| RISK | COMPL. | MARKET ACCEPT. | TOTAL | R&D AREA, SUBAREA, AND PROJECT TITLE. |
|
|
|
|
|
1.0.0 Cadmium Projects
1.1.0 Develop a Life Cycle Cost Model that could predict when it would make sense to replace cadmium and when it would make sense to continue using the metal. The basic idea is that it may not represent "common sense" to categorically replace the use of this metal coating. |
|
|
|
|
| 1.1.1 Develop a life cycle material balance on cadmium coated steel. This would show where the cadmium goes over the life of a coated part. |
|
|
|
|
| 1.1.2 Determine the airborne concentrations of cadmium during various manufacturing and overhaul operations on cadmium coated parts. |
|
|
|
|
| 1.1.3 Answer: When in the finishing industry is cadmium use likely to cause worker health and environmental problems? Investigate the health effects of cadmium from plating operations. |
|
|
|
|
| 1.1.4 Evaluate the effectiveness of simple techniques such as ventilation, tank covers, floating balls, etc., to reduce airborne cadmium levels and similarly simple techniques to reduce water discharges of cadmium during manufacturing, use and rework. Answer: Can simple techniques reduce air and waterborne cadmium levels to below the OSHA PEL? |
|
|
|
|
| 1.1.5 Generate a cost model that reflects both the risks and the control technologies. The cost model should be developed to allow analysis of life-cycle environmental expenses and expenses associated with re-engineering components that are currently cadmium plated. The model should address both the OSHA and the EPA issues and should include analyses of both current and proposed regulations. EPA staff participating in the process should ensure that solid waste, air, and water issues are considered. The final product should be a simple-to-use document or Internet program that demonstrates to the user community when "common sense" shows that cadmium should, and should not, be replaced. |
|
|
|
|
| 1.2.0 Develop technologies that might reduce cadmium air emissions and associated worker health problems. Technologies that reduce water pollution and solid waste generation should also be considered. |
|
|
|
|
| 1.2.1 Develop new tank covers to allow recovery of metal that would normally be lost in tank mists. |
|
|
|
|
| 1.2.2 Develop improved (possibly computer-controlled) power sources that would minimize hydrogen generation and improve metal deposition rates. |
|
|
|
|
| 1.3.0 Publicize already completed cadmium replacement research. 1.3.1 Use a literature search to produce guidance (perhaps as an article in a journal) for when and how industries should replace cadmium coatings. The article should include successes, failures, and points-of-contact for additional information. |
|
|
|
|
| 1.4.0 Develop and demonstrate alternatives to cadmium used on aluminum materials and electrical connectors. |
|
|
|
|
| 1.5.0 Demonstrate cadmium alternatives such as zinc nickel and others. |
|
|
|
|
| 1.6.0 Demonstrate zero discharge cadmium plating operations. |
|
|
|
|
| 1.7.0 Determine how accurately cadmium can be measured in a plating wastewater matrix. |
|
|
|
|
|
2.0.0 Chlorinated Solvents Projects
2.1.0 Evaluate alternatives to chlorinated solvents for cleaning. 2.1.1 Evaluate new, alternative cleaners that have recently come on the market. |
|
|
|
|
| 2.1.2 Further evaluate non-hazardous abrasive cleaning processes such as CO2 snow and pellets. |
|
|
|
|
| 2.1.3 Investigate improving upon ultrasonic cleaning as a substitute for solvent and alkaline cleaning technology. |
|
|
|
|
| 2.1.4 Investigate laser assisted cleaning. |
|
|
|
|
| 2.1.5 Develop alternative degreasers for repair process which are different than manufacturing degreasing processes. Alternatives used in manufacturing can become entrapped and compromise overall structure when used in a repair operation. Alternatives for repair operations are needed and should be investigated. |
|
|
|
|
| 2.1.6 Develop a life cycle analysis model for determining when it makes sense and when it does not make sense to replace chlorinated solvent cleaners with non-chlorinated organic, aqueous, and non-aqueous cleaners. |
|
|
|
|
| 2.2.0 Evaluate the feasibility of wastewater recycling for aqueous and semi-aqueous systems. 2.2.1 Demonstrate recycling of aqueous cleaners using membrane filtration. |
|
|
|
|
| 2.2.2 Evaluate coalescing as an alternative to membrane filters for aqueous cleaners recycling. |
|
|
|
|
| 2.3.0 Investigate flash rusting. 2.3.1 Evaluate the effectiveness of corrosion inhibitors to prevent flash rust. |
|
|
|
|
| 2.3.2 Conduct a study to determine whether flash rusting can be tolerated if the surface shows no contamination and is coated soon after aqueous cleaning. |
|
|
|
|
| 2.3.3 Evaluate additional rinses with high purity water to remove any surface contamination and to reduce flash rusting. |
|
|
|
|
| 2.4.0 Cleanliness Test Methods. Compile information on the nature, use, and results of various testing and evaluating methods used by manufacturers to measure the cleanliness of a substrate necessary to allow subsequent processing. |
|
|
|
|
| 2.5.0 Wastewater Treatment. Investigate which ingredients of cleaners cause the most trouble in wastewater treatment. |
|
|
|
|
| 2.6.0 Improvements to Vapor Degreasing. Investigate low emissions/emissionless chlorinated solvent vapor degreasing systems. Which do the best job? What are the emissions? |
|
|
|
|
|
3.0.0 Chromium Projects
3.1.0 Develop simplified risk assessment methodologies to determine the risks associated with the use of chromium in surface finishing processes, as indicated below. 3.1.1 Assess the risks to workers in different job classifications from exposures due to working in various plating processes that use hexavalent chromium. |
|
|
|
|
| 3.1.2 Assess the risks before and consequent to application of technologies to meet the new CAAA chromium emissions ACT standard. |
|
|
|
|
| 3.2.0 Develop a life cycle analysis model to determine when, and when not, to change from processes that use hexavalent chromium. |
|
|
|
|
|
3.3.0 Develop and demonstrate innovative closed loop processes for chromium processing solutions. 3.3.1 Evaluate methods to control discharges to air and water and to recycle chemicals back into the processing tanks in existing shops. |
|
|
|
|
| 3.3.2 Evaluate methods to control discharges to air and water and to recycle chemicals back into the processing tanks in new installations--concentrating on the best installations extant. |
|
|
|
|
| 3.3.3 Demonstrate the electrodialytic membrane-based "I3" technology for chromium recovery. |
|
|
|
|
| 3.3.4 Study and demonstrate closed loop chromium shops. How do they do it? |
|
|
|
|
| 3.3.5 Develop and demonstrate recycle/recovery reuse processes for chromates. |
|
|
|
|
| 3.3.6 Investigate use of fume suppressants in hard chromium baths. |
|
|
|
|
| 3.4.0 Develop reduced chromium processes: 3.4.1 Modified trivalent chromium conversion coatings. |
|
|
|
|
| 3.4.2 Modified low chromate conversion coatings. |
|
|
|
|
| 3.4.3 No-rinse chromate conversion coatings. |
|
|
|
|
| 3.4.4 Modified (low chromium) anodizing baths and etching solutions. |
|
|
|
|
| 3.4.5 Trivalent hard chromium electroplating baths. |
|
|
|
|
| 3.4.6 Trivalent chromium brush plating solutions. |
|
|
|
|
| 3.4.7 Non-chromate corrosion inhibitors. |
|
|
|
|
| 3.5.0 Develop alternative materials and processes (Any work in this area must consider the new waste products (quantities and dangers). Many alternatives create more by-products than the original processes (e.g., hard chrome alternatives). When comparing existing chromium processes to non-chromium processes, state-of-the-art chromium processes should be used, not 1940's versions). |
|
|
|
|
| 3.5.1 Alternatives for chromium plating processes. |
|
|
|
|
| 3.5.2 Alternatives for chromic acid anodizing. |
|
|
|
|
| 3.5.3 Chromium-free conversion coatings for steels, aluminum and zinc. |
|
|
|
|
| 3.5.4 Stripping of chromium coatings without generating hexavalent chromium. |
|
|
|
|
| 3.5.5 Chromium-free corrosion inhibitors. |
|
|
|
|
|
4.0.0 Cyanide Projects
4.1.0 Investigate recycle/reuse for existing cyanide based baths. 4.1.1 Study the optimization of existing baths for recovery and recycle of cyanide-containing solutions and chemicals. Drag-out tanks are often the simplest and least expensive method of recovery. |
|
|
|
|
| 4.1.2 Evaluate polymer filtration for recovery and recycle. |
|
|
|
|
| 4.2.0 Alternatives. Evaluate substitute baths as they enter the market--e.g., as used on zinc-based diecastings. 4.2.1 Develop a protocol for comparing substitutes for cyanide-based baths. |
|
|
|
|
| 4.3.0 Analytical methods. Develop improved analytical procedures for total and especially amenable cyanide in water and solid wastes. 4.3.1 Determine whether complexed cyanide in F-006 wastes meet Hazardous Waste Identification Rule II (HWIR II) delisting requirements. |
|
|
|
|
| 4.3.2 Determine how low cyanide can be measured in a wastewater matrix. |
|
|
|
|
| 4.4.0 Cyanide environmental impact. Investigate environmental impact of complexed cyanide in F-006 waste under present stabilization/disposal practices. |
|
|
|
|
| 4.5.0 Develop low cyanide process solutions. |
|
|
|
|
|
5.0.0 Rapid Verification Protocol Development
5.1.0 Develop a rapid verification protocol that would provide information on technology performance, cost and maintenance requirements on which companies could base decisions to pursuer technologies. The RVP would result in a report that would be made available to interested parties. A process could be set up, perhaps with EPA authorization, to verify individual protocol results. |
|
|
|
|
|
6.0.0 Slow Verification Protocol Development
6.1.0 Develop a protocol similar to the above, but requiring longer term follow-up of technologies, for example, at one and two years after installation. |
|
|
|
|
|
7.0.0 Wastewater Treatment Projects 7.1.0 The following research projects address electroplating wastewater treatment issues. In particular, they focus on evaluating the process by which ferric ions used in wastewater treatment are generated in situ using electroplating methods. 7.1.1 Determine if the in situ generation of ferric ion solutions represents a viable wastewater treatment system. |
|
|
|
|
| 7.1.2 Evaluate the effectiveness of in situ systems. Answer the question, "Can a simple electrochemical technique be used as part of a treatment process that will reduce metal effluent loadings in wastewater?" |
|
|
|
|
| 7.1.3 Generate a cost model that reflects both the risks and the benefits of the in situ control technology. |
|
|
|
|
| 7.1.4 Conduct a demonstration project at an operational plating facility to evaluate the technology. |
|
|
|
|
| 7.2.0 Conduct a demonstration of the "Electroflotation" electrolysis process developed in Russia. |
|
|
|
|
| 7.3.0 Investigate biotreatment methods for cyanide. |
|
|
|
|
|
8.0.0 Emissions Characterization
Characterization of air emissions from plating baths is needed for both compliance purposes and to better evaluate risk. Emissions modeling based on emissions sampling is needed for Toxic Release Inventory reporting. The data collected could also support risk characterization studies for estimating worker health and safety, community health, and ecological risks. |
|
|
|
|
|
9.0.0 Risk Characterization Contributors to this research plan often voiced concern that there is not enough data or risk characterization to support regulations. More research is needed to help establish risk levels; better understanding of risks imposed by emissions would help prioritize future research projects. |
|
|
|
|
| 10.0.0 Offsite Metals Recovery Processes Several plan contributors recommended that the plan consider the need for metals, acid, and cleaner recovery processes that are on-site or off-site, but not necessarily in-process (in-process meets the pollution prevention (P2) definition). Membrane systems, ion exchange, evaporation, and electrolytic systems were mentioned as in need of demonstration for metals recovery. Demonstration of acid recovery from pickling solutions was pointed to as an especially important need. |
|
|
|
|
| 11.0.0 Technical Assistance Projects 11.1.0 Develop a series of short, well researched, peer-reviewed articles on the selection and use of simple technologies for improved environmental performance for each of the major metal finishing operations that utilize the materials of concern discussed in this plan. |
|
|
|
|
| 11.2.0 Within every State that has a significant number of metal finishers, develop one or more locations (NIST manufacturing extension center, State pollution prevention technical assistance office, large metal finisher or client company) where small metal finishers can go to get computer access to the National Metal Finishing Resource Center and assistance in posing the right questions and using the answers from the Center. |
|
|
|
|
| 12.0.0 Nickel Exposure Data Collection |
|
|
|
|
|
13.0.0 Development/EPA acceptance of alternate minimum reported level (alternative to using minimum detection limit) using multipoint curve fitting techniques which incorporate standard deviations or other alternative acceptable to all stakeholders. |
|
|
|
|
| 14.0.0 Develop generic life cycle cost model. |
|
|
|
|
| 15.0.0 Develop environmentally friendly strippers |
| Previous | Next | Table of Contents |