Contractor's Draft Engineering Report for Development of
Effluent Limitations Guidelines for the
Paint Manufacturing Industry
(BATEA, NSPS, Pretreatment)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
MB*
mm urn
BR Burns and Roe
California • Connecticut • New Jersey • New York • Puerto Rico • Washington, D.C.
-------
DRAFT ENGINEERING REPORT
FOR DEVELOPMENT OF
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
FOR THE
PAINT MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
(BATEA, NSPA, Pretreatment)
Project Officer: James Berlow
Effluent Guidelines Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
Project Manager: Arnold S. Vernick
Burns and Roe Industrial Services Corp.
Paramus, New Jersey
JANUARY 1979
Prepared For:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Effluent Guidelines Division
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
G 2 3 9 6 9
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
I Conclusions 1-1
II Recommendations II-l
III Introduction III-l
Purpose and Authority III-l
Document Format III-l
Previous Studies of the Paint Industry III-l
Survey Development III-2
Development of Mailing Lists III-2
Data Collection Portfolio III-3
Survey Data Reduction III-4
Profile of the Paint Industry III-4
Production Processes III-5
Solvent-Base Paint Operations III-6
Water-Base Paint Operations III-8
Other Base Paint Operations III-8
General Industry Characteristics 111-10
Industry-wide Plant Operations 111-21
Production Characteristics 111-25
Raw Materials 111-41
IV Industrial Subcategorization IV-1
Introduction IV-1
Raw Materials and Products IV-1
Production Methods IV-^1
Size and Age of Production
Facilities IV-1
Wastewater Constituents IV-2
Tank Cleaning Techniques IV-2
Subcategorization IV-2
V Water Uses and Wastewater Characterization V-l
Wastewater Sources V-l
Tank and Equipment Cleaning V-l
Other Pollution Sources V-6
Wastewater Volume V-7
Wastewater Characterization V-16
Historical Data Summary V-16
Sampling Data V-26
Resampling V-30
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)
Section Page
VI Selection of Pollutant Parameters VI-1
Introduction VI-1
Methodology. VI-1
Raw Materials Evaluation VI-1
Raw Materials Survey VI-2
Sampling Program VI-6
Plant Location VI-6
Plant Size VI-6
Wastewater Treatment VI-8
Wastewater Generation VI-8
Historical Data VI-8
Priority Pollutants VI-8
Direct Dischargers VI-8
Selection of Sampling Plants VI-9
Priority Pollutants VI-9
Pesticides and Metabolites VI-13
PCB's VI-13
Phenolic Compounds VI-13
Volatile Organic Priority
Pollutants VI-14
Halomethanes VI-14
Chlorinated Ethanes VI-15
Aromatic Solvents VI-16
Chloroaklyl Ethers VI-17
Dichloropropane and
Dichloropropene VI-17
Chlorinated Ethylenes VI-17
Miscellaneous Volatile
Organics VI-18
Semi-Volatile Organic
Priority Pollutants VI-19
Polynuclear Aromatics (PNA's) VI-19
Chlorobenzenes VI-19
Phthalate Esters VI-20
Haloethers VI-20
Nitroamines VI-21
Nitro-Substituted Aromatics
Other than Phenols VI-21
Benzidene Compounds VI-21
Miscellaneous Semi-Volatile
Organic Priority Pollutants VI-22
Inorganic Priority Pollutants VI-22
Traditional Pollutants VI-23
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)
Section
Page
VII
VIII
IX
XI
XII
XIII
XIV
Control and Treatment Technology VII-1
Treated Wastewater Characteristics VII-1
In-Plant Wastewater Control
Strategies VII-1
Wastewater Disposal VII-9
Wastewater Treatment VII-11.
Primary Treatment Systems VII-11
Physical/Chemical Treatment VII-14
Biological Treatment VII-17
Other Wastewater Treatment
Systems VII-17
Effects of Production Characteristics
on Effluent Quality VII-17
Cost Energy and Other Non-Water Quality
Aspects VIII-1
Costs VIII-1
Historical Cost Information VIII-1
Cost Development VIII-1
Physical/Chemical Precipitation VIII-8
Wastewater Recycle System VIII-9
Ultrafiltration VIII-10
Wastewater Disposal by Contract
Hauling VIII-14
Wastewater Disposal by Forced
Evaporation VIII-14
Biological Treatment (aerated
lagoons) VIII-19
Advanced Wastewater Treatment by
Carbon Adsorption VIII-19
Energy VIII-19
Sludge Characteristics VIII-24
Solvent-Base Solvent-Wash Subcategory VIII-29
Best Practicable Control Technology
Currently Available IX-1
Best Available Technology Economically
Achievable X-l
New Source Performance Standards XI-1
Pretreatment Guidelines XII-1
Acknowledgments XIII-1
References XIV-1
XV
Glossary
XV-1
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title Page
III-l Composition of Common Water-Base Paints III-8
III-l Number of Production Employees in Paint 111-12
Plants (1976)
III-3 Paint Industrial Profile - 1972 Census of 111-13
Manufacturers
III-4 Estimated U.S. Shipments of Trade Sales 111-14
By End Use (1974)
III-5 Estimated U.S. Shipments of Industrial 111-15
Finishes by End Use (1974)
III-6 Geographical Distribution of Paint Plants 111-17
III-7 Shipments of Paint Manufacturing Plants by 111-18
State
III-8 Distribution of Large Paint Plants, by 111-20
State
III-9 Paint Industry Breakdown by Age 111-22
111-10 Paint Plant Tankage 111-23
III-ll Total Paint Industry Tankage 111-24
111-12 Total Water Usage by the Paint Industry 111-26
111-13 Water Usage in Paint Plants 111-27
111-14 Production of Trade Sales Paint 111-28
111-15 Production of Industrial Sales Paint 111-29
111-16 Production of Allied Products 111-30
111-17 Production of Water-Base Paint 111-32
111-18 Production of Solvent-Base Paint 111-33
111-19 Production of Other Formulated Products 111-34
111-20 Comparison of Primarily Water-Base and 111-35
Primarily Solvent Base Paint Production Plants
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Cont.)
Table No
Title
Page
111-21
Production of White or Tint Base Paint
111-36
111-22
Production of Color Paint
111-37
111-23
Usage of Inorganic Pigments by Paint Plants
111-38
111-24
Usage of Organic Pigments by Paint Plants
111-39
111-25
Allied Products Produced by the Paint Industry
111-40
111-26
Priority Pollutant Usage Trends
111-42
111-27
Slopes and Correlation Coefficients for
Plots of Percent Priority Pollutant Usage
Versus Percent Industrial Sales or Percent
Solvent Base Production
111-43
V-l
Methods of Tank Cleaning Used by Paint Plants
V-2
V-2
Amount of Water Used to Clean a Paint Tank
V-5
V-3
Other Pollution Sources
V-8
V-4
Wastewater Generation
V-9
V-5
Volume of Wastewater Generated by Paint Plants
Producing Primarily Water-Base or Solvent-Base
Paints
V-ll
V-6
Wastewater Discharge by the Paint Industry
V-12
V-7
Volume of Wastewater Discharged by Paint Plants
Producing Primarily Water-Base or Solvent-Base
Paints
V-l 3
V-8
Wastewater Generation per Unit Volume of Water
Base Paint Produced
V-14
V-9
Wastewater Discharge per Unit Volume of Water
Base Paint Production
V-15
V-10
Constituents of Paint Manufacturing Plant Wastes
in East Bay Municipal Utilities District
Researched by NFIC-Denver
V-18
V-ll
Summary of Sampling Data, NFIC-D, 1973
V-19
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Cont.)
Table No. Title Page
V-12 Summary of Data from Two Plants that Submitted V-20
Untreated and Treated Historical Analytical
Data
V-13 Average Untreated Wastewater Concentrations V-21
From Seven Plants - Data Submitted with DCP's
V-14 Average Treated Wastewater Concentrations V-22
From Eight Plants - Data Submitted with DCP's
V-15 Characteristics of Paint Plants Sampled During V-23
1976
V-16 Average Untreated and Treated Wastewater V-24
Concentrations - 1976 Paint Sampling Program.
V-17 Average Untreated.and Treated Wastewater V-25
Concentrations for Metals - 1976 Paint
Sampling Program
V-18 Production Characteristics of Paint Plants V-27
Participating in 1977/1978 Sampling Program
V-19 Characteristics of Paint Plants Participating V-28
in 1977/1978
V-20 Untreated Wastewater Data Summary - 1977/1978 V-29
Sampling Program
V-21 Intake (tap) Water Data Summary - 1977/1978 V-31
Sampling Program
V-22 Average Untreated Wastewater Concentrations V-32
V-23 Results of Resampling at Five Paint Plants V-35
(One year Interval)
VI-1 Occurrence of Priority Pollutants in Paint VI-3
Raw Materials
VI-2 Raw Materials Containing Priority Pollutants VI-5
Used by the Paint Industry
VI-3 Distribution of Paint Plants in Major VI-7
Metropolitan Areas
VI-4 Characteristics of Paint Sampling Plants VI-10
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Cont.)
Table No. Title Page
VI-5 Wastewater Treatment Methods Used at Paint VI-11
Sampling Plants
VI-6 Priority Pollutants Reported in Sampling Plant VI-12
Raw Materials
VII-1 Effluent Characteristics 1976 Sampling Program VII-2
VII-2 Treated Wastewater Characteristics VII-3
VII-3 Extent of Control and Treatment Practiced in VII-7
Paint Plants (1972)
VII-4 Frequency of Tank Cleaning and Reuse of Paint VII-8
Wastewater
VII-5 Wastewater Disposal Methods VII-10
VII-6 Handling of Off-Specification Paint VII-12
VII-7 Wastewater Treatment Methods VII-13
VII-8 Effluent Characteristics and Removals from VII-5
Plants with Batch Physical/Chemical Treatment
Systems
VII-9 Biological Treatment by Aerated Lagoon at one VII-18
Plant
VII-10 Effluent Characteristics from Plants Producing VII-19
Only Water-Base Paint
VII-11 Effluent Characteristics from Plants that Produce VII-20
both Water-Base and Solvent-Base Paint
VIII-1 Paint Industry-Dates of Wastewater Treatment VIII-2
System Installations
VIII-2 Capital Costs of Installed Wastewater Treatment VIII-3
Systems
VIII-3 Annual Operating Costs of Wastewater Treatment VIII-4
Systems
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Cont.)
Table No.
Title
Page
VIII-4
Cost of Sludge or Wastewater Removal by
Contract Hauler
viii-5
VIII-5
Physical/Chemical Pretreatment Systems
Capital Costs
VI11-9
VIII-6
Physical/Chemical Pretreatment Systems
Operating Costs
VIII-10
VIII-7
Wastewater Recycle System - Capital Costs
VIII-12
VIII-8
Wastewater Recycle System - Operating Costs
VIII-13
VIII-9
Ultrafiltration - Capital Costs
VIII-15
VIII-10
Ultrafiltration - Operating Costs
VIII-16
VIII-11
Wastewater Disposal by Contract Hauling -
Capital Costs
VIII-17
VIII-12
Wastewater Disposal by Contract Hauling -
Operating Costs
VIII-18
VIII-13
Forced Evaporation - Capital Costs
VIII-20
VIII-14
Forced Evaporation - Operating Costs
VIII-21
VIII-15
Biological Treatment (Aerated Lagoon) -
Capital Costs
VIII-22
VIII-16
Biological Treatment (Aerated Lagoon) -
Operating Costs
VIII-23
VIII-17
Advanced Wastewater Treatment by Granular
Activated Carbon Adsorption - Capital Costs
VIII-25
VIII-18
Advanced Wastewater Treatment by Granular
Carbon Adsorption - Operating Costs
VIII-26
VIII-19
Approximate Energy Usage for Various Wastewater
Treatment Alternatives
VIII-27
VIII-20
Characteristics of Sludge from Physical/Chemical
Treatment Systems
VIII-28
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Page
III-l Flow Diagram of Manufacturing Process for III-7
Solvent Base Paint
III-2 Flow Diagram of Manufacturing Processes III-9
Water Base Paint
III-3 Geographical Distribution of Paint 111-16
Manufacturing Sites
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will propose any
appropriate effluent limitations for BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, and
pretreatment standards for new and existing sources of the
Paint Industry upon review and evaluation of technical infor-
mation contained in this document, comments from reviewers of
this document, and other technical and economic information as
appropriate.
1-1
-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will propose any
appropriate effluent limitations for BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, and
pretreatment standards for new and existing sources of the
Paint Industry upon review and evaluation of technical infor-
mation contained in this document, comments from reviewers of
this document, and other technical and economic information as
appropriate.
II-l
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY
LBurns and Roejlndustrial Services Corp. (BRISC){was con-
tracted] by the Environmental Protection Agency, underH^ontract 68-
01-3502, (to develop an industry profile and descriptions of alter-
native treatment and control technologies, both in-plant and end-
of-pipe, for the Paint Industry. / The contract specified that all
available sources of historical data be reviewed, that plants
would be visited and sampled and evaluated for the presence of
priority pollutants. The priority pollutants are comprised of 129
chemicals listed in Appendix E of this document designated by the
EPA as toxic or potentially toxic compounds. The contract further
specified that plant-generated monitoring data required by existing
permits be collected and analyzed.
The purpose of this document is to provide the technical data
base for a review by the Environmental Protection Agency of BAT,
NSPS, and Pretreatment Standards for the Paint Industry. Infor-
mation is presented on the processes, procedures, and effectiveness
of technology which will result in the elimination or reduction in
pollutant discharge from the industry. Data concerning the costs
of implementing such technology are also included.
DOCUMENT FORMAT
For the sake of cost effectiveness in the preparation of
subsequent documents, the sections used in this report follow the
standard format for guidelines documents.
PREVIOUS STUDIES OF THE PAINT INDUSTRY
As part of the current study, previous work on the wastewater
generated by the paint industry was reviewed. Specific reports
that provided valuable background information included:
"Waterborne Wastes of.the Paint and Inorganic Pigments
Industries, (1974)'
"Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guide-
lines and New Source Performance Standards for the Oil
Base Solvent Wash Subcategories of the Paint.and Ink
Formulating Point Source Category, (1975)"
"Draft Development Document for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards and New Source
Performance Standards, Paint,and Ink Formulating Point
Source Categories, (1976)'
III-l
-------
"Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices:
Paint and Allied Products Industry, Contract Solvent
Reclaiming Operations, and Factory Applied Coatings,
(1976) "
The first report listed above was prepared for the EPA
National Environmental Research Center, Office of Research and
Development, Cincinnati by the Southern Research Institute (SRI)
of Birmingham, Alabama. This document which is referred to as the
"SRI" report was published March, 1974 and represented the first
EPA effort to characterize the wastewater generation and practices
of the paint industry. The SRI report was used as a basis for
comparison to profile information generated in conjunction with
the current report.
EPA Effluent Guidelines Division's (EGD) first effort in the
paint industry resulted in the February, 1975 publication of the
Development Document for the Solvent Base Solvent Wash Subcategories
of the industry. Prepared by the National Field Investigations
Center, Denver, this document served as the basis for the July 28,
1975 promulgation of no discharge regulations for BPT, BAT, NSPS
and New source pretreatment standards for this subcategory. The
information presented in this document was based on the SRI report
and data on paint plant wastewater provided by the East Bay Muni-
cipal Utilities District (EBMUD) of Oakland, California.
The last Draft Development Document listed was prepared by
Burns and Roe for EGD. This report, never released by the EGD,
referred to as the "1976 study" covers investigations aimed at
providing additional detailed information related to wastewater
management in those segments of the paint industry not covered by
the July 28, 1975 no discharge regulations. The data presented in
the 1976 report were based on a program of plant sampling and
analysis as well as on numerous plant visits and evaluations.
These data have been incorporated into the present Document.
The final document listed above was prepared by the EPA
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. The report focused on
the hazardous waste aspects of the paint industry and served as a
good source of confirming information and for comparison with
survey data generated during the current study.
These four reports coupled with information derived from
miscellaneous EGD and other technical documents served as the
initial basis for the current study.
SURVEY DEVELOPMENT
Development of Mailing Lists
Rather than attempt to contact a small but statistically
valid sample of the Paint Industry, it was determined that through
the use of computerized marketing information services, virtually
III-2
-------
all paint manufacturing sites could be identified for receipt of a
Data Collection Portfolio (DCP). In order to accomplish this, a
copy of the Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) "Dun's Market Identifiers"
computer data tapes was obtained. On these tapes, general business
information is recorded according to Standard Industrial Classi-
fication (SIC) for essentially all commercial establishments in
the United States. For SIC 2851, Paint and Allied Products, the
D&B tapes utilized contain 2,148 entries.
To avoid mailing DCP forms to inappropriate respondents, the
D&B data were checked against two standard .Paint Industry references:
the 1975 Kline Guide to the Paint Industry and the 1976 Paint
Red Book. All sites listed under SIC 2851 were manually checked
against these two references. The cross-check yielded a number of
additions and deletions to the list. The resultant mailing list
contained 2778 names and addresses of potential paint manufacturing
sites. While it was expected that the number of entries on this
list exceeded the actual number of paint manufacturing sites due
to duplications, incorrect addresses, plant closures and relo-
cations, attempts at further refinements were not expected to be
cost effective.
The resulting final mailing list was computerized and trans-
ferred to address labels to facilitate distribution of the port-
folios. Each address was given a unique code number to be used on
all documents related to that site, and which was maintained to
assure that each response would be appropriately catalogued.
Data Collection Portfolio
In addition to standard references, a primary source of
information for the industry profile was the DCP responses submitted
by operators of paint manufacturing facilities. Several factors
were taken into consideration during development of the survey
package.
The organization of the DCP was based on several major areas
of interest. To cover these areas the DCP form was divided into
seven sections.
General Information
Plant Operations
Production Characteristics
Tank and Equipment Cleaning (representing a major
wastewater source in many paint plants)
Other Wastewater Sources
Wastewater Handling and Disposal
Raw Materials
The final format of the DCP as depected in the Appendix A
represents several stages of development, including review by
members of the National Paint and Coatings Association (NPCA)
Water Quality Task Force and EPA's Office of Analysis and Evaluation.
III-3
-------
SURVEY DATA REDUCTION
A total of 2778 Paint Industry DCP's were mailed to locations
indicated as possible paint manufacturing sites. It was suspected
at the time of the DCP mailing that the list of possible sites may
have contained a certain amount of redundancy. In fact, standard
references, such-as the 1972 Department of Commerce Census of
Manufacturers, indicated that only about 1600 operating paint
plants existed in the United States at that time. The number of
completed DCP forms actually received and encoded on the data
tapes was 1374. Several survey forms were received after develop-
ment of all computer tapes, and are not included on data reports,
or profile information. The remainder of the portfolios mailed
out were accounted for under several general categories:
Portfolios marked "Not a Manufacturing Site" indicating
that the portfolio was received by a corporate, retail,
or other site not involved in paint manufacture.
- Portfolios mailed to paint manufacturers who were no
longer in business.
- Duplicate portfolios mailed to operating paint pro-
duction plants.
Portfolios that were undeliverable and returned.
Portfolios received, but not completed and returned.
Twenty firms, or 5 percent of the total number of non-respondents
were randomly selected to be interviewed by telephone. The results
indicate 30 percent manufacture paint (all of these plants have
been classified as very small for the EPA economic analysis), 30
percent do not manufacture paint, and 40 percent could not be
contacted at the address used on the mailing list.
All DCP respondents were instructed to answer survey questions
pertaining to annual production or employment on the basis of
their 1976 operations. For all other questions the respondents
were directed to provide information on the basis of current
operations. Consequently, the bulk of the survey information used
in the following profile of the industry is based on operation
during mid-1977.
PROFILE OF THE PAINT INDUSTRY
The major products of the paint industry (SIC 2851) are trade
sales paints, which are primarily off the shelf exterior and
interior paints for buildings and other structures, and industrial
finishes, also called chemical coatings, sold to manufacturers for
factory application to such products as automobiles, aircraft,
furniture, machinery, etc.
III-4
-------
In addition to paints, the industry produces varnishes and
lacquers, which consist of film-forming binders (resins or drying
oils) dissolved in volatile solvents or dispersed in water. All
paints and most lacquers contain pigments and extenders (calcium
carbonate, clays and silicates). The industry also produces such
allied products as putty, caulking compounds, sealants, paint and
varnish removers, and thinners.
Production Processes
Paints can be either solvent-base or water-base (also called
latex-base) but there is little difference in the production
processes used. The major production difference is in the carrying
agent; solvent-base paints are dispersed in an oil mixture, while
water-base paints are dispersed in water with a biodegradable
surfactant used as the dispersing agent. Another significant
difference is in the cleanup procedures used. As the water-base
paints contain surfactants, it is much easier to clean up the
formulating tanks with water. The tanks used to make solvent-base
paint are generally cleaned with an organic solvent, but cleaning
with a strong caustic solution is also a common practice (1, 15).
The principal raw materials used in paint manufacture in
terms of pounds consumed are oils, resins, pigments, and solvents.
Drying oils, such as linseed oil, are used as the film-forming
binder in some solvent-base paints. Semi-drying oils are used
in the manufacture of water-base (latex) paints. Some industrial
water-base paints contain a third type of resin, the water-soluble
alkyd resins.
Pigments are used to impart opacity and color to the coatings.
The pigment particles are finely divided to provide good dispersion
in the oil or water medium and to provide good coverage. The four
basic types of pigments are: (1) prime white pigments, such as
titanium dioxide and zinc oxide, (2) colored inorganic and organic
pigments, (3) filler and extender pigments, and (4) metallic
powders. According to the Kline Guide, the paint industry is the
largest consumer of titanium dioxide and inorganic pigments in the
United States.
The paint industry is also a large consumer of solvents,
which are used as the volatile vehicles in coatings and certain
specialty products. The major solvents used are mineral spirits,
toluene, xylene, naphtha, ketones, esters, alcohols, and glycols.
In addition, the industry consumes a wide variety of other addi-
tives and chemical specialties such as dryers, bactericides and
fungicides, defoamers, dispersants, and thickeners. Raw materials
used by the Paint Industry and the possible presence of priority
pollutants will be discussed in more detail later.
III-5
-------
All paints are generally made in batches. The major difference
in the size of a paint plant is in the size of the batches. A
small paint plant will make up batches of from 400 to 1,900 liters
(100 to 500 gal.) while a large plant will manufacture batches of
up to 23,000 liters (6,000 gal.). There are generally too many
color formulations to make a continuous process feasible.
Solvent Base Paint Operations
There are three major steps in the solvent-base paint manu-
facturing process: (1) mixing and grinding of raw materials, (2)
tinting and thinning, and (3) filling operations. The flow diagram
in Figure III-l illustrates these steps.
At most plants, the mixing and grinding of raw materials for
solvent-base paints are accomplished in one production step. For
high gloss paints, the pigments and a portion of the binder and
vehicle are mixed into a paste of a specified consistency. This
paste is fed to a grinder, which disperses the pigments by breaking
down particle aggregates rather than by reducing the particle
size. Two types of grinders are ordinarily used for this purpose:
pebble or steel ball mills, or roll-type mills. Other paints are
mixed and dispersed in a mixer using a saw-toothed dispersing
blade commonly referred to as a high speed disperser.
In the next stage of production, the paint is transferred to
tinting and thinning tanks, occasionally by means of portable
transfer tanks but more commonly by gravity feed or pumping.
Here, the remaining binder and liquid, as well as various addi-
tives and tinting colors, are incorporated. The paint is then
analyzed and the composition is adjusted as necessary to obtain
the correct formulation for the type of paint being produced. The
finished product is then transferred to a filling operation where
it is filtered, packaged and labeled (1, 15). In a large plant,
these operations are usually mechanized. In a small plant, the
operation may entail the use of an overhead crane to lift the tub
onto a platform where an employee fills various-sized cans from a
spigot on the bottom of the tub while other employees hammer lids
on the can and paste on labels.
The paint remaining on the sides of the tanks may be allowed
to drain naturally and the "clingage", as it is called, wasted on
the sides may be cleaned with a squeegee during the filling oper-
ation until only a small quantity of paint remains. The final
cleanup of the tanks generally consists of flushing with a solvent
until clean. The dirty solvent is treated in one of three ways:
(1) it is used in the next paint batch as a part of the formu-
lation; (2) it is placed in drums that are sold to a company where
it is redistilled and resold; or (3) it is collected in drums with
the cleaner solvent being decanted for subsequent tank cleaning
and returned to the drums until only sludge remains in the drum.
The drum of sludge is then sent to a landfill for disposal (1, 15,
16) .
III-6
-------
Tints and
Thinners
T 1
Thin]
an
Tin
Taj
"i
ning
d
ting
nk
r
Filling
Packaging
and
Shipment
Figure III-l - Flew Diagram of Manufacturing Process for Solvent Base Paints
III-7
-------
Some plants clean solvent-base paint tanks and equipment with
hot caustic, either on a regular or periodic basis. The caustic
is generally recycled, and is followed by a water rinse. Part of
this water is returned to the caustic tank as make-up, and any
remaining water is disposed of by (1) discharging to the sewer or
receiving water, (2) holding, treating and discharging to a sewer
or receiving water, (3) drumming and landfilling, or (4) reusing
as rinse water. In plants that manufacture both solvent-base and
latex-base paints, this rinse water is often combined with the
wastewater from latex-base paint operations.
Water Base Paint Operations
Water-base paints are produced in a slightly different manner
from solvent-base paints. The pigments and extending agents are
usually received in proper particle size, and the dispersion of
the pigment, surfactant and binder into the vehicle is accomplished
with a saw-toothed high speed dispenser. In small plants, the
paint is thinned and tinted in the same tank, while in larger
plants the paint is transferred to special tanks for final thinning
and tinting. Once the formulation is correct, the paint is transferred
to a filling operation where it is filtered, packaged and labeled
in the same manner as for solvent-base paints.
The production process for water-base paints is diagrammed in
Figure III-2. The average composition of common water-base paints
is shown in Table III-l. This table does not include small quan-
tities of preservatives or dryers that may contain trace quantities
of heavy metals nor does it include the organic biocides.
TABLE III-l
COMPOSITION OF COMMON WATER-BASE PAINTS (17)
Type of Paint
Ingredient
Polyvinyl Acetate
Percent
Acrylic
Percent
Titanium dioxide
Calcium carbonate
Zinc oxide
Silicates
Synthetic latex solids
Acrylic resin
Plasticizer
Soy alkyd resin
Water
10.2
3.4
20.4
11.2
52.2
2.6
20.0
4.1
13.0
15.7
2.5
44.7
Total percent by weight
100.0
100.0
III-8
-------
Figure III-2
Flew Diagram of Manufacturing Process for Water-Base Paints
III-9
-------
As in the solvent-base paint operation, as much product as
possible may be removed from the sides of the tub or tank before
final cleanup starts. Cleanup of the water-base paint tubs is
done simply by washing the sides with a garden hose or a more
sophisticated washing device. The washwater may be: (1) collected
in holding tanks and treated before discharge; (2) collected in
drums and taken to a landfill; (3) discharged directly to a sewer
or receiving stream; (4) reused in the next paint batch; or (5)
reused in the washing operation.
Some paint plants may regularly or occasionally rinse latex-
base paint tanks and equipment with hot caustic, in a similar
manner to that described for solvent-base paints. Any rinse water
generated is combined with the regular cleanup water, and disposed
of by one of the same methods.
Other Manufacturing Operations
Some of the larger paint plants manufacture the synthetic
resins used: either the usual alkyd resin, a water-soluble alkyd
resin or an acrylic resin. The manufacture of either type involves
an esterification process in which polybasic acids and polyhydric
alcohols react with various oils or fatty acids. The raw materials
are fed into a large reactor (kettle) equipped with an agitator.
The kettle is then heated to the specified reaction temperature.
Most alkyd resins are cooled, filtered, and stored for use in
paint production or for sale (1). Although resin manufacturing
may be associated with a paint formulation facility, the guide-
lines being developed in this document are only for paint formu-
lation.
Varnish originally was manufactured by the slow cooking and
polymerization of natural oils and resins. This process is rapidly
being replaced by the manufacture of synthetic resins (often
called varnishes) as described above. The only water pollution
loads possible from these processes would be from air pollution
equipment and from the caustic cleaning of the cook tanks. Lacquer
is produced by dissolving certain resins in a solvent base with
the desired pigment. No water is used in these processes and no
liquid wastes are discharged.
General Industry Characteristics
The paint industry consists of an estimated 1500
manufacturing sites operated by 1150 to 1300 companies. Total
industry employment was placed at approximately 66,000 by the 1972
Commerce Department Census of Manufacturers, 36,000 of which were
involved in production. Based on the 1977 survey results, the
number of employees involved in production during 1976 averaged
approximately 43,000. Because the paint industry has simple
111-10
-------
technology and low capital investiment, the industry contains
many small companies. About 41 percent of the companies respond-
ing to the survey have less than 10 employees, and account for
less than 5 percent of industry sales. According to the Kline
Guide to the Paint Industry, the four largest companies (Sherwin
Williams, DuPont, PPG Industries and SCM - Glidden) accounted for
over 30 percent of industry sales in 1974. A breakdown of plant
size according to number of employees based on the Data Collection
Portfolios is presented in Table III-2.
Table III-3 summarizes some pertinent paint industry statis-
tics as outlined in the 1972 Census Of Manufacturers. According
to the census, there were 1599 paint plants in 1972, down from
1788 plants a decade earlier. Only 687 plants of the 1599 had
more than 20 employees. It should be noted that the census did
not poll small single establishment companies which represent the
majority of all paint firms. The census data were derived from
payroll and sales data as well as records of other government
agencies. Industry averages were used to obtain many of their
statistics. Nevertheless, the 1972 census does provide some
important comparative data.
In 1972, the Census of Manufacterers valued total paint
production at $3.8 billion. According to the Kline Guide, for
1974 the value of trade sales products amounted to $1.87 billion
and the value of industrial finishes was $1.80 billion, or a total
of $3.67 billion. Shipments in 19?4 were 1.8 billion liters {475
million gallons) of trade sales products and 1.7 billion liters,
(457 million gallons} of industrial finishes, or a total of 3.5
billion liters (0.932 billion gallons). The Kline Guide predicted
a 3 percent annual growth in shipments and a 5 percent growth, in
dollar volume of shipments of paint through 1980. Data from the
1374 plants responding to the 1977 Paint Industry questionnaire
indicate that the industry shipped about 3,8 billion liters (1
billion gallons) of paint in 1976 valued at approximately $4
billion. The quantity and value of shipments of trade sale
products as reported in the Kline Guide are shown in Table III-4.
Table III-5 depicts similar information for industrial finishes.
The overall geographic distribution of paint plants is
depicted in Figure III-3 and on Table III-6. Paint plants tend
to be clustered around population centers, due to the expense of
transporting paint long distances. As shown in Table III-7, five
states (California, New Jersey, New York, Illinois and Ohio)
contain 626 or 46 percent of the 1374 plants responding to the
survey. Ten states have 6 7 percent of the paint plants within
their boundaries and 20 states have 87 percent of all plants. The
states with the largest concentration of plants also account for
most of the dollar volume of paint shipments. Generally, the
value of paint produced is proportional to the number of plants
111-11
-------
TABLE III-2
NUMBER OF PRODUCTION EMPLOYEES IN PAINT PLANTS (1976)
Number of Employees Number of Plants Percent of Total
0-10
562
40.9
11-20
286
20.8
21-30
134
9.8
31-40
64
4.7
41-50
66
4.8
51-60
49
3.6
61-70
30
2.2
71-80
15
1.1
81-90
19
1.4
91-100
19
1.4
101-150
52
3.8
Over 150
53
3.9
No Data
25
1.8
Total
1374
100%
111-12
-------
TABLE III-3
PAINT INDUSTRY PROFILE
1972 CENSUS OF MANUFACTURERS
Number of Percent of Value of Percent of
Number of Employees Plants AllPlants Shipments All Shipments
($million)
1-9
629
39.3
$ 125
3.3
10-19
283
17.7
208
5.4
20-49
347
21.7
581
15.2
50-99
196
12.3
748
19.6
Over 100
144
9.0
2,163
56.5
TOTAL
1599
100.0%
$3,825
100.0%
111-13
-------
TABLE III-4
ESTIMATED U.S. SHIPMENTS OF
TRADE SALES BY END USE (1974)
End Use
Million
Liters
Million
Gallons
Million
Dollars
Interior Finishes
House paints
Water emulsion
Flat
Semigloss
All purpose
Other
Total
Oil and alkyd
Flat
Semigloss
High-gloss
Undercoaters, primers
Total
Miscellaneous
(a)
Total interior
Exterior Finishes
House paints
Water emulsion
Oil and alkyd
Enamels
Undercoaters, primers
Total
Miscellaneous'
Total exterior
(b)
473
151
49
45
719
38
57
57
19
170
114
1003
341
76
38
38
492
57
549
125
40
13
12
190
10
15
15
5
45
30
265
90
20
10
10
130
15
145
370
145
35
40
590
40
70
90
20
220
110
920
330
130
65
35
560
105
665
Other Trade Sales Products
Automotive refinishing
Traffic, paints
Other
Total other
Total, Trade sales
132
95
19
246
1798
35
25
5
65
475
200
60
26
286
$1,871
a-Includes stains, varnishes, seamless flooring and ceramic-like
tile
b-Includes, barn, roof and fence coatings, bituminous products,
metallic paints stains and varnishes.
c-Mostly marine shelf goods.
Source: Estimates by C.H. Kline & Co., Copyright 1975
111-14
-------
TABLE III-5
ESTIMATED U.S. SHIPMENTS OF
INDUSTRIAL FINISHES BY END USE (1974)
Million
Liters
Transportation equipment
Motor vehicles 246
Marine 57
Railroad, aircraft, & other 57
360
Industrial maintenance
Furniture
Wood
Metal
Prefinis.hed stock
Metal
Wood
Metal decorating
Packaging
Other
Machinery and equipment'
Appliances
Packaging, exc. metal
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
208
189
95
284
114
76
190
189
57
246
114
76
38
215
1730
Million
Gallons
65
15
15
95
55
50
25
75
30
20
50
50
15
65
30
20
10
57
457
Million
Dollars
290
70
40
400
220
125
90
215
140
65
205
170
50
220
120
90
35
296
$1,801
a— Includes data for insulating varnishes and magnet wire
enamels
Source: C. H. Kline & Co., Copyright 1975
111-15
-------
.^ALASKA
t-l
I
I-1
o\
PUERTO RICO
VIRGIN ISLANDS
tSfVS
6
»»AlN£
3
109
^ MICHIGAN
47
"10
ort*° I 6€L
"112
34 \ 103 Y' 4
l^oiAHAy^^^es^
22
iTUCK'L
13
M*s2J£-ln^
&L.
3
*20
*o***
20
SOOT*
CAROLINA ^
5
15 / MISS.
LOUISIANA
12
alAbaWA_
35
GEORGIA |
FLORID*
FIGURE III-3
GEOGRAPH rC '-T. DISTRIBUTION OF PAINT MANUFACTURING SITES
-------
TABLE III-6
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF PAINT PLANTS
EPA Region
Number of Plants
0-20 20-100 Over 100 Not
Total Employees Employees Employees Indicated
Region I
Connecticut
10
6
4
0
0
Maine
3
3
0
0
0
Massachusetts
54
36
16
1
1
New Hampshire
3
2
1
0
0
Rhode Island
5
4
1
0
0
Vermont
2
1
1
0
0
Total
77
51
21
~T
"T
Region II
New Jersey
112
60
37
10
5
New York
109
84
17
6
2
Puerto Rico
6
3
2
1
0
Virgin Islands
0
0
0
0
0
Total
227
117
TS
17
"7
Region III
Delaware
3
0
3
0
0
D.C.
0
0
. 0
0
0
Maryland
20
8
10
2
0
Pennsylvania
66
40
19
6
1
Virginia
13
6
7
0
0
West Virginia
4
3
1
0
0
Total
106
TT
V5
T
~T
Region IV
Alabama
12
6
4
2
0
Florida
69
59
8
0
2
Georgia
35
20
10
4
1
Kentucky
22
5
13
4
0
Mississippi
5
4
1
0
0
North Carolina
20
9
7
3
1
South Carolina
5
3
1
1
0
Tennessee
17
9
6
2
0
Total
rre
TT?
TO
T5
"7
Region V
Illinois
106
50
38
15
3
Indiana
34
22
8
4
0
Michigan
47
25
16
5
1
Minnesota
19
12
6
1
0
Ohio
103
60
31
10
2
Wisconsin
34
26
6
1
1
Total
TS5
135.
IS
"7
Region VI
Arkansas
7
5
1
1
0
Louisiana
15
11
4
0
0
New Mexico
3
2
1
0
0
Oklahoma
9
7
1
0
1
Texas
58
34
18
6
0
Total
7?
"7
"T
Region VII
Iowa
13
8
4
1
0
Kansas
10
6
2
2
0
Missouri
51
30
16
5
0
Nebraska
2
2
0
0
0
Total
"77
"27
S
15
Region VIII
Colorado
11
8
3
0
0
Montana
3
3
0
0
0
North Dakota
0
0
0
0
0
South Dakota
1
1
0
0
0
Utah
4
3
1
0
0
Wyoming
1
1
0
0
0
Total
-IS
I
s
"5
Region IX
Arizona
6
4
2
0
0
California
196
123
57
12
4
Hawaii
0
0
0
0
0
Nevada
1
1
0
0
0
Total
75T
US'
"17
~T
Region X
Alaska
1
1
0
0 .
0
Idaho
2
2
0
0
0
Oregon
20
14
6
0
0
Washington
22
16
6
0
0
Total
45
33
12
0
0
Accumulative Total
1374
848
396
105
25
111-17
-------
TABLE III-7
SHIPMENT OF PAINT MANUFACTURING PLANTS BY STATE
Percent Percent
of all Shipments of all Shipments.
State Number of Plants Percent of Plants by Dollar Value *¦ ' by Dollar Value ^ '
California
196
14.3
13.7
13.0
New Jersey
112
8.2
8.2
10.5
New York
109
7.9
4.9
5.7
Illinois
106
7.7
11.4
13.2
Ohio
103
7.5
8.9
9.5
Florida
69
5.0
1. 7
1.6
Pennsylvania
66
4.8
4.4
6.2
Texas
'58
4.2
5.9
5.9
Massachusetts
54
3.9
2.2
1.8
Missouri
51
3.7
3.9
4.1
Michigan
47
3.4
4.3
5.6
Georgia
35
2.5
3.1
3.4
Indiana
34
2.5
2.1
1.6
Wisconsin
34
2.5
1.4
1.3
Kentucky
22
1.6
2.9
3.9
Washington
22
1.6
1.3
0.7
Maryland
20
1.5
2.4
2.1
North Carolina
20
1.5
2.7
1.9
Oregon
20
1.5
0.6
NA
Minnesota
19
1.4
0.6
1.0
All Others
177
12.9
13.4
7
(1) Source: DCP
C21 1972 Census of Manufacturers
-------
in a state? however, there are some exceptions. Illinois, for
example, which is fourth in the number of paint plants, has more
large plants than any other state and consequently is second only
to California in paint shipments. New York and Florida which have
a preponderance of small paint plants produce proportionally less
paint per plant than average.
Data on the dollar value of paint shipments from both the
1972 Census of Manufacturers and from the current survey results
are also presented in Table III-7. The data points show good
agreement on a state-by-state basis. Generally, the 1972 census
indicates that the paint industry was more concentrated than the
1977 survey shows. The census indicates that 93 percent of paint
shipments originate in 19 states, while the questionnaire shows
those 19 states accounting for both 86 percent of shipments and 86
percent of plant sites. The value of paint shipments was cal-
culated by multiplying the number of plants responding to each
size range as designated in the DCP, by the midpoint of the
dollar range. For the 111 plants indicating shipments of over $10
million, an assumed average value of $15 million per plant was
used.
Comparison of the 1972 census data and the 1977 survey data
indicates that the number of plants reporting over 100 employees
declined during the 1970's by 27 percent, twice as great a decline
as reported for the total number of plants. In addition, compar-
ison of 1977 survey responses with the Paint Red Book and Kline
Guide plant listings shows 100 percent response to the survey from
the largest plants.
Generally, large paint plants follow the distribution of the
industry as a whole. A tabulation of the location by state, of
plants with over 50, and over 100 employees is presented in Table
III-8. The thirteen states on Table III-8 contained approximately
70 percent of all paint plant sites, 80 percent of all plants with
over 50 employees, and 85 percent of all paint plants with over
100 employees. As with production volume, California and Illinois
have the most large paint plants, followed by Ohio and New Jersey.
These four states have 46 percent of the large paint plants vs. 38
percent of all plants and 42 percent of production value.
Of all paint plants responding to the survey, 65 percent
indicated that they were the only manufacturing location for that
company. Twenty-three percent of the plants are branch plants of
a multiple plant company, while 13 percent are divisions of a
parent corporation. Less than 1 percent of the plants are captive
manufacturing sites which produce paint solely for internal
consumption. Of the plants responding that they were branch
plants, divisions or captive sites, almost 80 percent were set up
as profit centers, while the remainder were cost centers. Twenty-
two percent, or 301 plant sites, are part of a publicly held
111-19
-------
TABLE II1-8
DISTRIBUTION OF LARGE PAINT PLANTS, BY STATE
Number of
Plants
Number
of Plants
% of All Paint
with Over 100
Percent of
with Over 50
Percent
State
Plants
Employees
Total
Employees
Total
Illinois
7.7
15
14.3
32
13.5
California
14.3
12
11.4
32
13.5
New Jersey
8.2
10
9.5
23
9.7
Ohio
7.5
10
9.5
22
9.3
New York
7.9
6
5.7
11
4.6
Pennsylvania
4.8
6
5.7
8
3.4
Texas
4.2
6
5.7
12
5.1
Michigan
3.4
5
4.8
12
5.1
Missouri
3.7
5
4.8
9
3.8
Georgia
2.5
4
3.8
7
3.0
Indiana
2.5
4
3.8
7
3.0
Kentucky
1.6
4
3.8
10
4.2
North Carolina
1.5
3
2.9
5
2.1
All Others
31.2
15
14.3
47
19.8
TOTAL
100%
105
100%
237
100%
-------
corporation, and 70 percent, or 963 remaining 8 percent of the
industry falls under other forms of organization such as coop-
eratives, partnerships, proprietorships, or did not answer the
questions on company organization.
The Paint Industry breakdown by age of manufacturing facility
is presented in Table III-9. A cross tabulation of plant age and
number of employees included in Appendix B indicates that over 50
percent of the paint plants with over 100 employees are more than
30 years old (vs. 31 percent industry-wide), and less than one-
quarter of the plants with under ten employees are in facilities
over 30 years old. Only 14 percent of large plants are in facil-
ities less than ten years old, while 31 percent of small plants
are in these facilities (vs. 25 percent industry-wide).
Industry Wide Plant Operations
In the Paint Industry, the primary plant operation is the
blending of various size batches of paint. Paints are often
custom-manufactured in batch sizes as small as 190 liters (50
gallons), or mass manufactured for off-the-shelf trade sales in
batches as large as 38,000 liters (10,000 gallons) or more. As
part of the 1977 survey, plants were asked how many tanks they had
in various sizes. In Table 111-10, a summary of production tank
sizes used in the Paint Industry is presented.
Total available tankage for the industry is estimated to be
approximately 30,000 tanks, as indicated in Table III-ll. Half of
the tankage in the industry is less than 9500 liters (250 gallons),
accounting for about 12 percent of capacity. The majority of the
industry's capacity is in tanks of 9,500-23,000 liters (2500-6000
gallons). Large paint plants (those with over 100 employees) have
approximately 27 percent of all tanks, but have over 40 percent of
total industry capacity.
The batch nature of paint manufacture, makes it easy to
start-up and shut-down production, unlike continuous manufacturing
activities. Consequently, the paint Industry is primarily set-up
on a one shift per day five day per week basis. Eighty-seven
percent of the plants responding to the survey question concerned
with shift operation indicated that they operate one shift per
day, while 9 percent operate two shifts and only 4 percent operate
three shifts. Almost 90 percent of the plants have 8-hour shifts,
with the next most common shift lengths being seven hours and ten
hours (4 percent each). Over 80 percent of the plants responding
to the survey operate five days per week, while 6 percent operate
four days weekly. Only 24 plants (2 percent) work more than five
days per week, but surprisingly, 130 plants (10 percent) indicate
work weeks of under four days. A breakdown of these 130 plants
indicate that over 90 percent of these plants have less than ten
employees, and over 95 percent of the plants have under 20 employees.
111-21
-------
TABLE III-9
PAINT INDUSTRY BREAKDOWN BY AGE
Age
Number of Plants
Percent
Less than 3 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
11 to 20 years
21 to 30 years
Over 30 years
Did not answer
67
102
168
321
268
426
22
4.9
7.4
12.2
23.4
19.5
31.0
1.6
TOTAL
1374
100%
111-22
-------
TABLE 111-10
PAINT PLANT TANKAGE
Number of Tanks
Tank Size 0 1-5 6-10 11-20 21-50 Over 50
Number of Plants Responding
Less than 250 gal. 106 466 232 182 187 72
251-500 gallons 160 433 151 95 70 19
501-1000 gallons 211 336 117 68 44 8
1001-1500 gallons 296 212 62 44 14 4
1501-2500 gallons 313 186 61 28 8 2
2501-6000 gallons 375 107 34 18 14 0
Over 6000 gallons 449 18 7 - 11
-------
TABLE III-ll
TOTAL PAINT INDUSTRY TANKAGE
Tank Size
(gallons)
Number of
Tanks
Percent of
Total Capacity
Percent of Tankage
in the 105* largest
Plants
Percent of Total
Capacity in the
105* largest Plants
Less than 250
251 - 500
501 - 1000
1001 - 1500
1501 - 2500
2501 - 6000
Over 6000
Total
15,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
1,500
1,000
200
29,700
12
12
16
13
16
23
8
100
2.4
30
40
50
50
60
15
2.9
3.6
6.4
6.5
8.0
13.8
1.2
42.4
*105 plants have over 100 employees, see Table III-2
-------
The majority of all paint plants operate approximately 250
days per year. Thirty-nine percent of the plants indicated that
they work between 201 and -250 days per year, and 41 percent
responded between 251 and 300 days. Of those who knew the exact
number of days, the four most common answers were 260, 250, 251,
and 253 days per year. Twelve percent of the plants operate less
than 200 days per year, and 6 percent operate over 300 days.
Total water usage by the Paint Industry, for all purposes is
shown in Table 111-12. Calculations, based on the survey results
indicate that water usage is between 34 and 140 million liters
daily, (9-37 million gpd), with the most likely average falling
between 76 and 95 million liters per day (20 - 25 million gpd).
The 1971 SRI survey indicated a usage of 284 to 310 million
liters per day (75 to 82 million gpd), but that survey was based
on a selected sampling of plants, weighted heavily toward plants
with over 100 employees. These large plants in recent years have
instituted water conservation programs, which may partly explain
the reduced calculated usage. The SRI questionnaire also included
water used for resin production within paint plants, which was
excluded from the 1977 survey. Generally, resin plants use much
greater amounts of cooling water than paint plants, which explains
part of the difference in water consumption, and also explains
the differences between the surveys in water usage for various
purposes.
Data on water usage for all paint plants also indicate that
most plants use their highest proportions of water for cooling
(24 percent), in product (2 percent) and for sanitary purposes
(30 percent). Other uses include boiler feed water (7 percent),
tank and equipment cleaning (8 percent), air pollution control (1
percent) and miscellaneous (1 percent). The percentage of water
used for various purposes differs between small plants and large
plants, and is shown in Table 111-13. Plants with over 100 employ-
ees have a much greater percentage of non-contact cooling water
than small plants.
Production Characteristics
Data on total Paint Industry production were presented
earlier in this section. In the following paragraphs some of the
production characteristics, analyses, statistics and interrelation-
ships are presented in more detail. Approximately half of the
plants in the Paint Industry specialize primarily in either trade
sales or industrial coatings. The other half of the plants
produce both types of coatings, with a wide variety of fractional
mix. Tables 111-14, 111-15, and 111-16 present the data on
percent of plant product devoted to trade sales, industrial sales
and allied product productions. The "average" plant, based on
the average mix of all plants, produces over 40 percent trade
sale products, just under 50 percent industrial coatings, and
about 9 percent of allied products.
111-25
-------
TABLE 111-12
TOTAL WATER USAGE BY THE PAINT INDUSTRY
Water Consumption(GPP) Number of Plants
Percent
Less than 10,000
10,000-25,000
25,000-50,000
50,000-100,000
100,000-500,000
Over 500,000
Did not Answer
TOTAL
1100
78
52
22
26
6
90
1374
80.1
5.7
3.8
1.6
1.9
0.4
6.6
100.0
111-26
-------
TABLE 111-13
WATER USAGE IN PAINT PLANTS
Use
Average of Plants
with less than 20
employees
(848 plants)
Average of Plants
with 20 - 100
employees
(306 plants)
Average of Plants
with over 100
employees
(105 plants)
Average of all
plants
Used in Product 33%
Cooling 16%
Boiler Feted Water 6%
Tank Cleaning 9%
Sanitary 34%
Air Pollution Control 1%
Other 1%
24%
35%
7%
6%
26%
1%
1%
17%
44%
9%
9%
18%
2%
1%
29%
24%
7%
8%
30%
1%
1%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
-------
TABLE 111-14
PRODUCTION OF TRADE SALES PAINT
Percent of Individual Plant
Production of Number of
Trade Sales Paint Plants
Percent
Of Total Plants
0
1-10
11-20
21-30
31-40
41-50
51-60
61-70
71-80
81-90
91-99
100
No Response
TOTAL
464
125
39
44
39
58
34
47
43
77
160
182
62
1374
33.8
9.1
2.8
3.2
2.8
4.2
2.5
3.4
3.1
5.6
11.6
13.2
4.5
100.0
Average
42%
111-28
-------
TABLE 111-15
PRODUCTION OF INDUSTRIAL SALES PAINT
Percent of Individual Plant
Production of 'Number of Percent of
Industrial Sales Paint Plants Total Plants
0 295 21.5
1-10 190 13.8
11-20 62 4.5
21-30 56 4.1
31-40 38 2.8
41-50 66 4.8
51-60 26 1.9
61-70 33 2.4
71-80 44 3.2
81-90 44 3.2
91-99 111 8.1
100 340 24.7
No Response 69 5.0
TOTAL 1374 100
Average 48%
111-29
-------
TABLE III-16
PRODUCTION OF ALLIED PRODUCTS
In SIC 2851
Percent of Individual Plant
Production of Number of
Allied- Products Plants
Percent of
Total Plants
0
919
66.9
1-10
170
12.4
11-20
22
1.6
21-30
17
1.2
31-40
22
1.6
41-50
15
1.1
51-60
6
0.4
61-70
4
0.3
71-80
7
0.5
81-90
8
0.6
91-99
25
1.8
100
37
2.7
i Response
122
8.9
)TAL
1374
100
Average
9%
(1) Including varnish, powder coatings, shellac, putty, removers,
caulk, etc.
111-30
-------
Paint manufacturers can also be classified by the percent of
water base paints and the percent of solvent base (or solvent
thinned) paints produced. One-third of the paint plants responding
to the survey produce 90 percent or more solvent base paints, but
only 8% of the plants produce a like percentage of water base
paints. A breakdown of paint plants by the percent of water,
solvent or other base paint manufactured is presented in Tables
111-17, 111-18, and 111-19. The "average" plant produces approx-
imately 60 percent solvent base paint and only 35 percent water
base paints. However, there are some differences between plants
which produce primarily (90 percent or more) solvent base paints
and those producing 90 percent or more water base products. These
differences are apparent in Table 111-20. Predictably, plants
making primarily solvent base paint produce mostly industrial
coatings, while the plants dedicated to water base products
manufacture primarily trade sales products, with a high proportion
of white or tint base paints. Although there are only 109 water
base paint plants according to the survey, they form an important
group of plants with respect to wastewater practices, which will
be discussed in Section VII.
The percentages of white or tint base paints and color
formulations produced by paint plants are shown on Tables 111-21
and 111-22. The number of plants in each decile of production is
fairly uniform,but as noted, predominately water base paint
production plants produce a higher percentage of white or tint
base paints than mostly solvent base or solvent thinned production
plants. Approximately one-sixth of the plants in the industry
have a nearly 50/50 breakdown between white or tint base paint
and color paint production.
Tables 111-23 and 111-24 summarize the usage of organic and
inorganic pigments in paints, and can be used to ascertain whether
there is a trend away from heavy metal pigments. This is impor-
tant since many of these heavy metals are priority pollutants.
The survey data show that the industry still relies on inorganic
pigments, with half of the responding plants indicating that they
use over 70 percent inorganic colorants.
As indicated earlier, almost 10 percent of Paint Industry
sales are from allied products. The survey asked for plants to
indicate which of the most common allied products were produced.
This information is presented in Table 111-25. Over half of the
paint plants manufacture varnish on site, although only one-
quarter of plants specializing in water base products produce
varnish (Table 111-20). The other most common allied products are
wood fillers or sealants and paint removers. Some multiple paint
plant respondents indicated the production of the following
additional materials: asphaltic coatings, lacquers, adhesives,
plastisols, epoxy compounds, and stains. The type and character-
istics of paint produced can influence the amount of wastewater
generated and the degree of recycle practiced. These factors will
be discussed in Section VII.
111-31
-------
TABLE 111-17
PRODUCTION OF WATER BASE PAINT
Percent of Individual Plant
Production of Water Base Number of
Paint Plants
Percent of
Total Plants
0
1-10
11-20
21-30
31-40
41-50
51-60
61-70
71-80
81-90
91-99
100
No Response
345
274
86
53
52
63
83
99
79
61
54
55
70
25.1
19.9
6.3
3.9
3.8
4.6
6.0
7.2
5.7
4.4
3.9
4.0
5.1
TOTAL
1374
100
Average
35%
111-32
-------
TABLE 111-18
PRODUCTION OF SOLVENT BASE PAINT
Percent of Individual Plant
Production of Solvent Number of
Base Paint Plants
Percent of
Total Plants
0
1-10
11-20
21-30
31-40
41-50
51-60
61-70
71-80
81-90
91-99
100
No Response
135
98
66
100
78
114
60
50
51
97
229
230
66
9.8
7.1
4.8
7.3
5.7
8.3
4.4
3.6
3.7
7.1
16.7
16.7
4.8
TOTAL
1374
100
Average
60%
111-33
-------
TABLE III-19
PRODUCTION OF OTHER FORMULATED PRODUCTS
Percent of Individual
Plant Production of Number of
Products Plants
Percent of
Total plants
0
1-10
11-20
21-30
31-40
41-50
51-60
61-70
71-80
81-90
91-99
100
No Response
1056
59
11
7
5
8
7
4
1
10
8
16
182
76.9
4.3
0.8
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.1
0.7
0.6
1.2
13.2
TOTAL
1374
100
Average
5%
111-34
-------
TABLE 111-20
COMPARISON OF PRIMARILY WATER BASE AND
PRIMARILY SOLVENT BASE PAINT PRODUCTION PLANTS
Comparison Parameter
Plants 90% or More
Solvent Base Paints
(459 Plants)
Plants 90% or More
Water Base Paints
(109 Plants)
All Plants
(1374 Plants)
H
H
l
u>
Ln
Percent of plants with over 100
employees
Plant age less than 5 years old
Average percent trade sales
Average percent industrial sales
Percent of plants producing over
50% white paint
Percent of plants producing
resins on site
7.0%
10.1%
16%
75%
25%
8%
6.5%
31.2%
74%
23%
84%
1%
7.7%
12.5%
42%
48%
46%
8%
Varnish production
Powder Coatings production
58%
2%
25%
9%
52%
3%
-------
TABLE 111-21
PRODUCTION OF WHITE OR TINT BASE PAINT
Percent of Individual Plant
Production of White or Tint Number of Percent
Base Paint Plants of Total Plants
0 122 8.9
1-10 159 11.6
11-20 106 7.7
21-30 87 6.3
31-40 102 7.4
41-50 122 8.9
51-60 95 6.9
61-70 106 7.7
71-80 113 8.2
81-90 109 7.9
91-99 115 8.4
100 49 3.6
No Response 89 6.5
TOTAL 1374 100
111-36
-------
TABLE III-22
PRODUCTION OF COLOR PAINT
Percent of Individual
Plant Production of Number of Percent
Color Paint Plants of Total Plants
0
125
9.1
1-10
200
14.6
11-20
121
8.8
21-30
127
9.2
31-40
91
6.6
41-50
145
10.6
51-60
105
7.6
61-70
71
5.2
71-80
88
6.4
81-90
87
6.3
91-99
68
4.9
100
40
2.9
No Response
106
7.7
TOTAL
1374
100
111-37
-------
TABLE III-23
USAGE OF INORGANIC PIGMENTS BY PAINT PLANTS
(excluding Titanium Dioxide)
Percent of Individual
Plant's Production Using Number of
Inorganic Pigments Plants
Percent
of Total Plants
0
1-10
11-20
21-30
31-40
41-50
51-60
61-70
71-80
81-90
91-99
100
No Response
92
113
49
39
25
86
44
52
104
156
344
99
171
6.7
8.2
3.6
2.8
1.8
6.3
3.2
3.8
7.6
11.4
25.0
7.2
12.4
TOTAL
1374
100
111-38
-------
TABLE 111-24
USAGE OF ORGANIC PIGMENTS BY PAINT PLANTS
Percent of Individual
Plant's Production Using Number of
Organic Pigments Plants
Percent of
Total Plants
0
1-10
11-20
21-30
31-40
41-50
51-60
61-70
71-80
81-90
91-99
100
No Response
163
437
159
92
43
92
22
29
31
39
51
28
188
11.9
31.8
11.6
6.7
3.1
6.7
1.
2.
2.
2.
6
,1
3
8
3.7
2.0
13.7
TOTAL
1374
100
111-39
-------
TABLE III-25
ALLIED PRODUCTS PRODUCED BY THE PAINT INDUSTRY
Number of Plants Percent of All
Product Producing Plants
Resins 112 8.2
Allied Products
Varnish 716 52.1
Shellac 32 2.3
Caulking Compounds 106 7.7
Putty Products 74 5.4
Gravure Ink 33 2.4
Powder Coatings 47 3.4
Paint Removers 124 9.0
Wood Filler/Sealer 206 15.0
Written In Responses (not necessarily SIC Code 2851)
Lacquers 30 2.1
Asphaltics/Roof Coatings 28 2.0
Adhesives-unspecified 14 1.0
Epoxy Compounds/Adhesives 13 0.9
Plastisol 13 0.9
Stains 12 0.9
Color Concentrate 7 0.5
Enamel 5 0.4
Polyester compounds/gel 5 0.4
Polish/Wax 4 0.3
Leather Compounds 4 0.3
111-40
-------
Raw Materials
Raw materials survey responses indicate that two production
characteristics strongly affect the usage of priority pollutants.
These two production characteristics are industrial versus trade
sales paint production and solvent-base versus water-base paint
production. As an illustration, Table 111-26 presents the percen-
tage of plants using particular priority pollutants within four
segments of the Paint industry, and for the whole industry. These
four segments include plants with 90 percent or more production
of:
Industrial sales paint
Trade sales paint
Solvent base paint
Water base paint
Table 111-26 indicates that many raw materials are more
prevalent in plants specializing in solvent base paint than in
plants producing primarily water-base paint, and more prevalent in
industrial sales paint than in trade sales products. For example,
toluene is used by 84 percent of the plants specializing in solvent-
base paint, and by only 23 percent of the plants specializing in
water-base paint. Toluene is also used by 84 percent of the
plants that concentrate in industrial sales paint, and by 45
percent of the plants primarily engaged in trade sales paint
production. Most of the priority pollutants exhibit similar
trends, in varying degrees. However, some raw materials, such as
chromium and zinc are used by approximately equal percentages of
plants in all four industry segments. To quantify the dependency
of priority pollutant occurrence on production characteristics for
the industry as a whole, the percentage of plants using particular
raw materials or classes of raw materials were plotted against the
percentage of industrial sales and the percentage of solvent-base
paint production (see Appendix E). For each plot, a least squares
fit was calculated. The results of these calculations (slopes and
correlation coefficients) are presented in Table 111-27. For all
but one priority pollutant, the slope of the best fit line is
positive indicating that the overall, however slight, trend is for
greater priority pollutant usage with increased industrial sales
and/or solvent base production. For some of the priority pol-
lutants, the statistical validity of-the fit was better than
others, as reflected in the higher R or correlation coefficient
values. As can be seen from Table 111-27, comparatively good fits
were obtained against at least one parameter for silver, cyanide,
cadmium, chlorinated organic solvents, methylene chloride, phtha-
lates, toluene, vinyl/vinylidene chloride and phenol.
Several explanations for this trend are possible For the
metallic priority pollutants, the trend probably arises from the
fact that both industrial sales and solvent-base paint production
involve much more color production than water and trade sales
operations. For solvents and resins containing priority pollu-
tants, the obvious fact that these materials are used primarily in
solvent thinned and industrial sales products accounts for the
trend.
111-41
-------
12
19
13
76
61
11
3
18
74
14
16
63
48
46
41
30
62
40
5
70
14
13
22
15
TABLE III- 26
PRIORITY POLLUTANT USAGE TRENDS
90% + 90% + 90% + 90% +
Trade Sales Industrial Water Base Solvent
Priority Pollutant Plants Sales Plants Plants Base Plants
(based on 342 (based on 451 (based on 109 (based on 459
Plants) Plants) Plants) Plants)
Percent of Plants
Antimony
3
16
7
14
Cadmium
7.
27
9
24
Copper
8
10
4
11
Chromium
70
78
69
72
Lead
46
65
23
64
Nickel
4
16
4
15
Selenium
1
4
0
4
Silver
12
23
6
20
Zinc
74
74
55
72
PCP
12
9
7
10
Asbestos
16
11
10
12
Cyanides
45
74
38
69
Phenol
34
57
27
53
Mercury
58
27
54
24
Vinyl/Vinylidene Chloride
14
62
17
54
Dichlorobenz idene
18
37
17
34
Naphthalene
50
57
33
61
Phthalates
21
57
16
51
Benzene
2
6
0
6
Toluene
45
84
23
84
Ethylbenzene
8
18
4
17
Isophorone
2
22
1
20
Methylene Chloride
11
26
6
29
Other Chlorinated Solvents
5
24
6
23
-------
TABLE III- 27
SLOPES AND CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS
FOR PLOTS OF PERCENT PRIORITY POLLUTANT USAGE
VERSUS
PERCENT INDUSTRIAL SALES OR PERCENT SOLVENT BASE PRODUCTION
Priority
Pollutant
% Industrial Sales
Production
% Solvent Base
Production
PCP
Nickel
Silver
Dichlorobezidene
Cyanide
Zinc
Cadmium
Chromium
Chlorinated Organic
Solvents
Lead
Ethyl Benzene
Methylene Chloride
Phthalates
Mercury
Naphthanates
Toluene
Vinyl Chloride
Vinylidene Chloride
Copper
Phenol
Antimony
(1)
Slope
.047
.03
.09
.17
.4
.02
.22
.06
.18
.03
.02
.14
.41
-.16
-.09
.29
.39
.02
.20
.1
.4
.03
.16
.3
.42
.0081
.67
.09
.21
.0016
.067
.34
.67
.144
.044
.51
.67
.005
.58
.28
Slope
.006
.12
.10
.24
.3
.07
.2
.03
.13
.3
.09
.2
.32
-.22
.2
.46
.43
.09
.23
.09
.002
.30
.49
.42
.49
.05
.49
.006
.49
.3
.16
.5
.57
.2
.24
.72
.63
.13
.29
.26
excluding Methylene Chloride
111-43
-------
For one priority pollutant, mercury, the trend is reversed.
Mercury is more common in the raw materials used in trade sales
and water-base production by a factor of two to one. Clearly,
mercury is in use as a preservative for those products which, by
their nature, are more vulnerable to spoilage and simultaneously
require longer shelf life.
111-44
-------
SECTION IV
INDUSTRIAL SUBCATEGORIZATION
INTRODUCTION
The following factors were considered for the purpose of
evaluating differences within the Paint Industry that might impact
the regulatory process:
1. Raw materials
2. Products
3. Production methods
4. Size and age of production facilities
5. Wastewater constituents
6. Tank cleaning techniques
Raw Materials and Products
The use of various solvents and resins, extenders (calcium
carbonate, silicates, clays), pigments and dispersing agents are
generally the same for all paints and enamels, except for the use
of solvent or water as the dispersing medium. Water-base and
solvent-base paints are interchangeable in many applications
except that industrial finishes are primarily solvent-based. Even
this is changing, however, because of the air pollution problems
generated in the industrial use of solvent-base paints. Raw
materials and products themselves are therefore not a basis for
subcategorization, except as they influence tank cleaning techniques
which are discussed below.
Production Methods
Both solvent-base and water-base paints may be made in the
same factory, use many of the same raw materials and can be pro-
duced with, generally, the same equipment. Some solvent-base
pigments may be dispersed in roll or ball mills before blending
into the dispersed calcium carbonate, talcs and clays. Because
the production methods for all paints are quite similar, it was
not used as a basis for subcategorization.
Size and Age of Production Facilities
This study showed that the size of a production facility
affects only the volume of wastewater; the characteristics of the
wastes are similar regardless of plant size. Because the paint
manufacturing process equipment has not changed appreciably over
the years, the age of the plant has little bearing on the waste
characteristics. Therefore neither size nor age of paint pro-
duction facilities appear to be a valid basis for subcategorization.
IV-1
-------
Wastewater Constituents
The raw wastewaters generated by paint manufacturing operations
contain a fairly diverse mixture of pollutants. These pollutants
range from oxygen demand and solids to various priority pollutants.
Both water-base and solvent-base paint manufacturing wastewaters
contain substantial quantities of these pollutants. No specific
segment of the industry can be said to have a significantly different
quality of wastewater. Consequently, wastewater constituents do
not provide a good basis for subcategorization.
Tank Cleaning Techniques
Three specific methods of paint tank cleaning are commonly
used in the Paint Industry. These cleaning methods include (1)
solvent wash, (2) caustic wash and (3) water wash. Solvent wash
is used exclusively for cleaning tanks used for solvent-based
paint formulating tanks. When solvent washing is used in solvent-
based operations no wastewater is discharged. Caustic wash techniques
may be used to clean both solvent-base and water-base paint manu-
facturing tanks. Water washing techniques are also used in both
the solvent-base and water-base segments of the Paint Iindustry.
For solvent-base operations, water washing is usually used only to
follow caustic washing of solvent-base tanks. For water-base
operations, water washes often constitute the only tank cleaning
operation. It should be noted however that periodic caustic
cleaning of water-base paint tanks is also a common practice.
The treatability and disposal options for wastewater generated
by water wash and caustic wash operations are essentially the
same. Rinse waters generated following caustic wash are sometimes
less concentrated than exclusively water rinse generated wastewaters,
although the pollutants contained in these two types of wastewater
are similar. Consequently, the methods of treatment and disposal
are alike. In Section VII, it will be shown that there are no
significant differences in the effluent concentrations attained by
the various control technologies for caustic rinses versus water
rinses.
On the other hand, solvent wash operations create significantly
different waste streams, and are handled accordingly. As a result,
tank cleaning techniques appear to be a workable basis for subcate-
gorization.
Subcategorization
On the basis of the foregoing discussion, it is concluded
that tank cleaning techniques offer an appropriate basis for
subcategorization of the Paint Industry. The following two sub-
categories have been chosen.
IV-2
-------
1. Solvent wash (solvent-base solvent wash)
2. Water and/or caustic wash
Effluent Limitations Guidelines for the solvent-base solvent
wash have already been promulgated except for existing indirect
dischargers (EPA 440/l-75/050a).
No further subcategorization on the basis of the raw materials
used, the products produced, the production methods, and the size
and age of facilities is required.
IV-3
-------
SECTION V
WATER USES AND WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION
WASTEWATER SOURCES
Tank and Equipment Cleaning
Wastewater from paint manufacturing plants results primarily
from the rinsing of mixing tanks and filling equipment. Some
additional wastewater may be contributed by floor and spill
cleaning, laboratory and plant sinks, boiler and cooling water
blowdown, air pollution control devices using water, and cleanout
of raw material supply tank cars or trucks. Most paint plants
segregate non-contact cooling water and sanitary wastewater for
discharge to the sewer with no pretreatment.
Paint manufacture involves three basic steps; dispersing of
raw materials, tinting and thinning, and filling and packaging. In
some plants steps one and two are combined by using raw materials
already ground to a fine size for dispersing in the same tanks
where the paint is thinned. Where the steps are performed in
separate vessels, cleanup of dispersion tanks or ball mills is
generally accomplished by rinsing with solvent or water (depending
on the base of that paint batch). This solvent or water is usually
drained into the thin down tank and serves as part of the final
product. Mixing tanks can be rinsed with either water, caustic or
solvent, or cleaned by dry methods, or by some combination of
methods. Water rinses are usually used on water base paint
batches, solvent rinsing on solvent base paint batches and caustic
rinsing may be used for either. Many plants routinely use an
installed caustic washing system for small portable tanks or tote
bins and clean fixed tanks with caustic only when required because
of heavy build up of paint residue. The methods of tank rinsing
practiced by paint plants is presented in Table V-l.
Batches of solvent base paint that are rinsed with solvent
ordinarily generate no wastewater. The used solvent is generally
handled in one of three ways:
use in the next compatible batch of paint as part of the
formulation.
collected and redistilled, either by the plant or by an
outside company, for subsequent resale or reuse.
reuse with or without settling to clean tanks and
equipment until spent, and then drummed off for dis-
posal. If sludge is settled out, it is also drummed off
for disposal, but as a solid waste.
V-l
-------
TABLE V-l
METHODS OF TANK CLEANING USED BY PAINT PLANTS
Rinsing Method Number of Plants Percent of Plants
Water Rinse only* 143 10.4
Solvent Rinse only* 383 27.9
Caustic Rinse or Soak 14 1.0
only*
Dry Cleaning only 24 1.7
Water and Caustic Rinse* 30 2.2
Water and Solvent Rinse* 491 35.7
Solvent and Caustic Rinse* 40 2.9
Water, Solvent and Caustic* 187 13.6
Not Answered 62 4.5
Total Using:
Water 851 62
Solvent 1101 80
Caustic Rinse 163 12
Caustic Soak 164 12
Dry Clean Up 189 14
*With or without dry cleaning of tanks
V-2
-------
Spent tank and equipment rinse water is usually handled in
one of four ways:
reuse in the next compatible batch of paint as part of
the formulation.
reuse either with or without treatment, to clean tanks
and equipment until spent. If sludge is settled out,
it is disposed of as a solid waste.
discharge with or without treatment as wastewater.
disposal as a solid waste.
Plants that use caustic rinse systems usually rinse the
caustic residue with water, although a few plants allow the
caustic to evaporate from the tanks. Evaporation of caustic
however, can cause odor problems, and caustic residue can inter-
fere with some types of paint formulas. There are several types
of caustic systems commonly used by the Paint Industry. For
periodic cleaning of fixed tanks two methods are popular:
Caustic is maintained in a holding tank (usually heated)
and is pumped through fixed piping or flexible hose to
the tank to be cleaned. Often a portable hood is placed
over that tank, with nozzles to direct the spray. The
caustic is returned to the holding tank.
A caustic solution is prepared in the tank to be cleaned,
and the tank is soaked until clean. The caustic solution
is either transferred to the next tank to be cleaned,
stored in drums or a tank for subsequent use, or is
disposed as a liquid or solid waste with or without
treatment.
For cleaning small portable tanks there are three common
methods in use by the paint industry:
Caustic from a holding tank (usually heated) is pumped
to a fixed or portable hood which is placed over the
tank to be cleaned. The caustic drains to a floor drain
or sump and is pumped back to the tank, or is pumped
back directly from the tank.
An open top caustic holding tank is maintained and small
tanks are put into "strainers" and dipped into these
tanks until clean.
Tanks are placed in a "dishwasherylike" device which
circulates hot caustic and a subsequent water rinse.
These devices can handle tanks up to about 1900 liters
(500 gal) .
V-3
-------
The water rinse following a caustic wash is rarely reused in
a subsequent batch of paint. The most common methods for disposal
of this rinse are:
Recycle back into the caustic as make-up water.
Drummed for disposal as a solid waste.
Discharge as a wastewater, with or without pretreatment.
Combination with other plant wastewater prior to treat-
ment or disposal is sometimes practiced.
Most plants using caustic, reuse the caustic solution until
it loses some of its cleaning ability. At that time, the caustic
is disposed of either as a solid waste or wastewater, with or
without neutralization or other treatment. In the 1977 survey,
plants using caustic rinsing were asked to indicate whether their
system was a closed loop system (all of the water rinse is used as
caustic make-up), partial recycle or open (no reuse of the water
rinse). ' There was some confusion among responders regarding the
definitions of the three terms. Seventy plants responded that
they had a closed loop system. Telephone and field contact with
a 20 percent sample of these plants showed that while all of the
plants recycled their caustic solution, none were able to recycle
all of their water rinse. At least one company in the United States
manufactures a true closed loop caustic system. However, it is
not widely used by the paint industry, and several plants indicated
experiencing operating problems with that system, and have dis-
continued its use. Eighty plants responding to the survey recycled
part of their caustic rinse water, and 101 plants indicated no
recycle of rinse water.
Plants responding to the DCP were asked to indicate how many
gallons of water were used to clean tanks of various sizes. The
results are presented in Table V-2, for that section of the industry
indicating the use of water rinsing of tanks. For tank sizes up
to 3800 liters (1000 gals), the majority of plants used less than
2 30 liters (60 gal) to clean the tank after a batch of paint. For
tanks between 3800 and 5700 liters (1001-1500 gal) 37 percent of the
plants required over 230 liters (60 gal) of water. The percent of
plants requiring over 230 liters (60 gal) to clean a mixing tank
increases as expected, as the size of the tank increases. For
tanks between 9500 and 23,000 liters (2500 to 6000 gal) it is
estimated that the average water usage for cleaning falls between
260 and 760 liters (70 and 200 gal) with the most likely average
between 380 and 570 liters (100 to 150 gal).
As stated previously, the amount of water generated from one
tank cleaning is influenced by the water pressure used. A cross-
tabulation of water pressure by volume of water for each range of
tank size is presented in Appendix C. These tables illustrate that
V-4
-------
TABLE V-2
AMOUNT OF WATER USED TO CLEAN A PAINT TANK
Water Used Per Tank Cleaning
Tank Size
Under 250 gal.
251-500 gal.
501-1000 gal.
1001-1500 gal.
1501-2500 gal.
2501-6000 gal.
Over 6000 gal.
0-60 gal. 61-100 gal. 101-200 gal. Over 200 gal. Total
97.9
90.2
79.6
62.9
54.7
38.6
59.4
Percent of Plants Responding
1.6
7.1
13.5
22.5
22.0
26.7
15.6
0.4
1.9
3.1
9.6
11.3
18.8
12.5
0.1
0.9
3.8
5.1
11.9
15.8
12.5
100%
100
100
100
100
100
100
V-5
-------
there is some correlation between the two variables, and plants
with high pressure rinses tend to generate less tank cleaning
wastewater per batch of paint.
The amount of wastewater used to clean filling equipment is
highly variable from plant to plant. Visits and phone contact
with many paint plants indicate that filling equipment rinsing
ranges from 10% of the volume of wastewater used for tank cleaning
to ten times the volume of tank rinsing water. Factors that
influence the amount of water used include the pressure of rinse
water, and the existence or absence of floor drains. Where there
are no troughs or floor drains, equipment is often cleaned by hand
with rags, while there is a greater tendency to use hoses where
there is an area for wastewater to drain. Of course, the latter
circumstances generate a much larger volume of water. The one
remaining source of wastewater that may have contact with paint
solids is floor cleaning or spill handling. Again, where there are
no floor drains, dry cleanup methods, mopping or floor scrubbers
are often used, which generate little or no water. Some plants,
however, perform floor cleaning in production areas by hosing down
the floor, and allowing the water to flow into floor drains. The
variation in wastewater generation from plant to plant and a
review of potential sources control of wastewater from paint
operations is presented in Section VII of this report.
Other Pollutant Sources
Beyond process wastewater generated as a result of tank and
equipment cleaning, there are other sources of pollutants within
the typical paint plant. These wastewater streams must be con-
sidered in any water management schemes developed for the Paint
Industry. The following are the most common sources of poten-
tially contaminated wastewater found at paint manufacturing fac-
ilities, other than those discussed in the preceding section:
Resin and pigment plant wastewater from paint plants
which produce some of their own raw materials at the
same site. These data were collected under other
industry groups by EPA and are discussed in other
documents.
Bad or spoiled paint batches which are not reused in
other products or discharged as a solid waste.
Residue from spills, which is discharged to the sewer or
combined with other wastewater.
Contaminated storm water runoff.
Wastewater from cleaning tank trucks delivering raw
materials, such as latex.
V-6
-------
Wastewater from plant or laboratory sinks used for
rinsing hand equipment coated with paint, or for dis-
posal of small quantities of paint.
Steam condensate from steam injection distillation of
solvents used to clean paint tanks.
Contact water from air pollution control devices.
Other wastewater sources which do not contact the paint or
raw materials, but which may contain classical pollutants include:
- Sanitary wastewater
Non-contact Cooling water
Boiler blowdown
Non-contact steam condensate
In the survey, plants were asked to indicate which of these
wastewater sources were combined with tank cleaning wastewater
before disposal. The three most common answers were sanitary
wastewater, non-contact cooling water, and laboratory wastewater.
As with water usage which was discussed in an earlier section,
sanitary wastewater and cooling water account for over half of the
total wastewater stream at most paint plants, with tank cleaning
wastes and boiler blowdown making the next largest contribution.
Table V-3 presents the number of plants which generate each
miscellaneous source of wastewater.
Wastewater Volume
The Paint Industry, in total, generates approximately 5.7
million liters (1.5 million gallons) of process wastewater daily,
about half of which is actually discharged. The other half is
reused by paint plants, evaporated or drummed off for disposal as
a solid waste. Consistent with the typical trend in the paint
industry, a few large plants generate most of the wastewater,
while the many small plants account for just a small percentage of
the industry's total flow. Table V-4 presents the amount of
process wastewater generated by all paint plants responding to the
1977 DCP. Process wastewater for this study was defined as only
that wastewater that has an opportunity to contact paint solids,
such as tank wash water, caustic wash rinse water and floor wash
water. Other wastewaters such as sanitary or non-contact cooling
water were not considered to be part of the process wastewater
stream.
The most important factor that affects the volume of process
wastewater generated and discharged at paint plants is the per-
centage of solvent base and water base paints produced. A com-
parison of wastewater generation volumes among plants producing
V-7
-------
TABLE V-3
OTHER POLLUTION SOURCES
Source
Number of Plants
Responding
Percent of
All Plants
Spray Booths
Wet Scrubbers
Boiler Blowdown
Laboratory
Steam Condensate
27
52
75
115
38
2
4
6
8
3
Solvent is Redistilled
on site: 69
By Steam Injection
Distillation 25
Spent Caustic is Discharged
to Sanitary Sewer 91
Spent Solvent is Discharged
to Sanitary Sewer 13
V-8
-------
TABLE V-4
WASTEWATER GENERATION
All Plants
Plants Using a Water Rinse
Wastewater
Generated
(gpd)
0
1 - 100
101 - 500
500 - 1,000
1,000 - 6,000
6,000 - 12,000
Over 12,000
Not Answered
Total
Number of
Plants
339
536
156
56
81
23
63
120
Percent of Number of
Total
1,374
24.7
39.0
11.4
4.1
5.9
1.7
4.6
8.7
100.0
Plants
69
453
126
50
65
16
45
27
851
Percent of
Total
8.1
53.2
14.8
5.9
7.6
1.9
5.3
3.2
100.0
V-9
-------
primarily water base paints and those producing primarily solvent
base paints is presented in Table V-5. As can be seen from the
table, most of the plants that generate no wastewater produce
primarily solvent base paint, and consequently utilize no water
rinse.
The volume of wastewater discharged by the Paint Industry as
a whole is shown in Table V-6. Forty-four percent (608 plants) of
the industry does not discharge any wastewater. Of plants that
utilize a water rinse for cleaning tanks, 230 plants or 27 percent
practice "zero discharge." Among all paint plants that discharge
some wastewater, 412 plants (30 percent of the industry) discharge
less than 380 liters per day (100 gpd). Only 95 plants (7 percent
of the industry) discharge more than 3800 liters per day (1000
gpd), but these 95 plants account for at least 85 percent of the
total wastewater discharge from all paint plants. Table V-7
presents a breakdown of wastewater discharge volumes from plants
that produce 90 percent or more water base paint and plants that
produce 90 percent or more solvent base paint. Sixty-six percent
of plants specializing in solvent base paint discharge no waste-
water, and 25.7 percent of the plants specializing in water base
paint generate no wastewater. As expected, plants producing 90
percent or more water base paint discharge more wastewater than
plants producing 90 percent or more solvent base paint.
The amount of wastewater generated and discharged from paint
plants often depends on many interrelated parameters, and the best
approach for comparing plants is to use a dimensionless parameter
which eliminates extraneous factors, such as overall plant pro-
duction volume. The comparison factor that was chosen was the
unit volume of wastewater generated, or discharged per unit volume
of water base paint produced.
The data generated from the DCP responses on wastewater
generation and disposal were used to calculate the overall in-
dustry average volume of wastewater generated, or discharged per
unit volume of water base paint manufactured. As expected from
visits to various paint facilities, the survey information in-
dicated a wide range of water usage and wastewater generation
among plants. The calculated data for the volume factor are
presented in Tables V-8 and V-9. For this calculation the data
base was reduced to only those plants that met the following
criteria:
Use water rinse for cleaning tanks
Produce some water base paint
Plant responses used in the DCP also had to be complete with
regard to pertinent questions concerning wastewater volume and
production. This selection reduced the data base to 53 percent
V-10
-------
TABLE V-5
VOLUME OF WASTEWATER GENERATED BY PAINT PLANTS
PRODUCING PRIMARILY WATER BASE
OR SOLVENT BASE PAINT
Wastewater
Generated
Plants Producing Over
90% Water Base Paint
Plants Producing Over
90% Solvent Base Paint
(gpd)
0
1 - 100
101 - 500
501 - 1000
1001 - 6000
6001 - 12,000
Over 12,000
Not Answered
Number of Plants Percent
12 11.0
62 56.9
10 9.2
3 2.8
13 11.9
5 4.6
4 3.7
Number of Plants
205
97
29
12
20
8
25
63
Percent
44.7
21.1
6.3
2.6
4.4
1.7
5.4
13.7
Total
109
100.0
459
100.0
V-ll
-------
TABLE V-6
WASTEWATER DISCHARGE BY THE PAINT INDUSTRY
AH Plants
Wastewater
Discharged .
(gpd)
0
1 - 100
101 - 500
501 - 1000
1001 - 6000
6001 - 12,000
Over 12,000
Not Answered
Total
Number of
Plants
608
412
111
26
50
16
29
122
1374
Percent of
Total
44.3
30.0
8.1
1.9
3.6
1.2
2.1
8.9
100.0
Plants Using Waterwash
Number of Percent of
Plants
230
374
104
23
47
13
22
38
851
Total
27.0
43.9
12.2
2.7
5.5
1.5
2.6
4.5
100.0
V-12
-------
TABLE V-7
VOLUME OF WASTEWATER DISCHARGED BY PAINT PLANTS
PRODUCING PRIMARILY WATER BASE
OR SOLVENT BASE PAINTS
Wastewater
Discharged
Plants Producing 90%
or More Water Base Paint
Plants Producing 90%
or More Solvent Base Paint
(gpd)
0
1 - 100
101 - 500
501 - 1000
1001 - 6000
6001 - 12,000
Over 12,000
Not Answered
Total
Number of Plants
28
50
10
2
10
2
3
4
109
Percent Number of Plants
25.7 305
45.9 58
9.2 12
1.8 5
9.2 6
1.8 3
2.8 13
3.7 57
100.0 459
Percent
66.4
12.6
2.6
1.1
1.3
0.7
2.8
12.4
100.0
V-13
-------
TABLE V-8
WASTEWATER GENERATION PER UNIT VOLUME
OF WATER BASE PAINT PRODUCED*
Liter/Liter Number of
(Gal/Gal) Plants
0 63
Over 0 but less than 0.05 110
0.05 - 0.10 49
0.10 - 0.20 122
0.20 - 0.50 139
0.50 - 1.0 111
Over 1.0 140
Percent of
Total
8.6
15.0
6.7
16.6
18.9
15.1
19.0
* Limited to plants using water rinse and manufacturing some
water base paint.
V-14
-------
TABLE V-9
WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PER UNIT VOLUME
OF WATER BASE PAINT PRODUCTION*
Liter/Liter Number of Percent of
(Gal/Gal) Plants Total
0 223 30.7
Over 0 but 95 13.1
Less than 0.05
0.05 to 0.1 39 5.4
0.1 - 0.2 98 13.5
0.2 - 0.5 114 15.7
0.5 - 1.0 77 10.6
Over 1.0 79 10.9
*Limited to plants using water rinse and manufacturing some
water base paint.
V-15
-------
of the plants responding to the survey. The median wastewater
generation per volume of production is approximately 0.2 liters of
wastewater per liter of water base paint manufactured (0.2 gal/gal)
and the median wastewater discharge is approximately 0.1 liters
per liter (0.1 gal/gal). If these calculations had included
solvent base paint production as well as water base, the median
values would have been about 50 percent lower. For this reason,
Tables V-8 and V-9 are based on only the water-base products of a
plant and are restricted to plants that have a water rinse. The
significance of these figures, and a complete breakdown of their
composition will be discussed in Section VII of this report.
WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION
Historical Data Summary
Historical analytical data on the occurrence of classical
pollutants in wastewater from the paint manufacturing industry
have been assembled from the following sources:
Southern Research Institute (SRI) Report (1974) ^
- National FieldsInvestigation Center - Denver (NFIC-D)
Report (1975) ( '
Draft Development Document for the Paint and Ink In-
dustry 1976
Historical data attached to Survey responses
Municipalities and EPA regional offices.
Unfortunately, much of the historical data represents paint
process wastewater combined with other wastewater sources, such as
cooling water or sanitary wastewater, in an undertermined ratio.
Virtually all of the data obtained from municipalities and from
the SRI report are in this form. These data are not directly
comparable with sampling data from segregated paint process
wastewater. The sources of historical analytical data are dis-
cussed in the following paragraphs.
The Southern Research Institute Report, Waterborn Wastes of
the Paint and Inorganic Pigments Industries, published March
1974, studied wastewater management in these industries, and
presented data concerning water usage, wastewater generation and
treatment, and wastewater characteristics. The source for much of
the data from this study was a survey sent to 153 plants supple-
mented by four plant inspections. No paint process wastewater was
sampled during this study. Nine paint plants supplied untreated
wastewater data but all of the data were based on combined waste-
water streams. Consequently, no analytical data from the SRI
study are used in this report.
In February 1975, NFIC published a Development Document for
Proposed Effluent Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards
for the Paint and Ink Formulation Industries. This report was
V-16
-------
based, in part, on data from the SRI report plus supplemental
analytical data collected by their NFIC-Denver staff. This
report served as the basis of the July 1975 Development Document
recommending no discharge for direct dischargers and new pre-
treatment sources for the two subcategories, solvent base/solvent
wash paint and solvent base/ solvent wash ink, which were subse-
quently promulgated. The NFIC researched the raw wastewater
discharge of paint manufacturing sites in the Oakland, California
area using the files of the East Bay Municipal Utilities District
(EBMUD). These results are presented in Table V-10. Some of the
EBMUD samples, however appear to be on paint wastewater combined
with other plant wastewater streams, and, where reported, the high
standard deviations indicate the large variations in wastewater
characteristics from plant to plant. To supplement these data,
NFIC collected three day composite samples of raw wastewater from
three plants in the Oakland, California area. The summary of the
data collected from these three plants is indicated in Table V-ll.
For most parameters, the data from the field samples are signifi-
cantly higher than the data from the EBMUD files.
Approximately 95 plants attached historical analytical data
on wastewater discharged from their plants to their DCP responses.
Of these 95 plants, only 17 submitted data on segregated paint
process wastewater streams. Two of the 17 plants had data for
both untreated and treated paint process wastewater, seven for
untreated wastewater only, and eight for treated wastewater only.
Table V-12 summarizes the data from the two plants that reported
on both treated and untreated wastewater. Since one of the plants
reported only their mercury analysis, the data from both plants
were combined for this parameter. The plant that supplied data
for a variety of classical pollutants produces both water-thinned
and solvent-thinned paints. Wastewater is treated by means of a
physical-chemical treatment system.
Table V-13 summarizes the untreated paint process wastewater
data supplied by seven plants. Table V-14 summarizes the data on
treated paint process wastewater supplied by eight plants. The
variability of the data is probably due to differences in process
operations, raw materials used, amount of water used, type of
treatment, if any, location of the sampling point, and analytical
technique used.
The 1976 Draft Development Document, prepared by Burns and
Roe, included a sampling program on treated and untreated paint
process wastewater streams and sludge from nine paint manufacturing
sites. Table V-15 summarizes the type of paint produced, the type
of treatment used, and the number of samples taken at each of the
nine plants. The average untreated and treated wastewater concen-
trations from the 1976 program are presented in Tables V-16 and V-
17.
V-17
-------
TABLE V-10
CONSTITUENTS OF PAINT MANUFACTURING PLANT
WASTES IN EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITIES DISTRICT
RESEARCHED BY NFIC-DENVER
Constituent
No. of
Entries
Min.
Max.
Values
Mean
(mg/1)
Std.
Dev.
Median
PH
28
3.4
13.2
8.8
3.2
6.7
BOD
12
60
1,740
481
474
450
Total COD
31
53
99,999(2)
5,428
17,649
5,145
Dissolved COD
31
19
78,000
4,103
13,787
4,466
Total Solids
1
-
-
6,887
-
-
Settleable Solids
3
o(3)
2
1
-
-
Total Suspended Solids
32
38
8,180
1,039
1,759
612
Ammonia
3
0
1.7
0.5
-
1.7
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
3
0
189
64
-
-
Oil & Grease
26
4
999
103
232
7
Total Phosphorus
3
0.3
26.4
14
-
26
Aluminum
3
2.6
74.6
29.5
-
11.4
Antimony
1
1.1
1.1
1.1
-
-
Barium
3
0.77
5.7
2.8
-
5.7
Cobalt
2
0.05
0.23
0.14
-
-
Chromium
3
0.4
7.5
2.8
-
0.4
Copper
3
0.11
0.22
0.17
-
0.11
Iron
3
3.8
37.3
15.2
-
4.6
Lead
3
1.14
9.99
4.99
-
1.1
Manganese
3
0.06
9.99
3.5
-
0.06
Nickel
3
0.02
0.07
0.03
-
0.02
Silver
2
0
0
0
-
-
Tin
3
0
0.07
0.02
-
-
Zinc
3
0.31
9.3
3.8
-
-
Phenols
3
0
0.1
0.0
-
-
Surfactants
3
0.2
7.5
2.8
-
7.5
(1) All data from East Bay Municipal Utilities District files.
(2) Series of 9's indicate number higher than allocated space in computer program.
(3) A zero indicates a value below detectable limits of analytical test.
V-18
-------
TABLE V-ll
SUMMARY OF SAMPLING DATA
NFIC-D, 1973
Plant 1
Plant 2
Plant 3
Average of Three
Plants
pH (units)
COD
TOC
TSS
Barium
11.5
8100.0
1200.0
11300.0
1.67
Total Chromium 0.93
Cadmium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
Copper
Titanium
L0.01
41.7
0.62
57.7
0.4
223.0
8.2
14800.0
1890.0
31500.0
1.0
59.0
L0.01
139.0
1.02
2.64
0.14
743.0
7.7
16200.0
3100,0
19800.0
LI. 0
0.77
LO.001
523.0
2.5
77.4
0.09
248.0
(1)
8.2
13033.0
2063.3
20866.6
1.22
20.2
0.021
234.5
1.38
45.9
0.21
404.6
(1) Median Value
All units mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
L = Less than
V-19
-------
TABLE V-12
SUMMARY OF DATA FROM TWO PLANTS THAT SUBMITTED
UNTREATED AND TREATED HISTORICAL ANALYTICAL DATA
(1)
Untreated
No. of
Entries
Min
Max
Mean
Treated
No. of
Entries
Min
Max
Mean
% Removal
pH (units)
BOD
COD
TOC
O&G
TS
TSS
TDS
TVS
Phenol
Zinc
Lead
Nickel
Mercury'
Copper
Cadmium
Iron
.(1)
8.5
0.25
0.9
7850.0
12852.0
7000
1290.0
16040.0
6452.0
1331.0
5971.0
0.171
300.0
8.5
1.0
0.583
0.5
0.15
540.0
5.4
0.07
0.3
4717.
7157.
2500.
41.
3074.
2.
2992.
716.
0.
200.
0.
2.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
0
1
2
146
24
07
24
39.9
44.3
64.2
96.8
80.8
99.9
88.0
6.4
33.3
98.8
74.9
52.0
53.3
99.9
(1) Combined data from two sites
All units mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
-------
TABLE V-13
AVERAGE UNTREATED WASTEWATER CONCENTRATIONS
FROM SEVEN PLANTS - DATA SUBMITTED WITH DCP'S
# of
Entries
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Standard
Deviation
pH (units)
BOD
COD
Oil and Grease
TS
TSS
TDS
Phenol
Cyanide
Zinc
Lead
Nickel
Mercury
Chromium
Copper
Cadmium
Iron
36
21
36
9
22
36
11
5
1
38
11
12
17
28
31
16
30
4.3
7.0
631
12.5
918
3.0
2404
0.11
0.05
0.2
0.03
0.01
0.14
0.05
0.01
1.0
12.9
4000.0
99999
394.0
56960
72980
31494
6.6
280
11.6
0.27
13.0
14.0
2.2
0.19
550
10.6
1300
23300
150
13900
9400
16100
1.8
0.1
40
4.3
0.1
2.5
2.2
0.4
0.1
70.0
(1)
1030
24200
110
17100
15700
830
2.7
65
3.8
0.06
4.1
2.8
0.5
0.05
110
(1) Median
All values in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
V-21
-------
TABLE V-14
AVERAGE TREATED WASTEWATER CONCENTRATIONS
FROM EIGHT PLANTS - DATA SUBMITTED WITH DCP'S
# of
Entries
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Standard
Deviation
pH (units)
BOD
COD
Oil and Grease
TS
TSS
Phenol
Cyanide
Zinc
Lead
Nickel
Mercury
Chromium
Copper
Cadmium
Iron
17
16
13
17
3
24
12
12
24
20
17
21
14
17
14
16
5.4
1.0
20
20.4
45.8
51
0.02
0.01
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.001
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.1
11.2
6725
49386
5314
629
24959
1.0
0.5
98.0
21.9
0.7
4.8
1.0
67.2
55.0
1477
7.1
870
17900
660
60
3600
0.2
0.1
4.5
1.3
0.1
0.51
0.3
4.9
3.9
120
(1)
1900
19600
1300
8.5
6700
0.3
0.1
20
4.9
0.2
1.0
0.3
16
15
370
(1) Median
All values in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
V-22
-------
Plant
Code
76-A
76-B
76-C
76-D
76-E
76-F
76-G
76-H
7 6-J
PC
S
Neut
TABLE V-15
CHARACTERISTICS OF PAINT PLANTS SAMPLED DURING 1976
Type of Paint Produced Type Number of Samples
of Taken
Water Solvent Treatment Untreated Treated
x x S 1 1
x x PC 4 4
X PC 3 3
x x PC 2 2
x PC 4 4
x x PC 2 2
x PC 1 1
x x PC 3 3
x x S 3 3
Physical-Chemical
Sedimentation
Neutralization
V-23
-------
TABLE V-16
PH
(1)
BOD.
AVERAGE UNTREATED AND TREATED WASTEWATER CONCENTRATIONS
1976 PAINT SAMPLING PROGRAM
Dissolved
COD COD O&G
TS
Sett.
TSS Solids
(2)
TDS
TVS
VSS
VDS
Phenols
76-A (1 Entry)
Untreated 10.9 1300 3000 1800 300 4000 1600 180 2400 2100 900 1100 2.5
Treated 10.7 980 3500 1500 220 3000 550 140 2400 1600 240 1400 3.5
76-B (4 Entries)
Untreated 8.2 16000 42300 16500 1700 23900 9600 40 12500 8400 3200 5200 0.4
Treated 6.0 11600 21000 16100 250 14700 050 13 13800 3000 620 3400 0.3
76-C (3 Entries)
Untreated 7.8 4800 14900 4300 1400 20000 14100 110 5900 8300 5400 2800 0.1
Treated" 7.1 1700 9000 3500 20 6000 130 1.7 5900 870 50 790 0.1
76-D (2 Entries)
Untreated 7.6 4600 22600 7100 1400 20400 9900 90 10400 10300 3900 6400 0.7
Treated 7.2 2700 16500 5800 1100 8700 4200 40 4500 6800 3100 3700 0.4
76-E (4 Entries)
Untreated 7.6
Treated 7.1
3800
41100
9500
7400
4900
1700
170
29300
4900
17400
1400
78
22
11900
3500
14900
3000
6400
1100
8500
1900
0.2
0.1
76-F (2 Entries)
Untreated 12.4 3200 12800 7800
Treated 9.4 6300 24600 10900
1200 102100 2900 45 99900 23300 1600 21600 0.1
870 85000 2100 67 83000 19000 450 18600 0.4
76-G (1 Entry)
Untreated 8.0 8500 28200 5900 1400 14500 3700 70 10800 12200 2600 9600 0.1
Treated 7.5 3800 6900 6600 37 3900 7.0 0.1 3900 570 70 60 0.1
76-H (3 Entries)
Untreated 9.1 8500 63800 15200
Treated 6.4 3200 7800 4200
2300 48600
1300 10200
39500 10900 9100 22100 16700 5500 2.6
4500 4100 5700 3700 1700 2000 2.6
76-J (1 Entry)
Untreated 8.8 3500 27900 4200
Treated 5.7 1100 3300 2000
2400 36000 15600 14 17600 20600 4800 8300 1.1
160 3200 1400 11 2300 2000 580 680 0.1
(1) Median, in units
(2)'M1/1
All Units mg/1 Unless Otherwise Noted
-------
TABI£ V- 17
AVERAGE UNTREATED AND TREATED WASTEWATER CONCENTRATIONS FOR METALS
1976 PAINT SAMPLING PROGRAM
A1 Sb Ba B Cd Cr Co Cu Fe Pb Mn Hq* Ho N1 Sn T1 2n
76-A (1 Entry)
Untreated 12 1.0 1.7 0.31 .01 13 0.38 0.15 2.9 14 0.06 0.9: 0.1 0.2S .5 16 16
Treated 18 1.0 0.9 0.4 0.01 10 0.4 0.07 2.4 6.8 0.02 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.5 33 6.0
76-B (4 Entries)
Untreated 140 0.45 20 1.6 0.06 15 1.5 0.47 81 22 7.5 2.0 0.15 4.5 1.2 200 260
Treated 57 .38 0.6 2.6 0.07 7.6 1.0 .02 15 2.4 2.4 0.9 0.2 3.9 .6 17 230
76-C (3 Entries)
Untreated 240 .37 .66 .28 .09 .23 .10 .49 12 .43 .21 1.1 .1 .64 .5 280 210
Treated 2.9 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.1 0.8 0.2 0.04 3.6 .1 0.06 .5 13 0.9
76-D (2 Entries)
Untreated 66 0.45 0.61 .5 .04 .12 .35 .38 82 0.61 18 14 .1 0.19 0.5 59 5.9
Treated 20 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.01 0.04 0.1 0.3 38 0.2 8.1 7.4 0.1 0.06 0.5 13 3.9
76-E (4 Entries)
untreated 280 .33 .32 1.4 .015 .08 0.67 0.3 100 0.25 0.35 .5 .1 0.18 .5 220 0.76
Treated 24.8 .125 0.2 .66 .01 .02 .2 .06 3.6 0.13 .053 .55 .1 .04 .5 7.2 .02
76-P (3 Entries)
Untreated 100 1.9 2.7 8.9 .07 32 1.1 0.38 31 92 0.69 .4 2.2 0.65 1.9 140 9.3
Treated 10 4.1 0.4 7.4 0.15 19 0.7 0.6 11 19 0.3 0.7 3.3 0.6 3.9 1.0 8.2
76-G <1 Entry)
Untreated 35.6 .1 .1 21 .01 .01 .17 .13 1.6 0.20 .05 0.7 0.1 .05 .5 13 8.5
Treated 3.2 0.5 .1 0.1 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.1 0.80 0.03 0.5 .1 0.01 .5 1 0.13
76-H (3 Entries)
Untreated 510 10 .25 1.0 .15 8.5 .55 600 .85 .53 .004 .33 1.1 27 940 1300
Treated 530 13 0.3 1.0 0.2 8.2 0.3 270 0.7 1.0 .004 .33 0.8 23 440 1400
76-J (1 Entry)
Untreated 400 0.5 2.2 1.4 .86 .14 3.5 .30 4.5 .42 0.10 1.2 .1 .25 .38 540 740
Treated 4S ft 07 ft.07 1.0 0.9 .01 1 ft 0.1 •» ? ft,ft* 0.3 .7 0 1 o ftl 0 S iftft 100
(1) Median value
All units mg/1 unless otherwise noted
*ug/l
V-25
-------
SAMPLING DATA
Analytical data for classical and priority pollutants from
each of the 22 paint plants chosen for sampling during this study
are presented in Appendix G. For most plants, samples were taken
of intake water, untreated and treated wastewater, and sludge. Of
the 22 plants, 18 treated their wastewater by means of a batch
physical/chemical treatment system, utilizing chemical addition,
mixing and settling. Two additional plants utilized a continuous
system with the same unit operations, as the batch physical/chemical
plants. The two remaining plants utilized neutralization and
gravity separation. Production characterization and statistics
concerning wastewater generation and treatment from each of the 22
plants can be found in Tables V-18 and V-19. The information in
these tables was collected from plant interviews during the sampling
program, and supplemented by data from the DCP's.
A summary of the average untreated wastewater characteristics
from the 22 plants samples is presented in Table V-20. The total
number of samples collected and analyzed to date is indicated,
along with the number of times each pollutant was detected above
the detection limit (column 3). The column headed "number of
times detected" is meaningful for all organic priority pollutants,
and indicates the number of occurrences either above or below the
detection limit of 10 ug/1. The average and median values (computed
only for detected values) are also presented, as is the maximum
value encountered. Thirteen priority pollutants have been detected
above the detection limit in over 50 percent of the samples. They
include arsenic, chromium, copper, mercury, lead, zinc, benzene,
1,1,1, trichloroethane, chloroform, ethylbenzene, methylene chloride,
tetrachloroethylene and toluene. Seven priority pollutants were
measured above detectable levels in 25 to 50 percent of all samples.
They include cadmium, nickel, carbon tetrachloride, naphthalene,
di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate and trichloroethylene. An additional
nine priority pollutants were measured in 10 to 25 percent of
samples and include: beryllium, antimony, cyanide, thallium, 1-2
dichloroethane, 1-1 dichloroethylene, nitrobenzene, pentachloro-
phenol, and phenol. In addition to the other priority pollutants
on Table V-20 the following priority pollutants were measured in
one or more samples: selenium, chlorobenzene, di (2-chloroisopropyl)
ether, 2-4 dinitrophenol and butyl benzyl phthalate. Nineteen
priority pollutants not listed on Table V-20 were detected in one
or more samples at under 10 ug/1. They are: acrolein, 2 chloro-
naphthalene, 3-3 dichlorobenzidine, 2-4 dichlorophenol, fluoranthene,
di (2-chloroethoxy) methane, 4-6 dinitro-o-cresol, diethyl phthalate,
3-4 benzopyrene, anthracene, aldrin, dieldren, 4-4 DDE, b-endosulfan-
Beta, heptachlor epoxide, a-BHC-alpha, B-BHC-beta, r-BHC-gamma,
and g-BHC-delta.
A description of each priority pollutant and its relationship
to the raw materials survey will be discussed in Section VI.
V-26
-------
TABLE V-18
PRODUCTION CHARACTERISTICS OF PAINT PLANTS
PARTICIPATING IN 1977/1976 SAMPLING PROGRAM*
Paint Production
Plant
Code
1
2
3
4
5
6
e
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
24
25
26
27
28
% Water
Thinned
75*
100
90
100
35
100
75
75
15
10
65
65
25
50
85
65
65
100
40
65
85
65
% Solvent
Thinned
25%
0
10
0
65
0
25
25
65
90
35
35
75
50
15
35
35
0
60
35
IS
35
Pigments
%
white
55%
90
75
65
90
65
15
60
75
Dedicated
% % In- Tanks
Organic organic Yea/No
(2)
55
60
65
40
50
75
25
55
55
95
90
45
5%
40
75
5
15
15
5
35
25
20
45
15
10
10
15
5
5
65
5
95%
60
25
95
NO
NO
No
Wastewater Generation
% of Plow
Liter HjO/ To Treatment
Liter Paint Process/Cleaning
(1)
0.15
0.25
0.27
„ ,U>
85 Yes-Solvent 0.15
(1)
(1)
Yes
NO
NO
NO
Yes-
Ind.Ctgs.
0.1'
0.16
0.17
0.3
0.3
0.15
0.08
0.04
0.13
(X)
Yes-White 0.15
0.25
U)
85
95
95
15
95
0.03
0.7
0.23(
0.31
0.07
0.13
(1)
(1)
(1)
100%
75
45
70
65
65
99
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
(1)
Caustic
Washer
Yes/No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Pressure %
(lb/in ) Reuse
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
NO
No
No
No
No
NO
Yes
Yes
No
No
(3)
(3)
(3)
50
200
150
50
504
200
50
60
150
75
100
50
50
50
50
50
125
60
60
80
(4)
A4)
(1)
0
0
50%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
50
0
75
25
0
0
0
10
0
(1) Estimated from 308 Survey
(2) Water-thinned only
(3) No discharge to treatment system
(4) Estimate of City water pressure
*As cf Sampling Period
V-27
-------
TABLE V-19
CHARACTERISTICS OF PAINT PLANTS
PARTICIPATING IN 1977/1978 SAMPLING PROGRAM
Plant Batch or Site of Major
Code Type Continuous Batch (gal) Sourceb
Chemicals Used
Por Treatment
Jar Sludge
Test(5) Held % Sludge
Yes/No Batches Produced
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
GS
Neut
PC
PC
GS
PC
PC
18 PC
20 PC
24 PC
25 PC
26 PC
27 PC
28 PC
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
Continuous
Batch
Continuous
Batch
Batch
Batch
Batch
5000
4000
6000
5500
5700
4000
4600
900
6000
700
300
750
1000
800
6000
200
Batch 25,000
Batch 11,000
Wt
Wt
Wt
Wt, CR
Wt
wt
wt
wt
CR
Wt
Wt
Wt, St
wt
wt
wt
wt
wt
Wt, CR
wt
Sodium Bisulfate, Anionic Yes
£ Cationic Polymer
Alum, Potassium Hydroxide No
Deerbom Proprietary Yes
Aquafloc 409, Polymer
Aluminum Sulfate, 1.1 me Yes
Sodium Aluminate Yes
Nalco 7722
5%
Alum Ferric, Polymer
Caustic
Yea
1-3
1
1
1
Batch
300
Ferric Chloride, Polymer Yes 1
Aqua Ammonia
Nalco 7742A Yes 1
No 1
Phosphoric Acid No 1
Nalco 3174 No 3
Nalco 634 Yes 1
Mobil Floe Resin 9000 No
Cosan C-Floc 18 Yes 1
Alum, Lime, Soda Ash, No
Ferric Chloride
Caustic, Ferrous Sulfate, No 3
DuBois Floe 551
Ferrous Sulfate No 1
Drew Amerfloc No 3-4
Ferric Floe, Sulfuric No
Acid, Caustic
Sulfuric Acid, Lime Yes
Amerfloc; Cationic Yes 1
Polymer
HC1, Cosan C-Floc 1
9
20
22
5
22
3
16
3
33
Type Sources of Wastewater
PC: Physical Chemical WT: Water-Thinned Operation
GSi Gravity Separation ST: Solvent-Thinned Operation
Neut: Neutralization CR: Caustic Rinse
(1) Estimated free 308 Survey
(2) Indicates whether plan uses jar
tests to optimise chemical dosage
for each batch.
before discharge.
V-28
-------
TABLE V-20
UNTREATED WASTEWATER DATA SUMMARY
1977/1978 SAMPLING PROGRAM
pp
PARAMETER
NUMBER OF-
AVERAGE
MEDIAN
MAXIMUM
8AMPLES
TIMES
TIMES
ANALYZED
DETECTED DETECTED
ABOVE
MIN.
PH 2 DICHLOROETHANE
27
5
4
118
33
420
11
1r1>1 TRICHLOROETHANE
27
15
14
150
82
930
13
lrl DICHLOROETHANE
27
1
0
LT 10
LT 10
LT 10
14
1»1 »2 TRICHLOROETHANE
27
5
2
568
LT 10
2800
23
CHLOROFORM
27
14
14
198
108
900
29
lrl DICHLOROETHYLENE
27
5
3
138
23
620
30
1r 2 TRANSDICHLOROETHYLENE
27
2
1
135
13S
2 60
32
1.2 DICHLOROPROPANE
27
3
2
330
12
968
38
ETHYLBENZENE
27
21
21
2638
1200
1S000
44
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
27
17
17
33740
790
210000
48
DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE
27
1
1
27
27
27
SI
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
27
0
0
0
54
ISOPHORONE
27
0
0
0
55
NAPHTHALENE
27
9
8
2950
54
18000
56
NITROBENZENE
27
3
2
100
110
180
64
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
27
6
5
6017
750
27000
65
PHENOL
27
8
7
996
114
3800
66
DI(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
27
9
8
493
140
2810
68
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
27
18
13
7977
259
69000
85
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
27
17
16
599
230
4900
86
TOLUENE
27
23
23
19542
2500
259700
87
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
27
15
LT 10
90
52
250
ALL UNITS UG/L UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTEDf PP=PRIORITY POLLUTANT
V-29
-------
Where they occurred, sixteen priority pollutants had an
average value in excess of 1,000 ug/1 (one mg/1). Four of these
had average values in excess of 10,000 ug/1 (10 mg/1). Their
frequency of occurrence and average value is indicated below.
Parameter
Percent of Occurrences
above minimum detectable
Average Maximum
Mercury
Zinc
Methylene chloride
Toluene
80%
94%
67%
81%
10,200
84,100
32,500
16,700
120,000
900,000
210,000
260,000
To determine the background levels of priority pollutants,
tap water samples were collected and analyzed at each paint plant.
These data are presented in Table V-21.
Ten priority pollutants occurred at above the detection limit
in over 25 percent of the samples. These pollutants are cadmium,
chromium, copper, mercury, zinc, benzene, 1-1-1 trichloroethane,
chloroform, methylene chloride and dichlorobromomethane. However,
only zinc had an average value of over 1000 ug/1. One priority
pollutant not on Table V-21 (chlorobenzene) was measured at 5500
ug/1 in one tap water sample, and 17 other priority pollutants not
listed on Table V-21 occurred at less than their detectable limit
in one or more sample. They are arsenic, selenium, 2-4-6 trichloro-
phenol, 3-3 dichlorobenzidene, 2-4 dichlorophenol, 2-4 dinitro-
toluene, fluoranthene, bromoform,. butyl benzyl phthalate, diethyl
phthalate, 3-4 benzofluoranthene, benzo (k) fluoranthene, anthracene,
endrin aldehyde, a-BHC-Alpha, b-BHC-Beta, g-BHC.
A comparison of untreated wastewater concentrations from
historical data sources and from the 1977 sampling program are
found in Table V-22. The 1976 sampling data and 1977 data were
obtained in a similar manner, and can be assumed to be more
comparable than historical data attached to survey responses,
which were often received without a complete explanation of the
wastewater source and the sampling and/or analytical methods used.
i
For most parameters there is good agreement between the
1976 and 1977 programs. One exception is mercury, where the 1977
data show levels 1000 times thel1976 results. This discrepancy
may have been caused from differences in the plants selected for
sampling.
Resampling
Most of the Paint Industry sampling was conducted between
September 1977 and January 1978. During that time span EPA
contract laboratories were badly overloaded, and consequently some
of the samples were not extracted promptly, and some of the classical
and metals samples were not analyzed within the recommended time
V-30
-------
TABLE V-21
INTAKE (TAP) WATER DATA SUMMARY
1977/1978 SAMPLING PROGRAM
PP PARAMETER
NUMBER OF
AVERAGE
MEDIAN
MAXIMUM
SAMPLES
TIMES
TIMES
ANALYZED
DETECTED
DETECTED
ABOVE HIN
•
PH (UNITS)
20
20
20
7
9
BOD (MG-L)
21
21
1
3
2
6
COD (MO-L)
22
22
13
10
6
40
TOC (MO-L)
20
20
18
8
8
20
OIL8GREASE (MG-L)
18
18
4
1
1
5
121 CYANIDE
22
22
2
20
20
93
TOTAL PHENOLS
22
22
5
15
16
40
TS (MO-L)
19
19
19
335
192
1500
TDS (MB-L)
18
18
18
338
187
14?1
TSS (MO-L)
20
20
17
3
3
11
TVS (MG-L)
17
17
17
62
33
190
VSS (MG-L)
18
18
13
1
1
8
CALCIUM (HO-L)
18
18
8
53
44
210
MAGNESIUM (MG-L)
18
18
16
17
9
79
SODIUM (MG-L)
18
18
4
110
ISO
240
126 SILVER
21
21
1
LT 10
LT 10
30
ALUMINUM
18
18
9
1720
500
20000
BARIUM
18
18
12
74
30
600
117 BERYLLIUM
21
21
1
8
LT 10
20
118 CADMIUM
21
21
7
31
20
200
COBALT
18
18
0
31
35
50
119 CHROMIUM
21
21
8
43
20
200
120 COPPER
21
21
11
153
60
700
IRON
18
18
5
1267
1350
3000
123 MERCURY
21
21
10
286
0
6000
MANGANESE
17
17
6
41
50
70
MOLYBDENUM
17
17
3
34
50
60
124 NICKEL
20
20
2
41
20
200
122 LEAD
20
20
4
128
100
400
114 ANTIMONY
20
20
2
12
LT 10
25
TIN
17
17
13
96
50
300
TITANIUM
17
17
2
126
200
200
127 THALLIUM
19
19
0
11
LT 10
20
128 ZINC
20
20
13
1171
600
8000
4 BENZENE
25
11
9
90
16
572
6 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
25
3
2
13
14
15
10 1>2 DICHLOROETHANE
25
0
0
0
11 1.1.1 TRICHLOROETHANE
25
11
6
36
18
110
13 lrl DICHLOROETHANE
25
0
0
0
14 1.1.2 TRICHLOROETHANE
25
2
1
14
14
18
23 CHLOROFORM
25
15
12
126
41
570
29 1>1 DICHLOROETHYLENE
25
9
3
13
LT 10
40
30 1.2 TRANSDICHLOROETHYLENE
25
0
0
0
32 1.2 DICHLOROPROPANE
25
0
0
0
38 ETHYLBENZENE
25
3
2
163
61
420
44 METHYLENE CHLORIDE
25
17
16
428
67
2200
48 DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE
25
13
8
26
15
86
SI CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
25
10
4
22
LT 10
113
54 ISOPHORONE
25
0
0
0
S3 NAPHTHALENE
23
0
0
0
56 NITROBENZENE
25
1
0
LT 10
LT 10
LT 10
64 PENTACHLOROPHENOL
25
1
0
LT 10
LT 10
LT 10
65 PHENOL
25
0
0
0
66 DI(2-ETHYLHEXYL > PHTHALATE
25
3
0
LT 10
LT 10
LT 10
68 DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
25
4
0
LT 10
LT 10
LT 10
85 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
25
2
1
25
25
40
86 TOLUENE
25
9
3
310
LT 10
2700
87 TRICHLOROETHYLENE
25
4
0
LT 10
LT 10
LT 10
ALL UNITS UG/L UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) PP=PRIORITY POLLUTANT
V-31
-------
TABLE V-22
AVERAGE UNTREATED WASTEWATER CONCENTRATIONS
Historical
Data from.
Surveys
1976 Sampling
Program
Data
1977 Sampling
Program
Data
pH (median)
Oil & Grease
Cyanide
Phenol
BOD
COD
TS
TDS
TSS
TVS
Aluminum
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Cobalt
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Mercury
Manganese
Molybdenum
10.6
150
0.1
1.8
1400
23300
13900
16100
9400
< -I
2.2
0.4
70
2.5
8.9
1500
0.9
6300
28500
32200
16100
12700
13600
190
3.3
0.13
1.7
9.6
0.4
103
2.9 ug/1
3.1
0.5
7.0
1200
0.07
0.3
9900
56500
29100
10700
20300
14200
208
9
0.1
.08
0.6
2.9
2.3
300
10.2
3.0
0.5
V-32
-------
TABLE V-22 (Cont.)
AVERAGE UNTREATED WASTEWATER CONCENTRATIONS
Historical
Data
Surveys
1976 Sampling
Program
Data
1977 Sampling
Program .
Data
Nickel
Lead
Antimony
Tin
Titanium
Zinc
.1
4.3
40
0.9
20
3.7
250
260
1.0
6.3
0.07
1.0
18.3
84.1
(1) All units mg/1 unless otherwise noted
V-33
-------
limits. To ascertain whether the subsequent analyses were accu-
rate, six plants were chosen for resampling. During September
1978, one sample each of untreated and treated wastewater, sludge,
and tap water was taken from each plant to compare to the old
data. The untreated wastewater comparisons for organic pollu-
tants for five of these plants are presented in Table V-23. For
many parameters there is good general agreement, considering that
batch characteristics can change from day to day.
V-34
-------
RESULTS OF RESAMPLING AT FIVE PAINT PLANTS (One Year Interval)
Plant
Batch
3_
"a
B
4
A
5
6
12
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
Priority Pollutant
4
Benzene
1900
440
160
24
4000
40
73
N-D
6
Carbon Tetrachloride
12
N-D
93
N-D
10
1-2 dichlorethane
33 •
N-D
420
N-D
11
1-1-1 trichloroethane
17
150
N-D
50
N-D
10
43
10
14
1-1-1 trichloroethane
10
N-D
10
N-D
23
Chloroform
310
87
16
N-D
125
N-D
29
1-1 dichloroethylene
23
N-D
28
N-D
10
N-D
33
1-2 dichloropropylene
968
N-D
38
ethylbensene
15,000
640
2000
460
4500
11,000
730
N-D
8200
1300
44
methylene chloride
N-D
790
430
4200
900
N-D
N-D
275
N-D
450
55
naphthalene
7000
10
N-D
54
18*000
1130
N-D
30
260
40
64
pentachlorophenol
N-D
36
27,000
N-D
7500
1160
65
phenol
2600
N-D
N-D
132
N-D
30
N-D
1270
66
di(2 ethyl-hexyl)phthalate
690
2810
N-D
20
140
35
68
di N butyl phthalate
8000
10
13,000
57
69,000
1310
2000
10
78
anthracene
N-D
10
85
tetrachloroethylene
74
18
N-D
270
10
N-D
86
toluene
5500
1280
3200
580
N-D
81,000
17,000
400
• N-D
1
560
87
trichloroethylene
N-D
74
110
N-D
N-D
10
!»
N-D
At First Sample - Fall, 1977
Bi Resampling - Fall, 1978
All results are for untreated wastewater and are in Uf/l unless otherwise noted.
Note: Blanks indicate not detected during either sampling sequence.
V-35
-------
SECTIQNLVI
SELECTION.OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
I \ -
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of, the1BAT review of the Paint Industry is to
evaluate the ^occurrence arid impact, of1 priority pollutants in the
raw,-treated and sludge streams generated wi'thin-paint plants.
The list; of priority pollutants', which represents - the focus of the
program, was developed as a result of the Consent Decree. Appendix
A of the Cons.ent Decree, lists 65 classes of pollutants to be
considered in the BAT revision for 21 industries, which EPA later
expanded to 12$ particular compoundis. Appendix E presents^-129
pollutants which represent the "priority" pollutants1addressed in
this study.
The. work also, included the evaluation of traditional (or
classical) pollutant parameters'. The traditional parameters
included pH, COD, BOD,. TOC, oil and grease, total phenols, total
solids, total dissolved solids, total volatile solids, total
suspended solids, volatile suspended solids and settleable solids.
In addition a number of other parameters were evaluated origan
incidental basis.either because their analysis had been included
in ICAP (plasma atomic adsorption) analysis or because the para-
meter is an important element in paint' manufacture or physical/
chemical treatment of paint wastewater.: These pollutants included
aluminum, barium, calcium, cobalt, iron, magnesium, manganese,
molybdenum, sodium, tin and titanium.
In this section the. techniques used to identify priority
pollutants in the Paint Industry will be presented.
METHODOLOGY-^
Prior to the various EPA studies of 'the Paint' Industry';"'
relatively little historical data had b'eeri^ developed fbir;priority
pollutants. Some limited analyses of metallic priority pollutants,
had been completed, but for the most part historical data focuses
on traditional parameters. The approach to developing"priority
pollutant data utilized a three-step methodology:
1. Raw material evaluation
2. Industry wide raw materials survey
3.; Screening sampling.
Raw Materials Evaluation
By st,ud}jing -|theriiraw:. materials used ^in'-tK^1 industry >;- iriforma-.
tion .about Fthe -distribution Jof ^pVi:'6riIty po'ilutants in paint- --waste
str;eams0c^uld:,be obtained. , This ;is ;a,consequence -'of 'the -way ^paintf
products^arg^roduded'arid pa'int iwaitewateffis^generated!.
v:i-l
-------
Paint is generally manufactured by blending raw materials,
and consequently, no thermodynamic changes occur (except for
occasional heat of solution) and no byproducts are formed.
Instead, paint is made according to predetermined formula or
recipe without chemical reaction or change. Similarly, paint
plant wastewater is generally produced in a straightforward way.
When required, production tanks and other manufacturing vessels
are washed clean of residue or clingage, using water, caustic or
solvent. Consequently, the spent cleaning material becomes laden
with the material cleaned out of the tank, which, in turn, is made
up of a mixture of the raw materials used in blending the paint
product. Therefore, if the chemical makeup of the raw materials
used in paint manufacture is determined, and the priority pol-
lutants utilized are pinpointed, the priority pollutants expected
to be found in the waste streams associated with paint manufacture
can be ascertained.
An extensive study of the literature revealed that there are
three primary sources of paint industry raw materials information:
1. The NPCA Raw Materials Index (8, 9, 10)
2. Information supplied by raw materials vendors
3. The Colour Index (11)
In total, 39 priority pollutants were identified as constitu-
ents of raw materials used in paint manufacture. Table VI-1 lists
those priority pollutants that were identified, and their
occurrence in paint raw materials.
Raw Materials Survey
The next step in ascertaining the extent of priority pol-
lutants in the paint industry was a survey of the industry to
determine the use of specific raw materials associated with specific
priority pollutants. Section G, Raw Materials, of the data col-
lection portfolio (DCP) was designed to obtain this information
and was organized according to the four broad areas of raw materials
used in paint manufacture:
Pigments and Dyes
Chemical Specialties
Resins
Solvents
Raw materials within these areas were grouped according to the
occurrence of priority pollutants. For example, all plasticizers
containing diethyl phthalate, or all green aqueous dispersions
containing chromium used in paint were grouped. Within each
generic raw material designation, the major manufacturers trade
names were listed as an aid to respondents who might not be
familiar with the. chemical constituents of the raw materials used
in their products. Further, where appropriate, space was provided
so that a respondent could indicate additional trade names for
priority pollutant bearing raw materials used in their products.
VI-2
-------
TABLE VI-1
OCCURRENCE OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
IN PAINT RAW MATERIALS
Occurrence in Raw Materials
Priority Pollutant
Pigments Chemical
& Dyes Specialties Resins Solvents
Antimony
Cadmium
Copper
Chromium
Lead
Nickel
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Asbestos
Cyanides
Phenols
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Isophorone
Naphthalene
Di(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
Dimethyl Phthalate
Diethyl Phthalate
3-3' Dichlorobenzidine
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methyl Chloride
Methylene Chloride
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Vinylidine Chloride
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1.2-Dichloroethane
1.1.1-Trichloroethane
1.1.2-Trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene
1.3-Dichloropropylene
Pentachlorophenol
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
Di(2-Chloroethyl) Ether
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
VI-3
-------
The criteria used for selecting raw materials for inclusion
in the DCP were as follows:
The raw material itself is a priority pollutant, i.e.,
solvents such as benzene, toluene or chemical specialties
such as di-n-butyl phthalate or asbestos.
The raw material is known to contain priority pollutants,
i.e., white lead, zinc oxide, chrome orange, etc.
The raw material is commonly thinned with, or contains,
priority pollutants that are solvents, i.e., polyamids
soluble in, or containing, toluene.
The raw material is synthesized from other raw materials
that are priority pollutants, i.e., dichlorobenzidene
derived aqueous dispersions, polyvinyl acetate (syn-
thesized from vinyl chloride).
Although for the last item listed above (raw materials syn-
thesized from priority pollutants) there is no firm evidence that
the priority pollutant is present in the raw material, these raw
materials were included because of the possibility that small
residues of the priority pollutant may carry over.
Responses to the raw materials section of the DCP indicated
that all 39 priority pollutants identified in the desk-top liter-
ature review are used at one time or another in the Paint Industry.
Because many of the raw materials included in the DCP can contain
more than one priority pollutant, it was impossible to obtain
unambiguous counts for the occurrence of particular priority
pollutants. As a result, the most conservative approach was
taken. Specifically, when an uncertainty existed as to which
priority pollutant was being indicated by the responder, two
counts were made based on neither being used or both being used.
The result was that both maximum and minimum counts for priority
pollutants are presented. Additionally, 28 plants did not check
any boxes on the raw material survey, and for these responders, it
cannot be determined whether they use none of the raw materials on
the list, or did not fill out the questionnaire completely.
Finally, within the group of responders to the raw materials
survey, it was found that each raw materials question was answered
positively at least once. This indicates that the raw materials
respondents probably considered all questions, and that all
questions represented appropriate paint raw materials.
The range of plants using raw materials containing particular
priority pollutants is presented in Table VI-2. The most common
priority pollutants found in paint raw materials are chromium,
zinc, toluene, cyanides, lead and naphthalene. With regard to
naphthalene, inadvertently, for some resin solvents in the raw
materials survey, naphthalene was indicated where aromatic naphtha
was intended. A spot check of respondents to these questions
VI-4
-------
TABLE VI-2
RAW MATERIALS CONTAINING PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
USED BY THE PAINT INDUSTRY
Priority
Pollutant
Responders Indicating Usage of Raw Materials Containing
Specific Priority Pollutants
No.
Minimum
of Plants
Percent
No.
Maximum
of Plants
Percent
Antimony 166
Cadmium 260
Copper 173
Chromium 1042
Lead 833
Nickel 156
Selenium 37
Silver 250
Zinc 1020
Asbestos 218
Cyanides 860
Phenol 665
Mercury 627
Pentachlorophenol 190
Vinyl Chloride 550
Vinylidene Chloride *
3,3-1 Dichlorobenzidene 409
Naphthalene 772
Di-2 Ethylhexyl
Phthalate 338
Di-N-butyl Phthalate 354
Dimethyl Phthalate 51
Diethyl Phthalate 22
Benzene 66
Toluene 961
Ethylbenzene 189
Isophorone 175
Carbon Tetrachloride 8
Chlorobenzene 9
1,2,4 Trichlorobenzene 3
1,2 Dichloroethane 5
1.1.1 Trichloroethane 140
1.1.2 Trichloroethane 10
Di-2 Chloroethyl ether 1
Chloroform 3
1.2 Dichlorobenzene 8
1.3 Dichloropropylene 6
Methylene Chloride 305
Trichloroethylene 77
Methyl Chloride *
12.1
18.9
12.6
75.8
60.6
11.4
2.7
18.2
74.2
15.9
62.6
48.4
45.6
13.8
40.0
*
29.8
61.6
24.6
25.8
3.7
1.6
4.8
69.9
13.8
12.5
0.6
0.7
0.2
0.4
10.2
0.7
0.1
0.2
0.6
0.4
22.2
5.6
*
243
312
894
1083
1016
395
37
440
1046
218
1064
765
627
190
563
44
412
772
338
354
51
22
66
998
506
175
8
9
3
5
140
10
1
3
8
6
305
77
316
17.7
22.7
65.1
78.8
73.9
28.7
2.7
32.0
76.1
15.9
77.4
55.7
45.6
13.8
41.0
3.2
30.0
56.2
24.6
25.8
3.7
1.6
4.8
72.6
36.8
12.5
0.6
0.7
0.2
0.4
10.2
0.7
0.1
0.2
0.6
0.4
22.2
5.6
23.0
*Minimum usage of vinylidene chloride and methyl chloride could not be determined.
Vl-5
-------
indicated that the error had very little impact on the answers
given. Naphthalene as indicated above, represents only positive
responses to questions concerning the use of naphthenate type
driers. The raw materials survey includes 39 priority pollutants
which were found to be contained in 127 common paint raw material
types. Ten of these raw materials containing priority pollutants
were found to be used by at least 400 plants, and 23 raw materials
were used by at least 140 plants.
Sampling Program
The sampling program was designed to generate analytical
information that could be used to characterize the nature, dis-
tribution and concentration of priority pollutants in paint waste-
water. Further, the sampling program was aimed at gathering
information about the efficiency of common end-of-pipe treatment
systems not only to remove priority pollutants, but to reduce the
concentration of classical pollutants. Detailed information on
sampling and analytical procedures used and specific data on
samples collected are included in Appendix F.
Several criteria were utilized in selecting potential paint
manufacturing sites for sampling activities. The goal of the
selection process was the development of a list of paint plants
that were representative not only of industry production methods
and product lines, but also representative of wastewater gener-
ation and treatment techniques. The following criteria were used
in the selection process:
Plant Location
The logistics and costs of the anticipated sampling program
dictated that the most cost effective way to obtain samples would
be to arrange multiple sampling visits within concentrated indus-
trial zones. Table VI-3 summarizes the distribution of paint
plants in major metropolitan areas. Paint plants located within
these areas were given preference in the selection process.
Plant Size
Although there is a preponderance of very small plants in the
paint industry, it was decided that no sampling would be considered
at plants with less than ten production workers. The rationale
for this decision was based on the fact that small paint plant
operations do not significantly differ from the paint industry as
a whole. Generally it was found during plant inspections and from
the DCP responses that product lines, production methodology, raw
material usage and wastewater generation at paint plants did not
significantly differ in large or small plants. Because paint
manufacture is a batch process, using relatively small mixing
vessels, it is common that small plants duplicate large plant
operations precisely, differing only in scale. Therefore, since
it was known that no special characteristics of particular interest
VI-6
-------
TABLE VI-3
DISTRIBUTION OF PAINT PLANTS
IN MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS
Metropolitan Number of
Area Paint Plants
Los Angeles
127
New York/New Jersey
101
Chicago
88
Cleveland
61
Miami
49
San Francisco
48
Detroit
34
St. Louis
28
Atlanta
27
Dallas
20
Louisville
20
Houston
18
VI-7
-------
different from the industry as a whole were present at these small
plants, no sampling would be scheduled at these sites, and no
impact on the data collected was expected.
Wastewater Treatment
Candidate plants were chosen that operated end-of-pipe waste-
water treatment systems. The selection effort was aimed at choosing
candidate plants that encompassed all existing wastewater treat-
ment types. Raw wastewater loads at these plants were found to be
equivalent to raw wastewater loads at similar plants without
treatment. Therefore no impact on the data base was anticipated.
Wastewater Generation
A significant proportion (40%) of the paint plants responding
to the data collection portfolio indicated that they did not
discharge any wastewater. These plants fit into several cate-
gories including plants using only solvent wash, complete waste-
water reuse, and contract hauling of all their wastewater or spent
caustic. Other plants indicated that they produced or discharged,
very little wastewater. As a result, a minimum wastewater flow
was used as a sampling plant selection criteria. Rather than
picking a specific minimum wastewater volume it was decided to
limit the candidate sampling plant list to only those plants that
generated enough wastewater within a one-week period to permit
treatment of at least one batch. By using this criteria for
selecting sampling plants, collection of a minimum of one sample
during a visit of several days duration would be reasonably assured.
Historical Data
Some plants indicated that they had taken samples of their
wastewater over a period of time. The data developed therefore
could supply some background or history of wastewater quality.
Because this historical data could supply important substanti-
ation, an effort was made to sample at plants that reported that
they had previously sampled and analyzed their wastewaters.
Priority Pollutants
As previously described, a goal of the raw materials survey
was to provide information about the distribution of priority
pollutants in paint wastewaters. As a result of the survey it was
found that 39 of the 129 priority pollutants could be expected to
be present at one time or another in paint wastewater. Conse-
quently, in choosing sampling plants, efforts were directed at
selecting operations that utilized raw materials containing a
maximum number of priority pollutants.
Direct Dischargers
Although it was known from the outset that practically no
paint plants discharged process wastewaters to navigable waters,
it was hoped that at least a few direct dischargers could be
VI-8
-------
selected as sampling plants. Unfortunately, only a handful of
plants discharging a combined wastewater, containing only a very
small fraction of paint process wastewater, were located. These
combined dischargers were judged to be inappropriate for sampling.
Selection of Sampling Plants
The sampling plant selection was accomplished in a step
fashion. Initially, plants were selected if they had indicated on
their questionnaires that they treat or condition their wastewater
in some way before disposal. This selection yielded a preliminary
list containing 153 paint plants. A supplementary selection of
plants treating their wastewater before reuse yielded an addi-
tional 88 preliminary sampling site candidates. Successive
selections on the basis of location, size, wastewater volume and
treatment, historical data and priority pollutants resulted in the
final selection of 22 paint plants located in eight major metro-
politan areas.
Table Vl-4 summarizes the characteristics of the final list
of paint plants selected for sampling. The information included
in Table VI-4 is based on survey data available at the time of
selection. From the table it can be seen that the primary form of
treatment was physical/chemical treatment which includes chemical
addition either before or after some type of physical treatment.
Although the survey data showed that simple settling appeared to
be the most common form of treatment practiced in the Paint Industry,
the list of sampling plants was based on physical/chemical treat-
ment since, from previous studies, this type of treatment was
known to be most effective.
Most of the sampling plants had some historical data avail-
able. Table VI-5 presents a summary of the actual survey responses
made by sampling plants to questions concerning wastewater treat-
ment methods utilized.
Table VI-6 presents the priority pollutant coverage of the
final list of selected plants.
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
The priority pollutants covered in this study may be divided
into groups to facilitate discussion:
Pesticides
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB's)
Phenolic Compounds
Volatile Organic Compounds
Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds
- Inorganic Compounds
The basis for this breakdown is chemical similarities and
methods of analysis within each group. Each group's impact on
paint wastewater is discussed in the following sections.
VI-9
-------
TABLE VI-4
CHARACTERISTICS OF PAINT SAMPLING PLANTS
Wastewater
Number of
Plant
Number of
Volume
Type of
Historical
Priority
Code
Employees
(gal/d)
Treatment
Data
Pollutants*
1
150+
1K-6K
PC
Yes
18
2
150+
1K-6K
PC
Yes
16
3
150+
12K+
PC
Yes
8
4
101-150
1K-6K
PC
Yes
9
5
150+
1K-6K
PC
Yes
20
6
51-60
1K-6K
PC
Yes
4
8
101-150
1K-6K
PC
Yes
15
9
51-60
500-IK
PC
Yes
13
11
150+
12K+
GS
Yes
18
12
101-150
1-6K
Neut
Yes
20
13
10-20
1-100
PC
Yes
21
14
81-90
100-500
PC
Yes
12
15
41-50
100-500
PC
Yes
15
16
31-40
1-100
PC
Yes
18
17
101-150
1K-6K
PC
Yes
14
18
51-60
100-500
PC
Yes
14
20
41-50
500-IK
PC
No
10
24
101-150
6K-12K
PC
Yes
8
25
150+
1K-6K
PC
No
18
26
61-70
500-IK
Neut
No
16
27
61-70
100-500
PC
No
9
28
31-40
6K-12K
PC
No
10
GS = Gravity Separation
PC = Physical-Chemical Treatment
Neut = Neutralization
~Reported in the response to the Raw Materials Survey
VI-10
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
24
25
26
27
TABLE VI-5
WASTEWATER TREATMENT METHODS USED AT PAINT SAMPLING PLANTS
Neutral- Settling and Lagoon Gravity Chemical Treatment
ication clarification Evaporation Separation Flotation Filtration Alum Line Polymer Other Comments
XX XX
X
X
X XX
XX X Sodium Aluminate
XX XXX
X X
X X
XXX X
X
X X
X X
X XX
X
X XX
X
X XXX Ferric Chloride
XX X XXX Aluminum Sulfate
xx XX X Ferric Sulfate and
Sulphuric Acid;
Sodium Hydroxide
x X XX Sulphuric Acid
X XX
XX X
-------
TABLE VI-6
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS REPORTED IN SAMPLING PLANT RAH MATERIALS
<
H
I
I-1
to
1
2
3_
4
5
6
8
9_
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
24
25
26
27
Antimony
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Cadmium
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Copper
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Chromium
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Lead
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Nickel
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Selenium
X
Silver
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Zinc
X
X
X
'x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Asbestos
X
X
X
X
X
X
Cyanides
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Phenol
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Benzene
X
Toluene
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ethylbenzene
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Isophorone
X
X
X
X
X
Naphthalene
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
X
X
X
X
di-N-Butyl Phthalate
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Mercury
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Dimethyl Phthalate
X
X
Diethyl Phthalate
X
3-3 Dichloro Benzidine
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Methyl Chloride
X
X
X
X
X
X
Methylene Chloride
X
X
X
X
Trichloroethy1ene
X
X
X
X
Vinyl Chloride
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Vinylidine Chloride
X
X
X
X
Pen tachlorophenol
X
X
X
X
1,2 Dichlorobenzene
X
28
Note: Data obtained from the 1977 raw materials survey.
-------
Pesticides and Metabolites
aldrin
dieldrin
chlordane (technical mixture and metabolites)
4,4' -DDT
4,4' -DDE (p,p'DDX)
4,4' -DDD (p,-1 -TDE)
a-endosulfan
b-endosulfan
endosulfan sulfate
endrin
endrin aldehyde
heptachlor
heptachlor epoxide
a-BHC (hexachlorocylohexane)
b-BHC (hexachlorocylohexane)
c-BHC (hexachlorocylohexane)
d-BHC (hexachlorocylohexane)
toxaphene
Pesticides are not part of any raw materials used in paint
manufacture. Occasional use of these materials in some paint
plants for fumigation purposes has been reported. All occurrences
of pesticides in paint wastewater samples were at less than detect-
able levels (less than 10 ug/1). Out of 27 raw paint wastewater
samples analyzed the following pesticides occurred once at less
than 10 ug/1: aldrin, dieldrin, 4,4'DDE, b-endosulfan, heptachlor
epoxide, b-BHC, c-BHC, d-BHC. a-BHC occurred twice. Of 23 effluent
analyses for these eighteen pesticides only four individual occur-
rences at less than 10 ug/1 were detected. Similar sporatic
results for sludge and tap water samples were reported.
PCB's
No PCB's (polychlorinated biphenyls)were detected in any
sample analyzed during this study. The raw materials evaluation
similarly did not uncover any use of these materials in paint
manufacture.
Phenolic Compounds
phenol
2-chlorophenol
2,4-dichlorophenol
p-chlorometa cresol
2,4-dimethylphenol
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
2-nitrophenol
4-nitrophenol
2,4-dinitrophenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
pentachlorophenol (PCP)
Only one phenolic priority pollutant is used directly as a
raw material in paint manufacture. That compound is pentachloro-
phenol (PCP) which is used as a preservative in some paint formu-
lations. Nearly 14 percent of the respondents to the data col-
lection portfolio indicated that they used PCP. Other phenolic
VI-13
-------
priority pollutant compounds are not directly used in paint
manufacture, but some occurrence of these materials was expected
by virtue of the approximately 50 percent of the industry using
phenolic resins.
PCP occurred in about 25 percent of all paint raw and treated
wastewaters analyzed for phenolic compounds. In influent samples
PCP ranged from less than 10 ug/1 to 27,000 ug/1 with a median
value of 750 ug/1. In treated wastewater samples PCP concentrates
ranged from the detection limit of less than 10 ug/1 to 485 ug/1,
with a median of 11 ug/1. Seven sludges generated during physical/
chemical treatment were analyzed for PCP. Four were found to
contain PCP. The median PCP concentration for the sludge samples
was 125 ug/1.
Phenol also occurred frequently in paint wastewaters. Raw
wastewater levels ranged from less than 10 ug/1 to 3800 ug/1 with
a median of 96 ug/1. Treated effleunt phenol ranged from the
detection limit to 1240 ug/1, with a median of 16 ug/1. The
median value in sludge was 240 ug/1.
One other phenolic priority pollutant, 2,4-dinitrophenol was
found at measurable concentrations (110 to 250 ug/1) in paint raw
wastewater, however, at only one plant. Four other phenolic
priority pollutants, 2,4,6-trichlorophenol, 2,4-dichlorophenol,
2,4-dimethylphenol and 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol were found sporatically
in all types of samples at levels of less than 10 ug/1.
Volatile Organic Priority Pollutants
Halomethanes
bromoform (tribromomethane)
carbon tetrachloride (tetrachloromethane)
chloroform (trichloromethane)
chlorodibromomethane
dichlorodifluoromethane
dichlorobromomethane
methyl bromide (bromomethane)
methyl chloride (chloromethane)
methylene chloride (dichloromethane)
trichlorofluoromethane
Halomethanes, consisting of methane molecules with one or
more hydrogen replaced by a halogen (chlorine, bromine, etc.) are
used as solvents, aerosol propellants or for medicinal purposes.
In the paint industry only three of these pollutants, carbon
tetrachloride, chloroform and methylene chloride were found to be
raw materials (used as solvents) or present in wastewater at any
significant concentration or frequency of occurrence. Bromoform,
dichlorobromomethane and chlorodibromomethane were detected in the
tap water at several plants but not in the raw or treated wastewaters.
VI-14
-------
Less than one percent of the respondents to the data col-
lection portfolio indicated that carbon tetrachloride was used in
their paint manufacturing operation. However in nearly one-third
of the raw wastewater samples analyzed for volatile organic
pollutants carbon tetrachloride was found to be present at con-
centrations ranging from less than 10 ug/1 to a high of 30,000
ug/1 with a median value of 14 ug/1. About 10 percent of the
treated wastewater samples contained measurable quantities of
carbon tetrachloride.
Similarly for chloroform, where only 0.2 percent of the DCP
respondents indicated usage of the solvent, about half of the
volatile organic analyses found measurable quantities in raw and
treated paint wastewaters. For chloroform, raw wastewater values
ranged between the detection limit and 900 ug/1, with a median
value of 108 ug/1.
Treated wastewater chloroform values were sometimes higher
than corresponding raw wastewater values. The median value was 34
ug/1. Chloroform occurred at least as frequently in the tap water
supplied to the sampled plants as in the wastewater, but not on a
consistent enough basis to be subtracted as a background value.
The median chloroform level in tap water was 41 ug/1.
Data collection portfolio results indicated that over 22
percent of the respondents use methylene chloride in their oper-
ations. Two-thirds of all raw wastewater volatile organic analyses
revealed measurable amounts of methylene chloride with a median
value of 845 ug/1. Contamination of samples with methylene
chloride has been reported as being a common problem. In the
paint wastewater data, contamination appears to have occurred.
For example the median value for methylene chloride in treated
effluent was 1700 ug/1, considerably higher than raw wastewater
levels. Average values were similarly inconsistent. A median of
67 ug/1 methylene chloride in tap water was also detected.
Chlorinated Ethanes
1.1-dichloroethane
1.2-dichloroethane
1.1.1-trichloroethane
1.1.2-trichloroethane
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
chloroethane
Three of the six chlorinated ethanes which are primarily used
as solvents were identified as being used in paint manufacture.
The responses to the data collection portfolio indicated that
1,1,1 trichloroethane, 1,2 dichloroethane and 1,1,2 trichloro-
ethane are used at 10.2 percent, 0.4 percent and 0.7 percent of
all paint manufacturing sites, respectively. Occurrence of
chlorinated ethanes in analyzed samples roughly followed this
trend. 1,1,1 trichloroethane was detected in more than half of
VI-15
-------
all raw and treated waste samples. Raw waste levels ranged from
less than 10 ug/1 to 930 ug/1 with a median value of 82 ug/1.
Similarly, treated effluent levels ran from less than 10 ug/1 to
560 ug/1, with 29 ug/1 for the median. All analyzed sludge samples
also contained some 1,1,1 trichloroethane.
1,2-dichloroethane was detected in five of the 27 raw waste-
water samples analyzed for volatile organics. Concentrations
ranged from less than 10 ug/1 to 420 ug/1. The median raw waste
value was 33 ug/1. Treated wastewater was found to contain this
solvent in four of 23 samples analyzed. The treated wastewater
levels ranged between less than 10 ug/1 to 170 ug/1. This solvent
was not detected in any sludge sample.
Analyses for 1,1,2-trichloroethane were also positive in five
of 27 raw wastewater samples analyzed for volatile organic priority
pollutants. Only two of these analyses yielded values above the
detection limit with the maximum at 2,800 ug/1. Four of 27 treated
effluent samples were found to contain 1,1,2-trichloroethane at
levels ranging from less than 10 ug/1 to 2100 ug/1. This solvent
was not detected in any of the seven sludge samples that were
analyzed for it.
Aromatic Solvents
Benzene
Toluene (methylbenzene)
Ethylbenzene
The three aromatic solvents designated as priority pollutants
are common raw materials used throughout the Paint Industry,
although some are used more extensively than others. These
materials are not only used in paint formulations and as cutting
solvents for resins used in paint, but also as a solvent for
clean-up.
Roughly 70 percent of all data collection portfolio respond-
ents indicated on the raw materials survey that they use toluene
or a toluene containing raw materials in their plants. The median
toluene concentration in raw wastes analyzed for aromatic solvents
was 2150 ug/1. Twenty-two out of 27 raw wastewater samples were
found to contain toluene. Similarly, 17 out of 23 treated effluent
samples were found to contain toluene with a median value of 960
ug/1. Similarly, 6 out of 7 sludge samples contained the solvent.
Ethylbenzene, although less common as a raw material, was
found almost as frequently as toluene in paint wastewaters.
Ethylbenzene was detected in 20 of 27 raw wastewater samples
analyzed. The maximum concentrations in these samples were 15,000
ug/1 with a median of .1025 ug/1. The median concentration in 15
of 23 treated effluent samples was 370 ug/1 and six out of seven
sludge samples were found to contain measurable levels of the
solvent.
VI-16
-------
Benzene is the least frequently utilized aromatic solvent
with only 4.8 percent of the DCP respondents indicating it on the
raw materials survey. Nevertheless, 17 of 27 raw wastewater
samples were found to contain the solvent. The median raw waste-
water level was 440 ug/1. Over half of the treated effluents
contain benzene with a median of 307 ug/1. Five of 7 sludges
contain the solvent.
All three of the solvents appear in paint wastewater. Simi-
larly all three were found to occur fairly often in tap water of
the sampled plants. Background levels could not be subtracted
because of inconsistencies in the data.
Chloroalkyl Ethers
di (chloromethyl) ether
2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
These two materials which are used in pharmaceutical manu-
facture are not used in the Paint Industry, nor were they detected
in any analyzed sample.
Dichloropropane and Dichloropropene
1,2-dichloropropane
1,2-dichloropropylene
Neither of these two solvents which are used as dry cleaning
agents or soil fumigants were identified as raw materials used in
the Paint Industry. However, 1,2-dichloropropane was found in
about 10 percent of the raw and treated wastewaters analyzed for
volatile organics. (Median values were 12 and 22 ug/1, respectively.)
1,2 dichloropropylene was found in one treated waste sample at 44
ug/1.
Chlorinated Ethylenes
vinyl chloride
1.1-dichloroethylene
1.2-trans-dichloroethylene
trichloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene is a common solvent used as a degreaser
or dry cleaning fluid. Although not identified as a raw material
used in paint manufacture, 17 of 27 raw wastewater samples were
found to contain tetrachloroethylene. The range of concentrations
in raw wastewater was from less than 10 ug/1 to 4900 ug/1 with a
median value of 230 ug/1. Tetrachloroethylene was found in about
one-third of the treated effluent samples (maximum 700 ug/1,
median 35 ug/1) and five of seven sludge samples were found to
contain it.
VI-17
-------
More than 5 percent of the data collection portfolio respondents
indicated that trichloroethylene is used in their operations, and
more than half of the raw wastewater samples analyzed for volatile
organics were found to contain measurable quantities of this
solvent (range: less than 10 ug/1 to 250 ug/1; median: 52 ug/1).
Ten of 2 3 treated samples contain the solvent (median: 15 ug/1),
as did five of seven sludge samples.
Two other chlorinated ethylenes, 1,1-dichloroethylene and
1,2-trans-dichloroethylene were found in paint wastewater although
not identified in the raw materials desktop evaluation. Median
values for 1,1-dichloroethylene in raw and treated paint waste-
waters were 23 and 11 ug/1 respectively. About 20 percent of the
samples contained this material. Median values for 1,2-trans-
dichloroethylene in raw and treated paint wastewaters were 2 3 and
11 ug/1 respectively. About 20 percent of the samples contained
this material. Median values for 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene were
16 ug/1 and 27 ug/1 in raw and treated wastewaters, respectively.
This material was found in less than 10 percent of the raw waste-
water samples and in about 20 percent of the treated wastewater
samples. Neither of these materials occur in any sludge samples
analyzed for volatiles.
Vinyl chloride was expected to occur in paint wastewater by
virtue of the fact that about 4 0 percent of the DCP respondents
indicated that they use polyvinyl chloride (PVC) resins. Although
vinyl chloride is the monomer used in polymerization of PVC, no
paint wastewater samples were found to contain this priority
pollutant.
Miscellaneous Volatile Organics
acrolein
acrylonitrile
chlorobenzene
Acrolein was not identified as a raw material used in paint
manufacture. A single raw waste sample was found to contain less
than 10 ug/1 of this priority pollutant.
Chlorobenzene is a chemical intermediate used in production
of phenol, aniline and DDT. It is also a solvent indicated by 0.7
percent of the respondents to the data collection portfolio as
being used in their paint plants. Three out of 27 raw wastewater
samples were found to contain chlorobenzene (median 2 3 ug/1).
No incidence of the use of acrylonitrile in paint manufacture
or in paint wastewater was uncovered.
VI-18
-------
Semi-Volatile Organic Priority Pollutants
Polynuclear Aromatics (PNA's)
acenaphthene
acenaphthylene
anthracene
I,2-benzanthracene
3,4-benzofluoranthene
II,12-benzofluoranthene
3,4-benzopyrene
1,12-benzoperylene
crysene
1,2,5,6-dibenzanthracene
fluorene
fluoranthene
indeno-(1,2,3-cd) pyrene
naphthalene
phenanthrene
pyrene
With the exception of naphthalene, no significant incidence
of polynuclear aromatics was found in paint wastewater nor are any
of these materials used as raw materials in the industry.
Nearly 60 percent of the respondents to the raw materials
portion of the data collection portfolio indicated that they used
naphthenate type dryers in their paint products. As a result some
naphthalene might be expected in their wastewaters. In fact,
naphthalene was detected in 8 of 2 3 raw wastewater samples (range:
less than 10 ug/1 to 18,000 ug/1, median: 47 ug/1.) Similarly, 7
of 23 treated effluent samples contained naphthalene. (range:
less than 10 ug/1 to 1,830 ug/1; median: 16 ug/1.) Four of 7
sludge samples also contained naphthalene (median: 202 ug/1).
Chlorobenzenes
1.2-dichlorobenzene
1.3-dichlorobenzene
1.4-dichlorobenzene
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
hexachlorobenzene
No measurable concentration of any chlorobenzene was detected
in any sample obtained during the screening sampling program. As
a result of the raw materials survey, two of these compounds were
found to be used as solvents in the paint industry. These priority
pollutants are 1,2-dichlorobenzene which 0.6 percent of the DCP
respondents said they use and 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene which 0.2
percent of the respondents indicated as in use at their plants.
VI-19
-------
Phthalate Esters
di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
butyl benzyl phthalate
di-n-butyl phthalate
di-n-octyl phthalate
diethyl phthalate
dimethyl phthalate
Phthalate esters are synthetic compounds used primarily as
plasticizers. In the Paint Industry, several phthalate esters
were indicated as in use by varying percentages of DCP respondents:
di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, 24.6 percent; di-n-butyl phthalate,
25.8 percent; dimethyl phthalate, 3.7 percent; diethyl phthalate,
1.6 percent. All of the phthalate ester priority pollutants were
detected at least once during the screen sampling program. As
indicated by the DCP responses, di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate and
di-n-butyl phthalate occurred most frequently in paint wastewater.
The first of these, di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was found in nine
of 27 raw waste samples (range: less than 10 ug/1 to 690 ug/1;
median: 132 ug/1). In nine of 23 treated wastewater samples the
range was less than 10 ug/1 to 160 ug/1 with a median of 10 ug/1.
Six of 7 sludge samples contained di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
(range: less than 10 ug/1 to 1,940 ug/1; median: 407 ug/1).
Di-n-butyl phthalate was found in 18 of 27 raw wastewater
samples. The concentration range in these samples was between
less than 10 ug/1 to 69,000 ug/1 with a median of 259 ug/1. Nine
of 23 treated wastewater samples contained di-n-butyl phthalate.
The range was less than 10 ug/1 to 1,300 ug/1 with a median of 10
ug/1. Similarly, five of seven sludge samples contained di-n-
butyl phthalate (range: less than 10 ug/1 to 17,750 ug/1; median:
70 ug/1).
Since all butx two of the plants covered by the screen sampling
program were samples using grab sampling techniques, the impact of
phthalate ester contamination due to contact with sampler tubing
was minimized.
Haloethers
di (2-chloroethyl) ether
di (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
di (2-chloroethoxy) methane
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
The haloethers are synthetically produced chemical inter-
mediates that are sometimes used as solvents. Only one of the
haloethers was identified as being used in the Paint industry, di
(2-chloroethyl) ether. However, only 0.1 percent of the DCP
respondents indicated that they used this material.
VI-20
-------
The only occurrence of a haloether in a paint wastewater was
a single raw wastewater sample which was found to contain 3,200
ug/1 of di (2-chloroisopropyl) ether. However, in general, halo-
ethers are absent from paint wastewaters.
Nitrosamines
N-nitrosodimethylamine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
No incidence of nitrosomine priority pollutants in paint raw
materials has been found in the literature. Additionally, the
screening sampling program did not detect any measurable quantities
of these materials.
Nitro-Substituted Aromatics Other than Phenols
nitrobenzene
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2,6-dinitrotoluene
Dinitrotoluenes are chemical intermediates used in the pro-
duction of TNT. No evidence of the use of these compounds in
paint manufacture was found during the raw materials evaluations.
No measurable concentration of either dinitrotoluene was found in
any paint wastewater or sludge sample.
Although not identified as a paint raw material, nitrobenzene
was measured in three of 27 raw wastewater samples. Concentra-
tions ranged from less than 10 ug/1 to 180 ug/1 with a median of
110 ug/1. A single treated wastewater sample was found to contain
35 ug/1 of nitrobenzene.
Benzidine Compounds
benzidine
3,3*-dichlorobenzidine
Benzidine compounds are used primarily in the manufacture of
dyes. Benzidine itself was not identified as a paint raw material
nor was it detected in any samples. However, 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
was identified as a raw material used in the manufacture of many
pigments and dyes used in paint. Additionally, about 30 percent
of the DCP respondents said they use dichlorobenzidine derived
dyes or pigments. Although it was suspected that this material
might carry over as a contaminant in pigments or dyes used in
paint, no measurable quantities of 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine were
found in any sample.
VI-21
-------
Miscellaneous Semi-Volatile Organic Priority Pollutants
1,2 diphenylhydrazine
hexachloroethane
hexachlorobutadiene
hexachlorocyclopentadiene
2-chloronaphthalene
isophorone
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)
These materials are used primarily as solvents or chemical
intermediates. TCDD is a byproduct produced during the synthesis
of the pesticide 2,4,5-T. Of the miscellaneous semi-volatile
organics, only one, isophorone was identified as in use in paint
manufacturing operations. Used as a solvent, 12.5 percent of the
DCP respondents indicated isophorone on the raw materials survey.
Although not found in any raw wastewater sample, isophorone was
found in two treated wastewater samples (median: 113 ug/1).
Inorganic Priority Pollutants
antimony lead
arsenic mercury
asbestos nickel
beryllium selenium
cadmium silver
chromium thallium
copper zinc
cyanide
Although 15.9 percent of the DCP respondents indicated that
they use asbestos or asbestos containing raw materials, no analyses
for this priority pollutant were run. It is probable that asbestos
would be found in paint wastewater, but because of the absence of
a cost effective analytical method no "samples were collected for
asbestos analysis.
Approximately 70 percent of the DCP respondents indicated
that they used cyanide containing raw materials, primarily phthalo-
cyanine pigments. Average concentrations of cyanide in paint raw
and treated wastewaters and sludges were 73, 51 and 1,261 ug/1,
respectively.
Six metallic priority pollutants, chromium, copper, mercury,
nickel, lead and zinc were found to be both contained in commonly
used raw materials and to occur at relatively high concentrations
in paint wastewater. For each of these priority pollutants,
average raw wastewater concentrations were above 1,000 ug/1.
Average treated effluent values were above 800 ug/1.
Some of the remaining metallic priority pollutants are
contained in common paint raw materials, but none of the raw
wastewater samples were found to contain average concentrations
greater than 100 ug/1 for any of these pollutants. No treated
effluent sample concentrations were above 50 ug/1.
VI-22
-------
TRADITIONAL POLLUTANTS
Traditional or classical pollutant parameters occurred
consistently at relatively high concentrations in paint waste-
waters. In raw wastewater samples the oxygen demand parameters
BOD, COD and TOC had approximate average concentrations of 9900,
56,000, and 10,000 mg/1, respectively. BOD, COD and TOC approxi-
mate average treated wastewater levels were 5,300, 21,000 and
4,000 mg/1, respectively. Average sludge concentrations for BOD,
COD, and TOC were approximately 26,000, 187,000 and 37,000 mg/1
respectively.
Similar high values for the standard residue or solids
evaluations were reported. For example, total suspended solids
(TSS) was found on the average at 20,000 mg/1 in raw wastewater
samples, 2,000 mg/1 in treated wastewater and 104,000 mg/1 in the
sludge samples analyzed. Other solids analyses followed this
trend. Oil and grease (freon extractables) had an average raw
paint wastewater concentration of 1,200 mg/1. Treated wastewater
and sludge samples averaged 230 mg/1 oil and grease, sludge samples
averaged 8,600 mg/1.
Total phenols, which relate to the phenol group of priority
pollutants, occurred in all analyzed samples. Raw wastewater
total phenol ranged from the detection limit to 1,900 mg/1 with an
average of 290 mg/1. Treated effluent total phenol also ran from
the detection limit to 1,900 mg/1 with an average of 230 mg/1.
The average sludge level for total phenol was 630 mg/1.
VI-23
-------
SECTION VII
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
The vast majority of paint plants that discharge wastewater
discharge to municipal sewerage systems. Consequently, the
degree of sophistication of wastewater control and treatment is
often a function of the restrictions applied by the municipal
system. There is a resulting wide variation between paint plants
in the amount, characteristics, handling and treatment of process
wastewater. The following paragraphs will discuss some of these
factors, as well as the practice of various wastewater management
and treatment alternatives.
Treated Wastewater Characteristics
The average untreated wastewater characteristics from nine
paint plants sampled during the 1976 study are presented in Table
VII-1. Also presented are the median percent removals for each
parameter. The treatment processes represented by this data were
batch and continuous physical/chemical treatment, settling, and
neutralization. A more in-depth discussion of the removal data
will be presented later in this section.
The data collected during the 1977 and 1978 sampling program
is presented in Appendix G, on a batch by batch basis. These data
are summarized in Table VII-2. Nine priority pollutants occurred
above the detectable limit in over 50 percent of the samples.
They are: chromium, copper, mercury, zinc, benzene, chloroform,
ethylbenzene, methylene chloride and toluene. All occurred at an
average concentration of 390 ug/1 or greater. Eight priority
pollutants not indicated on Table VII-2 occurred in one or more
samples at above the detectable limit. They are: arsenic, selenium
1-2 dichloropropylene, di (2 chlorethoxy) ether, 2-4 dinitro-
phenol, di-noctyl phthalate, butyl benzyl phthalate, and dimethyl
phthalate. Eleven other priority pollutants not indicated on
Table VII-2 were detected once or twice at less than 10 ug/1.
These are: chlorobenzene, chloroethane, 1-2 diphenylhydrazine,
diethyl phthalate, acenaphthylene, anthracene, phenathrene, 4-4-
DDD, b-Endosulfan-Beta, endrin aldehyde, and b-BHC Beta.
In-Plant Wastewater Control Strategies
There are two widely used general strategies for reducing the
amount of wastewater that paint plants discharge to the environ-
ment. The first is to reduce the amount of wastewater generated,
and the second to reuse as much wastewater as possible within
plant processes. The amount of wastewater generated is influenced
by the water pressure used for tank and equipment cleaning, the
degree of cleaning required, the use of dry cleaning techniques,
etc. Some of these factors have been discussed in Section V
(See Table V-2).
VII-1
-------
TABLE VII-1
EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
1976 SAMPLING PROGRAM
Average Median
of Nine Standard Percent
Parameter Plants Deviation Removal
pH (units)
7(1)
_
BOD
3,900
3,300
41%
COD
11,300
7,600
60%
Oil & Grease
450
480
68%
Tot. Solids
15,500
26,300
53%
Susp. Solids
Settl. Solids
1,700
1,600
87%
33.8
45.6
52%
Diss. Solids
13,900
26,100
31%
Tot. Vol. Solids
4,500
5,700
67%
Total Phenols
.76
1.2
13%
Aluminum
79
170
58%
Antimony
2.2
4.3
0
Barium
0.33
0.27
90%
Boran
1.5
2.2
29%
Cadmium
0.074
0.85
43%
Total Chromium
4.6
7.1
52%
Cobalt
1.3
2.6
24%
Copper
0.18
0.19
53%
Iron
40
87
61%
Lead
3.3
6.3
84%
Manganese
1.3
2.6
58%
Mercury
1.8
2.4
38%
Molybdenum
0.49
1.1
0
Nickel
0.65
1.3
26%
Tin
3.4
7.4
8.1%
Titanium
1.00
180
60%
Zinc
190
460
27%
(1) median
(2) ml/1
All Units mg/1 unless otherwise noted
VII-2
-------
TABLE V1I-2
TREATED WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
pp
PARAMETER
NUHBER OF —
AVERAGE
MEDIAN
MAXIHU*
SAMPLES
TIMES
TIMES
ANALYZED
6ETECTED
DETECTED
ABOVE M1N.
PH
4B
49
4 A
5312
3A50
3200C
COP (WG-L >
47
47
47
21202
11000
260000
ICC t KB-L >
44
44
44
399V
2750
25000
OILSfiREASE (ftQ-L)
43
43
42
232
24
1700
121
CYANICE
4B
48
10
31
20
530
TOTAL PHENOLS
49
4?
43
22B
¥0
1900
TS iHB-L}
45
45
43
6621
3500
230 00
TUS
44
44
44
4530
39B-Q
14966
TSS
41
41
41
3,211
1500
120TO
UBS
41
41
41
1338
110
9200
CALCIUM (MG-L)
42
42
31
298
165
1200
MAGNESIUM
42
42
42
21
11
SI
SODIUM < MG -L >
42
42
34
747
234
15000
126
SILVER
45
43
0
9
LT 10
20
ALUMINUM
42
42
32
1329S
2100
iooooo
BARIUH
42
42
22
1B63
50
30000
117
BERYLLIUM
45
45
1
V
LT 10
25
IIS
CABNIUN
45
43
10
29
20
20O
COBALT
42
42
19
4 V1
SO
£000
119
CHROHIUH
45
45
24
128?
50
30000
120
CUPPER
45
45
36
196?
115
60000
IRON
42
42
26
118030
2000
2000000
123
MERCURY
45
45
35
932
200
4400
MANGANESE
42
42
30
2124
300
30000
molybdenum
41
41
19
230
50
6000
124
NICKEL
45
45
12
3463
50
80000
122
LEAP
45
45
17
1143
200
40000
114
ANTIMONY
43
43
4
2B
23
ieo
TIN
42
42
22
200
50
2000
TITAMIUH
42
42
21
2092
200
30000
127
THALLIUM
45
45
J
12
LT 10
100
138
ZINC
45
45
31
8530
1000
100000
4
BENZENE
23
14
12
684
307
3600
6
CAR BOH TETTihCHLORltlE
23
3
2
64 3
120
iaoo
io
t,2 DICHLOROETKANE
23
4
3
71
53
170
11
lrlfl 1RICHLQR0ETHAME
23
14
10
a?
29
560
t3
It 1 OICHLONOETHANE
23
2
1
95
95
ISO
14
1.1r2 TRICHLORQETKANE
23
4
3
930
005
2100
23
CHLOROFORM
23
15
14
394
34
4700
29
1,1 DICHLOROETHYLENE
23
4
2
IV
II
44
30
1,2 TRANSDlCHLDROETHiLENE
23
6
4
51
27
las
32
t,2 ttlCULOftDPROPME
23
2
2
212
212
400
38
ETHYLBEH2ENE
23
15
13
5024
370
?3ia&
44
METHYLENE CHLOBIEf
23
19
V9
5M>0
1700
31000
4B
DIDHLOROBRDHCHETHAME
23
0
0
0
51
CHLOftODIItROMaHETHAUE
23
0
0
0
54
ISOPHORGNE
23
2
2
113
113
200
55
MAPHTHALEHE
23
7
4
383
16
IB 30
56
NITROBENZENE
23
1
1
35
35
35
PENTACHLOtfCPHENOL
23
6
3
121
11
485
<55
PHENOL
23
13
7
138
14
1240
£6
BKa-ETHVLHEXYO PHTHALAT£
23
7
2
33
LT 10
160
66
PI-H-BUTYL PHTHALATE
23
9
4
308
L7 10
1300
BS
TETRACKLOKCErHYLeHE
23
B
7
191
35
700
et
TOLUENE
23
17
17
1314
960
71V0
8?
TRICHL0RDE1HTLENE
23
10
a
78
15
300
ALL
UNITS ue/u UNLESS DTHERUISE
NO TED f PP^PRIOFSITY POLLUTANT
VII-3
-------
There are several methods that are used by some paint plants
to reduce overall water usage. The amount of water required to
clean a paint tank can be reduced by cleaning the tank walls with
a squeegee, prior to rinsing with water. The quantity of waste-
water from tank cleaning can also be reduced by the use of high
pressure water. There are several commercial systems available
which consist of booster pumps, flow regulators and nozzles, which
can supply low volume, high pressure water sprays which will clean
tanks as well or better than hand-held hoses using city water
pressure, in a shorter time, using less water.
As presented in Section V, the information from DCP responses
indicates that there is some correlation between water pressure
and the amount of water required for tank cleaning. This cross
tabulation is shown in Appendix C.
Another in-plant control measure which has been used by paint
plants to reduce wastewater generation is the sealing or elimin-
ation of floor drains and trenches. Plants that have no drains
must collect all tank rinse water (unless it is piped to the
treatment system or disposal point) and filling area rinse water,
which may facilitate controlling the volume of water used for each
purpose. Spills must be picked up with shovels or squeegees and
floors are usually mopped or cleaned by machine. Where floor
trenches exist there is a greater tendancy to use hoses to clean
equipment and floors, leading to greater water consumption and
wastewater generation.
In-plant control of wastewater generation by good house-
keeping procedures can have a significant effect on total waste-
water volume. According to the SRI report, about one-third of the
plants surveyed in 1972 reported a reduction of wastewater either
by recycling or by conservation of water through the use of high-
pressure nozzles for cleaning, self-contained tank washers or
other conservation methods. In several small plants (less than 50
employees) the quantity of cleanup wastewater was found to range
from 0.02 to 0.23 liters/liters (gal/gal) of paint. Within these
plants, production equipment and cleaning facilities were nearly
identical. The ten-fold differences in washwater volume generated
shows the effect of water conservation practices. A comparison of
two large plants of nearly equal capacity showed that one dis-
charged 0.86 liters of waste per liter (gal/gal) of product and
the second discharged 0.08 liters of waste per liter (gal/gal) of
product.
Data presented in Table V-8 confirms the still wide range of
wastewater generation from plant to plant. These data were confirmed
by recent paint plant inspections, as evidenced in Table V-18.
Many plants clean tanks by allowing a worker to hold a free running
hose for an indeterminant length of time, while other plants
ration cleanup water by either volume or time. It was also observed
that several paint plants had negated the need for occasional
caustic rinsing of their water-base paint tanks by the use of very
high pressure (1000 psi) water or steam cleaning on a periodic
basis.
VII-4
-------
Although most paint plants produce a wide variety of paint
colors and finishes, many plants' production consists of predom-
inantly white and off-white batches. Good practice, already in
use at some plants, is to attempt, as much as possible, to segre-
gate white paint production, and to reuse the wastes from each
batch in the subsequent batch. If the same tank can be used for
the subsequent batch, a wash^-down operation need not be performed,
and no wastewater will be generated. Where plants have a high
ratio of white to color paint production, and where a plant has an
ample amount of production equipment and tanks, it should consider
segregating white paint production, and reusing the residue in the
subsequent batch. This can also be practiced in isolated cases
where a plant makes a large amount of any given color of paint in
a short period of time.
Even where plants cannot dedicate tanks to a single product,
the same recycle opportunities can be obtained by scheduling
batches of the same or similar products back to back in the same
tank. The rinse water from the first batch can be held in the
tank and used in the next batch as part of the formulation,
reducing raw material requirements and avoiding disposal costs.
Where paint rinse water cannot be reused immediately, there
are several methods that are practiced by paint plants for eventu-
ally recycling this water. There are some plants that collect all
paint wastewater in drums or tanks, label it by color and base,
and reuse it in the next batch which is compatible (similar or
darker color). The wastewater may have to be treated with a
biocide, and is usually used as soon as possible. Paint companies
have had different experiences with spoilage. Some plants claim
to have used biocide treated wastewater six months or more after
collection with satisfactory results. Other plants will not reuse
wastewater that has been standing for more than several days.
Several paint companies are reluctant to reuse wastewater at all,
pointing out that the economic losses from spoilage of a 6,000 or
10,000 gallon paint batch are very large, compared to the disposal
costs of a few hundred gallons of wastewater. If forced to recall
spoiled paint from retailers, economic losses could be even more
severe.
Another method for reusing paint wastewater is to treat the
wastewater by physical/chemical precipitation or some other method
and reuse the rinse water for subsequent paint batches or as rinse
water. The effluent from good physical/chemical treatment systems
is usually colorless and low in suspended solids and oil and
grease. Treating rinse waters prior to reuse does, however,
remove economically valuable solids.
Recycle of wastewater in one form or another has been practiced
by some paint plants for many years. In an earlier report, repre-
sentative of 1972 conditions, SRI reported that 20 percent of
VII-5
-------
paint plants surveyed generated no process wastewater on a routine
daily basis. However, the report does not indicate whether these
plants primarily produce water-base or solvent-base paint. The
SRI report also indicated that an additional 22 percent of all
paint plants, while generating some wastewater controlled or
disposed of it by some non-discharge method. This SRI data is
presented in Table VII-3.
The DCP data which is representative of 1977 operations show
an increase in the incidence of reuse or recycle. In total, 851
paint plants responding to the DCP indicated that they used a
water rinse, and an analysis of the tank cleaning and wastewater
recycle procedures used by these plants is presented in Table VII-
4. Of this group, 76 percent of the plants usually clean their
tanks between batches, and 13 percent of the plants always reuse
their wastewater in subsequent batches of paints. Over 57 percent
of the plants reuse wastewater in subsequent batches at least
occasionally. The number of plants always reusing their waste-
water is greatest among plants whose production is concentrated in
few products. Twenty-two percent of the plants which produce 90
percent or more white or tint base paint always recycle rinse
water into product, while 25 percent of plants producing 90 percent
or more water-base paints always recycle. Of the small group (76
plants) which concentrate both in white or tint base paint and
water-base paints (90 percent or more of both) 29 percent always
recycle their rinse water. In contrast, of plants producing 90
percent or more of color paint, who may be expected to have a
broader product mix, only 8 percent always recycle their rinse
water into subsequent paint batches.
Small paint plants are far more likely than large plants to
reuse their wastewater as part of product formulation. Of the
plants with under 20 employees, 38 percent reuse the rinse water
in product always or most of the time, whereas only 17 percent of
plants with over 100 employees use spent washwater in subsequent
paint batches. Only 1.1 percent of the large plants indicated
reusing wastewater in product all of the time versus 16 percent of
small plants and 13 percent of all plants that use a water rinse.
Plants that reuse wastewater to rinse tanks and equipment
follow the same general trends as those that reuse it in the
product. Small plants are more likely to practice recycle vthan
large plants, and plants producing water-base paints recycle more
often than the industry-wide average. Plants which produce 90
percent or more white paint, as expected, reuse their wastewater
for rinsing more than plants producing various pigmented products.
These data are also presented in Table VII-4.
There is a trend in the Paint Industry, in part prompted by
air pollution regulations, to replace some solvent-base paint
applications with water-base products. This will lead to an
VII-6
-------
TABLE VII-3
EXTENT OF CONTROL AND TREATMENT PRACTICED IN PAINT PLANTS (1972)
Number and percentage of plants
(Categorized by number of employees)
Fewer than 10 10 to 19 20 to 49 50 to 99 100 to 249 250 or more
Total
No .
No.
% No. % No.
% No.
% No.
% No.
Plants generating
no wastewater
Plants not dis-
charging
wastewater
Plants treating
all waste-
water
Plants partially
treating or not
discharging
wastewater
Plants without
treatment
2
5
28
24
17 11 33 5 23 2
30 12 35 4 18 1
20
7 4 11 5 18 6 27
10 2 6 3 14 3 14
5 31 20
5 33 22
20 10 33 5 15 5 23 10 45 10 50 45 30
20 23 15
20 20 13
Total plants
in group
25
16 29 19 34 22 22 15 22 15 20 13 152 100
-------
TABLE VII-4
FREQUENCY OF TANK CLEANING AND REUSE OF PAINT WASTEWATER
All Plants
Using
Water Rinse
Plants Producing
90%+
Water Base
90%+
White or Tint
Base Using
Water Wash
90%+
Color Paint
Using
Water Wash
90%+ White &
90%+
Water Base
Plants with Plants with
Under 20 emp. Over 100 emp.
Using Using
Water Wash Water Wash
Percent of Plants
Frequency of Tank
Cleaning Between
Batches
Always 33.7
Most of time 42.0
Occasionally 21.3
Never 1.9
Not Answered 1.2
43.1
26.6
24.8
3.7
1.8
37.4
30.6
23.1
6.8
2.0
20.3
38.4
24.7
11.0
5.5
42.1
18
23.7
13.2
2.6
33.8
36.9
23.2
3.9
2.1
27.2
52.2
18.5
1.1
1.1
Reuse in Product
Always 13.0
Most of time 24.3
Occasionally 20.6
Never 35.8
Not Answered 6.2
24.8
17.4
21.1
26.6
10.1
22.4
26.5
8.8
29.9
12.2
8.2
9.6
6.8
49. 3
26.0
28.9
13.2
7.9
28.9
21.1
16.4
21.7
14.8
29.1
18.1
1.1
16.3
25.0
51.5
6.5
Reuse as Rinsewater
Always 6.8
Most of time 16.6
Occasionally 24.9
Never 39.7
Not Answered 12.0
11.9
11.0
16.5
44.0
16.5
6.8
12.9
16.3
42.2
21.8
4.1
6.8
6.8
52.1
30.1
10.5
7.9
7.9
46.1
27.6
8.2
16.3
18.4
32.5
24.6
2.2
10.9
27.2
52.2
7.6
-------
overall increase in wastewater from the Paint Industry, and may
complicate recycle programs, since industrial water-base coatings
may not be fully compatible with trade sales products. However,
it has been demonstrated by the Paint Industry that management
attention to water use within the plant can reduce wastewater
volume and find potential uses for this wastewater.
Wastewater Disposal
As has been indicated previously, almost all paint plants
that discharge process wastewater are indirect dischargers. The
disposal method(s) utilized by paint plants was indicated on the
DCP responses, and are presented in Table VI1-5. The most common
methods used are discharge to a sewer, contract hauling, evapora-
tion and landfill or impoundment. Only 13 plants indicated
discharging paint process wastewater directly to a receiving
stream. Follow-up with these plants, however, showed that most
were not actually direct dischargers. Several responders had
misinterpreted the questions, others discharged only non-contact
cooling water, and several were part of a multi-industry plant
complex that discharged directly. In the last case, paint process
waste was always less than 10 percent of the total plant waste-
water volume, and was less than 1 percent at several plants.
Sixty-eight plants indicated the discharge of wastewater to a
storm sewer, which can be considered a form of direct discharge.
However, of the 68 plants, 26 discharge to both the sanitary and
storm sewers, so it is probable that process wastewater is restricted
to the sanitary sewer. Ten plants utilize contract hauling of
process wastewater along with discharge to the storm sewer, and it
is likely that only cooling water is discharged to the storm
sewer. About half of the plants that indicated their only dis-
posal method was discharge to the storm sewer were surveyed by
telephone. Among this group, several plants discharge only non-
contact cooling water or stormwater runoff to the storm sewer, and
only two plants dispose of process wastewater in this manner. The
majority of plants misinterpreted the question, and actually
discharge to the sanitary sewer. In summary, it is estimated that
there are less than five known manufacturing sites that can be
considered as exclusively or primarily engaged in paint manu- •
facture that discharge process waste on a regular basis directly
to a receiving stream.
Plants with wastewater treatment often generate a sludge
which requires disposal as a solid waste. Other plants dispose of
some or all of their untreated process wastewater as a solid
waste. Most plants responding to questions concerning sludge
handling utilized contract haulers for sludge removal. Other
common disposal methods included trucking to landfill by the
plant, and storage on plant property. Incineration, reclamation
and other disposal methods were mentioned by just a few plants.
VII-9
-------
TABLE VII-5
WASTEWATER DISPOSAL METHODS
All Plants
Disposal Method
Complete Reuse
Partial Reuse
Evaporation
Discharge to City Sewer
Discharge to Storm Sewer
Discharge to Receiving Stream
Impoundment on Plant Property
Incineration
Contract Hauling
Landfilled
Well or Septic Tank
Spray Irrigation
Number of
Plants*
88
262
125
475
68
13
87
5
271
107
13
8
Percent of
Total
6.4
19.1
9.1
34.6
4.9
0.9
6.3
0.4
19.7
7.8
0.9
0.6
Plants Using Waterwash
Number of Percent of
Plants
82
242
105
363
51
13
82
2
239
97
10
7
Total
9.6
28.4
12.3
42.7
6.0
1.5
9.6
0.2
28.1
11.4
1.2
0.8
* Some plants indicated multiple disposal methods.
VII-10
-------
Most contract haulers used by paint plants dispose of the sludge
in a landfill, although a small number incinerate or reclaim it.
Nineteen percent of all paint plants did not know what the contract
hauler does with their waste.
Another potential source of waste from the Paint Industry is
off specification batches of paint or other non-suitable or returned
product. Most plants attempt to rework this paint into other
products to save as much of the raw materials as possible. Other
plants sell or give the material to scavengers for reclaiming, or
sell the paint as a lower quality material at reduced prices. The
methods used by paint plants for handling off-spec batches of
paint are presented in Table VII-6. This waste source is not
usually discharged as a wastewater.
Wastewater Treatment
The methods used by paint plants for treating or pretreating
wastewater prior to disposal are shown in Table VII-7. Some type
of wastewater treatment is used by 355 plants. The most common
treatment methods are settling and clarification, gravity separ-
ation (with or without chemical addition) and neutralization. Few
plants employ biological treatment for paint wastes, and those
that do usually have a combined treatment plant for wastes from
other plant operations. No paint plants use advanced wastewater
treatment methods such as activated carbon or ultrafiltration. Of
the plants that discharge their wastewater to a municipal sewer,
approximately 40 percent pretreat their waste prior to disposal.
Only 208 plants indicated that the local muncipality or sewage
authority utilized an industrial waste ordinance which might limit
their discharges, but 413 plants said that the municipality used
sewer use charges or surcharges. Two-hundred-six plants indicated
that the municipality sampled their wastewater and 105 plants were
required to sample their own wastewater. To discharge to the city
sewer, 137 plants need a permit. Although most municipalities
prohibit the discharge of solvents to the sewers, 13 paint plants
indicated that they discharge their spent solvents to the sewer.
Ninety-one plants discharge spent caustic solutions to the sewer,
either with or without neutralization. Two-thirds of the plants
discharging to the sewer indicate that their discharge is batch,
while the remaining plants discharge continuously.
Primary Treatment Systems
Many paint plants utilize physical treatment systems such as
equalization or settling. Gravity settling of paint wastewater
will remove many of the suspended solids, but will still leave a
supernatant layer high in solids and other pollutants. The 1977-
1978 sampling program did not collect any effluent samples from
plants with only settling as treatment. Therefore, no discussion
of this type of treatment will be presented. The use of floccu-
lating chemicals with gravity settling will provide enhanced
treatment of paint wastewater.
VII-11
-------
TABLE VII-6
HANDLING OF OFF-SPECIFICATION PAINT
Percent of
Method Number of Plants Industry
Reworked into Other Products 1074 78.2
Sold to Scavenger 192 14.0
Given to Scavenger 182 13.2
Pay Scavenger to Remove 34 2.5
Sold at Reduced Price 29 2.1
Landfilled 26 1.9
Discharged with Wastewater 17 1.2
Reclaimed by Plant for Solvent 8 0.6
Incinerated 5 0.4
* Some Plants Indicated Multiple Answers.
VII-12
-------
TABLE VII-7
WASTEWATER TREATMENT METHODS
Treatment Method
Neutralization
Filtration
Evaporation
Flotation
Activated Sludge
Trickling Filtration
Lagoon
Gravity Separation
Carbon Adsorption
Equalization
Settling or Clarification
Chemical Treatment
Alum
Lime
Polymer
Other
Number of Plants*
53
28
87
23
5
3
24
132
0
10
158
28
19
42
24
Percent of Total
3.9
2.0
6.3
1.7
0.4
0.2
1.7
9.6
0
0.7
11.5
2.0
1.4
3.1
1.7
Plants indicating at least
one type of treatment
355
25.8%
Many plants use multiple treatment methods
VII-13
-------
Physical/Chemical Treatment
Physical/chemical (P/C) treatment systems take advantage of
the natural tendency of paint wastewater to settle. Most plants
utilizing P/C systems operate the systems on a batch basis. The
plant's wastewater flow is collected in a holding tank until a
sufficient quantity is obtained to warrant treatment. If necessary,
the pH is adjusted to an optimum level, a coagulant (often lime,
alum, ferric chloride or iron salts) and/or a coagulant aid (polymer)
is added, mixed and the batch is allowed to settle (from 1 to 48
hours). The supernatant is discharged and the sludge is generally
disposed of as a solid waste. Often the sludge is left in the
treatment tank for one or more subsequent batches, to reduce the
overall sludge volume. Solvents, oils and skins may float to the
surface where they are manually removed.
Some plants operate continuous P/C treatment systems, which
operate on the same principal. Other plants operate semi-continuous
P/C treatment systems, where the wastewater is collected, batch
treated and released into a continuous flow settling tank. However,
most P/C systems in the paint industry are batch, which seem best
suited to the batch nature of wastewater generation by the industry.
During the 1977-1978 sampling program, many plants with batch
P/C treatment systems were selected for sampling. In total 41
batches from 16 plants were analyzed for conventional pollutants
and metals, and 2 0 batches were analyzed for priority pollutants.
The effluent characteristics and average percent removals for
selected pollutant parameters are presented in Table VII-8.
Overall, P/C treatment removed many conventional and priority
pollutants, although the level of many in the effluents remained
high. Seven priority pollutants (mercury, carbon tetrachloride,
1,1,2 trichloroethane, nitrobenzene, pentachlorophenol, di-N-butyl
phthalate and tetrachloroethylene) had median percent removals in
excess of 90 percent. In total 13 other priority pollutants had
median removals between 50 and 90 percent. The conventional
pollutant parameters that were best removed by P/C treatment were
oil and grease (97 percent median) and total suspended solids (90
percent).
The data base utilized in preparing Table VII-8 was searched
by computer for indicater pollutants, that is conventional (and
easily measured) pollutants whose removal or effluent levels would
predict the removal or effluent level of priority pollutants.
Unfortunately, no statistically meaningful correlations were
determined. This is in part explained by some of the problems
with the analytical data explained in Sections V and VI. There
were many instances where priority pollutants were measured in the
treated effluent from one batch while not detected in the influent
from that batch. This situation occurred for almost every priority
pollutant, and is one reason why correlation coefficients were
poor. For several of the frequently occurring priority pollutants,
VII-14
-------
TABLE VII -8
EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS AND REMOVALS FROM
PLANTS WITH BATCH PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT SYSTEMS
Average ... Average Median
Parameter Concentration Percent Removal Percent Removal
BOO (mg/1)
5600
35
21
COD (mg/1
20,000
68
74
TOC (mg/1)
3600
65
75
Oil and Grease (mg/1)
107
90
97
Cyanide (mg/1)
54
23
0
Total Solids (mg/1)
6100
68
80
TDS (mg/1)
4700
35
17
TSS (mg/1)
1300
82
98
TVS (mg/1)
2500
77
88
Silver
LT 10
14
0
Beryllium
LT 10
19
0
Cadmium
30
31
0
Chromium
1500
43
32
Copper
2300
56
70
Mercury
400
68
93
Nickel
4200
19
0
Lead
1300
54
68
Antimony
30
11
0
Thallium
12
6
0
Zinc
7900
68
85
Benzene
740
54
65
Carbon Tetrachloride
65
75
100
1,2 Dichloroethane
40
61
84
1,1,1 Trichloroethane
95
39
30
1,1,2 Trichloroe thane
540
62
100
Chloroform
390
50
57
1,1 Dichloroethylene
19
33
0
1,2 Dichloropropane
210
52
58
Ethylbenzene
6200
65
79
Methylene Chloride
5500
54
67
Naphthalene
440
47
66
Nitrobenzene
35
89
100
Pentachlorophenol
48
59
96
Phenol
49
28
0
Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
35
60
86
Di-tt-buLyl phtlialdrte
184
H8
yy
Tetrachloroethylene
191
70
100
Toluene
1900
54
70
Trichloroethylene
80
51
62
(1) Average of concentrations when detected.
All units ug/1 unless otherwise noted.
VII-15
-------
the data was screened and questionable data points rejected. These
reduced data were correlated against several conventional pollutants.
The correlation values were much improved, but statistically
insignificant. It is likely that the data base is too small and
heterogeneous for statistical analysis. However, there are several
broad conclusions that can be supported by the data.
Removals of total solids, suspended solids, oil and
grease, COD and TOC by P/C treatment are all good (over 60 percent
for each). The BOD removals indicated were lower, possibly because
of difficulty measuring the BOD's of paint effluent.
Removals of most of the frequently occurring metal
priority pollutants were also good. Copper, mercury, lead and
zinc had median percent removals of 68 percent or greater. Removals
of chromium and nickel were lower. Where they occurred, these
metals averaged over 1 mg/1 in effluent except for mercury (400
ug/1). Zinc averaged almost 8 mg/1.
Removal of most commonly used solvents was very good.
Benzene, carbon tetrachloride, ethylbenzene, tetrachloroethylene,
toluene and trichloroethylene all had median removals above 60
percent. However, all except carbon tetrachloride and trichloro-
ethylene were present in effluents at an average concentration of
over 190 ug/1.
Phthalate removals were excellent, with median removals
of 86 percent or higher.
Some metals, (cyanide, cadmium, antimony) were poorly
removed. Other metals were not present frequently enough to draw
conclusions.
There are several operating procedures which have been adopted
by various paint plants to improve the performance of their P/C
treatment systems. Some of these are:
Selection of proper pH, and flocculating chemicals.
Plants that have experimented with different inorganic salts
and/or polymers have often upgraded their treatment efficiency.
Jar test for optimum dosage. Each batch of paint waste-
water has different characteristics and will require varying
chemical dosages. Testing each batch in several jars with different
pH's and/or chemical doses requires little time and can lead to
enhanced performance. An overdose of polymer, in addition to
wasting money, may result in worse treatment than the proper dose.
Select proper mixers and/or flocculators. Some plants
have experienced improved performance by higher speed mixers
and/or optimizing mixing time and blade shape.
VII-16
-------
Biological Treatment
According to the literature, latex containing wastewater is
amenable to biological treatment. Several paint plants that are
part of multi-plant sites treat their wastewater by biological
treatment. Most pretreat the paint effluent and combine it with
other plant wastewater. One plant that was sampled during 1978
has an aerated lagoon that treats primarily paint effluent (after
batch P/C treatment). Data from this plant are presented in Table
VII-9. Priority pollutant parameters which were not detected in
any of the three sample points are not listed. The data indicate
that the aerated lagoon is successful in reducing conventional,
metal and organic pollutants to low levels. Of priority pollutants
only methylene chloride was present at over 30 ug/1 or the detect-
able limit. This is likely to have been caused by contamination
from bottle preparation techniques. Aerated lagoons may be practical
for paint plants in rural areas that wish to further treat effluent
from P/C treatment, for both conventional and priority pollutants.
However, additional data will be required to accurately judge the
effect of biological treatment on paint wastewaters.
Other Wastewater Treatment Systems
There are many other wastewater treatment processes such as
ultrafiltration, reverse osmosis, steam stripping, activated
carbon, dissolved air flotation, sand filtration, etc. that are
used on industrial wastewaters commonly. None of these systems
are in widespread use by the Paint Industry, and most are not used
by any plants. The effluent from P/C treatment from paint plants
would probably require additional treatment before application to
activated carbon, since the median TSS level is ten times the 10
to 20 mg/1 generally recommended limits for carbon.
Effect of Production Characteristics on Effluent Quality
In Section IV it was indicated that tank cleaning procedures
form a rationale basis for Paint Industry subcategorization. Data
presented in the 1976 Burns and Roe draft document indicated some
differences in wastewater characteristics (conventionals and
metals only) between plants that manufacture only water-base paint
and plants that manufacture both water and solvent-base paint.
Data from this study indicate that there are higher concentrations
of organic priority pollutants in the waste streams from plants
producing both water-base and solvent-base paint than from plants
manufacturing water-base paint only. However, many organic priority
pollutants are removed effectively by P/C treatment. The effluents
from the above two categories of paint plants were examined for
their possible effects on subcategorization.
The effluent characteristics of plants that produce 100
percent water-base paints are presented in Table VII-10. The
effluent characteristics of plants producing both solvent-base and
water-base paints are indicated in Table VII-11. The percent
occurrences for most of the commonly occurring priority pollutants
are close, and for almost all parameters the average and median
concentrations are within the same order of magnitude.
VII-17
-------
TABLE VII -9
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT BY AERATED LAGOON, AT ONE PAINT PLANT (1)
Parameter Untreated Wastewater P/C Effluent Lagoon Tap Water
pH (unita)
7.4
7.0
8.3
7.6
BOD (mg/1)
GT
25,000
23
,400
17
LT
1
COD (og/l)
70,000
260
,000
675
10
TOC (mg/1)
7,500
25
,000
200
4
Total Phenols (mg/1)
1.2
1.1
0.003
LT
0.002
TSS (mg/1)
46,000
400
. 42
LT
5
Silver
LT
10
LT
10
LT ' 10
LT
10
Arsenic
440
LT
100
LT 20
2.8
Beryllium
7
2
LT 1
2
Cadmium
130
58
LT 2
LT
2
Chromium
1,450
105
9
7
Copper
264
115
7
16
Mercury
1,010
142
0.1
0.1
Nickel
450
LT
5
LT 5
LT
5
Lead
12,000
98
LT 20
LT
20
Antimony
LT
1,000
170
30
LT
2
Selenium
LT
200
400
LT 200
20
Thallium
LT
200
100
LT 20
LT
2
Zinc
60,000
4
,200
LT 60
LT
60
Benzene
280
200
LT 10
N-D
1,1,1 Trichloroethylene
120
560
22
LT
10
Chloroform
N-D
23
N-D
37
Ethylbencene
730
N-D
N-D
N-D
Methylene Chloride
6,300
31
,000
1,000
740
Dichlorabraaoaethane
N-D
N-D
N-D
LT
10
Chlorodibromoaethane
N-D
N-D
N-D
LT
10
Pentachlorophenol
LT
10
LT
10
N-D
N-D
Phenol
LT
10
LT
10
N-D
N-D
Di(2 ethyl-hexyl) phthalate
N-D
N-D
LT 10
LT
10
Di-N-butyl phthalate
LT
10
LT
10
N-D
N-D
Tetrachloroethylene
110
25
N-D
N-D
Toluene
290
200
N-D
N-D
(1) Sampling was by EPA regional
Surveillance and Analysis personnel without technical
contractor
or
Effluent Guidelines rerepresentation.
L.T - Leas titan
GT - Greater than
N-D -Not detected
¦ All units ug/1 unless otherwise noted.
VII-18
-------
TABLE VII-10
EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS FROM PLANTS PRODUCING ONLY WATER-BASE PAINT
FP
rARAME TER
NUMBER OF—
- AVERAGE
MEDIAN
MAXIMUM
SAMPLES
TIMES
TIMES
ANALYZED DETECTED
DETECTED
ABOVE MIN.
PH (UNITS)
12
12
12
7
9
BOD (MG-L)
12
12
12
4250
3400
11000
COD (MG-L)
12
12
12
9558
10000
14000
TOC (MG-L)
9
9
9
2120
1800
4000
OIL8GREASE (MG-L)
9
9
8
16
12
53
121
CYANIDE
12
12
4
17
20
52
TOTAL PHENOL
12
12
10
359
83
1900
TS (MO-L)
12
12
12
5391
5000
15000
T»S (MG-L)
12
12
12
4961
•4455
14966
TSS (MG-L)
12
12
12
360
210
1300
TVS (MG-l.)
9
9
9
2376
1100
10000
VSS (MG-L)
9
9
9
604
56
4080
CALCIUM (MG-L)
9
9
9
377
340
800
MAGNESIUM (MG-L)
9
9
9
23
20
52
SODIUM (MG-L)
9
9
9
2095
300
15000
126
SILVER
9
9
0
8
LT 10
LT 10
ALUMINUM
9
9
7
3388
1000
9000
115
ARSENIC
6
6
0
25
25
25
BARIUH
9
9
0
43
50
50
117
BERYLLIUM
9
9
0
8
LT 10
LT 10
118
CADMIUM
9
9
0
37
20
200
COBALT
9
9
1
50
50
60
119
CHROMIUM
9
9
2
61
50
200
120
COPPER
9
9
5
88
90
200
IRON
9
9
2
2033
2000
4000
123
MERCURY
9
9
3
1
0
5
MANGANESE
9
9
6
638
600
2000
MOLYBDENUM
9
9
2
47
50
70
124
NICKEL
9
9
0
45
50
50
122
LEAD
9
9
1
200
200
200
114
ANTIMONY
8
8
0
21
25
25
TIN
9
9
4
332
50
2000
TITANIUM
9
9
1
181
200
200
127
THALLIUM
9
9
0
LT 10
LT 10
LT 10
128
ZINC
9
9
7
8977
4000
40000
4
BENZENE
8
3
2
163
91
390
6
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
8
0
0
0
10
1.2 DICHLOROETHANE
8
1
1
17
17
17
11
1,1,1 TRICHLOROETHANE
8
5
4
77
52
170
13
1,1 DICHLOROETHANE
8
1
0
LT 10
LT 10
LT 10
14
1,1,2 TRICHLOROETHANE
8
1
1
11
11
11
23
CHLOROFORM
8
6
6
30
24
74
29
1,1 DICHLOROETHYLENE
S
0
0
0
30
1,2 TRANSDICHLOROETHYLENE
8
0
0
0
32
1,2 DICHLOROPROPANE
8
1
1
400
400
400
38
ETHYLBENZENE
8
6
5
1007
370
4600
44
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
8
7
7
6407
4050
16000
48
DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE
8
0
0
0
51
CHLOROBIBROMOMETHANE
8
0
0
0
54
ISOPHORONE
8
1
1
26
26
26
55
NAPHTHALENE
8
3
1
12
LT 10
16
56
NITROBENZENE
8
1
1
35
35
35
64
FENTACHLOROFHENOL
8
1
0
LT 10
LT 10
LT 10
65
PHENOL
8
4
1
31
LT 10
94
66
DK2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
8
1
0
LT 10
LT 10
LT 10
68
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
8
1
0
LT 10
LT 10
LT 10
85
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
8
2
2
29
11
45
86
TOLUENE
8
7
7
2037
1600
6200
87
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
8
1
1
190
190
190
ALL
UNITS UG/L UNLESS OTHERWISE
NOTEDJ PF=
FRIORITY POLLUTANT
NUMBER
VII-19
-------
TABLE VII-11
EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS FI:OM PLANTS THAT PRODUCE
BOTH WATER-BASE AND SOLVENT-BASE PAINT
pp
PAhAMF.TER
NUMBER OP-
- AVERAGE
MEDIAN
MAXIMUM
SAMPLES
TIMES
TIMES
ANALYZED
DETECTED
DETECTED
ABOVE MIN.
PH (UNITS)
34
34
34
7
11
BOD (MG-L)
36
36
34
5666
3450
32000
COD (MG-L)
35
35
35
25194
11000
260000
TOC (MG-L)
35
35
35
4483
2800
25000
0IL8GREASE PP=PRIORITY POLLUTANT NUMBER
VII-20
-------
SECTION VIII
COST ENERGY AND OTHER NON-WATER QUALITY ASPECTS
COSTS
Historical Cost Information
As part of the DCP, plants with installed wastewater treat-
ment systems were asked to report information on their capital
costs, operating costs, and the year of installation. Most
wastewater treatment systems have been installed since 1970,
although 80 systems were installed prior to that year. This
information is presented in Table VIII-1. The capital costs of
the various treatment systems are presented in Table VIII-2. The
majority of the plants spent less than $5,000. However, many of
these lower costs represent only gravity settling equipment.
There was not enough capital cost data provided from plants with
batch physical/ chemical treatment systems (the second most
common system) to help predict what these costs would be for new
installations.
Operating cost data provided from DCP resonses are indicated
in Table VIII-3. Most of the plants reported operating costs of
10 to 25 percent of capital costs. Of plants that utilize con-
tract hauling of either their wastewater or sludges, 511 reported
unit cost information for hauling and disposal. These costs are
presented in Table VIII-4. The cost per unit volume is affected
by such factors as transportation distance, disposal method used
by the contractor, variation in landfill policy from state to
state, etc. The median cost of contract hauling (transportation
and disposal combined) is 3.7C per liter (14C per gallon), and
the average cost is 5.3C per liter (20C per gallon). These costs
are generally expected to rise as states adopt more stringent
solid waste disposal requirements.
Cost Development
The following discussion presents the capital and operating
costs for various wastewater treatment unit operations that are
in use within the Paint Industry or are in use in other industries
and may have applicability to paint wastewater. All costs have a
1978 basis unless otherwise noted. The model plant costs are
presented below. Costs have been developed for six model plant
sizes. The corresponding annual production for these plants is
also indicated. It was assumed that 0.2 liters of wastewater are
generated per liter (gal/gal) of water-base products manufactured,
and that each plant operates 250 days per year.
VIII-1
-------
TABLE VIII-1
PAINT INDUSTRY
DATES OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
INSTALLATIONS
Year
1900 - 1950
1951 - 1955
1956 - 1960
1961 - 1965
1966 - 1968
1969 - 1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977 (through Midyear)
Number of
Installations
6
5
9
21
20
19
8
29
20
30
26
19
13
VIII-2
-------
TABLE VIII-2
PAINT INDUSTRY
CAPITAL COSTS OF INSTALLED
WASTEWATER, TREATMENT SYSTEMS
Number of
Cost ($) Plants
$50 - 1,000 35
1,001 - 2,000 26
2,001 - 3,000 21
3,001 - 5,000 32
5,001 - 10,000 16
10,001 - 20,000 13
20,001 - 50,000 22
50,001 - 100,000 12
100,001 - 500,000 10
Over 500,000 3
VIII-3
-------
TABLE VIII-3
PAINT INDUSTRY
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS OF
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS
Number of
Cost ($) Plants
$50 - 500 50
501 - 1,000 29
1,001 - 2,000 21
2,001 - 3,000 14
3,001 - 5,000 16
5,001 - 10,000 16
10,001 - 20,000 12
20,001 - 50,000 11
Over 50,000 8
VIII-4
-------
TABLE VII1-4
COST OF SLUDGE OR WASTEWATER REMOVAL
BY CONTRACT HAULER
Cost Cost Number of
(C/gallon) (C/liter) Plants
I-5 Less than 1.3 84
6-10 1.6 - 3 133
II-15 3-4 82
16-20 4-5 56
21-30 5-8 63
31-40 8-11 35
41 - 50 11 - 13 29
Over 50 Over 13 29
VIII-5
-------
Wastewater Volume
liters/day
Wastewater Volume
gallons/day
Total Annual Production
of Water-Base Products
liters (gals)
190
950
1900
50
250
500
240,000 (62,500)
1,200,000 (312,500)
2,400,000 (625,000)
5,700
19,000
38,000
1,500
5,000
10,000
7,100,000 (1,875,000)
24,000,000 (6,250,000)
47,000,000 (12,500,000)
The costs presented are expected to be highly variable
between plants, depending on geographical location, possible use
of existing equipment, number of "off-the-shelf" components
utilized versus designed units, etc. An effort was made to cost
the processes conservatively. Therefore, most plants should be
able to purchase and operate the treatment systems covered at near
or below the cost estimates presented.
Some of the equipment costs presented in this analysis have
been scaled up for larger systems using the 0.6 power factor.
Other costs were kept relatively constant throughout all size
ranges (generally they are minimum costs for certain items), and
some costs are step functions that change at certain assumed size
intervals. Finally, certain costs were assumed to vary in an
approximately linear fashion.
Because the size range for all paint plants is very narrow,
and flows are relatively small compared to the entire wastewater
treatment industry, little error will result if a linear inter-
polation to determine intermediate costs between adjacent treat-
ment plant sizes is used. Below 190 liters/day costs will decrease
only slightly as flow decreases, since most equipment is already
at a minimum size.
The following assumptions are used throughout the cost
evaluation section:
- Plant Operations - Plants were assumed to operate 250 days
annually, one shift per day. Treatment equipment is sized to
treat all wastewater in one shift. Treatment of wastewater over
two or three shifts can significantly reduce capital costs.
- Equipment Life - Depreciation costs are not included within
the operating costs, but major pieces of equipment can be assirned
to have the following useful lives:
Tanks:
Pumps:
Mixers:
Piping:
30 years
10 years
10 years
30 years
10 years
Evaporators:
Ultrafiltration
modules:
10 years (excluding membranes)
VIII-6
-------
Contingency - A contingency of 15 percent was assumed.
Labor - A rate of $16,000 per man year, including labor
taxes and fringe benefits, for a plant operator was assumed.
Indirect labor was taken at 20 percent of operator costs, to
account for occasional laboratory, management and accounting
involvement in wastewater treatment.
Power, Heat and Light - Electricity costs were assumed to be
$0.04 per kWh. Annual power costs for mixing and pumping were
computed as follows:
(Total horsepower) x (Hours per year of operation) x (0.746)
x 0.04.
Since it is assumed that in most cases wastewater treatment or
modification systems will be installed in existing buildings, no
increase in heating and lighting costs were assumed.
Piping - Where required, piping was assumed to cost 50
percent of basic equipment costs.
Buildings, Yard and Service Facilities - It is anticipated
that most plants will be able to construct required facilities in
existing buildings. However, the installed cost of an outdoor
steel utility building of appropriate size is indicated, for
plants that have no available space.
Land - Land costs were not included in cost calculations,
but the total area required for each system is indicated.
Electrical and Instrumentation - Where required, assumed to
be 10 percent of total equipment costs.
Engineering, Freight and Installation - These costs were
assumed to be 50 percent of process equipment costs. If a pack-
age unit can be purchased from a single manufacturer, these costs
may be significantly reduced.
Operation and Maintenance - Assumed to be 3 percent of
capital costs.
Sludge Disposal Costs - Most plants contract their sludge
hauling to outside firms, and pay a single cost for transporta-
tion and disposal. These costs range from less than 1.3 cents
per liter (5C/gal) to over 13 cents per liter (50C/gal) The
higher costs prevail in states which have restricted industrial
sludges to designated landfills only. Therefore, an "average" or
median cost has little meaning to plants that are forced to pay
the higher fees. To be conservative, a sludge disposal cost of
7.0 cents per liter (30
-------
POTW Charges - POTW user charges are also highly variable,
and are often computed as a percent of the plant's water bill,
according to wastewater strength and volume or by some combina-
tion of these and other factors. A use charge of $2 per 1000
gallons of wastewater was assumed.
Monitoring Costs - The cost of monitoring effluent to meet
any new regulations was assumed to be $1,200 per year per plant
regardless of size.
Physical/Chemical Precipitation
Physical/chemical (P/C) wastewater treatment is assumed to
be a batch process consisting of accumulating a fixed volume of
wastewater, adjusting the pH, dosing with flocculating agents,
mixing, and allowing the tank contents to settle. The super-
natant is decanted off and the sludge is usually removed and
contract hauled. P/C capital equipment costs are presented in
Table VIII-5 and include four tanks, each equal to the daily
wastewater flow, two mixers and four pumps. The polymer feed
system consists of two plastic 760 liter (200 gal) tanks (except
380 liters (100 gal) for the smallest plant), two portable mixers
and two small feed pumps.
P/C operating costs are presented in Table VIII-6. Labor
requirements were taken as one hour per day for the smallest
model plant, two hours for the next two sizes and three, four and
eight hours per day attention respectively for the next three
model plant sizes.
There are a wide variety of chemicals used for coagulation
and flocculation. Inorganic salts such as alum, lime and ferric
chloride are commonly used, with or without polyelectrolytes.
Some plants report excellent results with polymer alone (which
also reduces sludge volume). For the purpose of arriving at a
"typical" cost, it was assumed that a polymer ($11 per kg) was
added at 10 mg/1 in conjunction with alum (22
-------
TABLE VIII-5
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL PRETREATMENT SYSTEMS
Capital Costs
Wastewater generated
(liters/day)
190
250
1900
5700
19,000
38,000
Tanks
$2,000
$5,600
$8,000
$16,000
$23,000
$50,000
Mixers
1,000
1,500
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
Pumps
1,200
1,600
2,000
2,500
3,000
4,000
Polymer Feed System
1,300
1,600
1,600
1,600
1,600
1,600
Piping
2,750
5,150
6,550
11,050
15,100
29,300
Subtotal
8,250
15,450
19,650
33,150
45,200
87,900
Electrical and
Instrumentation
825
1,545
1,965
3,315
4,520
8,790
Engineering and
Installation
4,125
7,725
9,825
16,575
22,600
43,950
Contingency
1,240
2,320
2,950
4,970
6.780
13,185
TOTAL
$14,000
$27,000
$34,000
$58,000
$79,000
$154,000
Square Feet
Required
100
250
300
400
700
1,000
Height Required
10'
10'
10'
12'
16'
18
Additional Utility
Building if required
$2,000
$3,500
$4,000
$4,500
$5,500
$7,000
VIII-9
-------
Table VIII - 6
PHYSICAL
CHEMICAL
PRETREATMENT SYSTEM
Operating Costs
istewater generated
(liters/day)
190
950
1,900
5,700
19,000
38,000
«
Labor-direct
$2,000
$4,000
$4,000
$5,300
$8,000
$16,00*0
Labor-indirect
400
800
800
1,060
1,600
3,200
Chemicals
Polymers
5
25
50
150
500
1,000
Acid
25
125
250
750
2,500
5,000
Inorganic salt
40
190
375
1,125
3,750
7,500
Power
35
45
70
135
340
560
Maintenance
420
810
1,020
1,740
2,370
4,620
Sludge Disposal
(including trans-
portation)
560
2,810
5,600
16,900
56,250
112,500
POTW user charge
20
100
200
600
2,000
4,000
Monitoring
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
TOTAL
$4,700
$10,100
$13,600
$29,000
$79,000
$156,000
Viii-10
-------
Wastewater Recycle System
There are many potential methods and management practices
that a plant can use to reduce or recycle wastewater. The recycle
system evaluated here is one used by several plants, and is not
intended to imply that it is the most applicable for any other
plant. This system includes three holding tanks for different
categories of paint (e.g. whites, pastels and dark colors) with
associated pumping, piping and mixing to prevent settling. Waste-
water generated is pumped to the appropriate plant and wastewater
is withdrawn as required into batches of compatible paint. Three
holding tanks each equal to five days of wastewater volume are
included in the cost estimate with three mixers and three pumps.
The capital costs for this recycle system are presented in Table
VIII-7. Where a plant manufactures only a limited product line, a
large number of small tanks or drums can be used to further
separate wastewater by its composition and color. The total
capital costs for this modification will be similar to those costs
presented.
Operating costs for this recycle system are presented in
Table VIII-8. The total horsepower for mixing and pumping is
assumed to be in use six hours daily. The total horsepower for
the six model plants in ascending order is estimated at 1, 2, 3,
5, 10 and 20 respectively. Operation of the recycle system is
estimated to require two hours daily at the two smallest model
plants, four hours at the next two larger plants and a full-time
operator at the largest two plants.
Plants with large product lines will have difficulty re-
cycling some of their infrequently manufactured products that are
not compatible with other paints. Experience has shown that even
plants with "complete" recycle may at times haul away 10 to 50
percent of their wastewater, once it spoils or is otherwise
unsuitable for reuse. It is assumed that an average of 20 percent
of wastewater volume will be contract hauled at plants instituting
a recycle system. As a second option, large plants may find it
cost effective to treat this "residual" wastewater by physical/
chemical precipitation, to reduce sludge volume. The costs for
the two options for the two largest model plant sizes are indicated
on Tables VIII-7 and VIII-8.
Ultrafiltration
Ultrafiltration (UF) is a process similar to reverse osmosis
that reduces the solids content of a feed stream by pressurizing
the feed while it is in contact with a semipermeable membrane.
Water molecules pass through the membrane while the solids are
left behind. There is no historical data on UF use on Paint
Industry effluent in the United States, although there are some
foreign literature references. The costs presented are for typical
UF installations, and may not accurately reflect the costs for
paint plant applications.
VIII-11
-------
TABLE VIII-7
WASTEWATER RECYCLE SYSTEM
Capital Costs
Option A - Contract Hauling of all wastewater not reused.
Wastewater Volume
(liters/day)
190
950
1,900
5,700
19,000
38,000
Tanks
3,500
9,000
13,800
24,000
50,000
75,000
Mixers
1,500
1,500
2,000
2,000
3,000
3,000
Pumps
1,000
1,000
1,500
1,500
3,000
3,000
Piping
3,000
5,750
8,650
13,750
28,000
40,500
Subtotal
9,000
17,250
25,950
41,250
84,000
121,500
Electrical and
Instrumentation
900
1,725
2,600
4,125
8,400
12,150
Engineering and
Installation
4,500
8,625
12,975
20,625
42,000
60,750
Contingency
1,350
2,588
3,900
6,187
12,600
18,225
TOTAL $
15,750
$30,200
$45,400
$72,200
$147,000
$212,600
Square Feet
Required
100
200
250
400
1,000
2,000
Height Required
8'
10'
10'
12'
15'
15'
Additional Utility
Building (if required)$2,200
$3,000
$3,500
$4,500
$7,000
$10,000
Option B - Physical/Chemical Treatment of all wastewater not
reused.
Additional Capital
Costs
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$50,000
$65,000
Total Capital Costs
(Recycle with Option B)
$197,000
$277,000
VIII-12
-------
Table VIII - 8
WASTEWATER RECYCLE SYSTEM
Operating Costs
Option A - Contract Hauling of all wastewater not reused.
Wastewater Volume
(liters/day) 190 950 1,900 5,700 19,000 38,000
Labor-direct 4,000 4,000 8,000 8,000 16,000 16,000
Labor-indirect 800 800 1,600 1,600 3,200 3,200
Power 45 90 135 225 450 900
Maintenance-3%
of Total 470 910 1,360 2,170 4,410 6,380
Sludge Disposal
(including trans-
portation) 750 3,750 7,500 15,000 75,000 150,000
TOTAL 6,065 9,550 18,600 27,000 99,060 176,480
Option B - Physical Chemical Treatment of wastewater not reused
(contract hauling of P/C sludge layer)
Labor-direct N/A N/A N/A N/A 20,000 22,000
Labor-indirect 4,000 4,400
Power 550 1,100
Maintenance 5,900 8,300
Chemicals 1,350 2,700
Sludge Disposal 15,000 30,000
POTW user charge 400 800
Monitoring 1,200 1,200
TOTAL COST (Recycle plus Option B) $48,400 $70,500
VIII-13
-------
Capital costs are indicated in Table VIII-9. Costs include a
holding tank equal to two day's flow along with the UF basic unit
(with module-type membranes) and a chemical feed system (plastic
tanks). External piping is assumed to be 50 percent of the holding
tank and feed system costs.
The operating costs of UF systems are presented in Table
VIII-10. UF systems produce a "concentrate" waste stream, con-
sisting of a fraction of the feed stream containing all of the
rejected solids. This stream can be up to one-third of the feed
flow, but was assumed to be 20 percent. It was assumed that this
stream will require disposal as a solid waste and will be contract
hauled.
All model plants were assumed to require an operator half-
time, primarily for start-up and shut-down. UF units are largely
automated during normal operation.
Wastewater Disposal by Contract Hauling
This alternative consists of holding the total wastewater
flow, for periodic removal by a contract hauler. The capital
costs for this option are presented in Table VIII-11.
Costs include a holding tank equal to either ten days flow or
91,000 liters (24,000 gallons), whichever is smaller, with associ-
ated piping and installation.
Small plants may prefer to hold wastewater in drums to avoid
capital expenditures. Plants with excess tankage can convert a
spare tank to a wastewater holding tank at minimum expense.
Operating costs are indicated on Table VIII-12. The four
smallest model plants are assumed to require one hour of labor
daily to service the collection system. The two larger model
plants will require two hours of labor daily. No costs for moni-
toring have been included because the wastewater will not be
discharged to a waterway or sewer.
The costs for contract hauling have also been developed for
very small plants with a wastewater flow of 75 liters per day (20
gal/day). There are a large number of plants in this size range
which may choose to contract haul their wastewater depending on
national and local regulations.
Wastewater Disposal by Forced Evaporation
This wastewater disposal alternative is generally suitable
only for very small plants with no other viable choices. Evapo-
ration of wastewater requires high inputs of energy, and will
cause some air pollution. Paint wastewater will also coat heat
exchanger surfaces and may require excessive maintenance. There
is no operating experience with this system in the paint industry,
and its suitability for paint wastewater is not established.
VIII-14
-------
TABLE VII1-9
ULTRAFILTRATION
Capital Costs
Wastewater generated
(liters/day) 190 950 1,900 5,700 19,000 38,000
Basic unit (includes
piping) $ 8,000 $12,000 $15,000 $35,000 $ 80,000 $125,000
Holding Tank 600 1,600 2,500 5,000 10,000 15,000
Chemical Feed System 1,300 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600
External Piping 950 1,600 2.050 3,300 5,800 8,300
Subtotal $10,850 $16,800 $21,150 $44,900 $ 97,400 $149,900
Electrical and
Instrumentation 1,085 1,680 2,115 4,490 9,740 14,900
Engineering and
Installation 5,425 8,400 10,575 22,450 48,700 74,950
Contingency 1.630 2.520 3,170 6,735 , 14.610 22,500
TOTAL $19,000 $29,400 $37,000 $78,600 $170,000 $262,000
Square Feet
Required 100 150 200 300 400 500
Additional Utility
Building (if re- $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $4,000 $4,500 $5,000
quired)
VIII-15
-------
Table VIII - 10
ULTRAFILTRATION
Operating Costs
Wastewater generation
(liters/day) _90 950 1,900 5,700 19,000 38,000
Labor-direct
$8,000
$8,000
$8,000
$8,000
$8,000
$8,000
Labor-indirect
1,600
1,600
1,600
1,600
1,600
1,600
Chemical Costs
Detergent
30
150
300
900
3,000
6,000
Caustic
10
30
60
180
600
1,200
Cartridge Replace-
ment
100
500
1,000
3,000
10,000
20,000
Power
30
150
300
900
3,000
6,000
Maintenance
570
880
1,110
2,360
5,100
7,860
Sludge Disposal
750
3,750
7,500
22,500
75,000
150,000
POTW charge
20
100
200
600
2,000
4,000
Monitoring
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
TOTAL
$12,300
$16,400
$21,300
$41,000
$110,000
$206,000
VIII-16
-------
Table VIII - 11
WASTEWATER DISPOSAL BY CONTRACT HAULING
Capital Costs
Wastewater Generation
(liters/day) 750 190 950 1,900 5,700 19,000 38,000
Holding Tank $1,000 $1,600 $4,600 $6,350 $14,000 $20,000 $20,000
Piping 500 800 2,300 3,175 5,000 5,000 5,000
Subtotal 1,500 2,400 6,900 9,525 19,000 25,000 25,000
Electrical and
Instrumentation 150 240 690 952 1,900 2,500 2,500
Engineering,
Freight and
Installation 750 1,200 3,450 4,763 9,500 12,500 12,500
Contingency 200 360 1,035 1,428 2,850 3,750 3,750
TOTAL $2,600 $4,200 $12,100 $16,700 $33,300 $44,800 $44,800
Square feet
required 50 50 125 150 250 300 300
Additional
Utility Building
(if required) 1,000 1,000 2,500 2,500 3,500 4,000 4,000
VIII-17
-------
Table VIII - 12
WASTEWATER DISPOSAL BY CONTRACT HAULING
Operating Costs
Wastewater Generation
(liters/day) 75 190 950 1,900 5,700 19,000 38,000
Labor-direct $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $ 4,000 $ 4,000
Labor-indirect 400 400 400 400 400 800 800
Maintenance 75 130 360 500 1,000 1,300 1,300
Sludge Transpor-
tation & Dispo-
sal 1,500 3,750 18,750 37,500 112,500 375,000 750,000
TOTAL $4,000 $6,300 $21,500 $40,400 $116,000 $381,000 $756,000
VIII-18
-------
The capital costs for forced evaporation are presented in
Table VIII-13. The costs include a holding tank for equalizing
the flow and a package evaporation system with boiler heat ex-
changer and auxiliary equipment. Operating costs are indicated in
Table VIII-14. Fuel costs were taken as $0.13 per liter ($0.50/gal)
for fuel oil. Two hours of labor per day are assumed to be required
for operation of the system.' Monitoring costs are not included
because no liquid waste is involved.
Biological Treatment (aerated lagoons)
Biological treatment has been mentioned in the literature
extensively as being applicable to latex containing wastewaters.
However, there are only a few lagoons currently treating waste-
water from paint plants. Additional operating data will be
required before any design parameters can be set, and accurate
costs developed.
The capital costs for typical aerated lagoons are presented
in Table VIII-15.
The main unit costs include excavation, grading, seeding of
slopes and floating aerators. The design basis for the lagoon is
30 days detention and 8 feet depth. Depending on the composition
of the wastewater, nitrogen and phosphorus supplement may be
required to maintain the biomass. pH control may also be required.
Therefore the costs for a chemical/nutrient feed system are
included.
Aerated lagoons may not be feasible in very cold climates, or
in urban areas where land is not available. Because there is very
limited operating experience utilizing biological treatment of
paint effluent, effluent quality cannot be specified.
Operating costs for aerated lagoons are indicated in Table
VIII-16. Power costs are primarily for the surface aerators. Ten
hp is assumed for the smaller plant and 15 hp for the larger
plant. The aerators will run 24 hours per day, 365 days per year.
One full-time operator for each system was assumed. Sludge clean-
out costs were not included, because cleanout should be required
only once every several years.
Advanced Wastewater Treatment by Carbon Adsorption
Carbon adsorption is a tertiary treatment process capable of
removing some organic priority pollutants. Carbon is rapidly
plugged by high solids loadings, and extensive pretreatment is
required to protect the columns. Sand filtration is the most
commonly used pretreatment method, but sand filtration does not
appear suitable for the high COD and TSS loadings of either
untreated paint effluent or wastewater pretreated by average P/C
treatment.
VIII-19
-------
Table VIII - 13
FORCED EVAPORATION
Capital Costs
Wastewater generation
(liters/day) 190 950 1,900 5,700 19,000 38,000
Holding Tank
600
1,600
2,500
5,000
Pump
300
300
300
300
Piping
450
950
1,400
2,650
Evaporation unit
9,000
15,000
25,000
50,000
Subtotal
10,350
17,850
29,200
57,950
Electrical and
Instrumentation
1,035
1,785
2,920
5,795
Engineering Freight
and Installation
5,175
8,925
14,600
29,000
Contingency
1,550
2,680
4,400
8,700
TOTAL
18,100
31,200
51,100
101,400
*NOTE: Evaporation is not practical or environmentally
desirable for large plants
Square feet
required 100 150 200 300
Additional utility
building (if
required) $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $4,000
VIII-20
-------
Table VIII - 14
WASTEWATER DISPOSAL BY FORCED EVAPORATION
Operating Costs
Wastewater generation
(liters/day) 190 950 1,900 5,700
Labor-direct
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
Labor-indirect
800
800
800
800
Inhibitor Chemicals
100
500
1,000
3,000
Maintenance
540
940
1,530
3,050
Fuel
500
2,500
5,000
15,000
TOTAL
5,900
8,700
12,300
25,900
VIII-21
-------
Table VIII - 15
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT (AERATED LAGOON)
Capital Costs
Wastewater generated
(liters/day) 190 950 1,900 5,700 19,000 38,000
Main unit 60,000 100,000
Inlet and outlet
piping 10,000 15,000
Impervious liner 3,000 5,000
Chemical and/or nutrient
feed system 10,000 15,000
Subtotal 83,000 135,000
Electrical and
Instrumentation 8,300 13,500
Engineering, Freight
Installation 41,500 67,500
Contingency 12,500 20,300
TOTAL 145,000 236,000
Area required
(square feet) 3,000 6,000
*NOTE: Aerated lagoons are not practical
for plants in these size ranges
VIII-22
-------
Table VIII - 16
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT (AERATED LAGOON)
Operating Costs
Wastewater generated
(liters/day) 19,000 38,000
Labor-direct $16,000 $16,000
Labor-indirect 3,200 3,200
Chemicals-Total 1,000 1,500
Power 2,600 3,900
Maintenance 4,350 7,080
Monitoring 1,200 1,200
TOTAL $28,350 $32,900
VIII-23
-------
There are no historical data on the application of carbon to
paint effluent, and therefore no direct bases for a precise cost
estimate. The costs shown are for typical granular carbon systems,
with throw-out cartridge filters, operating on an average strength
wastewater. Carbon can be used in conjunction with steam stripping,
to remove volatile organics. There are little data on steam
stripping for "these size ranges or for paint wastewater, and cost
estimates are not indicated. However, it is estimated that
inclusion of this step would increase the total capital and
operating costs by 50 to 100 percent.
The capital costs for carbon adsorption are indicated on
Table VIII-17. The costs include an agitated wastewater holding
tank equal to one day's volume and suitable carbon columns (for
30 minute detention). Operating costs are presented in Table
VIII-18. A full-time operator is required for either system.
Energy
The energy usage for each wastewater management and treat-
ment scheme for various model plant sizes was presented in the
preceding section. On an industry-wide basis the total energy
cost associated with each alternative is presented in Table VIII-
19. These figures convey the various orders of magnitude, and
the differences between treatment alternatives. The assumptions
used in this calculation were as follows:
Plants that currently discharge no wastewater will
continue to do so, and will not implement any treatment alter-
native.
All remaining plants will implement the selected treat-
ment scheme, and no credit was allowed for systems which may
already be in place.
The industry-wide approximations were computed by calcul-
ating the energy use of each model plant size with an estimate of
the number of plants in that size range.
Physical/chemical treatment and recycle require the lowest
inputs of energy when applied to all plants. Aerated lagoons and
ultrafiltration required the highest. Forced evaporation had the
greatest fuel use overall, although it was assumed to be applied
to only 80 percent of the plants.
Sludge Characteristics
The application of physical/chemical precipitation systems
to the paint industry will create a concentrated sludge fraction,
which may require disposal as a solid waste. Samples of this
type of sludge were collected during the recent sampling program,
and the analytical results are presented in Table VII-20. The
VIII-24
-------
Table VIII - 17
ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT BY GRANULAR CARBON ABSORPTION
Capital Costs
Wastewater generation
(liters/day) 190
950
1,900
5,700
19,000
38,000
Carbon columns
Valves
Carbon
Pumps
Wastewater holding tank
Mixer
Cartridge Filter modules
Piping
Subtotal
Electrical and
Instrumentation
Engineering, Freight
and Installation
Contingency
TOTAL
Square feet required
Additional Utility Building
(if required)
*Carbon absorption is not feasible for
very small plant sizes
15,000
600
4,000
600
6,000
600
2,000
14,400
43,200
4,320
21,600
6,480
18,000
1,000
6,000
1,000
10,000
1,000
3,000
20,000
60,000
6,000
30,000
9,000
$76,000 $105,000
200 300
$3,000
$4,000
VIII-25
-------
TABLE VIII-18
ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT BY GRANULAR CARBON ADSORPTION
Operating Costs
Wastewater generation 19,000 38,000
(liters/day)
Labor-direct 16,000 16,000
Labor-indirect 3,200 3,200
Carbon replacement 10,000 20,000
Filter replacement 1,000 2,000
Maintenance 2,300 3,150
Power 250 500
Monitoring 1,200 1,200
34,000 46,,000
VIII-26
-------
TABLE VIII-19
APPROXIMATE ENERGY USAGE FOR
VARIOUS WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Treatment Alternative
Physical/Chemical
Recycle
Ultrafiltration
Aerated Lagoon
Activated Carbon
Forced Evaporation
Annual Energy Use When Applied to All
Paint Plants
(millions of kWh/yr)
1-5
1-5
10 - 30
5 - 15*
1-5*
5-15 million liters of fuel oil** or
equivalent
* The energy use associated with implementation by 167 plants with over 3700
liters (1000 gallons) of wastewater per day.
**The energy use associated with implementation by 748 plants with under 3700
liters (1000 gallons) of wastewater per day.
VIII-27
-------
TABLE VIII-20
CHARACTERISTICS OF SLUDGE FROM PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT SYSTEMS
pp
PARAMETER
_• NUMBER OF—
- AVERAGE
MEDIAN
MAXIMUM
SAMPLES
TIMES
TIMES
ANALYZED
DETECTED
DETECTED
ABOVE MIN.
PH (UNITS)
29
29
29
7
12
BOD (hG-L)
31
31
31
26355
12000
150000
COD (MG-L)
32
32
32
186656
140000
950000
TOC (MG-L)
31
31
31
37067
30000
108000
OIL&GREASE (MG-L)
30
30
30
8598
2915
129000
121
CYANIDE
31
31
4
1261
20
36500
TOTAL PHENOLS
32
32
25
632
200
6000
TS (MG-L)
30
30
30
108483
72000
470000
TDS (MG-L)
29
29
27 •
13036
9000
100200
TSS (MG-L)
31
31
31
103568
70000
466100
TVS (MG-L)
29
29
29
39868
34000
187000
VSS (MG-L)
20
20
20
23002
14133
89000
CALCIUM (MG-L)
30
30
30
3201
1005
30200
MAGNESIUM (MG-L)
30
30
30
168
90
1500
SODIUM (MG-L)
30
30
27
563
260
3500
12 6
SILVER
31
31
7
23
LT 10
100
ALUMINUH
30
30
30
865333
650000
3000000
BARIUM
30
30
30
10570
4500
50000
117
BERYLLIUM
31
31
18
20
20
100
118
CADMIUM
31
31
20
169
100
600
COBALT
30
30
26
1690
560
10000
119
CHROMIUM
31
31
29
7319
700
90000
120
COPPER
31
31
31
7842
1000
80000
IRON
30
30
30
940156
270000
8000000
123
MERCURY
31
31
26
28771
2300
220000
MANGANESE
30
30
30
7392
5000
50000
MOLYBDENUM
29
29
28
1218
1000
4000
124
NICKEL
31
31
21
12144
100
200000
122
LEAD
31
31
29
10998
3000
80000
114
ANTIMONY
11
11
5
1710
25
13000
TIN
30
30
30
2324
2000
7000
TITANIUM
30
30
30
40276
20000
230000
127
THALLIUH
4
4
0
LT 200
LT 200
LT 200
128
ZINC
31
31
29
267683
100000
2000000
4
BENZENE
7
5
4
414
30
1900
6
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
7
2
0
LT 10
LT 10
LT 10
10
1.2 DICHLOROETHANE
7
0
0
0
11
If 1,1 TRICHLOROETHANE
7
7
4
866
14
3200
13
1.1 DICHLOROETHANE
7
0
0
0
14
1>1> 2 TRICHLOROETHANE
7
0
0
0
23
CHLOROFORM
7
2
2
920
920
1000
29
1»1 DICHLOROETHYLENE
7
0
0
0
30
1>2 TRANSDICHLOROETHYLENE
7
0
0
0
32
1,2 DICHLOROPROPANE
7
0
0
0
38
ETHYLBENZENE
7
6
6
17890
237
99000
44
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
7
7
7
137295
2640
900000
48
DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE
7
0
0
0
51
CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
7
0
0
0
54
ISOPHORONE
7
0
0
0
55
NAPHTHALENE
7
4
3
366
202
1050
56
NITROBENZENE
7
0
0
0
64
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
7
4
4
346
125
1100
65
PHENOL
7
4
3
404
243
1120
66
DI(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
7
6
4
569
407
1940
68
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
7
5
4
3622
70
17750
85
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
7
5
4
2142
170
8200
86
TOLUENE
7
6
6
59399
1310
350000
87
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
7
5
2
45
LT 10
130
ALL UNITS UG/L UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTEDf PP=PRIORITY POLLUTANT
VIII-28
-------
solids concentration of the sludges averaged approximately 11
percent. Seventeen priority pollutants occurred above the min-
imum detectable limits in over 50 percent of the samples. Eight
of these 17 occurred over 85 percent of the time, in average
concentrations of over 7 mg/1. These eight priority pollutants
are chromium, copper, mercury, lead, zinc, ethylbenzene, methylene
chloride and toluene. The nine that occurred in 50 to 85 percent
of the samples were beryllium, cadmium, nickel, benzene, 1-1-1-
trichloroethane, pentachlorophenol, di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate,
di-N-butyl phthalate, and tetrachloroethylene. Seven other
priority pollutants (cyanide, silver, antimony, chloroform,
naphthalene, phenol and trichloroethylene) occurred above the
detectable limit in 10 to 50 percent of the samples. Six priority
pollutants not indicated on Table VIII-20 were measured in one or
two sludge samples. They are chlorobenzene, 1-1-2-2 tetrachloro-
ethane, butyl benzyl phthalate, diethyl phthalate, arsenic and
selenium. Nine priority pollutants not on Table VIII-20 were
detected at less than 10 ug/1 in one sludge sample. The nine are
2-4-6 trichlorophenol, 2-4-dimethylphenol, 2-4-dinitrophenol,
dimethyl phthalate, anthracene, pyrene, aldrin, b-endosulfan-Beta
and g-BHC-Delta.
If the entire volume of wastewater currently discharged by
the paint industry (approximately 3,000,000 liters per day) was
treated by chemical precipitation and settling, a sludge volume
of 450,000 liters per day (120,000 gallons/day) would be expec-
ted, industry-wide. This is based on an average of 15 percent of
the wastewater per batch ending in the sludge fraction. The
characteristics would be similar to those presented in Table
VIII-20.
The wastewater management option of recycle, if practiced by
the entire paint industry would generate an approximate volume of
600,000 liters per day (160,000 gallons/day) of wastewater that
might be disposed of as a solid waste. This is based on 20
percent of wastewater volume being in incompatible colors or
formulations. The characteristics of this wastewater would be
close to untreated paint wastewater (Table V-20) with some expec-
ted settled materials raising the solids level. The volume would
be reduced substantially if large paint plants chose to treat
their non reused wastewater by physical/chemical treatment and
dispose of the supernatant to the sewer.
No data currently is available on either the quantity or
characteristics of sludge that would be expected from other
wastewater treatment options. The option of contract hauling, if
implemented industry-wide, would generate approximately 3,000,000
liters per day (750,000 gallons/day) of waste with the same
characteristics as untreated wastewater.
SOLVENT-BASE SOLVENT-WASH SUBCATEGORY
Currently the only unregulated segment of the solvent-base
solvent-wash subcategory of the Paint Industry are the existing
VIII-29
-------
source indirect dischargers. A key point in the no discharge
regulations for the remaining segments of this subcategory was the
fact that economic analysis showed that it was more cost effective
for a paint plant to practice on-site solvent recovery than to
purchase reclaimed solvent from an outside source.
The July 1975 Development Document stated that the in-house
cost of reclaiming solvents was 1.0 to 3.8C/1 (3.6 to 14.2C/gal),
while the selling price of reclaimed solvents was 10 to 30C/1
($.40 to $l/gal). These costs compared favorably with the cost of
purchasing new solvent.
To update these data, a telephone survey of paint plants
using recovered solvent for tank cleaning was initiated.
Considering the rising costs of labor, energy and sludge
disposal, in 1979 solvents can be reclaimed for 5.4 to 8.1C/1
($.20 to .30/gal) while reclaimed solvents are selling for $.11/1
($.45/gal) to well over $.30/1 ($l/gal).
VIII-30
-------
SECTION IX
BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will propose any
appropriate effluent limitations for BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, and
pretreatment standards for new and existing sources of the
Paint Industry upon review and evaluation of technical infor-
mation contained in this document, comments from reviewers of
this document, and other technical and economic information as
appropriate.
IX-1
-------
SECTION X
BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will propose any
appropriate effluent limitations for BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, and
pretreatment standards for new and existing sources of the
Paint Industry upon review and evaluation of technical infor-
mation contained in this document, comments from reviewers of
this document, and other technical and economic information as
appropriate.
X-l
-------
SECTION XI
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will propose any
appropriate effluent limitations for BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, and
pretreatment standards for new and existing sources of the
Paint Industry upon review and evaluation of technical infor-
mation contained in this document, comments from reviewers of
this document, and other technical and economic information as
appropriate.
XI-1
-------
SECTION XII
PRETREATMENT GUIDELINES
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will propose any
appropriate effluent limitations for BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, and
pretreatment standards for new and existing sources of the
Paint Industry upon review and evaluation of technical infor-
mation contained in this document, comments from reviewers of
this document, and other technical and economic information as
appropriate.
XII-1
-------
SECTION XIII
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The following members of the Burns and Roe Technical staff
made significant contributions to the overall project effort and
the development of this report:
The assistance of Mrs. S. Frances Thompson of Burns and Roe
in the typing of this report is specifically noted.
Acknowledgment is made to all Environmental Protection Agency
personnel contributing to this effort. Specifically, the develop-
ment of this report was under the direction of the following
Effluent Guidelines Division personnel:
The assistance of all EPA Regional Offices and State environ-
mental departments participating in the data gathering efforts of
this project is greatly appreciated. The efforts of the Regional
Surveillance and Analysis Sampling Teams are acknowledged.
The Office of Analysis and Evaluation and its contractor,
A.D. Little, Inc. are acknowledged for their guidance in the
development of the economic format used in the questionnaire.
The efforts of Edward H. Richardson Associates, Inc. in
regard to sampling and analysis is greatly appreciated. Specifi-
cally, the efforts of Mr. Albert Merena are acknowledged.
Appreciation is extended to the National Paint and Coatings
Association for their extremely valuable assistance and cooperation
throughout this project.
Arnold S. Vernick, P.E
Howard D. Feiler, P.E.
Paul J. Storch, P.E
Mark Sadowski
Roy E. Ehlenberg
Assistant Project Engineer
Environmental Engineer
Systems Engineer
Project Manager
Project Engineer
James Berlow
John Riley
Robert B. Schaffer
Lisa Friedman
David Alexander
Project Officer
Branch Chief
Division Director
Office of General Council
Former Project Officer
XIII-1
-------
Appreciation is also extended to the following companies for
their participation in this study:
Ameritone Paint Div. Grow Chemical
Benjamin Moore and Co.
Binney and Smith, Inc.
Cook Paint and Varnish Inc.
DeSoto Inc.
DeVoe and Raynolds Co.
E.I. DuPont de Nemours Inc.
Enterprise Paint Corporation
Farwest Paint Co.
F.O. Pierce, Inc.
General Paint Co.
Glidden Division of SCM Inc.
McCloskey Varnish Corp.
Major Paints Div. Standard Brands Paint
Mobil Chemical Corp.
Mobile Paint Manufacturing Co.
National Paint and Varnish Co.
Norris Paint Co.
Norton and Son Inc.
O'Brien Corporation
PPG Industries Inc.
Parker Paint Co.
Patterson Sargent Inc.
PurAll Paint Inc.
Reliance Universal, Inc.
Sherwin Williams Inc.
Standard T. Chemical Co.
Whiteline Paint Co.
XIII-2
-------
SECTION XIV
REFERENCES
1. Barrett,•W.J., Mooneau, G.A., and Rodig, J.J., Waterborne
Wastes of the Paint and Inorganic Pigments Industries,
Southern Research Institute, Birmingham, Alabama, July,
1973, EPA 670/2-74-030.
2. Environmental Protection Agency, Development Document for
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance
Standards for the Oil Base Solvent Wash Subcategories of the
Paint and the Ink Formulating Point Source Category, Wash-
ington, DC, July 1975.
3. Burns and Roe Industrial Services Corporation, Draft Devel-
opment Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pre-
treatment Standards and New Source Performance Standards for
the Paint and Ink Formulating Point Source Categories -
Water-Base, Water-Wash, and Caustic-Wash Subcategories,
Paramus, NJ, September, 1976.
4. Environmental Protection Agency, Assessment of Industrial
Waste Practices: Paint and Allied Products Industry, Con-
tract Solvent Reclaiming Operations, and Factory Application
of Coatings, Washington, DC, 1976.
5. Marketing Guide to the Paint Industry, 4th Edition, Charles
H. Kline and Company, Fairfield, NJ, 1975.
6. Paint Red Book, 8th edition, Palmerton Publishing Company,
Inc., New York, NY, 1976.
7. "Census of Manufactures", Bureau of the Census, U.S. Depart-
ment of Commerce, 1972.
8. Raw Materials Index - Pigments and Solvents, National Paint
and Coatings Association, Washington, DC, 1975.
9. Raw Materials Index - Resins, National Paint and Coatings
Association, Washington, DC, 1972.
10. Raw Materials Index - Drying Oils, National Paint and Coatings
Association, Washington, DC, 1973.
11. Colour Index, 3rd Edition, Society of Dyers and Colourists
with acknowledgement to the American Association of Textile
Chemists and Colorists, 1971.
12. Arthur D. Little, Inc. "Economic Analysis of Proposed Effluent
Guidelines: Paint and Allied Products and Printing Ink
XIV-1
-------
Industries", Draft Document for the Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC, August, 1974.
13. Nie, N., Hull, C. , Jenkins, J., Steinbrenner, K., Bent, D.,
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, 2nd Edition,
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1975.
14. Shreeve, R., "Surface-Coating Industries", Chemical Process
Industries, 3rd Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York,
NY, 1967.
15. Environmental Protection Agency, "Field Notes and Chemical
Analyses - Survey of Paint and Ink Manufacturers in Oakland,
California," collected by National Field Investigations
Center, Denver, Colorado, October, 1973.
16. Hine, W.R., "Disposal of Waste Solvents," Journal of Paint
Technology, 43 (588):75-78, July, 1971.
17. Williams, Rodney, "Latex Wastes and Treatment," Paper pre-
sented at the meeting of the Golden Gate Section, National
Paint and Coatings Association, San Francisco, California,
June, 1972.
18. Environmental Protection Agency, Development Document for
Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source
Performance Standards for the Synthetic Resins Segment of the
Plastics and~Wyntheti"c Materials Manufacturing Paint Source
Category, Washington, DC, August, 1973.
19. Bruhns, F., "The Paint Industry vs. Water Pollution," Paint
and Varnish Production, May, 1971, pp. 35-39.
20. Lederer, S.J. and Goll, M., "The Mercury Problem," Paint and
Varnish Production, March, 1971, pp. 26-35.
21. Mann, A., "Mercury Biocides: Paint's Problem Material,"
Paint and Varnish Production, March, 1971, pp. 26-35.
22. Yazujian, D., "Chemicals in Coatings," Chemical Week, October,
1971, pp. 35-51.
23. Mann, A., "1972 Review-1973 Forecast," Paint and Varnish
Production, July, 1973, pp. 23-36.
24. Larsen, D., Kunel, K., "COD Solids Removal Exceeds 90% in
Effluent from Coatings Plant," Chemical Processing, January,
1971, pp. 16-17.
25. Maas, W., "Solid Waste Disposal and Organic Finishing," Metal
Finishing, March, 1972, pp. 44, 45, 49.
XIV-2
-------
26. Desoto Corporation, Desoto Waste Treatment System for Latex
Paint Wastes, Chicago, Illinois.
27. Reid, L.C., "Memorandum to Record," (Specifying Plants
Attaining No Discharge of Process Wastewater to Surface
Waters), National Field Investigations Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, Denver, Colorado, December, 1973-January,
1974.
28. Reid, L.C., and Masse, A., "Trip Reports," (Paint and Ink
Plants in Chicago, Illinois and Oakland, California Areas),
National Field Investigations Center, Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Denver, Colorado, December, 1973-January,
1974.
29. "Water Quality Criteria, 1972," National Academy of Sciences
and National Academy of Engineering for the Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 1973 (U.S. Government
Printing Office Stock No. 5501-00520).
30. Pashman, Howard, Paper presented to the Water Quality Task
Force of the National Paint and Coatings Association, Decem-
ber 9, 1976.
31. Environmental Protection Agency, Handbook for Monitoring
Industrial Wastewater, Washington, DC, August, 1973.
32. Environmental Protection Agency, Methods for Chemical
Analysis of Water and Wastes, Cincinnati, OH, 1974.
33. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Guidelines: State
and Local Pretreatment Programs, Washington, DC, January,
1977.
34. Environmental Protection Agency, Rationale for the Devel-
opment of BAT Priority Pollutant Parameters, Washington, DC,
June, 1977.
35. Environmental Protection Agency, Sampling and Analysis Pro-
cedures for Screening of Industrial Effluents for Priority
Pollutants, Cincinnati, OH, April, 1977.
36. Environmental Protection Agency, General Reference Materials
Relating to the Measurement of Priority-Pollutants, Washing-
ton, DC, June, 1977.
XIV-3
-------
SECTION XV
GLOSSARY
Acrylic Resin
A synthetic resin made from derivatives of acrylic acid.
Additive
One of a number of materials 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,
leveling agents, etc. Almost always the total concentration of
these additives will be less than one percent. Driers are not
generally defined as additives.
Alkyd Resin
A synthetic resin made from polyhydric alcohols and polybasic
acids.
Allied Products
Products other than paint which are included in S.I.C. 2851 such
as putty, caulking compounds, stains, shellacs, varnish, paint
remover, wood sealers, etc.
BOD
Biochemical Oxygen Demand.
Ball Mill
A horizontal mounted cylindrical tank containing steel or ceramic
balls that reduce particle size of materials when the tank is
rotated.
Batch
Any manufacturing or treatment process which accumulates a fixed
volume of material (i.e. wastewater) for processing, treatment or
discharge. Compare to Continuous.
Binder
The film forming ingredient in paint that binds the pigment
particles together.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (B0D5)
The amount of oxygen required by microorganisms while stabilizing
decomposable organic matter under aerobic conditions. The level
of B0D5^ is usually measured as the demand for oxygen over a
standard five-day period. Generally expressed as mg/1.
XV-1
-------
Biocide
Chemical used to inhibit biological life.
COD
Chemical Oxygen Demand.
Capital Costs
Expenditures which result in the acquisition of, or the addition
to, capital or fixed assets. Costs associated with the instal-
lation of such assets are included in capital costs.
Captive Manufacturing Site
A plant which only manufactures paint for internal use or use by
other divisions of a parent organization.
Caulking Compound
A soft plastic material, consisting of pigment and vehicle, used
for sealing joints in buildings and other structures where normal
structural movement may occur.
Caustic Rinse
The cleaning of residue from paint tanks with a caustic solution.
See closed loop caustic system, open caustic system and partial
recycle caustic system.
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
A measure of the amount of organic matter which can be oxidized
to carbon dioxide and water by a strong oxidizing agent under
acidic conditions. Generally expressed as mg/1.
Chemical Treatment
A process involving the addition of chemicals to wastewater to
induce the settling of solid matter and remove dissolved mater-
ials. Materials commonly used in chemical treatment include
polyelectrolytes, lime and alum. (See also Physical-Chemical
Treatment.)
Clarification
Any process or combination of processes, the primary purpose of
which is to reduce the concentration of suspended matter in a
liquid.
Closed Loop Caustic System
A tank cleaning system which recycles a primary caustic rinse and
uses all of a secondary water rinse as makeup water for the
caustic. Compare to Open Caustic System and Partial Recycle
Caustic System.
XV-2
-------
Coating
A paint, varnish, lacquer, or other finish used to create a
protective and/or decorative layer.
Consent Decree
An agreement between the National Resources Defense Council
(NRDC) and EPA remanding 21 industrial categories, one of which
is paint and ink manufacturing and printing, for review of BATEA,
including a study of priority pollutant levels.
Continuous
Any manufacturing process which produces a continuous flow of
product or wastewater and treats or discharges wastewater at the
same rate at which it is generated. Compare to Batch.
Contract Hauling
The collection of wastewater or sludge by a private disposal
service, scavenger, or purveyor in tank trucks or by other means
for transportation from the site.
Cost Center
A business whose objective it is to accomplish its mission within
cost or expense parameters. A cost center realizes no income.
Discharge of Wastewater
The release of treated or untreated wastewater to a receiving
water, POTW, or any other location that is off-site. Examples of
instances where wastewater if generated but not discharged are
total recycling, total on-site containment, contract hauling or
wastewater, and total evaporation.
Disperser
Mixing machine that acts to disperse the components of paint or
ink.
Dispersing Agent
A reagent that is compatible with the solvent and holds finely
divided matter dispersed in the solvent.
Drier
A composition which accelerates the drying of oil, paint, print-
ing ink, or varnish. Driers are available in both solid and
liquid forms.
XV-3
-------
Drying Oil
An oil which readily takes oxygen from the air and changes it 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.
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 relatively hard
coatings.
Equalization
Any process for averaging variations in flow and/or composition
of wastewater so as to effect a more uniform discharge.
Evaporation of Wastewater
A disposal method in which natural or induced heat caused evapora-
tion of wastewater.
Extender
A pigment which is usually inexpensive and inert in nature, used
to give opacity and 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.
Film
Layer or coat of paint or other material applied to a surface.
Flotation
Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) or dispersed air flotation, which
are processes that inject air into wastewater causing dissolved
and suspended material to float to the surface for removal.
Fungicide
An agent that helps prevent mold or mildew growth on a painted
surface.
Generation of Wastewater
The process whereby wastewater results from the manufacturing
process. Wastewater may be generated but not discharged. See
Discharge of Wastewater.
XV-4
-------
Gravity Separation
Any process in which oil, grease, skins or other floating solids
are allowed to rise to the surface, where they are skimmed off,
while heavier solids are allowed to settle out.
Industrial Sales Paint
Paint which is primarily sold to other manufacturers for factory
application to such products as aircraft, appliances, furniture,
machinery etc.
Interior Paint
A coating for the inside surfaces of a structure.
Lacquer
A solution in an organic solvent of a natural or synthetic resin,
a cellulose ester or a cellulose ester together with modifying
agents, such as plasticizers, resins, waxes, and pigments.
Lacquers may be clear or pigmented, and dry by solvent evapora-
tion only. Other types of coatings by comparison, dry by a com-
bination of evaporation, oxidation, and polymerization of por-
tions of their constituents.
Lagoon
A shallow body of water, such as a pond or lake, which can be
used for impoundment for purposes of storage, treatment or disposal.
Landfill
A solid waste land disposal technique in which waste is placed in
an excavation and covered with earth. Wastewaters and sludges
may occasionally be disposed of in landfills.
Latex
Aqueous colloidal dispersion of rubber or rubber-like substances.
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 specially .designed to withstand immersion in water and
exposure to marine atmosphere.
Mildewcide
See Fungicide.
XV-5
-------
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 400 F)
and 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.
NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) Permit
A permit issued by EPA or an approved state program to point
sources which discharge to public waters allowing the discharge
of wastewater under certain stated conditions.
Neutralization
Addition of acid or alkali until the pH is approximately neutral
(i.e., pH = 7).
Non-Contact Cooling Water
Water which is used for cooling purposes but which has no direct
contact with and is in no way contaminated by either the manufac-
turing process or contaminated wastewaters. In the cooling
process, however, it may experience a change in temperature.
OSHA
The Occupational Safety and Health Act.
Oil Base Paint
A paint that contains drying oil or oil varnish as the basic
vehicle ingredient.
Open Caustic System
Any tank or tub cleaning system that does not reuse any part of a
secondary water rinse following caustic washing.
Operating Costs
Expenses necessary for the maintenance and operation of capital
assets, including depreciation, interest, labor, materials, etc.
£H
The reciprocal logarithm of the hydrogen ion concentration in
wastewater expressed as a standard unit.
POTW (Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Wastewater collection and treatment facilities owned and operated
by a public authority such as a municipality or county.
XV-6
-------
Paint
A combination of a pigment, extender and vehicle, and frequently
other additives, in a liquid composition, which is converted to
an opaque solid film after application.
Partial Recycle Caustic System
A tank or tub cleaning operation which recycles a primary caustic
rinse and uses only a portion of secondary water rinse as makeup
water for the caustic. Compare to Closed Loop Caustic System and
Open Caustic System.
Physical-Chemical
The method of treating wastewaters using combinations of the
processes of coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, carbon
adsorption, electrodialysis or reverse osmosis. As used in this
study, a physical-chemical treatment system involves the addition
of chemicals to wastewater to induce the settling of solids and
removal of dissolved materials, followed by mixing and sedimen-
tation.
Pigment
The colorant used to give paints and inks the desired hue and
color.
Plasticizer
A substance added to paint, varnish, or lacquer to impart flex-
ibility.
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.
Priority Pollutant
One of the elements or compounds on a list of 129 derived from
the Consent Decree (See Appendix E of this document).
XV-7
-------
Process Wastewater
Any used water which results from or has had contact with the
manufacturing process, including any water for which there is a
reasonable possibility of contamination from the paint manufac-
turing process or from raw material-intermediate product-final
product storage, transportation, handling processing or cleaning.
Examples of process wastewater include wastewater generated by
tank washing, filling machine washing equipment, or floor clean-
ing, etc. Cooling water, sanitary wastewater, storm water and
boiler blowdown are not considered process wastewater if they
have no contact with the process.
Profit Center
A business or portion of a business whose objective it is to con-
tribute income over and above its expenditures and allocated
charges.
Public Waters
All navigable waters of the United States and the tributaries
thereof; all interstate waters and tributaries therof; and all
intrastate lakes, rivers, streams and tributaries thereof not
privately owned.
Purveyor
See Contract Hauling.
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.
Reclaimed
Water or solvent which has been treated and restored for use.
Recycle of Wastewater
The piping of wastewater, whether treated or not, from its points
of final collection to a prior process step.
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.
Reuse of Wastewater
The collection of either treated or untreated wastewater for the
purpose of utilization in a prior step of the manufacturing
process.
XV-8
-------
Scavenger
See Contract Hauling
Screening
Samples taken of raw wastewater only to determine the absence or
presence of priority pollutants (see also Verification).
Settling
The process of disposition of suspended matter carried by a
liquid by gravity. It is usually accomplished by.reducing the
velocity of the liquid below the point at which it can transport
the suspended material, as opposed to gravity separation in which
floatables are also removed.
Shellac
A type of varnish made by dissolving shellac resin in alcohol.
Shellac is the form of lac resin obtained in thin curled sheets
(shells).
Sludge Conditioning
Treatment of liquid sludge by chemical addition, dewatering,
filtration, drying or other methods.
Spray Irrigation
Transport of sludge or wastewater to a distribution system from
which it is sprayed over an area of land. The liquid percolates
into the soil and/or evaporates. None of the sludge or waste-
water runs off the irrigated area.
Solvent
The volatile part of a paint composition that evaporates during
drying.
Solvent Base Paint
Paints which use oil or solvent as the primary vehicle.
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.
Thinner
The portion of a paint, varnish, lacquer, or related product that
volatilizes during the drying process. The solvents and dilutents
which act as thinners are used to reduce coating viscosity, and
prevent oxidation, polymerization, and drying prior to coating
application.
XV-9
-------
Tint
A color produced by the mixture of white pigment or paint in
predominating amounts with a colored pigment or paint which is
not white.
Tint-Base Paint
A non colored paint shipped to the retailer where pigments are
added to customer specifications.
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Solids that either float on the surface of, or are in suspension
in, water and which are largely removable by filtering or sedimen-
tation.
Trade Sales Paint
Paint which is primarily used for architectural finishes such as
the interior and exterior of buildings.
Treatment
Any process of conditioning water, wastewater or sludge prior to
use, reuse, or discharge.
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 Var-
nish) , 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 coat-
ing which disperses and suspends the pigment whenever the latter
is used.
Verification
A sampling program including samples of untreated and treated
wastewater and sludge to determine the levels of classical
pollutant and priority pollutants known to be present, as well as
removal efficiencies by various wastewater treatment, processes.
(See also Screening.)
Volatile Fraction
That portion of a coating which evaporates from the film during
the drying process.
XV-10
-------
Water Base Paint
Paints which use water as the primary vehicle for all other
raw materials. Water base paints may contain some semi
drying oils, such as soybean oil for desired drying charac-
teristics.
XV-11
------- |