National Pollution Prevention Center
for Higner Eaucation - . ....
.. Ooc # 34-3
Mara- :
EPA/742/K-94/002
CASE STUDY
Environmental
Engineering
Degreaser Replacement at
Ford Motor Company's
Climate Control Division
Prepared by Adam Larky
Pollution, Prevention Intern
National Pollution_PreventiorfCenter "
The University of Michigan ..." - . .
BACKGROUND
Ford Motor Company's Climate Control Division (CCD) recently completed a demonstration
project with the Quality Environmental Management (OEM) Subcommittee of the President's Com-
mission on Environmental Quality (PCEQ). The project demonstrated how pollution prevention and
, Total Quality Management (TQM) work together to reduce the environmental.impact of a process,
while at the same time providing a product that meets customers' needs. The pilot project under-
taken by the CCD tested the replacement of Trichtoroethylene (TCE) degreasers with aqueous
degreaser units.
. " The CCD uses degreasers to remove oils and other contamination from aluminum heat
exchangers found in radiators and heater cores. Heat exchangers are manufactured from stamped
aluminum. In the stamping and assembly processes, oils are used to get the desired shape and fit.
These processes deposit aluminum and dirt particles along with a surface oil residue. During
assembly, heat exchangers are brazed to form an aluminum film which joins the different compo-
nents of the part. To be brazed properly, the part must be as free of contamination as possible.
therefore, some sort of degreasing operation is required to decontaminate the part. Previously,
TCE vapors were used to remove the oils and other contaminants from the part. Figure 1 shows
. TCE vapor degreasing units previously used by CCD.
This degreasing process had many inherent problems.'.To begin with, TCE is a hazardous
substance whose emissions, are closely regulated. The TCE degreasers required close supervision
7 National Pollution Prevention Center. University of Michigan
Dana Bids-430 E. University. Ann Arbor, Ml 48109-11.15
'! ' ; . Printed on recycled paper
-------
ฃ-, -zera c-g "eerrg
Dob
Monorail with
Baskets
Drying Zone
Trichloroethylene Tanks
Counter Flow
Oil &TCE Waste
Hazardous
Water
To Sewer
Figure 1. TCE Vapor Degreaser Unit , .
.from a team of skilled operators. Additionally, the escape of TCE vapors from a degreaser
almost always required a costly evacuation of the production facility and could potentially
shut down operations for a number of hours, Finally, there were questions about TCE's
effectiveness in removing contamination from the surface of the parts.
AQUEOUS DECREASING SELECTION PROCESS
The CCD Advanced Engineering (AE) Staff designs and tests new processes and
technologies that could improve existing operations, and it also develops manufacturing
techniques for new products. AE is guided by a steering committee of representatives
from its customer base, which includes CCD facilities worldwide, product engineering staff,
manufacturing engineering staff, and division management. The steering committee sets
the goals, priorities, and resource commitments for all AE Staff projects.
In early 1990 the AE Staff, along with the steering committee, realized that worker
health and safety could be improved by replacing TCE degreasers with a less hazardous
2
-------
_ -'. -' ' ' ."'.' D'oc *
' Engineering ..-.-. - ' _
Case 5:-cy.
process. Such a substitution could also reduce .environmental costs. As Ford corporate staff
identified the sources of solvent releases in the U.S., the AE Staff realized that CCD's TCE
degreasers accounted for a substantial portion of the entire company's chlorinated solvent .emis-
.siohs. '-.. ' , :.'.'
Investigation of a new brazing technique contributed to the replacement of TCE degreasers.
In the new process, the surface of the heat exchangers degreased with TCE required additional
preparations. Despite this, the new technique was attractive because it offered CCD a better,
simpler braze compared to the current process, especially if an improved degreasing operation
could eliminate much of the additional preparations. Finally, CCD anticipated that a new degreasing
process would reduce production costs;
At the time of the initial decision to explore alternate degreasing techniques, the AE Staff
integrated quality techniques into their project evaluation process through a process evaluation flow
chart. They later realized they were also working on a pollution-prevention project, aimed at lower-
ing the toxicity of the degreasing process.
CCD's AE Staff committed an engineer to the project to decide which technology should be
tested as a potential replacement for the TCE degreasers. As a starting point, CCD's degreasing
operation was benchmarked against similar operations. Benchmarking researches techniques
currently used by other companies involved in similar operations and establishes a scale for com-
paring and contrasting alternatives in order to identify areas of improvement. One can thus com-
pare one's own process to others.as well as learn what other experimenters have determined to be
feasible processes. Benchmarking also offers the opportunity to avoid costly mistakes that others
r may have already committed. As can often be the case, the technique was limited by the fact that
CCD competes for business against outside suppliers. As a result, it was often difficult to get
detailed informationI about how competitors were undertaking a particular operation.
Even so, benchmarking helped identify a number of technologies that merited further
investigation. Forthose technologies, prospective equipment and chemical suppliers were asked to
submit further information about their products. Bench testing of available chemicals was also
performed to ensure compatibility with the aluminum. Along with benchmarking, this initial testmg
fed the engineer and the steering committee to choose aqueous degreasing for pilot testing.
Once aqueous degreasing was selected, the engineer had to select what type of cleaning
process should be used. Three choices were available: '
1. Immersion cleaning . --.-.--.
2. Ultrasonic cleaning
3. High pressure spray cleaning .
Immersion cleaning and ultrasonic cleaning were eliminated from the potential list because
they were either incompatible with the heat exchangers or they were not yet a reliable technology.
-------
?eerrg : . , . ' ' Decs 94-^
High-pressure spray represented the best aqueous technology because most of its effectiveness
derives from mechanical rather than chemical action. .,
Because pilot testing requires a production setting, CCD selected i'ts Shelddn Road plant in
Plymouth, Michigan to be the test site. This plant is within twenty miles of most of the company's
research and engineering resources. Plant personnel would be involved with the equipment at their
site, so they were asked to participate in the evaluation process. At this point, a Quality Action
Team (QAT) was formed to facilitate the flow of information between individuals working on the
project, including the Advanced Engineering Staff, the'diviston representatives, the plant representa-
tives, and the suppliers. ' ' .
To ensure that the plant would not suffer financial detriment by hosting the pilot study/funds
were allocated to cover any maintenance expenses and to pay the Sheldon Road employees to act
as loaders and unloaders on the test apparatus. Because plants are, held financially accountable for
their operations, they are usually unwilling to take risks which may hurt profitability. But when
division or corporate management is willing to bear the risk, company operations are more willing to
try something new. Corporate assumption of financial risk has been used throughout Ford as a
'means to initiate a number of pollution prevention programs.
After selecting the high-pressure spray aqueous degreaser, a small-scale trial was con-
ducted at an equipment supplier's facility. This trial validated the compatibility of the technology and
also offered an opportunity to test some of the available cleaners in a "production type" system.
AE then conducted its own trials using a bench scale washer to replicate the production
process. By setting up a bench-scale washer, CCD was able to avoid many of the expenses that
could arise if a mistake occurred during production. The first advantage to working in bench scale is
that the technology can be evaluated with a minimum investment. Should the technology prove
inadequate, it can be abandoned at this point without a major loss. The second advantage of using
bench-scale testing is that a wide variety of substances can be tested without incurring large costs,
especially from wasted samples. What often happens is that a drum of material is purchased and a
sample from it islested. If the material is unsatisfactory, it must either be returned to the supplier (if
they will accept it) or property disposed, which is often rather expensive. But when bench-scale
testing is performed, a five gallon pail of the material will normally be sufficient, and such small a
quantities are often provided gratis by sales representatives. Testing then consumes all the material
or leaves such a small volume of unused product that proper disposal is not difficult.
The aqueous degreasing program also requires a cleaner, so approximately a dozen
different chemicals were evaluated for this purpose. The cleaners were divided into groups based
qn their pH. The three groups were:
Strong alkaline cleaners (pH > 13)
Moderate/mild alkaline cleaners (7
-------
Engineering
Case Study , '
Due to the incompatible,, aggressive nature of the strong alkaline and acidic cleaners, both
-groups-were eliminated from'future consideration. Of the moderate/mild alkaline candidates, testing
showed that the moderate alkaline-cleaners provided the best part quality. The cleaners' perfor-
mance was measured using five main parameters. ' -
1. Oxide layer thicknessAn oxide layer inhibits the brazing process; therefore cleaners which
promoted oxide growth were eliminated.
2 Residual carbon contamination This offers a measure of the amount of oil removed from
the part. All cleaners tested exceeded the level of cleanliness that the vapor degreaser
.. provides. . -'...- ,
3. Aluminum surface attack Etching removes a portion of the aluminum cladding, which can
adversely affect brazing; therefore this property was kept to a minimum.
4. Surface wetability Surface wetability offers a measure of how well water-based brazing
materials will work. All attempts were made to maximize this parameter. _
5.- Oil rejection and treatability All cleaners were evaluated to ensure that they formed
unstable.erhulsions with the oil so that the oil could be recovered.Additionally ,to makethe
aqueous system as simple as possible, the cleaners had to be dischargeable to the sewer
system without further treatment.
After these live properties were used to decrease the number of cleaners, low volume
production trials were performed to rank the remaining cleaners. With the ranking established, large
volume trials were conducted until a suitable cleaner was found. These production trials demon-
strated that the effectiveness of the cleaners is influenced by temperature, concentration, and time
of contact.
Upon completion of the low-volume production trials, a pilot system was purchased. The
pilot process was a scaled-down version of the production system. The decreasing unit featured'
three-stage processing, with individual stages for a pre-wash, a detergent wash, and an overflowing
rinse. The equipment included blowers to minimize drag-out and cross contamination between
stages. Attached to the prewash was an oil decant system capable pf recovering more than 99% of
the free oil without the use of chemicals. Finally, the system contained a drying unit to remove all
moisture from the part. The pilot unit was capable of washing 100 radiators per hour, a fraction of
the production level. The unit was installed at Sheldon Road in January of 1992, two years after the
start of the project. As testing progressed, evaluation of cleaners continued. Some of. the cleaners
which performed well in small trials were unable to withstand production conditions, and had to be
eliminated. Figure 2 is a schematic of the pilot system.
System characteristics of the pilot unit were monitored and recorded. These data were
used to determine operating costs, Chemical usage, control requirements, waste treatment issues,
utility usage, and best operating practices. The data allowed AE to tell its facilities what was in-
volved with the new process and predict the costs of operating a production-unit. These data also
confirmed that the basic goals of pollution prevention were achieved.
-------
ฃ~g -eenng
Doc * 94-
Load
End
Recirculating
B low-Off
Spray
Nozzles
\
11JUL
Final Blow-Off
Dry Air Knives
^-
Unload
End
Waste Oil
Rinse Overflow
To Sewer
Figure 2. Pilot Aqueous Degreaser System
The pilot testing, completed in July 1992, demonstrated the success of aqueous
degreasing. The aqueous system proved that it provided more cleaning at a lower cost than the
TCE vapor degreasing system. By changing the process, a hazardous substance was removed
' from the plant, improving both health and safety as well as the plant's environmental impact. Plus, it
was possible to recover the used oil for reclamation. Finally, the pilot work showed that aqueous
degreasing is an easily controlled process.
' ' The equipment used in the, pilot process was returned to the manufacturer for retrofitting.
After this, the machine entered full production at CCD's Connersville, Indiana plant. Monitoring will
continue to provide long-term data on the process. Improvements will also be tested, including an
examination of ultrafiltration to enhance emulsified oil recovery and decrease cleaner usage.
The President's Commission on Environmental Quality
Ford Motor Company Joined the President's Commission on Environmental Quality in 1991
and was'active on the Quality .Environmental Management (QEM) subcommittee. The subcommit-
tee was charged with developing procedures that companies can use to implement QEM. In order
to carefully develop the procedures, twelve projects from eleven companies were solicited to act as
demonstration projects. The leaders of these projects were required to describe their quality
process and how they measured results. They were also asked to identify barriers and incentives to
-------
ngineering
Dec * 94.3
GEM and pollution prevention. Ford selected the aqueous degreaser project when asked to provide
a demonstration project, f: _-,.' : .
the PCEQ had previously,developed.a theoretical flow chart outlining the procedures a
company should use to undertake.pollution prevention projects. The PCEQ flow chart, shown in> *'
Figure 3, closely resembles a standard Total Quality Management (TQM) flow chart. Because Ford
had been using quality principles-for a number of years, the process evaluation flow chart used by
CCb AE also closely resembled the PCEQ ftow chart. .
:,^\
Communicate 1
Performance ,
^
A
: " X
Measure 1
Results
^ -Jr
; "N
Implement
Improvements
A
;-r-= : * X
Recommend ]
Projects
J
.^i Forma
!^
*
:
OAT ^\
Team
X . . >
__^^fldenrify, Collect^ & Develop Proce
x
/ & S
Empower Team
Members
&
'' Estabh'sh Common
GoaWision
&
Consider External
Members/Customers
'-
r^Do the Obvious
V ^
(^ Ecor
Evalu
V
lomic
lations
-..
1
K
Review Data j Flow Diagram
v _ J^
, T
[ Criteria to ED M
I Streams j
x^ ,J
f - '
S *\
{ ED Materials of |
1 Concern J
f
^Marmw 55rrp.am |^
1 List v I
f -"'
'f ~^\ f
i Brainstorm ]-^4 Defer Marg
Projects J l^ .Options
!
:
;ss .
5 . -'
.
inal j
Figures. PCEQ Ftow Chart
The PCEQ demonstration project began in the middle of the aqueous degreaser pilot
project. Therefore much of the information gathered for the PCEQ was generated under normal
conditions and not affected by the attention the PCEQ brought to the project. Because the PCEQ
project at Ford was guided by the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Harold Polling, and the
7
-------
=-.;-'e-'2 E-g -ee'T
:*ป =-=. '
.Doc's i--/
Vice Pres.dent for Environmental and Safety Engineering, Helen Petrauskas,, resources that nor:
mally would not be available were dedicated to this project. ... .
Forming cross-functional teams is the first step in any TQM endeavor. These teams are
referred to by the PCEQ as'Quality Action Teams ,(QAT). A QAT is supposed to use all the'knowl-
edge and resources available to team members. Ideally, this pooled insight helps the team avoid
many of the pitfalls that can occur in projects relying on a narrow range of expertise. QAT members
' should include all stakeholders in a project, whether they are customers, engineers, product design-
efs,'vendors, or others.
Advanced Engineering normally forms QATs with representatives from vendors, the plants;
the division and other necessary resources such as the Research Laboratory. Due to the sensrtive
and technical nature of process modifications, public representatives usually do not participate ,n the
decision-making process. But because of the attention brought to this project by the PCEQ, com-
munrty members were invited to join the team.. The State of Michigan Office of Waste Reduction
Services and the Southeastern Michigan Council of Governments both provided representatives. .
The QAT was very pleased to have these representatives, who provided a community perspective
and valuable technical assistance. By viewing the community as a customer, Ford has shown there
is a great potential for mutual benefit in such projects.
The high-profile nature of this project undoubtedly energized the QAT. The enthusiasm of
Helen Petrauskas especially encouraged others, reinforcing the belief that a project has a greater
chance of success with the support of management. Experience seems to indicate that top man-
agement support is also critical to the success of pollution prevention projects.
' Ultimately Ford's experience with the aqueous degreaser project was combined with the
eleven other projects to provide a blueprint for other companies to follow. One of the most important
. ' findings is that pollution prevention and TQM are complementary activities. A second finding is that
' a financial incentive such as pollution credits would hasten the pace of pollution prevention proiects.
in January 1993, the PCEQ issued a report, entitled Total Quality Management: A Frame-
work for Pollution Prevention. Using the experiences of Ford and the eleven other participating
facilities the report provides a guide for companies interested in developing their own pollution .
prevention programs using TQM. Included in Appendix A of this report is the PCEQ Executive
'Summary, which highlights the twelve projects and some of the key findings.
-------
.Environmental Engineering " ' , . - ... . . Doc # 94-3
Casa Sv^dy . , ' ' ' : '
.. . Key findings of the PCEQ were: ' /
TQM and pollution prevention are complementary'concepts , ; .
Pollution prevention can be achieved without large capital investments
There is no universal, method to measure progress in pollution prevention
Systematic and rigorous analyses are the basis for any pollution prevention project, but
flexibility is required in application
Understanding the potential incentives and barriers to a pollution prevention project can add
to the success of the project (PCEQ, pp. ix-x)
.' "Management commitment is crucial to the success of a QEM system" (PCEQ, p. 16)
A successful pollution prevention program using TQM-can achieve many, benefits. The
following positive results were illustrated by the twelve PCEQ projects:
Potential cost savings . . . . .
Advances in technological innovation
Increased public acceptance of the facility
Improved relationships with regulators
Increased recognition for individuals and teams . .
Safer working conditions .
However, before any pollution prevention project is undertaken, one should be aware of the
following barriers to using pollution prevention with TQM:
Resources for any project are limited
Many may prefer business as usual
vซ Management and employees may be unaware of the benefits of pollution prevention
Accounting systems do not measure environmental costs or values, so the true gains of any
project may not be known
Fear of compromising product quality or production efficiency
Technological limitation (PCEQ, pp. 8-11)
The PCEQ project has identified a number of TQM tools and techniques that helped make
the twelve projects successful. These tools and techniques, currently used in most TQM programs,
include: ; ,
Cause and Effect (or Fishbone) Diagrams
Control Charts
Histograms
Pareto Charts . .
Flowcharts .
A complete description of the different tools and techniques as well as how to implement
each are included in Appendix B.
-------
ฃ-. -C- a~',a Erg -eerng
Case S:^ซT
Doo * 3-1-
REFERENCE
President's Commission on Environmental Quality (PCEQ), Quality Environmental Manage-
ment Subcommittee. Total Quality Management: A Framework for Pollution Prevention. Washington,
DC: Executive Office of the President,1993.
. DiscussFon Questions ' .
BUSINESS . .
. What costs should be attributed to an existing/proposed process and how .should they.be accounted
for?
Direct
- Environmental audits -
- Chemical/raw material costs
- Operating supplies
-Waste
- Utilities
-Labor
- Cleaning and maintenance
Indirect
-Liability
- Episodic events (i.e., plant shutdowns)
- Health and safety
- Community image
- Changes in quality
- Changes in costs of processes down the line
attributed to the process being evaluated
. At what point does a project which has many positive benefits but only marginal cost savings become
good for the bottom line?
. What value does increased quality have when it does not increase the value to the customer?
NATURAL RESOURCES POLICY/POLITICAL SCIENCE
. Why should companies undertake pollutton preventton acuities K they only yield marginal to negat.ve
cost savings?
- What value does a cleaner environment have to a company t _
. Who are the customers and stakeholders to a pollution prevention project?
(e.g., a few pounds of TCE per part vs. many pounds of water per part?)
ENGINEERING .
How clean is clean in terms of part cleanliness?
How should cost projections- be made? .
How valid are the results from a pilot study?
How would you make an aqueous washer a closed system?
1 Who should be included on a cross-functional team? reduction enaineer's? Middle
Whose job is pollutton prevention? The environmental eng.neer s? The product.on eng.neer .
. "management's? ' ,
10
-------
Er.y'>-onm,er.ta! Engineering ; , -' ' .- , Doc.*'9
-------
E"ซ c--"e^!a E"gineermg
Case S'-cy
3 A deteraent from Clean Brite is used in the wash tank at a initial concentration of 4% by volume. The detergent
costs $20 00 per gallon. How much soap is required for each filling of the wash tank and at what cost? How
much soap will be used in a year and at what cost? What will be the cost for the soap per part?.
Volume of soap
filling
Cost of soap
filling
Volume of soap
year
= Concentration soap X Volume of wash tank
= 4% X 500 gal.
20 gal.
" filling
Volume of soap Y Cosr of soap
filling gallon
20 gal. Y $20. 00
filling gallon ,
$400
filling
number of fillings volume of soap:
Cost of soap
year
_
year
50 fillings y 20 gal.
~ year A filling
1000 gal.
^ year
Volume of soap y Cost of soap
year gallon
1 0OP gal. x $20.00
year .gallon
$20000
filling
Cost of soap
part
cost of soap _,_ number of pans
year * year
50.044
' year
$20000 r vear
year 450000 parts
4. What is the annual costfor water and chemicals when using the Cfean Brite system? What is the cost per part?
Total cost
year'
Total cost
part
total cost of water total cost of chemicals
year + year
$6260.63 $20000
' year + year
$26260.63
year
cost of water cost of chemicals
part : + part
$0.014 $0.044
' part + part
part
12
-------
'. Er'vror.mentai Engineering
4SA Case 3'tucy
Dob 4 9
-------
Case Stucy
Doc * 9-i />
Volume of soap required for 4 initial charges =
= number, of charges X volume of soap per charge
4 charges y 10 pal. _ 40 gal.
s year charge year
Volume of soap to maintain 2%
Total volume of soap
year
number of parts
year part
450000 parts x Q.al.
s . year 250 parts
1800 gal.
year
. Volume of soap for initial charges + Volume of
soap to maintain concentration
40 gal. 1800 gal.
= year + year
1840 gal.
year .
Annual cost of soap
Total volume of soap
year
1840 gal.
~ year " gal.
cost of soap
gal.
Cost of soap
part
year
annual cost of soap / annual part production
312800
years
year 450000 parts
pan
Total annual cost
Annual cost of water + Annual cost of soap
$6089.85 $12800
year year
S18889.8S
year
Cost per part' = total annual cost/annual part production
$18889.85 y year
year 450000 parts
part
TUB Squeaky Chemical system should tie used because of its lower cost and lower
requirements for water and chemicals.
14
-------
). Engineering ''';" .'' Doc * S4-3
ase S',-c,y
Production Unit ' ' ' ' ' ' , - ^
6 Congratulations! The pilot aqueous degreaser was such a success that corporate management has approved
the purchase of a production unit. The unit will be capable of cleaning 2,100,000 parts per year. The tank
sizes are: . ' ..'.'''-'.. .' " . /
Pre-wash tank 1,400 gal. . . .'
; Wash 1 ,250 gal. ' . . ', \. . ,-."
" Rinse 1,300 gal.
The tanks will be drained and cleaned four times a year. . the rinse tank overflows at 7.5 gpm. The finance
department has asked you to estimate the volume of water and. soap used per year. Additionally, they want
the cost of the water and soap per year and the total '.cost per year. Use the soap concentration of the Squeaky
Chemical system. . , - . .
. Annual volume of tankfills=numb^f fi"S X volume of tanks '",- .-
' ''.'' - 4- times x(i4oo + f250 + 1300 gal.) . ' ' ;
'.''' '/ ...-''.- 15800 gal. - .".- ' .- " '.- ; .
: . "'/. ; .,; = . : year - ' ' ' - '. , " .
Annual volume of overflow = ffow rate of overflow X year
7.5 gal. ' 60 min 24hrs y5 days x 50 weeks
= min lv day : week year r
2700000 gal.
."..-. . "' ' '' s. - year ; .. '""'''':.'. "'''
Total annual volume of water = volume of tank fills + volume of overflow
15800 gal. 2700000 gal.
~ year * year
2715800031.
' ' ' . '-'-. :'*'- year . .;. . '-.* - - '.
Total water costs total volume of water ^ ir;Jfcr n^0
year "
2715800 gal. y $2.25
- year 1000 gal.
H10.55
year
Volume of soap required for each initial charge, -
* percent soap X tank volume
= 2%Xl250gai.
= 25 gal.
Volume of soap required for 4 initial charges **,
m number of charges X volume of soap per charge
.4 charges x 25 gal.
~ year . charge
top gal.
15
-------
Case S:-cy
Doc * 94-3
number of parts yga/.
Volume of soap to maintain 2/0 = year A part
2100000 parts y
-------
E-.virenr.ef.ai Engineering
Case Stocy
Doc"'* 94-3
Production Unit
costofw9ter_ / production rate
Unit cost of water-= year
* year X 2100000 parts
:'/ ; =*fr ..
' costofs^3p_/producti0n rate
Unit-cost of soap = year -r -
: J0.028.
=
-
21 00000 parts
total cost/rrn^,,r.tion rate
Total unit cost, = year
- - year ~X 2100000 parts
All these costs decrease
pans.
17
-------
E_t .s~~e-T3. E-g -eenng
Case 3:^Sy
Doc #-9-i-2
8 The toxicology department uses an analytical system called the toxicology index to rate the toxicity of chemicals
' in the environment The system involves multiplying the total quantity of a substance used in the process by
a weighting factor for that particular substance. Compare the toxicology index of the aqueous production
process with a TCE unit of the same capacity. What does the toxicology index indicate about pollution
prevention?-
The density of water is 8.3 Ibs.- per gallon and of the soap is 8.0 Ibs. per gallon. The TCE production unit uses 1.8
X 106 Ibs. of TCE annually. The toxicology numbers are:
Substance Weighting factor (Ibs/1)
TCE : 16 ' ' _ '_ " .
. water 1 ' .
soap " 1.2 ,
Note: TheweightingfactorsweredeveloPedoniyforthisproblemset.lnconsultingpractice,toxicityevaluations
are considerably more complicated.
TCE Unit
Aqueous Unit
. Tox Number X Wt. of TCE
= 16 lbs.-1X1.8X106 Ibs.
= 2.88X107
m Tox Number of Water X Wt of Water
+ Tox Number of Soap X Wt of Soap
= 11bs. -1 X 2715800 gat X &JJ&- + l.2lbs. -1 X 8500 gal X-^
- 2.26-X 107
Percent Difference
TCE Unit
aqueous unit
2.05X 107
127%
One can see that even though the aqueous process produces more waste, *he*'*r** ln
toxicity more than compensates. Therefore, H Is possible to make a process change which both
results In cost savings and reduces environmental Impacts.
18
-------
Environmental Engineering Case Study Problem Set
^ccarf 'in-a vear with the pilot unit if it averages 75 parts per hour? Assume
;-1-lSX^(S^^jr^ซS^w'dw- ; - "-
P"otUn" the total volume of water used by the pitotunitjn one year.; The tanks sizes are:,
Pre-wash tank 650 gal. -
Wash 500 gal.
. The rinse tank overflows at 7.5 gpm. Assume
no evaporative loses.. - . ,
per part? '. " '
4. Wha,is,heannua,cos.ซ=rwa,erandchemicaisซhenus,ngซheC1eanBmes,s,em? What is the cos,
per part? -
5. Squeaky 0!eanere has ^^S^^^^^S^^^''^^
Their detergent requires only four tank tins a yea^. 11 ^o g can washed wrth
maintained at 2.00% by volume. Previous ^g^?*JT Compare the costs for the Squeaky
each gallon of this cleaner. The c'ฎaneirฐ^^* BarUo the values calculated in Questions 3 and 4.
SSSeS^anS uW tuK goals o. poaution prevemkm in terms ol mMmUng.
the amount of materials. . ,
^^!S^tt&$SS&-
^T;rasฃrซ': -i-ซซ*v':.
Wash 1,250 gal.
=5feS3^3ฃs38Sr-
concentration of the Squeaky. Chemical system.
using Squeaky Chemical's soap. Comment on
-------
8, The toxicology department uses an analytical system called the toxicology index to rate the toxicity of
chemicals in the environment. The system involves multiplying the total quantity of a substance used in
the process by a weighting factor for that particu'ar substance. Compare the toxicology index of the
aqueous production process with a TCE'unit of the same capacity. What does the toxicology index
indicate about pollution prevention? .
The density of water is 8.3 Ibs. per gallon and the soap is 8.0 Ibs, per gallon. The TCE production unit.uses
1.8 X 106 Ibs. of TCE annually. The toxicology numbers are:
Substance Weighting factor (Ibs."1)
TCE . . 16 . . . " . ,
water. ' 1 ,
soap- 1.2 '
Note: The weighting factors were developed only for this problem set. In consulting practice, toxicity
evaluations are considerably more complicated. ,
------- |