Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Pollution Prevention Section
Division Of Hazardous Waste Management
SEPTEMBER 1992
---------------------------------------------
Acknowledgements
This document was prepared under a federal fiscal year 1992
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) grant from U.S. EPA
to Ohio EPA, Division of Hazardous Waste Management. We are
grateful for the assistance of all the companies that shared
their success stories with us and the individuals responsible for
submitting the information and answering our many questions. We
would also like to thank those who referred us to companies that
had successfully implemented pollution prevention/waste
minimization in their facilities.
Pollution Prevention Section
Division of Hazardous Waste Management
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Columbus, Ohio
614/644-3469
September 1992
---------------------------------------------
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
Pollution prevention case studies provide a valuable reservoir of
information to business, government and the public. By detailing
specific actions taken by facilities, case studies provide
examples to other companies of changes they can implement to
reduce their own pollution generation. Case studies also
demonstrate that waste minimization/pollution prevention works.
It reduces waste generation while providing numerous benefits to
a company, including cost savings, improved worker protection and
public relations, reduced liability and environmental protection.
As specified in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
grant to the Division of Hazardous Waste Management (DHWM), for
fiscal year 1992, the Ohio EPA developed a Hazardous Waste
Minimization and Pollution Prevention Case Study Form based upon
U.S. EPA's Pollution Prevention Case Study Format. This form was
widely distributed in order to obtain the thirty-one hazardous
waste minimization and pollution prevention case studies in this
report. In response to U.S. EPA's interest in focusing on the
Great Lakes, the Lake Erie basin of Ohio was used for the
geographic focus for this report. Keywords at the end of each
case study in this report facilitate indexing for easy referral
for specific purposes, waste streams, pollution prevention
activities and other issues.
The case studies come from a variety of industries and cover a
variety of processes. Each company included in its submission
one or two SIC codes that best describe the industry segment or
segments referenced by the case study, as listed below in Table
1.
Table 1. [see original hard copy of document]
Over forty projects are discussed in the case studies, some
involving more than one activity and some involving both source
reduction and recycling. The majority of the activities involve
source reduction practices.
Many of the source reduction activities affected degreasing or
cleaning operations. The chemical mentioned most often was
1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA). The use of TCA was reduced in some
instances and eliminated entirely in others. The industries
cited a number of benefits gained and the public, improved worked
environment, improved employee and public relations, reduced
requirements and reduced liabilities. One industry, Perfection
Finishers, Inc., stated that the decision to eliminate use of TCA
was made in part because the solvent was increasingly becoming a
target of health agencies and the Ohio EPA. It took several of
the industries some time and several tries to find an appropriate
substitute for this solvent. Substitutions in cleaning and
degreasing operations were also found by three companies for
chlorinated solvent blends, tetrachloroethylene and chlorinated
hydrocarbons.
Painting processes were affected by source reduction almost as
much as degreasing and cleaning were. All nine companies that
changed a painting operation through source reduction practices
made a raw material substitution to a less toxic or hazardous
paint. Four of these were to powder coatings. The Automatic
Welding and Manufacturing Company, one of the companies that made
both raw material and equipment changes, began using a high
solids paint and airless paint guns instead of conventional guns.
This not only generated less sludge, but also increased
production rates and decreased energy usage. Diebold, Inc.,
found a paint supplier that would provide small amounts of custom
paint, reducing the quantity of unused paint.
Other source reduction activities range from very large projects
to smaller projects. For example, BP Chemical, Inc., decided to
build a new facility to reduce NOx emissions rather than
implement a great number of changes in an old facility. Several
changes at the Eveready Battery Company were smaller in scope.
Eveready is in the process of changing to a water based adhesive
in order to eliminate the use of TCA in an adhesive. The number
of mineral spirit tanks and the solvent and the solvent changing
frequencies have been reduced, and squirt and spray bottles
containing solvent have been eliminated.
Improved operating practices such as these were implemented in
several other companies to reduce their waste. Kovatch Castings
Company reduced TCA emissions by ensuring that a drum of TCA
remained covered when not in use, and by limiting employee access
to the solvent. Improved housekeeping at the Lincoln Electric
Company facilitated recycling of barium and manganese.
Plasticolors, Inc., improved production scheduling at its
facility so that different colors of product were processed in a
specific sequence.
Source reduction at other companies was achieved through process
and equipment changes and raw material substitution. Often these
changes occurred in combinations or in conjunction with recycling
practices. Dietrich Industries, Inc., implemented both
mechanical changes to a washer and ultrafiltration and reuse of
spent chemical solution. This combination has significantly
lowered disposal costs and reduced chemical use.
Like most of the recycling activities described in this report,
Dietrich's recycling is performed onsite. In one example of
offsite recycling, Walbridge Coating Company sends a zinc/nickel
sludge to another company for feeder stock, and in return
receives the mixed metals carbonate generated from this material
for use as a raw material in one of their own processes.
There is great variety in the recycling practices in this report.
Some affect waste water discharges, some metal waste, some
solvent or coating waste. Most were implemented with low capital
costs, although even the more costly recycling activities tended
to lead to cost savings. Other benefits of the recycling
activities include improved quality of parts, reduced hazardous
waste transportation and disposal costs, reduced liability,
energy and resource conservation and improved public relations.
Some activities were more difficult to implement than others,
requiring the assistance of several other companies or a great
deal of trial and error before material could be properly
reclaimed.
All companies were requested to list obstacles, problems and
known constraints. Problems encountered at the beginning stages
of implementation included high capital costs, the difficulty of
finding replacement materials that worked as well as original
materials and the time necessary to "fine-tune" new processes and
train personnel to use them. Once changes were implemented and
employee resistance overcome, some companies found that new
methods needed more attention than old methods or had inherent
problems that might limit use. In some instances, specific
detail has been provided. Companies that used offsite recycling
were concerned about finding and keeping a constant market for
the recycled material. One very specific barrier was mentioned
by the Luke Engineering and Manufacturing Company, which has a
company goal to eliminate the use of chlorinated hydrocarbons.
It must degrease some parts with TCA because of military
specifications.
Several case studies refer to the U.S. EPA 33/50 Program. This
is a voluntary pollution prevention initiative to reduce national
pollution releases and off-site transfers of seventeen toxic
chemicals by 33% by the end of 1992 and 50% by the end of 1995.
U.S. EPA is asking companies to examine their own industrial
processes to identify and implement cost-effective pollution
prevention practices for these chemicals.
These case studies document the efforts of Ohio companies to
benefit both the environment and themselves. They have overcome
obstacles and barriers to achieve this, and are willing to let
others benefit from their experiences. We believe these
companies are helping to set the standard for pollution
prevention and waste minimization in Ohio. They should be
applauded for their outstanding efforts.
HOW CASE STUDIES WERE OBTAINED
The Pollution Prevention Section (PPS) of Ohio EPA obtained these
case studies from February through July, 1992. A variety of
approaches was used to attempt to obtain as many case studies as
possible. These included: (1) mass mailings of a letter and
case study form to all hazardous waste generators and Toxics
Release Inventory reporters (approximately 3,000 mailings); (2)
a mailing with the Ohio Toxics Release Inventory form for 1991
reports; (3) telephone calls to facilities that were known to
the Pollution Prevention Section to have some activity that might
have been useful for a case study; (4) about 50 personalized
letters to manufacturers; (5) advertising through business
organization newsletters, including those of the Ohio Chamber of
Commerce, the Printing Industry of Ohio and the Ohio Chemical
Council; and (6) advertising in the Northeast Industrial Waste
Exchange "Listings Catalog" and two Ohio EPA newsletters ("New(s)
Source" and "Airlines"). A tracking system was established to
follow the requests for case study information and produce
revisions.
Ohio EPA initially solicited case studies using a complete,
revised copy of U.S. EPA's Pollution Prevention Case Study form
(see Appendix A). It was eight pages long and was seen by
facilities as too time consuming and difficult to complete. The
initial mailing received very limited response. An abbreviated
form was substituted (see Appendix B). The deadline for
submissions was extended, and the staff of the Ohio EPA PPS
called many facilities individually and requested case studies.
Many of the contacts from the facilities expressed an interest in
the project but stated that they simply did not have the time to
prepare a submission. This problem was intensified by July as
many contacts said they were too busy because they were
attempting to complete the U.S. EPA Form R, which they had just
received. In an effort to encourage facilities to submit their
success stories, contacts were told that submission could be made
over the phone or in a report format. PPS staff wrote or re-
wrote these submissions in accordance with the abbreviated
format. The combination of a limited response to requests and
the rejection of some case studies received led to the eventual
number of case studies in this report that was less than the
original goal of 50.
The Pollution Prevention Section rejected several case studies
that were not appropriate for this report, such as those that did
not include hazardous waste minimization or toxics pollution
prevention. Some dealt only with solid waste. A few companies
called the PPS after submitting a case study and requested that
it not be used because upper management was reluctant to have the
information published. Many of the case studies were either too
vague or not sufficiently quantified to be usable, and the
contacts were unable or unwilling to provide more detailed
information. Other contacts were quite helpful and provided
additional detail over the phone or by a follow up letter to PPS.
All case study suppliers were sent draft copies of the final
version of their facility's case study. Ohio EPA requested
permission to revise and use the case studies in this report, and
permission was granted. All companies voluntarily provided this
information. Mention of a company in this report does imply
endorsement by the Ohio EPA.
[ POSSIBLE TYPO ERROR IN ORIGINAL: SHOULD THE LAST SENTENCE MAYBE
SAY "DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT" ? ]
Ohio EPA will use these case studies to publicize the
accomplishments of Ohio businesses in waste minimization and
pollution prevention. Among other uses, they will be submitted
to the U.S. EPA for inclusion in the case studies found in the
Pollution Prevention Electronic Information Exchange System
(PIES) of the Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse
(PPIC). For more information, contact the persons listed with
each case study, or contact the Pollution Prevention Section,
Division of Hazardous Waste Management, Ohio EPA, P.O. Box 1049,
Columbus, Ohio 43266-0149, 614/644-3469.
[ POSSIBLE TYPO ERROR IN ORIGINAL: P.O. BOX IS 1049, ZIP CODE
EXTENSION IS 0149 -- THESE 4 DIGITS SHOULD MATCH! ]
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDIES
Adelphia, Incorporated
Cleveland
1.0 Headline
A paint process modification was implemented to switch from
solvent based to water based paint, reducing the amount of air
emissions. A non-hazardous water based cleaner is now being used
for degreasing.
2.0 SIC Code
2851
3.0 Name and Location of Company
Adelphia, Inc.
15657 Brookpark Road
Cleveland, Ohio 44142
4.0 Clean Technology Category
Process and equipment modifications were implemented to reduce
air emissions and hazardous waste generation.
5.0 Case Study Summary
Adelphia, Incorporated, coats products for industries. In 1989,
Adelphia started changing as many paints as possible from solvent
based material to water based material. This has reduced the
plant's air emissions substantially. In addition, it has
completely eliminated one solvent. Adelphia is currently using a
non-hazardous, water soluble cleaner for degreasing of parts
before painting. This has reduced the amount of hazardous waste
generation. This new process works better than the old method of
hot caustic cleaning.
Adelphia is currently using an acid detergent. They are also
experimenting with a new product for use on their phosphate line,
which would replace a caustic cleaner. This product is a non-
hazardous organic acid.
6.0 Economics
The economic benefits include the decreased amount of hazardous
waste. This has lowered hazardous waste disposal costs. At this
time no further information is available.
7.0 Cleaner Production Benefits
The Adelphia facility in Cleveland has reduced air emissions from
the use of water based paints. The total amount of hazardous
waste generated will continue to decrease because the degreasing
operation is using a water based degreaser.
8.0 Obstacles, Problems and/or Known Constraints
None mentioned
9.0 Date Case Study was Performed
1989-1992
10.0 Contacts with Citations
Adelphia, Inc.
15657 Brookpark Road
Cleveland, Ohio 44142
Mr. Fred Payton, Plant Manager
216/267-0570
11.0 Keywords
503 Halogenated (e.g., chlorinated) solvents
800 Organic gases
2030 Degreasing
2097 Painting
01 Equipment or technology modification
02 Process modification or substitution
04 Process raw materials modification or substitution
1008 Treatment/disposal costs avoided
----------------------------------------------------------
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
Cleveland
1.0 Headline
Seal pot water is recovered and reused in another process,
reducing wastewater discharges.
2.0 SIC Code
2821
3.0 Name and Location of Company
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
6626 Union Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44105
4.0 Clean Technology Category
A simple process modification was made which took a waste stream
from one process and put it into a raw material supply for
another process.
5.0 Case Study Summary
Two primary processes exist at the Air Products and Chemicals
Incorporated facility in Cleveland. The first is a batch
polymerization of vinyl acetate to form a solid polymer and the
second is a continuous polyvinyl acetate emulsion process. The
pollution prevention example involves a modification to each
process. This modification reduced vinyl acetate containing
waste water discharges to the local publicly owned treatment work
(POTW) by approximately 56%.
The batch process reactor has a seal pot used to eliminate vapor
emissions of vinyl acetate. The seal pot has a continuous water
purge. Before the process change, this water was sent directly
to the POTW during a batch. No water is required when the
reactor is idle. Two of the raw materials for the continuous
emulsion process are water and vinyl acetate.
The process change routed the batch process seal pot water
directly to the continuous process as a raw material feed where
the vinyl acetate is converted to a saleable product. The change
had no impact on the production rates for either process and had
no adverse impacts on product quality.
The facility in Cleveland, which is usually in operation five
days per week, produces approximately 28 million pounds of vinyl
acetate based polymers annually. Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA) Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
reportable emissions for calendar year 1990 for the facility were
19,650 pounds. The pollution source reduction described above
was completed in October of 1991. The quantitative information
is based on engineering estimates. The only materials required
to complete the change were readily available piping and valves.
6.0 Economics
The entire process change cost less than $1000 to install.
Standard stainless steel tubing and valves were used.
Approximately $2000 per year will be saved in operational costs
as a result of implementing the process change. The payback
period will be approximately six months.
7.0 Cleaner Production Benefits
The pollution source reduction provides economic benefits as
described above as well as improved public relations through
reduced TRI reportable emissions.
8.0 Obstacles, Problems and/or Known Constraints
No significant problems or obstacles were encountered.
9.0 Date Case Study was Performed
The opportunity for the pollution source reduction was identified
in August 1991 and was fully implemented in October 1991.
10.0 Contacts with Citations
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
6626 Union Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44105-1384
Mr. Douglas Miller, Plant Manager
216/883-7494
11.0 Keywords
Other liquid waste
2049 Emulsification
2110 Polymerization
02 Process modification or substitution
04 Process raw materials modification or substitution
1002 Annual cost savings
1003 Capital costs
1005 Payback period
----------------------------------------------------------
Automatic Welding and Manufacturing Company
Ashland
1.0 Headline
Through the equipment change of updating paint guns to airless
guns, and the substitution of high solids paints, hazardous waste
generation has been reduced. All paint thinner is recycled and
reused on site, with any residual thinner disposed of as
hazardous waste.
2.0 SIC Code
3499
3.0 Name and Location of Company
Automatic Welding and Manufacturing
532 County Road 1600
Ashland, Ohio 44805
4.0 Clean Technology Category
Process equipment modifications and raw material substitution in
the painting operations were implemented to reduce the amount of
hazardous waste generated. Paint thinner is recycled and reused
on site, also reducing the amount of hazardous waste generated.
5.0 Case Study Summary
As a "job-shop" fabricator. Automatic Welding and Manufacturing
Company builds a variety of products based on customer
specification. Hazardous waste is generated in the paint areas.
Painting was originally done with conventional paint guns and
high volatile organic compound paint. This generated a large
amount of paint sludge which was classified as a hazardous waste.
Paint guns were replaced with airless guns, and use of high
solids paint was implemented. These changes reduced the amount
of sludge generated. Some hazardous waste is generated as
residual paint thinner, but most thinner is recycled on site and
reused. Production rates have increased because less time is
spent in the paint booths to do the same work. Energy usage has
decreased because the new guns are airless. Training of
employees was necessary not only to enable them to use the new
equipment, but also to foster an attitude of pollution
prevention.
Automatic Welding and Manufacturing employs approximately eighty-
five people. The scale of operation depends on customer
requirements. When painting, the facility uses about 100 gallons
of paint a day.
The plant has achieved approximately 80% of the project that was
initially planned. A limited number of conventional paint guns
are still in use.
Little equipment had to be special ordered, because almost
everything was readily available through vendors.
6.0 Economics
Approximately $20,000 has been invested at this point.
Operational and maintenance costs have not been evaluated, but a
payback time of one year is expected.
7.0 Cleaner Production Benefits
Automatic Welding and Manufacturing has realized economic
benefits through reduced hazardous waste treatment costs.
Improved public relations are expected. Liability has been
reduced. Changes in the painting processes have enabled the
company to change from a small quantity generator to a
conditionally exempt small quantity generator, and have made
compliance more attainable.
8.0 Obstacles, Problems and/or Known Constraints
The only difficulty involved in implementing the pollution
prevention techniques was the time factor involved in training
employees to use the new equipment and fostering an attitude
among the employees that would encourage good implementation of
these changes.
9.0 Date Case Study was Performed
Changes in the painting process began in January 1992, and are
not yet complete.
10.0 Contacts with Citations
Automatic Welding and Manufacturing
532 County Road 1600
Ashland, Ohio 44805
Mr. Wayne Wilfong
419/281-2808
No external material was used except for vendor information.
11.0 Keywords
604 Organic paint sludge
511 Paint thinner or distillates
2097 Painting
01 Equipment or technology modifications
02 Process modification or substitution
04 Process raw materials modification or substitution
07 On-site recycling or recovery for reuse
1002 Annual cost savings
1005 Payback period
Regulatory incentives
----------------------------------------------------------
BP Chemicals, Incorporated
Lima
1.0 Headline
Replacing an old facility with a new facility will reduce air
emissions by approximately 2,000 tons a year of NOx, recover the
nitrogen oxides and turn them into a sellable product.
2.0 SIC Code
2819
3.0 Name and Location of Company
BP Chemicals, Inc.
Ft. Amanda and Adgate Road
P.O. Box 628
Lima, Ohio 45802
4.0 Clean Technology Category
Process and equipment modifications are being implemented to
recover NOx from air emissions.
5.0 Case Study Summary
BP Chemicals-Lima currently owns and operates a nitric acid
production facility at Ft. Amanda and Adgate Roads. The current
nitric acid production facility has been in operation since 1955,
and continues to produce nitric acid within customer
specifications. The operating rate of the current plant exceeds
the nameplate capacity of 180 tons per day by roughly 10%. Over
the past several years, due to improvements to the process,
production records have been set due to high customer demands.
Uses of nitric acid include fertilizers, metals treatment,
dye/pigment production, explosives and wastewater treatment.
The existing plant is currently permitted as an air point source
under the Ohio Air Pollution Control Regulations. The average
emission rate as stated in the permit is 425 pounds per hour of
NOx. The plant is equipped with a fume burner as a control
device which chemically oxidizes nitrogen dioxide to nitric
oxide. During the startup period, the plant has received
complaints of a visible red plume when the fume burner is brought
on-line. Although nitric acid plants are listed in federal
regulations as subject to New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS), this particular plant has been grandfathered and is not
subject to those regulations. The federal NSPS standard for
nitric acid plants is three pounds per ton of acid. The current
plant in Lima operates at 57 pounds per ton of acid.
BP Chemicals performed an economic evaluation to assess the
feasibility of constructing a new nitric acid plant to replace
the existing plant. The economic evaluation indicated that the
construction of a new plant could be a profitable venture. In
addition, the opportunity to carry out a major environmental
upgrade at the BP-Lima facilities was an important consideration
in the project. The project was approved and funds were
allocated for the new facility.
The new nitric acid production facility has been designed to
integrate the latest technology with respect to product recovery
and reduction of by-products. Techniques which are incorporated
into the design include higher pressures, the use of chilled
water and modified absorber design, all of which improve recovery
of nitrogen oxides to nitric acid. In addition to the emissions
reduction gained through the inherent efficiency of the process,
a NOx abatement system was also included in the design. The
abatement system will use the most current commercially available
technology for NOx reduction. Selective catalytic reduction was
chosen as the best available control technology. This technology
utilizes a catalyst bed to react ammonia and NOx. The products
of this reaction are intermediate salts which decompose into
elemental nitrogen and water which exit through the vent stack.
The new plant will result in a 95% reduction of NOx versus the
old plant. Improved production methods such as those mentioned
above account for 80% of the reduction while the selective
catalytic reduction unit accounts for the remaining 15%. As
evidenced by these figures, the bulk of the reduction is being
gained through the design and operation of a highly efficient
production facility.
Water discharges from the current as well as the new nitric acid
plant consist solely of clean water streams (cooling water,
boiler feed water, and steam condensate). The new plant will
produce 270 tons per day of nitric acid which is a 50% increase
in production over the current plant. The water use and
discharge, however, will remain the same due to improvements in
heat recovery. Heat generated in the process is used to produce
steam which is used elsewhere in the plant. Improvements in heat
recovery allow the generation of more steam, while cooling water
use is decreased.
The emission reduction from the new plant will make a significant
reduction in the air emissions inventory of the BP-Lima plant and
in Allen County. The shutdown of the old plant and subsequent
startup of the new plant will result in a 45% reduction in NOx
emissions from the BP-Lima complex. This reduction corresponds
to a 22% decrease in NOx emissions in Allen County. The
emissions reduction is approximately 2000 tons per year or
4,000,000 pounds per year.
The concept of waste reduction and pollution prevention has been
actively practiced at BP Chemicals-Lima. Research efforts have
been conducted both on and offsite to improve process operation
by producing more product per unit of raw material and less
waste. In addition to these efforts, the BP-Lima management is
actively committed to waste reduction across each media.
Several critical operating parameters have been compiled since
the startup of the nitric acid plant. The attached Figure 1
depicts the wastewater generation per unit of production at the
plant at the Lima site. As can be seen, wastewater generation
per pound of product has dropped roughly 40% over the last thirty
years. Figure 2 shows the raw material requirement in terms of
pound of propylene required for each pound of acrylonitrile
produced. The lower this ratio, the less unreacted propylene
that is discharged in the waste gas stream. The ratio has also
dropped by roughly 40% over the last thirty years.
Air emissions at the Lima site have received a good deal of
attention in terms of reduction efforts. Figures 3 and 4 depict
the reported emissions from the BP-Lima plant site. Figure 3
shows the reduction of the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act Toxic Chemical Release air emissions which
are reported annually. These air emissions have been reduced by
more than half since the reporting was put into effect. Figure 4
shows the emissions levels of the criteria pollutants from the
BP-Lima site. From 1987 to 1989, a reduction of 50,000,000
pounds per year of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions has
been achieved. Following these two pollutants, the next largest
criteria pollutant is NOx. The new plant will reduce the
existing emission level by 4,000,000 pounds. BP Chemicals will
continue to pursue these reductions and reduce the waste
generation through source control and waste minimization.
6.0 Economics
The decision to commit the capital funds to construct a new
facility was based on economic analysis. Despite the enormous
environmental benefit, a voluntary project of this magnitude must
be economically sound with respect to cost and payback. The
economic analysis showed that the current market conditions and
expected revenue could support the decision to build a new
facility. Allocation of $17,000,000 for the new plant was made.
Three major factors which made the project profitable were the
current market conditions, increase in production, and decrease
in the unit production costs. The economic payback period is
calculated at between three to four years.
7.0 Cleaner Production Benefits
The primary benefits from the completion of this project are
economic and environmental. Economic benefits include increased
profitability and higher plant reliability. Economic benefits to
the community include increased spending for goods and services
by BP Chemicals throughout the local economy during the
construction, and an improvement of the infrastructure of the BP
Chemicals facility which is a major employer in the community.
Environmental benefits include the reduction in NOx emissions by
4,000,000 pounds.
8.0 Obstacles, Problems and/or Known Constraints
No technical obstacles are anticipated in the construction and
implementation of the new plant. This is primarily due to the
use of proven technology in order to achieve the emission
reduction.
9.0 Date Case Study was Performed
Construction of the plant is currently underway. Start-up is
scheduled for the fourth quarter of 1992.
10.0 Contacts with Citations
BP Chemicals, Inc.
Ft. Amanda and Adgate Road
Lima, Ohio 45804
11.0 Keywords
400 Inorganic gases
2014 Chemical manufacturing
01 Equipment or technology modification
02 Process modification or substitution
1002 Annual cost savings
1003 Capital costs
1005 Payback period
[four pages of graphs, Figures 1 through 4]
----------------------------------------------------------
City Machine and Wheel Company
Stow
1.0 Headline
A conventional wet paint coating operation was changed to a dry
powder, state-of-the-art coating system.
2.0 SIC Code
3499
3.0 Name and Location of Company
City Machine and Wheel Company
1676 Commerce Drive
Stow, Ohio 44224
4.0 Clean Technology Category
A process modification, equipment modification and raw material
substitution occurred when City Machine and Wheel Company (CMW)
completely changed over to a dry powder system.
5.0 Case Study Summary
CMW employs an average of 105 people with as many as 136 during
their peak season. The majority of the work is welding, painting
and mounting tires on wheels for lawn and garden and recreational
vehicle industries. With the process change CMW will have some
changes in their regulatory compliance. They will no longer have
to report under current regulations and will no longer have to
file a report using an EPA form R. Wastewater discharge from the
prewash system goes to the Akron publicly owned treatment work
and is periodically tested by the Summit County Environmental
Services.
CMW will weld, paint, and mount approximately 1,500,000 wheels in
1992. The addition of the powder paint line system has
eliminated hazardous waste generation. The powder paint line
system is new technology that is commercially available, although
it has been tailored specifically to the needs of CMW and their
industry.
The previous system used a one-time spray. All overspray was
hazardous waste paint sludge. Liquid paint was replaced with dry
powder which can be reused and does not require solvents for
cleanup. Xylene recycling was eliminated from the old system. A
reclamation system for used paint enables powder to be reused.
The wet painting system was a chain on edge conveyor system which
held one part per spindle. The paint spray boot consisted of a
trip switch actuated spray gun table to follow the parts being
painted. Eight spray guns were attached to cover all sizes of
wheels. The cure oven was an electric infra-red oven, which was
very costly to run. All parts were hand cleaned before being
placed on the line. Paint was sprayed onto the parts, and
overspray from the painting operation was caught in a waterfall
booth where the paint was detackified and separated from the
water. This operation could paint a maximum of approximately
7,000 parts per 24-hour time period. Emissions to the atmosphere
occurred during the painting operation in the paintbooth, and in
the cure oven as the parts were cured. Cleanup was done with
xylene which was recycled according to EPA regulations.
Components of the leftover paint sludge had to be reported under
Form R of the Toxics Release Inventory, and the sludge was very
costly to dispose of. All paint was low volatile organic
compound paint. Xylene, used as a paint thinner, was reported to
the EPA using Form R.
The new powder paint line system is a conveyor system able to
hold multiple parts and sizes together. The parts pass through
an electrostatic charged cloud of paint powder which is attracted
to the metal part. All paint which does not adhere is reclaimed
and can be reused, eliminating paint sludge and hazardous waste.
The wheels pass through a five-stage wash system which cleans and
treats the steel surface minutes before painting. The parts are
cured in a gas fired oven which is more cost efficient to
operate. This operation has a maximum of approximately 13,000
parts per eighteen hour time period. All hydrocarbon solvent air
emissions were eliminated with this new process. Cleanup is
simply done with a broom, a shop vac and water. The leftover
scrap paint is non-hazardous and non-regulated material. The
only monitoring now required is due to the addition of the wash
system. CMW must be within environmental standards for
wastewater when it cleans out the holding tank. Before the wet
paint line system was put into place the hazardous waste
generated was 85,100 pounds per year. No hazardous waste is
generated with the new painting process.
The training and supervision of this area with the new system is
more critical than with the previous system. The final end
product quality has improved. The housekeeping and cleanup under
the new project is far easier compared to the previous wet
paints. Housekeeping has gone from washing parts in solvents to
using a squeegee and water for cleanup.
6.0 Economics
The cost to install the powder paint line system was
approximately $500,000. The cost savings have been calculated at
about 20% on utilities. The payback period for this system is
estimated to be two years.
7.0 Cleaner Production Benefits
With the addition of the powder paint line system, CMW has
eliminated hazardous waste disposal costs and recycling costs.
Together these costs average $52,000 per year. EPA regulatory
paperwork and reporting time will be eliminated. Shutting down
the paint line to clean out the waterfall spray booth is no
longer necessary. This will add two to three more shifts of
production time per month. CMW has improved public relations by
eliminating hydrocarbon air emissions into the atmosphere. In
addition, CMW will have reduced liabilities concerning the
shipment of hazardous waste off-site.
With the installation of this system, production planning was
made easier because of the capability of CMW to paint larger
volumes of parts of the same color regardless of size. In the
past, the wet system was very limited as to what could be done
with different part sizes or configurations requiring a new setup
for each. The need for a hazardous waste storage area has been
eliminated along with all paperwork requirements.
8.0 Obstacles, Problems and/or Known Constraints
Few obstacles were encountered during startup and construction of
the system. Since the technology was new to everyone at CMW,
employees needed time to learn how to operate the new system.
The only real obstacle encountered during the first ten months of
operation was a high buildup of zinc in the holding tanks of the
prewash system. With the help of Summit County Environmental
Service contacts, CMW is currently in the process of correcting
the problem at the time of this report.
9.0 Date Case Study was Performed
The powder paint line went into limited testing production in
June of 1991. Total production went into effect as of October of
1991.
10.0 Contacts with Citations
City Machine and Wheel Company
1676 Commerce Drive
Stow, Ohio 44224
Mr. David Sebastian
216/688-7756
11.0 Keywords
503 Halogenated solvents
511 Paint thinner or petroleum distillates
604 Organic paint or ink sludge
800 Organic gases
2097 Painting
01 Equipment or technology modification
02 Process modification or substitution
04 Process raw materials modification or substitution
1002 Annual cost savings
1003 Capital costs
1005 Payback period
Regulatory incentives
----------------------------------------------------------
Cleveland Wood Products
Cleveland
1.0 Headline
Source reduction techniques reduced volatile organic compound
emission from a painting operation.
2.0 SIC Code
3991
3.0 Name and Location of Company
Cleveland Wood Products
3881 West 150th Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44111
4.0 Clean Technology Category
Process and equipment modifications and a raw material
substitution were implemented to reduce the amount of volatile
organic compound (VOC) emissions from a painting operation.
5.0 Case Study Summary
Cleveland Wood Products is a small company with less than 100
employees that designs and manufactures brushes for the vacuum
cleaner industry. Eighty-five percent of the brushrolls produced
are wooden and require spray painting prior to bristling.
In January of 1987, Cleveland Wood Products began evaluating
their paint spraying operation in order to reduce liability
insurance premiums. The company realized that it could
potentially reduce air pollutants and eliminate the risk of
spills to prevent environmental problems by switching paint
systems. The old paint system was electrostatic lacquer and was
mixed on site. It was Cleveland Wood Product's desire to convert
to water based paints to eliminate VOC pollution. However, water
based paint suitable for wood was not available to meet the
company's requirements.
As an interim move to reduce VOC emissions, Cleveland Wood
Products converted to enamel spray in 1988. A new stainless
steel air operated enclosed paint delivery system was installed
using closed drums with air operated mixer paddles. The paint
vendor delivered a small quantity of paint every third day,
eliminating on-site storage. Pre-mixed paint eliminated thinners
and possibilities of accidental spills.
The use of enamel also significantly reduced the amount of VOC's
emitted. At the same time three paint manufacturers were asked
to develop a usable water based paint for wood. Initially the
major paint manufacturers did not address the company's need for
a water based paint because of their small size and the limited
potential for wood applications. Throughout 1989 and 1990, water
based paints were sampled but failed because of an inability to
cover or dry to touch in a short amount of time. In late 1991, a
modification of Cleveland Wood Products automatic paint line was
made which directed overspray onto the product instead of onto
the filters. This was a significant quality, cost improvement.
An acceptable water based paint was approved on May 1, 1992, and
went into use by July 1992. Emissions from this paint are
significantly below all EPA VOC emission standards.
6.0 Economics
Water based paints cost more per gallon, but pieces painted per
gallon has increased.
7.0 Cleaner Production Benefits
The net result of this effort is protection of the environment as
well as cost reductions enhancing the company's competitive
position. It has also spawned awareness and organized efforts to
further reduce the source of waste throughout Cleveland Wood
Product's operation. Efforts are not only supported but
encouraged by all employees. In addition, facilities and
equipment are cleaner and easier to maintain.
8.0 Obstacles, Problems and/or Known Constraints
None mentioned
9.0 Date Case Study was Performed
1989-1992
10.0 Contacts with Citations
Cleveland Wood Products
3881 West 150th Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44111
Mr. Ronald R. Varesco, General Manager
216/252-1190
11.0 Keywords
511 Paint thinner or petroleum distillates
604 Organic paint or ink sludge
800 Organic gases
2097 Painting
01 Equipment or technology modification
02 Process modification or substitution
04 Process raw materials modification or substitution
09 Management strategies
1002 Annual cost savings
----------------------------------------------------------
Copeland Corporation
Wapakoneta
1.0 Headline
Replacement of 1,1,1-trichloroethane cleaning solvent with a
petroleum distillates product and replacement of xylene based
paint with powder coating has resulted in substantial cost
savings.
2.0 SIC Code
3585
3.0 Name and Location of Company
Copeland Corporation
751 Industrial Drive
Wapakoneta, Ohio 45895
4.0 Clean Technology Category
Equipment and process modifications were implemented to replace
1,1,1-trichloroethane with a petroleum based product and switch
from a xylene based paint to a powder coating.
5.0 Case Study Summary
At the Wapakoneta plant, Copeland Corporation remanufactures and
assembles new compressors for residential air-conditioning
systems. The materials used for the compressors are cold rolled
steel and salvaged parts from field failure compressors. Before
the process change the field compressors were cut open and
disassembled. The electric motors were removed and cold cleaned
in trichloroethane to remove burnt oils and residues. After
being assembled and welded, the cold roll steel shells were spray
painted with a xylene based paint for a finished coat.
Since the process change, electric motors from field failure
compressors are cold cleaned in a petroleum based product. This
change was made in February 1990. In addition, a powder coating
system was installed to finish coat the compressors. This system
was installed in March of 1990. Copeland had a quality concern
regarding the residue that has to be removed from compressor
parts prior to assembling. Residue lodged in electric motors
could cause the motor to short out and fail early. All cleaning
compounds must be compatible with freon which is used in
compressor systems.
Solvent based paints caused problems with uniform coverage and
had very low salt spray corrosion protection. Powder coating is
applied automatically for a more uniform coverage and salt spray
corrosion is far superior to solvent based paints.
6.0 Economics
A total of $251,000 per year is saved in material, maintenance
and waste disposal costs. The cost to change from solvent based
paint to powder coating was $95,000.
7.0 Cleaner Production Benefits
Improvements in health and safety are important to Copeland.
Operators are no longer working with fumes from 1,1,1-
trichloroethane. The petroleum based product is non-hazardous
and had no odor. Operators no longer have to work with fumes
from xylene solvent based paint. Liability from handling storage
and disposal of paint related waste has been eliminated. The
powder coating is applied automatically.
The waste from the petroleum based product is used in a fuels
blend program. Since Copeland started powder coating they have
eliminated approximately 124 barrels of paint related waste per
year. Air emissions from xylene based paint have been
eliminated. This is reflected in Copeland's air permits, their
Form R's, and Community Right to Know Releases. Emissions from
the powder system are limited to natural gas combustion.
8.0 Obstacles, Problems and/or Known Constraints
Copeland tried a citrus based product to clean their electric
motors; however, the fruit smell made the operator nauseous. the
petroleum based product has no odor.
9.0 Date Case Study was Performed
1989-1992
10.0 Contacts with Citations
Copeland Corporation
751 Industrial Drive
Wapakoneta, Ohio 45895-0428
Mr. Ken Fisher, Environmental Coordinator
419/738-9234
11.0 Keywords
502 Halogenated (e.g., chlorinated) solvents
511 Paint thinner and petroleum distillates
800 Organic gases
2079 Metal cleaning
2097 Painting
01 Equipment or technology modification
02 Process modification or substitution
04 Process raw materials modification or substitution
1002 Annual cost savings
1003 Capital costs
1008 Treatment/disposal cost avoided
Worker protection
Regulatory incentives
----------------------------------------------------------
Crown Equipment Corporation
New Bremen
1.0 Headline
1,1,1-trichloroethane has been replaced with an aqueous cleaning
solution.
2.0 SIC Code
3537
3.0 Name and Location of Company
Crown Equipment Corporation
40 South Washington Street
New Bremen, Ohio 45869
4.0 Clean Technology Category
This project involved a material substitution and equipment and
process modifications. The organic solvent 1,1,1-trichloroethane
was replaced with aqueous cleaning compounds.
5.0 Case Study Summary
Industrial manufacturing plants have for years relied on the use
of various solvents for cleaning miscellaneous metal parts. The
organic solvent 1,1,1-trichloroethane has been the solvent of
choice for many because of its low toxicity and high flash point
characteristics. Only recently has this solvent been added to
the list of those chemicals known to deplete the ozone layer.
Crown Equipment Corporation, a manufacturer of electric lift
trucks and antenna rotators, first substituted a water based
cleaning compound in cold cleaning (dip) operations. Two large
vapor degreasers were then removed and replaced with a series of
agitating wash tanks. This central cleaning system employs a
wash, rinse, rust inhibiting and drying stage to clean parts.
Crown has not had to change production rates as a result of the
new process. New waste streams generated consist of 900 gallons
of oily wastewater that is treated on site. Energy usage cannot
be quantified at this time. It is expected to rise, however, as
a result of the additional heating requirements.
In 1988, 208,000 pounds of 1,1,1-trichloroethane were used in
cold cleaning degreasing and the operation of two vapor
degreasers. Following implementation of this project, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane was eliminated. The agitating technology
utilized for this project was commercially available. The
central cleaning system was purchased "off the shelf". The
chemistry was customized to meet the cleaning requirements that
Crown required and to provide adequate rust protection.
6.0 Economics
Capital costs for the purchase of the central cleaning equipment
was $78,000. This included all equipment necessary to provide
the same cleaning capacity and production rates as before.
Operation and maintenance costs remain the same for the new
equipment as compared to vapor degreasing. Approximately eighty
additional work hours were required to install the new equipment.
The payback period for the entire project is ten months. This
figure is based on the purchase of 17,175 gallons of 1,1,1-
trichloroethane in 1989. By eliminating cold cleaning with this
solvent, a reduction in solvent usage of approximately 35% was
realized with no capital investment. The cost of purchasing the
1,1,1-trichloroethane in 1989 was $103,000. The purchase of the
central washing equipment was $78,000 with an additional $3,000
in chemical costs.
7.0 Cleaner Production Benefits
This project has produced various benefits for Crown including
cost savings, improved public relations, improved employee
relations and pollution reduction. It has reduced regulatory
requirements through a reduction in hazardous waste materials
sent out for disposal. Non-hazardous waste streams that had
previously been contaminated by the solvent are no longer
rendered hazardous by such contamination. This project has
allowed Crown to drop 1,1,1-trichloroethane from its Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act reporting requirements, and
reduced the liability for Crown in sending the listed wastes to
disposal facilities. Since this material has been removed from
the manufacturing area, employees no longer have the potential
for exposure. In addition, the spill response group had one less
chemical of concern. This project has been reviewed by other
industrial manufacturers who are interested in removing solvent
degreasing operations.
8.0 Obstacles, Problems and/or Known Constraints
The biggest obstacle Crown faced was providing the capital outlay
required to purchase the equipment. This was especially
difficult since the economy and Crown were in a recession during
the planning stages of this project. This project also required
extensive investigation into alternative cleaning processes and
equipment. It required a review of the numbers, types and
metallurgy of the parts being cleaned. A great deal of bench
testing of the various parts was performed prior to deciding on
the best equipment to purchase.
9.0 Date Case Study was Performed
The project was begun in August 1990 with investigations and
bench testing. Equipment purchasing occurred in November 1991.
The completed project has been evaluated for six months as of May
1992.
10.0 Contacts with Citations
Implementing industry:
Crown Equipment Corporation
40 South Washington Street
New Bremen, Ohio 45869
Mr. Brian J. Duffy, Environmental Manager
419/629-2311
11.0 Keywords
502 Halogenated (e.g., chlorinated) solvents
1014 Degreasing
2136 Vapor degreasing
01 Equipment or technology modification
02 Process modification or substitution
04 Process raw materials modification or substitution
1002 Annual cost savings
1003 Capital costs
1008 Treatment/disposal cost avoided
Worker protection
Regulatory incentives
----------------------------------------------------------
Diebold, Incorporated
Canton
1.0 Headline
A paint substitution has significantly reduced the use of
chemicals in the EPA 33/50 Program for this company.
2.0 SIC Code
3499
3.0 Name and Location of Company
Diebold, Incorporated
818 Mulberry Road
Canton, Ohio 44707-3256
4.0 Clean Technology Category
Diebold Incorporated has significantly reduced the use of 33/50
Program solvents through the implementation of material
substitution.
5.0 Case Study Summary
Diebold manufactures, sells and installs a variety of products.
A change in production at Diebold's main plant in 1991 reduced
the volume of paint they would normally use in certain high-
volume colors. Their high-solids baked enamel paint supplier
subsequently requested that Diebold find a new supplier. Their
old supplier could not make an acceptable profit with a reduced
volume of standard colors and over thirty colors in one to twenty
gallon batches.
Diebold was concerned with maintaining quality and cost factors
while reducing the use of toxics in their paint systems. They
discovered a company that specializes in Diebold's paint market.
More importantly, this company could supply most of the colors
needed without the use of solvents listed in the EPA 33/50
Program. Another desirable characteristic of Diebold's new paint
supplier's coating system was that the clean-up solvent for their
high-solids coating contained no 33/50 solvents. These were two
convincing selling points for Diebold. The supplier was also
willing to make up special colors in increments of one gallon,
which reduced Diebold's inventory.
6.0 Economics
The price of paint with the new supplier is the same as it was
before. Diebold can now purchase the paint in smaller
quantities, for exactly what they need, as compared to five
gallon drums with their old supplier. This has reduced the
quantity of unused paint that is disposed of, thereby reducing
hazardous waste disposal costs. The true environmental impact of
switching paint suppliers is a further reduction in the use of
toxic chemicals with no increase in costs.
7.0 Cleaner Production Benefits
Diebold has seen an economic benefit in reduced hazardous waste
disposal costs and has further reduced the use of toxic
chemicals.
8.0 Obstacles, Problems and/or Known Constraints
None observed
9.0 Date Case Study was Performed
1989-1992
10.0 Contacts with Citations
Diebold, Incorporated
818 Mulberry Road
Canton, Ohio 44707-3256
Mr. David Rinehart
216/588-3704
11.0 Keywords
509 Organic paint, ink lacquer, or varnish
2097 Painting
02 Process raw materials modification or substitution
Treatment or disposal cost reduced
----------------------------------------------------------
Dietrich Industries, Incorporated
Warren
1.0 Headline
Mechanical modifications to a washer and the use of
ultrafiltration technology has resulted in a substantial decrease
in hazardous waste disposal costs and a decrease in chemical
costs.
2.0 SIC Code
3490
3.0 Name and Location of Company
Dietrich Industries, Inc.
1985 North River Road
Warren, Ohio 44483
4.0 Clean Technology Category
Implementation of process and equipment modifications has
resulted in substantial cost savings.
5.0 Case Study Summary
Dietrich Industries Incorporated's Warren facility is a metal
fabricating and steel processing facility. They produce steel
sheets and blanks for uses in appliances to automobiles. They
supply fabricated steel products for the mining industry, and
steel stampings for various other uses. In 1988, a steel
stamping (no further description can be given for proprietary
reasons) was to be produced in this facility. As they began to
produce large quantities of this stamping, some problems were
being reported by customers. The major concern was the inability
to achieve proper paint adhesion to the part. The decision was
made to begin washing the parts before shipment to the customer.
In 1988, the plant began fabrication of a prototype washer that
fit their particular needs. As the demand for these stampings
escalated, the washer could not meet production levels necessary
to supply their customers. A second washer of a new design was
constructed to meet the increased demand. By 1989, this washer,
too, fell short of their needs. A third washer of even larger
capacity was constructed and supplied all of their customers
until 1990, when a concerted effort was made to increase capacity
while decreasing the cost to produce the part. A new washer was
contracted for fabrication. This washer was to include
everything that had been learned from the previous washers. The
new washer was constructed from stainless steel to their
specifications. The three stage, belt type spray washer was
delivered in 1990.
Changes in the EPA's regulations created problems for the
customer. The demand skyrocketed for cleaner parts which could
be painted with a water based paint. The facility now had the
capacity to produce ample parts but the quality was unacceptable.
research into the paintability problem showed that iron
phosphatizing would promote better adhesion of the paint. The
facility wanted to utilize the existing washer with iron
phosphate.
Several large corporations in the coil coating industry were
contacted to provide a combination cleaner/iron phosphatizing
chemical. The first batch of the new process, with iron
phosphatizing/cleaning, then rinse and seal, was disastrous.
Within two weeks the bath had to be dumped. This cost $4,200.
The expense was caused by the contamination of the chemical bath
caused by drag out from the part and the conveyor belt. The need
to reduce this expense marked the beginning of their eventual
goal of finding a near zero discharge system.
Initially, the main concern was to eliminate the chemical
crossover between the tanks of different chemicals. Air blow-off
knives were designed to shed the liquid from the parts and belt
carrying them, and the single continuous belt was broken into
three distinct sections, one for each chemical solution. These
modifications incurred costs for parts of $15,000.
The facility originally intended to use waste treatment to
produce a waste water acceptable by the county sanitary engineer.
The process water would be collected, pH corrected, precipitated
and released to a sanitary sewer. This is the normally accepted
method to meet local sanitary sewer regulations, but the cost of
city water and sewerage was unacceptable to meet long term goals.
Conventional waste treatment would be a daily expense with no
means to recover the investment. The idea of disposing of the
chemical solution, 97% of which was water, at high cost, caused
concern. This water could be reused for the following chemical
bath. They began to research methods for recovering their waste
water solution.
Potential recovery systems from deionization to microfiltration
were discussed. Experts on each system were consulted, and it
was decided that the most suitable and cost effective method to
achieve the plant's goal was ultrafiltration. The decision was
made to purchase a unit capable of processing two to ten gallons
per minute. This unit would incur a capital expenditure of
$36,000. It is Dietrich's opinion that the use of
ultrafiltration technology may be the least expensive option to
minimize liquid pollution source production. Ultrafiltration
allows for the reuse of a spent iron phosphate bath for make-up
water. Figure 1 shows the mechanism that allows ultrafiltration
to work as a self cleaning system. As the contaminated feed
flows along the membrane walls, it scrubs the particles too large
to penetrate to the exit of the cartridge. The contaminated flow
is returned to the process tank for circulation to the cartridge
again. The clean permeate that passed through the membrane is
returned for reuse in the washer.
The ultrafiltration system was installed and soon the operator
was able to keep the bath at very consistent levels. The unit
was installed as shown in Figure 2. The return line from the
unit does not enter stage 1 directly. This is to prevent
stagnation of stage 2. The quality of the parts began to rise
dramatically upon start-up.
The next steps taken were to determine the effectiveness of the
system and to log the amount of each chemical being used. Table
1 shows the type, amount and cost of each chemical used. The
significant decrease in cost between charge #2 and #3 was due to
the addition of ultrafiltration.
6.0 Economics
The process changes described above have achieved an 84%
reduction in chemical costs, while reducing the quantity of water
pollution by 88% from the original method. These reductions are
due to mechanical modifications to the washer and the addition of
ultrafiltration to process the chemical solutions being used.
The total cost savings on an annual basis is $132,000. This
figure does not include the increased freedom from liabilities of
massive disposal of waste material.
A more vivid picture of the amount of chemical savings is shown
in Figure 3. An overall reduction of 90% in the consumption of
iron phosphate is the pronounced difference. The slight increase
in sealer use was caused by the increase in production. The most
dramatic increase is in the use of booster chemicals. The
booster is being utilized more since the entire iron phosphate
package is not needed.
Figure 4 depicts the reduction in chemical costs. The
modifications show a 50% reduction compared to the original
configuration. The addition of ultrafiltration produced an 80%
reduction in chemical costs in the same comparison.
Figure 5 shows the bottom line, the actual cost of the chemicals
to produce 100 parts. The simple modifications netted a 63%
reduction of cost alone. The recycling of the chemical solution
added another 57% savings. The total reduction in chemical costs
was an impressive 84%.
The amount of process water that must be disposed of has made the
largest impact on overall cost of processing parts. The
anticipated amount of waste water prior to modification was
64,800 gallons. The actual amount of process water disposed of
was 3,600 gallons at a cost of $2,880. The facility is presently
accumulating an average of forty gallons of sludge per month.
This is quite small in comparison to the original 2,700 gallons
disposed every two weeks.
The washer in its original configuration would have consumed
$26,112 of chemicals annually. In its present configuration it
is projected to consume less than $5,000 of chemicals based on
the same production level. The amount of chemical costs are
dwarfed by the savings through source reduction of liquid waste.
The projected cost of waste water disposal in the washer's
original state would have been $112,320. The present system, a
nearly closed loop, will require as little as $1,000 for disposal
of tramp oil and sludge annually. The total capital expenditure
for the modification and addition of ultrafiltration was under
$60,000 including labor. This relatively simple application of
current technology produces an annual savings in excess of
$132,000.
7.0 Cleaner Production Benefits
The reuse of the iron phosphate bath after it has passed through
the membrane in the ultrafiltration technology saves massive
disposal costs. The reuse is also responsible for the following
items:
* City water costs are reduced due to less need for make-up
water.
* Chemical costs are reduced through reuse of the bath already
saturated with phosphoric acid.
* Sludge build up removal costs are reduced due to continuous
filtering.
* Other liquid wastes can be processed by ultrafiltration with
only minimal flushing of the system.
* Minimal floor space is required because the ultrafiltration
unit can be remotely located.
* Maintenance cost is reduced since the ultrafilter helps hold
the bath at a consistent concentration requiring less operator
attention.
* The part quality is greatly improved due to the consistency of
the bath.
8.0 Obstacles, Problems and/or Known Constraints
No problems existed except that the operators needed sufficient
time to learn to operate the bath.
9.0 Date Case Study was Performed
1988-1992
10.0 Contacts with Citations
Dietrich Industries, Inc.
P.O. Box 68
Blairsville, PA 15717
Mr. Robert O. Beckwith, Corporate Project Engineer
412/676-4782
11.0 Keywords
Other waste water
2079 Metal cleaning
01 Equipment or technology modification
02 Process modification or substitution
07 Onsite recycling or recovery for reuse
11 Wastewater reduction
1002 Annual cost savings
1003 Capital costs
1008 Treatment/disposal cost avoided
[Figure 1, Figure 2, Table 1, Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5]
[each on a full page]
----------------------------------------------------------
Eveready Battery Company
Fremont
1.0 Headline
Process and equipment modifications were implemented to achieve
solvent minimization and elimination of 1,1,1-trichloroethane
used in adhesives.
2.0 SIC Code
3692 and 3691
3.0 Name and Location of Company
Eveready Battery Company, Inc.
1501 West State Street
Fremont, Ohio 43420
4.0 Clean Technology Category
Process and equipment modifications were implemented to reduce
the amount of solvents used and eliminate the use of 1,1,1-
trichloroethane used in adhesives.
5.0 Case Study Summary
Eveready Battery Company has had an active solvent Emissions
Tracking and Solvent Minimization / Elimination program at all of
their plants for many years. The Fremont facility, which
manufactures carbon-zinc flashlight and lantern batteries, has
completed trials of a water based adhesive in order to eliminate
the use of 1,1,1-trichloroethane from a labeling adhesive. The
plant has ordered production quantities of the water based
adhesive, and began its use exclusively by the end of September,
1992, as inventories of the old adhesive were used up.
The number of mineral spirit tanks and the solvent changing
frequencies have been reduced along with the elimination of
squirt and spray bottles containing solvent.
Process wastes are recycled whenever possible at the Fremont
facility. Scrap mix can usually go back into the mix room for
blending with fresh product. Scrap cans are returned to the
vendor who melts them down for reprocessing. Lithographed steel
from lantern-battery jackets is sold as scrap metal. Cardboard
from packaging is sent to a local recycling center. Currently,
the Fremont facility is recycling approximately 90% of their
wastes for which they have identified outlets.
6.0 Economics
No cost savings are noted; tangibles and intangibles seemed to
have balanced out.
7.0 Cleaner Production Benefits
Use of 1,1,1-trichloroethane has been eliminated in the
production process.
8.0 Obstacles, Problems and/or Known Constraints
Natural resistance to change by employees disappeared quickly,
especially after the new adhesive formula worked more
effectively.
9.0 Date Case Study was Performed
1989-1992
10.0 Contacts with Citations
Eveready Battery Company, Inc.
1501 West State Street
Fremont, Ohio 43420
Mr. Steve Lolli, Plant Environmental Coordinator
419/334-6595 or 419/332-6401
11.0 Keywords
502 Halogenated (e.g., chlorinated) solvents
2018 Cleaning
2062 Gluing
04 Process raw materials modification or substitution
1008 Treatment/disposal cost avoided
----------------------------------------------------------
General Metals Powder Company
Akron
1.0 Headline
Waste water is purified and reused in a production process.
2.0 SIC Code
3499
3.0 Name and Location of Company
General Metals Powder Company
130 Elinor Avenue
Akron, OH 44310
4.0 Clean Technology Category
The installation of ion exchange columns and the subsequent
modification of their regenerating process allowed General Metals
Powder Company (GEMPCO) to concentrate and reuse copper laden
rinse waters.
5.0 Case Study Summary
GEMPCO produces copper powder through electrolytic deposition of
copper in an acidic solution, and uses it in a powdered
metallurgical process to manufacture friction linings for clutch
plates and brake plates. Wastewater from the powder production
process contains solid copper particles and dissolved copper ions
and would be considered a toxic waste. This waste stream, which
was previously disposed of on the company property, is the
subject of this case study.
Disposal of this waste was stopped in 1986, and a process of
purifying the wastes was initiated by diverting the waste water
through an ion exchange resin that would remove the copper.
GEMPCO began to regenerate the resin with sulfuric acid and reuse
the copper laden regenerate solution as electrolyte in the copper
slurry production. However, this regenerate solution had a high
concentration of sodium which inhibited the production of the
copper slurry. The company that engineered and installed the ion
exchange equipment considered their work complete, leaving GEMPCO
with a process which cleaned the waste water but left a
regenerate solution unsuitable for reuse in the electrolytic
deposition process.
Company personnel working on the system devised an electro-
winning process to remove the sodium from the regenerate
solution, making it acceptable for reuse in production. Now
GEMPCO had a system that could provide a usable regenerate
solution and an effluent acceptable for its sewer permit.
Since the regenerate solution had to be stripped of sodium in a
batch process, the amount of regenerate solution GEMPCO could use
was restricted by the rate of electrolyte consumption required by
the slurry production. This affected how often the ion exchange
resins were regenerated. GEMPCO was generating more electrolyte
from the ion exchange than it could use, so it delayed the
frequency of regeneration of the resin. This lowered the
efficiency of the ion exchange and produced waste water with too
much copper in it to be in compliance with sewer permit levels.
GEMPCO's system worked but it needed improvements to meet the
sewer permit limits on a regular basis.
GEMPCO hired a company that had been through a similar
experience. They analyzed GEMPCO's system and recommended
changes that got GEMPCO more capacity from the ion exchange
resin. GEMPCO stopped the conversion of resin to a sodium state
for copper absorption since it was unnecessary.
These measures doubled the life of the ion exchange resins. Now
GEMPCO had a system that worked and brought the company well
below the permit levels for copper. GEMPCO's permit level was
cut in half from four parts per million to two parts per million
and the company is still in compliance. All of this work put
more of a demand on the company's utilities. GEMPCO is using
more electricity for the electro-winning process and more water
and chemicals to generate de-ionized water. Currently GEMPCO has
not increased its production rates or saved any money by using
regenerate solution for electrolyte.
The average amount of water going to the sanitary sewer system is
twenty gallons per minute or 10,000 gallons per day. Currently
GEMPCO is in full compliance with its sewer use permit and is not
generating any hazardous waste from this process. The effluent
flow rates are estimated.
GEMPCO states that this technology is currently available.
However, of the two companies that provided information and
equipment, the first company left GEMPCO with a system that did
not work and ruined GEMPCO's production process. The second
company helped GEMPCO solve its problems.
6.0 Economics
GEMPCO has spent $400,000 to achieve its current state of
compliance. Items purchased include a filter press, a sand
filter, two 27 cubic foot ion exchange columns, 1,600 gallon and
500 gallon plastic tanks, five chemical metering pumps, two
centrifugal process pumps, two diaphragm pumps, a control panel
with a microprocessor, approximately forty PVC diaphragm valves
pneumatically operated, PVC plumbing and secondary containment
diking for all of this equipment. GEMPCO feels that if it had
contracted with the second company from the beginning, the system
would have cost $250,000 required less space and been less
complicated.
GEMPCO has hired a full time salaried employee to be responsible
for all the water processing. It also requires twenty-five
percent of a union operator's daily work and ten percent of a
union maintenance person's time. This equipment does not save
GEMPCO any money. It is estimated that GEMPCO is spending
$15,000 a year in utilities and chemicals for this equipment.
7.0 Cleaner Production Benefits
This process keeps the company in compliance with its permit and
allows GEMPCO to stay in business.
8.0 Obstacles, Problems and/or Known Constraints
The obstacle that limits GEMPCO the most and causes the greatest
potential for problems is the quality and quantity of ion
exchange regenerated solution. GEMPCO is constantly juggling the
scheduling of production and the regeneration schedule to stay in
compliance and not create more regenerate solution than GEMPCO
can use. The operation of this equipment always poses the
potential to disrupt operations and cause problems with the
product GEMPCO produces.
9.0 Date Case Study was Performed
The initial work on this project was started in 1986 and was
completed in 1987. The second stage of improvements occurred in
1990.
10.0 Contacts with Citations
General Metals Powder Company
130 Elinor Avenue
Akron, OH 44310
Mr. Brian Kramer, Plant Engineer
216/633-1226
11.0 Keywords
117 Other inorganic liquid
2067 Ion exchange
2083 Metal recovery
01 Equipment or technology modification
02 Process modification or substitution
04 Process raw materials modification or substitution
07 Onsite recycling or recovery for reuse
Regulatory incentives
----------------------------------------------------------
Gerity-Schultz Corporation
Toledo
1.0 Headline
Soluble quench oil has been replaced by synthetic oil.
2.0 SIC Code
3369
3.0 Name and Location of Company
Gerity Schultz Corporation
1810 Clinton Street
Toledo, Ohio 43607
4.0 Clean Technology Category
Gerity Schultz Corporation has substituted synthetic oil for
soluble oil in the quench pits. The synthetic oil in the pits
lasts for two years or longer; the soluble oil was replaced about
every two months. This substitution has resulted in a large
reduction of disposable waste.
5.0 Case Study Summary
Gerity Schultz is a zinc die casting facility. The castings are
quenched in pits under the die casting machines in a water and
oil mixture called quench oil.
In the original process, hydraulic oils and lubricating oils
(tramp oils) which drip into the pits, along with some quench
oil, overflowed into city drains. This kept the quench oil fresh
and emulsified. However, Gerity Schultz was required to pay the
city a $2,000 per month surcharge for this oil drainage.
Eventually the city prohibited this kind of oil drainage, so the
facility plugged these drains. Because of this the tramp oil
caused the soluble oil to go out of emulsion and the oil became
rancid in about two months. The company decided to find a
substitute for the quench oil.
Each pit contains approximately 1,200 to 1,400 gallons of quench
oil consisting of 2 to 4% oil and 96 to 98% water. There are
approximately eight pits in operation at any one time.
Synthetic oils were available at the time the facility was
looking for a substitute. It was necessary to find one which was
compatible with zinc. The first choice caused "stearate" growths
on zinc castings under certain conditions. Since then the
facility has changed to a different synthetic oil.
6.0 Economics
Soluble oil sells for about $2.50 per gallon; synthetic oil costs
about $5.00 per gallon.
Gerity Schultz originally flowed the quench oil through filters
and separators (both soluble and synthetic). Now the facility
filters the synthetic quench through an $8,500 ultra-filter. The
ultra-filter could not be used with the soluble oil.
It takes about sixteen man hours to drain and steam clean a
quench pit. In the past, when they used soluble oil, Gerity
Schultz cleaned the pits about every two months. Now the pits
need to be cleaned about every two years. Biocides which cost
$150 per gallon are added to the quench pits every few months, or
as needed, at about 1 pint per every 1200 gallons.
Basing the payback period simply on oil costs, the payback time
is only about four months. The soluble oil costs $2.50 per
gallon and the synthetic oil costs $5.00 per gallon, but the
soluble oil only lasted approximately two months.
7.0 Cleaner Production Benefits
Gerity Schultz now spends less money for quench oil and no longer
has to pay the $2,000 per month for oil discharge to city sewers.
Public relations have improved and liabilities have been reduced
as Gerity Schultz no longer dispenses quench oil into city
drains.
8.0 Obstacles, Problems and/or Known Constraints
None mentioned
9.0 Date Case Study was Performed
Gerity Schultz first began using synthetic oil in the spring of
1989.
10.0 Contacts with Citations
Gerity Schultz Corporation
1810 Clinton Street
Toledo, Ohio 43607
Mr. Jim Ochs
419/244-4971
11.0 Keywords
506 Waste oil
2035 Die casting
04 Process raw materials modification or substitution
1002 Annual cost savings
----------------------------------------------------------
Gerity Schultz Corporation
Toledo
1.0 Headline
Ethylene glycol hydraulic fluid, a Section 313 toxic material,
was replaced by a non-toxic material.
2.0 SIC Code
3369
3.0 Name and Location of Company
Gerity Schultz Corporation
1810 Clinton Street
Toledo, Ohio 43607
4.0 Clean Technology Category
Using material substitution, diethylene glycol, a non-toxic
material, replaced ethylene glycol, a toxic material, as a
hydraulic fluid.
5.0 Case Study Summary
Gerity Schultz is a zinc die casting facility that uses hydraulic
systems to open and close dies. When a suitable substitute
hydraulic fluid was found, the switch was made from a toxic to a
non-toxic hydraulic fluid.
6.0 Economics
The change was made more for safety and environmental reasons
rather than for economic reasons. However, a cost savings of
about $0.80 per gallon was realized.
7.0 Cleaner Production Benefits
There is less danger of injuries to workers due to ingestion,
inhalation or skin contact.
8.0 Obstacles, Problems and/or Known Constraints
None mentioned
9.0 Date Case Study was Performed
Diethylene glycol was substituted for ethylene glycol in 1989.
10.0 Contacts with Citations
Gerity Schultz Corporation
1810 Clinton Street
Toledo, Ohio 43607
Mr. Jim Ochs
419/244-4971
11.0 Keywords
609 Other organic sludge
2035 Die casting
04 Process raw materials modification or substitution
1002 Annual cost savings
----------------------------------------------------------
Guardian Automotive Products
Upper Sandusky
1.0 Headline
1,1,1-trichloroethane was almost completely replaced by a solvent
which has a lower evaporation rate and is less environmentally
damaging.
2.0 SIC Code
3231
3.0 Name and Location of Company
Guardian Automotive Products
State Route 67 South
P.O. Box 336
Upper Sandusky, Ohio 43351
4.0 Clean Technology Category
The technology used in this study was a material substitution.
The use of the solvent 1,1,1-trichloroethane was reduced almost
completely by replacing it with another solvent. The replacement
solvent is equally effective as a cleaner but has a lower
evaporation rate than the 1,1,1-trichloroethane, thus reducing
the amount of raw materials purchased and amount of waste
disposed of.
5.0 Case Study Summary
Guardian Automotive Products manufactures laminated windshields
for the automotive industry. The solvent is used in a
silkscreening process in which Guardian applies a decorative
paint band around the outer edge of the windshield. In some
cases the screen will become clogged or cause misprints. In
these situations, the solvent is used to clean on-line problems.
The production levels during and after the substitution remained
the same with only minor fluctuations in productions due to
product demand.
The waste stream produced from this process has been dramatically
impacted with a reduction in off site disposal of 18,150 pounds
of 1,1,1-trichloroethane waste in 1990 to 7,425 pounds in 1991.
This reduction is expected to continue into 1992 with the phasing
out of this solvent. The purchase of raw materials is also down
dramatically from 118,800 pounds in 1990 to 10,800 pounds in
1991. This will also be impacted as the solvent is phased out.
The current status of this case study is complete, as the initial
project was to reduce the use of 1,1,1-trichloroethane. This has
been in effect since November of 1990. An additional step will
be taken in the future to eliminate the solvent completely.
The technology necessary to complete this project was readily
available and no process changes or equipment changes were
needed.
6.0 Economics
Investment costs for this project were reflected in a massive raw
material reduction which resulted in a substantial savings in the
cost of materials. Operational and maintenance costs for the
project remained the same.
7.0 Cleaner Production Benefits
The economic benefit realized by this project is the reduction of
the use of a highly volatile solvent which was producing large
quantities of fugitive emissions. An additional benefit is the
great reduction in the amount of waste which is transported off
site for disposal.
8.0 Obstacles, Problems and/or Known Constraints
The only obstacle that was encountered during the project was
difficulty in finding a solvent to clean the silkscreens that
would not damage the screen. Most solvents that were
experimented with were either ineffective or damaged the screens
as they cleaned them. The replacement solvent does not clean as
aggressively or dry as quickly as the 1,1,1-trichloroethane, but
is as effective in protecting the screen.
9.0 Date Case Study was Performed
This project was initiated in mid-1990 and was implemented on
November 1, 1990.
10.0 Contacts with Citations
Guardian Automotive Products
RR#5, State Route 67 South
P.O. Box 336
Upper Sandusky, Ohio 43351
Mr. Jeffrey D. Warner, Environmental Technician
419/294-4921
11.0 Keywords
502 Halogenated solvents
800 Organic gases
2018 Cleaning
Silkscreening
04 Process raw materials modification or substitution
1002 Cost savings
----------------------------------------------------------
Kovatch Castings Company
Uniontown
1.0 Headline
Manufacturing costs have been lowered through source reduction
and recycling of 1,1,1-trichloroethane.
2.0 SIC Code
3324
3.0 Name and Location of Company
Kovatch Castings Company
3743 Tabs Drive
Uniontown, Ohio 44685
4.0 Clean Technology Category
Use and loss through emissions of 1,1,1-trichloroethane at
Kovatch Castings Company have been reduced through improved
housekeeping measures and management skills. The solvent still
in use is reclaimed off-site and reused by Kovatch.
5.0 Case Study Summary
Kovatch is a ferrous and non-ferrous investment foundry. Part of
the operation is to remove the silicone mold spray from the wax
patterns with 1,1,1-trichloroethane. Although usage has never
been high, Kovatch has implemented changes to reduce use of the
solvent and reclaim and reuse it, and is investigating
replacement products.
Wax patterns are degreased in 1,1,1-trichloroethane in the "shell
room" and coated repeatedly with a ceramic shell material. When
the shell material is dry, the wax pattern is melted out, leaving
a hollow ceramic shell. This shell is fired in an oven, then
removed to have the molten metal poured into it. When the metal
has cooled, the shell is broken away, revealing the metal casting
that was formed in wax. The 1,1,1-trichloroethane is used at
room temperature in its natural liquid state. The wax patterns
are dipped several times in the solvent until all traces of the
silicone mold release spray are removed. When the silicone
builds up in the solvent to a level that makes cleaning
ineffective, the solvent is pumped out into empty fifty-five
gallon drums and clean solvent is pumped into the cleaning tank.
The used solvent is then stored on site for less than ninety
days, then transported to the recycler following the proper state
and federal regulations. The cleaning tank holds approximately
twenty-five gallons and is changed about every two to three
weeks, or as needed, depending on production. As the reclamation
process only yields about 75%, the remaining 25% must be made up
with prime material at a higher cost.
Through the use of proper management skills and improved
housekeeping, use of 1,1,1-trichloroethane has dropped from 880
gallons in 1990 to 605 gallons in 1991. A projected usage for
1992 is about 550 gallons. This decrease is due to two primary
changes. A fifty-five gallon drum of the solvent that was
previously left uncovered at times is now always kept covered
when not in use, reducing emissions. Although the solvent was
purchased only for cleaning the wax patterns, people from other
departments would take small amounts from the shell room for use
in cleaning other rooms. This practice was stopped, and non-
hazardous cleaners are used for cleaning in these areas.
Kovatch is concerned that off-site reclamation will not continue
to the be the best solution because the cost of reclamation
continues to increase and because 1,1,1-trichloroethane will
eventually be banned. Kovatch is trying different replacement
solutions that are environmentally sound. Traditionally, the
best degreaser for the investment industry is liquid freon with a
thin layer of water on top to prevent losses through evaporation.
Because of the known problems with freon, the company has used
1,1,1-trichloroethane. A citrus derivative has been tried in
years past with no success. If a detergent based cleaner is
found to successfully clean the wax patterns, a rinse station
possibly will have to be built and two additional stages added to
the process, a rinse and a dry. This might be difficult, as the
wax starts to soften and possibly deform at temperatures as low
as 95 degrees Fahrenheit. This will be detrimental to the
process because the dimensional tolerances on many of the waxes
can be as close as + or - 0.005 inches.
6.0 Economics
There have been no investment costs or payback period for the
reduced use or reclamation of the 1,1,1-trichloroethane. A 45%
reduction of material costs for recycling was realized due to a
change from one service center to another, with no degradation of
either product or service.
Although Kovatch has realized cost savings from changes made, a
detailed cost/savings analysis has not been performed.
7.0 Cleaner Production Benefits
In addition to cost savings, Kovatch has benefitted from improved
worker safety from implementation of pollution prevention. They
expect benefits in both these areas to increase when 1,1,1-
trichloroethane has been completely replaced.
8.0 Obstacles, Problems and/or Known Constraints
The only problems foreseen with the replacement of the 1,1,1-
trichloroethane is the addition of rinse and drying stations.
They must be monitored very carefully because o temperature
instability of the wax patterns. The quality control on this
procedure must have some type of computer controlled processing
and monitoring system to verify on a continual basis the
temperature of the rinse water and the drying air.
9.0 Date Case Study was Performed
There are no known dates to this study as it has been an ongoing
study since the incorporation of Kovatch over fourteen years ago.
10.0 Contacts with Citations
Kovatch Castings Co.
3743 Tabs Drive
Uniontown, Ohio 44685
Mr. Michael Sparrow, Chief Engineer
216/896-9944
11.0 Keywords
502 Halogenated solvents
800 Organic gases
2030 Degreasing
05 Better housekeeping
09 Management strategies
Offsite reclamation for onsite reuse
1002 Annual cost savings
Worker protection
----------------------------------------------------------
The Lincoln Electric Company
Cleveland
1.0 Headline
A variety of source reduction activities have resulted in cost
savings, reduced emissions and a safer work environment for the
employees.
2.0 SIC Code
2899
3.0 Name and Location of Company
The Lincoln Electric Company
22801 St. Clair Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44117-1199
4.0 Clean Technology Category
Material and product substitutions have been used to reduce the
quantity of 1,1,1-trichloroethane used in paints, coatings and
metal cleaning operations. Housekeeping and recycling practices
at Lincoln Electric have resulted in the reduction of releases of
barium compounds. Modification of processing techniques allowed
for the capture and re-use of manganese ore that had previously
been disposed of. An ion-exchange system strips the copper from
plating streams for sale to a copper reclaimer.
5.0 Case Study Summary
The Lincoln Electric Company manufactures arc welding products
and industrial motors. The Lincoln Electric Company has
committed to participate in the 33/50 Program and plans to try to
eliminate the use of 1,1,1-trichloroethane in 1992. The use of
1,1,1-trichloroethane has been reduced from 912,000 pounds in
1987 to 473,000 in 1991, through material and product
substitutions. Three colors of spray paints are used: red, grey
and black. The reduction of 1,1,1-trichloroethane usage from
1987 to the present has been achieved by substituting powder
coatings for red and black spray paints, and by installing water
based washer systems instead of vapor degreasers for pre-cleaning
parts.
At the present time the grey spray paints used in the facility
are being converted to powder coatings. The process will also
eliminate several of the remaining vapor degreasers. This change
will improve part quality significantly. The amount of 1,1,1-
trichloroethane eliminated is approximately 50,000 per year.
The dip paints use 1,1,1-trichloroethane as a solvent. Lincoln
is investigating water based dip paints which will eliminate the
solvent based systems currently in use. The elimination of these
dip paints will reduce the use of this solvent by 160,000 pounds.
Currently, vapor degreasers are used to clean parts in process,
in maintenance areas and prior to painting in some manufacturing
areas. Vapor degreasers will be eliminated by installing water
based washers. The project has approached the vapor degreaser
elimination problem by bringing in-house several types of water
based cleaning machines. The cleaning machines are combined with
a number of chemical cleaners for evaluation by the research and
development section. Lincoln is hoping to achieve the right
combination of cleaners and equipment for plant purposes, thus
eliminating the use of 1,1,1-trichloroethane in the plant by
1992.
Lincoln Electric has reduced barium releases from 14,700 pounds
in 1988, to 800 pounds in 1991. This reduction of barium
releases has been achieved through a greater emphasis on
housekeeping and recycling practices. Specialty chemicals are
formulated and processed for incorporation into welding
consumables manufactured at Lincoln Electric. Formerly, offspec
materials (floor sweepings, etc.) were collected for disposal.
Specialty chemicals are now processed in confined rooms so that
no contamination occurs. As these processes develop, fugitive
losses, baghouse collected materials and other process losses are
collected and reused in product formulations.
Manganese releases at Lincoln Electric have been reduced from
2,924,863 pounds in 1988, to 14,147 pounds in 1991. This
material represented 62% of Lincoln Electric Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act (SARA) Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
reported emissions in 1987 and 1988. Lincoln Electric modified
process techniques to capture and reuse material that previously
had been disposed of. Additionally, process development changes
now allow material that was off-spec in size to be re-used in its
products.
The program to contain manganese and develop higher processing
efficiencies focused on the addition of a recirculation loop in
the processing system. This has allowed the feeding back of
previously wasted materials into the front end of the process.
Better housekeeping has further reduced waste generation in this
process.
Lincoln Electric Company also manufactures printed circuit boards
for their welding machine product line. Recently a new water
treatment plant was installed to treat the waste by-products from
the plating processes associated with the production of printed
circuit boards. Conventional water treatment processes used to
treat similar waste streams at Lincoln generate 2,000 tons of
landfillable waste a year. This amounts to an annual disposal
cost of $75,000. Lincoln has installed an ion-exchange system
which strips the copper from the plating streams, collects and
concentrates it and finally plates the copper out into foil
sheets. The foil sheets are sold to a copper reclaimer. With
the process modification, no solid wastes are generated for
disposal in a landfill.
6.0 Economics
The investment cost for substituting powder coatings for red and
black spray paints and installing water based washer systems was
approximately $4,000,000. The cost of converting to grey powder
coatings is $3,500,000 and will save approximately $750,000 per
year. The cost of the water based washer project is estimated to
be $750,000. Operational and maintenance costs and payback times
for the reduction of 1,1,1-trichloroethane are not available.
The reduction in releases of barium compounds did not involve a
substantial outlay of money. The cost of properly training
employees on better housekeeping practices was the principal
expense. The payback period was three months. Full cost savings
are not available at this time.
The program to contain manganese cost approximately $12,500 to
implement and saves $70,000 per year.
The cost of the ion-exchange system which strips copper from the
plating stream is approximately $300,000. With an annual savings
in disposal costs of $75,000, the payback period for the new
system is approximately four years.
7.0 Cleaner Production Benefits
The primary benefit of the elimination of 1,1,1-trichloroethane
is that the material is no longer used in the work environment
which improves the quality of the work environment. Second, it
has improved the quality of the products and done so at a lower
operating cost.
Production waste is considered a foundry sand now that it is no
longer contaminated with barium. Approximately $80,000 to
$85,000 will be saved per year due to decreased disposal costs
now that this waste is reclassified.
The primary benefit of the reduction of the manganese waste
material is that the emissions from the Lincoln Electric facility
of manganese compounds and its SARA TRI release totals have been
significantly reduced. Also, lower amounts of manganese need to
be purchased.
8.0 Obstacles, Problems and/or Known Constraints
The 1,1,1-trichloroethane reduction program is extremely complex
and requires the cooperation of the Quality Assurance, Machine
Research and Development, Methods and Plant Engineering
Departments. Prior to implementing new ideas, Lincoln must
verify that the quality is as good as or better than the previous
product and the results can be achieved at a lower total cost.
The difficulties involved with making the barium reduction
program a success were the research and development efforts
required to reformulate some of the products to accept recycled
materials. Another obstacle was the process management of
equipment scheduling burden to allow certain chemical types to be
manufactured at one time in the process.
9.0 Date Case Study was Performed
1987-1992
10.0 Contacts with Citations
The Lincoln Electric Company
22801 St. Clair Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44117-1199
Mr. John Petkovsek, Plant Environmental Engineer
216/481-8100
11.0 Keywords
502 Halogenated solvents
Other inorganic solids, metal compounds
2015 Chemical processes, other
2020 Coating
2079 Metal cleaning
2097 Painting
2136 Vapor degreasing
01 Equipment or technology modification
02 Process modification or substitution
04 Process raw materials modification or substitution
05 Better housekeeping
07 Onsite recycling or recovery for reuse
1002 Annual cost savings
Improved quality
Worker protection
----------------------------------------------------------
Luke Engineering and Manufacturing Company
Wadsworth
1.0 Headline
The use of 1,1,1-trichloroethane is being reduced and eventually
eliminated by replacement with biodegradable, water-based
alkaline cleaners.
2.0 SIC Code
3471
3.0 Name and Location of Company
Luke Engineering and Manufacturing
P.O. Box 478
456 South Blvd.
Wadsworth, Ohio 44281
4.0 Clean Technology Category
The goal of Luke Engineering and Manufacturing Company is to
eventually eliminate the use of chlorinated hydrocarbons by
replacing them with biodegradable water based alkaline cleaners.
5.0 Case Study Summary
This company is a job aluminum finishing operation. Its primary
business is hard anodizing, serving a broad industrial base,
including automotive, aerospace, defense, rail, tire, electronic,
medical and other industries.
In order to prepare parts for finishing, the metal must be
prepared to present a clean surface as free as possible from any
machining lubricants, oxides, scales, etc. This procedure has
historically been started with a solvent cleaning to eliminate
surface oil, grease and dirt. Luke Engineering and Manufacturing
is currently moving as many of its jobs as possible to an
agitated wash and rinse station to accomplish this.
To date, approximately fifteen jobs have been switched to this
type of cleaning. These fifteen jobs amount to about 30% of the
company's sales volume. The company is moving to this process
one customer at a time in order to ascertain the extent and types
of other problems which occur.
All the equipment and materials used are readily available.
6.0 Economics
At this time, Luke Engineering and Manufacturing has not
developed a complete cost analysis on how these changes are
affecting their operation. Their preliminary analysis would seem
to indicate a slight labor increase and a savings in the alkaline
cleaner over the chlorinated solvent.
The equipment, much of which the company built itself, had a
capital cost of about $7,500.
7.0 Cleaner Production Benefits
The benefits to be gained, other than regulatory relief, will be
determined over a period of time.
8.0 Obstacles, Problems and/or Known Constraints
One of the barriers faced presently is a requirement for the
degreasing of parts prior to and after the operation with 1,1,1-
trichloroethane. This is a government weapons specification
requirement. The company has approached the customer about
removing this requirement, but to date has received no relief.
9.0 Date Case Study was Performed
The company has been involved in this project for about nine
months.
10.0 Contacts with Citations
Luke Engineering and Manufacturing
P.O. Box 478
456 South Blvd.
Wadsworth, Ohio 44281
Mr. F. P. Hayduk
216/335-1502
Information was supplied through vendor data.
11.0 Keywords
502 Halogenated solvents
2079 Metal Cleaning
01 Equipment or technology modification
02 Process modification or substitution
04 Process raw materials modification or substitution
Regulatory incentives
----------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturers Enameling Corporation
Toledo
1.0 Headline
All possible painting jobs have been converted from liquid to
powder paint.
2.0 SIC Code
3479 and 3079
3.0 Name and Location of Company
Manufacturers Enameling Corporation
400 South Westwood Avenue
Toledo, Ohio 43609-1599
4.0 Clean Technology Category
Process and equipment modification were made and material
substitutions were implemented to reduce volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions from application of liquid paints. This
was achieved substitution with powder paints where possible.
5.0 Case Study Summary
The Manufacturers Enameling Corporation performs contract liquid
and powder paint finishing as a sub-contractor to original
equipment manufacturer vendors to the automotive companies. It
is a family-owned company, has been operating since 1946, and
presently bills approximately $5,000,000 per year with 80
employees. The company has been a pioneer in over chrome-
painting, powder finishing over liquid priming, robot spraying,
aqueous cleaning of plastics and hi-density conveyor racking.
Manufacturers Enameling has been spraying powder paints since
1975 on refrigeration parts, and on class A exterior automotive
parts since 1978. Initially this was done only to achieve the
superior corrosion resistance of powders, but since 1987 a
concentrated effort has been made to convert every possible job
from liquid to powder to reduce VOC emissions. Incidental
benefits to this are greater ease of application of the powder,
favorable economics even without powder recovery, the ability to
handle parts immediately after cool-down from the ovens, and pack
ship and machine without any dwell time for oxidation curing.
These steps are necessary with some liquid paints.
On a material volume basis, about 30% of the company's paints are
powder. Total paint usage is 30-40,000 gallons per year.
Spraying 30% of 35,000 gallons without solvents, as is possible
with powder, results in approximately an 80,000 pound per year
reduction in VOC emissions.
Application of liquid and powder paints by robot spraying is a
"home grown" process at Manufacturers Enameling Corporation. It
is a mature technique, in use in production for over fifteen
years.
Powder paint application is readily available from a wide choice
of suppliers. Features which allow for quick interchangeability
to liquid spraying are not available due to the nature of powder
paint, as scrupulous clean-up is necessary to prevent color
contamination in subsequent paint jobs.
6.0 Economics
Operational and maintenance cost comparisons are difficult
without calculating the costs for doing liquid and powder
application separately. For a primary analysis, the mentioned
solvent would cost $20-30,000 annually, plus probably a similar
amount for cleanup solvents and disposal. Per-piece cost on two
representative high-volume production parts is illustrative:
* aluminum 6-cylinder intake manifold
* material cost for liquid primer and liquid finish - $0.45
* material cost for liquid primer and powder finish - $0.26
(57% of previous)
* luggage rack longitudinal molding
* material cost for liquid primer and liquid finish - $0.099
* material cost for liquid primer and powder finish - $0.053
(53% of previous)
7.0 Cleaner Production Benefits
VOC savings in the above two examples are:
* manifold
* VOC emission for liquid primer and liquid topcoat - 0.065
pounds per piece
* VOC emission for liquid primer and powder topcoat - 0.011
pounds per piece (16% of previous)
* longitudinal molding
* VOC emission for liquid primer and liquid topcoat - 0.02
pounds per piece
* VOC emission for liquid primer and powder topcoat - 0.0042
pounds per piece (20% of previous)
8.0 Obstacles, Problems and/or Known Constraints
Powder paints have disadvantages which accompany their use in all
situations and preclude their use completely in others.
Disadvantages are:
* single-coat limitation;
* no tinting capability, making exact color matching difficult;
* scrupulous booth cleanup is necessary to prevent "polka dots"
in subsequent paint jobs (either liquid or powder);
* rejects past two times must either be stripped, which is
difficult with powder, or must be recoated with two-part epoxy
primer plus a liquid paint which duplicates the color and
performance characteristics;
* if attempting to reclaim powder for class A re-use, clean room
atmosphere in spraying room is mandatory. Sieving will not
remove all foreign matter.
Applications which preclude the use of powder are:
* zinc rich (ZRC-type coatings);
* wash primer or spot repair prime;
* hi-heat aluminum;
* plastics, except certain types of heat-resisting material,
when heated or conductive primed prior to coating. Gloss match
to metal parts painted with the same material may not be
acceptable, because slow heatup rate of plastic in heavy sections
will increase final gloss of the finish;
* CARC epoxy and urethane (military specification for vehicles);
* glamour metallic;
* painting of assembled machines or vehicles.
9.0 Date Case Study was Performed
1987-1992
10.0 Contacts with Citations
Manufacturers Enameling Corporation
400 South Westwood Avenue
Toledo, Ohio 43609-1599
Mr. Richard A. Dooley
419/385-2545
11.0 Keywords
500 Organic liquids
800 Organic gases
2097 Painting
01 Equipment or technology modification
02 Process modification or substitution
04 Process raw materials modification or substitution
07 Onsite recycling or recovery for reuse
1002 Annual cost savings
1008 Treatment/disposal cost avoided
----------------------------------------------------------
Neo-Wood Products
Tiffin
1.0 Headline
Nitrocellulose lacquer overspray dust is redissolved in a lacquer
thinner solvent blend for reclamation and reuse.
2.0 SIC Code
2511
3.0 Name and Location of Company
Neo-Wood Products
Tiffin Plant
447 Wall Street Seneca County
Tiffin, Ohio 44883
4.0 Clean Technology Category
The process consists of redissolving dried overspray powder from
wood furniture finishing. The recycling of this material
enhances housekeeping and fire safety.
5.0 Case Study Summary
Neo-Wood Products manufactures wood furniture. Waste is
generated in paint booths where nitrocellulose lacquer is sprayed
on wood furniture. Overspray dust is collected on filters and
swept from the floors and walls of the booths. The collected
dust is blended into a solvent which duplicates the solvent in
the original lacquer. The reclaimed lacquer is strained to
remove insoluble particles and pieces of filter media before use.
During 1991, approximately 3,400 pounds of dust was reclaimed,
which is equivalent to 5,000 gallons of 10% by weight solids
lacquer.
A new raw material, the dust solvent blend, was formulated by the
lacquer supplier for this process.
The dust is collected in the normal course of daily cleanup and
stored in covered metal containers until dissolved. The daily
average collection of dust for 1991 was 13.5 pounds or 19.4
gallons of reclaimed lacquer per day. This operation eliminates
the need for hazardous waste disposal of lacquer dust.
This technique has been in continuous use since 1986 in this
plant. The quantitative information is based on the quality of
dust reclamation solvent used as reported to Ohio EPA for 1991.
The process was not commercially available at the time of
inception. The procedure was developed "in-house" using
equipment on hand. The solvent blend for this procedure was
designed specifically for this purpose.
6.0 Economics
Capital cost of equipment used for this recovery project was
$1,000. Both items listed below were purchased used.
* 1 each - mixer, Shar Dispenser, 10 horsepower
* 1 each - mix tank, 200 gallon, steel
The operational and maintenance costs are unavailable, but are
not significant. Payback time was never calculated.
7.0 Cleaner Production Benefits
Benefits gained from this pollution prevention technique include:
* Elimination of disposal problems associated with a highly
flammable dust and the attendant costs.
* Encouragement of better housekeeping in the spray booths.
8.0 Obstacles, Problems and/or Known Constraints
This technique works best with dust from lacquer that does not
contain flattering agents, i.e., zinc steorate or amorphous
silica, which are very difficult to resuspend after drying.
The reclaimed lacquer is higher in volatile organic compound
content than the virgin lacquer, therefore is less desirable from
an emission perspective.
9.0 Date Case Study was Performed
This technique was developed in 1986. The procedures and
equipment as they are now have been in place since 1990.
10.0 Contacts with Citations
Neo-Wood Products
Tiffin Plant
447 Wall Street Seneca County
Tiffin, Ohio 44883
Mr. Gary Larsen
419/447-9700
11.0 Keywords
711 Other nonhalogenated organic solids
2020 Coating
2094 Paint spray cleanup
05 Better housekeeping
07 Onsite recycling and recovery for reuse
09 Management strategies
1008 Treatment/disposal cost avoided
----------------------------------------------------------
Perfection Finishers, Incorporated
Wauseon
1.0 Headline
This facility has eliminated the use of 1,1,1-trichloroethane as
a degreaser and switched to a biodegradable citrus based cleaning
compound made from orange peels.
2.0 SIC Code
3741
3.0 Name and Location of Company
Perfection Finishers, Inc.
1151 North Ottokee Street
Wauseon, Ohio 43567
4.0 Clean Technology Category
Material substitution and process and equipment modifications
were implemented to eliminate the use of 1,1,1-trichloroethane in
degreasing operations. A biodegradable citrus cleaning compound
is now used.
5.0 Case Study Summary
Perfection Finishers, Incorporated performs plating, painting,
finishing and decorating operations on glass, plastic and metal.
Approximately one year ago, Perfection Finishers started looking
for ways to eliminate its vapor degreasers which used 1,1,1-
trichloroethane. The reasoning for the change was that the
chemical was increasingly becoming a target of health agencies
and the Ohio EPA and has a negative effect on stratospheric
ozone.
The company read about a new cleaner/degreaser that was made from
orange peels. This material is a commercial grade cleaning
compound and is listed as biodegradable. A local distributor of
this product was contacted and consulted. A power spray line was
set up to try to degrease parts in the production line using this
new system. This process took about six months to "de-bug". As
of February, 1991, 1,1,1-trichloroethane has been completely
replaced and is no longer stored or used at this facility.
Currently, Perfection Finishers is experimenting with ways to
save paint solvents by the incorporation of new painting methods
and equipment. They are also experimenting with water based
paints in the attempt to reduce volatile organic compounds.
6.0 Economics
Company savings have been substantial since the switch from using
1,1,1-trichloroethane to a citrus based degreasing product. Past
production practices required the use of approximately 55 gallons
of 1,1,1-trichloroethane per day. Because Perfection Finishers
is a small company, it is difficult to make changes even though
they may result in cost savings. This change in the production
line not only helped the cost of operation, it has helped to
prevent the release of 35 tons of 1,1,1-trichloroethane. The
company approximates cost savings of this program to be in the
neighborhood of $40-50,000 a year. For a company this size, this
is a substantial cost savings.
7.0 Cleaner Production Benefits
This facility will eliminate the use of 1,1,1-trichloroethane
emissions by 51,000 pounds per year.
8.0 Obstacles, Problems and/or Known Constraints
None mentioned
9.0 Date Case Study was Performed
1991-1992
10.0 Contacts with Citations
Perfection Finishers, Inc.
1151 North Ottokee Street
Wauseon, Ohio 43567
Mr. Karl Shook, Plant Manager
419/337-8015
11.0 Keywords
502 Halogenated solvents
2136 Vapor degreasers
01 Equipment or technology modification
02 Process modification or substitution
04 Process raw materials modification or substitution
1002 Annual cost savings
1008 Treatment/disposal cost avoided
----------------------------------------------------------
Plasticolors, Incorporated
Ashtabula
1.0 Headline
This company has developed and implemented a waste minimization
program which reduced waste generation by 43% during its first
plan year.
2.0 SIC Code
2851
3.0 Name and Location of Company
Plasticolors, Inc.
2600 Michigan Avenue
Ashtabula, Ohio 44004
4.0 Clean Technology Category
Process raw materials modification and process modifications were
undertaken by Plasticolors, Incorporated, to implement their goal
of waste minimization.
5.0 Case Study Summary
Plasticolors, Inc. manufactures dispersions, additives and
colorants. In early 1990, the company began a waste minimization
program to reduce the amount of waste generated and to reuse
materials when possible without affecting product quality. The
amount of resinous and water waste generated during the twelve
months prior to their waste minimization program (WASTEMIN) was
556,100 pounds. During their first plan year it was 315,478
pounds, a reduction of 43%. Overall production during this time
decreased by 17%. In addition, 12,227 pounds of solid waste
(office/computer paper and cardboard) was sent out for recycling
rather than a landfill where it had previously been sent.
All areas of Plasticolors' operation have been involved in the
WASTEMIN project. All employees have received various degrees of
training and education regarding the proper segregation,
collection, reuse and/or disposal of residual materials and their
associated costs. Segregation and separation of flammable
materials from combustible materials, and pourable from thick
liquids prior to disposal, has been a common practice for many
years. However, Plasticolors' Waste Minimization Team has also
begun segregating material for reuse in the manufacture of new or
existing products.
Initially, Plasticolors' waste reduction program consisted of
collecting and reusing resins. These resins were used to purge
out sandmill chambers and related equipment between product runs.
This material was identified, collected and stored for use in the
next batch of material to be made. Production scheduling was
also incorporated into this process so that the colors being
processed were in the proper sequence. Two additional mill
chambers and pumps were purchased to reduce the frequency of
cleaning and, consequently, the amount of purge generated.
Plasticolors' largest reduction in generated waste has come from
the production area. The lab has also been involved in the
WASTEMIN project. The lab revised their procedures, collects
smaller quality control samples and retains samples.
The pollution prevention techniques concerning minimization
and/or reuse of resinous and water waste were conceived,
developed and implemented by the Waste Minimization Team. This
team was made up of employees from all areas of the company, from
line employees to office managers. The team utilized the
talents, abilities and input of all the employees. The seven
member team was charged with accomplishing a first year 25% waste
reduction. These reduction techniques have been used since their
implementation. The technology and processes incorporated by
Plasticolors were not commercially available.
6.0 Economics
Investment costs
Two sandmill chambers, pumps and associated equipment $24,556
Operating and Maintenance costs
Waste Minimization team 350 hours $5,968
(comprised of seven members meeting weekly)
Employee Training 140 hours $2,387
(Procedural and awareness)
The payback period was less than one year. The total investment
during the plan period of October 1, 1990 to September 30, 1991
was $32,911. Using the previous twelve months as a baseline, the
net savings were $83,480 of which $55,656 was divided among all
employees as a waste minimization bonus. This amounted to each
employee receiving a check for approximately $500.
7.0 Cleaner Production Benefits
The reduction in waste and its associated costs had a positive
financial impact on Plasticolors. Additional resources are now
available for use in other growth oriented areas of their
business. The reduction has also had a positive impact on
Plasticolors' team concept of doing business and it reinforced
efforts to involve operators and technicians in the problem
solving process. Plasticolors has strengthened its relationship
with the local community in which it is located.
8.0 Obstacles, Problems and/or Known Constraints
None of significance.
9.0 Date Case Study was Performed
1990-1992
10.0 Contacts with Citations
Plasticolors, Inc.
2600 Michigan Avenue
Ashtabula, Ohio 44004
Mr. Jim Ogren, Mr. Ray Brockett and Mr. Don Herndon
216/997-5137
11.0 Keywords
114 Scrubber water
512 Reactive or polymerized organic liquid
1042 Rinse baths, spray, etc.
1047 Surface cleaning
1048 Tank cleaning
2015 Chemical processes, other
01 Equipment or technology modification
02 Process modification or substitution
05 Better housekeeping
06 Waste stream segregation
07 Onsite recycling or recovery for reuse
10 Wastewater reduction
1002 Annual cost savings
1003 Capital costs
1005 Payback period
1008 Treatment/disposal cost avoided
[Figures 1-3 follow, one per page]
----------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries
Cleveland
1.0 Headline
This facility uses an ultrafiltration/reverse osmosis primer
process water reclamation unit (UF/RO unit) to reclaim water for
reuse in production cleaning.
2.0 SIC Code
2851
3.0 Name and Location of Company
PPG Industries
Coatings and Resins Division
Cuyahoga County
3800 West 143rd Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44111
4.0 Clean Technology Category
The PPG Industries' UF/RO unit is used for water reclamation.
5.0 Case Study Summary
The PPG Cleveland plant produces three lines of automotive
coatings: solvent based topcoats, water borne topcoats and water
based primers.
To assure quality in the production of water based primers,
thousands of gallons of water are used weekly for cleaning during
the process. The water that is used becomes contaminated with
heavy metals and solvents, thereby requiring disposal as a
hazardous waste. Typically, 400,000 gallons of water are
disposed of annually.
To alleviate this burden, the plant began evaluating in 1991 the
potential opportunities available to minimize this waste. In
April 1992, after one year of research, the plant designed and
installed a combined UF/RO unit to reclaim the water for reuse in
production cleaning. A process flow diagram is included as part
of this case study report.
The batch UF/RO process functions primarily as a progressive
filtering system. First, the waste feed water is pre-filtered to
remove large solids. The ultrafilter separates suspended solids
and high molecular weight particles. Reverse osmosis removes
additional smaller sized impurities. The final water is then
placed in storage where it can be drawn throughout the primer
production areas for reuse in cleaning. Although the water is
not processed to 100% purity, the solvents that remain actually
aid in the cleaning process.
The primary benefit of the UF/RO water reclamation unit is an
estimated 95% reduction in the volume of hazardous waste
requiring disposal (from 400,000 a year to 20,000 gallons a
year). As a result, 380,000 of water a year will be conserved.
The UF/RO unit indirectly saves energy by reducing fuel costs
related to the transportation and incineration of the waste
water.
The installation of the unit did not require any changes in the
production process nor did it affect the rate of product
manufacturing. The new waste stream that is generated from the
reclamation process, which is basically a highly concentrated
waste water, can be easily handled under the present waste
management procedures.
The UF/RO unit is designed to batch process 5,000 gallons of
waste water a week.
Approximately 4,000,000 gallons of water based primer are
produced annually. Therefore, roughly one gallon of waste is
generated for every ten gallons of product manufactured.
The initial batch run of the UF/RO unit was conducted the week of
May 4, 1992. Some filter fouling problems occurred due to
contaminants encountered during the unit installation. Second
batch run began the week of May 18, 1992.
All quantitative information presently available is estimated.
Both ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis have long been
commercially available. The UF/RO unit was not specifically
designed for PPG.
This project was one of the three 1991 winners of the U.S.
EPA/DOE National Industrial Competitiveness through Environment,
Energy and Economic (NICE3) Grants. The U.S. DOE announced the
1992 NICE3 Grant at a news conference at the PPG Cleveland plant
in April 1992.
6.0 Economics
A detailed breakdown of capital costs and equipment
specifications is not available. However, the following total
estimates are provided:
Equipment and installation $406,000
Training $ 5,000
Operational costs of the UF/RO unit are estimated at $130,000 a
year, including personnel time. It is estimated that it will
take eight hours per week to operate the unit.
The UF/RO project is estimated to produce an annual net savings
of $250,000. The payback for this investment is estimated to be
7.2 months.
7.0 Cleaner Production Benefits
The benefits of this project include:
* the minimization of hazardous waste transportation and
disposal costs;
* the conservation of energy in waste transportation and
incineration;
* the conservation of water;
* business competitiveness promoted by the cost savings;
* improved public relations;
* reduced liabilities on hazardous materials incidents.
8.0 Obstacles, Problems and/or Known Constraints
There have been no constraints in the implementation of the
reclamation unit.
9.0 Date Case Study was Performed
The UF/RO unit installation was completed in April 1992.
10.0 Contacts with Citations
PPG Industries
Coatings and Resins Division
Cuyahoga County
3800 West 143rd Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44111
Ms. Maura C. Tinter, Environmental Coordinator
216/671-7752
11.0 Keywords
Aqueous waste with heavy metals and solvents
2018 Aqueous waste with heavy metals and solvents
Coating production
07 Onsite recycling or recovery for reuse
1003 Capital costs
1008 Treatment/disposal cost avoided
Resource conservation
Regulatory incentives
[Figure 1, a full page graphic, follows]
----------------------------------------------------------
Premix, Incorporated
North Kingsville
1.0 Headline
A solvent replacement task force has made solvent substitutions
and is investigating further substitutions.
2.0 SIC Code
3089
3.0 Name and Location of Company
Premix, Incorporated
P.O. Box 281
North Kingsville, Ohio 44068
4.0 Clean Technology Category
Premix, Incorporated has always recycled their solvents and will
continue to do so in the future. Cleaning solvents are being
replaced with solvents that are less hazardous.
5.0 Case Study Summary
Premix is a manufacturer of thermoset molding compounds which are
compression or injection molded into fiberglass reinforced
plastics. Premix both uses and commercially sells its own
molding compounds.
The molding compounds are basically manufactured in three forms:
sheet molding compound (SMC); bulk molding (BMC) and thick
molding compound (TMC). In the manufacture of SMC, BMC and TMC,
various formulations of resins, pigments, organic peroxides,
enhancers, fillers and reinforcement (glass) are mixed together
to obtain the molding compound.
[NOTE: on the original hard copy, each mention of TMC has
the letters TM (for Trade Mark) in superscript following it.]
During this manufacturing process, various things (mixers, mixing
vessels, SMC and TMC compounding machines, tools, etc.) become
saturated with the fiberglass "paste" and must be cleaned prior
to making different formulations. These formulation changeovers
utilized solvents to assist with the cleaning process.
Solvents used in the cleaning process have changed over the years
to reflect environmental and health and safety concerns. One
consistent characteristic, however, is that Premix will only use
solvents that can be recycled by a commercial solvent
recycler/supplier.
Up until 1988, Premix used a solvent blend that contained
methylene chloride. With the health and safety of employees in
mind, the company changed from the methylene chloride based
solvent to a solvent that contains toluene, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, a chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) and two other
volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Its hazardous waste
characteristics are D001, F002, F003 and F005.
This solvent did not work as well as the methylene chloride
solvent but was acceptable in that it still allowed the company
to maintain rapid formulation changeovers.
Because this solvent contains 1,1,1-trichloroethane and a CFC, it
must be phased out within the next few years. This phase out is
taking place because of concerns regarding the stratospheric
ozone (the Montreal Protocol). As a result, Premix realized it
had a limited amount of time to located a replacement for the
solvent. From 1990 through 1992, a loose-knit group of
environmental, health and safety, material management and first
shift production personnel, along with a representative from the
solvent recycler/supplier, attempted to locate an alternative
solvent.
Considerations for solvent replacements included the evaluation
of their ability to be recycled, their hazardous waste
characteristics, how well they would work in production
(especially during quick changeovers), their content of CFCs and
other ozone-depleting chemicals (ODCs) and their VOC content.
In 1991 and 1992, several studies were conducted using a solvent
mixture of materials such as dipropylene glycol methyl ether and
propylene glycol methyl ether acetate. The studies included
thickening the mixture to enhance the physical removal of paste
wastes and other similar additives. Characteristics of the new
solvent mixture are that it contains no VOCs and only has the
hazardous waste characteristic of D001.
In the spring of 1992 the change of solvents was made. All
cleaning in Premix's compound manufacturing area was to be
accomplished using the new solvent.
Although the solvent worked well as a cleaner, it left an oily
residue on several pieces of quality sensitive production
equipment. Because of the solvent's low volatility, it remained
on the equipment for an unacceptable period of time.
Two options are then evaluated to remove the excess solvent. The
first option would be to use a solvent with a lower flashpoint to
remove the primary solvent. The second option would be to use
soap and water to remove it because it is soluble in soap and
water. The options were evaluated, and the second option was
chosen.
After adding the soap and water cleaning step, additional
problems occurred. Cleaning time (down time) doubled and the
soap and water residue created similar product quality problems.
Another informal meeting of the internal group and the solvent
recycler/supplier took place. At this meeting, it was concluded
that the new solvent would be used for cleaning that is not time
critical (mixers, tools, etc.). For time critical processes,
such as quick changeovers, it was agreed not to go back to the
CFC/ODC solvent but to temporarily go to a solvent mixture of
xylene and another VOC. Its hazardous waste characteristics are
D001 and F003.
This was considered to be a step back, but still a step above the
CFC/ODC solvent. It was decided that this solvent would be a
temporary solution until an acceptable cleaning procedure could
be found for the non-VOC containing solvent.
An aggressive group entitled the Solvent Task Force was formed.
The Task Force kept all of the same individuals from the previous
group (environmental, health and safety, material management and
first shift production) but also added a chemist, a plant
engineer, a production/quality engineer and second and third
shift production personnel.
Additionally, it was concluded that the organization should be
changed from an informal, loose-knit group to a highly organized
group that follows Total Quality Management principles.
At this point in time, all of the Task Force's parameters have
been established and the first informational/organizational
meeting of the Task Force occurred late in July. Anticipated
date of completion to obtain an acceptable cleaning method (or
methods) with the new solvent is spring 1993.
6.0 Economics
The only investment costs that have been and will be incurred in
the future will be those related to employees' time spent meeting
and testing new cleaning techniques.
Operational costs, maintenance costs and payback time have not
been determined.
7.0 Cleaner Production Benefits
Using the new cleaning solvent for cleaning materials that are
not time critical (mixers, tools, etc.) does a better cleaning
job than the solvent that has the CFCs, ODCs and VOCs.
The new solvent will create a cleaner and safer workplace for
employees.
The waste codes of solvents sent for recycling have changed from
D001/F002/F003/F005 waste to D001/F003 waste. By the spring of
1993, the D001/F003 waste stream will be phased out and replaced
with a D001 waste stream.
8.0 Obstacles, Problems and/or Known Constraints
The substitute solvent leaves an oily residue on some pieces
which has to be removed, and it remains on the equipment for an
unacceptable period of time. Because of this it can only be used
on certain pieces of equipment. Premix has had difficulty
finding a replacement solvent that meets production needs and
quality standards.
9.0 Date Case Study was Performed
The project was begun in 1991 and is ongoing. Completion is
expected in the spring of 1993.
10.0 Contacts with Citations
Premix, Incorporated
P.O. Box 281
North Kingsville, Ohio 44068
Mr. Raymond A. Kovacs, Environmental Manager
216/224-2181
11.0 Keywords
502 Halogenated solvents
Other solvents
2018 Cleaning
Manufacture of molding compounds
04 Process raw materials modification or substitution
08 Offsite recycling or recovery for reuse (materials
exchange)
Worker protection
Regulatory incentives
Task force
Improved quality
----------------------------------------------------------
Republic Engineered Steels, Incorporated
Canton
1.0 Headline
Waste streams containing 1,1,1-trichloroethane have been
eliminated.
2.0 SIC Code
3312
3.0 Name and Location of Company
Republic Engineered Steels, Inc.
2633 8th Street, N.E.
Canton, Ohio 44704
4.0 Clean Technology Category
Process and equipment modifications and a product substitution
were implemented to eliminate the use of 1,1,1-trichloroethane.
5.0 Case Study Summary
Republic Engineered Steels, Incorporated, an employee owned
company, produces high quality bar and specialty steels.
Republic joined U.S. EPA's 33/50 Program in May 1991. One goal
was to eliminate the use of 1,1,1-trichloroethane. The chemical
was utilized in the motor cleaning operation and to a lesser
degree as a drying media to detect surface defects in a non-
destructive testing application. A steam cleaning/detergent
system is now being used for the motor cleaning operation and
detergent media in the non-destructive testing application, thus
eliminating all 1,1,1-trichloroethane from the facility.
The project of eliminating 1,1,1-trichloroethane was carried out
by the employee-owners that work in the Electric Repair Shop.
After several months of study, an environmentally safe detergent
based product was found. The existing operation was modified to
use the steam/detergent agent. A new washing tank, steam
generator and disposal system was developed, fabricated and put
into service.
In the original process, 1,1,1-trichloroethane liquid was heated
to create the vapor used for degreasing electrical/mechanical
parts, including approximately 300 motors up to five tons and
associated components. As the parts hung in the tank from an
overhead crane, the vapor condensed on parts and removed the
grease and oils. A distillation process was used to recover the
vapor to use for pressure rinsing of parts.
This process required the purchase of 30,000 pounds per year of
1,1,1-trichloroethane. It generated air emissions and 12 drums
per year of sludge consisting of grease, oil, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane and clay absorbent. This sludge was disposed of
as a hazardous waste.
The new process utilizes steam, high pressure water and a
detergent mixture. For implementation, Republic installed a new
stainless steel collection tank and plant steam was converted to
a package steam generator. The new cleaning process eliminated
the use of city water for cooling the condensate. Parts are now
sprayed with all or part of the new system based on the grease
and oil levels, and electrical parts are put into a bake oven
overnight to drive out moisture inherent to the new process.
This moisture must be removed from electrical insulation before
further work can be performed.
In the new process, process rinse water is pumped to the Water
Quality Control Center. Cleanout of the holding tank has been
reduced from six times per year to one time per year. The new
waste stream consists of soap, water, oil and grease. Because of
this change, Republic has eliminated bulk 1,1,1-trichloroethane
storage (a 500 gallon tank) and the potential spill hazard
associated with storage and handling of the material. In
addition, sludge transportation and disposal costs have been
significantly reduced, and hazardous waste manifesting
requirements have been eliminated.
The following chart compares the old and new processes:
[ a 2 column table appears here. SEE ORIGINAL HARD COPY]
The new process takes longer; previously parts did not require
constant attention, but were left to hang in the solvent vapor.
Now the parts require additional attention. However, carbon dust
is removed by the new process which the 1,1,1-trichloroethane was
not able to remove.
The elimination of 1,1,1-trichloroethane was complete on December
31, 1991. This process change and design was developed
internally as an employee project. The commercial parts washing
systems that were available were rejected because of high capital
costs. The detergent was specifically designed to meet
Republic's needs for a detergent with a moderate pH that was
anti-foaming and non-toxic.
6.0 Economics
The following costs include labor and material costs:
Steam Jenny, model S-1000C, 350,000 BTU per hour $8,000
4' x 10' x 8' wash tank, volume 320 Cubic feet $5,000
Stainless steel plate and angle iron
Piping 0 200', 2" PVC (schedule 80) $5,000
Process/rinse water pump $ 900
______
$8,900
The following costs include operational and maintenance costs:
Old New
Maintenance cost $ 3,800 $ 1,280
Disposal $ 6,400 $ 1,080
1,1,1-trichloroethane $18,000 $ 0
Detergent $ 0 $ 3,500
------- -------
$28,200 $ 5,860
Republic estimates a net savings of $22,000, with less than a one
year payback time. The actual savings for the first six months
after implementation was $10,700.
7.0 Cleaner Production Benefits
Cleaner production benefits include:
* elimination of air emissions of 1,1,1-trichloroethane;
* elimination of employee exposure to 1,1,1-trichloroethane;
* lowered operating costs;
* elimination of hazardous waste manifesting requirements;
* elimination of off-site Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act liability;
* elimination of liabilities associated with transportation and
handling of 1,1,1-trichloroethane.
8.0 Obstacles, Problems and/or Known Constraints
Problems in this change involved finding an appropriate
detergent. The pH level and toxicity were important, because
Republic did not want to impact the Water Quality Control Center
and NPDES permitting.
9.0 Date Case Study was Performed
This project began in the summer of 1991, and was on-line
December 31, 1991.
10.0 Contacts with Citations
Republic Engineered Steels, Inc.
2633 8th Street, N.E.
Canton, Ohio 44704
Mr. Eric D. Howland, Manager, Power and Utilities
216/438-5306
Information for this activity was gained through washing
equipment manufacturers, similar local operations and
consultations with detergent/chemical suppliers.
11.0 Keywords
609 Other organic sludge
800 Organic gases
2136 Vapor degreasing
Drying media to detect surface defects
01 Equipment or technology modification
02 Process modification or substitution
04 Process raw materials modification or substitution
1002 Annual cost savings
1003 Capital costs
1005 Payback period
1008 Treatment/disposal cost avoided
Worker protection
Regulatory incentives
----------------------------------------------------------
Textileather Corporation
Toledo
1.0 Headline
Excess cleaning oil is recycled.
2.0 SIC Code
2295
3.0 Name and Location of Company
Textileather Corporation
3729 Twining Street
Toledo, Ohio 43608
4.0 Clean Technology Category
Waste stream segregation at Textileather Corporation allows for
recycling and reuse of excess oil and excess compounds.
5.0 Case Study Summary
Textileather Corporation manufactures vinyl coated fabrics and
film, primarily for the automotive industry. Excess cleaning oil
is kept separate from excess compounds generated in
Textileather's coating process. Excess compounds are and have
been recycled on a regular basis. The excess cleaning oil is
analyzed and, based on analysis, is processed through existing
equipment to a specified solids level. The processed oil is
filtered and stored in bulk storage tanks prior to sale and
shipment to a certain customer.
Formerly, the excess cleaning oil was managed as a hazardous
waste. As a waste, the excess cleaning oil was shipped to an
offsite facility for stabilization, then taken to a hazardous
waste landfill.
No changes were made in the coating process or cleanup
procedures. The described methods are employed to eliminate
disposal of the excess cleaning oil as a hazardous waste.
The coating process produces about 4,000,000 linear yards of
goods. Goods are produced in various colors and widths, in
increments of up to 10,000 yards. Each color change requires a
thorough cleanup of equipment. On average, 100 gallons of
cleaning oil are used per day.
Most of the equipment used to process excess cleaning oil into a
saleable product was available at the facility.
6.0 Economics
Capital costs were less than $10,000. A pump plus a few hundred
feet of ordinary steel piping were installed to supplement
existing equipment. Maintenance costs are minor. Labor used to
correct excess cleaning oil to saleable product offsets labor
formerly required to handle the excess oil as a hazardous waste.
Payback on investment was less than six months.
7.0 Cleaner Production Benefits
Reprocessing of excess cleaning oil into saleable products saves
about $50,000 per year. If not reprocessed and sold, excess
cleaning oil would account for about 120 cubic yards of waste, on
an annual basis.
8.0 Obstacles, Problems and/or Known Constraints
The critical constraint is securing and maintaining customers for
the reprocessed oil.
9.0 Date Case Study was Performed
The recycling effort began during 1990.
10.0 Contacts with Citations
Textileather Corporation
3729 Twining Street
Toledo, Ohio 43608
Mr. Mike Sapovich
419/729-7566
This recycling effort was initiated and developed internally.
11.0 Keywords
Excess cleaning oil
Excess compound
2018 Cleaning
2020 Coating
06 Waste stream segregation
07 Onsite recycling or recovery for reuse
08 Offsite recycling or recovery for reuse (materials
exchange)
1002 Annual cost savings
1008 Treatment/disposal cost avoided
Saleable product
----------------------------------------------------------
Ultra Forge, Incorporated
Cuyahoga Falls
1.0 Headline
The solvents 1,1,1-trichloroethane and tetrachloroethylene have
been completely removed from the plant as an emission source and
a hazardous waste.
2.0 SIC Code
3714
3.0 Name and Location of Company
Ultra Forge, Inc.
129 Marc Drive
Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio 44223
4.0 Clean Technology Category
Ultra Forge, Incorporated has completely eliminated the use of
1,1,1-trichloroethane and tetrachloroethylene through the source
reduction technique of material substitution, made possible by
the purchase of higher cost equipment to replace traditional
solvent vapor degreasing equipment. Three vapor degreasing lines
have been replaced over the last four years by spray washing
equipment using low concentration alkaline solutions followed by
spray rinses.
5.0 Case Study Summary
Ultra Forge manufactures aluminum wheels and hubs for the
trucking industry. The facility has three chlorinated solvent
vapor degreasing lines to clean products of oil residue from
machining operations and polish from a polishing operation.
There were both gaseous fugitive and stack emissions of 1,1,1-
trichloroethane and tetrachloroethylene from the degreasing lines
as well as liquid hazardous waste that was created by periodic
degreaser tank cleaning. This liquid waste was transported to a
solvent recycler for treatment and resale. The amount of gaseous
1,1,1-trichloroethane and tetrachloroethylene emitted to the
atmosphere in 1989 was 59,700 and 80,000 pounds, respectively.
The amount of liquid solvent hazardous waste removed from the
plant in 1989 for recycling was 6,000 pounds for 1,1,1-
trichloroethane and 7,000 pounds for tetrachloroethylene.
After extensive equipment and alkaline washing solution tests, a
replacement chemical for 1,1,1-trichloroethane was found in 1989.
Production rates and quality would not be decreased. Both the
wash solution and rinse waters were tested to be within the
parameters necessary to release this effluent to the local
publicly owned treatment works as necessary to operate the spray
washing equipment. No hazardous waste was created by this new
process. It took a longer test and evaluation period to replace
the higher boiling tetrachloroethylene used in the polishing
degreasing operation. However, a non-toxic chemical solution and
spray wash equipment were found in 1991 that would allow that
combination to be substituted for the tetrachloroethylene
degreaser with the same results as the 1,1,1-trichloroethane
replacement project. Operating procedures are no more of a task
than with the vapor degreasers. Energy use difference between
vapor degreasers and the new spray wash equipment has not been
calculated in great detail.
Information on the scale of operation is not available at this
time.
The two 1,1,1-trichloroethane lines were replaced in 1989 and
1990. The tetrachloroethylene vapor degreaser line will be shut
down at the end of June 1992. The replacement cleaner and spray
equipment for that process have been proven effective and the new
line will start operation at the end of June 1992.
None of the chemicals or spray wash equipment was invented by
Ultra Forge personnel. All of this equipment and alkaline-based
solution chemicals are available from manufacturers.
6.0 Economics
The three vapor degreasing lines were replaced using equipment
with a capital cost of approximately $350,000. Detailed
descriptions and specifications of purchased equipment is not
available at this time.
The cost of the new alkaline-based chemicals is less than the sum
of the chlorinated solvent purchase price and disposal cost per
single product manufactured.
No payback time was computed in detail. The project was done to
increase worker protection, to decrease spill and hazardous waste
liability and to eliminate any exposure and pollution control
costs under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
7.0 Cleaner Production Benefits
These projects were done in order to protect the workers at Ultra
Forge as well as the surrounding community and to reduce
potential liability under Workmen's Compensation laws, Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act and the Clean Air Act much more
than any derived economic benefit.
8.0 Obstacles, Problems and/or Known Constraints
The details of problems encountered can be made available upon
request of an interested party.
9.0 Date Case Study was Performed
The initial planning to replace the solvent vapor degreasers
began in early 1989 and the entire process was completed by June
1992.
10.0 Contacts with Citations
Ultra Forge, Inc.
129 Marc Drive
Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio 44223
Mr. Donald J. Hagarty, President
216/929-2945
The information gained through attending various trade shows and
meeting with chemical company representatives and spray wash
equipment manufacturers led to the implementation of these
projects.
11.0 Keywords
512 Halogenated solvents
800 Organic gases
2136 Vapor degreasing
01 Equipment or technology modification
02 Process modification or substitution
04 Process raw materials modification or substitution
1002 Annual cost savings
1003 Capital costs
1008 Treatment/disposal cost avoided
Worker protection
Decreased liability
Regulatory incentives
----------------------------------------------------------
Van Dorn Plastic Machinery Company
Strongsville
1.0 Headline
Through the use of substitution this facility has totally
eliminated the use of chlorinated solvent blends for a cleaning
operation and has been using an alkaline soap solution, applied
by a steam cleaner, for machine cleaning.
2.0 SIC Code
3559
3.0 Name and Location of Company
Van Dorn Plastic Machinery Company
11792 Alameda Drive
Strongsville, Ohio 44136
4.0 Clean Technology Category
Van Dorn Plastic Machinery Company has implemented a
material/product substitution for chlorinated solvents.
An alkaline soap solution that contains an adequate rust
inhibitor package is applied by means of a steam cleaner
application.
5.0 Case Study Summary
Van Dorn manufactures plastic injection molding machines. In
1987, the machines that Van Dorn manufactures were cleaned prior
to painting with chlorinated solvent blends and virgin 1,1,1-
trichloroethane by means of a pressure washer. This process
generated approximately 120 gallons of waste solvent for every
machine washed. This resulted in the generation of approximately
19,000 gallons of waste chlorinated solvent which was sent to a
permitted facility for recycling or reclamation annually.
In 1988, the decision was made to eliminate the generation of
hazardous waste and reduce the enormous expense associated with
the reclamation of the chlorinated solvent blends. The reasons
for taking this action were not only regulatory, but also
provided the company with the opportunity to exercise good
management practices and realize a very substantial savings cost
in return.
Van Dorn decided to implement the waste minimization technique of
material substitution. Upon locating an alkaline soap solution
that had acceptable cleaning characteristics and a sufficient
rust inhibitor package, the company began experimenting with
mixture ratios and temperature ranges of the steam cleaner. It
found the proper ranges to accomplish the cleaning of the
machinery without sacrificing the quality of the product.
This technology and process were commercially available. The
need to maintain the water-tight integrity of the electrical
components on the machines was of the utmost importance, due to
the fact that the alkaline soap solution was water based and did
not evaporate as did the solvent blends.
The results of the above actions allowed Van Dorn to reduce the
chlorinated solvent waste stream from 19,000 gallons per year
down to zero gallons per year.
6.0 Economics
* steam cleaner $1,200
* wastewater disposal facility approximately 1,000 gallons
per month at $0.19 per gallon
for pre-treatment and disposal
This waste stream is now classified as non-hazardous wastewater
containing oil and grease. It is transported off site to a
permitted facility for ultrafiltration and pre-treatment prior to
release.
* 1988 cost of solvent disposal $43,181
* 1989 cost of wash water disposal $ 2,280
* 1989 savings on disposal $40,901
The operational and maintenance costs are minimal. There was no
cost for maintaining the steam cleaner for the first year. The
second year of the project, the burner on the steam cleaner had
to be replaced at a cost of approximately $250.
There were no changes in the operation nor in the personnel
needed to do the job. The minimization project was developed to
substitute the product and not change the job requirements in any
way.
The payback time for this project was almost immediate. Within
two months the money that would have been spent on disposal of
the chlorinated solvent paid for two steam cleaners and the first
two drums of alkaline soap solution.
7.0 Cleaner Production Benefits
Since the implementation of an alkaline soap and water wash, the
facility has realized the following benefits that can be
attributed to practicing sound waste minimization techniques:
* a safer, more healthy working environment for employees;
* movement towards the facility goal of obtaining small quantity
generator status for hazardous waste management;
* reduced liabilities in the management of the chlorinated
hazardous waste stream and the Clean Air Act.
As Van Dorn has realized a payback within two months, it supports
the concept that waste minimization not only is in the best
interest of the environment, but also represents sound management
practices.
8.0 Obstacles, Problems and/or Known Constraints
The following issues should be considered when substituting
alkaline soap solutions in place of chlorinated solvents:
* Rust
The water based soap solution must have an excellent rust
inhibitor package or bare metal surfaces will experience flash
rusting.
* Residue
The soap must be strong enough to remove all contamination from
the part or product, but if the part or product is to be painted
there cannot be any alkaline residue remaining on the surface.
Otherwise, the finish coat will not adhere properly and the paint
finish itself will appear to have been applied over a dirty,
unprepared surface.
* Product dry time
Forced air can be used to clear the product of any free standing
soap solution. The alkaline soap solution has an evaporation
rate equal to water, so it may be necessary to use forced air to
accelerate dry time if time is a critical factor between the wash
operation and the actual painting of the product.
9.0 Date Case Study was Performed
This project was started in December of 1988 and was fully
implemented by April of 1989.
10.0 Contacts with Citations
Van Dorn Plastic Machinery Company
11792 Alameda Drive
Strongsville, Ohio 44136
Mr. James Erclauz, Facilities Engineer
216/238-8960
Information was supplied through vendors/suppliers.
11.0 Keywords
502 Halogenated solvents
2018 Cleaning
02 Process modification or substitution
03 Product reformulation or redesign
04 Process raw materials modification or substitution
09 Management strategies
1002 Annual cost savings
1008 Treatment/disposal cost avoided
Worker protection
Regulatory incentives
----------------------------------------------------------
Wallbridge Coating Company
Walbridge
1.0 Headline
Implementation of a metal recovery and sludge recycling plan has
reduced the amount of hazardous waste.
2.0 SIC Code
3479 and 3471
3.0 Name and Location of Company
Walbridge Coating Company
30610 East Broadway
Walbridge, Ohio 43465
4.0 Clean Technology Category
Process and equipment modifications were implemented to recover
zinc and nickel sulfate from a waste water stream and generate a
commercially usable by-product.
5.0 Case Study Summary
Walbridge Coatings is an electrogalvanizing facility staffed by
140 employees located in Walbridge, Ohio. Zinc and zinc/nickel
alloy coatings are applied to cold rolled steel for the purpose
of corrosion resistance.
As part of the electrogalvanizing process various rinsates are
generated. The wastewaters are processed through an ion exchange
unit that is able to reclaim 95% of the zinc and nickel which is
then returned to the process as raw materials. The remaining
wastewater is pretreated and discharged to the sanitary sewer.
The resulting sludge that is generated in the pretreatment
process is a listed hazardous (F006) waste.
Recently, in an effort to reduce their hazardous waste stream,
Walbridge developed a program to sell its zinc/nickel hydroxide
sludge to Hall Chemical Company. For every 1,000 tons of steel
that the company coats, 21,000 pounds of hydroxide sludge is
produced. Therefore, based on current production levels of this
product, 740,000 pounds of hydroxide sludge will be generated per
year. Future volumes could increase to 16,000,000 pounds a year.
Process changes and modifications to the recovery unit were made,
allowing Walbridge to recover the zinc as well as the zinc/nickel
alloy material. A source was located that could use this zinc-
only hydroxide sludge as feeder stock for their process. This
has the potential to eliminate an additional 6,000,000 pounds of
sludge from the landfill.
6.0 Economics
The ion exchange unit that was installed to reclaim metals from
the electroplating process was built by a company that worked
with Walbridge engineers on the specific design of the unit. The
total project costs including recovery and pretreatment was $5.7
million.
7.0 Cleaner Production Benefits
At one time, 740,000 pounds of zinc/nickel sludge was sent
offsite for land disposal. Currently, this sludge is being sent
to another company for feeder stock. In return, the mixed metals
carbonate generated from this material is being shipped back to
Walbridge for use as raw material in their process.
The recent location of a commercial use for the zinc sludge will
improve these numbers even more.
8.0 Obstacles, Problems and/or Known Constraints
There are currently concerns over the amount of zinc hydroxide
sludge which the receiving company will be able to use, given the
current market conditions.
9.0 Date Case Study was Performed
This case study began in 1989 and continued through 1991.
10.0 Contacts with Citations
Walbridge Coating Company
30610 East Broadway
Walbridge, Ohio 43465
Mr. Thomas Moore, Vice President/General Manager
Mr. Robert Killian, Environmental Coordinator
419/661-5919
11.0 Keywords
218 Other inorganic sludge
2067 Ion Exchange
Electrogalvanizing
01 Equipment or technology modification
02 Process modification or substitution
07 Onsite recycling or recovery for reuse
Offsite reuse (materials exchange)
1003 Capital costs
1008 Treatment/disposal costs avoided
----------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool Corporation: Marion Division
Marion
1.0 Headline
A variety of source reduction activities have resulted in cost
savings, reduced emissions, avoidance of disposal costs and a
safer work environment for employees.
2.0 SIC Code
3633
3.0 Name and Location of Company
Whirlpool Corporation
Marion Division
1300 Marion-Agosta Road
Marion, Ohio 43302
4.0 Clean Technology Category
The employees of the Marion Division of Whirlpool Corporation
have embarked on an aggressive pollution prevention program to
decrease the amount of solid waste being generated by the
Division, as well as improve the quality of air and water
releases. The first step in their pollution prevention plan for
solid waste was installation of a cardboard baler, followed by
installation of compactors for trash and cardboard. Soon after
that, the Division expanded its prevention program with the
recycling of plastic pellets, hydraulic and gear oil and xylene.
The paint department was the site of process and equipment
modifications which reduced solid waste and improved air
emissions. New paint application guns were purchased to improve
paint transfer, and the size of the loop traveled by parts to be
painted was reduced to lessen the amount of paint used. A
cleaner regeneration system enabled the Division to decrease the
amount of cleaner being purchased and also reduced the volume of
wastewater being sent to the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) by
40,000 gallons per week.
The Division realized a substantial improvement in the amount of
toxic emissions produced by the paint department by switching
from anodic electrostatic-coat paint to a cathodic paint to
eliminate methyl ethyl ketone. An improved paste for the paint
department's base material replaced the previous paste which had
a Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) content of 1.6 pounds per
gallon. The new paste has 0.9 pounds of VOC per gallon.
Conventional paint was replaced with a high solids paint.
Stoddard solvent, which is considered hazardous waste when spent,
was replaced with a non-hazardous solvent for parts washing.
Employee involvement, interdepartmental cooperation, and training
have all been key factors the success of the Division's
prevention program. An intensified housekeeping effort involving
everyone at the Division has been crucial to the success of all
pollution prevention efforts. Training and supervision have been
important in keeping costs reasonable when changes have been
implemented. When the switch to non-hazardous solvents for parts
washers occurred, labor to service the parts washers was supplied
by the environmental department. This was a lower cost than
using an outside service but required training and supervision to
ensure proper maintenance. The solvent still required the same
commitment in-house for man-hours to operate and training to
ensure safe and efficient operation. The compactors initially
required additional manpower for segregation and operation but
have now been established as part of normal operations by anyone
generating the waste stream. This has cost-justified the
existence of the compactors but required training to ensure
proper operation and proper waste stream input.
Production planning and sequencing is an integral function of the
changes initiated at the Marion Division in 1991 and projected
through 1995. The close interaction with the futures engineering
group has resulted in establishing a proactive approach to
production strategy for air emissions, which will meet both
production needs and environmental regulations. The
environmental and safety engineers are included in assessment of
capital projects, purchases and policy addressing pollution
prevention issues up front.
Periodic assessment of pollution prevention activities are
completed during Environmental Risk Management Committee meetings
conducted quarterly. The data is then compiled by the
environmental department. Review of pollution prevention
activities has been in place for over five years and
quantification of actual waste volumes, by installation and use
of a truck scale, has been ongoing since 1987. This is essential
for auditing the success of programs at Whirlpool. This method
has been used for solid waste and liquid waste assessments. Air
emissions have been quantified primarily through actual paint use
data coupled with MUDS (Whirlpool's computer program listing
actual usage data) and vendor supplied data.
5.0 Case Study Summary
The Whirlpool Corporation, Marion plant, is a metal finishing
appliance manufacturing facility employing 2,200 people in a
three-shift operation. This plant is the world's largest
manufacturer of clothes dryers. Major plant areas can be broken
down into press and fabrication, plastics presses, wet phosphate,
paint mix and application, and assembly. Peripheral areas
include wastewater treatment, boiler operation and pyrolytic
ovens used to burn the paint from hooks used on the conveyor
lines.
Pollution prevention was initiated with waste minimization
efforts in the mid-80's and extended from that effort to the
current plan. The recycling of cardboard began with the purchase
of a baler, which created a dust and particulate problem and was
replaced by a compactor. The compactor was very successful at
reducing volumes and allowing efficient recycling. Separation of
solid waste was accomplished by installing a two-compactor system
in 1990. These initial efforts were successful because of
employee involvement and good management practices. Cost savings
were realized from the recycling of cardboard. This recycling
project led employees to work with vendors to design plastic
returnable containers to lessen cardboard waste.
The Marion Division is undergoing extensive changes in production
planning. Just-in-Time inventory, Kanban and Point of Use Supply
strategies are being implemented. These manufacturing principles
will assist in efforts to minimize waste and prevent waste
production. Use of employee involvement teams has been crucial
to identify waste production areas. Through their efforts the
use of returnable containers has been implemented in the
following areas: lint screens, harnesses, timers, thermo discs
and heat elements. This practice is too new to quantify but the
effect will be decreased cardboard waste generation, decreased
drum/material disposal, and increased attention to generation
quantities.
An Environmental Risk Management group has been in place since
1988 to review progress on environmental projects. The eight-
member group, consisting of the environmental engineer and staff
personnel, meets on a quarterly basis. In addition, they receive
information from the environmental department on current
regulations and compliance status of ongoing programs and
projects. All of the directors from the Marion Division are a
part of this group, which ensures that input from each department
is incorporated into decisions regarding environmental efforts.
This approach allows the exchange of information from one
department to another and aids in prioritizing projects. Each
year summary environmental reports are prepared.
Many of the projects initiated early in the process were
concerned with recycling and waste minimization. Two crucial
projects were initiated in 1990 to comply with new regulations in
the area of hazardous waste minimization. First, a 105 degree
Fahrenheit flashpoint parts washer solvent, which as a hazardous
waste, was replaced with a 140 degree Fahrenheit flashpoint which
is a non-hazardous waste. The second was the installation of a
solvent recovery still to recover xylene from xylene paint feed.
Xylene is used at the Marion plant to clean paint guns. The
parts washers had traditionally been serviced by an outside
contractor. However, in 1988, the process was switched to
maintenance by Whirlpool personnel with the use of the non-
hazardous solvent. The parts washers were justified on the basis
of a cost avoidance for hazardous waste handling and disposal.
The xylene recovery still was justified on the basis of the
regulatory requirement for waste minimization. The still was not
cost justifiable initially, due to the increased cost for
disposing of still bottoms and the labor required to operate the
still.
Review of processes beyond minimization began in 1990. The most
extensive review has been in the area of air emissions. This was
driven by the 1990 Clean Air Act and the economy of efficient
production. In 1988, the Marion Division reported 1,684,714
pounds of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs). To determine the
feasibility for Whirlpool to participate in the voluntary 33/50
Program, an extensive review of past Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA) reporting was coupled with actions
taken to reduce levels of emissions and total chemical use. This
review was extended to present and future projects. When the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were passed, it included the
provision that a 90% reduction from the base year emission levels
would allow for an additional six year compliance period for the
remaining 10% reduction. This provided further impetus to
closely examine Marion Division's options to reduce emissions at
the source.
The first major action taken by Whirlpool included extensive
interaction with its paint suppliers. The "futures" engineering
group and the paint department engineers relied upon data
crunching to confirm status and probability of success of
proposed strategies. A switch to high-solids paint was completed
in 1991. This resulted in a significant reduction of 245,000
pounds of VOC emissions per year from the previous conventional
paint use and a 40% reduction in emissions from 1987 levels. The
high-solids paint transition increased production overtime for a
three-month period for a "learning curve". This paint is much
more sensitive to showing hand prints and requires more expertise
handling products which have been painted. The high solids paint
was a commercially available option. Material and training were
available but expensive to implement. Emphasis on reduction of
air pollution was critical to drive transition.
Flow-coat paint application was replaced by E-coat in July 1992.
This will result in a reduction of 80 tons per year. These
changes are anticipated to reduce levels of the seventeen
targeted chemicals by 62% by 1995.
Another potential change in the paint department could eliminate
the need for one entire paint system. Workers will be assigned
new duties but jobs will not be lost. There are no new waste
streams created by this switch. Volume of solid waste and air
emissions will be tremendously decreased. This potential change
theoretically represents an additional 30% reduction in VOC
emissions from 1987 levels.
Lesser actions to achieve reductions have included: the purchase
of new paint application guns to increase transfer efficiency;
reduction of lead content in raw paint material by the vendor;
elimination of lead chromate in raw material; decreased travel
time for parts to be painted to increase transfer efficiency,
which resulted in a reduction of 390,000 pounds reduction per
year; change of vendors to eliminate methyl ethyl ketone (product
substitution), which resulted in a reduction of 79,000 pounds per
year; and change from one resin to another (product substitution)
resulted in a reduction of 295,000 pounds per year.
The paint application area experienced positive results from the
process and equipment modifications. The changes reduced over-
spray, thus reducing waste generation and scrap generation. The
modifications did not have an adverse impact on production. The
change in July 1992 eliminating flow-coat paint had a significant
reduction in VOC emissions and eliminated the flow-coat drip
sheet waste stream. Flow-coat plastic drip sheets are placed
beneath the conveyor lines to catch drippings from the water-
based paint. Production rates have not and will not be impacted
by the switch of this system to an electrostatic deposition paint
system.
Two major projects have been initiated at the WWTP in the recent
year. One was part of a supplier request to increase efficiency
of cleaner use (cleaner regeneration). The second was the
installation by the supplier of an automated system to control
chemical feed and water use of the wet phosphate system.
Previous cleaner usage was inefficient since the cleaner was
maintained in the tank until spent and then discharged full
volume to batch treatment at the WWTP. Batches of 8,000 gallons
were collected to a total volume of 40,000 gallons or more per
week. This waste stream required the addition of acid to
separate oil and alum to break emulsions. The oil was then
disposed of as a waste oil for a disposal cost of $0.20 per
gallon. The water layer required the addition of lime and
clarification processes to discharge. The supplier installed a
regeneration system which allowed cleaner regeneration and reuse.
This decreased the flow of wastewater to the WWTP to 1,000
gallons per week.
Concentration and required modifications to the treatment process
made the waste stream difficult to treat. An investment of
$10,000 in capital equipment and $30,000 in annual operating
chemical costs was required up front. The supplier is continuing
to research the feasibility of reusing the treatment chemical.
This would decrease annual operating costs to $10,000 per year.
Segregation of waste might allow reuse. This possibility is
under investigation.
Whirlpool Corporation purchased the Marion plant in 1955. The
wet phosphate system is one of the oldest operating systems
within the complex. This system previously was dosed manually in
response to operator testing of chemical concentration levels in
different stages. The automated system modernizes the process to
allow electronic control of chemical feed rates and water use
rates in direct response to automated testing equipment. This
system has been in place since mid-1991 and has not shown
quantifiable improvement in water use, although chemical use has
decreased. The cost of installation in this instance would not
offset the savings. Detailed cost studies for cleaner treatment
are available from the Marion Division.
The cleaner regeneration is two-thirds of the way through
implementation and debugging. The regeneration process has
proven effective and the WWTP batch treatment is undergoing
further experimentation to improve efficiency. If the potassium
hydroxide can be reused to break out the oil in the regeneration
waste stream, a cost savings will be realized of $30,000 per year
in operating expenses.
Filtration as used in the cleaner regeneration was available but
was adapted specifically to the system and was the first
installation by the supplier. The specific system is not
commercially available. Equipment in place at the WWTP was
modified to handle the concentrated waste stream and represented
further capital and operating expenses.
For the automated system, the supplier had a system designed and
commercially available. Effluent toxicity limits are a very new
concept to wastewater treatment and an outside contractor was
utilized as the source laboratory and consultant in this
endeavor.
6.0 Economics
The switch to E-coat will result in a savings of $165,000 per
year from flow-coat operation.
For cleaner regeneration, if the potassium hydroxide cannot be
reused, the payback period is expected to be three years. If the
potassium hydroxide can be reused three times then the payback
period is one year.
The automated system does not show a payback. At present
estimates the cost of operation would be $30,000 per year.
High-solids paint showed a payback of roughly one year for
training time and equipment modification.
7.0 Cleaner Production Benefits
Pollution prevention will provide a more healthy atmosphere
because of the tremendous reduction in air emissions from the
base year of 1987. This change is driven by regulatory
compliance.
The changes to achieve compliance with anticipated standards of
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 should not be financially
prohibitive. Sufficient time should be available to respond
appropriately to the regulations assuming the proposed change is
technologically feasible. Changes to achieve compliance with the
Clean Water Act are extremely prohibitive financially because of
unfamiliarity of the tested parameter and the protocol for
Toxicity Identification/Reduction Evaluation (TI/RE).
Increased public awareness and the "Right-to-Know" are leading to
more interest and knowledge of industrial efforts to prevent
pollution. The involvement of plant personnel in areas such as
returnable containers is testimony to the outstanding success
possible with management and production work force teamwork.
Public relations will be improved as the community is made aware
of the efforts taken to stop pollution at the source.
8.0 Obstacles, Problems and/or Known Constraints
During the cleaner regeneration process, the Marion Division
encountered such a highly-homogenized oil that break-out by
routine treatment methods proved unsuccessful. This resulted in
an expenditure of an additional $40,000 for hauling waste oil,
until proper treatment methods were established. Continued
experimentation on the treatment system increases the payback
period.
Extensive changes have resulted in a re-evaluation of the air
systems. The following are obstacles that have been encountered:
plant lay-outs; redesign of flow-coat area to accommodate E-coat;
and difficult transitions in an operating plant to allow
installation of "new" systems without disrupting a working
system.
9.0 Date Case Study was Performed
Cleaner regeneration completed in February 1991.
The automated system was completed in October 1991.
High-solids paint transition July 1991, for Ransburg 1, and
October 1991 for Ransburg 2.
10.0 Contacts with Citations
Whirlpool Corporation
Marion Division
1300 Marion-Agosta Road
Marion, Ohio 43302
Ms. Mary Jakeway
614/383-7607
11.0 Keywords
105 Alkaline solution with metals but no cyanides
108 Spent caustic
117 Other organic liquid
202 Lime sludge with metals/metal hydroxide sludge
309 Empty or crushed metal drums or containers
503 Nonhalogenated solvent
506 Waste oil
509 Organic paint, ink, lacquer or varnish
602 Still bottoms of nonhalogenated solvents or other organics
703 Solid resins or polymerized organics
1014 Degreasing
1018 Drums, storage, disposal
1019 Filtration
1029 Maintenance
1032 Metal cleaning
1041 Recycling
2047 Electrostatic finishing
2050 Emulsion breaking
2079 Metal cleaning
2080 Metal finishing
2094 Paint spray cleanup
2117 Process water treatment
2130 Surface cleaning
2137 Wastewater treatment
4001 Drying
4007 Pyrolysis
01 Equipment or technology modification
02 Process modification or substitution
04 Process raw materials modification or substitution
05 Better housekeeping
06 Waste stream segregation
07 Onsite recycling or recovery for reuse
09 Management strategies
10 Waste reduction audits
11 Wastewater reduction
1002 Annual cost savings
1003 Capital costs
1004 Material value
1005 Payback period
1006 Return on investment
1008 Treatment/disposal cost avoided
2001 Implementation
----------------------------------------------------------
York International Corporation
Elyria
1.0 Headline
Toxics Release Inventory emissions have been reduced by 90% over
four years through process modifications and material
substitutions.
2.0 SIC Code
3585
3.0 Name and Location of Company
York International Corporation
745 Industrial Park West
P.O. Box 4022
Elyria, Ohio 44036
4.0 Clean Technology Category
Substantial pollution prevention has occurred through process
modifications and material substitutions in metal cleaning
operations. Changes were investigated in painting operations.
5.0 Case Study Summary
York International Corporation is a heating and air conditioning
manufacturer. The two major areas of pollution prevention
centered on York's vapor degreasing operations in the coil
manufacturing department and paint line facility. Incentives
were environmental concern and cost abatement. Process
modifications allowed York to change from a vapor degreasing
operation to cleaning of return bends with a hot water and
detergent solution. Material substitution allowed the company to
replace post painted sheet metal parts with pre-painted coil
stock.
In 1989, the company was using an open top vapor degreaser to
clean the return bends on the coil assemblies. They sent a total
of 5,610 gallons of used tetrachloroethylene off site for
disposal.
In the fall of 1989, York removed the vapor degreaser and
installed a wash tank. The parts are now immersed in a bath of
hot water and detergent. They are then rinsed in clean water and
allowed to drain and air dry.
In 1991, the company disposed of 3,300 gallons of non-hazardous
waste water from this operation. Not only was the volume of
waste generated reduced, but the waste changed from a hazardous
to a non-hazardous waste.
The equipment within the paint line facility was old and somewhat
inefficient. There were two automated water wash booths for
primary application of paint and two dry filter booths for manual
reinforcement and touchup. There was a five stage washer, a dry-
off oven and a bake oven.
Hazardous waste generated by the paint line for 1990 included
8,910 gallons of solid sludge, 21,065 gallons of liquid and 2,640
gallons of xylene based solvent. There were also 3,630 gallons
of non-hazardous waste water generated from the booths and
approximately 6,000 gallons of non-hazardous water and sludge
generated from the washer.
York had investigated updating its spray equipment at a cost of
approximately $100,000 and had spent considerable time working on
this project. The proposed change would have reduced pollution
levels by around 30%.
However, York opted to eliminate the process altogether and
switched to pre-painted steel. The economics provided a perfect
opportunity to not only reduce the associated pollutant levels,
but to eliminate them entirely at the York facility.
6.0 Economics
The total cost for the washer, including installation and
miscellaneous items, came to approximately $35,000. With annual
savings of $51,000, the payback time was just over eight months.
The cost to modify the dies was approximately $360,000 over a two
year phase-in period. $71,450 was spent on removal of the paint
line. With annual savings of $644,800, the payback time was just
over eight months.
7.0 Cleaner Production Benefits
York has been able to realize substantial annual savings while
providing a safer environment for employees and the community.
The burden of record keeping and filing environmental reports has
been lessened since they no longer have to report on paint and
tetrachloroethylene usage. They no longer have to maintain air
permits for the vapor degreaser, paint booths, washer, dry-off
oven and bake oven. The water usage has gone from around 44,000
gallons per day to around 20,000 gallons per day, allowing York
to voluntarily surrender its industrial wastewater discharge
permit to the City of Elyria. This was done while production and
the number of employees doubled.
8.0 Obstacles, Problems and/or Known Constraints
York found that many people have a resistance to change. The
detergent York is now using does not clean as well as the
tetrachloroethylene did. York had to decide what degree of
cleanliness was really required versus what was done in past
history.
The paint line removal meant a total re-education of plant
personnel on handling of finished material. The pre-paint finish
is of better quality as proven by a salt spray test, and in
general has a better appearance. However, adjustments had to be
made for proper handling of the coated material for press and
forming operations. The company did not provide for a touchup or
paint repair area to force the issue of proper material handling.
The types of changes made were in line with readily available
technology and did not require extensive capital expense.
9.0 Date Case Study was Performed
The vapor degreaser was taken out of service in September 1989
and removed from the building during November of that year.
The paint line removal was phased-in over a two year period. It
was a slow process to reduce the amount of material going though
the paint line and coordinate this with die changes and
availability of pre-painted steel. York ceased painting at the
end of July 1991. Equipment removal was completed in October of
1991.
10.0 Contacts with Citations
York International Corporation
P.O. Box 4022
Elyria, Ohio 44036
Mr. Earnest C. Killion, Senior Manufacturing Engineer
216/323-5561 ext. 336
Other companies provided valuable information to York. For
further assistance, please contact Mr. Killion.
11.0 Keywords
512 Halogenated solvents
513 Nonhalogenated solvents
2136 Vapor degreasing
2079 Metal cleaning
02 Process modification or substitution
04 Process raw materials modification or substitution
09 Management strategies
1002 Annual cost savings
1003 Capital costs
1005 Payback period
1008 Treatment/disposal cost avoided
----------------------------------------------------------
Appendices
Appendix A Initial Guidelines to Completing the Ohio Pollution
Prevention Case Study
GUIDELINES TO COMPLETING THE OHIO POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY
March 1992
INTRODUCTION
In an effort to promote pollution prevention success stories in
Ohio, the Ohio EPA Pollution Prevention Section has prepared the
following "Guidelines to Completing the Ohio Pollution Prevention
Case Study". These guidelines are adapted from the U.S. EPA
Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse (PPIC) Case Study
Format. The Ohio EPA encourages companies that are practicing
pollution prevention to utilize these guidelines to publicize
their efforts. If you have any questions or comments about these
guidelines, please contact the Ohio EPA Pollution Prevention
Section at (614) 644-3469.
Ohio EPA is compiling this information for a report on pollution
prevention in the Lake Erie Basin portion of the state. Your
response would be appreciated by May 1, 1992.
1.0 HEADLINE
The headline is a short phrase or description of the case study,
including quantitative descriptions of the industry or process,
waste type, and pollution prevention techniques used to limit
waste production. The headline should also describe what factors
caused you to pursue pollution prevention (e.g., compliance
costs, regulatory burdens, good management practices, cost
savings, etc.).
2.0 SIC OR ISIC CODE
Use the four-digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
code(s) that best describe(s) the industry segment(s) referenced
by the case study. Use as many SIC codes as necessary. However,
place the primary SIC code first. A listing of the SIC codes is
attached. Be sure to use the most specific SIC code available
(i.e., first use four-digit code, then three-digit code, and so
on). Specify International SIC codes with an "I" before the
digit classification (e.g., I2216).
3.0 NAME AND LOCATION OF COMPANY
Please identify the name and location of the facility that
implemented the pollution prevention case study. The address
(i.e. street, city, state, county, zip code) should also be
included.
4.0 CLEAN TECHNOLOGY CATEGORY
This section should include a brief description of the processes
behind the pollution prevention activity referenced in the case
study, such as:
* Periodic assessments
* Process/equipment modifications
* Recycling, reuse and reclamation
* Material/product substitutions
* Training and supervision
* Housekeeping
* Production planning and sequencing
* Waste segregation and separation
5.0 CASE STUDY SUMMARY
This section should include a comprehensive description for the
following areas:
5.1 Process and Waste Information: Describe the relevant
original manufacturing process or area of the plant to which
pollution prevention techniques apply, the physical state of the
waste stream (solid, liquid, gas or sludge), the changes in the
process resulting from the pollution prevention technique, and a
description of any positive or negative effects on the wastes,
products, or production rates after new technology
implementation. This description should include any changes in:
* Products or production rates resulting from the application
* New or existing waste stream generation and composition
* New or existing raw materials and consumption rates
* Energy usage
* Operating procedures
5.2 Scale of Operation: Describe the size of the process or
operation. If possible, include quantitative information on the
amount of product being produced or manufactured and the amount
of waste being generated.
5.3 Stage of Development: Describe the stage of development the
pollution prevention technique is (was) in at the time the case
study was performed. Also, include whether the quantitative
information provided is actual or estimated.
5.4 Level of Commercialization: Indicate whether the technology
or process was commercially available at the time of the case
study. Indicate whether or not the equipment and/or materials
were readily available or if they were specially designed for the
application.
5.5 Material/Energy Balances and Substitutions: Tabulate actual
quantitative changes in material generation and use prior to, and
resulting from, the implementation of the pollution prevention
technique. Use the following table as a guide to include
quantitative information (with corresponding units) concerning
all affected waste streams or products. Designate "NA" where
information is not available.
Material Category Qty. Before Qty. After
Waste Generation
Feedstock Use
Water Use
Energy Use
6.0 ECONOMICS
This section should include a summary of the costs and savings
reported in the case study.
6.1 Investment Costs: Summarize all capital costs and provide a
detailed description of the purchased items or services. Include
specifications for each item (i.e., size, quantity used,
capacity, etc.).
6.2 Operational and Maintenance Costs: Describe changes in the
operational and maintenance costs (per month or year). Also
describe changes in personnel or work hours required to implement
the pollution prevention technology.
6.3 Payback Time: Describe the approximate payback period for
the particular pollution prevention technology used in the case
study (total investment/net savings per year).
7.0 CLEANER PRODUCTION BENEFITS
This section should include a detailed discussion of the benefits
resulting from the pollution prevention technique, including but
not limited to:
* Economic benefit
* Improved public relations
* Reduced liabilities
* Changes in regulatory compliance
8.0 OBSTACLES, PROBLEMS AND/OR KNOWN CONSTRAINTS
This section should include a description of the technical
constraints that have or could prevent technology implementation
(i.e., physical, chemical or biological limits of a manufacturing
or treatment process); a description of any regulatory barriers
in implementing the pollution prevention technology; and, a
description of all other problems encountered during
implementation not previously listed.
9.0 DATE CASE STUDY WAS PERFORMED
This section should include the actual date the pollution
prevention measures were initiated and the completion dates of
any intermediate or final pollution prevention projects.
10.0 CONTACTS AND CITATIONS
This section should include a description of the reference
material used to implement the pollution prevention project(s).
10.1 Type of Source Material
Identify the type of source material used. Examples include:
* book or chapter
* journal
* organizational report
* conference proceedings
* unpublished material
* other (specify)
10.2 Citation: Identify the citation for the document for the
material abstracted. Include author(s); title; volume; number;
and month and year of publication. Include the National
Technical Information Service (NTIS) number if it is available
through that system.
10.3 Level of Detail of the Source Material: Indicate whether
or not additional detail is available in the source document for
this case study. If so, briefly describe the additional
material.
10.4 Industry/Program Contact and Address: Identify the name,
address, and phone number of the person who can be reached for
further information concerning the case study.
10.5 Abstractor Name and Address: Identify the name,
organization and address of the person preparing the case study
abstract.
11.0 KEYWORDS
This section should include keywords from Appendices A through D
which are used to identify and cross-reference case studies.
11.1 Waste Type: Select the keyword(s) from Appendix A which
identifies the conventional waste(s) that is/are acted on by the
pollution prevention option. Do not identify the waste(s)
generated after implementing the pollution prevention technique.
11.2 Process Type/Waste Source: Select the keyword(s) from
Appendix B which identifies the original industrial process(es)
or source of waste that is/are modified by the pollution
prevention technique.
11.3 Waste Reduction Technique: Select the keyword(s) from
Appendix C which identifies the techniques implemented at the
facility which are principally responsible for reducing waste
generation.
11.4 Other Keywords: Select the keyword(s) from Appendix D
which accurately describe the case study and may assist the user
in locating this abstract, including:
* Environmental media (i.e., air, land or water)
* Product names
* Feedstock
* Special incentives
* Geographic or institutional keywords (i.e., Ohio, U.S. EPA,
etc.)
Use as many keywords as deemed appropriate. If you do not find
ideal keywords, you may add new ones to the list.
12.0 ASSUMPTIONS
List any assumptions used when abstracting. Reference the
sections where the assumption was made. Any discrepancies found
in the source document should also be noted.
13.0 PEER REVIEW
Indicate whether or not the source material has gone through a
formal review process. Indicate Yes, No, or Unknown for each
reference.
----------------------------------------------------------
Appendix B Abbreviated Guidelines to Completing the Ohio
Pollution Prevention Case Study
GUIDELINES TO COMPLETING THE OHIO POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY
June 24, 1992
Your response would be appreciated by July 10, 1992. Thank you
in advance for your cooperation. If you are unable to provide
detailed information or follow the suggested outline, please
provide a partial completion of this outline. We also would be
glad to accept information by telephone or fax. Please call the
Pollution Prevention Section at (614) 644-2971 or fax at (614)
644-2339.
1.0 HEADLINE
The headline is a short phrase or description of the case study.
2.0 SIC OR ISIC CODE
Use the four-digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
code(s) that best describe(s) the industry segment(s) referenced
by the case study.
3.0 NAME AND LOCATION OF COMPANY
Please identify the name and location of the facility that
implemented the pollution prevention case study.
4.0 CLEAN TECHNOLOGY CATEGORY
This section should include a brief description of the processes
behind the pollution prevention activity referenced in the case
study, such as:
* Periodic assessments
* Process/equipment modifications
* Recycling, reuse and reclamation
* Material/product substitutions
* Training and supervision
* Housekeeping
* Production planning and sequencing
* Waste segregation and separation
5.0 CASE STUDY SUMMARY
This section should include a comprehensive description for the
following areas:
5.1 Process and Waste Information: Describe the relevant
original manufacturing process or area of the plant to which
pollution prevention techniques apply, the physical state of the
waste stream (solid, liquid, gas or sludge), the changes in the
process resulting from the pollution prevention technique, and a
description of any positive or negative effects on the wastes,
products, or production rates after new technology
implementation. This description should include any changes in:
* Products or production rates resulting from the application
* New or existing waste stream generation and composition
* New or existing raw materials and consumption rates
* Energy usage
* Operating procedures
5.2 Scale of Operation: Describe the size of the process or
operation. If possible, include quantitative information on the
amount of product being produced or manufactured and the amount
of waste being generated.
5.3 Stage of Development: Describe the stage of development the
pollution prevention technique is (was) in at the time the case
study was performed. Also, include whether the quantitative
information provided is actual or estimated.
5.4 Level of Commercialization: Indicate whether the technology
or process was commercially available at the time of the case
study. Indicate whether or not the equipment and/or materials
were readily available or if they were specially designed for the
application.
6.0 ECONOMICS
This section should include a summary of the costs and savings
reported in the case study.
6.1 Investment Costs: Summarize all capital costs and provide a
detailed description of the purchased items or services. Include
specifications for each item (i.e., size, quantity used,
capacity, etc.).
6.2 Operational and Maintenance Costs: Describe changes in the
operational and maintenance costs (per month or year). Also
describe changes in personnel or work hours required to implement
the pollution prevention technology.
6.3 Payback Time: Describe the approximate payback period for
the particular pollution prevention technology used in the case
study (total investment/net savings per year).
7.0 CLEANER PRODUCTION BENEFITS
This section should include a detailed discussion of the benefits
resulting from the pollution prevention technique, including but
not limited to:
* Economic benefit
* Improved public relations
* Reduced liabilities
* Changes in regulatory compliance
8.0 OBSTACLES, PROBLEMS AND/OR KNOWN CONSTRAINTS
This section should include a description of the technical
constraints that have or could prevent technology implementation
(i.e., physical, chemical or biological limits of a manufacturing
or treatment process); a description of any regulatory barriers
in implementing the pollution prevention technology; and, a
description of all other problems encountered during
implementation not previously listed.
9.0 DATE CASE STUDY WAS PERFORMED
This section should include the actual date the pollution
prevention measures were initiated and the completion dates of
any intermediate or final pollution prevention projects.
10.0 CONTACTS AND CITATIONS
This section should include a description of the reference
material used to implement the pollution prevention project(s).
10.1 Type of Source Material
Identify the type of source material used. Examples include:
* book or chapter
* journal
* organizational report
* conference proceedings
* unpublished material
* other (specify)
11.0 KEYWORDS
Ohio EPA can provide a list of keywords which may be used to
identify and cross-reference case studies. Further detail on the
above can be provided by Ohio EPA. If you have any questions or
comments about these guidelines, please contact the Ohio EPA
Pollution Prevention Section at (614) 644-3469.
---------------------------------------------------
Appendix C Keywords
Waste Type Codes
100 INORGANIC LIQUIDS
101 Aqueous waste with low toxic organics content
102 Spent mineral acid with dissolved heavy metals
103 Spent mineral acid without dissolved heavy metals
104 Acidic aqueous waste
105 Alkaline solution with metals but no cyanides
106 Alkaline solution with metals and cyanides
107 Alkaline solution cyanides but no metals
108 Spent caustic
109 Alkaline aqueous waste
110 Aqueous waste with dissolved sulfides
111 Aqueous waste with other reactives (e.g., explosives)
112 Other aqueous waste with high dissolved solids
113 Other aqueous waste with low dissolved solids
114 Scrubber water
115 Leachate
116 Waste liquid mercury
117 Other inorganic liquid
200 INORGANIC SLUDGES
201 Lime sludge without metals
202 Lime sludge with metals/metal hydroxide sludge
203 Wastewater treatment sludge with toxic organics
204 Other wastewater treatment sludge
205 Untreated plating sludge without cyanides
206 Untreated plating sludge with cyanides
207 Other sludge with cyanides
208 Sludge with reactive sulfides
209 Sludge with other reactives
210 Degreasing sludge with metal scale or filings
211 Air pollution control device sludge (B29)**
212 Sediment/lagoon dragout contaminated with organics (B30)
213 Sediment/lagoon dragout contaminated with inorganics only
214 Sediment/lagoon dragout contaminated with mixed inorg/org
215 Drilling mud (B32)
216 Asbestos slurry of sludge (B33)
217 Chloride or other brine sludge (B34)
218 Other inorganic sludge (B35)
300 INORGANIC SOLIDS
301 Soil contaminated with organics (B36)
302 Soil contaminated with inorganics only (B37)
303 Soil contaminated with organics and inorganics
304 Ash, slag or other residue from incineration of wastes (B38)
305 Other "dry" ash, slag or thermal residue (B39)
306 "Dry" lime or metal hydroxide solids chemically "fixed"
(B40)
307 "Dry" lime or metal hydroxide solids not "fixed" (B41)
308 Metal scale, filings, or scrap (B42)
309 Empty or crushed metal drums or containers (B43)
310 Batteries or battery parts, casings, cores (B44)
311 Spent solid filters or adsorbents (B45)
312 Asbestos solids and debris (B46)
313 Metal-cyanide salts/chemicals (B47)
314 Cyanide salts/chemicals (B48)
315 Reactive sulfide salts/chemicals (B49)
316 Other reactive salts/chemicals (B50)
317 Other metal salts/chemicals (B51)
318 Other waste inorganic chemicals
319 Lab packs of old chemicals (B52)
320 Lab packs of debris only (B54)
321 Mixed lab packs (B55)
322 Spent carbon with adsorbed inorganics
323 Other inorganic soils (B56)
400 INORGANIC GASES
500 ORGANIC LIQUIDS
501 Concentrated solvent-water solution (B58)
502 Halogenated (e.g., chlorinated) solvents (B59)
503 Nonhalogenated solvent (B60)
504 Halogenated/nonhalogenated solvent mixture (B61)
505 Oil-water emulsion of mixture (B62)
506 Waste oil (B63)
507 Concentrated aqueous solution of other organics (B64)
508 Concentrated phenolics (B65)
509 Organic paint, ink, lacquer, or varnish (B66)
510 Adhesives of epoxies (B67)
511 Paint thinner or petroleum distillates (B68)
512 Reactive or polymerized organic liquid (B69)
513 Other organic liquid (B70)
600 ORGANIC SLUDGES
601 Still bottoms of halogenated (e.g., chlorinated) solvents
602 Still bottoms of nonhalogenated solvents or other organics
603 Oily sludge
604 Organic paint or ink sludge
605 Reactive or polymerized organics
606 Resins, tars, or tarry sludge
607 Biological treatment sludge
608 Sewage or other untreated biological sludge
609 Other organic sludge
700 ORGANIC SOLIDS
701 Halogenated pesticide solid
702 Nonhalogenated pesticide solid
703 Solid resins or polymerized organics
704 Spent carbon with adsorbed organics
705 Reactive organic solid
706 Empty fiber or plastic containers
707 Lab packs of old chemicals only
708 Lab packs of debris only
709 Mixed lab packs
710 Other halogenated organic solid
711 Other nonhalogenated organic solid
800 ORGANIC GASES
Process or waste source codes
1000 MECHANICAL
1001 Aluminum polishing
1002 Automotive lubrication
1003 Automotive repairs
1004 Batteries, scrap treatment
1005 Bleaching
1006 Bending
1007 Boiler Maintenance
1008 Carpentry/woodworking
1009 Casting
1010 Cold rolling
1011 Cutting
1012 Deburring
1013 Decanting
1014 Degreasing
1015 Drilling
1016 Drip racks
1017 Dewatering
1018 Drums, storage, disposal
1019 Filtration
1020 Flow restriction
1021 Foundry casting
1022 Forming operations
1023 Grinding operations
1024 Injecting
1025 Lathing
1026 Leaks
1027 Lubrication, general
1028 Machining
1029 Maintenance
1030 Material feed operations
1031 Material handling
1032 Metal cleaning
1033 Metal forging
1034 Milling
1035 Molding
1036 Packaging
1037 Printing, vapor recovery
1038 Pulping
1039 Pumping
1040 Punching operations
1041 Recycling
1042 Rinse baths, spray, etc.
1043 Rinsing
1044 Shaping operations
1045 Spills
1046 Stockyard maintenance
1047 Surface cleaning
1048 Tank cleaning
1049 Water recycling
2000 PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL
2001 Absorption
2002 Acidification
2003 Acrylics
2004 Adsorption
2005 Anodizing
2006 Bleaching
2007 Brightdipping
2008 Cadmium plating
2009 Calcination
2010 Carbon adsorption
2011 Cartridges, drycleaning
2012 Cementation
2013 Centrifugation
2014 Chemical manufacturing
2015 Chemical processes, other
2016 Chemical synthesis
2017 Chrome
2018 Cleaning
2019 Cleanup control
2020 Coating
2021 Concentration
2022 Condensation
2023 Coolant, cutting oil recovery
2024 Cooling
2025 Copper, nickel plating
2026 Counter-current recovery
2027 Crystalization
2028 Cutting
2029 Cyanide treatment
2030 Degreasing
2031 Deinking
2032 Detergents
2033 Developing, photographic
2034 Dewatering
2035 Die casting
2036 Distillation
2037 Drag-out, bath
2038 Drag-out, recovery
2039 Dry cleaning
2040 Dyebaths
2041 Electrolysis
2042 Electrolysis, NOT plating
2043 Electrolytic recovery
2044 Electronic components, cleaning
2045 Electronic manufacturing
2046 Electroplating
2047 Electrostatic finishing
2048 Electrowinning
2049 Emulsification
2050 Emulsion breaking
2051 Etching
2052 Extraction
2053 Farm chemicals
2054 Farming
2055 Finishing
2056 Finishing textiles
2057 Flexographic printing
2058 Flotation
2059 Forging operations
2060 Forming operations
2061 Furniture finishing
2062 Gluing
2063 Gravure printing
2064 Hydraulic fluid recovery
2065 Hyperfiltration
2066 Inking
2067 Ion exchange
2068 Jewelry plating
2069 Laboratory
2070 Laminating
2071 Landfill leaching
2072 Laundry
2073 Liquid-liquid extraction
2074 Low liquid dye baths
2075 Lubrication, general
2076 Magnetic tapes
2077 Masonry
2078 Metal casting
2079 Metal cleaning
2080 Metal finishing
2081 Metal forging
2082 Metal forming
2083 Metal recovery from sludge
2084 Metal cleaning [ redundant entry with 2079! ]
2085 Metal plating
2086 Metal finishing [ redundant entry with 2080! ]
2087 Neutralization
2088 Non-toxic material substitution
2089 Oil recovery
2090 Organic chemicals formulation
2091 Oxidation
2092 Oxide coating
2093 Pad batch dyeing
2094 Paint spray cleanup
2095 Paint formulating
2096 Paint stripping
2097 Painting
2098 Paper manufacturing
2099 Pesticides formulation
2100 Petroleum refining
2101 Photo processing
2102 Photography
2103 Photographic film developing
2104 Photographic metals recovery
2105 Pickling steel
2106 Plastic containers
2107 Plastics manufacturing
2108 Polyethylene production
2109 Polymer film/coating
2110 Polymerization
2111 Precipitation
2112 Pressurization
2113 Printed circuit boards
2114 Printing
2115 Printing on polyethylene film
2116 Printing cleanup
2117 Process water treatment
2118 Reduction
2119 Resin absorption
2120 Reverse osmosis
2121 Rubber products
2122 Sedimentation/Settling
2123 Sizing recovery
2124 Smelting
2125 Staining
2126 Stripping
2127 Solvent adsorption
2128 Solvent stripping
2129 Specific ion adsorption
2130 Surface cleaning
2131 Supercritical fluid extraction
2132 Supercritical oxidation
2133 Tanning treatments
2134 Textiles manufacturing
2135 Ultrafiltration
2136 Vapor degreasing
2137 Wastewater treatment
2138 Water softening
2139 Welding operations
2140 Wet air oxidation
2141 Zinc plating
3000 BIOLOGICAL
3001 Aquaculture
3002 Bio-oxidation
3003 Dairy production
3004 Farming
3005 Fermentation
3006 Fish production
3007 Fruit production
3008 Meat production
3009 Poultry production
3010 Wastewater treatment
4000 THERMAL
4001 Drying
4002 Evaporation
4003 Freeze vaporization
4004 Heating
4005 Incineration
4006 Ovens, baking
4007 Pyrolysis
4008 Refrigeration
4009 Smelting
4010 Steel making
4011 Welding operations
Waste Reduction Technique Codes
01 Equipment or technology modification
02 Process modification or substitution
03 Product reformulation or redesign
04 Process raw materials modification or substitution
05 Better housekeeping
06 Waste stream segregation
07 Onsite recycling or recovery for reuse
08 Offsite recycling or recovery for reuse (materials
exchange)
09 Management strategies
10 Waste reduction audits
11 Wastewater reduction
12 General information on waste reduction
Economic and Other Keyword Codes
1000 ECONOMIC EVALUATION
1001 Amortization
1002 Annual cost savings
1003 Capital costs
1004 Material value
1005 Payback period
1006 Return on investment
1007 Total cost accounting
1008 Treatment/disposal cost avoided
2000 TECHNOLOGY
2001 Implementation
3000 ENERGY VALUE
* Source, United States Environmental Protection Agency,
National Survey of Hazardous Waste Generators, November 1989.
** Waste codes with a (B##) designation are taken directly from
US EPA's 1989 November National Survey of Hazardous Waste
Generators Questionnaire Form GA
Last Updated: April 21, 1997