POLLUTION PREVENTION NORTHWEST
volume 10, issue 1
PPRC was awarded a contract with ACWA (Oregon Association of Clean Water Agencies) to research chemical sources and P2 planning for ACWA members, including the largest municipal wastewater treatment plants in Oregon.
PPRC’s research focused on a list of priority persistent pollutants identified by Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) under Oregon’s Senate Bill (SB) 737 mandate. SB737 requires DEQ to support and encourage reducing major persistent, bio-accumulative pollutants that have a documented effect on human health, wildlife and aquatic life. The list of toxic pollutants consists of 117 chemicals used in industry, commerce and by consumers.
PPRC’s research staff collected details on probable pathways for these chemicals to enter Oregon wastewater treatment facilities. With likely sources identified, PPRC worked with the ACWA Technical Action Committee to draft a Master Pollution Prevention Plan.
-Debra Taevs, Deputy Director, PPRC
Reducing pollution, improving employee and community health, increasing the bottom line with spray efficiency
Aesthetics are important. Ask anyone and most will admit they want their car to look good. Same for our trucks, buses, wrought-iron railings, bridges, etc. The list could go on and on. Unfortunately that pleasing appearance comes with a cost.
Many of the paints and coatings used on a daily basis are loaded with hazardous materials. These materials range from being a fire hazard to causing air pollution to causing cancer. In fact, the surface coating industry annually releases 45,000 tons of known carcinogens into the air. As a result, the 6H National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) became effective January 9, 2008. All area sources that apply paints and coatings to metal or plastic parts or products should have been in compliance with this new rule by January 10, 2011.
A big part of the 6H NESHAP is a requirement that all painters receive training, both classroom and hands-on, in spray efficiency techniques. Why is this part of the rule? Consider this: while there are schools that have courses in collision repair, many spray painters learn on the job. This is almost exclusively true for industrial painters, for whom there is no formal training available. As a result, painters in general are taught by someone who was taught by someone who was taught by someone.
This is not to disparage manual spray painters. The process in a painter’s world is first, produce a quality finish and second, do it expeditiously. Sometimes it’s the other way around. With rare exception, be more efficient with the material used has not been part of the painters requirements.
However, there is overwhelming evidence now that improving painter technique can have a significant effect on material used. The University of Northern Iowa’s Waste Reduction Center has been teaching spray efficiency techniques (STAR) and measuring the results for 14 years. They have quantifiably demonstrated a transfer efficiency improvement on average of 22% among experienced paint technicians.
PPRC’s STAR-trained Industrial Outreach Manager has almost 20 years experience in industrial and automotive paint spraying. As a result, PPRC has been working with other agencies and non-profits to bring spray efficiency training to collision repair schools, auto body shops and industrial facilities that spray paint.
PPRC has provided training to students and materials to instructors at 22 schools in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. We have provided direct training to painters at 35 industrial facilities and 65 collision repair shops. What have been the results? One industrial facility did a case study on the training and discovered they reduced their paint use by 1,100 gallons the first year, resulting in a savings of over $34,000. They saved an additional $3,000 in labor and material for filter changes. Less overspray means less loading of the filters with particulate, less release of VOC’s into the community, longer respirator life, and better work environment for the painter.
-Ken Grimm, Industry Outreach Manager, PPRC
What is E3? In a nutshell, E3 is “Lean and Green on steroids.” It offers a coordinated technical assistance approach to establish sustainable practices for manufacturers. Traditional productivity aspects (inventory, time, transportation, etc.) are addressed by the lean manufacturing model. In recent years, numerous projects and groups across the country have successfully integrated pollution prevention and energy/water resources into lean (aka “Lean and Green”). The E3 model includes all these factors as well as fiscal health and workforce development components.
Amazingly, five federal agencies have come together to develop the model and provide the basis for a cohesive network for implementing this work:
U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC), Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP)
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Industrial Assessment Centers (IAC)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Pollution Prevention (P2) Network and Climate Leaders Program
U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs)
U.S. Department of labor (DOL), State Workforce Development Boards (WDBs)
Now it is up to interested agencies and parties in a state or region to assemble teams and coordinate delivery of E3 expertise within their area. The EPA has information and assistance resources to help promote E3 projects and support participating service provider teams.
How does an E3 Project Start?
- Identify a community
- Establish team
- Secure funding
- Engage manufacturers
The four major steps in an E3 project are as follows:
- Lean and Green Review (including productivity, resource and energy use, toxics, and wastes)
- Post-Assessment Recommendations
- Implementation Support
- Trainings and Continuous Improvement
Two challenges for E3 are to achieve enough standardization between projects around the country, to have comparative results between projects yet provide enough flexibility to have successful projects, and demonstrate how Energy and Environment improvements do not compete with productivity improvements.
Stay tuned...PPRC will have more information and resources on E3 in the upcoming months.
-Michelle Gaither, Environmental Engineer, PPRC
PPRC is pleased to welcome our new Board of Directors President, John Harland.
“John has had a wonderful long‐standing relationship with PPRC and has been involved with environmental sustainability at Intel for many years,” said PPRC Executive Director Paula Del Giudice. “He is a terrific leader who will be an enormous help moving PPRC into its next 20 years of pollution prevention performance in the region. We are extremely lucky to have him serve as our board president.”
“I couldn’t be more proud to work with a group that is having such a positive impact in working with governments and businesses to achieve their pollution prevention goals and improve their efficiency,” said Harland. “I’ve watched the organization change through the years to become
the effective and respected leader throughout the country that it is now.”
Currently, Harland is responsible for environmental performance of new manufacturing technologies at Intel. While at Intel, he has also worked on their environmental compliance within Oregon and the environmental design of new factory construction and waste systems.
Prior to joining Intel, Harland worked for a company of consulting engineers on the design of wastewater treatment facilities and for a company that manufactured wastewater treatment equipment.
Harland holds a MS in Environmental Engineering from the California Institute of Technology and a BS in Chemical Engineering from the University of Edinburgh in Scotland.
Harland replaces three‐year president Bill Dunbar who has assumed a position as the Policy Director for the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Region 10 office in Seattle.