1

Pollution Prevention Assessment for a Manufacturer of

Electroplated Truck Bumpers

ENVIRONMENTAL

RESEARCH BRIEF

Richard J. Jendrucko*, Thomas N. Coleman*, Brian T. Hurst*,

and Gwen P. Looby**

* University of Tennessee, Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics

* University City Science Center, Philadelphia, PA

United States

Environmental Protection

Agency

National Risk Management

Research Laboratory

Cincinnati, OH 45268

Research and Development EPA/600/S-95/019 September 1995

Abstract

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has funded

a pilot project to assist small and medium-size manufacturers

who want to minimize their generation of waste but who lack

the expertise to do so. In an effort to assist these manufacturers Waste Minimization Assessment Centers (WMACs) were

established at selected universities and procedures were

adapted from the EPA Waste Minimization Opportunity Assessment Manual (EPA/625/7-88/003, July 1988). That document has been superseded by the Facility Pollution Prevention

Guide (EPA/600/R-92/088, May 1992). The WMAC team at

the University of Tennessee performed an assessment at a

plant that manufactures electroplated bumpers and miscellaneous parts for trucks. Steel and aluminum parts received

from a nearby facility are cleaned, rinsed, etched, and electroplated. The team’s report, detailing findings and recommendations, indicated that a considerable amount of wastewater

treatment sludge is generated from the onsite treatment of

wastewater, and that significant waste reduction and cost savings could be achieved by reducing drag-out from the plating

tanks.

This Research Brief was developed by the principal investigators and EPA’s National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH, to announce key findings of an ongoing

research project that is fully documented in a separate report

of the same title available from University City Science Center.

Introduction

The amount of waste generated by industrial plants has become an increasingly costly problem for manufacturers and an

additional stress on the environment. One solution to the

problem of waste generation is to reduce or eliminate the

waste at its source.

University City Science Center (Philadelphia, PA) has begun a

pilot project to assist small and medium-size manufacturers

who want to minimize their generation of waste but who lack

the in-house expertise to do so. Under agreement with EPA’s

National Risk Management Research Laboratory, the Science

Center has established three WMACs. This assessment was

done by engineering faculty and students at the University of

Tennessee’s (Knoxville) WMAC. The assessment teams have

considerable direct experience with process operations in manufacturing plants and also have the knowledge and skills needed

to minimize waste generation.

The pollution prevention opportunity assessments are done for

small and medium-size manufacturers at no out-of-pocket cost

to the client. To qualify for the assessment, each client must

fall within Standard Industrial Classification Code 20-39, have

gross annual sales not exceeding $75 million, employ no more

than 500 persons, and lack in-house expertise in pollution

prevention.

The potential benefits of the pilot project include minimization

of the amount of waste generated by manufacturers, and

reduction of waste treatment and disposal costs for participating plants. In addition, the project provides valuable experience

for graduate and undergraduate students who participate in the

program, and a cleaner environment without more regulations

and higher costs for manufacturers.

Methodology of Assessments

The pollution prevention assessments require several site visits to each client served. In general, the WMACs follow the
2

Steel Bumpers

and Other

Truck Parts

Racking and

Inspection

Alkaline

Cleaning

Electrocleaning

Copper

Strike

Acid

Rinse

Nickel Copper

Plating

Chrome

Plating

Hot Water

Rinse

Manual

Cleaning Inspection

Bumpers and

Parts Shipped

to Customers

Plating

Figure 1. Abbreviated process flow diagram for steel bumper electroplating.

procedures outlined in the EPA Waste Minimization Opportunity Assessment Manual (EPA/625/7-88/003, July 1988). The

WMAC staff locate the sources of waste in the plant and

identify the current disposal or treatment methods and their

associated costs. They then identify and analyze a variety of

ways to reduce or eliminate the waste. Specific measures to

achieve that goal are recommended and the essential supporting technological and economic information is developed. Finally, a confidential report that details the WMAC’s findings

and recommendations (including cost savings, implementation

costs, and payback times) is prepared for each client.

Plant Background

This plant electroplates various types of bumpers and miscellaneous parts for trucks. Approximately 100,000 parts are produced by this plant each year.

Manufacturing Process

Steel and aluminum sheet stock is stamped into various shapes

at a nearby company facility. The resulting parts are manually

buffed and polished. A coating of rust-inhibiting oil is applied to

the steel parts in order to minimize surface corrosion during

transportation and storage at the electroplating facility.

As parts are required for electroplating, they are removed from

their packaging and inspected. Parts that pass inspection are

placed onto racks for processing. The parts that do not pass

inspection are manually buffed and sanded onsite to repair

defects.

An overhead hoist is used to transfer the racked parts to a

series of tanks where parts are cleaned, rinsed, etched, and

copper, nickel, and chrome electroplated. After the parts have

been plated and rinsed in a final heated tank, they are removed from the racks and allowed to air dry.

During a final inspection, each part is cleaned using paper

towels. Any surface irregularities in the plated parts are identified and repaired. Parts passing final inspection are packaged

and stored until shipment.

An abbreviated process flow diagram for the production of

plated bumpers is shown in Figure 1.

Existing Waste Management Practices

This plant already has implemented the following techniques to

manage and minimize its wastes.

• Two filter presses and a drying oven are used to reduce the

volume of hazardous wastewater treatment sludge shipped

offsite.

• Filtration units have been installed on the major plating tanks

to remove contaminants so that the life of the active solutions

can be extended.
3

Pollution Prevention Opportunities

The type of waste currently generated by the plant, the source

of the waste, the waste management method, the quantity of

the waste, and the waste management cost for each waste

stream identified are given in Table 1.

Table 2 shows the opportunities for pollution prevention that

the WMAC team recommended for the plant. The opportunity,

the type of waste, the possible waste reduction and associated

savings, and the implementation cost along with the simple

payback time are given in the table. The quantities of waste

currently generated by the plant and possible waste reduction

depend on the production level of the plant. All values should

be considered in that context.

It should be noted that the economic savings of the opportunities, in most cases, results from the need for less raw material

and from reduced present and future costs associated with

waste treatment and disposal. Other savings not quantifiable

by this study include a wide variety of possible future costs

related to changing emissions standards, liability, and employee health. It also should be noted that the savings given

for each opportunity reflect the savings achievable when implementing each pollution prevention opportunity independently

and do not reflect duplication of savings that may result when

the opportunities are implemented in a package.

Additional Recommendation

In addition to the opportunities recommended and analyzed by

the WMAC team, one additional measure was considered.

This measure was not analyzed completely because of a lack

of sufficient information. Since this approach to pollution prevention may, however, increase in attractiveness with changing

conditions in the plant, it was brought to the plant’s attention for

future consideration.

• Reduce the number of parts that must be coated with rustinhibiting oil at the fabrication plant through careful scheduling of part fabrication, shipping, and electroplating operations.

This research brief summarizes a part of the work done under

Cooperative Agreement No. CR-819557 by the University City

Science Center under the sponsorship of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA Project Officer was Emma

Lou George.

Table 1. Summary of Current Waste Generation

Annual Quantity Annual Waste

Waste Stream Generated Source of Waste Waste Management Method Generated (lb/yr) Management Cost*

Miscellaneous solid waste Unpacking of parts (primarily) Shipped offsite to municipal landfill 2,160 yd3 $14,380

Cleaning solution and rinse water Cleaning of steel parts prior to plating Sewered 20,961,000 10,800

Cyanide-contaminated rinse water Rinse following copper-strike coating Treated in onsite wastewater

of steel parts and surface treatment treatment plant; sewered 7,806,000 6,800

of aluminum parts

Acid rinsing solution Acid rinse following copper-strike of Treated in onsite wastewater

steel parts and surface treatment of treatment plant; sewered 165,000 140

aluminum parts

Rinse water from electroplating Rinses following copper- and chrome- Treated in onsite wastewater 26,502,000 23,100

plating of steel and aluminum parts treatment plant; sewered

Rinse water from electroplating Rinse following nickel-plating of steel Treated in onsite wastewater 14,442,000 12,590

and aluminum parts treatment plant; sewered

Alkaline cleaning solution and Alkaline cleaning of aluminum parts Sewered 8,118,000 4,180

rinse water prior to plating

Caustic and zinc oxide cleaning Zinc cleaning of aluminum parts prior to Treated in onsite wastewater 20,608,000 17,960

solution and rinse water plating and rinsing of parts following treatment plant; sewered

acid cleaning

Contaminated nitric acid cleaning Acid cleaning of aluminum parts prior to Treated in onsite wastewater 165,000 140

solution plating treatment plant; sewered

Rinse water Rinse following surface treatment of Treated in onsite wastewater 488,000 420

aluminum parts prior to copper plating treatment plant; sewered

Evaporated water Heated tanks in electroplating lines Evaporates to plant air 6,963,000 2,6501

Contaminated filter tubes Filtering of plating solutions Shipped offsite for disposal 3,850 30,550

as hazardous waste

Wastewater treatment sludge Onsite wastewater treatment plant Shipped offsite for disposal 179,190 78,280

as hazardous waste

*Includes waste treatment, disposal, and handling costs

1Includes raw material cost
4

BULK RATE

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

EPA

PERMIT No. G-35

United States

Environmental Protection Agency

National Risk Management Research Laboratory (G-72)

Cincinnati, OH 45268

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use

$300

EPA/600/S-95/019

Table 2. Summary of Recommended Pollution Prevention Opportunities

Annual Waste Reduction

Net Annual Implementation Simple

Pollution Prevention Opportunity Waste Stream Reduced Quantity (lb/yr) Per Cent Savings Cost Payback (yr)

Reduce drag-out from plating tanks by utilizing Wastewater treatment 53,800 30 $ 41,200 $ 31,300 0.8

spray rinsing and drag-out boards. Install rinse sludge

devices above each plating and wash tank to

spray a mist of water onto part racks as they

are removed from the tanks. Drag-out boards

should be installed between tanks in series.

This opportunity will lead to savings in plating

chemical purchases and reduced generation

of wastewater treatment sludge.

Reuse effluent from the onsite wastewater Rinse water 25,725,000 37 11,860 19,700 1.7

treatment system in the rinsing stations following each plating tank in the steel parts electroplating line.

Meter the wastewater leaving the plant in n/a n/a n/a 3,270 8,700 2.7

order to reduce sewer charges. Currently,

sewer charges are assessed based on the

total amount of water purchased by the plant.

Utilize available covers on all heated process Evaporated water 3,482,000 50 1,320 0 immediate

tanks during periods of light or non-production

in order to reduce evaporative water losses.