POLLUTION PREVENTION ALTERNATIVES
FOR PUBLIC WORKS CENTER (TRANSPORTATION)
WASTE FLUIDS AT NAVAL STATION MAYPORT
by
Southern Research Institute
Birmingham, AL 35255
and
Pacific Environmental Services, Inc.
Mason, OH 45040
EPA Contract No. 68-D2-0062
Work Assignment 1/32, Task 2
PROJECT OFFICER
N. Theresa Hoagland
Sustainable Technology Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
NATIONAL RISK MANAGEMENT RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
CONTACT
I
Terri Hoagland is the EPA contact (for this report. She is presently with the newly
organized National Risk Management Research Laboratory's new Sustainable Technology
Division in Cincinnati, OH (formerly the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory) The
National Risk Management Research Laboratory is headquartered in Cincinnati OH and is
now responsible for research conducted by! the Sustainable Technology Division in Cincinnati
-------
DISCLAIMER
|
The information in this document has been funded wholly or hi part by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency under Contract 68-D2-0062 to Southern Research Institute.
It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review, and it has been approved
for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
n
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress with protecting the
Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under ia mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency
strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities
and the ability of natural systems to support anid nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research
program is providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and
building a science knowledge base necessary t6 manage our ecological resources wisely, understand
how pollutants affect our health, and prevent! or reduce environmental risks in the future.
(
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory is the Agency's center for investigation
of technological and management approaches fpr reducing risks from threats to human health and the
environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on methods for the prevention and
control of pollution to air, land, water and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public
water systems ; remediation of contaminated sites and ground water; and prevention and control of
indoor air pollution. The goal of this research) effort is to catalyze development and implementation
of innovative, cost-effective environmental technologies; develop scientific and engineering
information needed by EPA to support regulatory and policy decisions; and provide technical support
and information transfer to ensure effectivjs implementation of environmental regulations and
strategies. I
i
i
This publication has been produced as: part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research
plan. It is published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the
user community and to link researchers with |heir clients.
i
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
[National Risk Management Research Laboratory
111
-------
ABSTRACT
[
I
This report summarizes the recommended pollution prevention alternatives resulting
from an investigation of operations at the Public Works Center - Transportation Division
(PWC-T) at Naval Station Mayport, located near Jacksonville Beach, Florida. The PWC-T
provides maintenance support for vehicles and other pieces of equipment that are used at the
Naval Station. j
I
This report recommends that an ^)il sampling and by-pass filtration pilot study be
initiated on two large pieces of equipment^ such as a bulldozer and a road grader. The pilot
study is recommended to confirm that the (number of motor oil changes, and hence motor oil
usage, can be reduced significantly through implementation of an oil sampling program and
installation of by-pass filtration units on eaqh piece of equipment. The study also recommends
that an antifreeze recycling unit be obtained by the PWC-T to evaluate the merits of recycling
the spent radiator fluid and reducing waste generation. Finally, the report recommends that an
automatic parts washer be obtained for testing by the PWC-T to replace the four parts washing
stations used to manually clean parts with the PD-680 solvent.
i
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract Number 68-D2-00062 by Southern
Research Corporation and Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. under the sponsorship of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. T^iis report covers a period from 7/27/94 to 9/30/94;
work was completed as of 9/30/94. I
! iv
i
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER J . ii
FOREWORD I " 'in
ABSTRACT , ! iv
vu
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES ! viii
I-
i
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .1 l-l
2.0 INTRODUCTION ' 2-1
! ' ' '
I
3.0 POLLUTION SOURCES INVESTIGATED 3-1
3.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION 3-1
3.2 LIQUID WASTE GENERATION, HANDLING, AND DISPOSAL .. 3-2
3.2.1 LIQUID WASjIE GENERATION . . 3-2
3.2.2 HANDLINGOF WASTE LIQUIDS . 3-3
3.2.3 DISPOSAL OF WASTE LIQUIDS 3-3
t
)N
4.0 POLLUTION PREVENTION ALTERNATIVES 4-1
4.1 PUBLIC WORKS CENTER - TRANSPORTATION 4-1
4.1.1 MOTOR OIL
4.1.2 HYDRAULIC
4-2
FLUID 4-9
4.1.3 TRANSMISSION FLUID 4-11
4.1.4 ANTIFREEZE . 4-12
4.1.5 PARTS WASHING ' . 4-12
4.2 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 4 4-17
5.0 COSTS AND BENEFITS Ol| POLLUTION PREVENTION
ALTERNATIVES | 5-1
5.1 PUBLIC WORKS CENTER - TRANSPORTATION . 5-1
5.1.1 MOTOR OIL j. . . . 5-1
5.1.2 HYDRAULICjAND TRANSMISSION FLUIDS 5-10
5.1.3 ANTIFREEZE 5-13
5.1.4 PARTS WASIpJG . 5-16
I .
6.0 RECOMMENDED POLLUTION PREVENTION ALTERNATIVES 6-1
-------
6.1 PUBLIC WORKS CENTER - TRANSPORTATION
6.1.1 MOTOR OIL
6.1.2 HYDRAULIC AND TRANSMISSION FLUIDS
6.1.3 ANTIFREEZE! . . . !
6.1.4 PARTS WASHING
6.2 SUMMARY !.
6-1
6-1
6-2
6-2
6-3
6-3
VI
-------
LISJT OF TABLES
TABLE 1.1:
TABLE 5.1:
TABLE 5.2:
TABLE 5.3:
TABLE 5.4:
TABLE 5.5:
TABLE 5.6:
TABLES.?:
TABLE 6.1:
SUMMARY OF POLLUTION PREVENTION ALTERNATIVES
FOR THE NAVAL STATION MAYPORT PWC-T 1-2
MOTOR OIL BY-PASS FILTRATION COST/BENEFIT
ANALYSIS: BASE CAJSE ASSUMPTIONS S-2
MOTOR OIL BY-PASS FILTRATION COST/BENEFIT
ANALYSIS: BULLDOZER ALTERNATE CASE
ASSUMPTIONS | 5_4
MOTOR OIL BY-PASS JFILTRATION COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS
AUTOMOBILE ALTERNATE CASE ASSUMPTIONS 5-5
HYDRAULIC FLUID BATCH RECYCLING COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS
BASE CASE ASSUMPTIONS 5_i {
HYDRAULIC FLUE) BATCH FILTRATION COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS-
ALTERNATE CASE .} ; 5_12
i
i
ENGINE COOLANT RECYCLING EQUIPMENT OVERVIEW 5-14
i • .
BETTER ENGINEERING PARTS WASHER COST ANALYSIS'
BASE AND ALTERNATE CASES 5.17
SUMMARY OF POLLUTION PREVENTION ALTERNATIVES
FOR THE NAVAL STATION MAYPORT PWC-T 6-4
Vll
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 3.1
FIGURE 4.1
FIGURE 4.2
FIGURE 4.3
FIGURE 4.4
FIGURE 4.5
FIGURE 4.6
FIGURE 4.7
FIGURE 5.1
FIGURE 5.2
FIGURE 5.3
j ' • Page
SAFETY KLEEN PARJTS WASHING STATION 3.4
EXAMPLE OIL SAMPLE ANALYSIS 4.4
BY-PASS FILTER INSTALLATION SCHEMATIC 4.6
(
EXAMPLE BY-PASS FJLTRATION INSTALLATIONS 4 7
j.
PLM PORTABLE FLUID PURIFIER 4_10
IN-VEHICLE RECYCLING OF ANTIFREEZE 4.13
i
BATCH RECYCLING 0F ANTIFREEZE 4_13
i
BETTER ENGINEERING JET WASHER 4_15
GULF CO AST BY-PASS FILTRATION: S10/HOUR DOWNTIME 5-7
| •
GULF COAST BY-PAS^S FILTRATION: S25/HOUR DOWNTIME 5-8
GULF COAST BY-PASjS FILTRATION: $50/HOUR DOWNTIME . . 5-9
Vlll
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report summarizes the recommended pollution prevention alternatives resulting
from an investigation of operations at the Public Works Center - Transportation Division
(PWC-T) at Naval Station Mayport, locate)! near Jacksonville Beach, Florida. The PWC-T
f
provides maintenance support for vehicles |and other pieces of equipment that are used at the
Naval Station.
This report recommends that an oil sampling and by-pass filtration pilot study be
initiated on two large pieces of equipment,! such as a bulldozer and a road grader. The pilot
i
study is recommended to confirm that the number of motor oil changes, and hence motor oil
usage, can be reduced significantly through implementation of an oil sampling program and
installation of by-pass filtration units on ea :h piece of equipment. The study also
recommends that an antifreeze recycling unit be obtained by the PWC-T to evaluate the
merits of recycling the spent radiator fluid jand reducing waste generation. Finally, the
report recommends that an automatic parts
washer be obtained for testing by the PWC-T to
replace the four parts washing stations used to manually clean parts with the PD-680
solvent.
Each of these alternatives are recommended because of their potential to reduce
pollution as well as the economic advantages and cost savings that they generate. Table 1.1
presents each of the pollution prevention alternatives identified as well as those that are
recommended for implementation.
1-1
-------
TABLE 1.1: SUMMARY OF POLLUTION PREVENTION ALTERNATIVES
FOR THE NAVAL SJTATION MAYPORT PWC-T
Source of
Waste Stream
Alternative Identified
Recommended
Alternative
Notes
Motor Oil
Hydraulic
Fluid
Transmission
Fluid
Antifreeze
Parts Washing
Oil Sampling j
By-pass Filtration
j
Synthetic Oils
I
i '
By-pass Filtration
I
Batch Recycling
L
f
By-pass Filtration
i
Batch Recycling
Recycling
Automatic Parts Washer
Includes oil
sampling
* Recommended alternative
1-2
-------
2.0 INTRODUCTION
Since 1988, EPA's Waste Reduction Evaluations at Federal Sites (WREAFS)
Program has identified and promoted pollution prevention opportunities at Federal facilities,
i
including the Department of Defense (DoD) facilities in each of the three services and the
U.S. Coast Guard. This project is one of la series of pollution prevention studies conducted
under WREAFS. It was funded under thej Department of Defense Strategic Environmental
Research and Development Program (SERDP).
I
The purposes of this project were to: 1) develop a PPOA for non-aqueous liquid
wastes generated by the Public Works Ceriter - Transportation (PWC-T) at Naval Station
Mayport and 2) investigate base-wide rag jisage at the Naval Station to determine how and
where waste rags are generated. The non-jaqueous liquid wastes studied were used motor
oil, hydraulic fluid, transmission fluid, antifreeze, and waste solvent from the washing of
parts at the PWC-T. This report presents the results of the PPOA for the non-aqueous
liquid wastes. The results of the waste rag investigation are reported hi a separate report,
which is entitled "Investigation of Waste Rag Generation at Naval Station Mayport".
•
Including the executive summary (Chapter 1) and the introduction (Chapter 2), the
report contains six chapters. Chapter 3 describes the different non-aqueous liquids,
including solvent for parts cleaning, used at the PWC-T and how they are generated,
handled, and disposed. Chapter 4 presents pollution prevention alternatives that could be
utilized to reduce the generation of non-aqueous liquid wastes at the PWC-T. The chapter
discusses the benefits and problems created by implementation of each alternative. Chapter
5 discusses the economic costs and benefit^ of selected alternatives presented for PWC-T
fluids and parts washing. Finally, Chapter 6 summarizes the pollution prevention
alternatives considered and recommends selected alternatives for either implementation or
-------
pilot study to confirm the conclusions reached in the report. Chapter 6 also includes the
i
contacts at various companies who have indicated a willingness to work with the PWC-T in
implementing the recommended alternatives.
2-2
-------
3.0 POLLUTION
SOURCES INVESTIGATED
The mission of Naval Station Mayport is to provide support services for U.S. Navy
ships and helicopters that operate from the Mayport, Florida Naval facility. A significant
portion of the Naval Station's mission is
and sea-going vessels stationed at or visi
to provide maintenance services for the airborne
ing Mayport as well as hundreds of pieces of
equipment that support the aircraft and ships. Support equipment includes automobile and
truck fleets, road and light construction equipment, aircraft ground support equipment, and
marine support equipment.
The Transportation Division of ths Public Works Center (PWC-T) encompasses a
wide range of vehicle maintenance operations at Naval Station Mayport. The PWC-T's
mission is to provide maintenance service for the equipment used to support both shore-
based operations and the ships which frequent the Naval Station. The PWC-T provides
maintenance for a variety of equipment k eluding light and heavy duty trucks, automobiles,
buses, bulldozers, road graders, cranes, f :>rk lifts, power generators, overhead hoists, and
other heavy equipment used throughout tl e Naval Station. Currently, the PWC-T supports
671 pieces of equipment which hi turn support 12 ships based at Mayport.
3.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Activities that generate waste liquids within the PWC-T are typical of many
automobile maintenance and repair shops.
of motor oil, hydraulic fluid, transmissiorj
These activities involve the periodic replacement
fluid, and antifreeze, and the cleaning of parts
removed from the vehicle for repair. Most of the activities at the PWC-T generate liquid
wastes, with negligible air emissions. Parts washing, however, generates both air emissions
and liquid wastes. Air emissions occur vtfien the solvent is sprayed on to the parts placed in
3-1
-------
the wash tray and when parts are improperly drained of solvent. Liquid wastes are
generated as the solvent becomes dirty through repeated use.
i
3.2 LIQUID WASTE GENERATION, HANDLING, AND DISPOSAL
3.2.1 Liquid Waste Generation
The waste liquids generated at the
PWC-T are motor oil, hydraulic fluid,
transmission fluid, antifreeze, and waste solvent from parts cleaning. The amount of these
non-aqueous liquids handled by the PWC-
serviced. Purchase records indicate that 2
is a direct function of the volume of equipment
,838 gallons of motor oil, 564 gallons of
hydraulic fluid, 206 gallons of transmissiob fluid, and 441 gallons of antifreeze were
purchased by PWG-T in 1993. Approximately 2,640 gallons of PD-680 (a petroleum-
based, non-chlorinated solvent) are purchased through Safety Kleen each year to maintain
the four parts washing stations located in the PWC-T area. These purchase records can be
used to approximate the amount of waste liquids generated at the PWC-T. (Some small
amount may be lost due to spills.) .
As noted previously, the Mayport PWC-T currently services 671 different pieces of
equipment to support approximately 12 ships. Base consolidations over the next several
years, however, are anticipated to increase
the number of ships that Mayport will be
required to support to approximately 33. At a minimum, this is expected to double the
number of pieces of equipment PWC-T wi: 1 be required to maintain and, hi turn, to double
or at least significantly increase the amoun
The non-aqueous liquid wastes that
: of waste liquid generated at the PWC-T.
are generated at the PWC-T are primarily the
result of both scheduled and unscheduled maintenance activities. Military specifications
require that preventative maintenance be performed at certain, calendar-based intervals to
maintain the equipment in good condition.
result of breakdowns or accidents.
Repairs are also performed on equipment as a
3-2
-------
Unlike the generation of the spent
motor oil, hydraulic and transmission fluids, and
antifreeze, which occurs as these fluids aie replaced within the vehicle, waste solvent is
generated as the result of cleaning parts from the vehicles. The PWC-T at Mayport utilizes
four 55 gallon solvent parts washers to clean various mechanical parts taken from the
different pieces of equipment (see Figure 3.1). The parts washers use PD-680, a petroleum-
based solvent with ingredients such as Stdddard Solvent and/or mineral spirits. Solvent is
normally replaced on a monthly basis by Safety Kleen, with which PWC-T has a service
contract.
3.2.2 Handling of Waste Liquids
With the exception of antifreeze and the waste solvent from parts cleaning, the waste
liquids that are removed from each piece
if equipment are placed hi two 400 gallon bowsers
located outside the PWC-T maintenance facility. Spent antifreeze is stored in barrels. The
waste liquids are hand carried in open top
barrels by individual personnel after they ;
containers to either the bowsers or the disposal
ire removed from a particular piece of equipment.
The solvent washers recirculate PD-680 from the solvent drum to the solvent tray
where the parts are cleaned. A hose is used by personnel to direct the solvent on to the part
as it is manually washed. The waste solvent is collected is collected in small buckets, which
are them emptied into 55-gallon drums locia
PWC-T personnel do not handle the waste
Kleen.
ated at each of the four parts washing stations.
solvent; it is collected by personnel from Safety
3.2.3 Disposal of Waste Liquids
Except for the waste solvent from parts cleaning, all of the non-aqueous liquid
wastes are collected and sold to an outside
contractor for resale as fuel or refinery
3-3
-------
FIGURE 3.1: SAFETY KLEEN PARTS WASHING STATION
3-4
-------
feedstock. Used motor oil, hydraulic flu
d, and transmission fluid are typically sold for
$0.22 per gallon, depending on the purchaser and the amount of water contamination. The
Naval Station pays $0.50 per gallon to dispose of waste antifreeze. As noted above, the
waste solvent is collected by Safety Kleen. The PWC-T currently pays Safety Kleen $3,300
per year to collect and replace the waste solvent based on four units being serviced each
month.
3-5
-------
4.0 POLLUTION PREVENTION ALTERNATIVES
This chapter presents pollution prevention alternatives that could be utilized to
reduce the generation of non-aqueous liqiid wastes at the Naval Station Mayport PWC-T.
The chapter discusses the benefits and problems created by implementation of each
alternative.
4.1 PUBLIC WORKS CENTER - TRA^
SPORTATION
During the visit to the PWC-T, the assessment team observed evidence of a
concerted effort by staff to reduce waste generation at the facility. Several ongoing
practices support a pollution prevention ethic and reduced waste generation. For example,
motor oil is dispensed in one quart containers to limit the potential for spills that might
otherwise occur from an alternative dispensing system in which open buckets are used to
transfer the motor oil. Also, a computerized system is in place to keep an inventory of all
fluid materials. This allows for the tracking of usage rates and minimizing the quantity of
material hi stock. Nonetheless, additional opportunities were identified to make further
progress in waste reduction. These alternatives can be classified into three general
categories: 1) better operating practices, 2) methods to extend the life of the fluids, and 3)
process or product substitutions.
Many operations at the PWC-T can benefit from implementation of better operating
practices. Although several of these pract ces are currently in place, a comprehensive
listing is provided below:
Personnel Practices
Utilize good
Provide emp
Provide emp:
lousekeeping methods
oyee training related to steps to prevent pollution
oyee incentives to promote pollution prevention
4-1
-------
Procedural Measures
Document the receipt and dispensation of fluids
Implement strict material handling, storage, tracking, and
inventory control procedures
Schedule wo -k to minimize the potential for spills
Loss Prevention Procedures
Develop spil
prevention procedures
Consider pollution prevention in the development of
preventative maintenance procedures
Develop emergency preparedness plans to define the steps
necessary to clean up potential spills
Development of procedures to implement each of these practices should be considered to
reduce pollution generated by the PWC-T.
improved operating practices, refer to the
The Automobile Repair Industry (October
For more specific information related to these
IP A publication Guides to Pollution Prevention:
1991)1.
The specific pollution prevention a
report are discussed below. These alternai
ternatives identified that are the focus of this
ives are specific to the PWC-T operations and for
each type of fluid. The alternatives are presented by fluid type.
4.1.1 Motor Oil
The most significant PWC-T non-ajueous liquid waste is used motor oil. This is
generated primarily through scheduled preventative maintenance oil changes. The oil
changes occur at specific, calendar-based iitervals defined by the operating manuals for
each piece of equipment. Motor oil is an essential ingredient to provide lubrication for the
equipment supported by the PWC-T, elimiiating its use is not feasible. The most
significant pollution prevention opportunity for motor oil is to extend its useful life.
Extending the useful life of motor oil can be accomplished by one of three methods: 1)
periodic testing to determine if the oil continues to meet manufacturer and military
4-2
-------
specifications; 2) improved filtration to exjtend the oil's useful life; and 3) using a synthetic
oil substitute, which has a longer working life.
4.1.1.1 Oil Sampling
Oil sampling is an accepted procedure that has been used for many years by
operators of large industrial equipment. This procedure can be used by the PWC-T to
extend oil life instead of relying on the no rmal procedure of changing the oil at the
scheduled "rule-of thumb" intervals of 6 months or 6000 miles, for example. By utilizing
oil sampling, the oil can remain in the vehicle until it fails to meet the specified
qualifications. Once the oil fails to meet these specifications, it must be removed from the
vehicle. An example oil analysis report tit at would be generated by this type of analysis is
shown in Figure 4.1.
4.1.1.2 Improved Filtration
Improved filtration can also extend
the oil that might cause damage to the eng
the life of the oil by removing contaminants in
ne. Extensive field studies have shown that
motor oil itself does not wear out, but meiely becomes contaminated over time. This is due
to inadequate filtration provided by factory installed filters, which ultimately requires that
the oil be replaced. Contaminants that fou 1 the oil and cause damage to the engine include
particles below 15 microns hi size, water,
acids, antifreeze (from leakage), and fuel soot.
Two potential alternatives for the r anoval of these contaminants were investigated:
1) filtering batches of spent fluid that have been drained from the engine due to failure to
meet specifications and 2) improving in-line filtration within the engine so that the fluid is
filtered continuously.
Based on this investigation, batch processing of the oil after it has been removed
from the vehicle is not a viable recycling alternative. This is due to the fact that corrosive
acids and other reaction products, which are created at the high combustion temperatures
4-3
-------
BAY CITY. Ul • CLEVELAND, OH • CORAOPOL S
ac
O
U4
O
Z
Ul
I?
i
l
ll
I
Ul f
Si
£2
S
|
a
a
j
o
S
S
n-
w
Di
D
i
i
I II i
4-4
-------
and pressures present in an engine, can nc t be filtered out of the oil after they have been
created using current filtration technology
. Once the acids have been formed, the only
feasible way to reuse the oil is to re-process it through the separation processes located at a
refinery. Furthermore, none of the oil filtration vendors contacted claimed that their
filtering units could restore unacceptable c il drained from an engine to its original state and
none recommended that a batch processing operation be attempted, even though they could
build a device to do so. They recommend, further use of the batch-filtered oil be limited to
burning as a fuel or selling to a recycling operation. On the other hand, there was
consensus among those contacted that prevention of the formation of these compounds is the
only way to ensure that they are not present in the oil. Consequently, batch processing of
the oil after it is removed from the vehicle
quality of the motor oil within the vehicle,
preferred option. The "by-pass" filtration
is not recommended. In order to maintain the
an improved in-engine filtration system is the
systems sold and used by many commercial and
military fleets were evaluated. A general discussion of this type system is given below.
4.1.1.2.1 Bv-pass Filtration Svsten
., Several by-pass filtration systems have been
shown to safely extend the life of motor oils through filtration and supplementation of
depleted motor oil additives. These systems have been installed and tested by other military
organizations such as Eglin Air Force Base hi Fort Walton Beach, Florida and Hickam Air
Force Base hi Honolulu, Hawaii2-3. The S ate of North Carolina is also considering by-pass
filtration to reduce used oil volumes generated by their fleet operations4. In addition to
lowering the volumes of motor oil needed,
shown to extend engine life and reduce maintenance costs since the engine continuously
operates on cleaner oil.
By-pass filtration systems typically
equipment (e.g., a diesel engine) to allow ]
Figures 4.2 and 4.3). Installation involves
for the engine oil to cycle through and clean
implementation of by-pass filtration has been
require that a by-pass filter be installed on the
or slow but effective filtration of the oil (see
creating a loop containing the additional filter
. Typical installations take a portion of the oil
4-5
-------
-------
FIGURE 4.3: EXAMPLE BY-PASS FILTRATION INSTALLATIONS
4-7
-------
out of the engine at the oil pressure gauge
point, direct it through the by-pass filter, and
then return it to the engine at the oil pan sump. The by-pass filter is designed to recover
smaller size particles, while the existing factory installed "spin-on" filter is left in place to
recover larger particles (greater than 15 niicrons). The by-pass filtration systems require
that the oil be sampled to confirm that no metals or contaminants have escaped filtration.
The purpose of the oil sampling is to allow the user to customize this schedule over time
depending on the results of the analysis program. Vendors recommend that oil sampling
initially occur at the same interval that the oil would normally be changed. If sample
analyses continue to show clean oil, the sampling interval may be lengthened. Filter
elements should also be changed at the same interval as the sampling. By-pass filtration
systems have generally led to continued lengthening of the oil change interval and reduced
costs. Several examples were identified where the life of the motor oil was safely extended
for up to 500,000 miles on commercial trucks. Historical data has shown that adding a new
quart of oil each time a filter element is replaced appears to maintain the additives necessary
for acceptable oil quality.
The only additional wastes generated by implementation of by-pass filtration are
waste filters. In addition to the reduction in waste that will occur as a result of the
implementation of by-pass filtration, maintenance costs associated with the engine wear
caused by dirty motor oil should be reduced significantly since the engine will now
continuously operate on clean motor oil. Specific costs and benefits of by-pass filtration are
discussed hi detail for each vendor which jvas identified hi Chapter 5.
4.1.1.3 Synthetic Oils
Synthetic oil substitutes exist that may be used to reduce the frequency of oil changes
even further. These oils are marketed as superior products to conventional motor oil
because they maintain their lubricating characteristics for longer periods of time. Use of a
synthetic oil is therefore another option that might be considered hi conjunction with oil
sampling and by-pass filtration.
4-8
-------
4.1.2 Hydraulic Fluid
As with motor oil, hydraulic fluid is essential to the operation of equipment and,
therefore, its use cannot be eliminated. Extension of the life of hydraulic fluid through
implementation of a fluid sampling progra n and an enhanced filtration (or recycling)
program is, therefore, the only viable poll
ition prevention option. Once again, the two
methods for implementing an enhanced fill ration program are by-pass and batch filtration.
4.1.2.1 Bv-pass Filtration
Implementation of by-pass filtration is effectively identical to that for motor oil.
(Refer to Section 4.1.1.1 for a discussion of by-pass filtration.) This technique, in
conjunction with fluid sampling, should al
much longer periods of time.
ow the hydraulic fluid to remain in the system for
4.1.2.2 Batch Recycling
Unlike motor oil, batch recycling of hydraulic fluid is feasible because of the lack of
a combustion process that produces unfilte Table contaminants. In fact, hydraulic fluids are
currently being batch filtered by ground support personnel who provide maintenance for the
aircraft that fly at the Naval Station. The
Sfavy's military specifications5 recognize batch
recycling as a viable alternative for hydraulic fluid and list Pall Aeropower Corporation (see
Figure 4.4) and Hydraulics International, Inc. as the vendors capable of providing the
hydraulic fluid filtration equipment. The Pall unit is used at Mayport. Transfer of this
technology is, therefore, a logical alternative for the hydraulic fluid used at the PWC-T.
Several options should be considered to evaluate implementation of batch filtering of
hydraulic fluid at the PWC-T. They are:
) purchase a recycling unit strictly for operations
at the PWC-T; 2) utilize the filtration equipment already owned by Ground Support
Operations; or 3) set up a batch recycling operation for all spent hydraulic fluid at the Naval
Station.
4-9
-------
FIGURE 4.4: PLM PORTABLE FLUID PURIFIER
4-10
-------
The first option is to purchase a stand-alone unit for recycling of both fluids at the
PWC-T. This option would require the u lit to be justified based solely on the fluids that
are used at the PWC-T. This option wou
d be the simplest to implement but would require
be difficult since less than 600 gallons of
that the PWC-T generate a large enough volume of fluids to justify the purchase. This will
lydraulic fluid are generated each year. The
second option would be the least expensiv; to implement since the PWC-T would utilize
i
equipment that has already been purchased. The only costs would be labor to operate the
device and any additional operational costs such as filter element replacement. The final
option would be simpler to justify because of the higher volume of fluids that would be
processed. The option would require, however, that a central collection and distribution
operation be established to administer the recycling center. This could lead to increased
administrative and labor costs to transfer,
process, and redistribute the fluids.
with the exception of establishing a centra
Costs and benefits of each of the o >tions discussed above are included in Chapter 5,
ized recycling center. Evaluation of this
alternative requires investigating and quantifying the volume of fluids that might be
available for recycling from other Commalnds and is beyond the scope of this investigation.
4.1.3 Transmission Fluid
The pollution prevention alternatives for transmission fluid are identical to those
discussed above for hydraulic fluids. The
transmission fluid generated is much lowe
major difference between these two fluids is that
transmission fluid is replaced much less frequently. Transmission fluid is less subject to
contamination and requires change-out less often. Consequently, the volume of waste
r than for the other non-aqueous fluid wastes
generated by the PWC-T. Although the o 5tions presented for hydraulic fluids should also
be valid for transmission fluids, the cost/benefit analysis found in Chapter 5 reflects the
lower volumes of waste transmission fluid generated.
4-11
-------
4.1.4 Antifreeze
Pollution prevention alternatives for antifreeze are limited, but effective. Since
antifreeze must be used to avoid problems associated with winter freezing and summer
.boiling of engine coolant, the no-use optic n is not feasible. Viable substitutes for ethylene
glycol are limited and have not been tested adequately to justify their use. Recycling offers
the best demonstrated alternative for reducing the amount of spent antifreeze that must be
disposed.
Recycling of antifreeze requires that any heavy metals be removed and the non-
corrosive properties be restored through the addition of a corrosion inhibitor. Several
manufacturers have equipment available to recycle antifreeze. Methods to recycle the fluid
include distillation, chemical filtration, and ion-exchange processes. The processes can be
accomplished either while the coolant is ir the vehicle or after the fluid has been removed
from the vehicle (see Figures 4.5 and 4.6)
Excellence" on 11 in-shop coolant recyclii
General Motors has bestowed its "Mark of
ig systems from seven companies in its latest
round of tests. (GM system approval means that the recycled coolant meets recognized
standards and can be used in GM vehicles
of the each manufacturer's product as wel
serviced under warranty.) A detailed discussion
as life-cycle cost analyses are included in Section
5.1.3. Information on another glycol recycler not listed in the General Motors report is also
included.
4.1.5 Parts Washing
There are two alternatives to the use of PD-680 as a parts washing solvent at the
PWC-T: 1) substitution of a non-petroleum based solvent for PD-680 and 2) purchase of an
alternative parts washing system, such as Better Engineering's Jet Washer. A list of
possible substitutes for PD-680 usage at th; PWC-T is being compiled by the Naval Surface
Warfare Center hi Annapolis, MD. The JN aval Surface Warfare Center is managing a
project to identify and make recommendations for alternatives to PD-680 use throughout the
Navy. Since a final report is not available
here. (The Naval Surface Warfare Center
at this time, no specific alternatives are listed
expects to forward a copy of the final report
4-12
-------
FIGURE 4.5: IN-VEHICL
3 RECYCLING OF ANTIFREEZE
FIGURE 4.6: BATCH RECYCLING OF ANTIFREEZE
-13
-------
to the PWC-T when it is issued.) The second
on Navy military specifications that refer
acceptable alternative to solvent-based
parts
alternative to PD-680 parts washing is based
to the letter Engineering Jet Washer as an
washing. It is discussed below.
4.1.5.1 Better Engineering Jet Washer
The Better Engineering Jet Washer cleans parts placed on a rotating turntable by
blasting a hot (130 °F to 200 °F) biodegradable detergent and water solution at a rate of 50-
200 gallons per minute (gpm) on to the parts. After the solution hits the parts, it is filtered
and recycled. The force of the spray jets
grease, carbon, and other contaminants ir
cleaned parts from the washer; parts usua
the heat, and the detergent combine to strip oil,
1 to 15 minutes. The operator removes the
ly flash dry immediately.
Installation of a Better Engineering Jet Washer has the following benefits when
compared to the current use of PD-680 for parts washing: 1) reduces hazardous waste
production; 2) reduces personnel exposurk to solvent and fumes; 3) reduces labor costs
associated with parts cleaning; and 4) eliijiinates the Safety Kleen service fees. Figure 4.7
shows the Better Engineering parts washer recommended for the PWC-T.
Better Engineering Jet Washers have been tested in Air Force, Army, and Navy
installations nationwide, and are widely accepted. General Motors uses the device to clean
fuel injector parts for its engines. Literatore identified related to military applications
included a memorandum from the Utah Nitional Guard documenting a three week trial of
the Better Engineering parts washer at the
Surface Maintenance Shop6. The demonstration
results supported the manufacturer's clairr s, "and hi fact, cleaning performance far
exceeded (Maintenance Shop) personnel expectations." During the three week
demonstration, the unit was used continuously. Testing of effluents revealed that the gray
water phase could be disposed in the sanitiry sewer and the oil phase (composed of the oil
removed from each part) could be dispose i as used oil. Three weeks of nearly continuous
operation generated only 250 cc of sediment, which had to be disposed as hazardous waste.
Further investigation found that the Navy15 military specification specifies " a
4-14
-------
M-300LX-P
Inside Working Dimensions
Height
Turntable Diameter
Turntable Area
Overall Dimensions:
(width/depth/height)
Tank Size:
Main Tank
Purifier
Turntable Weight Capacity
Standard Power Source
Full Load Amps
Pump Motor:
Type
Size
Output
Heat Source
Heat Up Time
Portable
FIGURE.4.7: BETTER ENGINEERING
60"
37"
1075sq. in.
57" x 59" x 92"
100-gal.
25-gal.
1500lbs.
240V, 3 phase
65
Vertical
7.5 H.P.
150GPM/60PS1
18kw
1 -1/2 hr.
No
r JET WASHER - MODEL M-300X-P
4-15
-------
system 'equal to' the Better Engineering
comments from users, the Better
to PD-680 parts washing.
Engineering
Aqueous Parts Washer." Based on these and other
system'appears to be an excellent alternative
4-16
-------
4.2 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 4
8.
9.
Guides to Pollution Prevention: The Automobile Repair Industry. United States
Environmental Protection Agency.j EPA/625/7-91/013. Office of Research and
Development. Washington, DC. October 1991.
Telecon between Greg Pagett of Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. and Wayne
Fucumoto at Hicham Air Force B£ se in Honolulu, Hawaii. Discussed the use of by-
pass filtration on equipment at the
Base. July 13, 1994.
Telecon between Greg Pagett of Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. and Rich
Richards at Eglin Air Force Base in Fort Walton Beach, Florida. Discussed the use
of by-pass filtration on equipment at the Base. July 19, 1994.
Telecon between Greg Pagett of Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. and Jim Parker
and John Burns at the North Carolina Department of Transportation - Equipment and
Inventory Control in Raleigh, North Carolina. Discussed pending antifreeze
recycling and by-pass filtration plakis for their fleet equipment. July 13, 1994.
Telecon between Greg Pagett of Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. and Keith
Konop of the Navy Procurement Office in Lakehurst, New Jersey. Discussed the
Navy's pollution prevention plans {which include purchasing hydraulic purifiers,
particle counters (to replace PATqH test), glycol recyclers, parts washers, and
plastic media blasters. June 13, 1994.
Memorandum from Dr. John L. Crane, Jr., Environmental Resources Manager at
the Utah National Guard to Governor Norman H. Bangerter related to a pilot study
of the Better Engineering parts washer. May 21, 1992.
Various telecons between Greg Pagett of Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. and
the following vendors of by-pass filtration equipment: Gulf Coast Filters; Fil-Max;
Enviro Filtration; TF Purifiner. Discussions were related to the costs and benefits of
implementing by-pass filtration. June - August 1994.
Telecons between Greg Pagett of Pacific
Johnson of Pall Aeropower related
the Navy. June - August 1994.
Environmental Services, Inc. and Morris
to the Pall Hydraulic purifier currently used by
Telecons between Greg Pagett of Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. and Matthew
J. Kelly at Better Engineering related to the Better Engineering Jet Washer. June -
August 1994.
4-17
-------
.10.
Telecon between Greg Pagett of Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. and Mary Jo
Bebrick at the Naval Surface Warfare Center related to the study underway to
identify substitutes to PD-680 usagje in the Navy. June 21 and August 23, 1994.
4-18
-------
5.0 COSTS AND BENEFITS OF POLLUTION PREVENTION ALTERNATIVES
This chapter provides a discussion
of the costs and benefits associated with the use of
selected pollution prevention alternatives for each waste stream identified in Chapter 4. The
base case and associated assumptions with current operations are compared to each pollution
prevention alternative. The costs used for each analysis are commercial costs and do not
include any discounts that the Navy may be able to negotiate with a particular vendor. This
assumption was made since the purchase df equipment for the PWC-T would be made by
the contractor that services the equipment knd not by the Navy itself. If the Navy elects to
purchase the equipment and allow the contractor to use it, capital costs and the resulting
paybacks should be much more attractive.
For relative analysis purposes, however, the
paybacks calculated provide an adequate nethod of comparing one vendor's product to
another.
5.1 PUBLIC WORKS CENTER - TRANSPORTATION
5.1.1 Motor Oil
This section presents the costs and benefits of each of the by-pass filtration systems
identified for motor oil. Because of the wide variety of equipment serviced by the PWC-T
(and hence the wide variety of annual motcjr oil usage), two analyses were performed. The
first is for a bulldozer, which represents one of the largest motor oil capacities (48 quarts)
of any piece of equipment serviced by the PWC-T. The second analysis is for an
automobile, which represents one of the smallest oil capacities (4 quarts).
Table 5.1 identifies the assumptions associated with the base case for both the
bulldozer and automobile analyses. Both bkse cases assume an oil cost of $0.69 per quart,
used oil revenue of $0.22 per gallon, and labor costs of $14 per hour. Full flow filter costs
refer to replacement of the original equipment "spin on" filter, which comes with
5-1
-------
*
TABLE 5.1: MOTOR OIL BY-PASS FILTRATION COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS-
BASE CASE ASSUMPTION
Annual
i Vehlcle New Oil Disposal Full
i Costs h
! Bulldozer $132.48 $2.00
Automobil $5.52 $1.00
e
; 9 -
Assumptions:
; . Item
1 Oil Capacity (quarts)
No. of oil changes per ye
Cost of new oil ($/quart)
Revenue from used oil ($
Full flow filter ($/filter)
; Full flow filter disposal
($/filter)
No. of filters per oil chanc
: Downtime Cost ($/hour)
Labor Rate ($/hr)
, Hours to change oil
" (hr/oil change)
i '
i
i
'. , ' L • , ,i' . "",,'' ' ' • ,j.'
Costs Revenue Total Costs
rlow Down-Time Labo Used Oil Costs -
ter r Revenue)
$80 $200 $56 $10.56 $459.92
$
ar
/q
e
10 $20 $28 $0.44 $64.08
uart)
Bulldozer Automobile
48 4
4 2
$0.69 $0.69
$0.055 $0.055
$20 $5
$0.50 $.50
11
50 10
14 14
1 1
•• . • • . •
',-'.- - . , •
5-2 ' " ". '"
-------
Table 5.2 presents the alternate cas
with installing by-pass filtration for the bu
each piece of equipment. The base case assumptions yield annual costs of $459.92 for each
bulldozer and $64.08 for each automobile.
e assumptions and resultant payback associated
Idozer analysis. The automobile analysis is
shown in Table 5.3. The tables identify the assumptions, the first year costs, and
continuing annual costs associated with installation of the by-pass filter system. The
information is listed alphabetically by vendor.
Several assumptions for each of the alternate cases require further explanation.
Labor cost, labor requirements, oil cost, and disposal costs were obtained from PWC-T
documents and personnel. Oil analysis costs were estimated from an informal survey taken
of various sampling vendors (Conam Inspection; Fram Filters; Fihnax Filtration) to yield
the $7 per sample cost. The actual cost will depend on the number of samples that are sent
to a particular lab.
For the bulldozer analysis, paybacks less than 3 years for each vendor were
estimated. (The payback is the time required for savings generated by the alternate case to
equal the capital investment.) The single riiost important factor in generating the quick
payback is the cost associated with equipment downtime. The analysis assumes that there is
a cost to the PWC-T of $50 for every hour that the bulldozer is out of service. The
downtime cost savings makes up about hal:' of the annual savings with by-pass filtration.
Even without the downtime assumption,- th; by-pass filtration system yields paybacks of less
than five years. Paybacks of less than five years are usually acceptable for capital
investments of this magnitude. Installation of by-pass filtration for the bulldozer example is
estimated to lower annual disposal volumes by 75 percent.
For the automobile analysis, the results are not as attractive as for the bulldozer.
Paybacks of more than 30 years were calculated based on the assumptions, which can safety
be assumed to be greater than the life of the automobile. The paybacks are much
5-3
-------
£"
s %
3 J
1
B
E
ep
oo
J8
i"°
o 5
Q 3
& S
r^3 ex,
ft, .S3
Q
i
r- —
OO OO
s?
C
r-'
en r
o
00 OO c
°i °i y
i-- CN .:
s
C4
VO
f— 1
»-H
V)
o\
s
I
o o
IT) W
8 S 1
o o o
IT; /•>
en
<&
•^l-
oo
2.1
11
"g
CQ Q t^^
8 u -S
* 3 e
at
«5
O U
«?!?!
-4
-------
Hi!
S, ^
tn
CO
22 ~
53 to '4?
r i ° 3
U o 5
*e3 "e3 S
"*""* 3 5
H § ""
N.X
, C3 «J CO
X) « 3 ft
'SI|3
'la
CO
^
.S
fc
^•"S
tU «U
||§
** !&
•1
"53
j + g
X,
S •
ll
Q •"
U
S &
S
& -SL,
zo
1
J
i i CO
• en
? § s
I 1 S
S S3
en in — <
CN in In
ts cs «N
CN ts evj
f^ C*^ '^^
C-l O\ VO
en vo i— *
««• i ri
oo en o
vo vo o
e| a 1
1 1 a o
VJ
e*
C
vc
3
§
e>
§
2
5?
o
o
^
VO
r-
§
t-4
04
CO
1-4
^
Ctf
(_,
t-i
8,
is M
§ -^
J3 &
w S
O . 1
tt S «>
o | w
1-1 •*•" C5
69 t, 0
•S & -8
t-* ._ •*-» Tt- co
ll §21
rf a * ••§
8, a I i »
®^ iSf
gg iil
/S «s -a « g
*"5 *-» ju_» t-3 , c£«
O co co cq T3
1 - § 53-1
3 'S 2 S g, S3 u
•s§S|^ac
aSS^&fc;*!
t-g ^>a§)^^§<
I J-S-SlflS.-
iNl^iP
IS-lSSaS?
^> S) **•" *g uj" o i> "S
lllilil!
"§"5 o Sm^S §"§
ycgwu,2pbu,
^°«^<2|'SS,
.a «f g «a g -g ^ -
i||;||s§°ts
•!-?£ s | j« I S
S'S'S^SC §,o'0
G &-a s o o « «. c
iti!§iiii
Si'^l^^l"!
,U CO CA CO CA CM CJ ^^
•gi|||«ts5g
allllllll
(0 -O 0 T3 O <*- QOJS
5-5
-------
longer for several reasons: 1) the small oil
automobiles since they are not as critical a
capacity and less frequent changes cause oil
savings to be significantly lower; and 2) the downtime assumption is much lower for
piece of equipment. Therefore, although the
technology exists for automobile by-pass filtration, the economic analysis for installing this
on individual vehicles is not attractive.
Because of the significant difference in paybacks calculated for the bulldozer and
automobile, it is apparent that by-pass filtration is favorable for equipment with large oil
capacities birthas diminishing returns for smaller pieces of equipment. In determining
which pieces of equipment should be considered for by-pass filtration, three key economic
variables should be considered: 1) oil prick; 2) quarts of oil used per year; and, 3)
downtime costs. To assist in this evaluation, Figures 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 were prepared to
demonstrate the relationship of these three
also show hydraulic and transmission fluid
variables to payback. (NOTE: These figures
curves. See Section 5.1.2.1.)
The figures are plots of payback in pears versus quarts of motor oil used per year
(i.e, oil capacity times the number of changes). The analysis was based on the costs
associated with purchasing and installing the Gulf Coast by-pass filter. The figures can
provide "screening analysis" quality results
PWC-T. If five years is assumed to be the
provide a means of determining which devi
by-pass filtration is justifiable. The graphs
for the range of equipment serviced by the
maximum acceptable payback period, the figures
:es warrant a detailed calculation to confirm that
are also useful if a maximum payback of other
than five years is desired. To determine the payback of installing by-pass filtration on a
specific device, first select the appropriate downtime cost for the device ($10, $25, or
$50/hour). Next, determine the volume of bil (quarts) used per year. With these values, an
approximate payback can be read from the graphs based on the price of the oil. If the
downtime cost is $10 per hour, the graph indicates that about 75 quarts of motor oil per
year is the minimum annual volume of oil used to generate a five year payback. This drops
to about 60 quarts per year for the $25 per :iour case and to 47 quarts for the $50 per hour
case.
5-6
-------
3
NO
•S o
3
E
o
* + I
CO
O
en
o
o
S -g
-<—< en
ca
I
u-
«s
>>
CQ
3,
5-7
-------
-------
-------
5.1.2 Hydraulic And Transmission Fluids
By-pass and batch filtration are the two pollution prevention alternatives
recommended for both hydraulic and transmission fluids. The batch filtration analysis is
further divided into two options: 1) purchase a recycling unit strictly for operations at the
PWC-T; and 2) utilize the filtration equipment already owned by Ground Support
Operations. This section presents the costs and benefits associated with by-pass filtration
systems as well as the two batch filtration options for both hydraulic and transmission
fluids.
5.1.2.1 Bv-Pass Filtration
The assumptions for by-pass filtrai ion are the same as those for the motor oil
analysis, except that hydraulic fluid costs
costs $0.99 per quart. This compares with the $0.69 per quart cost for motor oil.
Otherwise, assumptions such as used fluk revenue, labor costs, and sampling costs, etc.
utilized for the motor oil analysis are identical. As with the motor oil analysis, the larger
devices (such as bulldozers) are easier to justify whereas small devices, such as
automobiles, are not. Because of the similarities with the motor oil analysis, curves for
both $0.54 and $0.99 per quart fluid have been included in Figures 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 so that
approximate paybacks for the installation Df hydraulic or transmission fluid by-pass filtration
can be determined. Based on the graphs, the minimum annual usage of hydraulic fluid
needed for each downtime cost is as follows: $10 per hour - 90 quarts; $25 per hour - 62
quarts; $50 per hour - 50 quarts. For transmission fluid, the minimum requirements are:
$10 per hour - 65 quarts; $25 per hour - 58 quarts; $50 per hour - 45 quarts. Based on this
analysis, only devices that have large hydraulic or transmission fluid capacities, such as the
bulldozer or road grader, appear to be good candidates for by-pass filtration.
5.1.2.2 Batch Recycling
The base case assumptions for batch hydraulic fluid recycling are presented in Table
5.4. Based on the analysis, base case annual costs are approximately $3,874 per year. The
assumptions and calculations for the alternate case is presented in Table 5.5.
5-10
-------
TABLE 5.4: HYDRAULIC FLUID BATCH RECYCLING COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS:
BASE CASE ASSUMPTIONS
Annual Costs
Hydraulic Filter Full Flow
Fluid Disposal Filter
$1,218.24 $20 • $200
Assumptions:
Item
Hydraulic fluid used per year,
Cost of new hydraulic fluid, $/
' Revenue from used hydraulic
Full flow filter, $/filter
Full flow filter disposal, $/filter
No. of filters purchased/dispos
Downtime cost, $/hr
Labor rate, $/hr
Hours to change fluid, hr/year
Annual
Kevenue Total
Down-Time Labor costs
$2,000 $560 $124.08 $3,87416
gallon
gallon
fluid, $/gallon
ed per year
t
Value
564
$2.16
$0.22
$5
$0.50
40
$50
$14
40
5-11
-------
TABLE 5.5: HYDRAULIC FLUID BATCH FILTRATION
COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS:
ALTERNATE CASE
Capital
Cost
$14,32
0
Annual Costs
Hydraulic Filter Full Dowr
Fluid Disposa Flow Time
I Filter
plus
samplin
9
$243.65 $40.50 $200 $2,0(
0
Assumptions:
Item
Pall Unit Cost
Hydraulic fluid used per year, <
Cost of new hydraulic fluid, $/c
Revenue from used hydraulic
Full flow filter, $/filter
Full flow filter disposal, $/filter
No. of full flow filters per year
No. of filtration unit filters per y
Sampling, number of times pei
Cost per sample
Downtime cost, $/hr
Labor rate, $/hr
Hours to change fluid, hr/year
Pall Unit annual operating cost
filtration unit filters)
i- Annual
s Labo Operatin
r g Costs
3 $560 $2,229.5
0
Total Pay-
Net back
Revenue Annual
Costs
$24.82 $5,249
jallons
allon
luid, $/gallon
ear
year
s (includes cost of 13
Value
$14,320
112.83
$2.16
$0.22
$5
$0.50
40
13
2
$7
$50
$14
40
$2,229.50
Represents an 80 percent reduction in the consumption of hydraulic fluid from the
base case.
5-12
-------
filter unit. These filters cost over $2,200
The annual cost for the alternate case is approximately $5,250 per year. The single largest
expense in the alternate case costs are am.ual replacement of 13 filters required by the Pall
to replace. This added cost completely wipes out
the savings realized by reducing the volume of hydraulic fluid used. Because of the high
maintenance costs associated with the Pall unit, the batch recycling alternative is not
attractive. Since the transmission fluid analysis is identical except for the slightly higher
fluid price of $0.99 per quart, the result (not shown) is also unattractive.
5.1.3 Antifreeze
Recycling of antifreeze has the most potential for PWC-T to reduce significantly the
amount of spent antifreeze that needs to b
j disposed. There are several manufacturers who
have developed readily-acceptable systems to recycle antifreeze.
Table 5.6 is a summary of antifreeze recycling units for which General Motors (GM)
has bestowed its Mark of Excellence. Naval Station Mayport currently pays $2.77 per
gallon to purchase antifreeze and $0.50 per gallon to dispose the waste, for a total cost of
$3.27 per gallon. Comparing the $3.27 current cost to purchase and dispose versus the total
operating cost per gallon found in Table 5.6 shows that nine of the eleven units which GM
has accepted would result in a savings versus the current practice.
Manufacturers estimate a reductior in fluid disposal volumes of approximately 80
percent. For the PWC-T, that would mean reducing the 441 gallon-per-year volume to
about 60 gallons per year.
Note that the costs for recycling ar; the same regardless of the method use to recycle
the fluid (i.e., in-vehicle recycling or bate i recycling). Consequently, a separate analysis
was not performed. The PWC-T contractor manager indicated that batch recycling would
be preferred because of the time required to process the fluids. The contractor manager
indicated that maintenance turnaround times on some equipment can be critical, and the
antifreeze recycler in the batch mode wou
d, therefore, be preferable.
5-13
-------
j
'
'
i —
a:
LU
0
i LU
0-
: z>
a
LU
CD
•z.
: i
LU
a:
i
5
I
8
i LU
z
i
: 10
LU
S
P
1
[
i
u_
a
a.
u.
CD
I
IS
Q- S:
S
OS
m a.
g
il
%
IL H c
1
1
£
1 =
-i
l!
!
1
t^
o
_J
UJ
LU
_J
*
O
u.
or
LU
LU
be:
z
OL
S
O
o
c
CO
f
0
CD 8
I'l
5 w
*~ C fl)
§ 81
O O CO
IO
UJ
m
U)
LU
CD
CR5001
CR2001
ProClean
X
i
=
Q
g
E
<
0
o
_
•S
o
5
"c > co c
J5 o .H .2
Jj 1? i Je
if< O £
o .3
S3 :C C
co •£ .2
U. ^.0 0,
0)
CO
1.2 a.
c
c °
§«
II
£•!
3 CO
||
ii
II
Ii
co .2
>Q
i 0
£ -g — co
a> to jS "u
1§
H
o u.
11
c to
s!
o u.
.1
ii
=>u-
ll§
111
(O
(A
8
S
D.
CO
O)
u.
CO 0)
Q .
^^ J2 co fc—
CD »- "c
•>- > o o 01
t~-
CO
O)
w
^
CO
o>
€
CO
D)
tr>
15
0)
CM
15
D)
o
j?
Il
CO
O)
in
1
o>
10
CO
D)
(O
O (U
0. or
w
It
Z 45
3
L m
o ^
f.¥ m
CNI CL 4
N.
— •»"
CN 0- <
1,
-208-240Vr3
Phase
f
T.
-208-240V
Phase
-Shop-Air-
-Shop-Air—
cl'
S
'
! @<
If)
h
«- <
-Shop-Air—
i.
"c
CD
El
Q> 3
1 S"
OJ 01 CA
i 5-14
1
il
8
•s 1
3 S
CSA-Mar
'93
S
0* oo
CO
a>
CD
c
CO
en
1
c
tr
i
CD
it
1
«.S"
z or
_!
^
I
i!
"c
CD
CO
—i o-
a LU
S .2 <°\c
"^ o "§ g\ co
CD
c
o
Z
* 1 "S^ co
^ 7n ^ OJ ^ (S) ^-^ "*« £- cl) *— * ^3) ^3 2;
i f 1 1 1 1 1 ti 1 1 § 1 1 1 i i IN
CD
C
O
s
o
co >_ ,-,
01 . § '55 i CD
SJ^^S® -^SP
±^ ffsli := CO CM fj ^ CO
T-«=(S)CNU. row- < w cn
15 o
ii! ill It
CD IO
•& s> 8 ^
-------
! £
UJ
1 ct
i UJ
3
! ^«
i UJ
1
S
CD
Z
S
TJ
; ,
: t
I
0
1
1
CD
u5
i HJ
1 <
': ' £
\
.
\
1
>
u.
0.
0.
u.
c
0
to H
CDU.
Q. 9:
to
T3
O 2
m Q.
C
O
(A
_,_ Q.
to E
= S
U. 1-
o
IL
1
5
£
11
to
c
1
(A
o
tL,
LU
UJ
^
o
UJ
UJ
*
^
n
o
o
.0
u. E
Q- CD
CL *:
U. O
CD
0
to
£
a.
11
•e E
ra CD
CD J=
Q O
co
0
to
£
Q.
CD
to
£
Q.
CD
1
£
CL
CD
0
to
£
Q.
CD
1
6
c
•5* o
§ O
1
IIS
•e 'E =
ra CD E .
SSI'S
11
€ E
ra cD
CO -C
Q O
0
CO
03
—
1 •§
ig §
15
' •
ra
in
co
^.j
w
^
Z
75
•S*
75 ,_ 7i
«/> Q. v.
CO CG
•5* co -S
K 0 CN
fjj p) ,,3
Isl
m a eo
taC? «3
S-l
75
CO
75
f
75
§
CO
8
To
£
cn
75
D)
§
S
"c
CD
Is
H- O
CO
o
Z
CD
O
75
- CO 0)
fl) <1) CN
w£g
« _;
CD {Q
1 T ci"
CO UJ »-
co m «»
75
S | !.§•!
.5"S cl &^ "-
—i
to co
illil
S g
lllll
5s ££5
g
o
g
ij- 75
w"«4
•g CO ^)
CD CD CM
CO LU C/j
8l«
S §i g
co -A 8
en
in
en
CM"
tft
co
m
o
o
en
co"
c
1
3 to
LU^O
cn
CO
0
00
CO
co
8
iri
o
cn
S
CO
CO
co
co
No Payback
co
co"
CO
Q
#
ra Q
ft
.
ra
to
CD
S
•o
co
CM O
O) CD
O) Q.
S CD
E «
CD CO
1 75 tl
2 ° to —
"1 IS =1
ra CD *-
Q. CO CD O
« 1 1^
I 1 11
O C c £ "
^ o *- •*-* ^
° C " ® C
• §S"| g|lf
l§i lilt
g re (3 -Q UJ co -i
° "S 75 CO c T3 CO
75 o > ™ o .x CD .
Ill III!
>- g S jg to .2 JB
**' O
§ 1
S § CO
co co LU
m < o
« « -z
..1C ' ",
-------
This would allow equipment to be
spent antifreeze at a more convenient time
return :d to service more quickly, while processing the
5.1.4 Parts Washing
Only one alternative for parts washing
Better Engineering Jet Washer. The costs
below.
at PWC-T has been evaluated, and that is the
5 and benefits of this alternative are discussed
5-1.4.1 Better Engineering Parts
The PWC-T contractor manager indicated that the largest part that required cleaning
would be an automobile transmission that is approximately three feet long. Based on this
size, the PWC-T would need the Better Engineering Jet Washer Model No. 300LX-P,
which has a 37" turntable diameter. The unit retail cost is $17,995. Operating costs are
approximately $2.50 for each day for soap and electricity, assuming continuous operation.
Based on the Utah study, an 80 percent reduction in labor hours for parts cleaning was
realized. Labor costs were assumed to be $14 per hour. Based on typical hazardous waste
handling cost, annual costs to dispose of the hazardous waste generated by the unit were
assumed to be no more than $500. As seen in Table 5.7, replacement of the PD-680 system
with a parts washer yields a payback period of approximately 1.8 years. Sensitivity analysis
indicates that a five-year payback is achieved if only 10 minutes per day is saved in labor
expenses.
5-16
-------
TABLES.?: BETTER ENGINES
BASE AND
UNO PARTS WASHER COST ANALYSIS:
\LTERNATE CASES
BASE CASE
Safety Kleen Cost8
$3,300
Labor"
$10,220
Total Annual Costs
$13,520
a PWC-T pays Safety Kleen $3300 per year to provide and maintain
4 parts cleaning stations jwhich use the PD-680 solvent
b Assumes 2 hours per day( cleaning parts manually with PD-680 at
a labor cost of $14 per hour, 365 days per year
ALTERNATE CASE
Unit
Capital
Cost3 •
$17,995
Annual Costs
Operating" Disposal0
$912.50 $500
Labor*
$2,044
Total Costs
Subsequent
First Year6 Annual
Costs
$21,451.50 $3,456.50
Payback
(yrs)
1.8
a Better Engineering unit cost
b Assumes $2.50 per day (for soap and electricity), 365 days per year
0 Assumes a maximum annual hazardous waste disposal cost of $500
d Assumes an 80 percent reduction in labor hours from base case (i.e., from 2 hours per day to
0.4 hours per day), 365 days per year, and a labor cost of $14 per hour
8 Includes unit cost
5-17
-------
6.0 RECOMMENDED POLLUTION PREVENTION ALTERNATIVES
This chapter summarizes the pollution prevention alternatives recommended for
implementation at the Naval Station Mayport PWC-T. Chapter 6 also includes
recommendations for testing and implementing the preferred pollution prevention alternative
which may include establishing a pilot study to confirm the recommendations.
6.1 PUBLIC WORKS CENTER-TRANSPORTATION
6.1.1 Motor Oil
The PWC-T should implement a j >ilot study to confirm that an oil analysis program
coupled with installation of by-pass filtration is effective in reducing pollution as well as
generating cost savings for the Naval Sta
tion. The pilot study can also be used to determine
the correct length of time between oil changes for equipment maintained by the PWC-T.
The PWC-T should evaluate several of the by-pass filtration systems commercially
available. Because of the large differencb in paybacks between large capacity equipment
(bulldozer) and small equipment (automobile), the evaluation should begin with the larger
equipment, such as the bulldozer and the
road grader. It is recommended that by-pass
filtration systems be purchased from Gulf Coast Filters and Filmax and installed in
conjunction with the oil sampling prograr a. Gulf Coast is recommended because of the
excellent responses related to oil quality and filtration system simplicity received from the
references contacted. Filmax is recommended because of its low payback. Filmax has also
agreed to install and operate the filtration
system at no cost to the PWC-T hi order to
demonstrate the effectiveness of their system. The Gulf Coast contact is Charlie Sims at
(601) 832-1663; the Fil-Max contact is Steve Muza at (412) 833-4962.
6-1
-------
Because paybacks were calculated
n excess of 30 years, installation of by-pass filters
on individual automobiles or trucks should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Factors
that could make by-pass filtration more atiractive for automobiles and trucks include: 1)
more frequent oil changes than those assumed due to the vehicle's working environment; or
2) higher downtime assumptions for the vehicle. Without changes hi the automobile
analysis assumptions, by-pass filtration in
6.1.2 Hydraulic And Transmission Fluid
not recommended for this type of equipment.
implemented as a means of extending the
As with motor oil, sampling of boti hydraulic and transmission fluids should be
ife of these fluids before removing them from the
equipment. Batch recycling of used hydraulic and transmission fluids is unrealistic because
of the low volumes of fluid generated and
batch recycling units. By-pass filtration is
the high maintenance costs associated with the
viable only if the volume of fluids used for a
particular device are high enough. It is recommended that the results of the by-pass
filtration pilot study for motor oil be used as the basis for deterrnining if by-pass filtration is
appropriate for either hydraulic or transmission fluid systems. These fluids are also good
candidates for a base-wide recycling progr im.
emented at the PWC-T. It is recommended that
if it meets the needs of the PWC-T and provides
6.1.3 Antifreeze
Antifreeze recycling should be imp
the Glyclean model be tested to determine
the operational flexibility necessary. The Glyclean model is recommended for several
reasons: 1) the payback is the most attractive of the eleven models investigated; 2) the
model is widely accepted within the automobile repair industry; and 3) a Glyclean system
was recently purchased by the Navy Exchakige and is now available at Mayport. The unit is
located at the auto service station on Massey Avenue. PES recommends that the PWC-T
evaluate the unit at the auto service station
or obtain another unit from the manufacturer.
Mr. Rob Roth at FPPF (makers of the Glyclean Unit) indicated that Mr. Joe Cook (1-912-
246-9721) is available to demonstrate the ujnit for the PWC-T personnel. Mr. Roth also
6-2
-------
agreed to provide the unit to the PWC-T for up to two weeks to allow adequate time to
evaluate the unit before a purchase decision is made.
6.1.4 Parts Washing
A single Better Engineering Jet Washer (or similar unit) should be pilot tested to
replace the four PD-680 parts washers currently being used at the PWC-T. Installation of a
parts washer will result in a significant drcp in the generation of wastes, even though Safety
Kleen is currently responsible for this was
e. The parts washer will also reduce personnel
exposure to solvent and fumes and will payback hi less than two years. Mr. Matthew J.
Kelly at Better Engineering (1-800-229-3380) has agreed to supply the PWC-T with a small
unit at no charge for one month so that the
personnel to confirm that it will adequate!)
equipment can be tested by the PWC-T
perform the cleaning tasks required.
6.2 Summary
Table 6.1 presents each of the p'olli tion prevention alternatives identified in this
report as well as those that are recommended for implementation. The recommendations for
implementation were based on the potentia
the economic advantages and cost savings ihat are generated. If these recommendations are
found to be appropriate through each pilot
study and are fully implemented throughout
PWC-T, generation of non-aqueous fluid wastes from the PWC-T should be significantly
reduced.
of the alternative to reduce pollution as well as
6-3
-------
TABLE 6.1: SUMMARY OF POLLUTION PREVENTION ALTERNATIVES
FOR THE NAVAL STATION MAYPORT PWC-T
Fluid
Alternative Identified
Recommended
Alternative
Notes
Motor Oil
Hydraulic
Fluid
Transmission
Fluid
Antifreeze
Parts
Washing
Oil Sampling
By-pass Filtration
Synthetic Oils
By-pass Filtratidn
Batch Recyclin;
By-pass Filtration
Batch Recycling
Recycling
Includes oil
sampling
Automatic Parts
Washer
* Recommended alternative
6-4
------- |