176(194)
399(440)
46 2(5 08)
111(122)
12 5(13 8)
17(19)
275(303)
26(29)
1,854(2,04 2)
1.7(1.9)
14. 0 (15. 4)
10. 5 (11. 6)
23. 9 (26. 4)
27.7(30.5)
6.7(7.4)
7.4(8.2)
1.0(1.1)
16. 4 (18. 1)
1.5(1.1)
110.8(122.1)
c 4
0
*Note: Wet Weight = Dry Weight
-------
The projected national distribution of putty and miscellaneous
paint products by waste stream in 1977 and 1983 is shown in Table 65.
Projected production growth and waste data of surveyed plants were
used in these extrapolations.
SImmuar !
Total current wastes from the paint industry are estimated to be
389,000 kkg (428,000 tons) per year. Sixty—seven percent or 262,000 kkg
(288,000 tong) of this waste contains no hazardous constituents. It
consists of wooden skids and crates, wrapping paper, steel strapping,
damaged cans, etc.
Of the remaining 127,000 kkg (140,000 tons), 96,000 kkg (106,000
tons) are potentially hazardous wastes because they contain solvents
which are f1 mnable and/or toxic or toxic metallic compounds. The
31,000 kkg (34,000 tons) difference between these numbers is ac-
counted for by the weight of raw materials bags which contain innocuous
substances which in current practice are mixed with bags containing a
residual of potentially hazardous materials.
Total potentially hazardous wastes contain about 14,300 kkg
(15,700 tons) of hazardous solvents and 841 kkg (925 tons) of toxic
metallic compounds or a total of about 15,100 kkg (15,600 tons) of
hazardous constituents contributed by five sources. A total of
82,000 kkg (90,000 tons) of wastes derive from the cleaning of
process equipment. They contain 13,600 kkg (15,000 tons) of hazardous
solvents and 590 kkg (650 tons) of toxic metallic compounds. A total
of 32,800 kkg (36,100 tons) of waste raw materials bags contain 2000 kkg
(2200 tons) of bags containing 130 kkg (140 tons) of toxic metallic
compounds.
Dust collected in air pollution abatement equipment amounts to
1600 kkg (1700 tons) and contains 80 klcg (90 tons) of toxic metallic
compounds. The total 4900 kkg (5400 tons) of spoiled batches discarded
each year is estimated to contain 580 kkg (600 tons) of hazardous
solvents and 41 kkg (45 tons) of toxic metallic compounds.
Total spilled material along with absorbent materials used for
clean—up amounts to 5400 kkg (6000 tons) annually. This includes
85 kkg (94 tons) of hazardous solvents and 5 kkg (5 tons) of toxic
metallic compounds.
Since potentially hazardous wastes are not segregated from non—
hazardous materials in current sold waste handling, the total 15,100
kkg (16,600 tons) of hazardous constituents are dispersed throughout
the total 389,000 kkg (428,000 tons) of solid waste although they
constitute less than four percent of it. Hazardous constituents are
not, however, uniformly distributed and may constitute a higher per-
centage of the waste In some disposal sites.
163
-------
TABLE 65
QUANTITIES OF WASTE STREAMS BY SOURCE — 1977 & 1983
PUTTY AND MISCELLANEOUS PRODUCTS
SIC 28518 & 28519
kkg/yr (tons/yr)
(Wet Weight)*
Toxic
Potentially Hazardous Chemical
Hazardous Solvents Compounds
Waste Stream Total Waste Waste Stream In Waste In Waste
1977
Cleanings 10,400(11,466) 10,400(11,466) 1,600(1,764) 60(66)
Raw Material Packaging 37,100(40,904) 200(221) 13(14)
Air Pollution Collection 200 (221) 200(221) ——— 8(9)
Spoiled Batches 500(551) 500(551) 70(77) 4(4)
Spills 700(772) 700(772) — 10(11) 1(1 )
TOTAL 48,900(53,914) 12,000(13,231) 1,680(1,852) 86( 94)
1983
Cleanings 14,800(16,318) 14,800(16,318) 1,770(1,951) 77(85)
Raw Material Packaging 52,750(58,159) 270(298) 17(19)
Air Pollution Collection 280 (309) 280(309) ——— 11(12)
Spoiled Batches 700(772) 700(772) 77(85) 5(6)
Spills 970(1,069) 970(1,069) 11(12) 1(1 )
TOTAL 69,500(76,627) 17,020(18,766) 1,858(2,048) 111(123)
*Note: Wet Weight = Dry Weight
-------
TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGY
Introduction
This section describes the practices utilized by the paint and
coatings industry to dispose of its potentially hazardous wastes. The
most prevalent, and almost universal, technology is off—site deposition
in a landfill for raw materials packaging, spills, spoiled batches, and
collected dust from air pollution abatement equipment. It is also the
most widespread disposal method or dr innned water and organic wash sol-
vents although reclamation accounts for about 35 percent of the organic
wastes and some wastewater sludges are disposed of in municipal sewers.
Very few paint companies control their own landfill operations and
most contract for the disposal services of others. Only a limited
amount of information on the characteristics and management of off—site
land disposal sites utilized by the Industry and its contractors was
developed within the altered scope of this study as discussed in
Section III. There are varying degrees of interest in and knowledge of
the disposal contractor’s practices at the paint plant. This resulted
in the expression of a wide variety of nomenclature during plant sur-
veys to describe what are probably most frequently sanitary landfills.
This assumption can be made more confidently in these states or areas
which no longer permit open dumping and require approval and inspection
of landfill operations. No on—site visits of these operations were
made.
Virtually no treatment of potentially hazardous wastes is employed
by the paint Industry for the reasons discussed below. Instead of
treatment, a more opportune waste control measure in this industry
appears to be elimination of potentially hazardous materials from the
waste. This approach may follow several pathways In the future and is
presently exemplified by reductions in the use of lead and mercury as
raw materials, the production of increasing quantities of water—based
products, and the accompanying reduction in solvent—based products.
Technology is indicated in this section for the disposal of each
potentially hazardous waste stream by the paint industry. These are
based on the most prevalent industry—wide practice (Level I); the
best method presently used which is amenable to more widespread use
(Level II); and the disposal practice deemed environmentally adequate
to handle wastes from this Industry (Level III).
As noted above, waste disposal practices in this industry do not
differ significantly among the various SIC product codes. This is
partly due to the fact that the same types of wastes are generated in
the manufacture of trade sale paints, Industrial coatings, lacquers,
putty, and miscellaneous products. Another reason is that two or more
of the above products are made in varying quantities in the great
majority of paint plants and many of the waste streams are not separated
by product.
165
-------
Raw materials packaging wastes are generated at all paint and coat-
ings manufacturIng location . Organié wash solvent results from the
manufacture of moat products except far water-thinned paint where waste—
water sludge is accumulated. In the majority of cases, both water—
thinned and solvent-thinned paints are produced it a given plant—site
so that both these types of wastes are generated within the same plants.
Dust from air pollution abatement equipment is generated from among all
the product codes as are spills and waste materials.
Thus, in this section excessive repetition is avoided by discuss-
ing the disposal practices for each waste stream which are equally
applicable to each five—digit product category within SIC 285.
Description of Present Treatment Technologies
The reclamation of organic wash solvents is the primary treatment
technology applied to potentially hazardous wastes of the paint indus-
try. None of the 71 surveyed plants treat wastes destined for landfill
by conventional physical, chemical, or biolog .cal means. In addition,
a poll of the 20 largest paint manufacturers, representing roughly 55
percent of the industry’s production, on this specific question revealed
that no treatment processes are employed at any of their plants except
for vastewater sedimentation in some cases.
The only plant reporting a chemical treatment of any sort jells
its waste products with an incompatible material such as caustic soda.
The purpose of this is to prevent leakage in the event of drum damage
in a landfill.
One reason for the lack of treatment is the relatively small amount
of such wastes generated at individual plant sites. As discussed pre-
viously, it has been reasonably well established that only an average of
about 30—60 gr (2 oz) of pigments, extenders, and other solids used by
a manufacturer remain n the paper bags in which they were delivered at
the time of disposal.. Dusts of solids collected by air pollution con-
trol equipment. (filters) amount to only about 0.6 gins/liter (4.9 lbs/
gal.) of paint and are sometimes put back in the process. The amount of
sludges resulting from wastewater sedimentation which find their way
into land disposal are reduced by the quantities put into municipal
sewer systems or, in a few instances, a septic system. In addition,
they are usually very low in potentially hazardous materials since few
are used in water—thinned products.
The amounts of waste products,.’includjng spills, generated are also
small in quantity. The total spills for, one year reported by 57 sur-
veyed plants amounted to approximately 23,000 liters (6000 gal.), aver—
aging just over 400 liters (100 gal.) per year per plant. Some of these
plants report no spills greater than 19 liters (5 gal.) and others re—
166
-------
work as much as possibLe, landfilling in drums only the rags or other
rn.itcri. is used for final clean—up. Many paint plants tod.iy do not h. vc
floor drains into which spills might be lost. Newer manufacturing
plants are designed without them, and in some older plants existing
drains have been blocked off.
Spoiled batches are also a rarity in some plants and where they
occur reworking into the process is common practice. The quantities of
hazardous materials from this source drummed and placed in a landfill
are further reduced by two factors:
1. Factory—applied coatings, which account for the majority
of spoiled batches unsuitable for reworking, frequently contain little
or no drier.
2. The high price of significant amounts of toxic metals en-
hances the probability that paints containing them will be reworked.
Small batch samples, 0.5 or 1 liter (1 or 2 pints) per batch, are
usually crushed and disposed of periodically in drums, as are some pro-
ducts for which the shelf—life has expired. These, too, are nearly
always in small containers since it is economic to open and rework
larger containers of paint.
Solvent recovery and reuse are reducing the quantities of waste
wash solvent discarded and if the price of fresh solvent continues to
rise, this practice will no doubt become more widespread. Approximately
21 of the surveyed plants send some or all of their used wash solvents
to off—site distillers. In many cases, the reclaimed material is re-
turned to the originating plant. These operations are discussed in
more detail in a subsequent section of this report.
Five surveyed plants indicated that solvents are recovered on—site
for reuse, but the evidence is that only two of them actually employ a
still for this purpose. Assuming that the other three simply settle
and decant their used solvents, there is a total of nine which report
use of this practice. Six others reuse solvents in lower grade or
other products without treatment.
One viable alternative to treatment is a reduction in the quantity
of potentially hazardous materials used in manufacture. The most popu-
lar approach now, and in the future according to company spokesmen, is
increased production of water—thinned paints to replace all or a sub-
stantial proportion of solvent—thinned products. Progress is also
evidenced in replacements for lead and mercury compounds as well as a
shift from coal tar to petroleum—based solvents. There is presently,
however, a limitation to this approach insofar as certain ingredients
are concerned —— i.e., some compounds are irreplacable in the uses to
which they are put, such as lead chromate and copper phthalocyanine,
as discussed earlier.
167
-------
Another possibility in the reduction of the quantity of potentially
hazardous materials is a more thorough job of removing traces of pigments
and other potentially hazardous raw materials from the containers in
which. they were delivered. Although this is unlikely to be achieved
100 percent, it is already being done by some with existing packaging
to the limit which will satisfy Occupational Safety and Health Act and
other health—related regulations. Improvements in container design to
facilitate emptying is another alternative, albeit one which is outside
the scope of this project.
Description of Present Disposal Technologies
Paint plants do not, by and large, segregate potentially hazardous
materials for storage and disposal, and there is little appreciable
difference in the disposal practices employed for each category of po-
tentially hazardous wastes. The major exception is organic solvent,
some of which is segregated for reclamation and some for the reasons
suggested below.
The balance of the spent solvent —— all of it in some plants —— is
drummed for disposal and deposited in a waste storage container, typ-
ically a Dumpster. Product waste which cannot be reworked, wastewater
sludges, and unusable solids recovered from air filters are also drummed
and stored in the same container, which also holds the raw materials
containers. (Only one plant reported using a separate container for
bags which had contained potentially hazardous materials.)
The segregation which occurs in waste handling is generally accord-
ing to the physical nature of the waste —— solid, semi—solid, or liquid
—— and is undertaken In most Instances more as a matter of convenience
in sorting and disposing of these various materials rather than as an
environmental benefit. Only three of the 15 plants which Indicated
waste segregation ascribed their motivation to “special care in hand-
ling” of potentially hazardous wastes, two said It was to permit re-
covery of hazardous wastes, and the balance drum them separately for
various reasons. These include separate pick—up of some materials by
different contractors from those hauling trash, which apparently is
increasing due to the fact that some land disposal operations
will not accept solvents or paint wastes.
When the refuse collection receptacle is full, or at certain
specified intervals, it is emptied, usually by a contractor, and the
contents dumped into some type of land disposal site. There are, as
yet, few exceptions to this procedure.
This conclusion Is based on the fact that some part or all of the
potentially hazardous wastes of at least 51, or 76 percent, of 67 sur-
veyed plants are deposited in a landfill. If the wastes of the 12 which
168
-------
claim no knowledge of the method used by contractors or municipal trash
collectors for disposition are added, then the proportion rises to 94
percent. This may be slightly weighted toward direct land disposal
since the wastes of some may be incinerated. This is not considered to
be a significant factor, however, because of those who could identify
the disposal method only three indicated off—site disposal in private
or municipal incinerators.
As noted in the introduction to this section, the information
elicited during the paint plant surveys concerning the type of public
or private landfill where their wastes are deposited is sketchy. The
plant representatives interviewed who claimed no knowledge of the
ultimate fate of the wastes collected by a contractor are no doubt
a carry—back to a not too distant period when not knowing was considered
at least in part a legal defense in case of liability incurred. Today,
while the line of responsibility is not always clear cut, most plant
operators do ascertain that the resting place of their discarded mate-
rials meets existing regulations. However, probably because imposition
of standards is relatively new, the meaning of waste disposal terminol-
ogy grows cloudy.
The use of the words “dump” and “landfill” in some cases appears
almost certainly to reflect semantics rather than differences in prac-
tices employed at a land disposal site. The term “dump” is, of course,
self-explanatory and describes a type of disposal area which is no
longer permitted in many jurisdictions of the United States. “Landfill”
was understood to mean sanitary landfill, or land disposal facility in
which mixed wastes are compacted in layers and covered with soil daily.
The two terms were used interchangably by some industry spokesmen en-
countered during the survey, and, while an effort was made to obtain
elaboration on the characteristics of the disposal site, this informa-
tion is unfortunatly in some instances not as precise as it might be.
However, at least six plants referred only to a “dump” as their con-
tractor disposal site with no qualification to indicate otherwise.
Where terminology such as “taken to the city dump and buried” was em-
ployed, the practice was assumed to refer to a sanitary landfill.
None of the surveyed plants reported utilizing special owned land-
fills for potentially hazardous wastes, and only two specifically
reported use of a segregated landfill. On the other hand, one reported
that its solid wastes go by truck to a “dump,” but that the “dump”
will not accept paint or solvents. Two or three others stated that
their potentially “hazardous” wastes go to one landfill and their
paper and trash to another, also indicating some degree of segregation
by landfill operators. However, it appears that the differentiation
is actually only between semi—solid and liquid wastes, such as sludges
and used solvents, and solid wastes rather than between hazardous
and non—hazardous materials since the former would include residual
amounts of pigments and other solids remaining in the paper bags.
169
‘3
-------
Of the 51 plants specifically signifying the use of land disposal,
15 indicated that their wastes go to municipal or county landfills.
Others identified private landfills, and still others did not specify.
On the basis of similar responses by other interviewees and the known
practices of hauling contractors in some cases, it is estimated that
the bulk of the remaining 36 go to private landfill. There Is some
evidence that on limited occasions rubbish haulers contract to dispose
at one site and find it more economical to use another.
Waste disposition at the surveyed plants is overwhelmingly per-
formed by contractors. Less than one in 10 indicated exclusive use of
their own trucks for hauling to a landfill.
One off-site disposal contractor employs sanitary landfill and
incineration along with deep well disposal. This was the only reported
use of the latter disposal technology; no paint plants have deep dis-
posal wells on—site (34). Only one surveyed plant sells waste paper
for recycling, a practice which is sharply inhibited by the presence
of pigments in packaging materials.
Only two surveyed plants reported the use of on—site landfill.
However, the percentage represented by this number may be low for plants
located away from metropolitan areas who have available land.
Incineration is not commonly used to dispose of the organic wastes
of the paint industry. Only three surveyed plants reported the use of
on—site incinerators, and indications are that one of these is used
exclusively for paper and other trash. Thus, two operate units for burn-
ing spoiled batches, used solvents, or solvent reclamation still bot-
toms. Only one other on—site incinerator is known to exist in the
paint industry for disposal of these types of wastes.
There are several reasons generally cited by the industry to ex-
plain why the use of incineration is limited. These include:
1. Organic waste accumulation rates for a given plant are
too small to justify an incinerator.
2. Most incinerators cannot satisfactorily handle the vis—
cuous and solids—bearing wastes generated in paint plants.
3. Incinerators can require substantial operator attention
and maintenance.
4. Air pollution abatement equipment, requiring further capi-
tal and operating and maintenance costs, must generally be provided.
5. Incinerator noise levels and space requirements can be a
problem, since most manufacturing facilities are located in urban areas.
170
-------
A few paint manufacturers have installed special types of incinera—
tors in an attempt to circumvent some of these problems. In general,
each plant site having an incinerator generates sufficient organic
wastes to justify an on—site incineration system, and eaçh is located
outside an urban area where noise and space requirements are not sig-
nificant problems.
No conventional, municipal refuse type incineration systems are in
use to dispose of organic wastes in this industry to the contractor’s
knowledge. Two of the facilities which have been installed to date for
this purpose are called “open—pit” incinerators. Only one of these
units is currently in operation. An open—pit incinerator (sometimes
referred to as a trench incinerator) consists of a refractory—lined open
trench to which combustion air is blown through numerous nozzles posi-
tioned to provide turbulence, yet confine combustion to the trench
Itself.
One paint manufacturer has recently installed a prototype, yet
commercial—scale, rotating hearth Incinerator. This unit is used to
burn still bottoms from the plant’s tank cleaning solvent reclaiming
facilities. This incinerator consists of a cylindrical combustion
chamber with stack (no emission control devices), a circular rotating
hearth, and an external ash collection system. Still bottoms are drop-
ped at a controlled rate onto the hearth and rotated directly into the
combustion chamber. Due to a lack of turbulence at the hearth level,
the waste material volatilizes or burns directly on the hearth with
little ash becoming entrained into the combustion gases. No auxiliary
fuel is required during steady—state operation. One of the unique
features of the unit’s operation is Its relatively low noise level.
Off—site Incineration may become an increasingly viable disposal
alternative as conununities and larger disposal service companies adopt
this means. This is especially true in the case of flammable solvents
which, more and more, are being refused by sanitary landfills. Incin-
erators capable of handling these materials are available and in use.
Properly equipped with scrubbers and any other air pollution controls
necessary to meet state or local regulations they represent an attrac-
tive solution for the disposal of low—flash solvents.
A technique with potential for reducing or eliminating potentially
hazardous wastes involves incorporating spoiled batches, spills, and
other product wastes into saleable materials such as lower grade pro-
ducts. This is already extensively practiced within most plants. ‘How-
ever, the benefits could be expanded in cases where this is not feasible
or economic in the originating plant through standing arrangements in
which a manufacturer of a different line of coatings products would
routinely accept and rework such material. This is also true of solids
collected by air pollution control equipment.
171
-------
On-Site vs. Off—Site Disposal
Only three of 67 surveyed plants acknowledged sorte on—site dis-
posal. Only one of these disposes of all of its wastes on—site, employ—
ing incineration for solid, trash—type waste only. Other materials are
reused. Two utilize sites both on and off the premises. One of these
uses on—site landfill and incineration; the other landfill only. It is
possible that the incidence of on—site disposal is higher among plants
located in less populated areas where land is more accessible although
this is counterbalanced by the fact that the largest numbers of plants
are located in metropolitan areas. Table 66 shows an estimate of
the number of plants practicing on—site disposal and off—site disposal
of each potentially hazardous waste stream. Following from the
site visits, the vast majority of plants use off—site disposal practices.
There was no indication that any of the plants surveyed plan
to change their disposal mode with regard to On—site or off—site location
in the foreseeable future. Thus, no significant increase in on—site
disposal practices, either using incineration or landfills, is expected
through 1983.
Safeguards Used in Disposal
At each of the plants surveyed the question was asked: Are po-
tentially hazardous wastes handled or treated differently from other
solid or semi—solid wastes? Forty—six plants indicated that there is
no difference in handling. Of the 15 who state that they drum poten-
tially hazardous wastes separately, only two indicated that this is the
result of a desire for special care in handling. Two others noted that
normal safety precautions —— masks, gloves, etc. —— are used in handling
solvents. For the most part, the separate drumming can be attributed
to the segregation of solvents for recovery. The “different” treatment
accorded jotentially hazardous wastes consisted of burning in two cases
and recovery in two. In only one instance was the use of a separate con-
tainer for bags which had contained hazardous material recorded. In
one other, drums of wastes containing asbestos were so marked. As
pointed out above, one utilizes incompatible materials to jell product
wastes to eliminate leakage from broken drums in the landfill. On the
basis of information in hand, it is not possible to establish the norm
or the average of safeguards employed at off—site waste disposal sites
currently in use.
private Contractors and Service Organizations
Only ten surveyed plants haul all or part of their wastes to dis—
posal, with seven handling all of it themselves. Thus, the private
c’nLr tors or, in a handful of cases, municipal tr ish collect-Jon and
disposal systems, are the actual depositors or reciaLmers of the wastes
172
-------
TABLE 66
COMPARISON OF CURRENT ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE DISPOSAL PRACTICES
Estimated Number of Plants Practicing
On—Site Disposal Off—Site Disposal
Raw Materials Packaging Wastes
Landfil1(’ 70 1470
Incineration 5 50
Wastewater Sludge
Landfill - 50 1070
Incineration 0 0
Spills and Spoiled Batches
Landfi ll( 1 ) 70 1470
Incineration 0 0
Waste Organic Cleaning Solvent
Landfill( 1 ) 50 950
Incineration 5 20
Dust from Air Pollution Abatement Equipment
Landfi11 1 - 50 950
Incineration 0 0
WLandfill may consist of open dump, sanitary landfill, or secured landfill.
173
-------
of 85 percent of these plants. As notd above, due to the contract re-
direction, complete descriptions of the types of disposal practices
of these contractors are not available. A list of those utilized by
surveyed plants is shown in Appendix F. There will be some crossover
between this list and the solvent reclaiming operations introduced in
another portion of this report.
Levels of Treatment and Disposal Technology for
Potentially Hazardous Waste Streams
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has defined three levels
of treatment and disposal technology which are or may be applicable to
potentially hazardous waste streams generated by the paint and coatings
industry which are destined for land disposal. These technology levels
are defined as follows:
Level I — The technology currently employed by typical facili-
ties —- i.e., broad average present treatment and disposal practice.
Level II — The best technology currently employed. Identified
technology at this level must represent the soundest process from an
environmental and health standpoint currently in use in at least one
location. Installations must be commercial scale; pilot and bench
scale installations are not suitable.
Level III — The technology necessary to provide adequate health
and environmental protection. Level III technology may be more or less
sophisticated or may be identical with Level I or Level II technology.
At this level, identified technology may include pilot or-bench scale
processes providing the exact stage of development is identified.
Different treatment and disposal technologies were identified for
each of five waste streams of this industry. The technologies, how-
ever, are identical for these waste streams of all SIC subcategories
of paint and coatings manufacture covered by SIC 285 and are applicable
to all of them.
Somewhat different groupings are represented in these streams from
the arrangements necessarily used in describing waste quantities. In
the earlier discussions, spills ai d spoiled batches were treated sepa-
rately because the latter is finished product only and spill wastes
contain some amount of absorbent clean—up material. However, treatment
and disposal are identical for these wastes and they are dealt with
jointly. Conversely, in the section on waste quantities, water and
organic solvent cleaning wastes were grouped together because the data
available were insufficient to quantify each of these wastes as separate
streams. However, there are differences in Levels II and III treatment
and disposal technologies for these wastes so they are separated for
this purpose.
174
-------
The percentage of plants using each technology was estimated on the
basis of survey data from 67 plants. This sample of establishments repre-
sents approximately 4.3 percent of the industry’s production.
Implicit in disposal technologies identified is off—site practice.
This is not to preclude on—site operations but recognizes the economic
and space limitations peculiar to many plants in this industry.
Definitions which apply to the technologies are as follows:
Landfill — Land disposal facilities characterized by their
acceptance of a wide variety of wastes including garbage which are com-
pacted in layers and covered daily. They do not normally have special
containment, monitoring, or provision for treatment of leachate.
Secured Landfill — Land disposal facilities characterized by
impe rvious containment of the waste with provisions for monitoring and
treatment of leachate if required. Adequate diversion and control of
surface water are required as well as registration of the site for a
permanent record of its location once filled.
Incineration — Combustion of an organic or partially organic
waste stream with adequate means for complying with applicable air
pollution control regulations and for disposal of collected particulate
and ash (usually of a potentially hazardous nature) in a secured land-
fill.
The most prevalent current technology (Level I) for raw materials
packaging is off—site landfill. It is practiced by probably 90 per-
cent of the Industry. This Is also the best technology currently In
use (Level II) for this waste stream, although environmentally adequate
technology (Level III). will require segregation and incineration of
bags containing hazardous materials with the ash sent to a secured land-
fill. These technologies and pertinent considerations are summarized
in Table 66. It will be remembered that the treatment and disposal
technology is applicable to a potentially hazardous waste stream which,
in the case of raw materials packaging, is only a fraction of the total
stream. The balance consists of innocuous packaging described pre-
viously.
Tables 67 through 71 show that off—site landfill Is also Level I
technology for the disposal of waste products including spills and
spoiled batches, wastewater sludge, organic cleaning solvent, and dust
from air pollution abatement equipment. It Is practiced by virtually
100 percent of the plants for disposal of waste products; by 60 percent
for wastewater sludge and organic solvents, and 80 percent for collected
dusts. It is also Level II technology for waste product disposal.
175
-------
TABLE 67
RAW MATERLtLS PACKAGING WASTE DISPOSAL
LEVEL II LEVEL III
LEVEL I (Rest Technology (Technology for Adequate Health
( Prevalent Technology) Currently Employed) and Environmental Protection )
Physical & Chemical Properties 90% kraft paper, 6% pigment — some of Same as Level I Metal oxide ash — some of which is
of Residual Wastes which is hazardous hazardous
Description of Residual Waste Loose or compacted solid materials Same as Level I Dust
Factors Affecting Degree of Pigments with heavy metal salts which Same as Level I Same as Level I
Hazard are toxic
Treatment/Disposal Technology Off—site landfill Same as Level I Segregation S. incineration of bags con-
taining hazardous materials. Ash to
secured landfill
Estimated Number of Plants 1470 Same as Level I 0
Using Technology
Adequacy of Technology - Inadequate, leaching of metal salts Same as Level I Adequate, assuming proper collection N.
may occur, contaminating ground— of particulates from incinerator
water or surface water*
Problems and Comments Most inexpensive disposal method Same as Level I Insufficient number of incinerators
and readily available available
Non—land Environmental Impact Possible leachate runoff and ground— Same as Level I Air pollution control on incinerator
water contamination problems must be adequate to meet adequate regs.
Compatibility with Existing Easily compatible. Need only trash Same as Level I Changes required in waste handling
Facilities collection receptacle, hauler, and methods to include segregation. In—
off—8ite landfill cinerator, if located on—site must be
saf e distance from solvent storage and
production areas
Monitoring and Surveillance None Sane as Level I Air pollution monitoring of incinerator.
Techniques Leachate and runoff in landfill
Installation Time None Sane as Level I Incinerator & availability of secured
- landfill 1—3 years
Energy Requirements For compacting (if any) hauling waste Same as Level I Possibly for hauling waste to off—site
to landfill, and covering waste incinerator. May gain waste heat from
incineration. Should only need supple-
mental incinerator fuel during startup
and shutdown
*Possjbly toxic to landfill microbes.
-------
TABLE 68
DISPOSAL OF WASTE PRODUCTS INCLUDINC SPILLS AND SPOILED BATCHES
LEVEL II LEVEL III
LEVEL I (Best Technology (Technology for Adequate Health
FACTOR ( Prevalent Technology) Currently Employed) and Environnental Protection )
Physical & Chenical Properties Mixture of pigment, resin, solvent, and Same as Level I Incinerated ash consisting mainly of
of Residual Wastes possibly small concentrations of addi— pigments — some of which are hazardous
tives. Some pigments, solvents, and/or
additives may be hazardous
Description of Residual Waste Viscuous liquid Same as Level I Dust
Factors Affecting Degree of Pigments of heavy metal salts and Same as Level I Dust contains pigments and additives
Hazard additives may be toxic. Solvents which may be toxic
may be flammable.
Treatment/Disposal Technology Off—site landfill Same as Level I Incineration with ash to secured
landfill
Estimated Number of Plants 1470 Same as Level I 0
Using Technology
Adequacy of Technology Inadequate. Leaching of heavy metal Same as Level I Adequate, assuming proper collection
pigment salts nay occur contaminating of particulates from incineration
groundwater or surface water*
Problems & Comments Most inexpensive disposal method Same as Level I Insufficient number of incinerators
and readily available available
Non—land Environmental Impact Possible leachate & runoff problems Same as Level I Air pollution control on incinerator
must be adequate to meet applicable rags.
Compatibi 1 .ity with Existing Easily compatible. Need only trash Same as Level I Incinerator, if located on—site must be
Facilities collection receptacle, hauler, and safe distance from solvent storage and
off—site lamdf ill production areas
Monitoring and Surveillance None Sane as Level I Leachate, runoff, and air pollution
Techniques control monitoring
Installation Time None Sane as Level I Incinerator and availability of secured
landfill 1—3 years
Energy Requirements For hauling waste to disposal site Sane as Level I Sane as Level I, plus supplemental
and covering with fill fuel for incinerator startup and shutdown
*Possib].y toxic to landfill microbes.
-------
TABLE 69
W STEWATER SLUDGE DISPOSAL
FACTOR
LEVEL I
(Prau 1 ant- Tarhnnl
LEVEL II
(Best Technology
Currently Ennlov d
LEVEL III
(Technology for Adequate Health
and Environmental Protection)
Physical & •Chemical Properties
of Residual Wastes
Sludges with 3—102 total solids which
principally CoflEist of pigments some of
which contain heavy metal salts which
are hazardous, and resins
Same as Level I, but with higher
solids content
Sludge cake of at least 202 total
solids which consist of pigments, some
of which contain heavy metal saPta
which are hazardous, and resins
Description of Residual
Wastes
Pigmented liquid
Same as Level I but more
viscuous
Semi—solid material
Factors Affecting Degree of
Hazard
Varying quantities of pigments with
heavy metal salts which are toxic
Same as Level I
Same as Level I
Treatment/Disposal Technology
0ff—site landfill
Sludge settled and sent to
landfill
Chemical settling and dewatering of
sludge followed by secured landfill
Estimated Number of Plants
Using Technology
Adequacy of Technology
Inadequate leaching of heavy metal
pigment salts may occur contaminating
groundwater or surface water*
Same as Level I
Adequate to protect health and environ—
ment ,assuming proper operation
Problems & Comments
Most inexpensivg disposal method and
readily available
fludge settling equipment is
uncomplicated and requies
little space
Devatering equipment availability may
be a problem
Non—land Environmental Impact
Possible leachate 6 runoff problem
Same as Level I
No adverse impact
Compatibility with Existing
Facilities
Easily compatible. Only need drum
storage facilities
Need sedimentation equipment
which is widely available
No compatibility problems
Monitoring and Surveillance
Techniques
lastallation Tine
None
None
Same as Level I
Settling facility for treatment
6 months to 2 years
Leachate and runoff monitoring in
landfill.
Devatering equipment could take 1—3
years for delivery and installation
Energy Requirements
For hauling waste to disposal site
and covering with fill
Same as Level I, plus pumping
wastes to and from settling
equipment
Sane as Level I, plus pumping wastes
to dewatering equipment
800 270 0
* os5jbly toxic to landfill microbes.
-------
Estimated Number of Plants
Using Technology
Ade4u .y of Technology
LEVEL I
(Prevalent Technology)
Dirty solvent containing organic sludge
and pigments, some of which are heavy
metal salts which are hazardous
Liquid usually atored in drums
Waste solvent could be flaexable.
Pigments with heavy metal salts may
be toxic
Of f—site landfill
950
Inadequate leaching of heavy metal
pigment salts may occurs contaminating
groundwater or surface water.*
Most inexpensive disposal method and
readily available
Possible leachate 6 runoff problems
Easily compatible. Need only trash
collection receptable, hauler, and
off—site landfill
None
None
For hauling waste to disposal nite
and covering with fill
Solvent recovery is usually
cost—el (ective
Same aa Level I plus possible
air pollution from still bottoms
incinerator
Processing usually more economi-
cal off—site
Same as Level I
1—3 years for still 6 incinera—
tur
Waste hauling plus solvent re-
claiming heat source, coolant.
pumps, plus supplemental fuel
for incinerator startup and
shutdown
LEVEL III
(Technology I or Adequate Health
and Environmental Protection)
Same as Level II
FACTOR
Physical & Chemical Properties
of Residual Wastes
Description of Residual Wastes
Factors Affecting Degree of
Hazard
Treatment/Disposal Technology
TABLE 10
ORGANIC CLEANING SOLVENT WASTE DISPOSAL
LEVEL II
(Best Technology
Currently Employed)
Ash consisting of pigments, some
of which are heavy metal .slts
which are hazardous
Duet
Duet may contain heavy metal
salts which could be toxic
Solvent reprocessing with still
bottoms incineration followed by
landfill disposal of ash
0
50
Same as Level I
Problem 6 Coents
Non—land Environmental Impact
Compatibility with Exieting
Facilities
Monitoring and Surveillance
Techniques
Installation Time
Energy Bequirements
Same as Level II
Same as Level II
Level II with ash to secured landfill
0
Adequate assuming proper collection
of particulates from incinerator
Insufficient number of incinerators
available
Air polluton control on incinerator.
must be adequate to meet applicable
regulation.
Same as Level II
Leachate & air pollution monitoring
S.me aa Level II
Same as Level II
epossibly toxic to landfill microbe..
-------
TABLE 71
DISPOSAL OF DUST FROM AIR POLLUTION ABATEMENT EQUIPMENT
LEVEL II LEVEL III
LEVEL I (Best Technology (Technology for Adequate Health
FACTOR ( Prevalent Technology) Currently Employed) and Envirosmental Protection )
Physical & Chemical Proper— Pigments — principally Ti0 2 & CaCO 3 Same as Level I Same as Level I
ties of Residual Wastes but can contain Luxic heavy metal sa1te
Description of Residual Waste Dry powder of small particle size Same as Level I Same as Level I
Factors Affecting Degree of Varying portions of pigments which Waste is eliminated A. Same as Level 11
Hazard - are toxic heavy metal salts - B. Same as Level I
Treatment/Disposal Technology Off—site landfill Recycle into lower grade product A. Same as Level TI
B. Off—site secured landfill
Estimated Number of Plants 950 200 A. Same as Level 11
Uslng Technology B. 0
0
Adequacy of Technology Inadequate because runoff or leaching Only applicable in plants where A. Same as Level II
may occur* product specs. permit use B. Adequate assuming proper landfill
operation
Problems & Comments Duet can be local air pollution has— Not technically possible in all A. Same as Level II
ard at landfill site if not ismedi— plants due to product quality B. Same as Level I
ately covered specifications
Non—land Emvirozime tal Impact Possible leachate and runoff problems None A • Same as Level II
B. Same as Level II assuming proper
operation of the landfill
Compatibility with Existing Easily compatible. Need only trash Many plants do not have suitable A. Same as Level II
Facilities collection receptacle or drums, hauler products for incorporation of B. Availability of secured landfill
and off—site landfill, this material
Monitoring & Surveillance
Technique None None A. Same as Level II
B. Leachate & runoff monitoring
Installation Time None Formulation & product reorgani— A. Same as Level II
zation 0—5 years B. Availability of secured landfill
1—3 years.
Energy Requirements For hauling waste to disposal site
and covering with fill. None A. Same as Level II
B. Same as Level I
*Possjbly toxic to landfill microbes.
-------
As an example, if a “typical” large paint manufacturing facility is
defined as an operation producing a variety of water—thinned paints,
solvent—thinned paints, lacquers, factory—applied coating, and some
miscellaneous paint products, all the various process waste streams
from such. a plant would be combined in trash receptacles. These wastes
would be picked up by a private hauler up to several times per week and
taken off—site to a public or private sanitary landfill.
Level II technology f or wastewater sludge is sludge settling and
disposal in a landfill, which is currently practiced by about 20 percent
of the plants; for organic solveiits, ré rocessing withincineration of
still bottoms followed by landfill disposal of ash, 35 percent; and
collected dust, recycling into a lower grade product, 15 percent.
Level III technology for waste products is incineration with ash
deposition in a secured landfill. Chemical settling and sludge dewater—
ing followed by a secured landfill is Level III for disposal of waste—
water sludges. Level III for organic solvents is the same as Level II
except that a requirement for a secured landfill is added. Level III for
collected dusts offers the alternatives of use in low grade products pr
deposit in a secured landfill. So far as is known no plants presently
practice any of the Level III technologies.
The data and conclusions contained in Tables 67 through 71 are
for the most part self—explanatory. However, it should be noted that
residual wastes deposited in land include, where applicable, ash from
incineration of wastes.
Also, the footnote on each table pointing up the potential of
paint wastes for toxicity to microbes in landfills relates primarily to
wastes associated with water—thinned paints. This is not a major prob—
lem with the insoluble toxic heavy metals, but mercury, which is water—
soluble, can be very troublesome. Its source is largely phenyl mercuric
acetate used in water—thinned materials.
The conclusions are the contractor’s best assessment of the cur-
rent situation based on very general information. As discussed pre-
viously, when the contract was redirected to include processes other
than paint manufacture, the major focus of the original contract
curtailed was the study of disposal technologies. However, the lack
of an in—depth study in this particular area does not appear to be
especially detrimental in view of the uniformity of paint industry
technology and the detailed information EPA is otherwise developing on
specific land disposal practices.
The one feature of Tables 67 through 71 which may reflect the re-
duced scope of investigation in this area is Level III technology. It
may be unduly restrictive in some cases but this was felt necessary
since the environmental adequacy of any lesser technologies was not
181
-------
ver if it’d. The need for and relative cost/benefit of these requirements
will be clarified to a large extent as more data on the behavior of
these materials on land are accumulated.
COST ANALYSIS
Introduction
The cost analysis section is organized according to the three
levels of technology. Level I technology for the five potentially
hazardous waste streams of the paint and coatings industry is dis-
cussed first, and is followed by an analysis of Level II, and
finally Level III. Costs are then summarized by waste stream.
Cost data on current waste disposal practices were sparse at most
of the plants visited and much of the information collected is in the
form of estimates by plant personnel. Nonetheless, it was necessary
to use these data as the basis for the cost analysis of Level I and
Level II technology because the effort originally apportioned to this
phase of the program was reduced in order to perform studies in re-
lated industries. As a result, no significant data were collected
from other sources such as hauling and disposal contractors. As a re-
sult of the rather small data base, cost figures have been rounded off
to one significant figure.
Level III technology is generally not being implemented by the
paint and coatings industry. Cost estimates for this technology as it
appiies to the various waste streams were developed from other EPA
studies (35, 36, 37).
A key feature of the following cost analyses is that the costs
given for each level of technology are based on off—site waste dis-
posal. The reasons for this are as follows:
1. At least 90 percent of all paint manufacturers disp se
of their wastes off—site.
2. The majority of existing paint plants are located in ur—
b n areas where space availability for treatment and disposal facili-
ties on—site would be a major problem.
Treatment and Disposal Costs
Level I Technology
Level I technology is defined as the prevalent technology currently
182
-------
employed —— i.e., the broad average present treatment and disposal
practice. The costs of disposing of each waste stream are as follows:
Raw Materials Packaging
Level I technology for raw materials packaging is off—site disposal
in a landfill. Data from 25 surveyed plants show an average hauling and
disposal cost of $20/kkg ($20/ton) of waste. The range of costs from
these plants is $3—50/kkg ($3—50/ton). This wide cost range is probably
due to the following factors:
1. Type of landfill in use.
2. Frequency of pick—up by the hauling contractor.
3. Volume of containers used for storage and pick—up.
4. Distance from plant to disposal site.
5. Cost variations in different regions of the country.
6. Accuracy of the estimated cost and waste stream volume.
Paint plant personnel generally did not know the breakdown be-
tween the hauling and landfill costs. Based on work by another EPA
contractor (35), it is estimated that hauling costs will average
$7/kkg ($6/ton). Thus, landfill costs to the paint companies are
approximately $l3/kkg ($12/ton) of the average total of $20/kkg ($18!
ton) for both services. These landfill costs from plant survey data
are considerably higher than the estimates commonly quoted in the
literature —— $2—5/kkg ($2—5/ton).
These figures represent an average disposal of 310 kkg (340 tons)
per year for the 25 plants. The range was 1 to 2210 kkg (1—2430 tons)
per year.
Waste Solvents
Level I technology for waste organic wash solvent is also off—
site disposal in drums in a landfill operation. Based on data from
six surveyed plants, the average cost for hauling and disposal is $50,
kkg ($50/ton) of waste solvent. The range is $14 to $140/kkg ($13—
$130/ton). This wide range is probably due to the same factors listed
above under raw materials packaging. It is estimated from work done
by others (35) that hauling charges are $16 to $18/kkg ($15—16/ton).
No costs were added to represent the loss of reclaimable solvent which
would have to be replaced by fresh solvent.
Waste Water Sludge
Sludge from wastewater sedimentation is also generally drummed
and hauled off—site to some type of landfill operation. This consti—
]83
/
-------
tutes Level I technology, the costs for which are very similar to those
for handling solvents.
The average cost for hauling and disposing of wastewater sludge
is roughly $50/kkg ($50/ton). The range In six surveyed plants is $14
to $140/kkg ($l3—$130/ton). The hauling portion of this cost is ex-
pected to run $16 to $18/kkg ($l5—16/ton) depending on the distance
traveled, the frequency of waste collection, the quantity transported
per trip, and the types of other wastes carried.
Collected Dust From Air Pollution Abatement Equipment
Dust from bag collectors Is normally sealed in 208—liter (55—gal.)
drums and hauled away to an off—site landfill operation. This material
is not shipped separately by any of the plants surveyed. Instead, the
drummed dust is placed in a trash container and hauled away with loose
solid waste including raw materials packaging.
For this reason, the cost of dust hauling and disposal has been
compared with that of waste raw materials which. is roughly $20/kkg ($201
ton). Since the cost of waste collection and disposal is normally
based on volume rather than weight, the difference in densities of the
two waste streams brings the average cost for dust hauling and disposal
to approximately $6/kkg ($5/ton).
Waste Products and Spills
Level I technology for the disposal of waste products and spills
consists of off—site landf 1111mg. The cost of collection and disposal
of these wastes from plant trash containers is based on volume and Is
thus the same as that of collected dust —— $6/kkg ($5/ton). Data were
used from six survey plants which ranged from $2/kkg ($2/ton) to $16/kkg
($15/ton).
Level II Technology
Level II potentially hazardous waste disposal technology Is defined
as the best technology currently employed. Identified technology at
this level must represent the soundest process from an environmental and
health standpoint currently in use in at least one location. Instal-
lations must be commercial scale; pilot and bench scale Installations
are not suitable.
Raw Materials Packaging
Level II technology for this waste stream is equivalent to Level
I. Based on information from surveyed plants, the average hauling and
184
-------
disposal cost is S20/kkg ($20/ton), of which approximately $7/kkg
($6/ton) is the hauling charge.
Waste Solvent
Level II technology for waste organic solvent consists of off-
site solvent reprocessing with incineration of the still bottoms and
disposal of the collected ash in a landfill operation. As noted pre-
viously, approximately one—third of the wast solvent generated by the
paint and coatings industry is treated in this manner, primarily by
contractors.
The economics of using reclaimed solvents for equipment wash—up
—— including costs of hauling to the reprocessor, reclamation, and
repurchasing —— are, in many areas, generally equal to or lower than
the total cost of purchasing fresh solvent for this purpose and dis-
posing of the waste in a landfill. However, since the costs vary from
area to area and even within a given metropolitan complex, specific
comparisons will serve little purpose here. Prices are often related
to local competitive forces and/or contractor/customer relationships
which require evaluation on a case—by-case basis.
Plant survey data indicate that the costs of Level II technology
for this waste stream will not exceed the costs of Level I technology,
$50/kkg ($50/ton). This cost is partially offset by the fact that re-
claimers usually ship the reclaimed solvent back to the paint plants.
Unless the various solvents are separated by fractionation, which
is not as yet customary, the use of the mixed reclaimed solvents is
generally limited to wash—up. This discussion is therefore limited to
the economics of this application.
Wastewater Sludge
Waste tank cleaning water is settled, water is decanted from the
surface, and the sludge is drummed and hauled away to a landfill. The
sedimentation cost is not significant since polymeric sedimentation
aids are not used and special clarifiers are not generally employed.
Thus, the cost of Level II is identical to Level I, or an average
hauling and disposal cost for sludge disposal of $5o/kkg ($50/ton).
This estimate is based on plant survey data.
Collected Dust From Air Pollution Abatement Equipment
The best method encountered during the survey visits for handling
this waste stream was reuse as a pigment extender in low—grade paint.
Assuming that the dust can be used at the same plant site where it is
generated, the cost for reworking this material is negligible. Where
185
-------
the only use for dust is at other manufacturing locations, the trans-
portation cost for trucking this material in 208 liter (55 gal.) drums
will be $7/kkg ($6/ton) based on data from another study (35).
Waste Product and Spills
Level II technology is the same as Level I, consisting of hauling
the material i t t drums to an off—site landfill. Hauling and disposal
costs average $6/kkg ($5/ton).
Level III Technology
Level III technology is defined as the technology necessary to
provide adequate health and environmental protection. Level III tech-
nology may be more or less sophisticated or may be identical with
Level I or Level II technology. At this level, identif led technology
may include pilot or bench scale processes providing the exact stage
of development is identified.
Raw Materials Packaging
Level III technology for this waste stream is based on segregation
of bags containing residues of potentially hazardous materials from
other packaging wastes. These bags, which constitute less than one
percent of the total stream, should be incinerated with the ash disposed
of in a secured landfill.
Recent studies have estimated that Incineration costs range from
$6 to $17/kkg ($5—$15/ton), while secured landfill for the ash costs $55/kkg
($50/ton)(36)(37). Total hauling Costs should not exceed $ll/kkg ($10!
ton). Assuming that the incincerated waste produces 10 percent ash,
the cost for hauling and disposal of the hazardous portion of the waste
stream would be $30/kkg ($30/ton). The cost for hauling and disposal
of the remainder of the raw materials packaging waste stream remains
at about $20/kkg ($20/ton). This assumes negligible Cost for segregation
of the waste.
Waste Solvent
Level III technology consists of solvent reprocessing with incin-
eration of the still bottoms followed by disposal of the collected ash
in a secured landfill. Because of the small portion going to a secured
landfill the increase in costs over Level II technology will not sig-
nificantly affect the total cost which is estimated at $50/kkg ($50/ton).
186
C-’
-------
Wastewater Sludge
Level III consists of sedimentation and dewatcr [ ng of the sludge
fo]lowed by disposal in a secured landfill. It is estimated that Ilic
overall cost will be about $60/kkg ($50/ion). This assumes the use of
a chemical sedimentation aid at a cost of $llkkg ($1/ton) and a cost
for disposal on a secured landfill of $60/kkg ($50/ton).
Collected Dust From Air Pollution Abatement Equipment
Two alternatives are proposed as Level III technology. The first
is Level II technology which consists of recycling the dust as pigment
extender in low grade paint. The cost of this, assuming the dust can
be used at the same site where it is collected, is negligible. }Iow—
ever, this reuse concept cannot be applied at all paint manufacturing
facilities due to stringent quality control requirements.
The second alternative is hauling the drununed dust to a secured
landfill. This practice will cost approximately $60/kkg ($50/ton).
Waste Product and Spills
Based on data supplied in recent reports, the practice consisting
of incineration followed by disposal of the residual ash in a secured
landfill should cost roughly $40/kkg ($40/ton) (35, 36, 37).
Summary
The costs of the various levels of technology for each potentially
hazardous waste stream on a $/kkg ($/ton) basis are given in Table 72.
A crude estimate of the total national costs to the paint industry
for waste disposal can be obtained by simply multiplying the waste
generation rates from Table 1 (1974 estimates) times the costs shown
in Table 72. These costs in thousand dollars are shown in Table 73.
The cost of using Level I technology, $10.4 million per year, is
0.2 percent of the value of shipments for 1972 ($3.9 billion). Imple—
menting Level II or Level III technology should not significantly in-
crease these costs which are currently relatively minor.
The costs to a “typical’ t large paint plant producing 3.8 million
liters (1.0 million gallons) per year of products as defined earlier
in the report, would be as shown in Table 74 to use Level I technology.
187
-------
TABLE 72
Estimated Coats for Levels a! Treatment Technolo v
Coat, $/kkg (S/ton)
Waste Stream Level No. I II I II
Raw Material Packaging 20 20 20
(20) (20) (20)
Waste Solvent 50 50 50
(50) (50) (50)
Wastewater Sludge 50 50 60
(50) (50) (50)
Dust Collected from Air 6 0-7 0 (Recycle)
Pollution Abatement Equipment (5) (0—6) 60 (Sec. Landfill)
(30)
Waste Product and Spa.lls 6 6 40 (tncin ration)
(5) (3) (40)
TABLE 73
Total National Costa to the Paint Industry for Waste Dispoal
Cost. $10 3 /kkg ($10 3 /ton)
Waste Stream Level No. I II II I
Raw Material Packaging 6,000 6,000 6,300
Waste Solvent 3,000 3,000 3,000
Wastewater Sludge 1,300 1,300 1,400
Dust Collected From Air
Po’lution Abatement Equipment 10 0—11 88 (Landfill)
Waste Product and Spills 62 62 453
Total 10,372 10,362— 11,241
10,373
TABLE 74
Level I Treatment and Disposal Costs for a “Typical” Large Plant
Waste Generation Disposal Cost
Waste Stream Rate, kkg/yr (tons/yr) 5/yr .
Raw Materials Packaging 34 (37) 680
Waste Product 10 (11) 60
Wastewater Sludge 85 (94) 4500
Dust Prom Air Pollution 2 (2)
Abatement Equipment 12
organic Cleaning Solvent - 85 (94) 4500
Total $9752
188
1
-------
SECTION V
HAZARDOUS WASTE PRACTICES OF SOLVENT RECLAMATION OPERATIONS
DESCRIPTION OF SOLVENT RECLAMATION OPERATIONS
Introduction
Organic solvents which become contaminated through industrial use
but which are not consumed in a manufacturing process are candidates
for reclamation and reuse. The contaminated materials are generated
in various chemical manufacturing operations and attendant cleaning of
equipment and comprise a portion of some spoiled product. They include
a wide range of aliphatic, aromatic, and halogenated hydrocarbons, alco-
hols, ketones, and esters. These generic groups embrace materials such
as methanol, isopropanol, methyl ethyl ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone,
amyl acetate, butyl acetate, hexane, benzene, methylene chloride, tn—
chloroethylene, and perchloroethylene.
This section describes the sources of waste solvents and their
reclamation as an adjunct of paint and coatings manufacture and by in-
dependent operators who contract to collect and distill such waste
material from various sources. The economics of on—site reclamation
at paint plants are compared with the costs of off—site processing,
the future trends and growth rates of such facilities and the solvents
handled are discussed, and technology changes are forecast.
On—Site Reclamation at Paint Plants
Organic solvents used in cleaning equipment and for other purposes
attendant to paint manufacture become contaminated with pigments, other
paint raw materials, or water. The simplest means used to recover them
for further use is to settle out the solids in a drum and draw off the
supernatant solvent. However, in this method they are cleaned only to
a limited extent which inhibits the range of additional use. Thus,
many companies are employing commercial distillation units for reclaim-
ing these materials.
In these systems solvents are evaporated from the fecdstock and re—
condensed into a clean storage vessel. When the materials processed are
relatively pure containing only non— or low—volatile contaminants, an
almost pure solvent will result. When a mixture of solvents is included
in the stream being reprocessed, a mixture of solvent vapors will usu-
ally be generated depending on temperature and other conditions in the
189
-------
evaporatioii unit. If a relatively pure solvent is required, the various
solvents must be segregated in separate tanks and reprocessed separately
or one or more fractionation columns must be used to separate the
different so].vents. Solvent reclamation at paint plants does not norm-
ally include fractionation.
Generally, batch distillation is employed to recover a mixture of
solvents which is suitable for tank washing and other cleaning opera-
tions. A paint plant usually recovers only its own waste solvents, but
some small paint companies who have installed solvent recovery equip-
ment are providing a contract service to other small companies. This
permits installation and utilization of an economic size recovery unit.
The size factor is discussed below.
Six paint manufacturing plants surveyed during this study have
solvent recovery operations as part of their overall process. Surveyed
plants represent approximately eight percent of all paint production;
extrapolation of survey data thus suggests that approximately 70 paint
plants (4.5 percent of all paint plants) reprocess at least some of
their waste solvents on—site. The solvents of an additional 16 plants
surveyed are reclaimed by private contractors. Based on a percentage
of paint production, this indicates that on a national basis approxi-
mately 200 paint plants (13 percent of total) send spent solvents to
contractors for reprocessing and that 13.6 million liters (3.6 millIon
gal.) per year are currently reclaimed in this manner.
The major source of dirty solvents in paint manufacture is the
cleaning of mixing and storage tanks. Hence the solvent normally has
a considerable suspended and dissolved solids content which may range
up to 10 percent. The equipment used for reprocessing such solvents
must be designed so that these solids do not become deposited on the
heated surface where they will inhibit heat transfer to the solvent.
Scraped surface or agitated thin—film evaporation are normally used.
One plant reported the use of a high boiling miscible liquid additive
to increase the percentage of solvent recovery while maintaining the
still bottoms sufficiently liquid for removal.
Approximately 26 million liters (7 million gal.) of paint industry
waste solvents are sealed in 2 0 8 —liter (55—gal.) drums each year and
disposed of in landfills or dumps, thus consuming at least 140,000 drums
per year.
Solvent Reclamation by Private Contractor
Contract solvent reprocessing operations vary considerably in size,
materials handled, and technology used. Batch stills, coil stills,
scraped surface stills, or agitated thin—film evaporators are commonly
employed to purify waste solvents.
Two major classes of materials are reprocessed. One is halogenated
hydrocarbons such as methylene chloride, tricholoroethylene, perchioro—
190
¾
-------
ethylene, and 1,1,1 trichioroethane. These spent solvents derive pri-
marily from degreasing and metal cleaning.
The other category includes a wide range of solvents such as all—
phatic hydrocarbons, aromatic and naphthenic hydrocarbons, alcohols,
ketones, and esters. These waste solvents are generated by the chem-
ical process industry, solvent manufacture and distribution, metal
cleaning and coatings, Industrial paint use, and printing operations,
in addition to paint manufacture.
Numerous special solvents such as freons, phenols, c ’anides, and
oils are also recovered in small quantities. However, the processing
of these materials is not common among conventional solvent reclaiming
operations and In some cases they are handled by only one plant. It
should be emphasized that by far the majority of contractors who were
the subject of this study specifically exclude materials containing
cyanides and oil. Plants that accept these materials were among the
few which would not allow the survey teams to observe their operations
since they consider the processes used proprietary Information.
Most of the larger contractors handle both halogenated hydrocarbons
and miscellaneous solvents of the types listed above while some of the
smaller operations process only the more valuable halogenated hydro-
carbons. Two of the surveyed contract plants were of the latter type.
Some of the larger contractors also engage in other resource re-
covery and waste disposal processes including acid neutralization,
thermal oxidation, chemical oxidation and reduction, and operating a
secured landfill.
Economic Evaluation
The principal factor affecting the economics of a solvent recovery
operation is the size of the system used. Modern equipment varies in
capacity from 2.8—6100 liters (1/2—1600 gal.) per hour and the economics
improve considerably with size. For example, with efficient operation
a 3000—liter (800—gal.) per hour evaporator can recover solvents at
one—third the cost per liter or gallon of a 380—liter (100—gal.) per
hour unit. The reasons for this are that the relative capital cost
per unit of capacity is less as is overhead and maintenance. As shown
in Table 75, operating labor costs are similar for all sizes of evapo-
rators so they are considerably less per unit for a larger system.
The economics of a large unit are seriously reduced if it cannot
be efficiently utilized due to lack of raw material, which no doubt ex-
plains why the larger units are commonly found only in chemical manu-
facturing plants. A large paint plant producing 1100 liters (300 gal.)
per day of spent solvent could not efficiently utilize a distillation
unit of greater than 190 liters (50 gal.) per hour.
191
-------
When a paint plant has an on—site solvent recovery system, it tends
to use a greater quantity of solvents for cleaning in the knowledge
that they will be recovered. Such a plant will often operate a 380—
liter (100—gal.) per hour system over two shifts for better Utilization.
Another plant of similar size may use a solvent—reclaiming contractor
with a 3000—3800—liter (800—1000—gal.) per hour unit and find that
transportation costs are offset by the greater efficiency of the larger
unit.
In general, paint plants utilize small capacity systems, in the
range of 75—380 liters (20—100 gal.) per hour due to the scale of their
operation while private contractors will employ larger capacity units
up to 1500 liters (400 gal.) per hour, especially when located in a
highly industrialized area. Contractors are usually prepared to trans-
port their raw material from considerable distances since increased
quantities of feedstock improve the overall operating efficiency of
their plant.
Department of Transportation regulations (CFR 8173.28) require
“red label” liquids —— those with a flash point below 38°C (100°F) ——
to be shipped in new drums or reconditioned ones displaying the recon—
ditioner identification number and the pressure test date. This regu-
lation applies whether the shipment is made by common carrier or in a
private vehicle and affects large quantities of spent and reclaimed
solvents.
It appears that in many areas these DOT regulations are not en-
forced and that old drums are being used to ship solvents to and from
reclaimers. Strict enforcement of these regulations could add up to
l3 /1iter (50c/gal.) to the total cost of hauling solvent to and from
reclaimers in drums.
The actual value of recovered solvent varies considerably with the
type of solvent, the size and type of reclaiming process used, the de-
gree of purity of the product, and the general economic climate of the
time and place in which it is being sold. Generally, the value of re-
claimed solvent is closely tied to the value of the virgin material and
will sell for from 50 percent to 90 percent of the value of virgin
solvent. Actual prices range from 5 /liter (2O /gal.) for simple
distillation of cheap solvent up to perhape $3/liter ($10/gal.) for
careful refining of a valuable solvent in special equipment. The
majority of reclaimed solvents sell within the l0—30 /liter (40 —$l/gal.)
range.
Table 75 compares costs of a range 6f sizes of distillation units
and is based on information supplied by an equipment manufacturer.
Figures given are 1974 costsand apply to facilities being installed in
a paint plant or other manufacturing facility. They are minimum costs
assuming a constant supply of feedstock on an eight—hour day operation
and makes no allowance for additional handling or waste disposal costs.
192
-------
TABLE 75
OPERATING COSTS FOR A SOLVENT RECLAIMING SYSTEM
IN A PAINT MANUFACTURING PLANT
BASIS: Operation — 230 eight—hour days per year
Operating Costs
(steam, electricity) — 1.2 cents per gallon recovered
Labor — 1/3 to 1/2 operator
Overhead — 100% of operating cost & labor
Maintenance — 5% of installed cost
Depreciation — 20% of installed cost
Solvent Recovery Rate
380 liter/hr
(100 gph)
1500 liter/hr
(400 gph)
6100 liter/hr
(1600 gph)
Installed Cost
$54,000
$71,000
$120,000
Solvent Recovered
per year
760,000 liters
(200,000 gal.)
3,000,000 liters
(800,000 gal.)
12,000,000 liters
(3,200,000 gal.)
Operating Cost
$2,400
$9,600
$38,400
Labor
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
Overhead
$7,400
$14,600
$43,400
Maintenance
$2,700
$3,550
$6,000
Depreciation
$10,800
$14,200
$24,000
Annual Operating
Cost
$28,300
$46,950
$116,800
Total Recovery Cost 3.8ç/ liter 1.6 /liter l.0. /1iter
(14.2Q/gal.) (5 .9c/gal.) (3.6 Iga1.)
193
-------
The Lot iI recovery costs shown would at least double if the same
reclaimingsysiems were installed on a contractor’s site due to the
costs of land, buildings, waste disposal, overhead, labor, and auxili-
ary equipment. However, several private contractors have reduced their
costs substantially by purchasing used equipment. In many cases, costs
of transporting feedstock will far exceed actual recovery costs.
There are two basic modes of contract operation:
1. The contractor recovers the solvent, returns the material
to its source, and is paid either by the quantity of dirty solvent
originally taken or by the quantity of clean solvent returned.
2. The contractor buys the spent solvent (or in some cases
is paid to haul it away), recovers the solvent, and sells it on the
open market.
One of these systems is usually the primary mode with the alterna-
tive method accounting for a small portion of a contractor’s business.
The one favored depends on the system he finds most profitable. Most
operations are owned by small individual companies, and only a few
companies own more than one plant. Most solvent reclaimers have no
substantial financial backing and are therefore limited in production
facilities and expansion potential.
Future Trends and Developments
With the rapid increase in the cost of virgin solvents in recent
years, the economics of solvent recovery have improved and the growth
rate of this industry is increasing. No reversal of this trend is
likely to occur in the near future in face of continuing price rises,
particularly in petroleum derivatives. In addition, there is a con-
siderably larger market to be tapped since the paint industry alone
now disposes of about 26 million liters (7 million gal.) per year of
spent solvents which are not reclaimed.
The technology for solvent recovery is relatively simple and well
proven so no new developments are likely foi reclaiming wash solvents,
the bulk of materials handled. It appears, however, that greater use
will be made of fractionation towers in the future so that a purer pro-
duct of greater value can be obtained for more sensitive uses.
Also, reprocessing will move into new fields to recover more
complex solvents and other basic materials included with present in-
dustrial wastes. Much of the technology for these processes is pre-
sently available or under development and only requires an attractive
market to stimulate its use.
194
-------
ChARACTERIZATION OF SOLVENT RECLANATION OPERATIONS
Introduction
The purpose of this section is to describe the overall structure
of the solvent reclaiming “industry’u as it applies to private contrac-
tors engaged in the reprocessing of organic solvents. Estimates as to
the number and geographical distribution of solvent reclaiming contrac-
tor operations are given. The age and size ranges of these facilities
plus a broad overview of the distribution of the various types of
solvents processed are provided. Future trends in the “industry’s’
growth rate, site distribution, and product handling are also assessed.
Number and Distribution of Facilities
It is roughly estimated that there are 80 to 100 contract solvent
recovery operations distributed throughout the United States. Seventy—
nine are identified in Appendix G by EPA region and pertinent informa-
tion is provided where available. Since there does not appear to be a
trade association to which solvent reclaimers belong as a group, and
they are not broken out as an “industry” by the Census Bureau, this
list was compiled from information supplied by paint companies, equip-
ment manufacturers, telephone directories, EPA data, and from solvent
reclaimers themselves. There are probably five to 20 additional plants
throughout the country which were not identified because they do not ad-
vertise, have not bought their equipment from one of the major sup-
pliers, or are not openly competing with other reclaimers in their area.
From the diagram showing the state distribution of the known facil-
ities (Figure 19), it can be seen that they are spread throughout the
country’s most populated areas which also have large numbers of paint
manufacturers. The greatest number of solvent reclaimers are in EPA
Region V which encompasses Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan,
and Minnesota, although none were located in Minnesota.
Any detailed evaluation of their distribution on a state basis is
really irrelevant because these operations normally take feedstock from
many states. For example, reclaiming operations in New Jersey are
accepting waste solvents from the whole Northeastern area from Maine
to Virginia. The fact that no recovery contractors have been identi-
fied in Pennsylvania does not necessarily mean that solvent reclamation
is not practiced in that state. Neither does it imply that all used
solvents generated there are discarded. What it may indicate is that
they are being shipped to New Jersey and New York in the East and
Ohio or other Midwestern states for reclamation. The reason for such
out—of—state shipping is not clear, but it does not appear to be re-
lated to local regulation of such operations since New Jersey law is
very restrictive and the state has many solvent reclaimers.
195
-------
U.S. Distribution of Contract Solvent Reclaiaers
CLEARTYPE
STATE OUTLLNE
UNITED STATES
t— .T 100 3 300
-.
s r u It,
autmcMt - - - C01P*147. PtC
FICURE
19
0
a’
r-1
-------
The survey data do not indicate any correlation between geograph-
ical location, technology used, or waste characteristics. While more
West Coast operations are constructed from used equipment instead of
new equipment, there is nothing to indicate any difference from facil-
ities in other areas.
Size Distribution
Two parameters were evaluated to determine the size of solvent re-
covery operations —— i.e., number of employees and quantity of feedstock.
The number of employees is estimated to vary between two and 150 al-
though it appears that the vast majority employ less than 20 persons.
Only four surveyed plants employ more than 25 people, while 14 plants
employ less than 15 people.
These numbers are influenced by many factors. For instance, when a
plant collects all of its own feedstock over a wide area a larger staff
is necessary for collection and these people do little else. On the
other hand, those plants which are essentially captive to a few local
suppliers employ fewer collection personnel although they may process
as great a volume of spent solvents or more than those with a bigger
payroll. In the larger companies engaged in several types of resource
recovery operations it is difficult to ascertain the number of employ-
ees involved in solvent recovery only. Thus, numbers of employees per
se have virtually no relationship to size of solvent reclamation activ-
ities. There is also no identifiable correlation between geographical
location and number of employees.
There was a paucity of data on feedstock quantities received and
those available were of variable reliability. Some plants regarded this
information as proprietary and others only kept records of quantities
actually recovered and had to estimate feed quantities assuming an
average yield of recovered solvent. In the plants visited, quantities
handled varied from 98,000 liters (26,000 gal.) per year to 9,100,000
liters (2,400,000 gal.) per year, and averaged 2,600,000 liters (680,
000 gal.) per year for those who provided data.
Forty percent of the plants surveyed are fully utilizing their
equipment on a 40—hour per week basis while many are operating at
approximately half their potential capacity. This is due to the fact
that equipment was initially overdesigned to allow for expansion.
Capacity can be further increased by operating more hours per day on a
shift system.
Under—utilization is most frequently the result of the unavaila-
bility of sufficient quantities of used solvents. No connection was
found between the size of reclaiming operations in terms of volume of
feedstock process and geographic location.
197
-------
Sufficient data were obtained on 30 plants to classify them gen-
erally into size of operation and type of materials handled. Out of
the 30 surveyed plants, 11 were small operations —— i.e., less than
760,000 liters (200,000 gal.) per year —— dealing entirely In chlori-
nated and fluorinated solvents. Another four were small operations
accepting a wide range of solvents; five plants were of medium size at
760,000—3,800,000 liters (200,000 to 1 million gal.) per year handling
all types of solvents; and there were 10 large plants which handle more
than 3.8 million liters (1 million gal.) of dirty solvents of all types
each year. Extrapolation to a national basis suggests the size classi-
fication of solvent reclaiming contractors shown in Table 76. Due to
inherent inaccuracies in the extrapolation, actual numbers may vary
within a range of about ±15 percent from those given.
Age Distribution
Of the surveyed plants which were less than ten years old, all but
one had less than 400,000 liters (100,000 gal.) per year of processing
capacity. Most of the older plants (20—40 years) had 4—19 million liters
(1—5 million gals.) per year of capacity. This reflects a recent trend
toward building reclaiming facilities to handle specialized solvents
such as trichioroethylene. While most of the newer solvent reclaiming
operations are smal.l, one plant only five years old was found to be one of
the largest in terms of number of people employed. The oldest plant
visited has been in operation for 35 years while three others were less
than one year old. In general, the older plants are located in the older
industrial areas in the Northeast and Midwestern areas. Thirty—five per-
cent of the plants surveyed had been in operation for 25 or more years;
thirty percent were from six to 25 years old; and the remaining 35 percent
has been operating five or less years. Many of the older plants have
recently installed new equipment so the technology used is similar in
all plants and not dependent on age.
Production Dis tribut ion
The distrubution of quantities of solvents reclaimed follows very
closely the distribution of solvent usage throughout the country. For
example, the distrubution of paint production by EPA region shows that
Region V encompasses the largest number and is followed by Regions II,
IX, and IV. Similarly, the number of solvent reclaimers is greatest
in Region V followed by Regions II , IX, and IV.
All areas have a range of plant sizes with small plants reclaiming
from 98,000 liters (26,000 gal.) per year and larger plants up to 9.5
million liters (2.5 million gal.) per year. Detailed information on
quantities of spent solvents handled was obtained from 12 plants and is
discussed in a later section.
198
-------
TABLE 76
ESTIMATED SIZE CLASSIFICATION OF
SOLVENT RECLAIMING CONTRACTORS
Capacity RanSe,
million liters/year
Contractors Handling Only -
Halogenated Hydrocarbons
Number Percent of Total
Contractors Handling Most
Types of Solvents
Number Percent of Total
Small <0.76
Medium 0.76—3.80
30—38
0
100
0
11—13
13—16
21
26
Large 3.8O
_ -9
16—33
Total 30—38
100
40—62
100
199
-------
Future Trends
While many of the small reclaimers dealing only in halogenated
hydrocarbons will continue in operation, the trend is towards larger
operations which also engage in other resource recovery and waste dis-
posal practices. Although the reclaimers surveyed predicted a 10 to 35
percent annual rate of growth in amount of solvent available to their
plants, this growth rate is not expected to continue for many years and
is likely to reduce to the order of five percent per annum in a more
stable economic environment. In addition, more solvent—using manufac-
turers are installing equipment for on—site recovery of solvents, a
practice which will tend to minimize the need for the services of a
contractor.
Enactment of environmental legislation prohibiting the deposition
of solvents In landfills may increase the quantity sent to reclaimers,
but in some cases the solvents would be disposed of by incineration.
SOLVENT RECLAIMING WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
Introduction
Although detailed data were obtained from 12 contract solvent re-
claimers, in light of the variety in the types of operation and almost
certain inaccuracies in estimating feedstocks and waste quantities, it
is very difficult to extrapolate this information to the total number
of plants in the whole country. Thus, actual quantities discussed be-
low could be within ±30 percent of the values stated.
Feedatock Sources and Quantities
Solvent recovery contractors are generally reluctant to identify
the sources of their feedstock. This is a highly competitive business
which requires a constant search for new sources of feedstock and prices
are negotiated with each individual customer. Because of these factors,
it is understandable that they will not disclose names and will only
discuss broad Industrial classifications so that sideline Industries
are not pinpointed. The quantities from each source are likewise un-
available.
The following list identifies some of the major industries which
provide feedstock for solvent recovery contractors:
— Chemical processing
— Solvent manufacture and distribution
— Metal cleaning and coating
- Resin manufacture
— Dry cleaning
— Paint manufacture
— Factory application of paint
— Electronics industry
— Vapor degreasing
— Industrial printing
200
-------
1h only groups of solvents which could be separated from the whole
. nd approximately quantified were the chlorinated and fluorinated so]—
ventS used in vapor degreasing, metal cleaning, and in the electronics
industry.
Linear extrapolation of the information from the 12 surveyed
pl. nts with data to an estimated 92 plants results in the following
estimateS: a total feedstock each year of approximately 230 million
liters (60 million gal.) of dirty solvents of which 60 million liters
(16 million gal.) are chlorinated and fluorinated solvents, approxi—
nately 160 million liters (41 million gal.) are aromatics, aliphatics,
alcohols, ketones, esters, etc., and the remaining 10 million liters
(3 million gal.) are miscellaneous materials such as freons, oils, etc.
The feedstock is usually transported from its source to the re-
covery plant by the recovery contractor in his own trucks. More than
50 percent is transported in 208 liter (55 gal.) drums and the remain-
der is transported in bulk tankers. Normally, a minimum number of
tractor units are operated to deliver a large number of tanks, flat
tops, and covered vans to the premises. At this point, tractor units
and drivers can be put back on the road while tEnks, drums, and vans
are being unloaded to bulk storage. Two surveyed plants have rail
sidings for receiving and shipping bulk and drum material.
Solvent Reprocessing Methods
The basic principles involved in solvent reclaiming are evapora-
tion of the solvent from the feedstock and condensing the vapor back
to liquid form. There is a wide variety in the type and size of equip-
ment used. Their characteristics range from those of large continuous
process distillation equipment available in major chemical manufactur-
ing operations to small “homemade” stills utilized by small reprocess-
ing contractors.
Two of the plants surveyed employ proprietary methods for the re-
covery of solvents from difficult sludge and gel type solids. These
were small operations and no details of the process were available.
While design details vary, four basic methods are used to evapor-
ate the solvent to be reprocessed:
1. Direct Injection of Steam . Steam is injected directly
into the liquid to be evaporated. Solvent vapors pass from the evapo-
ration into a condenser where liquid solvent is collected. This method
is only suitable for those solvents which have low boiling points, are
not miscible with water, and can be readily separated from water. Be-
cause of these limitations, this type of still is not commonly used and
is normally confined to small specialized operations.
201
-------
2. Coil Still . In this equipment, illustrated in Figure 20,
the vessel containing the material to be distilled contains a coiled
tube through which steam or hot fluid is passed to heat the contents.
Electrtc heating coils are also used. Heat transfer is fast and
efficient, providing no fouling occurs on the heat transfer surface.
This type of equipment is not suitable for reprocessing solvents which
have a high solids content (roughly five percent or more) or contain
resinous materials which could polymerize on the coils and require
expensive hand cleaning. Evaporated solvent passes to a non—contact
water-cooled condenser where liquid solvent is collected.
Stills of this type are widely used for reprocessing
solvents such as chlorinated hydrocarbons used in dry cleaning opera-
tions. They range from 28 to 950 liters (8 to 250 gal.) per hour
capacity.
3. Scraped Surface Still . In this device, the distillation
tank is surrounded by a heating jacket and the interior of the cylin-
drical heated surface is continuously wiped by scrapers attached to a
central rotating shaft. This is best suited for use with solvents
containing sludge or solids and insures a clean heat transfer surface
by keeping resinous materials in the still bottoms liquid so that they
can be removed from the still. A scraped surface still is shown in
Figure 21.
4. Agitated Thin—Film or Wiped—Film Evaporator . This type
of still utilizes a tall vertical cylinder surrounded by a heating
jacket. Rotating blades within the cylinder agitate the solvent and
force it to flow in a thin film down the interior heated surface of
the cylinder. These blades do not scrape the surface but the clear-
ance is sufficiently small to prevent the liquid film from adhering to
the surface. Thin film evaporators vary in capacity from 400 to 6100
liters (100—1600 gal.) per hour.
After evaporation, the vapors pass into a condenser for recovery
of the liquid. Condensers are normally of the non—contact surface
water—tube type so that there is no contamination of the cooling water.
If there is an adequate supply of makeup water, the cooling water is
discarded after passing through the condenser but in most operations
the water is recycled through a cooling tower or spray pond. This
type of equipment is shown in Figure 22.
Whether solids and non—volatile materials collected in the bottom
of a still or evaporator are removed at the end of a batch or continu-
ously, depends on which type of equipment is used, and the mode of
operation. “Still bottoms’ t are kept sufficiently fluid so that they
can be removed by pumping which simplifies handling and minimizes
spills. Still bottoms are incinerated or sealed in drums for land
disposal.
202
-------
CONDENSATE
TROUGH
LIQUI
LEVEL
TRANSFOR? R —-‘
FIGTJRE 20
SELECTOR
SWITCH
PORTHOLE
_ ,SAFEFf VALVE
:i— SOLENOID
VALVE
• — GAUGE
I ____— STEAM
INJECTOR VALVE
CLEAN UT
DOOR
BLEEDER for
STEAM INJECTOR
C}(CK
VALVE
STEAM COIL STILL
CONDENSATE PAN
COOLING
WATER INLET
0
WATER DRAIN for
WATER SEPARATOR
\1
GAUGE
Court.ay: Dstrez Cb iC*1 Industrisa, Inc.
-------
FIGURE 21
S Af*D SUIIACE DISTILLATION PLAI4T
Courtesy: Brighton Corp.
204
-------
I
FIGURE 22
THIN - FILM SOLVENT RECOVERY PLANT
Courtesy:
Luwa Corp.
205
-------
All solvent recovery systems require little direct operating la-
bor, but considerable labor is required in collection, testing, and
feeding of used solvents to the recovery equipment.
When separation of solvents or fractionation is required, a tray—
type or packed fractionation column is used between the evaporator and
the condenser to control the temperature of vapors passing to the con-
denser.
fa te Sources
Figure 23 shows the principal equipment used and an approximate
mass balance diagram of a typical solvent recovery plant. Figures
given relate to the processing of 100 kg (220 ib) of feedatock. The
process diagram is essentially the same for all types of stills and
evaporators. Variations occur primarily only when a fractionating
tower is added to the basic distillation equipment.
Steam is normally used at 8.5 atm (125 psig) pressure. In some
specialty evaporators, the jacket Is designed for higher pressures so
that higher distillation temperatures can be obtained. An alternative
to using high pressure steam is to use heat transfer oil such as Dow—
therm*. Another common approach to the distillation of solvents with
high evaporation temperatures is the use of vacuum pumps or steam jets
to reduce the pressure within the evaporation unit so that the solvents
vaporize at lower temperatures.
There is only one basic waste stream from solvent recovery opera-
tions —— i.e., the still bottoms or sludge. Occasionally, this stream
is incinerated on—site and the remaining ash residue becomes the waste
stream.
Sixteen samples of still bottoms were Collected during survey vis-
its and later tested to indicate the Potentially hazardous nature of
these wastes. All samples were analyzed for volatile fraction as an
Indicator of the portion of solvent remaining in the waste. Similarly,
the flash point of all samples was determined to see If any of the
wastes could constitute a fire hazard. In addition, samples known to
contain metal compounds were tested for lead, chromium, and zinc con—
centrat ions.
The samples of still bottoms obtained from chlorinated solvent re-
covery alone were tested for trlchloroethylene (as this was known to be
in the samples). When significant quantities of trlchloroethyjene were
found, the presence of other chlorinated solvents was not determined.
Similarly, chlorinated hydrocarbons were not sought in other samples
where there was no Indication that these materials would be present in
other than trace quantities.
*Use of a trade name does not constitute endorsement of a product.
206
-------
OIL
OR
GAS
FIGURE 23
TYPICAL SOLVENT RECOVERY
40kg
STEAM
I-——— ————-1
‘FRACTIONATION I
CO LUMN
1%,
0
‘.1
------J
CONDENSATE
GAS
r
L LANDFILL i
IN
L_!±’ __J
SYSTEM
-------
It was stressed by plant operators during the site visits that the
concentration, and even presence of various hazardous materials fluctuated.
This is due to differences in the characteristics and origins of the
various hatches of feedstock received during any given time period.
The results of the laboratory analyses are given in Table 77.
These analyses are grab samples of specific, operations at a particular
time only and cannot be considered representative of the solvent
reclaiming industry as a whole or even the specific solvent reclaiming
operations from which the samples were collected.
The findings may be summarized as follows:
1. The majority of samples have a high volatile fraction in-
dicating a large proportion of solvent and other volatile organics.
2. All flash points are above 27°C (100°F) indicating that
these sludges do not constitute a serious fire hazard.
3. Waste streams from the recovery of chlorinated hydrocar-
bons contain considerable quantities of chlorinated solvents and there-
fore must be considered a potentially hazardous waste stream.
This stream, either as a sludgeor an ash, must be considered po-
tentially hazardous principally because of the variability and uncer-
tainty in the nature and quantity of its constituents. Some feedstocks
come from painting operations which contain varying quantities of
metallic or other compounds which are potentially toxic, flammable, or
both. Another large portion of the feedstock derives from cleaning
and other industrial operations which also contribute to the toxic and/
or flammable nature of the materials concentrated in the sludge during
the distillation process.
Twenty—aix percent of these feedstocks, on a national basis, con-
tains quantities of potentially toxic halogenated hydrocarbons. These
solvents have a Gleason toxicity rating of 3 or greater (1). The re-
maining 74 percent of the feedstock contains solvents which also have
a toxicity of 3 or greater (1). These materials normally contain a
small percentage of toxic heavy metals but actual quantities vary con-
siderably and few wastes can be considered free of this potential haz-
ard. Eighty-five percent of these materials is incinerated, so that
toxic elements may be concentrated in the ash requiring final disposal.
The criteria for determining the hazardous nature of wastes from sol-
vent reclaiming operations are the same criteria applied to paint in-
dustry wastes earlier in this report —— i.e., streams containing materi-
als with a Gleason toxicity rating of 3 or greater (1) and/or contain—
ink, solvents with a flash point of 27°C (80°F) or lower are considered
hazardous.
Solvent reclaiming wastes are not usually stored on the recovery
site but are hippcd to other disposal frtctl.itles. Ho :ever, one p].ant
surveyed was accumulating the incinerator ash on—site until an accept-
able disposal method was found.
208
-------
TABLE 77
ANALYTICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF STILL BOTTOMS SAMPLES
COLLECTED FROM SOLVENT RECLAIMING OPERATIONS
Percent
Volatile
Sample Carried Percent Chro—
Desig— of f at Trichloro— Lead, mi nu, Zinc, Flash Point
nation 103—105°C ne mg/i aL L mg/i C _____
Al 77 1700 280 190 48 118
A 2 79 500 60 130 44 111
B 1 89 400 60 130 51 124
B 2 89 6 75 167
99 100 10 10 40 104
41 46 115
J 1 14 3 no flash
14 58 136
61 53 127
11. 28 90 194
X 1 97 45 84 183
X 2 97 50 86 187
Yj 59 1200 360 100 68 154
58 1200 310 990 82 180
83 100 10 10 74 165
Z 61 3700 730 430 79 174
209
-------
The drums in which the feedatock is collected are not considered a
waste stream since they are recycled for collection of further material,
used to package saleable products, or to contain waste for disposal
in a landfill. When drums are to be used for product, they may be
cleaned with solvent and the cleanings added to the feedstock for re-
covery. As noted earlier, strict compliance with Department of Trans-
portation regulations requires the use of new or reconditioned drums
which have been subjected to a pressure test for all three purposes
if the flash point of the content is below 38°C (100°F).
Solvent reclaimers occasionally acquire some feedstock which can-
not be processed through their recovery operation. This often means
shipping unsuitable material back to its source. Quantities of this
type of material are minimized by clearly specifying the quality and
nature of the material that they will accept.
Only minor quantities of unsuitable feedstock are considered a
waste stream from solvent reclaiming operations since it does not gener-
ally constitute a waste which is normal to these operations. It is
more correctly designated as a waste stream from the generating industry
and as such should be considered in conjunctioir with the other wastes
of that industry.
No data were available to this study on the methods employed for
disposal of sludges or dust generated in air pollution control equip-
ment used on incinerators burning still bottoms. Incinerators used at
two survey facilities were operating within local air pollution stan-
dards without the use of any air pollution abatement equipment.
Waste Quantities from Solvent Reclamation
Waste quantities were obtained from 10 of the surveyed operations.
These facilities represent between 21 and 32 percent of the feedstock
processed on a national basis. They are representative of the range
of still types employed and solvents processed, however, there is no
evidence that these factors affect the rate of recovery. Rates tend
to vary with each Individual batch of feedstock and the operation of
individual evaporators.
On the average, 75 percent of the feedstock is recoverable solvent
which is sold as a product based on information obtained during the sur-
vey visits. The remaining 25 percent constitutes the waste stream from
the recovery operation. This 25 percent includes the still bottoms or
sludges and small quantities of feedstock which for various reasons are
not suitable for evaporation. On this basis, it is estimated that 56
million liters or 54,000 kkg (15 million gal. or 60,000 tons) of waste
sludge are generated annually in this country from the processing of 230
million liters (60 million gal.) of feedstock. The accuracy of this
calculation is probably ±30 percent.
210
I,
-------
Sonic of the larger so]vcnl reclalnicrs individually dLspose of up
to ) ‘1 nil ii Lou 1 itcrs (500,000 gnl .) of these sludges each year.
Two of the plants surveyed make sonic use of the waste sludge. One
small plant handling only chlorinated solvents was selling approximately
8000 liters (2000 gal.) per year as an asphalt extender. Another was
incorporating a small quantity of waste sludge into a building product.
Both these uses account for less than 0.1 percent of the total waste on
a national basis and thus cannot be considered typical disposal methods.
The largest portion of the still bottoms waste stream is the base
solvent left in the sludge to keep it in a fluid form. The solids in-
clude oils, greases, and metal fines from metal cleaning operations,
pigments, extenders, and resins from paint residues, organic contami-
nants from chemical processes, etc.
Total estimated present and projected national waste quantities
from contract solvent reclaiming operations are summarized in Table 78.
The projections for 1977 and 1983 are based on a 10 percent annual
average growth rate between 1974 and 1977 and an. average of five per-
cent per year for the next six years. Actual growth rates will depend
on the general economic situation and environmental controls which may
be imposed but cannot be predicted at this time.
These figures are quantities from the contract solvent recovery
industry and do not include waste solvents directly disposed of from
paint manufacturing facilities or other industrial operations nor
waste residues from solvent reclaiming processes operated on—site as a
captive process at such installations.
No quantitative data were available to this study on the content
of ash from the incineration of still bottoms of contract solvent re-
clamation operations. However, Table 79 analyzes the concentration of
constituents found in the ash from on—site incineration of solvent
recovery still bottoms at a surveyed paint plant. This table is used
for illustration only and should not be construed as typical of any
reclaiming operations.
TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGY
Introduction
This section describes the present technology employed by organic
solvent reclaimers to dispose of their still bottoms wastes. The
211
-------
TABLE 78
ESTIMATED TOTAL WASTES FROM SOLVENT RECLAIMING OPERATIONS
WASTE VOLUME WASTE WEICMT 1
Million Million Thousand Thousand
Year liters/yr gallons/yr kkg/yr tons/yr
1974 56 15 54 60
1977 76 20 73 80
1983 101 27 97 107
( )Baeed on an estinsted density of 0.96 kg/i (8.0 lba/gal.)
212
-------
TABLE 79
ANALYSIS OF ASH FROM INCINERATED STILL BOTTOMS
en,
Constituent Percent
T10 2 Major
Si02 15.00
SrO 2.00
A120 3 .50
Fe203 .20
MgO .20
BaO .10
MoO 3 .004
PbO .03
Sb 2 0 5 .02
CaO .005
NiO .005
Sn02 .005
ZnO .003
CoO .003
MnO .003
CuO .001
Cr 2 0 3 .001
Not Detected in Sample: Cd, As, Te, B, W, Ge, Bi, Be, V, Ag
213
-------
primary disposal method used (Level I technology) is incineration, ei-
ther on— .ite or by an off—site contractor. Only 14 percent of he waste
goes directly to a landfill, and other methods account for only a fraction
of the total waste disposal.
Levels II and III treatment and disposal technologies are also iden-
tified, the amounts of waste subjected to landfill and incineration
are extrapolated to national quantities, and future trends in growth and
total wastes are projected.
Description of Present Technology
Information on waste disposal technology was obtained from a total
of 18 reclaiming facilities which represent about 20—25 percent of such
operations. Fourteen of these facilities incorporate incineration as
at least a part of their waste disposal system; ten use incineration
exclusively with only the ash going to a landfill, usually at some
other location.
Six plants reported using their own on—site incinerators while
others make use of a contractor’s incinerator. Only the larger com-
panies employ their own, and most of these would not allow survey per-
sonnel to inspect their installations. However, from observation of
the installations that were inspected, it was determined that a large
variety of different types of incinerators are apparently suitable for
still bottoms burning. Since most of the still bottoms still contain
some organic solvents they are readily combustible and do not require
drying or the use of si.ipplementary fuels. The simplest form used con-
sists only of a combustion chamber into which the sludge is pumped
through a spray nozzle and into which an adequate air supply is blown.
One of the incinerators inspected that was able to operate within
applicable standards without any air pollution abatement equipment
achieved combustion temperatures of 1400—1700°C (2500—3000°F) and
maintained stack gas temperatures above 870°C (1600°F). Other incin-
erators incorporated some air pollution control measures such as wet
scrubbers. One such plant had experienced the emission of metal oxides
which were not collected by the scrubber. Operators of these incinera-
tors reported insufficient ash buildup to require continuous ash remov-
al, and removal is normally performed manually when the incinerators
are shut down.
Approximately 14 percent of the wastes from solvent reclaiming
goes directly to land disposal, arid as nearly as could be determined,
the disposal sites are landfills which are covered on a daily basis. The
wastes are normally sealed in 208—liter (55—gal.) drums before leaving
the plant. One plant reported that it was not allowed to deposit drums of
concentrated solvent waste in one landfill, but the licensed landfill would
accept this waste if it were distributed over and mixed with a large quan-
tity of garbage.
214
-------
Two plants were using still bottoms as asphalt extender and con-
crete block fillers, but this type of use represents less than 0.1
percent of the total waste disposal on a national basis. The chlori-
nated solvent waste still bottoms from one southern plant were being
transported to an off—site contractor for deep well injection disposal.
No general pattern of transportation of wastes to disposal was
apparent. Some reclaimers use their own trucks to take wastes to dis-
posal while others use general waste disposal contractors to remove
waste material.
Analysis of Number of Locations and Percentage of Total Wastes Disposed
No contractor engaged solely in solvent recovery was equipped for
final disposal on his plant site. A few of the larger companies which
operate a solvent reclamation process as part of a much larger materials
recovery and waste disposal operation include the still bottoms with
other waste for incineration and final disposal of their ash in their
controlled landfills. However, the use of municipal or private land-
fills is a much more prevalent practice.
Of the estimated 54,000 kkg (60,000 tons) of still bottom wastes
generated annually, it is estimated that approximately 7600 kkg (8400
tons) go directly to a landfill of some kind. The remaining 46,400 kkg
(51,600 tons) are incinerated. As previously mentioned, the quantity
of ash resulting from these incinerators is very small and is estimated
to be a maximum of two percent by weight of the total incinerated. On
a national basis, it is therefore estimated that a total of 940 kkg
(1030 tons) of ash is produced each year from the incineration of sol-
vent recovery wastes.
Insufficient data are available to estimate with any accuracy the
proportion of wastes which are incinerated on—site versus those incin-
erated by private contractors. Among those plants with quantitative
waste data only 12 percent of the waste is being incinerated on—site,
but many of the large companies which were unable to supply quantita-
tive data are using on—site incineration. Nationally, 50 percent is
probably incinerated on—site. Once again, the accuracy of these na-
tionally extrapolated figures are estimated to have an accuracy of
within ±30 percent.
From this discussion, it can be seen that the total quantity of
solvent recovery waste requiring final disposal is therefore estimated
to be 8500 kkg (9400 tons) per year at the present time —— i.e., 8000
kkg (8900 tons) from the solvent reclaiming industry and 500 kkg (500
tons) as waste from contract incinerators.
Levels of Treatment and Disposal Technology for the Potentially Hazardous
Waste Stream
As shown in Table 80, Levels I and II technology consist of on—site
215
-------
Factor
Physical and
Chemical Properties
SOLVENT RECLAIMING STILL BOTTOMS WASTE DISPOSAL
LEVEL II
LEVEL I (Best Technology
( Prevalant Technology) Currently Used )
Organic liquid containing toxic consti— Same as
tuents. Can contain flammable constituents Level I
LEVEL III
(Technolo ,
Adequate Healtn and
Environmental Protection )
Same as Level I
Description of
Residual Waste
Ash with high percentage of potentially
toxic constituents
Factors Affecting
Hazard Potential
Flammability and toxicity
Same as
Level I
Same as Level I
Treatment/Disposal
Technology
Estimated Number of
Plants Now Using Technology
Incineration followed by ash disposal
in a sanitary landfill
50—70 Same as
Level I
Incineration with air pollu-
tion controls followed by
ash disposal in a secured
landfill
None -
Adequacy of
Technology
Non—Land Environ-
mental Impact
Inadequate due to possible leaching
from landf 111*
Small quantities of sludge gener-
ated sometimes make on—site incinera-
tion economically unattractive.
Possible air pollution from incinera-
tion. Possible leachate problems.
Possible air pollution from incinera-
tion. Possible leachate problems.
Availability of secured
landfills
Compatability with
Existing Facilities
Monitoring and Surveil— None
lance Techniques
Installation Time 1—3 years to incinerator
Minimal. Little supplemental fuel needed
for incinerator. Fuel for trucking ash
to landfill and covering.
Same as Same as Level I
Level I
Same as
Level I
Same as
Level I
Incinerator stack gas moni-
toring; leachate and runoff
monitoring in landfill
Same as Level I
Same as
Level I
Same as Level I
Same as
Level I
Problems and Comments
Adequate
Same as Level I
Same as
Level I
Same as
Level I
Same as
Level I
Good
Energy Requirements
+
Same as
Level i:
Same as Level 1
*Possibly toxic to landfill microbes.
-------
and off—site incineration of still bottoms with ash disposal in a san!—
tary landfill. Still bottoms incineration with proper air pollution
control to meet applicable standards followed by ash disposal in a
secured landfill is an environmentally acceptable disposal practice
which constitutes Level III technology for this industry.
Future Trends
The overall trend in this industry is towards greater resource
recovery and more efficient disposal of wastes. It is also foreseen
that better use will be made of solvent recovery equipment so that a
greater portion of solvent is recovered, thus reducing the quantity
of waste. Also, recovery of other materials (e.g., metals, organic
chemicals) will be undertaken if the economic climate changes and these
processes become financially attractive.
As recovery plants grow in size, greater use will be made of in-
cineration for waste disposal but until regulation dictates otherwise
there will continue to be a number of small plants sending wastes di-
rect to landfill. It is probable that a number of future incinerators
will incorporate heat recovery systems so that the energy value of the
material burned is not wasted.
The use of still bottoms in byproducts such as asphalt extenders
will be further researched and will probably develop into a signif i—
cant waste disposal method.
While the industry is expected to expand at a high rate, the rate
of growth In quantities of final waste for disposal will be considerably
less due to increased use of improved methods. In estimating the future
quantities in Table 81 the quantity going to landfill has been kept
constant; the increase is attributed to greater quantities of ash from
incineration.
COST ANALYSIS
Reclaimers generally pay between 1 to 4 per liter (5—l5 per gal.)
for disposal of still bottoms wastes through another contractor. One
plant reported, however, that it spends 7t per liter (27 per gal.) for
waste disposal off his site by a private contractor using incineration.
Plants operating their own incinerators were unable to give accu-
rate incineration cost figures but the estimates they supplied also fell
within the l—4 per liter (5—l5 per gal.) range. One plant using land
disposal at a cost of l per liter (5ç per gal.) had discontinued con-
tract incineration service when charged 4 per liter (l4 per gal.) for
waste disposal.
217
-------
TABLE 8t
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED QUANTITIES
OF WASTES FROM SOLVENT RECOVERY OPERATIONS
________ kkg/yr (tonslyr)
Quantity of Waste Quantity of Waste
Quantity of Feed Stock From Solvent Recovery For Land Disposal
00
1974 205,000 (225,000) 54,500 (60,000) 8,500 (9,400)
1977 287,000 (316,000) 73,000 (80,000) 9,400 (10.300)
1983 385,000 (425,000) 97,000 (107,000) 10,900 (12,000)
-------
With the volume of waste approximately one—third that of the sale-
able product, the cost of waste disposal is between 0.5 to l.3 per liter
(2—5 per gal.). This plays a significant part in the overall econom-
ics of the process since wastes represent approximately 25 percent of
the volume of the feedstock.
219
-------
SECTION VI
HAZARDOUS WASTE PRACTICES IN
FACTORY-APPLIED COATINGS OPERATIONS
DESCRIPTION OF FACTORY—APPLIED COATINGS OPERATIONS
Introduction
The term “factory—applied coatings” refers to coatings which are
applied as an integral part of product manufacture. Since, in many
cases, the coating process is not separated from the other manufactur-
ing steps, it is difficult to characterize it as a distinct operation.
In general, the coatings used are easily separated from “trade
sales” products in that they are tailored for a specific end use and
method of application and cure which may be highly sophisticated. Very
rapid cure is usually desirable to minimize the amount of space needed
to store products while they are drying to the point where they can be
packed and shipped.
Because of the large number of factory applications of these coat-
ings and the wide variation in size, little information about the in-
dustry as a whole can be offered within the scope of this section of
the project. Only broad generalizations are possible with the infor-
mation presently available.
Economic Structure
There is no Standard Industrial Classification for the factory
application of coatings. Instead these operations are spread among
almost all the groupings that cover manufacturing, and, as a result,
there are no valid statistics as to their number and size. Estimates
may be found that range from 15,000 to over 50,000, depending upon the
definitions used and the assumptions made. The contractor estimate is
about 45,000 which includes approximately 25,000 relatively small oper-
ations and some 20,000 plants which use significant quantities of coat-
ings. Since they are generally encompassed within a manufacturing
operation, their distribution parallels that of industry.
The market for the coatings used provides about the only effective
source of information on the relative size of various divisions of the
221
-------
industry. This information is contained in the 1972 Census of Manufac-
tures report “Shipments of Industrial Finishes” which is shown in Ta-
ble 82. This list includes industrial maintenance paints and marine
paints, which, while often specially formulated for factory application,
are not “factory—applied paints” in the context of this investigation,
since the waste problems associated with them are much more closely
akin to the waste generated by other types of coatings designed for
non—industrial use. The table also separates “industrial product
finishes, except lacquers,” from “industrial lacquers, Including acry-
lics.” When corrections for these differences are made, the total
shipment of factory—applied coatings, in 1972, was 1207 million liters
(319 million gal.), valued at $996.8 million. The largest consumption
was in automobile finishes, 151 million liters (40 million gal.), con-
tainer and closure finishes, 131 million liters (34.7 million gal.),
and wood product lacquers, 135 million liters (35.8 million gal.).
Many smaller factory—applied operations buy some or all of their
paint through trade sales or similar channels which Is not reported in
Table 82. Also, many of the larger plants buy substantial amounts of
solvents for thinning paints through sources other than the paint in-
dustry —- often directly from a solvent manufacturer. These two sources
would increase the consumption by a significant, but unknown, amount.
Future Trends and Developments
This limited investigation of factory applications of coatings
was not designed to establish precise trends and futui e developments
in this field. This discussion, therefore, is based largely on con-
tractor knowledge, supplemented by information acquired during the
plant visits and conferences with other experts.
In general, future trends are influenced most heavily by sources
outside the industry and to a much lesser degree by internal pressures.
Among the factors with the greatest effect on the future of the indus-
try are air and water pollution regulations, occupational safety and
health regulations, shortages and/or increasing costs of certain raw
materials, particularly those derived from petroleum, and increasing
costs of fuels and other restrictions on energy, especially on natural
gas and fuel oils used for baking and Incineration of coatings and
solvents. The national economy In terms of product consumption will
also be a significant factor.
Another set of exterior forces which will produce substantial
changes in the industry are new methods of application and new coatings
adapted to them, such as powder coatings, ultra—violet cured coatings,
electrostatic deposition, electrophoretic deposition, and electron—
beam curing. Each of these methods is now employed to a limited extent
In a few specific uses, but the development of Improved coatings and
techniques will expand their usage to a marked degree In the near fu-
ture. It is difficult to forecast the extent of the expansion, but
222
-------
TABLE 82
1972 CENSUS OF MANUFACTURES
SHIPMENTS OF INDUSTRIAL FINISHES
Total Product Shipments
SIC Code Product Qta Value, $M*
28516 Total Industrial Product Finishes, except Lacquers 279.3 929.0
2851611 Interior Industrial Maintenance Paints 14.0 57.3
2851613 Exterior Industrial Maintenance Paints 20.3 67.6
2851618 Marine Paints 9.0 42.5
2851631 Automobile Finishes 40.0 127.3
2851633 Truck and Bus Finishes 4.9 16.3
2851635 Railroad Finishes 3.7 11.1
2851637 Other Transportation Equipment, including Air-
craft 1 Rockets and Missiles 3.9 12.9
2851638 Appliances, Heating Equipment and Air Conditioner
Finishes 17.5 60.3
2851641 Wood Furniture and Fixture Finishes 18.0 43.3
2851642 Wood and Composition Board Flat Stock Finishes 10.2 30.2
2851644 Sheet, Strip & Coil Coatings, including Sidings,
except Containers 14.2 60.0
2851645 Container and Closure Finishes 34.7 102.6
2851646 Other Metal Decorating 8.9 30.0
2851647 Machinery and Equipment Finishes, except Insula-
ting Varnish 13.9 46.7
2851648 Metal Furniture and Fixture Finishes 10.8 37.3
2851651 Paper and Paperboard, excluding Pigment Binder 4.4 11.6
2851652 Industry Varnishes, Electrical Types 9.5_ 29.2
2851653 Powdered Coatings O.4M lbs. 6.3
2851698 Other Industrial Product Finishes, except Semi—
manufactured Products Such as Pigment Dispersions
& Ink Vehicles 20.9 69.5
2831600 Industrial Product Finishes, except Lacquers, not
Specified by Kind 20.1 67.0
28517 Total Industrial Lacquers, including Acrylics 83.0 235.2
2851711 Automotive Lacquers 16.3 57.1
2851721 Wood Product Lacquers 35.8 78.3
2851731 Fabricated Metal Lacquers 8.4 32.8
2851741 Paper and Paperboard Lacquers 3.5 8.1
2851798 Industrial Lacquers for Other End Uses 12.4 40.1
2851700 Industrial Lacquers, including Acrylics, not -
Specified by Kind _6• • 18.8
TOTAL SIC 28516 & 28517 362.j 1164.2
TOTAL FACTORY APPLIED COATINGS 319.0 996.8
*
M million.
223
-------
estiniates which seem to be as good as any available were shown earlier
in Table 6 (6). Certainly the increasing costs of coatings and their
raw materials will continue to put pressure on the development of me-
thods to reduce waste in their use.
FACTORY—APPLIED COATiNGS OPERATIONS CHARACTERIZATION
Introduction
The descriptions in this section of the number, size, and distri-
bution of factory—applied coatings operations and accompanying comments
are based on contractor experience, the literature, and plant visits as
well as discussions with trade associations, magazine editors, and
others. Installations of 13 companies representing some 200 plants
were visited. They represent less than one percent of the estimated
n%lmber of plants applying industrial coatings.
Number, Size, and Distribution of Manufacturing Plants
There is no compilation of the number of industrial plants which
apply surface coatings. It is the contractor’s estimate that there are at
least 45,000 establishments in the U.S., although this may be low. Many
of these, probably at least half, are relatively small, since in many
manufacturing operations only a small amount of coating is applied, or,
alternatively, coatings are applied to only a small fraction of the
materials manufactured.
It is difficult to develop a good yardstick by which to measure
the size of these operations since nearly all are embedded in a larger
manufacturing operation and there are few units of measurement which
are applicable across the range of all types of operations. For pur-
poses of discussion, the number of gallons of coating (including thin-
ner) consumed during a given period is used here. An operation that
uses less than a drum of material (208 liter (55 gal.)) a month may be
regarded as “very small.” At the other extreme, an operation that uses
t least a tank wagon of coating a month (13,250 liters (3500 gal.))
may be regarded as “very large.” There is no information, however, as
to the distribution of plants by size.
- Since the factory application of coatings is usually an insepar-
able part of the total manufacturing operation, the finishing room is
located within, or closely adjacent to, the rest of the processes in—
vblved. There is no relation between the size of a manufacturing oper-
ation and its consumption of finishing materials.
The small portion of coating plants visited during the study can-
not be considered representative. Those visited are probably using
more advanced technology than the industry average since some operations
224
-------
were selected for on—site survey on the basis that they are conducting
active research and development programs, or had published data on
their operation. Some visits were made to corporate headquarters which
provided data on the company’s entire operation rather than quantita-
tive data from a particular plant. The biggest plants visited were
applying approximately 3.8 million liters (1 million gal.) of coatings
per year. The smallest operation visited was a job coating shop using
26,500 liters (7000 gal.) per year.
Process Distribution
No concrete information is available on process distribution.
There is some relationship between size and type of process used in
that certain processes (brush paints, for example) are used in very
small plants only while other processes (such as electrocoating) are
confined to very large operations due to the size of the capital in-
vestment required.
Annual Coatings Usage
Table 82 shows the 1972 Census of Manufactures figures on quanti—
ites of coatings sold, the most recent year for which data are avail-
able. As mentioned previously, these figures are probably low by an
unknown amount.
Many corporate officers contacted during survey visits were un-
able to supply quantities of coatings used at each of their plants or
in the company as a whole, but in several cases data were obtained on
the quantity of paint used per unit of product. The following are
order—of—magnitude estimates from a number of sources of the quantities
of paints used in coating some common products:
Automobile 19 liters (5 gal.)
Household Stove 1 liter (0.27 gal.)
Household Refrigerator 0.6 liter (0.17 gal.)
Room Air Conditioner 0.4 liter (0.1 gal.)
Clothes Washer 1.9 liters (0.5 gal.)
TV Set 0.08 liter (0.02 gal.)
12—Ounce Cans 4.7 liters/l000 cans (1.24 gals./1000 cans)
Wall Paneling 0.04 liter/rn 2 (1.0 gals../l000 sq. ft.)
Furniture (average
case goods) 0.8 liter (0.2 gal.)
At some surveyed plants where quantities of coatings applied were
not readily available, estimates were made from total value of paint
purchased and the average price per gallon. The ten companies who
supplied quantitative data in this manner collectively use 60 million
liters (16 million gal.) per year. These do not include the automobile
225
-------
manufacturers who were unable to supply estimates of quantities used at
their p]ants. Thus, the data gathered represent less than five percent
of the total quantity of factory—applied coatings.
The surveyed plants are using a wide range of different types of
coatings including solvent—thinned paints, water—thinned paints, lac-
quers, and powder coatings. Relative quantities are not identified
here as the surveyed plants are not representative of the industry as
a whole and any comparison or extrapolation of survey data could be
misleading.
FACTORY-APPLIED COATINGS OPERATIONS WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
Introduction
The waste generated by factory—applied coatings operations is very
largely a function of the application method used. The method, in turn,
may be dictated by the size and shape of the article being coated, the
curing conditions available or suitable, and the type of coating re-
quired. Some methods of application, notably spray application, produce
substantial amounts of waste. Others, such as roller coatings, pro-
duce little or none. The various methods are described in this section
along with their relative waste production and the constraints which
suggest or inhibit the use of specific methods.
Application Methods
Spray Coating
The most conmion method of coating application in the factory is
spray coating. In its simplest form, this procedure consists of the
use of one or more hand—held guns, which the operator can turn on or
off and direct to any part of the work. Coatings and air are delivered
to the nozzle of the gun by separate lines, mixed, and sent to an aper-
ture under sufficient pressure to atomize the paint into fine particles.
The size of the individual particles of spray and the size and shape of
the spray pattern can be regulated by adjustments of pressure and of
the nozzle aperture. Conventional spray coating is illustrated in
Figures 24 and 25.
There are several variations of the spray application method which
incorporate modifications designed to reduce the manual labor required,
to reduce the waste from overspray that does not strike the surface to
be coated, and/or to increase the uniformity of application. These in-
clude the automatic, airless, and electrostatic spray systems.
In the automatic types, the spray gun is fixed to a support and
is turned on and off as work pieces are moved in front of it by a
226
-------
I ,
.4
-
- —
4.
a
-fl
- _ffl -
FIGU1 E 24
CONVENTIONAL SPRAY IN WATER-WASH BOOTH
Courtssy: Industrial Finishing Xagazins
-------
11
‘- ?
:
: 1
—
,1
FIGURE 25
FINAL TOUCHUP OF LOCXER DOORS WITH CONVENTIONAL AIR - ATOMIZED SPRAY GUN
Courtesy: Industrial Finishing Magazine
-------
conveyor. Either the gun or the object or both may be adjusted to give
a uniform coverage. This method uses less labor, improvcs uniformity
of coverage, and, often, can be adjusted to reduce overspray. Its
drawbacks are its restriction to regularly—shaped objects that can be
covered evenly in this fashion and the need for long runs of identical
items so that mechanical adjustments do not need to be altered fre-
quently.
In the so—called airless spray method, no air is required since
the pressure at which the coating is delivered to the nozzle is suffi-
cient to atomize it. This produces a smaller and more accurately de-
fined pattern and thus reduces overspray. However, a much finer nozzle
is needed in order to atomize the coating properly without the assist-
ance of air. The use of this type nozzle requires very careful strain-
ing of the coating to remove any particles that will not pass through
the nozzle and continuous inspection to take corrective action when the
nozzle is plugged. Thus, airless spray is rarely used in the automatic
mode.
In the electrostatic spray variation, a strong electrostatic charge
(about 100,000 volts) is given to the item to be coated and the gun
nozzle is given the opposite charge which is transferred to the atomized
coating as it leaves the gun. The coating particles are attracted to
the opposite charge on the work piece and are deposited on It. Even
particles which initially miss It will be attracted to the reverse side
of the article being coated. Overepray Is thus greatly reduced. In
addition, this method promotes uniform coverage. Where paint is de-
posited on the surface of the object, the charge in that area is re-
duced and ultliuately is changed over to the charge of the coating. This
serves to repel additional paint which is attracted to other areas which
have not yet been adequately covered. The principal drawbacks to elec-
trostatic spray are that it can only be used on materials that will take
and hold an electrostatic charge, and the hazards associated with the
use of high voltages, especially around flammable materials.
There are other methods of electrostatic coating, all of which
utilize the same basic principle but which differ in the manner in
which the coating is atomized and directed. Two of these are spinning
discs and bell equipment.
Roll Coating
In this method of application, the coating is applied to a roller
which transfers it to the object by rolling contact. Usually the paint
is applied to the coating roller by another roller which dips into a
trough of coating. In general, the process is very similar to printing.
The rollers used vary in structure and smoothness, depending upon the
nature of the surface being coated. In some cases, where the surface
is unusually rough or irregular, the coating roll will be operated in
229
-------
the reverse direction to the movement of the sheet. This “reverse roll
coating” forces the coating into cracks and crevices and yields a more
uniform coat.
Roll coating is largely limited to flat, or nearly flat surfaces,
with which the roller can make contact. A major use is for coil coat-
ing as shown in Figure 26. The hand—held lamb’s wool roller, often
used for architectural coatings, is rarely used for factory—applied
coatings. There are occasional, specialized tasks where this method
might be used, but they are uncon on.
Dip Coating
As the name implies, in this procedure the object to be coated is
dipped into the coating, allowed to drain, and then dried. The thick-
ness of the coating is largely determined by its consistency. Problems
occur on the lower edge of many articles where excess coating accumu-
lates. Various methods have been tried to prevent this, some more
successful than others.
Dip coating is, in general, limited to relatively small articles
because the size of tank required for larger items and the amount of
coating to fill it are uneconomic, except in special conditions. It
Is also limited to those articles whose shape permits them to be
easily immersed in the coating and will allow them to drain smoothly
after removal. A variation of this procedure is used with wires,
cables, strapping tape, and similar continuous materials. The material
is run through a bath of the coating, passed through a die of suitable
size to remove excess coating, put through an oven for curing, and re-
wound on a spool.
Flow Coating
This general name is given to a range of processes with some
characteristics of both spray and dip coating. The coating flows from
a nozzle without pressure while the material to be coated passes under-
neath. E tcess coatings are collected and immediately recycled. The
thickness of coating may be controlled by the size of the nozzle and
the speed at which material is passed under the nozzle. A roll or
doctor blade may be used to remove excess amounts from flat sheets.
Powder Coating
In this method, the coating, In the form of a dry powder, is ap-
plied to an object and is fused to Its surface and smoothed out by heat
in excess of the powder’s melting point. The powder may be applied
from a fluidized bed where it is kept suspended in the air by a gentle
230
-------
I 1.
FIGURE 2E
I
COIL COATING APPLYING WOOD GRAIN
Courtesy: Industrial Finishing Magazine
L
-------
air current blown through the bottom of the container. The article to
be coated is heated to the proper temperature and inserted Into the bed.
The powder is softened by the hot object and adheres to it. The coated
article is then transferred to an oven where the fusion is completed.
Fluidized bed powder coating is illustrated in Figure 27.
Another variation of powder coating is more recent and uses an
electrostatic spray method for the application as shown in Figure 28.
(The principle of this method is the same as that discussed in electro-
static spray above). The electrostatic charge keeps the powder on the
surface until it can be fused.
Powder coating is particularly appropriate when a very thick coat-
ing is needed. There is no upper limit to the film thickness that can
be obtained in one coat as there is for any coating containing solvent.
On the other hand, the method is not very satisfactory for very thin
coatings since the uniformity of thickness required is difficult to
attain. In addition, it cannot be used on any material, such as paper
or wood, that cannot be heated to the temperature required to melt the
coating —— usually about 121—149 0 (250—300 F).
Electrocoating
Electrocoating is the most recent development in industrial coating
application methods and some of its aspects remain proprietary. The
fundamental of the process is the ionization of a coating dispersed in
a dilute water solution. The resin, which also contains the pigment,
is caused to migrate to the surface to be coated under the influence of
an electric current. The method is essentially the same as metallic
electroplating, £xcept that, depending upon the choice of resin, the
coating can be deposited on either the anode or the cathode. It is
shown in Figure 29.
The method is excellent for irregular shapes since the electric
charge will carry coating into inaccessible areas. It is widely used,
for example, for automobile bodies and wheels.
The limitations of the method include the large quantity of mate-
rials needed, particularly for large tanks, the very limited number of
resins which can be made to ionize satisfactorily, and the fact that
only metallic objects capable of conducting current can be coated. In
addition, application by this procedure is usaully limited to one coat
since the paint deposited is non—conductive and precludes application of
further coats by the same process.
Miscellaneous Application Methods
A number of other methods are occasionally used in the factory
232
-------
FIGURE 27
FLUIDIZED BED POWDER COATING OF PIPE
Courtssy: Induatria.1 Fini.hing Magazine
233
-------
A
FIGURE 28
ELECTROSTATIC POWDER COATING
Court..y: Induatrial Fini8hing Magazine
234
-------
FIGURE 29
ELECTROCOATING BOMB FINS
courtesy: Industrial Finishing Magazine
F ,
C
U i
-------
application ol coatings. Some of these are brush application (frequent—
ly used for repair or touch—up), tumbling (used for small objects like
belt buckles), and slush coating, in which cans, drums, etc., are coated
by pouring the coating into them, rotating the container until a uniform
coating is obtained, and pouring the remaining contents into the next
one. None of these methods contribute a significant amount of waste and
they are used so infrequently that their total contribution of waste is
negligible. None of them were employed by the plants visited.
Coatiiig Technology iii Specific Industries
Many industries use a variety of coating application methods for
their products while in others with more universal technology, one me-
thod dominates. The application procedures described above are in
general use in the plants visited.
Automobile manufacturing and assembly plants use almost all of the
different application methods for different components of cars. Elec—
trocoating processes appear to be a popular method of applying water—
thinned prime coats although wet—wall spray booths, flow coating, and
conventional dip are also widely used. While research is underway on
water—thinned paint suitable for application as top coats on car bodies,
the finishing coats used today are principally solvent-based enamels
and acrylics applied by spray processes. Electrostatic disc applica-
tion is employed for some components and powder coatings are used in a
small number of plants. A wide range of drying methods is also used in
this industry including conventional ovens, electro—curing, and radiant
energy drying.
The furniture industry uses organic solvent—based coatings almost
exclusively. In the surveyed plants a large portion of the lacquers
employed have been reformulated to comply with Rule 66—type regulations
for air emissions. Spray methods are used to apply between 90 and 95
percent of the coatings at the two surveyed furniture plants. The other
small portion was applied by roll coating methods (i.e., —— imitation
wood grain printing) to a flat sheet prior to its assembly into a unit
of furniture.
A surveyed can manufacturing plant is using both roll and spray
coating methods. The large bulk of the paint is applied to flat metal
by roll coating before the can is formed. A final lining coat is
applied to the inside of some cans by spray. The latter is done both
to coat he soldered joint in the can and to ensure that the final in-
terior coating is not damaged in shaping.
A major appliance plant surveyed in the study was found to be using
flow coat application methods for prime coats and electrostatic sprays
for surface coats. This manufacturer is using principally water—thinned
paints in these processes, a practice which is not general in this
236
-------
industry. A large proportion of solvent—thinned paints are normally
used.
According to the corporate offices of a manufacturer of farm ma—
chinery, a number of application methods are in use in this industry
which are similar to those identified in the automobile industry. This
particular company presently uses dip processes for three percent of
its products, flow coating for five percent, electrocoating and elec-
trostatic spray for 65 percent, and airless spray methods for the re-
maining 27 percent. It is rapidly changing to those technologies which
improve coating efficiency due to economic considerations of paint
wasted and the cost of waste treatment and disposal.
One of the job shop operations surveyed specializes in roll coat-
ing flat sheet which is later folded or pressed into a large variety
of items from childrens’ toys to automobile tags. A second small job
shop coats a variety of irregular—shaped Items using spray booths and
electrostatic disc equipment.
The third job shop surveyed uses dry powder coatings exclusively.
This plant has used powder coatings for almost 20 years and has devel-
oped a lot of technical expertise in both the electrostatic spray and
“fluidized bed” methods. The plant started operation using vinyl coat-
ings only, but now applies epoxy, polyester, acrylic, and nylon powders
by electrostatic spray, and epoxy, vinyl, nylon, thermoplastic, and
polyethylene coatings by the fluldized bed method.
This plant has also developed the technology which makes it possi-
ble to apply multiple layers of powder coatings. This is necessary in
order to combine favorable characteristics of different coatings. For
example, epoxy coatings may exhibit good adhesion to the surface and
good corrosion resistance properties, but provide a poor surface finish
which is offset by a top coat of polyester.
In one coil coating operation surveyed, 90 percent of the coatings
used In the continuous roll coating processes were thinned with organic
solvents and only 10 percent of production was in water—thinned coat-
ings.
However, water—thinned coatings were found to be used In the pro-
duction of decorative wall paneling. While both of the two plants of
this type surveyed still use solvent—based Inks for the roll printing
of decorative patterns (such as imitation wood grain) and the base for
plywood coating, one.of the plants uses water—thinned materials for all
other layers of the total coating.
The required surface smoothness Is obtained with water—thinned
coatings by resandirig the surface after the application and drying of
the initial filler or sealing layers. The desired pattern Is then
printed on with rolls and the final clear surface layers are also
237
-------
applied by roll coatcrs. A total of five to seven layers of coatings
are normally applied.
The other plant has not yet achieved its required surface proper-
ties with a complete water—thinned system and uses a solvent—thinned
material for the surface layer. Both plants indicated that they would
completely eliminate organic solvent from their plants as soon as
satisfactory materials are available. Among other advantages this
will reduce the high fire hazard in these plants with large quantities
of dry plywood and sanding dust.
Other industries which utilize factory—applied coatings are
listed in Table 82.
Types of Coatings Used
Types of coatings in use in the surveyed coating operations cover
the whole range of products available. These include conventional
solvent—thinned coatings, including lacquers, conforming solvent
(Rule 66) coatings, water—borne types, high solids liquid coatings,
and dry powder coatings. The specific coatings being applied in each
industrial facility visited may or may not be typical of that particular
industry and many other plants in the same industrial group may use
different coatings to achieve similar results. Insufficient data
are available from the plant surveys to determine the range of coatings
applicable to each industry or the limitations of any particular coating
within any given industry.
Wastes as a Function of Application Method
Spray application has, by its nature, a significant solid waste
potential. The loss from such operations will run from 20 to 75 per-
cent of the total coating applied, with the majority of such wastes
falling in the range of 40 to 60 percent.
Data obtained from five of the surveyed plants on the percentage
of paint going to waste from spray application tend to confirm this.
Three of these plants reported a 50 percent average loss from a range
of spray applications. The others reported a 45—50 percent and a
23 percent loss respectively.
Other application methods generate considerably smaller wastes
since nearly all excess paint is captured for reuse. Most wastes
arise from clean—up of the equipment following a change of color
or coatings. Thus, the losses from these applications are a function
of the frequency with which such changes are made and are not related
to the amount of coating used. In general, each clean—up of roll
and powder equipment results in very little waste, but changes may
be made fairly frequently.
238
-------
In the surveyed plants, the amount of total wastes from roll coat-
ing varied from two percent to 10 percenl of the ight of purcli.ised
coating material. However, this waste includes cleaning solvents and
oilier contaminants in addition to paint wastes. The plant indicating
10 percent uses water—thinned coatings only and a high proportion of
the waste was clean—up water. In general, it appears that the paint
lost to waste in roll coating operations is less than two percent.
A major dry powder coating operation achieves a coating efficiency
of 85 percent. The 15 percent of dry powder not deposited on the pro-
duct is collected and recycled. Even if the powder does become contami-
nated with dirt it can normally be reworked into a lower grade of pro-
duct. This plant reports that less than 0.25 percent of the coating
material goes to waste.
In dip coating any paint which drains from articles which have
been coated flows back to the dip tank for reuse. However, this pro-
cess and electrocoating will generate much larger amounts of cleaning
wastes at the end of a run than roll and powder equipment, but the runs
are usually much longer.
In many of the surveyed plants coating material in the dye tanks
is drummed at the end of a production run and stored for reuse when that
type and color of coating are required in the future. This means that
wastes are generated only from the cleaning of tanks and hangers. The
efficiency of dip operations was reported at between 75 percent and 90
percent at surveyed plants while electrocoating operations were reported
with efficiencies of 90 to 96 percent. Wet electrostatic spray appli-
cation processes were reported to have efficiencies of from 70 percent
to better than 90 percent. Flow coating allows recycling of overspray
and has an overall efficiency of approximately 90 percent.
Quantity of Wastes
Few of the surveyed plants could provide accurate data on the
quantities of waste generated from the application of coatings alone.
Some plants include wastes from metal cleaning operations which take
place prior to the coating along with coatings waste while others did
not. In any event, it is impossible to extrapolate the small amount
of data acquired to national totals.
Wastes from coatings operations often are only a small portion of
the total process wastes from a manufacturing plant. This is pointed up
in Table 8 which lists the solid process wastes in a surveyed appliance
manufacturing plant. The actual total wastes remaining for disposal
after extensive material reclamation, recycling, and some sludge thick-
ening are also shown. Other types of manufacture may produce a similar
distribution of wastes with relativequantitics of eachwast varying
depending on the product made and the processes used.
During the survey visits, it was observed that most plants mix
their coating wastes with the various other process wastes generated.
239
-------
Tht’ e w.u;tes are normally stored in open trash containers on the plant
site.
The following estimate of the total national waste stream from
the factory application of organic coatings has been made on the basis
of percentage loss from each application method.
On the assumption that approximately 60 percent of the factory—
applied coatings are applied by spray, in one form or another, and that
the wastes from this process constitute between 40 and 60 percent of
the coatings applied, it would produce between 300 and 450 million
liters (80 and 120 million gal.) of waste per year. On the average,
70 percent is solvent leaving between 115,000 to 180,000 kkg (125,000—
200,000 tons) of solid and semi—solid waste. The solvent content ei-
ther goes up the stack to the atmosphere or to air pollution control
equipment.
Total paint wastes from all factory—applied coating operations are
estimated at between 115,000 and 216,000 kkg/yr (125,000 and 240,000 tons/
yr) on a dry weight basis. The small fraction (between 0 to 10 percent)
of waste created by methods of application other than spray coatings
account for up to 36,000 kkg (40,000 tons) of waste.
The wastes from spray coatings are usually in one of two forms:
1. Dry paint solids deposited on kraft paper used to line
spray booths or dollected in air filters.
2. The solid portion of the sludge generated in the treatment
of water used in water—wall overspray collection systems.
In most other application systems the coating waste derives from
cleaning operations, a portion of which Is dry solids scraped off sur-
faces where it has built up; the remainder is included with solvents
which have been used to clean the walls, tanks, or other equipment.
The total waste stream containing paint waste therefore includes
large quantities of paper, air filters, wash solvents, wastewater, etc.
It is estimated that the paint wastes of between 115,000 to 216,000
kkg (125,000—240,000 tons) per year from organic coatings operations
is included in a total waste stream of 300,000 to 1,000,000 kkg (330,000
to 1,100,000 tons) per year. Paint waste from most plants will contain
some hazardous constituents as defined earlier in this report. Since
this material is included In and, in most cases, inseparable from the
rest of the waste stream in waste handling, the entire stream is con-
sidered potentially hazardous. Insufficient data are available to esti-
mate the quantities of paint wastes which contain no hazardous constituents
but some plants will have no hazardous wastes from coating operations.
Wastes as Function of Materials Coated
In the limited number of survey visits made, no correlation was
240
-------
TABLE 83
TOTAL SOLID WASTES IN AN APPLICANCE PLANT
kg/day (lb/day)
Left for Disposal
Generated After Reuse, etc .
39,480 Small (Inc. in
(87,020) floor sweepings)
870 5
(1,920) (10)
5,450 136
(12,000) (300)
1,810 23
(3,900) (50)
95 60
(209) (133)
550 550
(1,200) (1,200)
480 480
(1,056) (1,056)
4,360 1,810
(9,600) (4,000)
370 370
(820) (820)
1,090 1,090
(2,400) (2,400)
45 45
(100) (100)
TOTAL 54,600 4,569 *
(120,315) (10,069)
*847 Waste Not Recovered
Waste Material
Steel
Plastics
Corrugated Paper, Etc.
Containers
Pallets (nonreturnable)
Drums (nonreturnable)
Tubs & Hydraulic Oils, Drawing Compounds
Paints, Thinners, Phosphate Scale
Processing Sludges
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Strip Salts and Paint
Floor Sweepings, Cafeteria & Office Waste
Scrap Purchased Parts
241
-------
identified between the quantity of waste generated and materials coated.
J iste qudntities are principally a function of application method and
the physical shape of the object being coated. A range of application
methods are used for most substrates, the nature of which is only one
of a number of factors considered when the application method and coat-
ing are chosen.
TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGY
The survey visits to factory—applied coatings operations indicate
that disposal methods for their wastes are virtually identical to Lev-
el I technology for paint wastes. All of the surveyed plants were
found to be using landfills as their principal solid waste disposal
method. The majority reported using contractors to transport and dis-
pose of this waste, generally the same ones used by paint plants, but
some are hauling their own wastes to city landfills.
Of the 13 companies visited, seven do not segregate waste streams
so that coating wastes go to a landfill along with other solid wastes.
Two companies reported sending some paint wastes to solvent reclaimers
and some coatings wastes of two others are incinerated by contractors.
One plant which generates small quantities of organic wash solvent
waste includes this material with clean—up rags sent to a dry cleaner.
Most companies engaged in factory application of coatings will
only enter into disposal contracts with companies who are licensed by
local environmental control agencies. No change in disposal technology
appears likely in the immediate future unless forced upon the industries
by regulation of these practices.
Levels II and III technology cannot be precisely identified here.
However, the following observations based on the character of the wastes
can be made:
Segregated waste coatings which contain no toxic or flammable con-
stituents are suitable for deposition in a sanitary landfill. Other wastes
which contain materials which are considered hazardous should be handled
as potentially hazardous wastes. A large portion of these streams can be
incinerated with the potentially toxic ash going to a secured landfill.
The non—combustible portion of this waste —— e.g., wastevater sludge ——
should be dewatered and disposed of in a secured landfill.
COST ANALYSIS
The reported costs for disposal of paint wastes in surveyed plants
varied from $4 to $llO/Lckg ($4—$lOO/ton) depending on the nature of the
coating material, the disposal method, and the factors Included in the
cost assessment. The higher values represent the total economic loss
242
-------
to a particular plant due to collection, handling, and disposal of
paint wastes while lower figures are simply charges made by landfill
operators for depositing solid material in their landfill.
243
-------
SECTION VII
REFERENCES
1. Gleason, M. N., Gosselin, R. E., Hodge, C., and Smith, R. P.,
Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products , 3rd Edition, Williams
and Wilkens, Co., Baltimore (1969).
2. Federation of Societies for Coatings Technology, Federation Series
on Coatings and Technology, Unit 1, “Introduction to Coatings Tech-
nology,” May (1973)
3. Fuller, W. R., Understanding Paint , The American Paint Journal
Co., St. Louis (1965).
4. Parker, D. H., Principles of Surface Coating Techno1o y , Inter—
science Publishers, New York (1965).
5. Census of Manufactures, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of
Commerce (1967).
6. Brown, R. A., “The Emerging Technologies, “ Paint and Varnish
Production , Feb. (1974).
7. Marketing Guide to Paint Industry , Charles H. Kline & Co., Inc.,
Fairfield, N. J. (1972).
8. Arthur D. Little, Inc., Economic Analysis of Proposed Effluent
Guidelines for the Paint and Allied Products and Printing Ink
Industries , Draft Report, EPA Contract No. 68—01—1541, June
(1974).
9. Printing Ink and Paint Formulating Point Source Categories,
Effluent Guidelines and Standards, EPA, Federal Register, Feb. 26
(1975).
10. Preliminary Report 1972 Census of Manufactures, Paint and Allied
Products, SIC 2851, MC 72(P) — 28E, March (1974).
11. “Big Decline for Solvent — Thinned Industrial Coatings,”
Industrial Finishing , Jan. (1974).
12. “Use of New Coatings Systems Skyrocketing, Study Reveals,”
American Paint and Coatings Journal , Nov. 4 (1974).
13. National Paint and Coatings Association Questionnaire sent to
members to develop information for Economic Analysis of Proposed
Effluent Guidelines for the Paint and Allied Product and the
Printing Ink Industries , A. D. Little, Inc. for EPA, EPA—230/1—
74/052, Aug. (1974).
245
-------
14. Southern Research Institute, Waterborne Wastes of the Paint and
Inorganic Pigments Industries , EPA — 670/2 — 74 — OSO, March
(1974).
15. Paint Red Book , Palmerton Publishing Co., New York (1973).
16. U. S. Environmental Protect1.o Agency, Report to Congress,
Disposal of Hazardous Wastes , SW—115 (1974).
17. Chicago Society of Paint Technology, “Flash Point of Mixed
Solvents,” Journal of Paint Technology , Dec. (1969).
18. Federation of Societies for Paint Technology, Federation Series
on Coatings Technology, Unit 16, “Dispersion and Grinding,”
Sept. (1970).
19. National Paint and Coatings Association, Raw Materials Index,
Pigment Section , June (1970).
20. National Paint and Coatings Association, Raw Materials Usage
Survey for the Year 1972 , April (1973).
21. National Paint and Coatings Association, Raw Materials Index,
Resin Section , Sept. (1972).
22. Hamilton, A., and Hardy, H. S., Industrial Toxicology , Publishing
Sciences Group, Inc., Acton, Mass. (1974).
23. Browning, E., Toxicity of Industrial Metals , Appleton—Century—
Crofts, New York (1969).
24. CommunIcation from EPA to National Paint and Coatings Association,
June 13 (1973).
25. Faith, W. L., et al., Industrial Chemicals , John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., New York (1965).
26. Private Communication (1974).
27. Deichmann, W. B., and Gerarde, H. W., Sjgng, Symptoms and Treat-
ment of Certain Acute Entoxications , Charles C. Thomas, Spring-
field, Ill. (1958).
28. National Paint and Coatings Association, Raw Materials Index,
Chemical Specialties Section , Aug. (1973).
29. “Sherwin—Williams’ Frank Bruhns Talks About the Paint Industry
Versus Water Pollution,” Paint and Varnish Production , May (1971).
30. National Paint and Coatings Association, Raw Materials Index,
Solvent Section , Oct. (1972).
246
-------
ii. Kirk—Othmer Encyclopedia of themical Technology , 2nd Edition,
Interscience Publishers, New York (1963).
32. TRW Systems Group, Recommended Methods of Reduction, Neutraliza-
tion, Recovery or Disposal of Hazardous Waste , 16 Vole., EPA
Contract Study Report, Aug. (1973).
33. Block. S., Paint and Varnish Wastes , EPA Research Grant R 800189,
University of Florida, June 1 (1974).
34. WAPORA, Inc., Compilation of Industrial and Municipal Injection
Wells in the United States , EPA—520/9—74—020 (1974).
35. Versar, Inc., Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices,
Inorganic Chemical Industry , Draft Report, EPA Contract No. 68—01—
2246, October (1974).
36. Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Program For the Management
of Hazardous Wastes , EPA Contract No. 68—01—0762, July (1973).
37. Arthur D. Little, Inc., Alternatives to the Management of Hazardous
Wastes at National Disposal Sites , EPA Contract No. 68—01—0556,
May (1973).
38. Jacobs, M.B., The Analytical Toxicology of Industrial Inorganic
Poisons , Interscjence Publishers, New York (1967).
39. The Condensed Chemical Dictionary , Reinhold Publishing Corp., New
York, (1956).
40. Chatfield, H. W., Varnish Constituents , Interscience Publishers,
Inc., New York (1944).
41. Sward, C. C., Paint Testing Manual , American Society for Testing
and Materials (1972).
42. Merck & Co., Inc., The Merck Index , Rahway, N. J. (1940).
43. Handbook of Chemistry , 10th Edition, McGraw—Hill Book Co., N.Y.
(1961).
44. Sax, N. I., Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials , Reinhold
Publishing Corp., New York (1963).
45. Thienes, C. H., and Haley, T. J., Clinical Toxicology , Lea and Febiger,
Philadelphia (1964).
46. Cecil, R. L., and Leob, R. F., A Textbook of Medicine , W. B. Saunders,
Philadelphia (1959).
47. Plunkett, E. R., Handbook of Industrial Toxicology , Chemical Publish-
ing Co., New York (1966).
247
-------
SECTION VIII
GLOSSARY
Acrylic Resin
A synthetic resin made from derivatives of acrylic acid.
Additive
One of a number of materlais added to coatings in small amounts to alter
one or more of its properties. They include anti—skinning agents, anti—
settling agents, anti—sagging agents, levelling agents, etc. Almost
always the total concentration of these additives will be less than
one percent. Driers are not generally defined as additives.
Airless Spray
A coating application technique in which paint is delivered to a
spray gun under very high pressure, without any admixture of air. It
is atomized by passage through an extremely fine nozzle.
Alkyd Resin
A synthetic resin made from polyhydric alcohols and polybasic acids.
Automatic Spray
A coating application technique in which air and paint are supplied to
the guns under pressure and mixed in the gun. Either the fixed guns
or the work may move up and down, or rotate, to obtain complete
coverage which is activiated by a switch.
Binder
The film forming ingredient in paint that binds the pigment particles
together.
Brushing
A coating application technique primarily used with trade sales paints
including industrial maintenance painting. Also used for touch—up, re-
pair, and articles of unusual shape which do not lend themselves to other
applications.
Calking
A soft plastic material, consisting of pigment and vehicle, used for
sealing joints in buildings and other structures where normal structural
movement may occur.
249
-------
Case Goods
In furniture manufacture, pieces such as dressers, chests of drawers,
buffets, etc.
Coating
A paint, varnish, lacquer, or other finish used to create a protective
and/or decorative layer.
Coil Coating
The uninterrupted application of coating to very long sheets of steel
or similar material which are received and/or shipped rolled in coils.
Conventional Spray
A coating application technique in which air is delivered, to a spray
gun under pressure and mixed with the coating in the nozzle, or just
before reaching the nozzle. The paint is atomized by passage through
the nozzle into the air.
Curtain Coating (Flow Coating )
A coating application technique in which a thin sheet of coating flows
down on the work as it passes, usually from a V—shaped trough. A
doctor blade removes the excess paint and returns it to process.
Usually used for coil coating.
Diluent
A liquid, usually a petroleum hydrocarbon, which is blended with an
active solvent in a paint or lacquer to increase the bulk or reduce
the cost.
Dip Coating
A coating application technique in which work is inserted in a tank of
coating, removed, and allowed to drain back in the tank. Excess paint,
especially the “fatty edge” on the bottom of the piece, may be removed
electrostatically. Continuous dip coating, used for flexible materials,
such as wires, mesh, cloth, etc., runs the material through a trough
of coating and removes any excess by a doctor blade or squeegee.
Drier
A composition which accelerates the drying of oil, paint, printing
ink, or varnish. Driers are usually rncta]lic—based compositions
and ar available in both solid and liqui.d forms.
250
-------
Drying Oil
An oil which readily takes oxygen from the air and changes to a relatively
hard, tough, elastic substance when exposed to form a thin, dry film.
Drying oils also act as binders for pigments used in coatings.
Electrostatic Deposition (Electrocoating )
A coating application technique in which the work is dipped into a dilute
coating mixture which is deposited by a process analagous to electro-
plating of metals. Used largely for primers on automobiles and parts.
Also used to apply finishes on some appliances.
Electrostatic Spray
A coating application technique in which the spray nozzle is charged
with one polarity, and the work with the other, so that spray is
attracted to the work surface. Very high voltage at low amperage is
used. Spray particles are attracted to the work by the opposite charge,
to the extent that some of the overspray curves back and coats the
reverse side of the work. Very largely used f r the application of
powder coatings.
Enamel
A pigmented coating which is characterized by an ability to form
an especially smooth film which is free from brush or other tool
marks. Although most enamels are glossy, flat enamels are also
available. They are usually considered to be rel-atively hard coatings.
Extender
A pigment which is usually inexpensive and inert in nature, used to
extend or increase the bulk of a paint, thus reducing its unit cost,
and modifying its consistency.
Exterior Paint
A coating for the outside surfaces of a structure.
Factory—Applied Coating
A coating which is applied in a manufacturing establishment as part of the
operation of making art article of commerce.
Film
Layer or coat of paint or other material applied to a surface.
251
-------
Fire—Retardent Paint -
A descriptive term which implies that the described product, under
accepted methods of test, will significantly (a) reduce the rate of
flame spread on the surface of a material to which it has been applied,
(b) resist ignition when exposed to high temperatures, or Cc)
insulate a substrate to which it has been applied and prolong the
time required to reach its ignition, melting, or structural—weakening
temperature.
Flat Finish
Having no gloss or luster.
Fungicide
An agent that helps prevent mold or mildew growth on a painted surface.
Grinding
The incorporation of pigment into the vehicle by shearing and dispersing
aggregates of particles in one of a variety of mills. There is usually
little or no particle size reduction.
Industrial Coating
A paint used to coat a manufactured product prior to its sale.
Interior Paint
A coating for the inside surfaces of a structure.
Lacquer
A fast—drying clear or pigmented coating that dries by solvent evaporation
only. Other types of coatings, by comparison, dry by a combination of
evaporation, oxidation, and polymerization of portions of their constituents.
Latex Paint
A paint containing a stable aqueous dispersion of synthetic resin,
produced by emulsion polymerization, as the principal constituent
of the binder. Modifying resins may also be used.
Marine Paint
A varnish speciallydesigned to withstand immersion in water and exposure
to marine atmosphere.
Mildewc ide
See Fungicide .
252
-------
Mineral Spirits
A petroleum derivative used as a thinner for paints and varnishes. It
usually boils in the range of 149 to 204° C (300 to 4000 F) an.d has a
flash point just about 27° C (100 ° F).
Mixing
The incorporation of ingredients into a coating with the use of little
or no shearing energy.
Oil Paint
A paint that contains drying oil or oil varnish as the basic vehicle
ingredient.
Overspray
In a spray booth, that portion of the coating sprayed which does not adhere
to the work.
Paint
A pigmented liquid composition which is converted to an opaque solid
film after application as a thin layer.
Pigment
The fine solid particles used to add color and other properties to
paint or printing ink which are substantially insoluble in the vehicle.
Plasticizer
A substance added to paint, varnish, or lacquer to impart flexibility.
Powder Coating
A coating, prepared as a dry powder, which is placed on a surface and
fused into a coherent film.
Preservative
Material added to water—thinned paints to prevent the growth of
bacteria or yeast in the can during paint storage.
Primer
The first of two or more coats of a paint, varnish, or lacquer system.
253
-------
Putty
A dough—like material consisting of pigment and vehicle, used for
sealing glass in frames, and for filling imperfections in wood or
metal surfaces.
Resin
A natural or synthetic material that is the main ingredient of paint
which binds the various other ingredients together. It also aids
adhesion to the surface.
Reverse Roll Coating
A coating application technique in which the paint is applied to a roll
which rotates In the opposite direction from the work, forcing intimate
contact of the paint with the surface. Often used for coil coating.
Roll Coating
A coating application technique in which paint is delivered to a roll
which rotates in the same direction as the work is moving and, essentially
at the same speed. Very similar to printing, and often used for litho-
graphy or where designs are to be printed on the surface, as with
wood graining of flat surfaces.
Rosin
A resin that is obtained from coniferous trees (usually pine, but also
spruce and fir).
Shellac Varnish
A varnish made by dissolving shellac resin in alcohol. Shellac is
the form of lac resin obtained in thin curled sheets (shells).
Slush Coating
An Infrequently used coating application technique used on large
containers. An excess of paint is poured into the container, distributed
by rotating the container, and the excess is poured into the next
container, and so on.
Solvent
The volatile part of a paint composition that evaporates during drying.
Stain
A solution or suspension of coloring matter in a vehicle designed
primarily to be applied to create color effects rather than to form a
protective coating. A transparent or semi—opaque coating that colors
without completely obscuring the grain of the surface.
254
-------
Thinner
The portion of a paint, varnish, lacquer, or printing ink, or related
product that volatilizes during the drying process. The solvents and
diluents which act as thinners are used to reduce coating viscosity,
and prevent oxidation, polymerization, and drying prior to coating
application.
Tint
A color produced by the mixture of white pigment or paint in predomi-
nating amounts with a colored pigment or paint which is not white.
Trade Sales CoatinZ
A paint sold for consumer use in home or for maintenance of commercial
structures.
Tumbling
A coating application technique used for small articles such as buckles,
metal buttons, small hardware, etc. The articles, along with sufficient
paint to coaL them, are placed in a barrel, which is rotated until the
articles are uniformly coated. They are then discharged onto a screen
which allows the excess paint, if any, to drain off.
Varnish
A transparent liquid that dries on exposure to air to give a decorative
and protective coating when applied as a thin film. Varnish may be
made by reacting an oil and a resin at high temperature and dissolving
in a suitable element (Cooked Varnish), or by blending a previously made
resin with a solvent (Cold Blended Varnish).
Vehicle
The volatile and non—volatile liquid portion of a paint or coating which
disperses and suspends the pigment whenever the latter is used.
VM&P Naphtha
Varnish Maker’s and Painter’s Naphtha. A petroleum fraction boiling below
mineral spirits and having a lower flash point.
Volatile Fraction
That portion of a coating which evaporates from the film during the
drying process.
Work Piece
An object being coated by some method.
255
-------
APPENDIX A WAPOIu , Inc.
WasIilngtot , I).C.
( 36
9/10/74
IIAZARI)OUS WASTES OF TIlE PAiNT AND ALLIl l) PRODUCTS INDUSTRY
Plant Survey Report
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
Company Name ______________________________________________ Date Vistted_________
Plant Address ________________________________________________ Zip Code
Telephone _____________________ Survey Team
Persons Contacted ____________
EPA Representative Present
Plant Age _______________________ Plant Employees ______________
Last Major Expansion or Modification ______________________________
Number of Different Raw Materials Used _________ List Available —
Products other than Paint & Coatings Manufactured at this Location
ANNUAl PRODUCTION IN 1000 GALLONS
Products Trade Sales Factory—applied
Paints
Coatings
Paints
and Stains
•
acrylics)
.
I.
-------
—2—
COMPANY NAME _____________________________ LOCATION _______________________
II • POTENTIALI.Y HAZARDOUS MATERIALS USACE
A. Do you use raw materials containing any of the following materials?
Item Material Conc . Annual Usage
Antimony
Arsenic
Asbestos
Barium (other than
bariuii sulfate)
Barium metaborate
.
Other
Beryllium
Cadmium
Cadmium pigments
Other
Chromium
Lead chromate
Zinc chroinate
Strontium chromate
Lead silico—chromate
Chromium oxide
.
Othcr
Cobalt
Cobalt drier
Other
Copper
Cuprous oxide
Phthalocyanine blue
Phthalocyanjne green
Other
Cyanide
Ilalogenated Hydrocarbons
(low volatility)
PCB
Other
—____________________________
Lead
White lead
Red ]ead
Lead chromate
Lead silicochromate
Lead molybdate
Lead drier
Other
Mercury
lIMO
I’MA
Other
Pesticides (organic)
Selenium
Selenium pigments
Other
Zinc (except zinc oxide
and zinc dust)
Zinc drier
Zinc stearate
Zinc chromate
Other
Low FL.i ti Solvents
(below 100°F.)
VM6P naphtha
Textile spirits
MEK
To] uene
Xylene
Other
258
-------
—3—
COMPANY NAME _____________________________ LOCATION
III. UPSETS AND NON—EQUILIBRIUM CONDITIONS
A. Average Spoiled Batches Per Year Not Returned to Process
B. Average Size of Spoiled Batch ___________________________________—
C. Methods Used for Disposing of These Spoiled Batches?________________
D. Frequency of Spills Greater Th in 5 Gallons ________________________
E. Cause of Spills ___________________________________________________
F. Quantities Spilled ______________________________________________
C. Spill Cleanup and Disposal Methods __________________________________
IV. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL METHODS
A. Are potentially hazardous wastes handled or treated differently from
other solid or semi—solid wastes? ____ If yes, explain ______________
B. Are potentially hazardous solid and semi—solid wastes disposed of on—
site or off site? _____ What disposal methods are used?
C. Disposal method(s) used for water and vastewater treatment sludges?
D. Quantity of process wastewater generated _____________________________
E. Disposal method(s) used for materials collected by air pollution abate-
ment devices _____________________________________-________________________
259
-------
—4—
COML’ANY NAME ________________________________ LOCATION
F. Does a private contractor disposo of any of your plant wastes? ____
Contractor Name
Address _______________________________________________________________
Phone Number ________________________________
Type of Disposal Facility __________________________________________
Approximate Cost of Disposal Service _____________________________
Method(s) Used to Store and Collect Wastes for Disposal (containers
used, precautions taken both at plant and contractor’s site)
C. How are waste solvents and other organic materials discharged?_____
H. How are used containers discarded? _______________________________
I. What are the quantities of wastes hauled away? __________________
V. FJLINIRE OPERATION CHANCES
A. Are there any firm plans for changing the USC of potentially hazar-
dous materials in your process? _________________________________
B. Are there any firm plans for changes in hazardous waste disposal
methods?
260
-------
APPENDIX B
DETAILED SIC BREAKDOWNS OF
PAINTS AND ALLIED PRODUCTS
28511 Exterior Oil—Type Trade Sales Paint Products
28511 11 Oil and alkyd vehicle paints in paste and semipaste
form
Oil paints, enamels, and varnishes in ready—mixed form:
28511 21 Oil and alkyd vehicle house paints and tinting bases
28511 22 Sash, trims, and trellis enamels and tinting bases
28511 24 Porch and deck enamels and tinting bases including
interior—exterior floor enamels
28511 25 Undercoaters and primers
28511 27 Barn and roof paints (excluding bituminous paints
and roof coatings)
28511 28 Marine paints and enamels (shelf goods)
28511 31 Metallic paints (aluminum, zinc, bronze, etc.)
28511 32 Traffic paints (all types, shelf goods and highway
departments)
28511 33 Automotive and machinery refinish paints and enamels,
except lacquers
28511 34 Automotive and machinery refinish primers and under-
coaters
28511 35 VarnIsh, oleoreslnous (synthetic and natural)
28511 37 Stains (Including shingle and shake)
28511 39 Other exterior oil paints including bituminous paints
28511 00 Exterior oil—type trade sales paint products, n.s.k.
28512 Exterior Water—Type Trade Sales Paint Products, Including
Tinting Bases
28512 11 All purpose water emulsion paints and tinting bases
(excluding exterior—interior water emulsion paints)
28512 16 Masonry water emulsion paints and tinting bases
28512 19 Other exterior water—thinned paints, including dry
types
28512 00 Exterior water—type trade sales paint products, n.s.k.
28513 Interior Oil—Type Trade Sales Paint Products
28513 5 Oil paints, enamels, and varnishes In ready—mixed form:
28513 52 Flat wall paints and tinting bases including semi—
paste (oil and alkyd vehicle)
28513 53 Glass and quick drying enamels and tinting bases
28513 54 Semigloss paints and tinting bases
28513 56 Undercoaters and primers
28513 59 Other interior oil paints and enamels, n.e.c.,
including mill white paints and Interior marine
shelf goods
NOTE: n.s.k. — Not specified by kind
n.e.c. — Not elsewhere classified
261
-------
28513 6 Varnishes:
28513 65 Varnishes, except shellac varnishes
28513 67 Shellac varnish
28513 71 Stains
28513 81 Aerosol paints made from paint produced and packaged
in this establishment or packaged on contract for you
28513 00 Interior oil—type trade sales paint products, n.s.k.
28514 Interior Water—Type Trade Sales Paint Products, Including
Tinting Bases
28514 11 Flat water emulsion paints and tinting bases
28514 21 Semigloss water emulsion paints and tinting bases
28514 31 All purpose water emulsion paints
28514 98 Other interior water—thinned paints including paste
and semipaste
28514 00 Interior water—type trade sales paint products, n.s.k.
28515 Trade Sales Lacquers
28515 1]. Automotive and machinery refinish lacquers
28515 21 Other trade sales lacquers
28515 00 Trade sales lacquers, n.s.k.
28516 Industrial Product Finishes, Except Lacquers
28516 1 Industrial maintenance paints:
28516 11 Interior (especially formulated coatings for special
conditions in the interior of industrial plants
requiring protection against extreme temperatures,
fungi, chemicals, fumes, etc.)
28516 13 Exterior (especially formulated coatings for special
conditions in the exterior of Industrial plants
requiring protection against extreme temperatures,
fungi, chemicals, fumes, etc.)
28516 18 Marine paints, ship bottom and other specially formu—
lated paints (excluding shelf goods)
28516 3 Transportation (original equipment):
28516 31 Automobile finishes
28516 33 Truck and bus finishes
28516 35 Railroad finishes
28516 37 Other transportation equipment, including aircraft,
rockets, and missiles
28516 38 Appliance, heating equipment, and air—conditioner
finishes
28516 41 Wood furniture and fixture finishes
28516 42 Wood and composition board flat stock finishes
28516 44 Sheet, strip and coil coatings, including sidings
(excluding containers)
262
-------
28516 4 Metal decorating:
28516 45 Container and closure finishes
28516 46 Other metal decorating
28516 47 Machinery and equipment finishes (including road
building equipment and farm implements) (excluding
insulating varnish)
28516 48 Metal furniture and fixture finishes
28516 51 Paper and paperboard, excluding pigment binder
28516 52 Insulating varnishes, electrical types
28516 53 Powdered coatings
28516 98 Other industrial product finishes (excluding semi-
manufactured products such as pigment dispersions
and ink vehicles)
28516 00 Industrial product finishes, except lacquers, n.s.k.
28517 —— Industrial Lacquers, Including Acrylics
28517 11 Automotive
28517 21 Wood
28517 31 Fabricated metal
28517 41 Paper and paperboard
28517 98 Industrial lacquers for other end uses
28517 00 Industrial lacquers, including acrylics, n.s.k.
28518 —— Putty and Allied Products
28518 11 Wood and textile preservatives (nonpressure type)
28518 21 Wood filters and sealers
28518 53 Putty and glazing compounds
28518 63 Paint and varnish removers
28518 98 Other allied paint products, including brush cleaners
28518 00 Putty and allied products, n.s.k.
28519 —— Miscellaneous Paint Products
28519 11 Thinners for dopes, lacquers, and oleoresinous thinners,
including mixtures and proprietary thinners
28519 41 Aerosol paints made from purchased paint
28519 51 Organosols and plastisols, other than coatings
28519 77 Miscellaneous related paint products, e.g., pigment
dispersions, ink vehicles, etc.
28519 00 Miscellaneous paint products, n.s.k.
28510 00 Paints and allied products, n.s.k., for companies
with 10 employees or more
28510 02 Paints and allied products, n.s.k., for companies
with less than 10 employees
263
-------
Appendix C
Explanction of Toxicity Ratings Excerpted from
Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products (1)
1. The rating is based on mortality, not morbidity —— i.e., it is
really a lethality rating. In general, a clinically significant illness
may be expected after dose of about one—tenth the probable lethal dose
(as the latter ii reflected in the numerical toxicity rating).
2. Unless otherwise noted, each rating is based on the acute tox-
icity of a single dose when taken by mouth. Other dose regimens
and other routes of administration are not represented by the rating.
3. The toxicity rating reflects an estimate of the probable or mean
lethal dose, not the minimal fatal dose. Perhaps because of personal
idiosyncrasy or hypersensitivity or prediaposing disease, minimum lethal
doses recorded in the literature are usually considerably lower than
those Implied by the current ratings.
4. With only a few compounds are clinical data adequate to estab-
lish a toxicity rating. Most of the values here are based on laboratory
determinations of mean lethal doses (LD 50 ) in small laboratory m als
(rat, mouse, guinea pig, rabbit; sometimes cat, dog, and monkey.) Implicit
in the use of such data is the conventional assumption that the mean
lethal dose in man lies in the same class as does the L I) 50 for the test
animals. Whenever available, however, clinical data and even clinical
impressions have been given precedence.
5. Toxicity ratings followed by interrogation points are based on
obviously inadequate data; some represent no more than “guesatimates.”
6. For most corrosive agents, such as mineral acids, alkalies,
bleaches, etc., no toxicity rating is suggested. In these cases death
is usually the result of severe local tissue injury, with secondary
complications such as toxi idn, shock, perforation, infection, hemorrhage,
and obstructions. The intensity of the local lesion and of its sequela
is often determined by the concentration of the corrosive substance,
whereas the volume and “dose” are secondary considerations. For such
agents no single toxicity rating is an appropriate measure of lethality,
unless the concentration is also specified. No simple parameter describes
this relation in a way which is thought to be clinically useful.
7. In Table 13 coi on units of measure are used to describe lethal
doses for an adult of average size. For patients who are heavier or
lighter, probably lethal doses are proportionately larger or smaller,
and they can be readily estimated from values in the table. While we
265
-------
appreciate that infants and children are not simply small adults, re-
liable clinical data are so scarce that we are forced to assume that
except for recognized exceptions lethal doses are proportional to body
weight irrespective of age.
8. Although all are based on Table 13, toxicity ratings given In
the Ingredients Index have a distinctly different meaning from those in
the General Formulations Index. In the latter each rating is an esti-
mate of the toxicity of a complete commercial product as it is marketed.
In the Ingredients Index, each rating is a measure of the inherent tox-
icity of a single ingredient. In establishing the latter toxicity
ratings, each dose has been calculated in terms of a single substance
(usually technical grade) and is generally based on experiments in which
only an innocuous solvent or vehicle was used (such as water, corn oil,
etc.) omitting all solvents, additives, and other ingredients found in
the usual commercial formulations. Because many of these ingredients
are unavailable to the consumer in pure or undiluted form, the toxicity
ratings in the General Formulations Index are more realistic in terms of
clinical exposure but are Inevitably less accurate than those in the
Ingredients Index.
266
-------
APPEMDIX D
POTENTIALLY HAZI.RI ,00S MAIFRIALS
Data Summary SI. cte
Holecular Chemical Industrial Specific Water Al..nl .ol Flash Gleason Thr.,sr.old
Weight Name Common Name Formula Appearance J ! __ Cravit , S.P..C H.P •‘C S..lubil1ty SolubiI!cy • Potut, Tozicit,. , I a ,.1
g/l00,i v/lilOp ‘C Intins Va’ 0 i ’e Ur
116.16 2—Pentanone—4— Dimcetone Alcohol (C1i 3 ) 2 C(0Il)CII 2 COCB 3 Colorless Solvizit 0.9406 169.1 —44 ii i1Tr r ëci .rr 76 7 — - 3 —
hy jroxj—4-methyl LLquid
58.03 2—Propanone Acetone CII 3 IOCN Cuiorliss Solvent 0.791 56.1 —946 Miscible Minible -18 :.c
Liquid
46.07 Ethanol Grain Alcohol CN 3 CH 2 OH Colorless S0 I YLI It 0.7905 18.3 —112 Miscible HI cible 18 2
Liquid
88.10 Ethyl Acetate Acetic Acid CH 3 CO,CII 2 CII 3 Clear Solve.t 0.902 77 1 82.4 9lightly MIscible 4.4 3
Liqu id
100 21 l leptane N—lieptane C 1 1 3 (ClI,) 5 1N 3 Colorleis SolvLIit 0.680 93.52 —90.5 Incoluble Snlublr 3.9 3 flj .3
Liquid
“3
60.11 2—Propanol isopropyl Alcohol CII 3 CII(0II)CH 3 Colorless Solvent 0.786 b2.3 —89.5 ‘.oli.bie Sol ubLe 11.7 3
Liquid
32.04 Methanol Wood Alcohol C1l 1 0 1i Clear Solv.•u.t 0.792 64.8 —97.8 Soluble Soluble 11.1 3
Liquid
7! 12 2-Butanonc Hetnyl Ethyl ketone Cli COCII$H Colorless Solseiut 0.606 19 6 .-Ii5. Sulcul,Le Soluble 2 4 3
Liquid
100 16 2-Butauone—3, Methyl Isobutyl (C11 3 ) 3 CC0C11 3 Cntor loss Solve it 0.8024 too —49.8 SI lahLly Soicibut. 23.9 3
3—dit ethyl Ketone liquid
92.15 )istcyl Bensene To lueue C 6 II 5 CN 3 LoloriLsa Solve it 0.866 110.4 —95 insoluble )iiqrtble 4.4 4 75
Liu ..iJ
l’16.11 Dtneth 1 BenTecte Xy lene C 6 i 1 4 (C 11 3 ) 2 Colorless Solveat OaiS l 166 —47.9 Insoluble Nicc.clule 25 4 -
I Inicid
Mineral Spirits Li dluild Sulv.2it 3 74_ 150—190 ? 40 2 — -
0.76
Bcnzene Wi 6 P haphtha Liquid 3uiv ut l00-it.0 7 Inruluble Iiicclble 12.8 3 —
266.34 Pentach lorophenol Pentachlororhceoo l C 6 CI 5 IIIi Prihma Woud 1 978 310 174 Slightly Soluble —— 4 ——
Pr. s.•rvutlve
S — —
323.5 Antir.any Pentocide Antimony Oxide Sb 2 0 5 lale Yellow P1 1 2L1ect 1 78 . 11 1 1 li d hu.olccbhe in Pubic —— S --
i’cu’idcr
291.5 Antimony Trioxide Antimony Oxide Sb 2 0 3 ioic.rlesa 1 1cc 5 . 1 ,7 1550 65b Vi , — — — —
Crystals Neuu hot SIIphcI ,
6 P14!ctnt Soluble
335.7 Antimony Triselfide Antimony Sulfide Sb S Yellow— Or.,n 1 e’ 6 Rod 4 (4 —— 550 0 00112 Vu. — — — — 5 .1 5
Stibnirs 2 3 Or.iigu to Pigme..t Iii a”:” C
Block
Ciy . 1 c I a
-------
3.25—
3.35
5.81
Quick Drying Vases
Film Former
or Flame
Retardant
Pigment 5.21
Dry i n 0
C i Lyrt
P . .i I. id ,
l’lesctv.ItivL
PIgm.nt (. 00
(ant 1—roal l ;
murln. pilrcs
only)
PAyment 6.14
PIgment 6.30
Pigment 6.03-
7 I lL
Votnish 9.53
Drier
Drying 1.16
Cat .s lyst
Clcasun ilir. ,i.. i.I
toxietty, l •LlbJI
&iLL’iP_ !Ju_ .i: 1’2r
Comeon Name Formula
Long 4 Short
Fibered Asbestos
Barium Carbonate BaCO 3
Lithol Red (C 20 H 13 N 2 S0 4 ) 2 Ba
8aB 2 0 4 1120
CdSe
CII C l 7 (Varies)
Pigment 1.60
Wit c r Alcohol Flash
N.!J. Suiubllity, Solobilicy. Point,
.i W9z._ j j0 k L._.
D,n.om— hi eta’ i c :is.aolii’ e
p a u La
1740 at 0.002 to Insoluble
90 atsioa— 0.007
plierea -
APPENDIX D, (tiNT.
POTENTIALLY IIA?ARDOI S MATERIALS
Data bi.sssary lheetm
lo.Iu•.trlal Specific
Appearance lI ne givILy B.P.,°C
Flax-Like Binder 4 Decomposes
Fibers Fillir
White Pigment 4.43 Decomposes
Crystalline
Powder
Pigment
White
Powder
Cray—Brown Pigment
or Red
Powder
IiI,ite or
Cream !nwder
Fiber or
Porous Block
Lt • Cre.’.i
Powder
Crystal
Light Illue
Powder
Molecular
lh’ight Cbemtnt Sate
Asbestos
197.4 Barium Carbonate
891 Barium Litbot
241.0 BarIum Metaborata
191.4 Cadmium Selenide
152.0 Chrom lc Oxide
Cobalt
Naphtiienaia
341.8 Copper
Sapltt ‘tenate
163.1 Cuprous Oxide
775.7 LeaJ Carbonate,
Basic
323.2 Lead Chromate
367.2 Lead Molybdate
223.2 Lead Monoxide
Lead Saplithenate
— — ,1350 insoluble
— — Varies It,sol,uble Insoluble
Cadmium Red
Chlorinated Rubber
Chromium Oxide
Cr en
Cobalt Drier
Copper Drier
Red Copper Oxide
Cuprite
White Lead
Chrome Orange
or Chrome Yellow
Wulfenite or
Molybdate 0ran e
Lithirge or Lead
Oxide Yellow
Lead Drier
Cr 2 0 3
Cu (C 7 h1 1 [ 02) •!lI()
Cu 2 0
2Pbro 3 • Pb (0Il)
PbCrO 4
PbHoO 4
P 1 ,0
Pb (C 7 H 11 02) 2121120
1990 insoluble
I , , ’.o lublo
—lI (l . ,t SI Iglit ly
Ill ) ‘itiliuble
1800 hiS Insoluble
Insu tluhilu
Si i 1 litiy
Sol uble
insoluhie
5 0.5
S
0.5
5—6 0.1
fl 1.0
A 0.1
4
6
4
4
4
4 (1.15
4
Heavy White
Powder
Tel low
CryeLala
Tell ow
Powder
lOAd Ish
Yellow
Crystals
Crystal
tic coo 5i5e5
or 400
I)ecompoiu•a 1144
1070
888
lii .o I .ib te ruisol oh I c
0 (1110 (106
Insoloble Insoluble
0.0( 17 at
18C
-------
Molecular
Wciiht Chemical Name Common Name
811.6 Lead Orthophosphate Lead Phosphate
AI’PLNDIX D, CONT.
PUIENTIAI.LY I1AZAR.’) ILlS NATEILIALS
Date Sunmnry Sheets
Appearance Industrial Specific
Use Gravity 8.P.,C M.P.,•C
Anti—Corrosive 6.90— 10 14
Paint for 7.30
Structural Steel
Anti—Corrosive 3.51
Pigment for
Structural Steel
Pigment 1472 890
Pungtcide
Mi ldcweide
Prca rvat Lye
Fung Icide
iii ldewcide
Pres ervative
Dark Green Pigment
Powder
Piwnent
Pre strystive
M!I k-.Lide
Fui .ci.e
Dark Slut pihesent
Powder
l’ale Yellow FLnglclde
Liqutd
Creeii,Yellou Pigment
Prisa s
White Powder Fungicide,
Ki1dew ide. Dr Let
Yellowish P Igment
Powder
White Powder Pigment
White Powder Pipsent
149 Si iglitly So) tab Lu
Soluble
innilublu
Lead Silicochromate Lead Sillcochreraate
685.6 Lead Tecroxide
Formula __________
Pb 3 (P0 4 ) 2 White
Powder
Yet Low
Powder
Pb 3 0 4 heavy,
h lrir,ht
Red Powder
C 6 11 5 Hg0 2 C 2 H 3 White
Lustrous
CryetaLa
Lead Oxide
Red Lead
PMA
Pes o
Solubility,
Solubiltcy,
Point,
Tociticy
Libel
g/lOOg
g/lOOg
—
C
Lcii
Val ue,
0 00( 1014
Insoluble
, 1L 1 ’.IP
at 2tJ’C
Insoluble
0
336.8
Pbenyleercuric
Acetate
Phenylinecuric
Oleate
1058.0
Copper Phthalo—
cyanine Chloride
PhthaLocyenine
Green
C N 2 N 5 C1 14 Cu
32
203.6
Strontium Chromate
Phunyleercuric
Suecinace
Supered lt
.
SrCrO 4
575,5
Copper
Phthilecyantna
Phathaiocyeninc
B lew
C 32 i, 3 (NdCu
309.04
Tributyl tin
Fluoride
(C 4 1i 9 ) 3 SnF
298.8
Zinc Potassium
Cluromate
Zinc lellow
4ZnO’4Cr0 3 ’K 2 a3
3ii O
307.6
Zinc Naphthenate
Zn(C 6 H 5 C 1)0) 2
106.38
Zinc Peroxide
Zinc Superoxide
Zn0, L/2ii 2 0
458.11
Zinc orthophosphete
tetra—hy drste
Zinc Phosphate
Zn 3 (P0 4 ) 2 4ii 2 O
611.33
Zinc Stearate
Zn(C 18 N 3 .0.,) 2
8.32—
9.16
1.94—
2.05
3.90
1.54—
1.74
3.5
0.12 at
is
S 0.01
S
4
4
1,
4
4
Slightly
In solubl e
2 4
:—j
3.00
t , cun pcisss
iiuLaep.i.%5
I
3.03
insoluble
luisoluite
i
1.09
120 In ntuiuia
Iiiiial,ui’i.
-------
APPENDIX E
BASIS FOR WASTE CHARACTERIZATION TABLES
Solvent—Thinned Trade Sales Paints
An analysis of all surveyed plants manufacturing almost
exclusively solvent—thinned paints revealed the following waste
characteristics which were used to construct Table 25.
1. Total waste — 106 metric tons per million liters of paint
production (441 tons/million gallons).
2. Hazardous solvents — 3.3 metric tons per million liters of
paint production (13.6 tons/million gallons).
3. Toxic chemical compounds — 0.4 metric tons per million
liters of paint production (1.7 tons/million gallons).
Based on usage in this classification it is estimated that the toxic
chemical compounds include 32 percent lead, 12 percent chromium,
4 percent zinc, 2.2 percent barium, 0.6 percent cobalt, and 1.1 percent
of other heavy metals such as antimony, copper, cadmium, mercury, etc.
Water—Thinned Trade Sales Paints
An analysis of eight surveyed plants manufacturing almost
exclusively water—thinned paints revealed the following data which
were used to construct Table 29.
1. Total waste — 130 metric tons per million liters of paint
production (541 tons/million gallons).
2. An insignificant amount of hazardous solvents included with
waste from the manufacture of water—thinned paints.
3. Toxic chemical compounds — 58 kilograms per million liters
of paint production (0.24 tons/million gallons).
These small quantities of toxic chemical compounds are estimated to
include 11 percent barium, 1 percent copper, 1 percent cadmium, and
1 percent mercury.
271
-------
1 udustri 1 and Non-Indus tr4 l_L guers
Only three of the surveyed plants which had usable waste data
manufactured lacquers exclusively. An analysis of their waste
characteristics revealed the following waste characteristics which were
used to prepare Table 33.
1. Total waste — 64 metric tons per million liters of paint
production (268 tons/million gallons).
2. Hazardous solvents — 4.1 metric tons per million liters
of paint production (17 tons/million gallons).
3. Toxic chemical compounds — 20 kilograms per million liters
of paint production (170 lbs/million gallons).
These very small quantities of toxic chemical compounds are estimated to
consist of 10 percent lead, 4 percent chromium, 5 percent cadmium, 2
percent coppei, and 4 percent other elements including antimony,
zinc, mercury, and barium.
Factory—Applied Coatings
An analysis of 13 surveyed plants manufacturing almost exclusively
factory—applied coatings revealed the following waste characteristics
which were used to construct Table 36.
1. Total waste — 101 metric tons per million liters of paint
production (423 tons/million gallons).
2. Hazardous solvents — 3.1 metric tons per million liters of
paint production (13 tons/million gallons).
3. Toxic chemical compounds — 0.3 metric tons per million liters
of paint production (1.3 tons/million gallons).
The toxic chemical compounds are calculated to be 32 percent lead, 12
percent chromium, 4 percent zinc, 2.2 percent barium, 0.6 percent cobalt,
and 1.1 percent a combination of antimony, copper, cadmium, and mercury.
Putty and Miscellaneous Paint Products
Because of the diverse nature of operations included in miscellan-
eous paint production, accurate quantification of waste characteristics
was impossible within the scope of this study.
The figures presented in Table 41 for this classification
are the wastes of the industry as a whole less those identified and
itemized in previous classifications. By this approach the following
characteristics were identified:
272
-------
1. Total waste — 107 metric tons per million liters of paint
production (448 tons/million gallons).
2. Hazardous solvents — 2.4 metric tons per million liters of
paint production (10 tons/million gallons).
3. Toxic chemical compounds — 0.2 metric tons per million liters
of paint production (0.85 tong/million gallons).
While data are insufficient to estimate the composition of the toxic
chemical compounds in each state, on a national basis they are estimated
to contain 26 percent lead, 18 percent asbestos, 10 percent chromium,
3 percent zinc, and 2 percent barium.
273
-------
APPENDIX F
PRIVATE WASTE CONTRACTORS AND SERVICE ORGANIZATiONS
EPA Region Type of Facility*
Liggetto and Blanchard Trucking
78 Smith Street
Portland, Me. I L.F.
Lawrence Trucking
Ashland, Mass. I
Ahearin Waste Disposal
Chicopee, Mass. I P.L.F.
S. Hampton Engineering Co.
S. Hampton, Mass. I
Wm. Lawrence
Rich Road
Templeton, Mass. I
Hoyt Trucking Co.
Newport, N.H. I
Clean-All
Wind Street
Subonk, R. I. I
Elizabeth Disposal, Inc.
(Subsid. of Browning — Ferris)
714 Division Street
Elizabeth, N.J. II L.F.
James Crockett
Jamestown, N.Y. II M.L.F.
Chem—Trol Pollution Services, Inc. S.R., I.,
Model City, N.Y. II P.L.F.
* P.L.F. — Private landfill
M.L.F. — Municipal landfill
L.F. — Landfill (Type unknown)
I. — Incineration
S.R. — Solvent Recovery
D.R. — Drum Reconditjoner
275
-------
Appendix F — Cont’d.
EPA Region Type of Facility*
Shayne Bros., Inc.
1601 W Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. III P.L.F.
Pearmon Trash Removal
4 Green Valley Drive
Arnold, Md. III P.L.F.
Bohager and Sons, Inc.
512 S. Eden St.
Baltimore, Md. III L.F.
Clarence T. Ryan
2208 Round Road
Baltimore, Md. III L.F.
Cross Efficient Trash Removal Co.
146 S. Franklintown Road
Baltimore, Md. III L.F.
Johnson and Speake, Inc.
(Subsid. Browning — Ferris)
Solley Road
Baltimore, Md. Ifl L.F.
Robb Tyler, Inc.
(Subsid. Browning — Ferris)
66 Street and Pulaski Street
Baltimore, Md. III L.F.& I.
Browning Ferris Industries, Inc.
10210 Greenbelt Road
Seabrook, Md. III P.L.F.
Abbey Sanitation
Hollywood, Fla. Iv
Automated Waste Industries, Inc.
7325 N.W. 43rd Street
Miami, Fla. Iv
Henry McFale
Miami, Fla. IV L.F.
United Sanitation Service
2125 N.W. 10th Ct.
Miami, Fla. Iv
JADCO
Box 8832
Greenville, S.C. IV S.R.
276
-------
Appendix F — Cont’d.
EPA Rezion Type of Facility*
Clayton Chemical Co.
E. St. Louis, Ill. V
United Disposal
E. St. Louis, Ill. V
Kankakee Industrial Disposal
1370 E. Locust Street
Kankakee, Ill. V
Apollo Disposal Services
711 N. Pine Street
Nomenee, Ill. V
Industrial Waste Disposal Co.
Dayton, Ohio V L.F.
Garland Cole
7709 Burnelle Dr.
Little Rock, Ark. VI M.L.F.
Metro Waste Disposal
Little Rock, Ark. V I P.L.F.
American Container Services, Inc.
3920 Singleton Blvd.
Dallas, Texas VI
3. R. Siemoneit and Assoc.
1900 W. Northeast Highway
Dallas, Texas VI S.R.
Metroplex Sanitation, Inc.
P.O. Box 8068
Dallas, Texas VI L.F.
Sonics International, Inc.
P.O. Box 46088
Dallas, Texas VI
Southwest Environmental Co.
1341 West Mockingbird Lane
Dallas, Texas VI
Texas Industrial Disposal, Inc.
920 5. Lamar Street
Dallas, Texas VI L.F.
Estes Service Co.
P.O. Box 7985
Fort Worth, Texas VI L.F.
277
-------
Appendix F — Cont’d.
EPA Region Type of Facility*
Southwest Cooperage
P.O. Box 71
Fort Worth, Texas vi D.R.
BioEcology Systems
4100 E. Jefferson
Grand Prairie, Texas v i
Southwest Disposal
Longview, Texas vi
Donald Hodge
St. Louis, Mo. vu
United Disposal, Inc.
1838 North Broadway
St. Louis, Mo. V II L.F.
Wm. Poison
St. Louis, Mo. vu L.F.
S.C.A. Services, Inc.
Arvada, Colorada viii
Capital City Disposal
2300 Joliet
Denver, Colorado viii
Reuben Kimbel
Denver, Colorado vi ii
Rocky Mount
Denver, Colorado viii
Roll—Off Service Co.
2519 W. 11th Ave.
Denver, Colorado viii
Waste Disposal, Inc.
(Subsid. of Browning — Ferris)
3001 Walnut
Denver, Colorado viii
Englewood—Littleton Rubbish Co.
Englewood, Colorado VIII
278
-------
APPENDIX C
CONTI ACT SOLVENT RECLAIMING PLANTS
Waste Disposal Source of
Name Address Method Information*
Region I
Colonial Chemical Co. 50 Armento Landfill W.T.C.
401/231—6990 Johnstown, R.I.
C. M. Cannon Co., Inc. 1 Div. T.D.
401/884—6900 Warwick, R.I.
Montvale Laboratories Stoneham T.D.
Mass.
Re—Solve, Inc. N. Hixville Rd. W.T.C.
617/995—9811 New Bedford, Mass.
Silvesim Chemical Corp. Lowell T.D.
Mass.
Solvent Recovery Service Southington S.R.C.
Conn.
Region II
Ashland Chemical Co. 60 Park Place T.D.
212/962—7763 Newark, N.J.
Bell Chemical Co., Inc. 32 Couink Ave. T.D.
516/437—5200 Long Island, N.Y.
Chemical & Solvent 42—14 19th Avenue T.D.
Distillers Co., Inc. Astoria, N.Y.
212/274—3339
Chem—Trol Pollution Serv. Model City E.P.A.
New York
Recycling Laboratories Syracuse T.D.
New York
* E.P.A. — E.P.A. list of solid waste disposal contractors
W.T.C. — WAPORA telephone contact
W.S.V. — WAPORA site visit
P.S. — Paint Company Survey
T.D. — Telephone Directory
E.M. — Equipment Manufacturer
S.R.C. — Solvent Reclaiming Contractor
279
-------
CONTRACT SOLVENT RECLAIMING PLANTS (Continued)
Waste Disposal Source of
Name Address Method____ Infornint lon*
General Scientific New Jersey T.D.
Gold Shield (Div. of Detrex) 835 Industrial Highway T.D.
201/662—1202 Riverton, N.J.
Hogan Solvents & Chemicals 49 Central Ave. T.D.
201/589—5933 Kearny, N.J.
Marisol Inc. 123 Factory Lane Landfill W.S.V.
201/469—5100 Middlesex, N.J.
Perk Chemical Co., Inc. 217 S. 1st St. T.D.
212/W02—0972 Elizabeth, N.J.
Scientific Chemical 216 Paterson P1k. Rd. Incineration W.S.V.
Processing Inc. Carlstadt, N.J.
201/939—0467
Solvents Recovery Serv. 1200 Sylvan W.S.V.
201/925—8600 Linden, N.J.
C.P.S. Old Bridge S.R.C.
New Jersey
Swope Oil & Chemical Co. 8281 National Highway T.D.
201/663-2928 Pennsauken, N.J.
Region III .
Galaxy Maryland E.P.A.
Browning—Ferris Baltimore, Md. E.P.A.
301/792—0220
Region IV
Cold Shield Solvents 3114 Cullinan Ave. Landfill W.S.V.
704/372—9280 Charlotte, N.C.
Jadco Corp. 411 W. Washington Reclaimed W.S.V.
803/277-9581 Greenville, S.C.
Croce Laboratories Beco Road Incineration & W.S.V.
803/877-1048 Greer, S.C. Landfill
280
-------
CONTRACT SOLVENT RECLAIMING PLANTS (Continued)
Waste Disposal Source of
Name Address Method Information*
Gold Coast Oil Corp. 2835 S.W. 71st Ave. T.D.
305/264—2761 Miami, Florida
George Whitesides Louisville S.R.C.
Kentucky
Lammers Inc. New Castle, Incineration W.S.V.
502/845—2453 Kentucky
Arisec Chemical Co. Huey Rd. T.D.
404/942—4332 Douglasville, Ga.
M & J Solvents Co. 1577 Marietta Rd. NW S.R.C.
404/355—8240 , Atlanta, Georgia
G-M Solvent & Material 4701 Lebanon Rd. T.D.
Recycling Nashville, Tenn.
615/ 883—5349. . S
Mid—State Solvent Recovery ‘112 Mason Rd. T.D.
615/793—7660 LaVergne, Tern’.
Region V
Chemical Solvent Inc. 3751 Jennings Rd. Landfill W.T.C.
216/398—9070 5 Cleveland, Ohio
Chemtron Corp. 35850 Schneider . T.D.
313/871—8048 Avon, Ohio.
Hukill Chemical Corp. 7013 KrickRd. W.S.V.
216/233—9400 Cleveland, Ohio
Obitts Chemical Co. P.O. Box 375, Incineration W.S.V.
216/323—3275 142 Locust St.
Elyria, Ohio
Spray — Dyne Corp. 7535 New Haven T.D.
513/738—4031 Fernald, Ohio
Inland Chemical Toledo S.R.C.
Ohio
Associated Chemical Co. 11998 Elkwood Dr. T.D.
513/851—0639 Cincinnati, Ohio
281
-------
CONTRACT SOLVENT RECLAIMING PLANTS (Continued)
Waste Disposal Source of
Name Address Method Information*
H. H. Oberly Co., Inc. 3828 Twining T.D.
419/729—4216 Toledo, Ohio
Gold Shield Solvents 12886 Eaton T.D.
313/491—4550 Detroit, Mich.
Gold Shield Solvents 312 Ellsworth SW T.D.
616/454—9267 Grand Rapids, Mich.
Organic Chemicals 2539 28th S.W. S.R.C.
616/LE4—492l Grand Rapids, Mich.
Nelson Chemicals Detroit P.S.
Michigan
Thomas Solvent Co. 7720 V. Chicago T.D.
313/491—6365 Detroit, Mich.
Chemical Recovery Sys.,Inc. 36345 Van Barn Rd. S.R.C.
313/326—3100 Romulus, Mich.
U.S. Chemical Co. 29163 Callahan S.R.C.
313/778—1414 DetroIt, Mich.
American Chemical Services Colfax Ave & C&O RR Incineration W.S.V.
219/838—4370 Griffith, md.
Seymour Manufacturing Co. G Ave W Freeman Field Incineration W.S.V.
812/522—4051 Seymour, md.
Conservation Chemical Co. Indianapolis E.P.A.
md.
Hammond Solvents Recovery 241 Brunswick T.D.
Service Inc. Hammmond, md.
219/WE1—524l
Acme Solvent Reclaiming Inc. 2915 20th Ave. T.D.
815/397—0289 Rockford, Ill.
Fisher—Cab Chemicals & 600 West 41st St. Incineration W.T.C.
Solvents Co. Chicago, Ill.
3l2/CL4—5222
Rho Chemical Company Joliet E.M.
Ill.
282
-------
CONTRACT SOLVENT RECLAIMING PLANTS (Con t iou ed)
Waste Disposal Source of
Name Address Method Infortnation*
Barker Chemical Co. 700 East 138th Incineration W.S.V.
312/928—5000 Chicago, Ill.
Clayton Chemical Co. E St. Louis T.D.
Ill.
Custom Organics, Inc. 1445W. 42nd Incineration W.T.C.
312/247—2828 Chicago, Ill
Refining Products Div. 4256 Wesley T.D.
312/678—1537 Schir. Park, Chicago
Syn—Sol Corp. 1500 W Kinzie T.D.
312/TA9—4030 Chicago, Ill.
Milwaukee Solyents & N. 59 W . T.D.
Chemical Corp. 14765 Bohnlink Ave.
4141252—3550 S Menom Falls, Wisc.
Rogers Laboratories Milwaukee T.D.
Wisc.
Waste Research & Reclama— Eau Claire
tion Co. Wisc.
Region VI
J. R. Sienimoneit 1900 W. Northwest Hwy. P.S.
214/241—9531 Dallas, Texas
Western States Refining Co. 4816 Memphis St. Incineration & W.S.V.
214/637—6434 Dallas, Texas Deep Well Injection
Region VII
Conservation Chemical Co. Kansas City E.P.A.
Missouri
Conservation Chemical St. Louis E.P.A.
Missouri
Chemical Commodities Inc. 320 E. Blake
913/782—3200 5 Olathe, Kansas
283
-------
CONTRACT SOLVENT RECLAIMING PLANTS (Continued)
Waste Disposal Sburce of
Name Address Method Information*
Region IX
Southwest Solvents 341 W. Buchanan Landfill W.T.C.
602/252—6838 Phoenix, Ariz.
RHO-CHEM 425 Isis W.T.C.
213/776—6233 Inglevood, Ca.
James B. Bachelor Co. Whittier, Cal. W.T.C.
213/698—3547
Baron Blakeslee 248 Harbor Blvd. T.D.
209/591—8237 Belmont, Ca.
Chem—Serv. P.O. Box 345 Landfill & W.T.C.
209/439—7041 Pinedale, Ca. Incineration
Davis Chemical Co. 1550 N. Bonnie Beach P1. — T.D.
213/269—6961 Los Angeles, CA.
Gold Shield Solvents 3027 Fruitland T.D.
213/583—8736 Los Angeles, Ca.
Oil & 5 o1vent Process (OSCO) 1704 W. 1st T.D.
213/334—5117 Azusa, CA.
Romie Chemical Corp. 2081 Bag Rd. T.D.
415/324—1638 Palo Alto, CA.
Solvent Distilling Serv. 342 S. 23rd T.D.
415/286—4338 San Jose, CA.
Region X
Chemical Processors, Inc. Seattle, Wash. W.T.C.
206/767—0350
Western Processing Co. Seattle, Wash E.P.A.
206/852—4350
284
-------
APPENDIX H
Properties and Uses of Hazardous Raw Materials
Introduction
Discussions of the properties and uses of raw materials deemed
hazardous by the contractor are discussed below. The information used in
compiling this appendix was obtained from the literature (31)(38)(39)(40)
(41) (42) (43) (44) (45) (46) (47) and not as a result of contractor tests.
First metallic—based materials are covered in alphabetical order.
This is followed by a discussion of alcohols, aliphatic hydrocarbons,
aromatic hydrocarbons, ketones, and esters. A brief description of
miscellaneous raw materials is then presented.
Antimony
Antimony trioxide (Sb 2 0 3 ) and antimony trisulfide (Sb2S3) are the
two compounds of antimony which have been used as paint pigments. Com-
monly called antimony oxide and antimony sulfide, neither is widely
employed today. Antimony oxide is a white pigment, similar in its
properties to zinc oxide. Although at one time it had some use in
ordinary white paints, today it is used only in fire—retardant paints
to reduce charring. This compound was also used at one time in small
amounts for the surface treatment of titanium dioxide to reduce its
chalking tendency but available records indicate that this use has been
discontinued. Its future use in paints for any purpose appears to be
negligible, unless some new advantage is discovered, since it has large-
ly been replaced by better and less expensive pigments. Antimony tn—
oxide has a toxicity rating of 5 and is considered potentially hazardous.
Antimony sulfide, a black pigment, had some use in World War II
as a component of camouflage paints where a reflectance in infrared,
similar to that of chlorophyll, was required. So far as is known the
pigment has not been manufactured or used in this country since. It
is not considered a hazardous material since no adverse effects were
experienced during a gross industrial exposure to this antimony com-
pound (22).
285
-------
Asbestos
“Asbe io ” is defined as the fibrous form of one of a number of
minerals, such as actinoljte and tremolite (forms of amphibole), chryso—
lite (a serpentine form and commonest U.S. type), amosite, crocidilite,
and anthophyllite. Some of these exist in both the fibrous and non—
fibrous forms, and the same term is used for both. In other cases,
there is one name for the mineral in the fibrous form and another for
the nonfibrous. The hazard is associated with the fibrous form.
Asbestos is used widely for insulation, fire—resistance, and heavy
trowelling coatings, but rarely in conventional paints. The principal
use in coatings is for asphalt—asbestos roof coatings and calking com-
pounds which do not fall within the scope of this project.
A product containing very short fibers not suitable for most as-
bestos uses, and a good deal of nonfibrous material, is often sold, at
an attractive price, under names such as “asbestos shorts,” “asbestos
float,” or “short—fibered asbestos.” This material is commonly used
in coatings as is talc, which contains no fibrous material. The latter
is frequently referred to as “asbestine,”* a trade—mark International.
Talc Company used at one time for all of its taics, whether or not they
contained any fibrous material. This term was still employed at many
surveyed plants to report the use of talc which is not subject to EPA’s
National Emission Standard for Asbestos (24).
For purposes of this study, all forms of asbestos containing fib-
rous material are considered potentially hazardous.
Bariur.
Four barium compounds have been used in paints. These are barium
sulfate, barium carbonate, barium metaborate, and barium lithol.
Barium sulfate is a non—hazardous, inert, and insoluble pigment
material with a toxicity rating of 1 (1).
Barium carbonate is a natural mineral, occurring largely in the
form of witherite in Great Britain, where It has been used as a paint
pigment extender for many years. Small amounts were utilized in the
United States in the past to adulterate white lead. The latter pigment
was considered the best available and many painters judged the merit
of a paint on its weight per gallon since white lead Is much heavier
than most of the other components of paint. Barium carbonate with a
specific gravity fairly close to that of lead carbonate (white lead)
could be substituted unnoticed for a portion of the more desirable
compound. This use has virtually disappeared.
*Use of a trade name does not consitute endorsement of a product.
286
-------
Barium carbonate must be imported at con idcrab1e expense and,
while its use was reported by two surveyed plants belonging to the same
company, it is not felt that this is a very widespread practice. It is
extremely toxic (1) at low dosage, although its acute toxicity varies
widely in effects among subjects (25)(l) For this reason, it is var-
iously assigned a 3, 4, or 5 toxicity rating, any of which classifies
it as potentially hazardous.
Barium metaborate is a white pigment of very low hiding power, but
with considerable mildewcidal, or mildewstatic effect, and may replace
mercurials in certain uses. While it is considered perhaps the least
hazardous of microbiocides used in paints and has no cumulative effect,
evidence of some acute toxicity (26) and the absence of a toxicity
rating places this compound in the potentially hazardous category.
Since no references were found on the toxicity of barium lithol, it has
been treated as potentially hazardous.
Cadmium — Selenium
Cadmium appears in a few, highly specialized paints in the form of
pigments ranging from cadmium sulfide (CdS), which is yellow, through a
series of cadmium sulfoselenides (CdS Sel_ ), which are orange, to
cadmium selenide, (CdSe), which is red. These pigments are more widely
used in printing inks and plastics.
No references on the toxicity of these specific compounds were
found, so they have been considered as potentially hazardous throughout
this study, based on the toxicity of other cadmium— and selenium—based
compounds.
Chromium
The principal compounds of chromium used in the paint and coatings
industry are lead chroinate, lead silico—chromate, zinc yellow (zinc
tetroxychromate, sometimes referred to as “zinc chromate”), strontium
chromate, chromium oxide, and hydrated chromium oxide (sometimes re-
ferred to as “chromium hydroxide” or “chromium hydrate”). “Chrome
green” is a mixture of lead chromate and iron blue.
Zinc yellow (4ZnO.4CrO 3 .K 2 0.311 2 0) is used in anti—corrosive primers,
usually in alkyd vehicles. It requires a high degree of surface prep-
aration (removal of rust, etc.) and is usually used as a component of
factory—applied coatings. Where such surface preparation is not
possible, as on structural steel, red lead primers are preferred.
Strontium chromate (SrCrO4) is used as a component of “wash primers,”
which are nearly all factory—applied.
Chromium oxide (Cr 2 0 3 ) is a dull olive green which is very insol-
uble and heat—resistant. It is the only green which is usable in
ceramic materials which must be fired at high temperatures. Hydrated
287
-------
chromium oxide is a similar pigment with a cleaner and brighter green
color, but its relatively low hiding power restricts its use.
The availability of phthalocyanine green (C32H 2 N 8 C1 14 Cu) in a range
of shades has greatly reduced the use of chrome green, which has al-
ways been unsatisfactory from the point of view of color retention.
Since it is made of two colors (blue and yellow), one nearly always
fades faster than the other, so that chrome green changes towards either
blue or yellow (usually yellow) on aging.
Chromium oxide has a toxicity rating of 3 and zinc chromate a rat-
ing of 4 (1); no reference was located on the toxicity of strontium
chromate, hydrated chromium oxide, and phthalocyanine green, thus all
of these compounds are considered potentially hazardous.
Lead chromate and lead silico—chromate are discussed below under
“Lead.”
Cobalt
The significant use of cobalt in the paint Industry is as a drier
added to drying oils, such as linseed, and oil—derived products, such
as alkyd resins. These products require some drier unless they are
baked at fairly high temperatures. Cobalt drier is nearly always a
component of the drier used, since it gives quick “top dry” and freedom
from surface tack. The amounts used are in the catalytic range and
usually are less than 0.1 percent of the oil or alkyd component.
Cobalt is also an ingredient of certain ceramic pigments. These
are rarely used in the paint industry because of their high cost, but
they may have occasional use in high—heat—resistant paints.
Specific information on the toxicity of cobalt naphthenate, the
common cobalt drier, is unavailable (1). It is thus considered as
potentially hazardous.
Copper
Copper enters paint and coatings largely in the forms of cuprous
oxide (Cu20), metallic copper, copper naphthenate (C 6 Hi C00) 2 Cu),
phthalocyanine blue (C 32 H16N 8 Cu), and phthalocyanine green. The phtha—
locyanines are not classified as cyanides.
Cuprous oxide and metallic copper are important ingredients in
anti—fouling paints, but neither is used in significant quantities in
any other paints. Copper naphthenate Is commonly used in wood preserv-
atives. These are generally used as impregnants, rather than coatings,
and, in general, should not fall under SIC 285. However, some are made
by paint companies and may be reported as coatings.
288
-------
Phthalocyanine blue and green are bright pigments, used generally
In any coating where their color is required. They have very high
tinting strength, so only small amounts are necessary to achieve most
of the desired colors. Used as solid colors they are almost black.
Their high cost also encourages the use of as little as possible.
Cupric oxide may appear in small amounts as a contaminant of cup—
rous oxide, but does not contribute to the anti—fouling characteristics,
and is generally regarded as useless. It is used in some ceramic color-
ants, but little, if any, of this enters the coatings industry.
If sufficient heat is applied in the preparation of cuprous oxide,
it is virtually insoluble, and in this state is classed as slightly
toxic, a rating of 2; a more soluble form, however, is very toxic, with
a rating of 4. It is thus considered hazardous.
The toxicity of metallic copper similarly depends on its physical
state. As a very fine dust it will go into solution very rapidly and
in this form is highly toxic. The form used in paint is a flake which
is not readily soluble. However, in the absence of definitive informa-
tion to the contrary, It is considered potentially hazardous.
Copper naphthenate has a very low order of toxicity according to
one source (27), but is tentatively rated as 3 by Gleanson (1). Thus,
this compound is also considered potentially hazardous.
Lead
The passage of the Lead Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act was
stimulated in large measure by the lead poisoning of children who ingest
old paint films containing quantities of white lead and soluble lead
salts. The 1973 amendments to the Act established an 0.5 percent limit
on the lead content of paint and required a further reduction to 0.06
percent unless the Consumer Product Safety Commission certified another
level as safe. The Commission recently upheld, after mandated research,
the 0.5 percent level.
LEAD CHROMATE (Chrome Yellow and Chrome Orange): The formula for
normal lead chromate (medium chrome yellow) is PbCrO 4 . The more orange
shades contain some lead hydroxide and reach basic lead chromate,
Pb(OH)2Cr0 4 , the standard “Chrome Orange.” Green shades of chrome
yellow, often called “Primrose,” contain lead sulfate, with the lead
chromate decreasing to as little as 57 percent.
These inorganic products account for more than half the total lead
used by the paint industry. Far and away the largest use is in yellow
traffic paints for which chrome yellow is chosen for its brightness,
good hiding power, and durability. Small amounts are also used for
other purposes where a bright, durable yellow or orange is required,
such as on school buses and certain gasoline stations.
289
-------
There is, currently, no really adequate substitute for chrome
ycllo v in its typical uses. A bright, clean yellow may be made from
nickel titanate, but it is more expensive than chrome yellow, and, un-
less demand created a larger supply, current production in the United
States would probably supply not more than half the total needed for
traffic paints alone. There are organic pigments which give the same
general color, but their hiding power is low, requiring much larger
quantities, and their exterior durability is not good. Too, the traffic
paints purchased by municipal, state, and federal governments must con-
form to composition specifications which call for the use of lead
chromate. Thus, the use of chrome yellow may be expected to continue
for the foreseeable future.
Chrome orange is used today only in small quantities. It will un-
doubtedly be replaced if an orange pigment with similar hiding power and
durability is found.
Molybdate red (or orange), PbMoO 4 , is a lead chromate containing
some lead niolybdate. The pigment becomes redder with increasing qi:ianti—
ties of the latter. Only very small amounts are used in the paint in-
dustry; it is largely used as a printing ink component.
Because of its greenish—yellow color, Primrose yellow (tinting
yellow) was formerly used as the yellow component of chrome green (a
mixture of chrome yellow and iron blue). Chrome green has now been
largely superseded by phthalocyanine green.
According to one source, the chromates used in paints are insoluble
and have created no particular health problem (22) although Gleason,
et al. (1) assign lead chromate a toxicity rating of 4. Lead chromate
is thus considered potentially hazardous as are lead sulfate, chrome
orange, chrome green, and molybdate red on which no references were found.
RED LEAD AND LEAD SILICO—C}IROMATE: These materials, Pb 3 04 and
Pb(Si02)(Cr04) respectively, are anti—corrosive pigments and produce
the best and, in many cases, the only satisfactory primer for structural
steel for buildings, bridges, etc. Specifically, there are no other
adequate pigments where structural considerations prevent first—class
surface preparation.
Lead silico—chromate is a recently developed pigment which is supe-
rior to lead chromate as an anti—corrosive primer and is more eccnomical;
it has thus replaced the latter for this purpose and its use is likely
to expand.
Red lead is the more advantageous pigment when structural considera-
tions prevent adequate removal of rust and mill scale. In the future,
this pigment may lose some of its market to lead silico—chromate, but it
is so thoroughly embedded in federal, state, highway, and railroad sped—
fications that the change will not take place very rapidly.
290
-------
While no detailed text was found on the toxic effects of red lead
and lead silico—chrornate, they are both assigned a mockrate toxicity
rating of 3 which classified them as potentially hazardous.
LEAD DRIERS: Lead driers are compounds of lead with organic acids
(rosin, naphthenic, 2—ethyl hexoic, etc.). The lead is the drying cata-
lyst and the effectiveness of the driers depends entirely on the lead
content. The organic portion of the molecule contributes solubility in
organic solvents. These driers are used in oil, oleoresinous, and alkyd
coatings. The lead gives “through—dry” which builds up the ultimate
hardness of the film. About 0.1 — 0.2 percent lead is usually required
to be effective, which is well within the 0.5 percent legal limit on
lead. Lead naphthenate Is tentatively assigned a moderate to very toxic
rating (1), 3 to 4, either of which is considered hazardous.
OTHER LEAD MATERIALS: White lead (basic lead carbonate), 2PbCO 3 .
Pb(OH)2, basic lead sulfate, 2PbSO 4 Pb(OH) 2 , or basic lead silicate,
2PbSiO 3 Pb(OH) 2 , are white pigments which have almost disappeared from
modern paints, largely for economic reasons, although, in many cases,
their performance is also inferior to that of more modern pigments con-
taining little or no lead. Basic lead silicate is used by a few manu-
facturers in coatings designed for application to redwood and western
red cedar because it appears more resistant to staining from the water
soluble dyes in these substrates than other pigments. Other lead com-
pounds have been used as stabilizers in certain resins but they have
been largely superseded by other materials which perform as well and
cost less. Litharge (lead monoxide) was formerly used for the manu-
facture of lead driers when driers were made by cooking rosin or some
other organic acid with a metallic oxide, carbonate, or acetate. It is
presently mixed with glycerin and employed as a fast—setting (and very
brittle) cement. It is too reactive to be used as a component of con-
ventional paints.
Lead carbonate is probably responsible for lead poisoning in painters
as well as in children who eat old peeling paint films. The dust also
presents a hazard (22). Litharge has a toxicity rating of 3 to 4. No
specific information was found on the toxicity of lead sulfate and lead
silicate. Thus, all of these lead compounds are considered potentially
hazardous.
LEAD STABILIZERS: Small amounts of lead compounds are used as sta-
bilizers for resins, particularly polyvinyl chloride. The NPCA Chemical
Specialties Index (28) lists 27 lead stabilizers vs. approximately 150
non—lead. High cost, color problems, and other reasons apparently are
reducing the lead usage in this area. Toxicity is not at issue since
many of the replacements are potentially toxic cadmium or barium salts.
Mercury
The significant use of mercury in the paint industry is as a pre-
servative in water—thinned paints, or as a mildewcide in either water—
291
-------
or solvent—thinned paints when their exposure is apt to invite mildew.
Mercury is usually in the form of phenyl mercury acetate (PMA), phenyl
mercury oleate (PMO), or some similar material utilizing higher mole-
cular weight compounds, such as cresyl. The quantity of mercury is
usually less than 0.1 percent of the total solids.
At one time, due to a shortage of cadmium, certain red and yellow
pigments based on mercuric sulfide were marketed, but it is understood
that these are no longer available.
The future of mercury in the manufacture of paint is uncertain
due to proceedings under the Federal Pesticide Act. If the EPA Admini-
strator sustains an order to prohibit the manufacture of mercurials,
no mercurials will be available to paint manufacture and the mercury
content of its wastes will be, effectively, zero. If the cancellation
of registration is withdrawn, the usage of mercury will be somewhat
higher than might be extrapolated by normal growth, since sot ie manufac-
turers have discontinued the use of mercury with the expectation that
the supply will be soon cut off. If this does not happen, some of
them, at least, will return to the use of mercury.
A number of non—mercurial biocides have been developed and are be-
ing tested in production (29). At the moment, the general consensus
within the paint industry is that they are more expensive and less satis-
factory than the mercurials. If, in time, some of the problems associ-
ated with these materials are overcome, they could very well displace
some mercury use, since mercury has some disadvantages. How soon this
may happen, and to what extent, are unpredictable factors at this time.
PMA has a toxicity rating of 5 (1), although there have been no
authenticated cases of occupational poisoning related to phenyl mercu—
rials (l)(25). PMA is defined as potentially hazardous as well as PMO
on which no specific toxicity reference was found.
Zinc
The following compounds of zinc are used to some extent in the
paint industry —— zinc oxide, leaded zinc oxide, lithopone (a mixture
of zinc sulfide and barium sulfate), zinc sulfide, zinc dust (metallic
zinc), zinc yellow (zinc tetroxychromate), zinc phosphate, zinc naphthe—
nate, and zinc stearate. Various other zinc compounds may be used in
very small or trace amounts.
Zinc oxide is a white pigment, used in paints to contribute hiding
power and improve the hardness, chalk retention, and mildew resistance
of titanium dioxide. It is rated 2 to 3 on the toxicity scale and is
thus classified as non—hazardous since it does not meet the criteria
used in this report of a rating of 3 or greater.
292
-------
Leaded zinc oxide is a mixture of zinc oxide and basic sulfate
white lead. Contents of five, 35, and 50 percent white lead are most
common. Very little is manufactured at the present time. The hazard
associated with these pigments arises from the lead content.
Lithopone (and pure zinc sulfide) are white pigments with many of
the properties of titanium dioxide, but they are inferior to Ti0 2 in
color retention and exterior durability. As far as can be ascertained,
none are currently manufactured in the United States, primarily because
of the lower cost of T102, but some is imported from Europe. Lithopone
is a stoichiometric mixture of zinc sulfide and barium sulfate. Neither
compound is toxic; it is therefore assumed that the combination is
similarly low in toxicity and thus non—hazardous.
Zinc dust is powdered metallic zinc, used primarily as an anti-
corrosive primer in areas such as drinking water systems where lead
and chromium are ruled out for toxicity reasons. Zinc dust paints are
often referred to as “liquid galvanizing.” This is not a toxic material
and is considered non—hazardous.
Zinc phosphate is a recently introduced pigment which has some use
in anti—corrosive paints. No information was found on its level of
toxicity so it is treated as potentially hazardous.
Zinc naphthenate (and some other organic zinc compounds) are used,
in small amounts, as driers, usually supplementing cobalt. Zinc stearate
Is a white powder, transparent in most coatings, which is used in seal—
ers and furniture finishes to improve their sanding properties. It has
a toxicity rating of 3 (l)(23), which classifies it as hazardous. Zinc
naphthenate has a low acute oral toxicity and is rated less than 3 (1).
It is thus classed as non—hazardous.
Zinc yellow is discussed under “chromium.”
Alcohols
The alcohols commonly used in the paint industry include: methanol
(methyl alcohol, wood alcohol) which flashes at 13°C (55°F); ethanol
(ethyl alcohol, grain alcohol), 16°C (60°F); isopropanol (isopropyl
alcohol, rubbing alcohol), 18°C (65°F); n—propanol, 27°C (81°F); secon-
dary butanol, 23°C (73°F); isobutanol, 29°C (85°F); n—bütanol, 37°C
(98°F); and numerous other higher alcohols, all flashing well above 38°C
(100°F).
Methanol, due to its toxicity, is rarely used as a solvent by the
paint industry. Other alcohols are used, sparingly, as solvents for
shellac, a few other spirit—soluble resins, and for spirit stains, which
are becoming less common. Most of the alcohols used by the paint
industry are employed as ingredients of non—paint products such as
293
-------
chemical raw materials in the manufacture of resins. In small amounts,
they are also used as part of the solvent blend in lacquers.
The toxicity rating of most of these materials is 3 (1). There-
fore, those flashing above 27°C (80°F) which are not defined as hazard-
ous due to their flammability are so designated because of their toxic-
ity.
Aliphatic Hydrocarbons
Aliphatic hydrocarbons are all selected fractions of the distilla-
tion of crude oil. Very narrow boiling ranges are usually indicated by
the predominant component, although almost all those used as solvents
for paint manufacture are mixtures of various parraf ins and naphthenes,
and many contain significant amounts of armoatics. For various reasons,
the olef in content is very low, almost always below two percent.
Pentane, hexane, heptane, and octane, in commercial grades, are
all narrow—boiling range materials, but usually contain a mixture of
isomers and substantial quantities of naphthenes. Wider—range materials
are sold under various terminology, such as textile spirits, rubber
solvent, V&MP naphtha, mineral spirits, etc., or are sold under trade
names, such as “Varsol.”* Pentane, hexane, rubber solvent, and textile
spirits usually flash below 0°C (32°F). Heptane and VM&P naphtha flash
around 10°C (50°F), and mineral spirits and many trade name products
flash above 38°C (100°F).
Aliphatic hydrocarbons are the cheapest available organic solvents,
and are invariably used with mat rials which can be dissolved in them.
These include drying oils, many alkyds, and many phenolic varnishes.
In general, lacquers and chlorinated rubber, as well as short—oil aklyds
and varnishes, are not soluble in aliphatics. The selection of the par-
ticular aliphatic to be used depends upon the boiling range required
(which determines the flash point), and other properties required by
the user.
These substances are also generally assigned a toxicity rating of
3 which places them in the hazardous category (1) regardless of flash
point.
Aromatic Hydrocarbons
The common “pure” aromatic hydrocarbons used in the coating indus-
try are toluene which flashes at 4°C (25°F) and xylene, 27°C (81°F).
Small amounts of benzene may be used, but this is discouraged by its
*Use of a trade name does not constitute endorsement of a product.
294
-------
high toxicity. It is employed primarily in the coatings industry as a
chemical raw material, rather than a solvent.
Aromatic hydrocarbons may be derived from petroleum or from coal
tars as a by—product of coke production. In the case of petroleum
hydrocarbons, ihe impurities are usually a]iphatic and naphthenic hydro-
carbons. In the case of coal tar, they are more likely to be other
closely—boiling hydrocarbons. Aromatic solvents uith a higher boiling
point (and higher flash point) than xylene are usually a complex mix-
ture of materials and are sold under a variety of trade names, such as
“Solvesso .“*
Aromatic hydrocarbons are better solvents for many resins than
are the aliphatic hydrocarbons, and are widely used where the resin is
difficult to solubilize in aliphatic hydrocarbons, as is the case with
short—oil alkyds and phenolics, chlorinated rubber, etc. They are
also better diluents for lacquers than the aliphatic hydrocarbons and
are largely used for this purpose.
Toluene carries a 4 toxicity rating and xylene a 3 and are there-
fore potentially hazardous.
KetoneS
The ketones commonly used by the coatings industry and their flash
points are: acetone, —15°C (5°F); methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), —6°C
(22°F); methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK), 23°C (74°F); mesltyl oxide, 29°C
(84°F); methyl n—butyl ketone, 27°C (80°F); diacetone alcohol, 54°C
(130°F); methyl isoamyl ketone, 41°C (106°F); and isophorone, 93°C
(200°F). These are the reported flash points of commercial products,
and may differ from the flash point of a pure material. The solvents
section of the NPCA Raw Materials Index (30) lists about ten others
that are used in small amounts.
Ketones are generally used in lacquers, and usually In a mixture
with other solvents. They are strong solvents for many of the binders
used in lacquers (nitrocellulose, acrylics, vinyls, etc.). However,
they are expensive and have a rather strong odor, and no more is used
than is required for the solvency. The choice of individual ketone
depends upon the drying rate, levelling, and other properties required
for a specific lacquer.
The principal literature found on the toxic characteristics of
ketones was directed to acetone, MEK, and MIBK. Acetone appears to be
the most innocuous of the three, and MIBK the most toxic, although all
three are assigned a rating of 3 (1)(22)(27)(3l). They are all con-
sidered hazardous both because of their toxicity and flammability.
*Use of a trade name does not constitute endorsement of a product.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
295 Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
-------
Esters
.sters arc reaction products of an alcohol (ethanol, isopropmiol,
etc.) 3nd an organic acid (acetic and isobutyric are the commonest.)
They arc used for much the same purposes as the ketones, but are
slightly more pleasant in odor and somewhat more expensive than the
corresponding ketones. One or the other may be the choice, depending
upon the particular resin blend being used.
The most commonly used esters are ethyl acetate, 1°C (30°F); iso—
propyl acetate, 16°C (60°F); and the various buty]. acetates, 29°C
(85°F). Butyl acetates may be normal or isobutyl. Many other esters
are available, but they are used in small amounts, and all have higher
flash points than are considered hazardous.
Ethyl acetate is relatively innocuous and non—hazardous with a
toxicity rating of less than 3 (1) while butyl acetate carries a rating
of 3 which places it in the potentially hazardous range of 3 or above.
No information was found on isopropy]. acetate, so it is not considered
hazardous.
Miscellaneous Compounds
There are a few materials listed in Table 20 which do not fell
into any of the above groups of materials. These include chlorinated
rubber, chlorinated paraffin, and tributyl. tin fluoride.
Chlorinated rubber and chlorinated paraffin are high polymer halo-
genated hydrocarbons. No data on their toxicity were found, which under
the criteria applies in this study would classify them as potentially
hazardous. However, in view of their use in coatings for water tanks
information attesting to their safety must have been developed and so
far as is known, no hazardous qualities have been attributed to these
compounds.
Tributyl tin fluoride is used almost entirely as a barnacle killer
in ship bottom paints. A toxicity rating of 4 is applied to tributyl
tin compounds generally, and the use to which the fluoride is put
appears to support at least this rating for the particular compound.
pal 317
296
------- |