EPA/600/R-96/094
September 1996
LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT FOR PC BLEND 2
AIRCRAFT RADOME DEPAINTER
By
R. Thomas
Lockheed-Martin Environmental
Las Vegas, Nevada 89119
and
W. E. Franklin
Franklin Associates, Ltd.
Prairie Village, Kansas 66208
Contract No. 68-C4-0020
Project Officers
Kenneth R. Stone and Johnny Springer, Jr.
Sustainable Technologies 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
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Notice
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through its Office of Research and
Development funded the research described here under Contract No. 68-C4-0020 to Lockheed
Environmental Services Division through Purchase Order No. 07PPG8 from Lockheed to
Franklin Associates, Ltd. It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review
and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or
commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
11
-------
Preface
The research effort described in this report was conducted under cooperating programs of
both the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Among the shared objectives of the cooperators is demonstrating the effectiveness of analytical
tools and environmental techniques to reduce environmental impacts and costs of operations
while maintaining performance standards. This project was sponsored by the DoD's Strategic
Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) program and conducted by the
EPA's Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Research Team at the National Risk Management Research
Laboratory (NRMRL).
Strategic Environmental Research And Development Program
DoD! I EPA
SERDP
Strategic Environmental Research
and Development Program
Improving Mission Readiness Through
Environmental Research
SERDP was established to sponsor cooperative research,
development and demonstration activities for environmental
risk reduction. Funded with DoD resources, SERDP is an
interagency initiative between DoD, the Department of Energy
(DOE) and EPA. SERDP seeks to develop environmental
solutions that improve mission readiness for Federal activities.
In addition, it is expected that many techniques developed will
have applications across the public and private sectors.
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Research Program
Since 1990, the NRMRL has been at the forefront in the development of LCA as a
methodology for environmental assessment. In 1994, NRMRL established an LCA team to
organize individual efforts into a comprehensive research program. The LCA Team coordinates
work in both the public and private sectors with cooperators ranging from members of industry
and academia to Federal Facility operators and commands. The team has published project
reports and guidance manuals, including "Life Cycle Assessment: Inventory Guidelines and
Principles," and "Life Cycle Design Guidance Manual." The work described in this report is part
of an expanding program of research in LCA taking place under the direction of NRMRL in
Cincinnati, Ohio.
Under these programs, NRMRL has researched and evaluated substitutes for methyl ethyl
ketone (MEK) as cleaners and solvents in aircraft maintenance operations at Tinker Air Force
111
-------
Base (TAFB) in Oklahoma. TAFB performs maintenance, including structural repair and
refabrication of USAF aircraft, notably the B-1B and the B-52.
iy
-------
Foreword
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress with protecting the
Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a 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 and 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 to manage our
ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce
environmental risks in the fiiture.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory is the Agency's center for
investigation of technological and management approaches for 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 effective
implementation of environmental regulations and strategies.
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 their clients.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
-------
Abstract
This report describes the life cycle assessment on a potential replacement solvent blend for
aircraft radome depainting at the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center at Tinker Air Force Base.
The life cycle assessment is composed of three separate but interrelated components: life cycle
inventory, life cycle impact assessment, and life cycle improvement assessment. This study uses a
comprehensive approach, encompassing all energy requirements, solid wastes, atmospheric
emissions, and waterborne wastes associated with the production, use, and disposal of the
depainting solvent. The life cycle inventory quantifies these values. The partial impact
assessment uses a classification system to categorize the atmospheric and waterborne emissions
into the relevant potential impact categories of ecosystem and human health. The improvement
assessment uses results from the inventory and impact assessment along with a cost analysis to
evaluate the improvement alternatives.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-C4-0020, WA 1-07, to
Lockheed Environmental Systems & Technologies Company from Lockheed to Franklin
Associates, Ltd., under sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This report
covers a period from January 1995 to July 1996, and work was completed as of July 1996.
VI
-------
Table of Contents
Preface ft
Foreword v
Abstract vi
Tables x
Figures xi
Acronyms xiii
Chapter 1
Executive Summary 1-1
Introduction 1_1
Background 1_1
Scope .1-2
Life Cycle Inventory 1.3
Methodology . . 1_3
Baseline LCI Results and Discussion .... 1-4
Results and Discussion of LCI Sensitivity Analyses 1-10
Partial Impact Assessment . 1-15
Methodology 1-15
Partial Impact Assessment Results and Discussion 1-19
Improvement Analysis 1-20
Conclusions i_22
Chapter 2
Study Approach and Methodology 2-1
Introduction 2-1
Purpose .. 2-1
Study Boundaries 2-3
Life Cycle Inventory Methodology 2-3
Material Requirements :....,- 2-5
Energy Requirements 2-7
Environmental Emissions 2-8
Data Sources . . 2-9
Reliability of Results 2-9
Basis of Results 2-10
Key Assumptions 2-11
Data Sources 2-11
vn
-------
2-11
Geographic Scope :
Precombustion Energy and Emissions L~^
Electricity Fuel Profile
Waste Management of Spent PC2 ,......-,....:.
System Components Not Included 2"12
Chapters '
Energy Requirements For The Production And
Use Of PC2 Aircraft Radome Depainting Solvent "'" a~i
Introduction ' "
Results And Discussion '" " Vi
Energy Requirements by Usage Scenario -i\
Energy Requirements by Category of Energy 3-3
Energy Requirements by Fuel Source 3'4
LifePCyde Inventory Environmental Emissions Results For The Production And Use Of PC2 In
Radome Depainting 4~1
Introduction "
Results And Discussion "
SolidWaste '' £4
Air Emissions .'" - "
Waterborrie Emissions
Chapters 51
Sensitivity Analysis "
Introduction "
Systems Examined "
Waste Management Alternative: Recycling of Spent PC2 ->-2
Recycling Results and Discussion '.
Energy Requirements '
Solid Waste " " "
Atmospheric Emissions <"e
Waterborne Emissions 5~^
PC2 Use Alternatives - Volume, Yield, and Time Sensitivity 5-9
Results and Discussion ~^
Energy Requrrements 5 "^
SolidWaste
Atmospheric Emissions -- ^"|*
Waterborne Emissions 5~l*
Conclusions ; ' «"i4
PC2 Recycling 5"14
Vlll
-------
PC2 Volume, Yield, and Time Sensitivities 5-15
Chapter 6
A Partial Impact Assessment of PC2 Use in Aircraft Radome Depainting 6-1
Introduction 6-1
Scenarios Examined 6-2
Methodology Summary 6-2
Classification , 6-2
Characterization 6-3
Valuation 6-9
Results and Discussion 6-9
Classification 6-10
Commentary on Industrial Emission Tables 6-11
Estimates of Ground Level Emission Concentration from Evaporation of PC2 Solvent
Blend 6-13
Summary 6-\4
Development of Summary Tables for Communication and Subjective Evaluations .. 6-15
Conclusions ; 6-16
Chapter 7
Improvement Analysis , 7_1
Introduction 7_1
Purpose .7-1
Identification of Improvement Alternatives 7-1
Technical Evaluation of Improvement Alternatives 7-2
Energy Requirements 7_2
Solid Waste 7.4
Atmospheric and Waterborne Emissions 7.4
Economic Evaluation of Alternatives 7-6
Cost of Solvent Supply 7_8
Cost of Disposal and Recovery 7_8
Other Considerations 7_12
Conclusions 7_13
Appendices
A
B
LCI System Components for PC2 Aircraft Radome Depainting
Classification Methodology and Results for Partial Impact Assessment
for the Use of PC Blend 2 in Aircraft Radome Depainting
Tables of Industrial Environmental Emissions by Potential Impact
Classification Subcategory
IX
-------
Tables .--..,','
Table 1-1. Life Cycle Inventory of Atmospheric and Waterborne Emissions by Component for
PC Blend 2 Radome Depainting Solvent 1-9
Table 1-2. Life Cycle Inventory of Atmospheric and Waterborne Emissions by Process for PC
Blend 2 Radome Depainting Solvent ......... 1-11
Table 1-3. Life Cycle Inventory of Atmospheric Emissions showing Sensitivity to PC2 use
Assumptions l"16
Table 1-4. Life cycle Inventory of Waterborne Wastes showing Sensitivity to PC2 use
Assumptions . ^'
Table 1-5. Summary of Impact Assessment Results with Comparison of Improvement
Alternatives to Baseline 1"20
Table 1-6. Sensitivity of PC Blend 2 Costs to Demand 1-22
Table 3-1. Life Cycle Inventory of Energy Requirements by Usage Scenario for PC Blend 2
Radome Depainting Solvent 3'2
Table 3-2. Life Cycle Inventory of Energy Requirements by Energy Category for PC Blend 2
Radome Depainting Solvent 3"4
Table 3-3. Life Cycle Inventory of Energy Requirements by Fuel Type for PC Blend 2 Radome
Depainting Solvent 3"5
Table 4-1. Life Cycle Inventory of Solid Wastes by Usage Scenario for PC Blend 2 Radome
Depainting Solvent 4~3
Table 4-2. Life Cycle Inventory of Solid Wastes by Component for PC Blend 2 Radome
Depainting Solvent 4"4
Table 4-3. Life Cycle Inventory of atmospheric Emissions by Usage Scenario for PC Blend 2
Radome Depainting Solvent 4"6
Table 4-4. Life Cycle Inventory of Atmospheric Emissions by Component for PC Blend 2
Radome Depainting Solvent 4-7
Table 4-5. Life Cycle Inventory of Atmospheric Emissions by Process for PC Blend 2 Radome
Depainting Solvent '.4-8
Table 4-6. Life Cycle Inventory of Waterborne Wastes by Usage Scenario for PC Blend 2
Radome'Depainting Solvent 4'10
Table 4-7. Life Cycle Inventory of Waterborne Wastes by Component for PC Blend 2 Radome
Depainting Solvent 4-1 *
Table 4-8. Life Cycle Inventory of Waterborne Wastes by Process for PC Blend 2 Radome
Depainting Solvent 4-12
Table 5-1. Life Cycle Inventory of Energy Requirements with and without Recycling of PC
Blend 2 Radome Depainting Solvent 5~5
Table 5-2. Life Cycle Inventory of Solid Wastes with and without Recycling of PC Blend 2
Radome Depainting Solvent ... 5-6
Table 5-3. Life Cycle Inventory of Atmospheric Emissions with and without Recycling of PC
Blend 2 Radome Depainting Solvent 5-7
-------
Table 5-4. Life Cycle Inventory of Waterborne Wastes with and without Recycling of PC Blend
2 Radome Depainting Solvent 5_g
Table 5-5. Life Cycle Inventory of Energy Requirements Showing Sensitivity to PC2 Use
Assumptions 5_10
Table 5-6. Life Cycle Inventory of Solid Wastes Showing Sensitivity to PC2 Use
Assumptions 5_ j j
Table 5-7: Life Cycle Inventory of Atmospheric Emissions Showing Sensitivity of PC2 Use
Assumptions 5-12
Table 5-8: Life Cycle Inventory of Waterborne Wastes Showing Sensitivity of PC2 Use
Assumptions 5_j3
Table 6-1. Classification Categories for Ecosystem Quality and Human Health 6-10
Table 6-2. Summary of Partial Impact Analysis 6-16
Table 7-1. .Summary of Impact Assessment Results with Comparison of Improvement
Alternatives to Baseline -. 7.5
Table 7-2. Economic Comparison of Disposal and Recovery 7.9
Table 7-3: Sensitivity of PC Blend 2 Costs to Demand 7-10
Table 7-4: Estimated PC Blend 2 Costs, Various Usage Scenarios 7-11
Figures
Figure 1-1. LCI energy profile by component for PC Blend 2 radome depainting solvent (In
percent) 1_5
Figure 1-2. LCI energy profile by category for PC Blend 2 radome depainting solvent (In
percent) 1-6
Figure 1-3. LCI energy profile by fuel type for PC Blend 2 radome depainting solvent (In
percent) j_g
Figure 1-4. LCI solid waste profile by component for PC Blend 2 radome depainting solvent (In
percent) 1_7
Figure 1-5. LCI energy usage by component showing sensitivity to improvement alternatives.
1-12
Figure 1-6. LCI solid wastes by component showing sensitivity to improvement alternatives.
1-14
Figure 1-7. Summary of impact analysis average percent difference from baseline over all
potential impact categories l_2i
Figure 2-1. General materials flow for "cradle-to-grave" analysis of a product system ...... 2-2
Figure 2-2. LCI study boundary for PC Blend 2 (see Appendix A for detailed material flow
diagrams) 2-4
Figure 2-3. "Black box" concept for developing LCI data ._ 2-6
Figure 2-4. Flow diagrams illustrating coproduct allocation for product 'A1 2-6
Figure 3-1. LCI energy profile by component for PC Blend 2 radome depainting solvent (In
percent). ' 3,3
XI
-------
Figure 3-2. LCI energy profile by category for PC Blend 2 radome depainting solvent (In
percent) 3-5
Figure 3-3. LCI energy profile by fuel type for PC Blend 2 radome depainting solvent (In-
percent) 3-6
Figure 4-1. LCI solid waste profile by component for PC Blend 2 radome depainting solvent (In
percent) ' 4-2
Figure 4-2. LCI solid waste profile by category for PC Blend 2 radome depainting solvent (In
percent) ; 4-3
Figure 5-1. Illustration of recycling system in comparison to each virgin system independently5-3
Figure 7-1. LCI energy usage by component showing sensitivity to improvement alternatives 7-3
Figure 7-2. LCI solid wastes by component showing sensitivity to improvement alternatives 7-5
Figure 7-3. Summary of impact analysis average percent difference from baseline over all
potential impact categories 7-7
Figure 7-4. Estimated average annual costs of PC2 supply, recycling, and disposal 7-12
Xll
-------
Acronyms
BOD
Btu
CFC
CO
COD
DBE
DO
DoD
EPA
kwh
LCA
LCI
MEK
MSDS
NMP
NO2
NRMRL
OC-ALC
PC
PC2
REPA
Rfd
SERDP
SETAC
TAFB
TDS
TOD
biochemical oxygen demand
British thermal unit
chlorofluorohydrocarbons
carbon monoxide
chemical oxygen demand
dibasic ester *
dissolved oxygen
Department of Defense
Environmental Protection Agency
kilowatt-hours
Life Cycle Assessment
life cycle inventory .
methyl ethyl ketone
Material Safety Data Sheets
n-methyl-pyrrolidone
nitrogen dioxide
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center
propylene carbonate
PC Blend 2
resource and environmental profile analyses
reference dose values
Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program
Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
Tinker Air Force Base
total dissolved solids
total oxygen demand
xni
-------
-------
Chapter 1
Executive Summary
Introduction
This executive summary highlights the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA),performed by Franklin
Associates, Ltd. on a potential replacement solvent blend for aircraft radome depainting at the
Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center (OC-ALC) at Tinker Air Force Base (TAFB). LCA, as
defined by the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SET AC) and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is composed of three separate but interrelated
components: 1) life cycle inventory, 2) life cycle impact assessment, and 3) life cycle
improvement analysis. This study completes all three components.
The study uses a comprehensive approach, encompassing all energy requirements, solid
wastes, atmospheric emissions, and waterborne wastes associated with the production, use, and
disposal of the depainting solvent. Each major processing step, from the extraction of raw'
material to final disposition of the spent solvent, is included in this cradle-to-grave assessment.
The life cycle inventory (LCI) quantifies these values. The partial impact assessment uses a
classification system to categorize the atmospheric and waterborne emissions into the relevant
potential impact categories of ecosystem and human health. Then, a mass loading
characterization model is used to compare the baseline impact results to the different
improvement alternatives. The improvement assessment uses the results from the LCI and impact
assessment along with a cost analysis to evaluate the improvement alternatives.
Background
Currently, TAFB uses methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) to depaint B-52 and KC-135 aircraft
radomes. Because of the high volatility of MEK, significant evaporative losses to the atmosphere
occur during each depainting session. Additionally, MEK has been targeted for elimination by the
EPA's 33/50 Voluntary Reduction Program. The EPA and TAFB are currently evaluating
solvent blends containing propylene carbonate as a nonvolatile and less toxic substitute for MEK.
One propylene carbonate solvent blend currently being evaluated and the focus of this LCA, is
known as PC Blend 2 (PC2). The PC Blend 2 is composed of 50 percent n-methyl-pyrrolidone
(NMP), 25 percent dibasic ester (DBE), and 25 percent propylene carbonate (PC). Results of
initial performance screening studies indicate acceptable performance of this solvent for
depainting radomes.
1-1
-------
Scope
This report presents a detailed life cycle assessment of the entire life cycle of the PC2 from
raw material acquisition to final disposition. To enhance the utility of this report and to assist
readers with relative perspective and comprehension, the results of this LCI are presented in detail
in Chapters 3 and 4 on the following three bases: per 10 KC-135 aircraft radomes depainted
(estimated to require 110 gallons of PC2); per 10 B-52 aircraft radomes depainted (estimated to
require 180 gallons of PC2); and per annual PC2 usage at TAFB for depainting radomes
(estimated to require approximately 1,820 gallons PC2). Because the KC-135 is the predominant
radome processed at TAFB, it was selected as the "baseline scenario." The results presented in
this Executive Summary are for the baseline scenario and represent depainting of 10 KC-135
radomes. The relative results for the baseline scenario are generally representative of the results
for both the B-52 and for the annual usage of PC2. The conclusions drawn for the impact
assessment and improvement analysis would also be quite similar for the other bases.
Because PC2 is not currently being used in aircraft radome depainting operations at TAFB,
key assumptions were made based on limited knowledge of how PC2 would likely perform in use.
These assumptions comprise the baseline PC2 use scenario presented in the LCI. However,
because of the lack of experience in PC2 depainting performance, the parameters around the use
of PC2 may be quite different than assumed in the baseline scenario. Therefore, a number of
alternative PC2 use and waste management scenarios are also evaluated in this study. The
baseline and alternative scenarios are described below.
Baseline PC2 Use Scenario
10 KC-135 radomes depainted
110 gallons PC2 required for 10 radomes
Each radome showered continuously for 2 hours
Disposal of spent PC2 is by incineration (no energy recovery)
Alternative Waste Management Scenario
Recycling of spent PC2
Alternative PC2 Use Scenarios;
Varying volume of PC2 required (plus or minus 20 percent)
Varying yield of radomes per PC2 volume (five radomes to 20 radomes per 110 gallons)
Varying time required (one hour to four hours per radome)
1-2
-------
Life Cycle Inventory
Methodology
The life cycle inventory methodology is only very briefly described here. A thorough
discussion of the LCI methodology can be found in Chapter 2 of this report. A life cycle
inventory (LCI) quantifies the resource consumption (i.e., raw materials and energy) and
environmental emissions (i.e., atmospheric emissions, waterborne wastes, and solid wastes) for a
given product based upon the study boundaries established. The unique feature of this type of
analysis is its focus on the entire life cycle of a product, from raw material acquisition to final
disposition, rather than on a single manufacturing step or environmental emission.
As a first step in any LCI, the system boundaries must be defined and the individual processes
identified that lead to the end product. This activity is usually summarized with process flow
diagrams. The next step usually consists of developing a preliminary material balance around each
process and eventually the entire system. This effort ensures that all raw materials are accounted
for and no significant waste streams have been overlooked.
For each process identified in the LCI, average energy requirements are first quantified in
terms of fuel or electricity units, such as cubic feet of natural gas, gallons of diesel fuel, or
kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity. The fuel used to transport raw materials to each process is
included as a part of the LCI energy requirements.
Once the fuel consumption for each industrial process and transportation step is quantified,
the fuel units are converted from their original units to an equivalent British thermal unit (Btu)'
based on standard conversion factors. The conversion factors have been developed to account for
the energy required to extract, transport, and process the fuels and to account for the energy
content of the fuels. The energy to extract, transport, and process fuels into a usable form is
labeled precombustion energy. For electricity, precombustion energy calculations include
adjustments for the average efficiency of conversion of fuel to electricity, and for transmission
losses in power lines based on national averages.
The LCI methodology assigns a fuel-energy equivalent to raw materials that are derived from
fossil fuels. Therefore, the total energy requirement for coal, natural gas, or petroleum based raw
materials includes the fuel-energy of the material (called energy of material resource or inherent
energy). In this study, this applies to the crude oil and natural gas used as raw materials to
produce the raw materials comprising PC Blend 2.
Environmental emissions are categorized as atmospheric emissions, waterborne wastes, and
solid wastes, and represent discharges into the environment after existing emission control'
devises. Similar to energy, environmental emissions associated with processing fuels into usable
forms are also included in the inventory analysis. When efforts to obtain actual industry emissions
1-3
-------
data fail, published emissions standards are used as the basis for determining environmental
emissions.
Atmospheric emissions include substances classified by regulatory agencies as pollutants, as
well as selected nonregulated emissions such as carbon dioxide. Atmospheric emissions
associated with the combustion of fuel for process or transportation energy, as well as process
emissions, are included in the LCI. The amounts reported represent actual discharges into the
atmosphere after existing emission control devices.
As with atmospheric emissions, waterborne wastes include all substances classified as
pollutants. The values reported are the average quantity of pollutants still present in the
wastewater stream after wastewater treatment, and represent discharges into receiving waters.
This includes both process-related and fuel-related waterborne wastes.
The solid wastes category includes solid wastes generated from all sources that are landfilled
or disposed of in some other way. Also included is the ash from the combustion of materials at
combustion facilities, such as an electric utility. It does not include materials that are recovered
for reuse or recycling.
When performing an LCI analysis, typically both postconsumer and industrial wastes are
considered. Postconsumer solid wastes are primarily packaging materials that are discarded by
consumers after they have fulfilled their use. In this analysis, no postconsumer waste is
considered and all solid waste generated is categorized as process-related or fuel-related industrial
waste. Examples of industrial solid wastes are wastewater treatment sludge, solids collected in air
pollution control devices, trim or waste materials from manufacturing operations that are not
recycled, fuel combustion residues such as the ash generated by burning coal or wood, and
mineral extraction wastes.
Baseline LCI Results and Discussion
A summary of the results of the life cycle inventory for the baseline scenario is presented in
the following sections. More detailed results and discussion of the baseline scenario appear in
Chapters 3, and 4 of this report. A discussion of reliability of results can be found in Chapter 2.
In this discussion, the use of the word "pollutant" is not meant to imply the chemical is
harmful to the environment or to human health. It is used to refer to the chemicals released
during the life cycle of PC2. Most of these chemicals represent regulated emissions.
Energy Requirements
Energy requirements are presented in this section on the basis of system component, energy
category, and original fuel source. The energy requirements presented for the system components
include: 'the production of the three chemical products comprising the PC Blend 2 (DBE, NMP,
and PC), blending of the components to make PC2, use of PC2 at TAFB, and disposal by
1-4
-------
incineration. Total energy is separated into the categories of process energy, transportation
energy, and energy of material resource. Finally, energy requirements are broken down into
original fuel source which consists of: natural gas, petroleum, nuclear, coal, and other energy
(hydropower, and wood).
The energy contributions of each major component included in the LCI are illustrated in
Figure 1-1. The total energy for depainting ten KC-135 radomes is approximately 43 million Btu.
Raw materials acquisition and chemical processing associated with the production of NMP, DBE,
and PC account for 56 percent, 23 percent, and 16 percent of the total energy requirements,
respectively. Together, these three components of PC2 account for 95 percent of the total energy
requirements. Blending, usage, and disposal of PC2 account for the remaining five percent of the
total energy requirements.
PC (16%)
DBE (23%)
NMP (56%)
Blending (1%)
Usage (4%)
Disposal (0.4%)
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
Figure 1-1. LCI energy profile by component for PC Blend 2 radome depainting solvent
(In percent).
The total energy requirements are separated by category in Figure 1-2. Energy categories in
an LCI consist of process energy, transportation energy, and energy of material resource. Process
energy is energy consumed by the various processes used to manufacture the PC2. It accounts
for 44 percent of the total energy required for the production of the solvent. Transportation
energy describes the energy used as fuel to transport the chemicals and materials to the next step
in the manufacturing process. Transportation energy represents a small portion of the total
energy, accounting for only three percent of the total energy requirements. The energy of
material resource is the inherent energy of petroleum, natural gas, and coal when used as a raw
material feedstock. Energy of material resource represents the largest single use of energy for this
system at approximately 54 percent of the total energy requirements.
The total energy requirements for the production and use of PC2 for depainting radomes are
reported by the source of energy in Figure 1-3. Energy requirements are categorized into five
1-5
-------
Energy of Material
Resource (54%)
Process Energy (44%)
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
Transportation Energy (3%)
Figure 1-2. LCI energy profile by category for PC Blend 2 radome depainting solvent (In
percent).
basic energy sources: natural gas, petroleum, coal, nuclear, and other energy (i.e., geothermal,
lar, hydropower, etc.). The majority of the energy is derived from natural gas and petroleum
which comprise 69 percent and 23 percent of the total energy, respectively. These values include
the energy of material resource attributed to natural gas and petroleum when used as a raw
material feedstock. The remaining eight percent of the energy needs for PC2 production and use
are met by nuclear energy, coal and other energy sources.
Petroleum (23%)
Nuclear (2%)
Other (0.4%)
Coal (6%)
i -- S=S===^=^=^^g=g=f
'^^====^^^^^^__^__y
Natural Gas (69%)
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
Figure 1-3. LCI energy profile by fuel type for PC Blend 2 radome depainting solvent (In
percent).
1-6
-------
Solid Waste
The solid waste category includes industrial solid waste generated from the individual
processes in the manufacture, use, and disposal of the PC2 for depainting radomes. Industrial
solid waste includes wastewater treatment sludges, solids resulting from air pollution control
devices, trim or waste materials from manufacturing operations that are not recycled, fuel
combustion residues, such as ash from burning wood or coal, and extraction wastes.
The industrial solid waste by weight for each scenario is displayed by system component in
Figure 1-4. Over the entire life-cycle, about 80 pounds of industrial solid waste is produced for
every ten KC-135 radomes that are depainted. The production of NMP, DBE, and PC each
contribute 29, 18, and 11 percent, respectively, of the total industrial solid waste. Together, these
three components comprise 58 percent of industrial solid waste produced. The blending
operation contributes about 11 percent of the total solid waste. The PC2 use component includes
solid wastes from electricity use at TAFB for the depainting operation and represents 32 percent
of the total solid waste. The PC2 disposal component contributes less than one percent to the
total industrial solid waste produced.
PC2 Use (32%)
Blending (11%)
PC (11%)
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
Disposal (0.4%)
DBE (18%)
NMP (29%)
Figure 1-4. LCI solid waste profile by component for PC Blend 2 radome depainting
solvent (In percent).
Total solid wastes may also be disaggregated by the system categories: industrial process
wastes and industrial fuel-related wastes. Process solid wastes are wastes produced as a result of
the process steps within the product life cycle. Fuel-related solid wastes are solid wastes that
result from the combustion of fuels. Fuel-related solid wastes, by far, make the greatest
contribution to the overall system, representing 94 percent of the total industrial solid wastes
produced. Process solid wastes comprise the remaining six percent of total solid waste.
1-7
-------
Atmospheric and Waterborne Emissions
The industrial atmospheric and waterborne emissions are shown by pollutant in Tables 1-1 and
1-2 for the baseline scenario with ten KC-135 radomes depainted. The industrial wastes are
broken down into process, fuel-related, and total emissions in Table 1-1 and into system
component in Table 1-2.
As shown in Table 1-1 for the industrial atmospheric emissions, both process- and fuel-
related categories of emissions contribute significantly to the totals. Fuel acquisition and
combustion is a source of atmospheric aldehydes, ammonia, carbon monoxide, fossil
carbon dioxide, hydrocarbons, hydrogen chloride, kerosene, lead, methane, nitrogen oxides,
other organics, particulate emissions, and sulfur oxides. Although not considered a pollutant, the
amount of carbon dioxide that is emitted is also shown. Portions of these emissions categories
may also come from process emissions. The majority of the carbon dioxide and nitrogen dioxide
emissions are given off during incineration of the spent PC2. Process aldehyde emissions come
from petroleum refining operations. Ammonia emissions are due to the manufacture of ammonia
as an intermediate material, and also to the production of carbon dioxide. The carbon monoxide
process emissions come primarily from formaldehyde production and also the operation to
produce adipic acid. Hydrocarbon process emissions come primarily from natural gas and
crudeoil production and processing. The production of propylene oxide results in process
isobutane and propylene oxide emissions. Process sulfur oxide emissions are primarily the result
of natural gas processing. Evaporative emissions for the PC2 are assumed to equal 0.5 percent of
the total PC2 used, and are shown for each component of the blend.
Waterborne emissions are also shown in Table 1-1 by process and fuel related categories.
Fuel acquisition and combustion is a source of waterborne acid, ammonia, BOD, chromium,
COD, dissolved solids, iron, lead, metal ion, oil, phenol, sulfuric acid, suspended solids, and zinc
emissions. Portions of these emissions categories may also come from process emissions.
Process acid emissions come primarily from the process to make benzene, an intermediate for the
DBE. Manufacture of ammonia, hydrogen, carbon dioxide, and petroleum refinery operations are
all sources of process ammonia emissions. Process BOD emissions occur during the production
of ammonia, methanol, and the nitric acid intermediates for DBE. Chromium, phenol, zinc, and
COD process emissions come from petroleum refinery operations. The production of ammonia
also produces COD emissions. Dissolved solids are produced primarily from the refined
petroleum products, but some also come from the production of sodium hydroxide used in the
manufacture of DBE. Sodium hydroxide production also results in mercury, zinc, and nickel
emissions. Process metal ion emissions come from petroleum products refining. Process oil
emissions are a result of crude oil and natural gas production and petroleum products refining.
Sulfide process emissions are reported for benzene and sodium hydroxide production. The
processes to make ammonia, methanol, and refinery operations are the sources of suspended
solids emissions.
1-8
-------
Table 1-1. Life Cycle Inventory of Atmospheric and Waterborne Emissions by Component for PC Blend 2 Radome Depainting Solvent*
(In pounds)
Per Ten KC-13S Aircraft Radomes Depainted (I)
Atmospheric Emissions
Aldehydes
Ammonia -
Carbon Dioxide)
Carbon Monoxide
Chlorine
Dibasic Ester (DBE) f
Hydrocarbons
Hydrogen Chloride
Isobutane
Kerosene
Lead
Mercury
Methane
N-Methyi-Pyrrolidone (NMP) f
Nitrogen Orides$
Other Organics
Particulates
Propyiene
Propyiene Carbonate (PC) f
Propyiene Oxide
Sulfur Oxides
Waterborne Wastes
Acid
Ammonia
BOD
Chromium
COD
Dissolved Solids
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Metal Ion
Nickel
Oil
Phenol
Sulfides
Sulfuric Acid
Suspended Solids
Zinc
Process-
Related
0.022
0.43
1,986
18.4
8JE-05
12
28.8
6.0E-05
0.82
-
S.6E-07
4.4E-05
.
2.5
229
_
0.033
0.080
12.
0.039
12.
0.0026
0.026
0.075
33E-05
0.093
0.46
1.6E-04
8.0E-07
2.2E-08
0.0094
1.2E-08
0.065
4.6E-05
0.0011
-
0.085
1.2E-05
. * Includes all process and fuel related atmosoheric emissions aw
Fuel-
Related
0.036
4.1E-04
2,429
2.8
1.6E-05
17.8
1.2E-05
2.0E-04
1.9E-04
0.040
.
6.0
0.53
13
.
m
6.8
9.0E-08
1.4E-04
0.0011
3.6E-07
0.0052
0.074
0.11
1.6E-07
_
0.0019
_
0.0062
6.2E-06
.
0.46
0.0010
23E-06
Kiated with raw
Total
Emissions
0.058
0.43
4,415
21.2
12.
46.6
0.82
2.0E-04
1.9E-04
4.4E-05
0.040
2J
235
OJ3
13
0.080
12.
0.039
8.0
0.0026
0.026
0.076
3.4E-05
0.098
0.54
0.11
9.6E-07
0.011
l^E-08
0.071
S.2E-05
0.0011
0.46
0.086
1.4E-05
PCX! blend (i.e, DBE, NMP, PCX PC2 blending, and PC2 use at TAFB.
t Represents estimated atmospheric emissions at TAFB assuming 0.5 percent evaporative
loss of PCX! blend during aircraft radome depainting.
J Includes emissions from incineration of spent PC2.
(I) Based on 110 gallons of PCX! used per ten KC-135 aircraft radomes depainted.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
1-9
-------
The atmospheric and waterborne emissions in Table 1-2 show the total emissions broken into
system components. The production of DBE, NMP, and PC, the PC2 components, include both
process- and fuel-related emissions. The emissions for PC Blending 2 do not include any process
emissions; only fuel-related emissions for utility requirements and transportation to TAFB are
included. With the exception of DBE, NMP, and PC atmospheric emissions, the results shown
for PC2 use at TAFB include only fuel-related emissions for the electricity used in the depainting
operation. The results for the PC2 disposal include fuel-related emissions for transportation and
atmospheric process emissions of nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide from combustion of the
spent PC2.
Results and Discussion of LCI Sensitivity Analyses
A summary of the results of the life cycle inventory for the alternative scenarios is presented in
the following sections. More detailed results and a discussion of the alternative scenarios appear
in Chapter 5 of this report. A discussion of reliability of results can be found in Chapter 2.
Sensitivities of the baseline energy and emissions results to changes in the major assumptions
concerning the use and disposal of PC2 are examined here. As described earlier in the summary,
the use of PC2 has been very limited thus far. Therefore, the parameters around the use of PC2
may be quite different than assumed in the baseline scenario. The scenarios in this section are
chosen to illustrate the effects of changes in the major assumptions. As outlined in the scope of
work in this summary, the alternative use and disposal scenarios are: recycling of the spent PC2,
varying the volume required (± 20 percent), varying the yield (5 or 20 radomes per 110 gallons),
and varying the time required for depainting (1 to 4 hours per depainting session).
The results include all energy use and emissions associated with raw material acquisition,
chemical processes for producing the three components comprising PC2 (i.e., DBE, NMP, PC),
PC Blending 2 and PC2 use and disposal for depainting radomes at TAFB. For the recycled
system, it is assumed that a recovery rate of approximately 85 percent can be achieved with the
recycling process. The 15 percent lost could either be at TAFB (adhering to waste paint chips or
absorbed in the cloth filter) or during distillation. The amount lost is assumed to be ultimately
incinerated as hazardous waste. Virgin PC, DBE, and NMP must be used to make up for the 15
percent loss each time the spent PC2 is recycled and also the 0.5 percent evaporative loss
assumed to occur during the use of PC2. The recycled system results also includes the energy
requirements and emissions produced when transporting the spent PC2 to a theoretical recycling
facility in Texas, distilling the waste solvent blend, re-blending the components, and transporting
the recycled PC2 back to TAFB for another use.
Enercv
The energy requirements for the different use scenarios are summarized in Figure 1-5. By
recycling the spent PC2, the total energy requirements are reduced by about 70 percent. Most of
the reduction comes from decreased process and energy of material resource requirements in the
back-end steps for producing the DBE, PC, and NMP components of the blend. The energy for
1-10
-------
pounds)
' Life C>ClC InVe"t0ry °f AtmosPheric saiA Waterborne Emissions by Process for PC Blend 2 Radome Depainting Solvent (In
Atmospheric Emissions
Aldehydes
Ammonia
Carbon Dioxide}
Carbon Monoxide
Chlorine
Dibasic Ester (DBE) t
YTlRllMtltali
"J" 1 IT
Hydrogen Chloride
Tsnhitsnn
Kerosene
Mercury
Methane
N-Methyl-PyiroIidooe (NMP) t
Nitrogen Oxides}
Other Organics
Particulates
Propyiene
Propyiene Carbonate (PC) t
Propyiene Oxide
Sulfur Oxides
Waterborne Wastes
Acid
BOD
c_Jif mHflifli
COD
Dissolved Solids
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Metal Ion
Nickel
Oil
Phenol
Sulfides
SulfinicAcid
Suspended Solids -
Zinc
Dibasic
Ester*
(DBE)
0.021
0.065
589
1.8
43E-05
-
3.0E-05
.
2.0E-05
3.5E-03
4.4E-05
0.011
1.5
0.095
0.24
.
.
1.4
0.0026
0.0042
0.0097
33E-05
0.033
0.28
0.017
4.0E47
L2E-08
0.0047
6.6E-09
0.050
3.1E-05
0.0011
0.069
0.010
5.8E-06
N-Methyl-
PyrroUdone*
(NMP)
0.023
0.26
1.148
18.5
4.4E-05
-
30.1
3JE-05
6.0E-05
5.0E-OS
0.022
Z6 .
0.22
0.42
.
.
m
3.0
2.4E-07
0.016
0.065
9.7E-07
0.061
0.20
0.032
4JE-07
.
0.0052
.
0.018
1.7E-OS
.
0.13
0.075
63E-06
Propyiene
Carbonate*
(PC)
0.0070
0.11
381
0.42
9.6E-06
.
73
7.2E-06
0.82
2JE-05
3JE45
0.0062
0.86
0.085
0.16
0.080
0.039
1.1
5J3E-08
0.0065
6.5E-04
Z1E-07
0.0031
0.044
0.013
1.0E47
l.OE-08
0.0011
5.8E-09
0.0031 .
3.6E-06
0.051
6.0E-04
1.4E46
PC2
Blendine
0.0012
1.1E45
77.6
0.11
4.5E47
.
0.12
3.4E4)7
14E-05
1.8E-05
4.6E-04
036
0.021
0.13
0.63
4.0E-06
3.0E-03
9.8E-09
1.4E-04
0.0020
0.013
4.4E-09
_
5JE-05
m
1.1E-04
1.7E-07
0.052
2.8E45
6.4E-08
PC2U»e
atTAFBA
4.0E4M
1.4E-03
215
0.22
53E47
U
OJO
4.0E-07
m
7.1E-03
S3E4S
0.0013
0.94
0.0023
035
1.2
1.8
2^E-09
4.7E-06
3.6E-05
1.2E48
1.8E44
0.0024
0.038
5.2E49
6^E-05
1.5EXM
2.0E47
0.15
3.4E-05
7.6E-08
PC2
Dispocal
0.0051
3.4E-05
2,005
0.19
1JE-06
w
0.083
9.9E-07
9.5E-08
1.7&07
Z7E-05
229
0.10
0.027
0.037
7.3E-09
1.2E-05
9.0E-05
4.2E-04
0.0060
5.4E-05
1.3E-08
1.5E-04
.
2.8E-04
5.0E-07
2.0E-04
8.2E-05
13E47
Total
Emlssioiis
0.058
0.43
4.415
21.2
1.2
46.6
7.2E-03
2.0E4M
13E44
0.040
235
0.53
13
A f\Qn
U.Uou
A 1190
U.UJ9
8.0
0.0026
0.026
0.076
3.4E-05
0.098
0.54
0.11
9.6E-07
2.2E-08
0.011
UE-08
0.071
5.2E-05
0.46
0.086
1.4E-05
chemical processing for producing the three compooents comprising PC2 blend (Le, DBE, NMP, PC).
during aircraft radome depainting.
Emissions associated with the generation of electricity uied «t TAFR for A^mting «i>«.ft
radomes is also included.
Includes emissions fixxn incineration of spent PC2. 229 pounds of the carbon dioxide and 1,983 pounds of the
nitrogen oxide emissions are calculated emissions for the incineration of the spent PC2 blend.
(1) Based on 110 gallons of PC2used per ten KC-135 aircraft ndomes depainted.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
1-11
-------
4 hrs ,'radome
1 hr /radome
20radomes/110gal.
Sradomes/llOgal.
Volume -20%
Volume +20%
Recvcle
Baseline
10 20 30
40 50
Energy (MMBtu)
60 70 ' 80 90
D PC2 Production M PC2 Use D Distillation Disposal
Figure 1-5. LCI energy usage by component showing sensitivity to improvement
alternatives.
Source: Tables 5-land 5-5.
1-12
-------
producing the PC2 is to make up for the 15 percent recycling loss and plus the 0 5 percent
evaporative emissions and for PC Blend 2. The energy for disposal of waste is also drastically
reduced to about 15 percent of the baseline amount. The energy for distilling and transporting the
spent PC2 is about 25 percent of the total energy for the recycled system. Source: Tables 5-1 and
The energy results are also very sensitive to any changes in the volume and yield assumptions
An increase or decrease in the volume required brings about a proportional increase or decrease in
the energy required to produce the PC2. Similarly, an increase or decrease in yield affects the
volume required per radome. Again, the increase/decrease in total energy requirements is
approximately proportional to the volume change.
Changes in the time required for depainting do not have as great an effect on the energy
results. This is simply because varying the time only affects the PC2 use component; the use is
only about three percent of the total energy in the baseline.
Solid Waste
The solid waste generation for the different use scenarios are summarized in Figure 1-6. Total
solid waste generation is decreased by about 50 percent for the recycled system when compared
to the baseline system. The reduction of fuel and process-related solid wastes associated with
producing the three components of the PC2 is primarily responsible for this reduction. However,
a small increase in fuel-related solid waste results from the recycling process and transportation to
and from the recycling facility.
As with the energy results, the total solid waste is quite sensitive to assumptions regarding
volume of PC2 required per radome. Because over 60 percent of the solid waste is due to the
production of the components (DEE, PC, and NMP) and blending of the PC2, any change in the
amount of PC2 required per radome has a substantial effect on the solid waste results. Changes in
the volume required and the yield result in fairly proportionate changes in the PC2 production,
distillation, and disposal components.
The process energy used at TAFB is electricity; therefore, changes in the processing time
(thus, electricity requirements) result in substantial changes in electricity related fuel pollutants.
The dramatic changes in solid waste which result from variations in process time are due primarily
to solid waste from electricity generating plants (i.e. ash from coal).
Atmospheric and Waterborne Emissions
Tables 1-3 and 1-4 present atmospheric and waterborae emissions results for PC2 aircraft
radome depainting solvent for the baseline and alternative scenarios.
All but four emissions categories show a dramatic reduction in emissions for the recycled
system. The exceptions are the atmospheric emissions: dibasic ester, propylene carbonate, and
1-13
-------
4 hrs. /'radome
1 hr. /radome
20 radomes/110 gal.
5 radomes/110 gal.
Volume-20%
Volume +20%
Recycle
Baseline
20
-.} ' '' '.*"»
' ' " " '." '
40
60 80
Solid Waste (Ibs)
100
D PC2 Production M PC2 Use
D Distillation
120
Disposal
140
Figure 1-6. LCI solid wastes by component showing sensitivity to improvement
alternatives.
Source: Tables 5-2 and 5-6
1-14
-------
n-methyl-pyrrolidone (the three components of PC Blend 2), and other organics. The three PC2
components are the assumed atmospheric emissions during the PC2 use step at TAFB, and are
assumed to remain unchanged with the use of recycled PC2. The other organics emissions
increase for the recycled system because they are primarily related to additional transportation fuel
pollutants produced when spent PC2 is transported to and from Texas for recovery. Source-
Tables 5-2 and 5-6.
Increasing the volume of PC2 required results in increased emissions across the board, while
decreasing the volume required results in decreased emissions. The decreases/increases in most
cases are fairly proportionate to the change in PC2 required. This is because all the back-end
steps have been changed proportionately. However, some emissions categories are less sensitive
to the PC2 requirements. For example, sulfur oxides, paniculate emissions, sulfuric acid, iron,
kerosene, and airborne lead emissions change to a lesser degree than the other emissions. This is
a reflection of their close tie to electricity consumption at TAFB which remains unchanged when
the volume is varied.
Increasing the yield (less PC2 required) results in decreased emissions across the board, while
decreasing the yield (more PC2 required) results in increased emissions. Again, most of the
changes are fairly proportionate to the change in PC2 required, although some emissions
categories are less sensitive to the PC2 requirements.
The results for varying the amount of time required per radome are shown in the last two
columns. A baseline depainting time of two hours was assumed. For these analyses, the
depainting time was halved and doubled. The comparison shows that decreasing the time to one
hour results in decreased emissions in almost every category, while increasing the time results in
increased emissions. The differences seen are fairly small for most categories of emissions.
However, sulfur oxides, particulates, sulfuric acid, iron, kerosene, and airborne lead emissions
change to a greater degree than the other emissions. This is entirely a reflection of their close tie
to electricity consumption at TAFB.
Partial Impact Assessment
Methodology
Impact assessment, as defined by SET AC in A Conceptual Framework for Life-Cycle
Impact Assessment, March 1993, consists of three steps: classification, characterization, and
valuation. These steps are explained as follows:
Classification - The process of assigning and aggregating results from the inventory analysis
into relatively homogenous potential impact categories and subcategories. For example, carbon
monoxide and methane are assigned to greenhouse gas/global warming under ecosystem effects.
1-15
-------
en
S3
O
c.
«
to
O
««
*
c.
S
S
in
VI
<
t»
01
I
1
K>
be
S
1
^
a
o
s
.£2
W
8
u
en gj
O 4-<
I 'I
< e.
s §
o £
8-S
ie
*
« a>
E- e.
1-16
-------
S
o
K
*n
M
u
e-
o
fe*
>>
fcrf
o «n oo <« «r>
!iiSi is;
o o <(? e !
S i 5 | S
^ *M ^^ ^^ *
ss - S:r:s-"ss & a
C> ^^ ^3 f^ ^j w^ CO OO ^7
: B S «S«"S0 Sw
«^i ^3 Su ^5 &k *1 ^^ «»
t
c*»rooo«no>
8.'
S-!
. O
I O
O Cu 2 O
si
O O F; O
f
ov vo vo >o w"> oo
_ oo *
oC ci
>n \o >e m
p* o ««^ ^ oo o
ta § tu g o P w
i ° i S ^
»
-------
Characterization - The process of equating the pollutants in each impact category using the
magnitude of potential impact. For example, under visibility alterations, the goal is to develop a
method of equating X pounds of nitrogen oxide emissions to Y pounds of particulate emissions.
Valuation - The process of integrating the various impact categories by assigning a relative
value or weight to each category.
The emissions identified by the inventory are classified into ecosystem and human health
impact categories based on their potential impact within a category. The classification categories
for ecosystem quality and human health are listed below.
Human Health
Human Carcinogen (Class A)
Irritant (Eye, Lung, Skin, GI Tract)/Corrosive
Respiratory System Effects
Central Nervous System Effects
Aliergenicity/Sensitization
Blood Dyscrasias (Methemoglobinemia
or Hematopoietic Effects)
Odors
Cardiovascular System Effects
Reproductive Effects
Behavioral Effects
Bone Effects
Renal Effects
Ecosystem Quality
Greenhouse Gas/Global Warming
Ozone Depleting Gas/
Stratospheric Ozone Depletion
Acid Rain Precursor/Acid Rain
Smog Precursor/Photochemical
Smog/ Tropospheric Ozone
Air Dispersion/Aging/Transport
Aquatic Life
Eutrophication/Plant Life
* Visibility Alterations (air or water)
Weather Alterations
Thermal Changes
pH Alterations
Chemical/Biological Content
Alteration
Oxygen Depletion
Aquifer Contamination
Definitions of the classification categories and chemicals assigned to each are included in the
discussion in Chapter 6 and Appendix B.
Without critical exposure or daily intake information, most characterization methods for
establishing equivalence between pollutants in each classification category do not give conclusive
results. However, the mass loading characterization model is utilized for this analysis to obtain
meaningful results.
The loading technique assesses the inventory chemical emissions data on quantity only, using
the assumptions that less quantity produces less potential impact. This model is not a measure of
environmental impact. It is best used in a comparative analysis for two or more systems or two or
1-18
-------
more process steps within one system. Quantities of a specific emission within a potential impact
category are compared for each product system and the system that generates the least is
considered to result in the least potential harm to ecosystem quality or human health.
There are several limitations to the use of the loading technique described above First it
does not determine if a quantity of emission poses a significant threat and what the severity' of that
threat is. Also, emissions within a potential impact category cannot be compared For example if
suspended solids and acid both have a potential impact on the category of aquatic life, there is no
guidance on how to determine which produces the greater potential impact.
Valuation is not attempted for this study because it is highly subjective, and there is no
scientific method for accurately completing it. Accepted procedures for conducting valuation are
still being formulated.
Partial Impact Assessment Results and Discussion
Detailed results and discussion of the impact classification and partial characterization of
atmospheric and waterborne environmental releases are presented in Chapter 6 and Appendix C of
this report. The tables in Appendix C show each pollutant that is classified as having a potential
impact on ecosystem quality and human health. The total atmospheric and waterborne emissions
calculated for the inventory phase of this study form the basis for the partial impact assessment
Inventory releases for the baseline and alternative PC2 usage scenarios are presented earlier in
Tables 1-3 and 1-4.
The partial impact assessment results for the atmospheric and waterborne emissions from the
use of PC2 aircraft radome depainting solvent are summarized in Table 1-5 for all scenarios In
this table, "less potential impact" means that, in a given subcategory, the system had no emissions
that were considered higher than the other system's emissions, while at least 1 emission was
higher for the other system. If neither system had any emissions higher than the other, the results
for that subcategory were inconclusive. Results for a subcategory were also inconclusive if each
system had at least one emission higher than the other. For example, for the first line in Table
1-5, the recycled system has significantly less potential impact in 20 subcategories. However, the
results for ozone depletion are considered inconclusive, as are the results for the human health
categories of irritant and allergenicity/sensitivity because each system is higher than the other for
at least one emission in these subcategories.
Figure 1-7 provides some additional insight as to the magnitude of change in emissions
amounts for the various alternatives. The figure summarizes the average percent difference
(shown by the shaded bars) between the alternative scenario and the baseline. The range of the
percent difference is also shown by the dotted lines. It is important to note that while the
recycling scenario results in the greatest reduction in emissions as measured by the average
percent difference, one emission increases (other organics with an increase from baseline of 28
1-19
-------
percent) for the recycling scenario. The other organics emissions are found in three different
potential impact subcategories and cause the "inconclusive" results in Table 1-5.
Table 1-5. Summary of Impact Assessment Results with Comparison of Improvement
Alternatives to Baseline
Number of Potential
Number of Impact
Subcategories with
Alternative System Compared to Baseline Less Potential Impact
100% closed loop recycling of PC2 20
20% increase in \*ohnne of PC2 0
20% decrease in volume of PC2 23
Decrease yield to 5 per 110 gallons 0
IncreaseyieH to 20per 110 gallons 23
Increase depaint time to four hours per radome 0
Decrease depainltime to one hour per radome 23
Source: Appendix C, Tables C-l to C-4.
Impact Subcategories with
Inconclusive Results
0
0
0
0
0
0
Improvement Analysis
So far, the improvement alternatives have been compared by their energy requirements,
produced emissions, and relative potential impact. In addition, an economic evaluation is
provided to estimate the cost to supply the new solvent (PC2), and the cost of disposal or
recovery of the used solvent for each of the improvement alternatives. This analysis is not a life
cycle cost analysis, but instead analyzes the cost to TAFB for the various improvement
alternatives. The analysis assumes that no new capital equipment will be required for the
change-over from MEK to PC2. Thus no capital expenditures are required. Also, for the three
year and five year recycling scenarios, the cost estimates are on a constant basis and do not
include any factor for escalation of material and disposal costs over time. The cost estimates for
the various PC2 use/disposal alternatives are summarized in Table 1-6.
In the baseline scenario, it is assumed that new PC2 would be purchased each year, and the
spent solvent would be disposed of at the Coffeyville, KS hazardous waste incinerator. The total
supply and disposal cost would be about $3 8,951 per year.
The first recycling scenario assumes a three year program of PC2 usage and recycling, after
which all used solvent would be incinerated. For this scenario, new PC2 must be purchased the
first year of operation. In the years following, 85 percent of the new supply would be comprised
1-20
-------
m
I
100.0% -T-
80.0% --
60.0% --
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
-20.0%
-40.0%
-60.0%
-80.0% --
-100.0% -1-
Kecycling
Volume Volume
+20? -20%
5 20
radomes radomes
/llOgal. /110 gal.
L i
4 hours per 1 hour per
radome radome
Figure 1-7. Summary of impact analysis average percent difference from baseline over all
potential impact categories.
Shaded area shows average percent change from baseline and dotted lines show the range.
Source: Tables C-l through C-4.
1-21
-------
Table 1-6. Sensitivity of PC Blend 2 Costs to Demand
Dollars/year (1)
Baseline (1,815 gallons/yr)
Baseline w/ Recycling (3 yr. usage)
Baseline w/ Recycling (5 yr. usage)
Baseline w/+20% volume
Baseline w/-20% volume
Baseline w/+100% volume
Baseline w/-50% volume
New
PC2
31,218
13,528
9,990
37,462
24,974
62,436
15,609
Disposal (2)
7,623
2,724 (3)
1,635 (4)
9,148
6,098
15,246
3,812
Recovery/
Distillation
19,973
23,968
-
-
-
-
Total
38,841
36,225
35,592
46,609
31,073
77,682
19,421
Summarized from Tables 6-3 and 6-4.
(1) All costs are in constant dollars, escalation of costs are not included in these estimates.
(2) Disposal by incineration in a hazardous waste incinerator.
(3) Represents a one-time disposal of PC2 averaged over three years.
(4) Represents a one-time disposal of PC2 averaged over five years.
of recycled PC2 and 15 percent would be new PC2 makeup. The average three year cost is
estimated at $36,225 which is about $2,800 per year less than the base case scenario.
The second recycling scenario is similar to the first with the exception of a five year usage and
recycling program instead of a three year program. For this scenario, the average annual cost is
$35,952 or $3,359 per year lower than the baseline scenario.
As seen in Table 1-6, the relative increases/decreases in the usage constraints are fairly
proportionate to their resulting change in the costs. Increasing/decreasing the volume required by
20 percent results in an increased/decreased cost of approximately 20 percent. Halving and
doubling the yield of PC2 has the effect of doubling/halving the total costs, respectively.
Conclusions
The following conclusions are reached regarding the life cycle inventory, partial impact
assessment, and improvement analysis of PC2 radome depainting solvent. All changes are stated
as results of each alternative scenario are compared to the baseline scenario.
For the recycling scenario:
- total energy requirements decrease by about 70 percent.
- total solid waste is reduced by about 50 percent.
1-22
-------
- total atmospheric and waterborne emissions show an average reduction of about 65
percent. However, the other organics atmospheric emissions increase by 28 percent.
- recycling PC2 results in less potential impact, except for the ecosystem potential impact
category of ozone depletion and the human health categories of irritant/corrosive and
allergenicity.
- total costs for a three year recycling program show an average of seven percent reduction
in costs.
- total costs for a five year recycling program show an average of nine percent reduction in
costs.
By increasing the PC2 volume required per radome by 20 percent:
- total energy requirements increase about 19 percent,
- total solid waste increases about 14 percent.
- total atmospheric and waterborne emissions show an average increase of about 19
percent.
- the overall potential impact on ecosystem quality and human health is increased.
- total cost shows an increase of 20 percent.
By decreasing the PC2 volume required per radome by 20 percent:
- total energy requirements are reduced by about 19 percent.
- total solid waste decreases about 14 percent.
- total atmospheric and waterborne emissions show an average decrease of about 19
percent.
- the overall potential impact on ecosystem quality and human health is decreased.
- total cost shows an decrease of 20 percent.
By halving the yield from 10 to 5 radomes per 110 gallons:
- total energy requirements increase by about 96 percent.
- total solid waste increase by about 69 percent.
- total atmospheric and waterborne emissions increase by an average of 95 percent.
- the overall potential impact on ecosystem quality and human health is increased.
- total costs increase 100 percent.
By doubling the yield from 10 to 20 radomes per 110 gallons:
- total energy requirements are reduced by 48 percent.
- total solid waste is reduced by about 34 percent.
- total atmospheric and waterborne emissions are reduced by an average of 47 percent.
- the overall potential impact on ecosystem quality and human health is decreased.
- total costs are reduced by 50 percent.
By halving the time required for depainting from two to one hour per radome:
- total energy requirements are reduced by only two percent
1-23
-------
- total solid waste is reduced by 16 percent.
- atmospheric and waterborne emissions are reduced an average of three percent.
- the overall potential impact on ecosystem quality and human health is decreased.
- total costs were not calculated for this scenario due to relatively small differences.
By doubling the time required for depainting from two to four hours per radome:
- total energy requirements show an increase of four percent.
- total solids waste shows an increase of 32 percent.
- total atmospheric and waterborne emissions increase by an average of five percent.
- the overall potential impact on ecosystem quality and human health is increased.
- total costs were not calculated for this scenario due to relatively small differences.
Based on an estimate of air emissions with a process screening model, direct emission of PC2
solvent vapors from the TAFB does not result in a significant known health problem as
defined within the scope of this study to anyone outside the immediate working area.
1.24
-------
Chapter 2
Study Approach And Methodology
Introduction
Life cycle assessment (LCA) is an analytical planning tool used by environmental professionals
to quantify and understand (and to ultimately reduce) the resource consumption and
environmental emissions associated with a product or process along its entire life cycle - from
raw materials acquisition through final disposition. LCA is defined by the Society of
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) and the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) as being composed of three separate but interrelated elements: life cycle
inventory, life cycle impact assessment, and life cycle improvement assessment.
A life cycle inventory (LCI) quantifies the resource consumption (i.e., raw materials and
energy) and environmental emissions (i.e., atmospheric emissions, waterborae wastes, and solid
wastes) for a given product based upon the study boundaries established. The unique feature of
this type of analysis is its focus on the entire life cycle of a product, from raw material acquisition
to final disposition, rather than on a single manufacturing step or environmental emission. Figure
2-1 illustrates the general approach used in an LCI analysis.
The information from this type of analysis can be used as the basis for further study of the
potential improvement of resource use aud environmental emissions associated with a given
product. It can also pinpoint areas in the life cycle of a product or process where changes would
be most beneficial in terms of reduced energy use or environmental emissions.
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to provide an LCI that quantifies the energy use and
environmental emissions associated with a potential replacement solvent blend for aircraft radome
depainting at the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center (OC-ALC) at Tinker Air Force Base
(TAFB). A radome is the plastic housing sheltering the antenna assembly of an airplane's radar
set. Currently, TAFB uses methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) to depaint B-52 and KC-135 aircraft
radomes in a ventilated booth. Because of the high volatility of MEK, significant evaporative
losses to the atmosphere occur during each depainting session. The large evaporative losses
associated with using MEK limit the potential to reuse the solvent for depainting more than one
radome, as well as cause difficulties in complying with applicable local, state, and federal air
quality standards. Additionally, MEK b^s been targeted for elimination by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 33/50 Voluntary Reduction Program (also known as
the EPA 17 list).
2-1
-------
I.
£
5
-3
1
i
o
-------
Currently, the U.S. EPA and TAFB are evaluating solvent blends containing propylene
carbonate as a nonvolatile, less toxic substitute for MEK. One propylene carbonate solvent blend
currently being evaluated, and the focus of this LCI, is known as PC2 Blend (PC2). Results of
initial performance screening studies indicate acceptable performance of this solvent for
depainting radomes. The PC2 is comprised of 50 percent n-methyl-pyrrolidone (NMP), 25
percent dibasic ester (DBE), and 25 percent propylene carbonate (PC). The PC2 depainting
process is not expected to require any change in existing capital equipment.
The focus of this LCI study will only be on the use of PC2 for depainting aircraft radomes.
Often LCI is used as a comparative analysis between alternative products or processes, but in this
case no comparison of PC2 to MEK was made because regulations are precluding the use of
MEK. Results of the life cycle impact assessment and improvement assessment for the PC2 are
presented in separate chapters which are a part of this study.
Study Boundaries
An LCI encompasses the entire life cycle of a product, from raw material acquisition to final
disposition, rather than a single manufacturing step or environmental emission. Accordingly, the
study boundaries of this LCI for use of PC2 include the following elements:
raw materials acquisition
production of intermediate chemicals and materials
production of the three primary components of PC2: DBE, NMP, and PC
use of PC2 at TAFB for depainting aircraft radomes
disposal of PC2 by incineration as hazardous waste
Additional alternatives for off-site waste management of spent PC2 will be identified and
analyzed in the improvement assessment phase of this study.
The LCI study boundaries for the analysis of PC2 are illustrated in Figure 2-2. Detailed
process flow diagrams, along with a brief description of the production requirements for the three
primary components of PC2, can be found in Appendix A located at the end of this report.
Life Cycle Inventory Methodology
Key elements of the LCI methodology include the study boundaries, resource inventory (raw
materials and energy), emissions inventory (atmospheric, waterborne, and solid waste), and usage
and disposal practices. Additional discussion on the methodology used to calculate product life
cycle resource and environmental emissions is presented inthe following section of this report.
The LCI study boundary for PC2 was discussed in the previous section of this report. Assumed
PC2 usage practices for depainting aircraft radomes at TAFB are presented in Appendix A at the
end of this report.
2-3
-------
t
5Q
i o e
? e fi
& e
21
2
Ml
«
G
0>
4>
a
«
u
<£
I
^
-------
Franklin Associates, Ltd. has developed a methodology for performing resource and
environmental profile analyses (REPA), commonly called life cycle inventories (LCI). This
methodology has been documented for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and is
incorporated in the EPA report Product Life-Cycle Assessment Inventory Guidelines and
Principles. The methodology is also consistent with the life cycle inventory methodology
described in two workshop reports produced by the Society of Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry (SETAC): A Technical Framework for Life-cycle Assessment, January 1991 and
Guidelines for Life-Cycle Assessment: 'A Code of Practice', 1993. The data presented in this
report were developed using this methodology, which has been in use for over 20 years.
Figure 2-3 illustrates the basic approach to data development for each major process in an
LCI analysis. This approach provides the essential building blocks of data used to construct a
complete resource and environmental emissions inventory profile for the entire life cycle of a
product. Using this approach, each individual process included in the study is examined as a
closed system, or "black box", by fully accounting for all resource inputs and process outputs
associated with that particular process. Resource inputs accounted for in the LCI include raw
materials and energy use, while process outputs accounted for include products manufactured and
environmental emissions.
For each process included in the study, resource requirements and environmental emissions
are determined and expressed in terms of a standard unit of output. A standard unit of output,
such as 1,000 pounds, is typically used as the basis for determining the total life cycle resource
requirements and environmental emissions of a product.
If marketable coproducts or byproducts are produced, adjustments are made in the materials
balance, energy requirements, and environmental emissions to reflect the portion of each
attributable to the product being considered. Figure 2-4 illustrates an example of coproduct
allocation based on mass, the most commonly used basis for allocation.
Material Requirements
Once the LCI study boundaries have been defined and the individual processes identified, a
material balance is performed for each individual process. This analysis identifies and quantifies
the input raw materials required per standard unit of output, such as 1,000 pounds, for each
individual process included in the LCI. The purpose of the material balance is to determine the
appropriate weighting factors used in calculating the total energy requirements and environmental
emissions associated with the production, use, and disposal of PC2. Energy requirements and
environmental emissions are determined for each process and expressed in terms of the standard
unit of output.
Once the detailed material balance has been established for a standard unit of output for each
process included in the LCI, a comprehensive material balance for the entire life cycle of PC2 is
constructed. This analysis determines the quantity of materials required from each process to
2-5
-------
Energy
Requirements
Raw Material A
Raw Materials
fe.
Raw Material C
Manufacturing
Process
rnxuKi
: *
Useful By-product A ^
Useful By-pnx&ictB
Air Solid Water
Emissions Wastes Wastes
Figure 2-3. "Black box" concept for developing LCI data.
Actual process flow diagram.
Energy Use
3 million Btu
1
1,600 Ib raw materials
Process
1,000 Ib product'A'
500 ft product's1
100 Ib wastes
Using co-product allocation, the flow diagram utilized in the life cycle inventory for product 'A1, which
accounts for two-thirds (2/3) of the total output, would be as shown below.
Energy Use
2 million Btu
1.067 Ib raw materials
Manufacturing
Process
1,000 Ib product'A'
67 Ib wastes
Figure 2-4 Flow diagrams illustrating coproduct allocation for product 'A'
2-6
-------
produce, use, and dispose a standard unit of PC2, and is typically illustrated as a flow chart (see
Appendix A for detailed process flow diagrams illustrating the production of 1,000 pounds each
of NMP, DBE, and PC).
Energy Requirements
The average energy requirements for each process identified in the LCI are first quantified in
terms of fuel or electricity units, such as cubic feet of natural gas, gallons of diesel fuel, or
kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity. The fuel used to transport raw materials to each process are
included as a part of the LCI energy requirements. Transportation energy requirements for each
step in the life cycle are developed in the conventional units of ton-miles by each transport mode
(e.g. truck, rail, barge, etc.). Government statistical data for the average efficiency of each
transportation mode are used to convert from ton-miles to fuel consumption.
Once the fuel consumption for each industrial process and transportation step is quantified,
the fuel units are converted from their original units to an equivalent British thermal unit (Btu)
based on standard conversion factors. By definition, one Btu is the amount of energy required to
raise the temperature of one pound of water one degree Fahrenheit (F) at or near 39.2 degrees F.
The conversion factors have been developed to account for the energy required to extract,
transport, and process the fuels and to account for the energy content of the fuels. The energy to
extract, transport, and process fuels into a usable form is labeled precombustion energy. For
electricity, precombustion energy calculations include adjustments for the average efficiency of
conversion of fuel to electricity, and for transmission losses in power lines based on national
averages.
The LCI methodology assigns a fuel-energy equivalent to raw materials that are derived from
fossil fuels. Therefore, the total energy requirement for coal, natural gas, or petroleum based
materials includes the fuel-energy of the raw material (called energy of material resource or
inherent energy). In this study, this applies to the crude oil and natural gas used to produce the
materials comprising PC2. No fuel-energy equivalent is assigned to combustible materials, such
as wood, that are not major fuel sources in this country.
The Btu values for fuels and electricity consumed in each industrial process are summed and
categorized into an energy profile according to the five basic energy sources listed below:
Natural gas
Petroleum
Coal
Nuclear
Other
2-7
-------
The "other" category includes nonconventional sources, such as hydropower, solar, biomass and
geothermal energy. Also included in the LCI energy profile are the Btu values for all
transportation steps and all fossil fuel-derived raw materials. Energy requirements for each
system examined in this LCI are presented in Chapter 3.
Environmental Emissions
Environmental emissions are categorized as atmospheric emissions, waterbome wastes, and
solid wastes, and represent discharges into the environment after the effluents pass through
existing emission control devices. Similar to energy, environmental emissions associated with
processing fuels into usable forms are also included in the inventory analysis. When efforts to
obtain actual industry emissions data fail, published emissions standards are used as the basis for
determining environmental emissions.
The different categories of atmospheric and waterborne emissions are not totaled in this LCI
because it is widely recognized that various substances emitted to the air and water differ greatly
in their effect on the environment. Individual environmental emissions for each process examined
in this LCI are presented in Chapter 4.
Atmospheric Emissions
These emissions include substances classified by regulatory agencies as pollutants, as well as
selected nonregulated emissions such as carbon dioxide. Atmospheric emissions associated with
the combustion of fuel for process or transportation energy, as well as process emissions, are
included in this LCI. Emissions are reported as pounds of pollutant per unit of product output.
The amounts reported represent actual discharges into the atmosphere after the effluents pass
through existing emission control devices. Some of the more commonly reported atmospheric
emissions are: carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, particulates, and
sulfur oxides.
Waterborne Wastes
As with atmospheric emissions, waterborne wastes include all substances classified as
pollutants. Waterborne wastes are reported as pounds of pollutant per unit of product output.
The values reported are the average quantity of pollutants still present in the wastewater stream
after wastewater treatment, and represent discharges into receiving waters. This includes both
process-related and fuel-related waterborne wastes. Some of the most commonly reported
waterborne wastes are: acid, ammonia, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen
demand (COD), chromium, dissolved solids, iron, and suspended solids.
Solid Wastes
This category includes solid wastes generated from all sources that are landfilled or disposed
of in some other way. Also included is the ash from the combustion of materials at combustion
facilities, such as an electric utility. It does not include materials that are recovered for reuse or
recycling.
2-8
-------
When performing an LCI, typically both postconsumer and industrial wastes are considered.
Postconsumer solid wastes are primarily packaging materials that are discarded by consumers
after they have fulfilled their use. In this analysis, no postconsumer waste is considered and all
solid waste generated is categorized as process-related or fuel-related industrial waste. Examples
of industrial solid wastes are wastewater treatment sludge, solids collected in air pollution control
devices, trim or waste materials from manufacturing operations that are not recycled, fuel
combustion residues such as the ash generated by burning coal or wood, and mineral'extraction
wastes.
In this study, the spent PC2 is assumed to be drummed and disposed off-site by incineration as
hazardous waste. Combustion emissions are quantified and categorized as atmospheric emissions
in the inventory. An alternative to disposal will be pursued in the improvement assessment phase
of this study.
Data Sources
Over the past 20 years, Franklin Associates has performed numerous life cycle inventory
studies which have examined the energy requirements and environmental emissions associated
with the manufacture and use of a variety of products and processes. Therefore, many of the
basic industry descriptions, raw materials requirements, and energy and emissions data for
materials and chemicals from previous studies are used as a starting point for LCI studies. Other
sources used to update the existing Franklin LCI database are: industry data which is primarily
confidential, technical literature, government publications, published industry statistics, and
interviews with industry representatives.
For this study, data gathering efforts focused primarily on the production of the three primary
materials used in PC2 blend (DBE, NMP, PC), as well as PC2 usage practices for depainting
aircraft radomes at TAFB.
Reliability Of Results
An important issue to consider when using LCI study results is the reliability of the data. In a
complex study, such as an LCI, with literally thousands of numeric entries, the accuracy of the
data and how it affects conclusions is truly a complex subject, and one that does not readily lend
itself to standard error analysis techniques. However, the reliability of the LCI study can be
assessed in other ways.
A key question is whether the LCI study conclusions are correct. A specific conclusion
depends on the accuracy of the numbers that are combined to arrive at that conclusion. Because
of the many processes required to produce PC2, many numbers in the LCI are added together for
a total numeric result. Each number by itself contributes to a portion of the total, so the accuracy
of an individual number by itself can be less important than the overall accuracy of the total. The
best available numbers have been used in this study; however, there is no analytical method for
assessing the accuracy of each number to any degree of confidence. Often tunes, plant personnel
2-9
-------
report actual plant data. The data reported may represent operations for the previous year or may
be estimates representative of the upcoming year. All data received are evaluated to determine
whether or not they are representative of the typical industry practices for that operation or
process being evaluated. Taking into consideration schedule constraints, the data used in this
report are believed to be the best which can be currently obtained.
There are several other important points regarding data accuracy. Some numbers contribute
very little to the total value, so a large error in one data point does not necessarily create a
problem. It is assumed that with careful scrutiny of the data any errors will be random. That is,
some numbers will be a little high due to errors, and some will be slightly low, but in the summing
process these errors tend to cancel out. For subprocesses that make a larger than average
contribution to the total, special care is taken to insure data quality.
Life cycle inventory data are not amenable to standard statistical analysis. Based on Franklin
Associates' knowledge of error and variability of the data, a rule is suggested that if system totals
of energy or solid waste (by weight) for two product systems differ by 10 percent or more, there
is a 95 percent confidence that the difference is significant. This means that if other LCA
practitioners performed this study using the same methodology and sampled the same
populations, then 95 out of 100 would arrive at the same conclusion. However, the error and
variability of all categories of emissions data is much greater, suggesting that significant
differences exist only if the differences exceed 25 percent.
There is another dimension to the reliability of the data. Certain numbers do not stand alone,
but rather affect several numbers in the system. An example is the number of times the PC2 can
be reused to depaint aircraft radomes. A change in this assumption can have a significant effect
on the results of this study.
Another issue is the variability of common practice. This study reports average, or typical,
behavior and therefore does not apply to individual actions that deviate from the norm. Also, a
particular set of material suppliers were used to provide data for this study. If a different set of
suppliers is used to develop the average data, the average data might vary enough to affect the
results of the report.
In summary, for the particular data sources used and for the specific methodology described in
this report, the results of this report are believed to be accurate and reasonable. However, using
this study to make decisions in specific cases which differ significantly from those described in this
report may lead to erroneous conclusions.
Basis Of Results .
LCI study results are presented on the basis of usage that is appropriate for the particular
product or process being examined. For example, results of an LCI for children's diapers may be
2-10
-------
presented based on the average number of diapers used daily. For a packaging system, such as
beverage containers, the appropriate basis of results may be per gallon of beverage delivered.
In order to assist readers of this report with relative perspective and comprehension, results of
this LCI are presented in the following ways:
per ten KC-135 aircraft radomes depainted (estimated to require 110 gallons of PC2)
per ten B-52 aircraft radomes depainted (estimated to require 180 gallons of PC2)
per annual PC2 usage at TAFB for depainting radomes (estimated to require
approximately 1,820 gallons, or 33 drums of PC2)
Annual usage estimates are based on historical use of MEK. In 1994, 100 KC-135 radomes
and 40 B-52 radomes were depainted at TAFB with 146 drums of MEK. The number and type of
radomes processed at TAFB are assumed to remain unchanged.
Key Assumptions
Some general decisions are always necessary to limit a study such as this to a reasonable
scope. It is important to understand these decisions. The key assumptions and limitations for this
study are discussed in the following sections.
Data Sources
The primary data sources utilized in this study are discussed previously in this chapter. When
data are obtained from many sources, it is important to critically review the sources and content
of the information prior to using it. In some cases, past experience provides a basis for data
evaluation to determine the reasonableness of content. Franklin Associates believes that the data
used in this study are both accurate and representative of typical conditions for the production and
use of PC2.
Geographic Scope
Data for foreign processes are generally not available. This is usually only a consideration for
the production of oil that is obtained from overseas. In cases such as this, the energy
requirements and emissions are assumed to be the same as if the materials originated in the United
States. Since foreign standards and regulations vary from those of the United States, it is
acknowledged that this assumption may introduce some error. Fuel usage for transportation of
oil from overseas locations is included in the study.
Precombustion Energy and Emissions
The energy content of fuels has been adjusted to include the energy requirements for
extracting, processing, and transporting fuels, in addition to the primary energy of a fuel resulting
from its combustion. In this study, this additional energy is called precombustion energy.
Precombustion energy refers to all the energy that must be expended to prepare and deliver the
2-11
-------
primary fuel. Adjustments for losses during transmission, spills, leaks, exploration, and
drilling/mining operations are incorporated into the calculation of precombustion energy.
Precombustion environmental emissions (air, waterborne, and solid waste) are also associated
with the acquisition, processing, and transportation of the primary fuel. These precombustion
emissions are added to the emissions resulting from the burning of the fuels.
Electricity Fuel Profile
In general, detailed data do not exist on the fuels used to generate the electricity consumed by
each industry.' Electricity production and distribution systems in the United States are interlinked
and are not easily separated. Users of electricity, in general, cannot specify the fuels used to
produce their share of the electric power grid. Therefore, the national average fuel consumption
by electrical utilities is assumed.
Electricity generated on-site at a manufacturing facility is represented in the process data by
the fuels used to produce it. A portion of on-site generated electricity is sold to the electricity
grid. This portion is accounted for in the calculations for the fuel mix in the grid.
Waste Management of Spent PC2
Spent PC2 is assumed to be incinerated off-site as a hazardous waste. No energy recovery
from combustion is included for the baseline analysis. Additional alternatives for hazardous waste
management will be identified and analyzed in the improvement assessment phase of this study.
System Components Not Included
The following components of each system are not included in this LCI study:
Capital Equipment . .
The energy and wastes associated with the manufacture of capital equipment are not included.
This includes equipment to manufacture buildings, motor vehicles, and industrial machinery. The
energy and emissions associated with such capital equipment generally, for 1,000 pounds of
materials, become negligible when averaged over the millions of pounds of product which the
capital equipment manufactures.
Space Conditioning . .
The fuels and power consumed to heat, cool, and light manufacturing establishments are
omitted from the calculations in most cases. For most industries, space conditioning energy is
quite low compared to process energy. Energy consumed for space conditioning is usually less
than one percent of the total energy consumption for the manufacturing process.
Support Personnel Requirements .
The energy and wastes associated with research and development, sales, and administrative
personnel or related activities have not been included in this study. Similar to space conditioning,
2-12
-------
energy requirements and related emissions are assumed to be quite small for support personnel
activities.
Miscellaneous Materials and Additives
Selected materials such as catalysts, pigments, or other additives which total less than one
percent of the net process inputs are not included in the assessment. PC2 is assumed to consist of
50 percent NMP, 25 percent DBE, and 25 percent PC. Omitting miscellaneous materials and
additives helps keep the scope of the study focused and manageable within budget and time
constraints.
2-13
-------
-------
Chapter 3
Energy Requirements For The Production And
Use Of PC2 Aircraft Radome Depainting Solvent
Introduction
This chapter provides a detailed summary of the energy requirements for the production,
blending, use, and disposal of PC2, a potential replacement solvent blend for aircraft radome
depainting at the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center (OC-ALC) at Tinker Air Force Base
(TAFB). Currently, TAFB uses methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) to depaint B-52 and KC-135 aircraft
radomes. The PC2 solvent blend is a mixture of 50 percent n-methyl-pyrrolidone (NMP), 25
percent dibasic ester (DDE), and 25 percent propylene carbonate (PC).
Energy requirements for PC2 are presented in this chapter on the basis of usage scenarios,
energy category, and original fuel source. Usage scenarios selected for this study include: ten
KC-135 aircraft radomes depainted, ten B-52 aircraft radomes depainted, and annual usage for
aircraft radome depainting at TAFB. For a life cycle inventory, the general categories of energy
include: process energy, transportation energy, and energy of material resource. Energy of
material resource is the inherent energy of a raw material, such as natural gas or petroleum, when
used as a material feedstock.
Energy requirements are presented for the system components including the three chemical
products comprising PC Blend 2 (i.e., DBE, NMP, PC). These energy requirements include all
processing steps up to and including the actual production of DBE, NMP, and PC. Thus, all raw
material acquisition and intermediate chemical processing steps are included in these values.
Energy requirements associated with transporting and incinerating spent PC2 off-site are also
accounted for in the LCI. Additional alternatives for off-site waste management of spent PC2 will
be identified and analyzed in the improvement assessment phase of this study.
All energy results are presented in units of million Btu and include both precombustion and
combustion energy. Precombustion energy refers to the energy required to extract, transport, and
process fuels into a usable form (e.g., refining crude oil into gasoline). Combustion energy refers
to the energy content of the process and transport fuels consumed.
Results And Discussion
Energy Requirements by Usage Scenario
Table 3-1 presents total energy requirements for PC2 aircraft radome depainting solvent for
3-1
-------
the three usage scenarios considered in this study. These results include all energy use .associated
with raw materials acquisition, chemical processes for producing the three components
comprising PC Blend 2 (i.e., DDE, NMP, PC), PC Blending 2, and PC2 use and disposal for
depainting radomes at TAFB.
Table 3-1. Life Cycle Inventory of Energy Requirements by Usage Scenario for PC Blend 2
Radome Depainting Solvent (In million Btu)
Per Ten (10)
KC-135 Aircraft
Radomes (1)
Dibasic Ester (DBE)
N-Methyl-Pyrrolidone (NMP)
Propylene Carbonate (PC)
Subtotal*
PC2 Blending
PC2 Use at TAFB
PC2 Disposal Off-Site
Total Energy Required
9.8
23.8
6.7
40.3
0.54
1.5
0.15
42.3
Per Ten (10) Per
B-52 Aircraft Annual Usage
Radomes (2) at TAFB (3)
16.1
38.9
11.0
65.9
0.88
1.5
0.25
68.5
162
393
111
666
8.9
20.9
2.5
6
-------
accounts for 50 percent of PC2, also accounts for the majority of energy - approximately 56
percent of the total energy requirements. Processes related to DBE and PC account for 23 and 16
percent, respectively, of total energy requirements. PC Blending 2 and usage for aircraft radome
depainting at TAFB account for a total of only five percent of the total energy requirements. The
disposal energy represents transportation to a hazardous waste incinerator and is only 0.4% of the
total energy requirements.
Blending (1%) __^age <4%>-t^--' Disposal (0.4%)
DBE (23%)
NMP (56%)
PC (16%)
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
Figure 3-1. LCI energy profile by component for PC Blend 2 radome depainting solvent
(In percent).
Energy Requirements by Category of Energy
In a life cycle inventory, energy requirements are categorized as process energy,
transportation energy, and energy of material resource. Table 3-2 and Figure 3-2 summarize
these categories for the production, blending, use,jind disposal of PC2 for depainting aircraft
radomes. The energy requirements are presented by energy category for each major process and
are reported in million Btu per ten KC-13 5 aircraft radomes depainted.
Process energy accounts for 18.6 million Btu, or 44 percent of the total energy associated
with PC2. This includes all energy required for the manufacture of the three components (i.e.,
DBE, NMP, PC), including all raw material acquisitions and intermediate chemical processing.
Electricity for the exhaust ventilation system and air compressor (to drive the sump pump)
account for the small amount of process energy used at TAFB.
The energy of material resource is the inherent energy of petroleum, natural gas, and coal
when used as a raw material feedstock. Energy of material resource accounts for approximately
22.8 million Btu, or 54 percent of the total energy associated with PC2. The energy of material of
resource for NMP accounts for the largest single use of energy, 14.1 million Btu, or
approximately 33 percent of the total energy requirements.
3-3
-------
Transportation energy represents the energy used as fuel to transport the chemicals and
materials to the next step in the manufacturing process, such as shipping the three components of
PC2 to a blending facility. Transportation energy represents a small portion of the total energy,
accounting for only three percent of the total energy requirements.
Table 3-2. Life Cycle Inventory of Energy Requirements by Energy Category for PC Blend
2 Radome Depainting Solvent
Per Ten KC-13S Aircraft Radomes Depainted (1)
Dibasic Ester (DBE)
N-Methyl-Pyirolidone (NMP)
Propylene Carbonate (PC)
Subtotal*
PC2 Blending
PC2 Use at TAFB
PC2 Disposal Off-Site
Total Energy Required
Percent of Total Energy
Process
Energy
4.6
9.1
2.9
16.6
0.51
1.5
-
18.6
43.8%
Transpor-
tation
Energy
0.23
0.51
0.17
0.90
0.031
-
0.15
1.1
2.6%
Energy of
Material
Resource
5.0
14.1
3.6
22.8
-
-
-
22.8
53.6%
Total
Energy
9.8
23.8
6.7
40.3
0.54
1.5
0.15
42.5
100.0%
Percent of
Total
Energy
23.1%
55.9%
15.8%
94.9%
1.3%
3.5%
0.4%
100.0%
for producing the three components comprising PC2 blend (i.e., DBE, NMP, PC).
(1) Based on 110 gallons of PC2 used per ten KC-135 aircraft radomes depainted.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
Energy Requirements by Fuel Source
The total energy requirements for the production and use of PC2 for depainting radomes are
reported by the source of energy in Table 3-3 and Figure 3-3. Energy requirements are
categorized into five basic energy sources: natural gas, petroleum, coal, nuclear, and "other." The
"other" category is comprised of nonconventional energy sources such as geothermal energy,
solar energy for steam generation, and biomass energy.
Natural gas provides the majority of the energy requirements for PC2 followed, to a lesser
extent, by petroleum and coal. Natural gas supplies 29.3 million Btu per ten KC-135 radomes
depainted, or approximately 69 percent of the total energy requirements. This value includes the
energy of material resource attributed to natural gas used as a raw material feedstock. Petroleum
fuel generates 9.6 million Btu per ten KC-135 radomes depainted, or approximately 23 percent of
the total energy requirements. Coal, which is used primarily for electricity generation, accounts
3-4
-------
for approximately six percent of the total energy requirements. Nuclear, hydropower, and other
fuel sources account for less than three percent of the total energy requirements. All of these
iiiels are also used primarily to generate electricity.
Energy of Material
Resource (54%)
Process Energy (44%)
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
Transportation Energy (3%)
Figure 3-2. LCI energy profile by category for PC Blend 2 radome depainting solvent (In
percent).
Table 3-3. Life Cycle Inventory of Energy Requirements by Fuel Type for PC Blend 2
Radome Depainting Solvent (In million Btu and percent)
Dibasic Ester (DBE)
N-Methyl-Pvrrolidone (NMP)
Propylene Carbonate (PC)
Subtotal*
PC2 Blending
PC2 Use at TAFB
PC2 Disposal Oil-Site
Total Energy Required
Percent of Total Energy
Coal
0.38
0.68
0.28
IT
0.28
0.81
0.0013
2A
5.7%
Natural
Gas
5.3
18.4
5.3
29~b~
0.075
0.22
0.0094
29T
69.1%
Petroleum
4.0
4.4
0.98
5T
0.050
0.063
0.14
9~6~
22.6%
Nuclear
0.096
0.28
0.11
0.49
0.11
0.34
5.0E-04
0.94
2.2%
Other
Sources
0.019
0.055
0.022
.__
0.022
0.065
9.7E-05
Of
0.4%
Total
Energy
9.8
23.8
6.7
40.3
0.54
1.5
0.15
42T
100.0%
Percent of
Total
Energy
23.1%
55.9%
15.8%
94.9%
1.3%
3.5%
0.4%
100.0%
producing the three components comprising PC2 blend (i.e., DBE, NMP, PC).
(1) Based on 110 gallons ofPC2 used per ten KC-135 aircraft radomes depainted.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
3-5
-------
Figure 2-3
LCI ENERGY PROFILE BY FUEL TYPE FOR
PC2 BLEND RADOME DEPAINTING SOLVENT
(In percent)
, Other (0.4%)
Nuclear (2%)
Coal (6%)
Petroleum (23%
Natural Gas (69%)
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
Figure 3-3. LCI energy profile by fuel type for PC Blend 2 radome depainting solvent (In
percent).
3-6
-------
Chapter 4
Life Cycle Inventory Environmental Emissions Results For The Production And Use Of
PC2 In Radome Depainting
Introduction
This chapter provides a detailed summary of the environmental emissions for the life cycle of
PC2, a potential replacement solvent blend for depainting KC-135 and B-52 aircraft radomes at
Tinker Air Force Base (TAFB). The results represent a cradle-to-grave analysis of manufacture
of the PC2 components, blending of the mixture, use in depainting, and final disposition of the
used fluid.
The environmental emissions examined in this study include solid wastes, atmospheric
emissions, and waterborne wastes. Each of these wastes is examined separately. Although this
life cycle inventory identifies emissions, it makes no attempt to quantify the effects on the
environment or human health due to these wastes. A partial impact assessment will be provided
in the next phase of this project.
Summarized emissions results are presented in this chapter on the basis of three PC2 usage
scenarios: per 10 KC-135 radomes depainted, per 10 B-52 radomes depainted, and per annual
usage at TAFB. More detailed results are presented for the KC-135 radome scenario. This
scenario was chosen because the KC-135 radome is the highest volume radome depainted at
TAFB. Details are provided for each emission as to what portion originates within the process
(process-related emissions) or from the acquisition and use of fuels (fuel-related emissions). The
emissions results are presented for each of the system components comprising the PC Blend 2 (i e
DBE, NMP, and PC), and also PC Blend 2ing, PC2 use at TAFB, and disposal. Waste PC2 is
assumed to be incinerated off-site as a hazardous waste. An alternative to disposal of spent PC2
will be addressed in the improvement assessment phase of this analysis.
Results And Discussion
Solid Waste
The solid waste category includes industrial solid waste generated from the individual
processes in the manufacture and use of the PC2 for depainting radomes. There is no
postconsumer waste associated with the production of the fluid. Industrial solid waste includes
wastewater treatment sludges, solids resulting from air pollution control devices, trim or waste
4-1
-------
materials from manufacturing operations that are not recycled, fuel combustion residues, such as
ash from burning wood or coal, and extraction wastes. Waste PC2 is assumed to be incinerated
off-site as a hazardous waste. An alternative to disposal of waste PC2 will be analyzed in the
improvement assessment phase of this analysis. Paint chips generated during the depainting
operation are not within the scope of the study. It is assumed that about the same amount will be
generated and they will be handled as they were when MEK was used for depainting.
In this study, solid waste is presented in units of weight. All solid waste reported in this study
is industrial waste. A constant density factor of 50 pounds per cubic foot can be used to convert
the weight of industrial waste generated to landfill volume.
The industrial solid waste by weight for each scenario is displayed by system component in
Table 4-1 and Figure 4-1. The production of the three chemicals comprising the PC2 together
contribute about 60 percent of the total solid waste generated. Of this amount, the NMP, DBE,
and PC each generate about 50, 31, and 20 percent respectively, of the industrial solid waste from
production. The blending operation contributes about 11 percent of the total solid waste. The
PC2 use component includes fuel-related solid wastes from electricity use at TAFB for the
depainting operation and represents about 30 percent of the total solid waste. The PC2 disposal
component is comprised of fuel-related solid wastes from transportation of PC2 to the
combustion facility and contributes less than one percent to the overall solid waste production.
More detailed solid waste results'for depainting 10 KC-135 radomes are shown in Table 4-2 and
Figure 4-2. Here, total solid wastes are disaggregated by the system categories: industrial
process wastes and industrial fuel-related wastes. Process solid wastes are wastes produced as a
result of the process steps within the product life cycle. For example, wastewater treatment
sludge that is produced at a plant and sent to a landfill is process solid waste. Fuel-related solid
Disposal (0.4%)
DBE (18%)
NMP (29%)
"
i .-r Wmmi^^^^^
Blending (11%)
Source: Franklin Associates. Ltd. PC (11%)
Figure 4-1. LCI solid waste profile by component for PC Blend 2 radome depainting
solvent (In percent).
4-2
-------
Table 4-1. Life Cycle Inventory of Solid Wastes by Usage Scenario for PC Blend 2 Radome
Depainting Solvent (In pounds)
Per Ten (10)
KC-135 Aircraft
Radomes (1)
Dibasic Ester (DBE)
N-Methyl-Pyrrolidone (NMP)
Propylene Carbonate (PC)
Subtotal *
PC2 Blending
PC2 Use at TAFB A
PC2 Disposal Off-Site
Total Solid Wastes
14.2
22.9
9.2
46.3
8.7
25.4
0.060
80.5
Per Ten (10)
B-52 Aircraft
Radomes (2)
23.3
37.6
15.0
75.8
14.2
25.4
0.099
116
Per
Annual Usage
at TAFB (3)
235
380
152
766
143
356
1.0
1,267
* Includes all solid wastes associated with raw materials acquisition and chemical processes
required for producing the three components comprising PC2 blend (i.e., DBE; NMP, PC).
A Spent PC2 solvent is assumed to be incinerated as a hazardous waste off-site.
(1) Based on 110 gallons of PC2 used per ten KC-135 aircraft radomes depainted.
(2) Based on 180 gallons of PC2 used per ten B-52 aircraft radomes depainted.
(3) Based on 100 KC-135 and 40 B-52 aircraft radomes depainted annually.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
ocess Waste (6%)
Fuel Related
Waste (94%)
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
Figure 4-2. LCI solid waste profile by category for PC Blend 2 radome depainting solvent
(In percent).
4-3
-------
Table 4-2. Life Cycle Inventory of Solid Wastes by Component for PC Blend 2 Radome
Depainting Solvent (In pounds and percent)
Per Ten KC-135 Aircraft Radomes Depainted (1)
Dibasic Ester (DEE)
N-Methyl-Pyrrolidone (NMP)
Propylene Carbonate (PC)
Subtotal*
PC2 Blending
PC2UseatTAFB
PC2 Disposal Off-SiteA
Total Solid Wastes
Percent of Total Solid Wastes
Process-
Related
3.0
1.4
0.55
5.0
-
5.0
6.2%
Fuel-
Related
11.2
21.5
8.6
41.4
8.7
25.4
0.060
75.5
93.8%
Total
Solid Wastes
14.2
22.9
9.2
46.3
8.7
25.4
0.060
80.5
100%
Percent of
Solid
Wastes
18%
29%
11%
58%
11%
32%
0.1%
100%
for producing the three components comprising PC2 blend (Le., DBE, NMP, PC).
A Spent PC2 solvent is assumed to be incinerated as a hazardous waste off-site.
(1) Based on 110 gallons of PC2 used per ten KC-135 aircraft radomes depainted.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
wastes are solid wastes that result from the combustion of fuels. Ash from coal used to generate
electricity is an example of a fuel-related solid waste.
All PC2 used is assumed to be incinerated with the exception of an assumed 0.5 percent
evaporative loss incurred during PC2 use. The evaporative loss is estimated from the difference
in the vapor pressures between PC2 and MEK. The vapor pressure of PC2 is approximately 0.3
percent of the MEK vapor pressure. In this case, MEK is assumed to represent 100 percent
evaporation, and a conservative evaporation rate of 0.5 percent is assumed for the PC Blend 2.
For the production of the chemical components of the blend, the fuel-related solid waste
contributes about 90 percent of the total industrial solid waste.
Air Emissions
The total air emissions results for all three depainting scenarios are summarized in Table 4-3.
More detailed breakdowns of the emissions are shown in Table 3-4 (process-related and 4.
fuel-related emissions) and Table 4-5 (emissions for each system component).
4-4
-------
Air emissions totals, shown in Table 4-3, include both process and fuel-related atmospheric
emissions. Because a large part of each emission is primarily dependent on the chemicals used,
the emissions are generally proportionate to the amount of PC2 used for each scenario.
Atmospheric emissions for depainting ten KC-135 radomes are summarized in Table 4-4 with
the fuel- and process-related portions shown separately. Fuel acquisition and combustion is a
source of atmospheric aldehydes, ammonia, carbon monoxide, fossil carbon dioxide,
hydrocarbons, hydrogen chloride, kerosene, lead, methane, nitrogen oxides, other organics,
particulate emissions, and sulfur oxides. Kerosene emissions arise during the uranium milling step
where kerosene is used in solvent extraction of uranium ore for the production of uranium
concentrate (yellow cake). Although not considered a pollutant, the amount of carbon dioxide
that is emitted is also shown. Portions of these emissions categories may also come from process
emissions. The majority of the carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions are given off during
incineration of the spent PC2.
Process aldehyde emissions come from petroleum refining operations. Ammonia emissions
are due to the manufacture of ammonia as an intermediate material, and also to the production of
carbon dioxide. The carbon monoxide process emissions come primarily from formaldehyde
production and also the operation to produce adipic acid. Hydrocarbon process emissions come
primarily from natural gas and crude oil production and processing. The production of propylene
oxide results in process isobutane and propylene oxide emissions. Process sulfur oxide emissions
are primarily the result of natural gas processing.
Evaporative emissions for the PC2 are assumed to equal 0.5 percent of the total PC2 used,
and are shown for each component of the blend. The evaporative loss is estimated from the
difference in the vapor pressures between PC2 and MEK. The vapor pressure of PC2 is
approximately 0.3 percent of the MEK vapor pressure. In this case, MEK is assumed to represent
100 percent evaporation, and a conservative evaporation rate of 0.5 percent is assumed for the PC
Blend 2.
Total emissions for each of the systems components for depainting KC-135 radomes are
shown in Table 4-5. The results for the DBE, NMP, and PC components include both process
and fuel-related emissions. The emissions for PC Blend 2ing do not include any process
emissions; only fuel-related emissions for utility requirements and transportation to TAFB are
included. With the exception of DBE, NMP, and PC emissions, the results shown for PC2 use at
TAFB include only fuel-related emissions for the electricity used in the depainting operation. The
DBE, NMP, and PC emissions are evaporative emissions for the PC Blend 2 (assumed to equal
0.5 percent of the total PC2 used). The results for PC2 disposal include fuel related emissions for
transportation and calculated process emissions of nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide (which are
given off during combustion of spent PC2).
4-5
-------
Table 4-3. Life Cycle Inventory of atmospheric Emissions by Usage Scenario for PC Blend
2 Radome Depainting Solvent* (In pounds)
Per Ten (10)
KC-135 Aircraft
Atmospheric Emission
Aldehydes
Ammonia
Carbon Dioxide):
Carbon Monoxide
Chlorine
Dibasic Ester (DBE) f
Hydrocarbons
Hydrogen Chloride
Isobutane
Kerosene
Lead
Mercury
Methane
N-Methyl-Pyrrolidone (NMP) t
Nitrogen Oxides]:
Other Organics
Particulates
Propylene
Propylene Carbonate (PC) t
Propylene Oxide
Sulfur Oxides
Radomes (1)
0.058
0.43
4,415
21.2
9.9E-05
1.2
46.6
7.2E-05
0.82
2.0E-04
1.9E-04
4.4E-05
0.040
2.5
235
0.53
1.3
0.080
1.2
0.039
8.0
Per Ten (10)
B-52 Aircraft
Radomes (2)
0.095
0.70
7,088
34.6
1.6E-04
2.0
76.1
1.2E-04
1.3
2.8E-04
2.8E-04
7.2E-05
0.065
4.1
384
0.86
2.0
0.13
2.0
0.064
11.9
Per
Annual Usage
at TAFB (3)
0.96
7.1
72,503
350
0.0016
20.5
771
0.0012
13.5
0.0031
0.0030
7.3E-04
0.67
41.0
3,888
8.7
21.1
1.3
20.5
0.65
128
* Includes all process and fuel related atmospheric emissions associated with raw
materials acquisition, chemical processing for producing the three components comprising
PC2 blend (i.e., DBE, NMP, PC), PC2 blending, and PC2 use at TAFB.
t Represents estimated atmospheric emissions at TAFB assuming 0.5 percent evaporative
loss of PC2 blend during aircraft radome depainting.
| Includes emissions from incineration of spent PC2.
(1) Based on 110 gallons of PC2 used per ten KC-135 aircraft radomes depainted.
(2) Based on 180 gallons of PC2 used per ten B-52 aircraft radomes depainted.
(3) Based on 100 KC-135 and 40 B-52 aircraft radomes depainted annually.
4-6
-------
Table 4-4. Life Cycle Inventory of Atmospheric Emissions by Component for PC Blend 2
Radome Depainting Solvent* (In pounds)
Per Ten KC-135 Aircraft Radomes Depainted (1)
Total
Process- Fuel- Atmospheric
Atmospheric Emission
Aldehydes
Ammonia
Carbon Dioxide J
Carbon Monoxide
Chlorine
Dibasic Ester (DBE) f
Hydrocarbons
Hydrogen Chloride
Isobutane
Kerosene
Lead
Mercury
Methane
N-Methyl-Pyrrolidone (NMP) f
Nitrogen OxidesJ
Other Organics
Particulates
Propylene
Propylene Carbonate (PC) f
Propylene Oxide
Sulfur Oxides
Related
0.022
0.43
1,986
18.4
8.3E-05
1.2
28.8
6.0E-05
0.82
-
5.6E-07
4.4E-05
-
2.5
229
0.033
0.080
1.2
0.039
1.2
Related
0.036
4.1E-04
2,429
2.8
1.6E-05
17.8
1.2E-05
_
2.0E-04
1.9E-04
_
0.040
_
6.0
0.53
1.3
_
_
.
6.8
Emissions
0 058
0.43
4,415
21.2
9.9E-05
1.2
46.6
7.2E-05
0.82
2.0E-04
1.9E-04
4.4E-05
0.040
2.5
235
0.53
1.3
0.080
1.2
0.039
8.0
r~ ~" ~ -* »» &MW*. * MM****** uv&iax/^L/Aivj.Aw v*Mu>>ivjua oddVJisiciLCu \Vltfl rflW
materials acquisition, chemical processing for producing the three components comprising
PC2 blend (i.e., DBE, NMP, PC), PC2 blending, and PC2 use at TAFB.
f Represents estimated atmospheric emissions at TAFB assuming 0.5 percent evaporative
loss of PC2 blend during aircraft radome depainting.
| Includes emissions from incineration of spent PC2.
(1) Based on 110 gallons of PC2 used per ten KC-135 aircraft radomes depainted.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
4-7
-------
Table 4-5. Life Cycle Inventory of Atmospheric Emissions by Process for PC Blend 2
Radome Depainting Solvent (In pounds)
Dibasic
N-Methyl-
Propylene
Ester * Pyrrolidone "Carbonate *
Atmospheric Emission
Aldehydes
Ammonia
Carbon Dioxide}
Carbon Monoxide
Chlorine
Dibasic Ester (DBE)t
Hydrocarbons
Hydrogen Chloride
Isobutanc
Kerosene
Lead
Mcrcurv
Methane
N-Methyl-Pyrrolidone (NMP) t
Nitrogen Oxides}
Other Organics
Particulates
Propylene
Propylcne Carbonate (PC) t
Propylene Oxide
Sulfur Oxides
(DBE)
0.021
0.065
589
1.8
4.3E-05
8.5
3.0E-05
.
2.0E-05
3.5E-05
4.4E-05
0.011
1.5
0.095
0.24
-
-
1.4
(NMP)
0.023
0.26
1,148
18.5
4.4E-05
30.1
3.3E-05
-
6.0E-05
5.0E-05
_
0.022
2.6
0.22
0.42
'
-
3.0
(PC)
0.0070
0.11
381
0.42
9.6E-06
7.5
7.2E-06
0.82
2.3E-05
3.3E-05
.
0.0062
0.86
0.085
0.16
0.080
-
0.039
1.1
PC2
Blending
0.0012
1.1E-05
77.6
0.11
4.5E-07
0.12
3.4E-07
"
2.4E-05
1.8E-05
.
4.6E-04
0.36
0.021
0.13
-
0.63
PC2Us
at TAFB A
4.0E-04
1.4E-05
215
0.22
5.3E-07
1.2
0.30
4.0E-07
"*
7.1E-05
5.3E-05
-
0.0013
2.5
0.94
0.0023
0.35
1 O
1.2
1.8
PC2
Disposal
0.0051
3.4E-05
2,005
0.19
1.3E-06
0
0.083
9.9E-07
~
9.5E-08
1.7E-07
-
2.7E-05
0
229
0.10
0.027
0.037
Total
Atmospheric
Emissions
0.058
0.43
4,415
21.2
9.9E-05
.1.2
46.6
7.2E-05
0.82
2.0E-04
1.9E-04
4.4E-05
0.040
2.5
235
Q.53
1.3
0,080
i >
i.^
nfRQ
\J.\JJ7
8.0
i- iUCJUUCS ill* LJ1U^W5«> 414IU lUl*i iwiaiwu «vi>Jtst>f in*i»* »»*»»«*« A
chemical processing for producing the three components comprising PC2 blend (i.e., DBE, NMP, PC).
f Represents estimated atmospheric emissions at TAFB assuming 0.5 percent evaporative loss of PC2 blend
during aircraft radome depainting.
A Atmospheric crrassions associated -with the generation of electricity used at TAFB for depainting aircraft
radomes is also included.
$ Includes emissions from incineration of spent PC2. 229 pounds of the carbon dioxide and 1,983 pounds of the
nitrogen oxide emissions are calculated emissions for the incineration of the spent PC2 blend.
(1) Based on 110 gallons of PC2 used per ten KC-135 aircraft radomes depainted.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
4-8
-------
Waterborn e Emissions
Total waterborne emissions for all three depainting scenarios are summarized in Table 4-6
More detailed breakdowns of the emissions are shown in Table 4-7 (process-related and
fuel-related emissions) and Table 4-8 (emissions for each system component).
Total emissions for the three usage scenarios are shown in Table 4-6. These totals include
both process and fuel-related waterborne emissions. As was shown for the atmospheric
emissions, the emissions are generally proportionate to the amount of PC2 used for each scenario.
Waterborne emissions for depainting ten KC-135 radomes are summarized in Table 4-7 with
the fuel- and process-related portions shown separately. Fuel acquisition and combustion is a
source of waterborne acid, ammonia, BOD, chromium, COD, dissolved solids, iron lead metal
ion, oil, phenol, sulfuric acid, suspended solids, and zinc emissions. Portions of these emissions
categories may also come from process emissions.
Process acid emissions come primarily from the process to make benzene, an intermediate for
the DBE. Manufacture of ammonia, hydrogen, carbon dioxide, and petroleum refinery operations
are all sources of process ammonia emissions. Process BOD emissions occur during the
production of ammonia, methanol, and the nitric acid intermediates for DBE. Chromium phenol
zinc, and COD process emissions come from petroleum refinery operations. The production of '
ammonia also produces COD emissions. Dissolved solids are produced primarily from the refined
petroleum products, but some also come from the production of sodium hydroxide used in the
manufacture of DBE. Sodium hydroxide production also results in mercury, zinc and nickel
emissions. Process metal ion emissions come from petroleum products refining Process oil
emissions are a result of crude oil and natural gas production and petroleum products refining
Sulfide process emissions are reported for benzene and sodium hydroxide production The
processes to make ammonia, methanol, and refinery operations are the sources of suspended
solids emissions.
Total waterborne emissions for each of the system components for depainting KC-135
radomes are shown in Table 4-8. The results for the DBE, NMP, and PC components include
both process and fuel-related emissions. The emissions for PC Blend 2ing do not include any
process emissions; only fuel-related emissions for utility requirements and transportation to TAFB
are included. The results shown for PC2 use at TAFB include only fuel-related emissions for the
electricity used in the depainting operation. The depainting operation does not generate any
wastewater. The emissions for PC2 disposal contain only fuel related emissions for the
transportation of spent PC2 to the incineration facility.
4-9
-------
Table 4-6. Life Cycle Inventory of Waterborne Wastes by Usage Scenario for PC Blend 2
Radome Depainting Solvent* (In pounds)
Waterborne Wastes
Acid
Ammonia
BOD
Chromium
COD
Dissolved Solids
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Metal Ion
Nickel
Oil
Phenol
Sulfides
Sulfuric Acid
Suspended Solids
Zinc
Per Ten (10)
KC-135 Aircraft
Radomes (1)
0.0026
0.026
0.076
3.4E-05
0.098
0.54
0.11
9.6E-07
2.2E-08
0.011
1.2E-08
0.071
5.2E-05
0.0011
0.46
0.086
1.4E-05
Per Ten (10)
B-52 Aircraft
Radomes (2)
0.0042
0.043
0.12
5.5E-05
0.16
0.88
0.16
1.6E-06
3.7E-08
0.018
2.0E-08
0.12
8.6E-05
0.0017
0.65
0.14
2.3E-05
Per
Annual Usage
at TAFB (3)
0.042
0.44
1.3
5.6E-04
1.6
8.9
1.8
1.6E-05
3.7E-07
0.19
2.1E-07
1.2
8.7E-04
0.017
7.1
1.4
2.3E-04
* inciufles all process ana iuciiciaicu waiciuuiut waai^a u.»^wv-.i.~- ..««.-..
materials acquisition, chemical processing for producing the three components
comprising PC2 blend (i.e., DBE, NMP, PC), PC2 blending, and PC2 use at TAFB.
(1) Based on 110 gallons of PC2 used per ten KC-135 aircraft radomes depainted.
(2) Based on 180 gallons of PC2 used per ten B-52 aircraft radomes depainted.
(3) Based on 100 KC-135 and 40 B-52 aircraft radomes depainted annually.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
4-10
-------
Table 4-7. Life Cycle Inventory of Waterborne Wastes by Component for PC Blend 2
Radome Depainting Solvent* (In pounds)
Per Ten KC-13S Aircraft Radomes Depainted (1)
Total
Process- Fuel- Waterborne
Waterborne Wastes
Acid
Ammonia
BOD
Chromium
COD
Dissolved Solids
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Metal Ion
Nickel
Oil
Phenol
Sulfides
Sulfuric Acid
Suspended Solids
Zinc
Related
0.0026
0.026
0.075
3.3E-05
0.093
0.46
1.6E-04
8.0E-07
2.2E-08
0.0094
1.2E-08
0.065
4.6E-05
0.0011
-
0.085
1.2E-05
Related
9.0E-08
1.4E-04
0.0011
3.6E-07
0.0052
0.074
0.11
1.6E-07
_
0.0019
0.0062
6.2E-06
_
0.46
0.0010
2.3E-06
Wastes
0.0026
0.026
0.076
3.4E-05
0.098
0.54
0.11
9.6E-07
2.2E-08
0.011
1.2E-08
'0.071
5.2E-05
0.0011
0.46
0.086
1.4E-05
-_.».. HU f»wvwuh, MAM* j.viw.1 A.\,.u*wu wai&iuuiiic; wastes aSSUvlalcu Wlul raw
materials acquisition, chemical processing for producing the three components
comprising PC2 blend (i.e., DBE, NMP, PC), PC2 blending, and PC2 use at TAFB.
(1) Based on 110 gallons of PC2 used per ten KC-135 aircraft radomes depainted.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
4-11
-------
Table 4-8. Life Cycle Inventory of Waterborne Wastes by Process for PC Blend 2 Radome
Depainting Solvent (In pounds)
Dibasic
N-Methyl-
Propylene
Ester * Pyrrolidone * Caifconate *
Waterbome Wastes
Acid
Ammonia
BCD
GnronBum
COD
Dissolved Solids
Iron
Lead
Msrcury
Nfctallon
Nkkel
Ofl
Phenol
Sulfides
SulfuricAcid
Suspended Solids
Zinc
(DBE)
0.0026
0.0042
0.0097
3.3E-05
0.033
0.28
0.017
4.0E-07
1.2E-08
0.0047
6.6E-09
0.050
3.1E-05
0.0011
0.069
0.010
5.8E-06
(NMP)
2.4E-07
0.016
0.065
9.7E-07
0.061
0.20
0.032
4.3E-07
0.0052
0.018
1.7E-05
.
0.13
0.075
6.3E-06
-------
Chapter 5
Sensitivity Analyses
Introduction
This chapter examines the sensitivity of energy and emissions results to changes in major
assumptions concerning the use and disposal of PC Blend 2. As described earlier in the report,
the use of PC2 has been very limited thus far. Therefore, the parameters around the use of PC2
may be quite different than assumed in the baseline scenario. The scenarios in this chapter are
chosen to illustrate the effects of changes in the major assumptions. The results from the
sensitivity analyses will be used for the partial impact assessment and improvement analysis
portions of this study.
Systems Examined
A number of alternative PC2 use and waste management scenarios are evaluated in this
chapter. The depainting of KC-135 radomes was chosen as the baseline scenario because the
KC-135 is the predominant radome processed at TAFB. Detailed results for the baseline are
presented in Chapters 3 and 4 of this report. The baseline and alternative scenarios are described
below.
Baseline PC2 Use Scenario
10 KC-135 radomes depainted
110 gallons PC2 required for 10 radomes
Each radome is showered continuously for 2 hours
Disposal of spent PC Blend 2 is by incineration (without energy recovery)
Alternative Waste Management Scenario
Recycling of spent PC Blend 2
Alternative PC2 Use Scenarios
Varying volume of PC2 required (plus or minus 20 percent)
Varying yield of radomes per PC2 volume (five radomes to 20 radomes per 110 gallons)
Varying time required (one hour to four hours per radome)
5-1
-------
Each of the PC2 usage and waste management scenarios evaluated include all of the life cycle
steps, from raw materials acquisition through final disposal of the spent PC Blend 2.
Following the format used in Chapter 3, the energy requirements for PC Blend 2 are presented
in this chapter on the basis of the various usage scenarios. The energy requirements include:
process energy, transportation energy, and energy of material resource. Energy of material
resource is the inherent energy of a raw material, such as natural gas or petroleum, when used as a
material feedstock.
Energy requirements are presented for each of the system components including the three
chemical products comprising PC Blend 2 (i.e., DBE, NMP, PC). These energy requirements
include all processing steps up to and including the actual production of DBE, NMP, and PC.
Thus, all raw material acquisition and intermediate chemical processing steps are included in these
values. In addition, PC Blend 2ing, recycling, use, and disposal are shown as separate
components.
All energy results are presented on the basis of million Btu and include both precombustion
and combustion energy. Precombustion energy refers to the energy required to extract, transport,
and process fuels into a usable form (e.g., refining crude oil into gasoline). Combustion energy
refers to energy content of the process and transport fuels consumed.
The environmental emissions examined in this study include solid wastes, atmospheric
emissions, and waterborne wastes. Each of these wastes is examined separately. The total
emission results for each scenario include both process-related emissions and fuel-related
emissions. Although this life cycle inventory identifies emissions, it makes no attempt to quantify
the effects on the environment or human health due to these wastes.
Waste Management Alternative: Recycling of Spent PC2
In a recycling system, a material is diverted from disposal by its unlimited recycling or reuse.
For example, glass from glass bottles is recycled and fabricated into bottles again. Since recycling
of the same material can occur over and over, it theoretically may be permanently diverted from
disposal. Figure 5-1 presents a graphical description of how individual processes can be viewed in
a recycle loop system. This figure illustrates that, at the ideal 100 percent recycling rate, the
energy requirements and environmental emissions from the virgin raw material
acquisition/processing (sometimes referred to as "back-end" steps) and disposal become
negligible. In contrast, if recycling does not occur, then virgin raw materials must be acquired and
processed, and disposal of the waste must occur each time a product is produced.
The recycle of spent PC Blend 2 can be viewed as a recycle loop process. The solvent
components that are recovered by distillation from the spent solution can theoretically be
re-blended and re-used. It is recognized that the components may begin to chemically break
down with continuous recycle and reuse. Therefore, it is uncertain how many times the fluid can
5-2
-------
o f
>.
<»
S
g
s
a,
*>
u
I
c 65
O «>
S3 £
fc« o
^5 ^3 '
sa.
S I
s I
e s
*£ 3
S a
I
I
I'
WD
e
M
3
&
2
u i «
W> i
S ?
5-3
-------
be recycled. To simplify the analysis, the recycling of spent PC Blend 2 is assumed to occur again
and again in a recycle loop. It is assumed that a recovery of approximately 85 percent can be
achieved with the recycling process. The 15 percent lost could either be at TAFB (adhering to
waste paint chips or absorbed in the cloth filter) or during distillation. The amount lost is ,;
assumed to be ultimately incinerated as hazardous waste. Virgin PC, DDE, and NMP must be us
to make up for the 15 percent loss each time the spent PC2 is recycled and also the 0.5 percent
evaporative loss assumed to occur during the use of PC2.
Recycling of spent PC2 may or may not be technically feasible. No experience exists to
determine the practical feasibility of this option. A pilot batch run would need to successfully
demonstrate fractional distillation can be achieved. In addition, the pilot batch run could
determine whether any contaminants present in the waste PC2 could be easily handled by the
recycler.
Recycling Results And Discussion
Energy Requirements .
Table 5-1 presents total energy requirements for PC Blend 2 aircraft radome depaintmg
solvent for the baseline and recycle loop scenarios. These results include all energy use
associated with raw materials acquisition, chemical processes for producing the three components
(DBE NMP PC) comprising PC Blend 2, PC Blend 2ing, and PC2 use and disposal for
departing radomes at TAFB. The energy for producing the three components is to make up for
the 15 percent recycling loss plus the 0.5 percent evaporative emissions. The three components
of PC2 are shown separately to show their separate contribution to the total. For instance,
although DBE comprises 25 percent by weight of the PC2, its energy contribution is over 40
percent of the PC2 subtotal. The recycled system results include the energy for transporting the
spent PC2 to a theoretical recycler in Texas, distilling the waste solvent blend, re-blending the
components, and transporting the recycled PC2 back to TAFB for another use. The PC2 lost in
the recycle loop is assumed to ultimately be transported to a hazardous waste incineration facility
for disposal.
By recycling the spent PC2, the total energy requirements are reduced to about 25 percent of
the baseline scenario. Most of the reduction comes from decreased process and energy of
material resource requirements in the back-end steps for producing the DBE, PC and NMP
components of the blend. The energy for disposal of waste is also drastically reduced to about 15
percent of the baseline amount. The energy for distilling the spent PC2 is about 25 percent of the
total energy for the recycled system.
Solid Waste a , , .
Table 5-2 presents total solid waste generation for the baseline and recycle loop scenarios.
These results include all solid waste associated with raw materials acquisition, chemical processes
for producing the three components comprising PC Blend 2 (i.e., DBE, NMP, PC), PC Blend 2,
5-4
-------
and PC2 use and disposal for depainting radomes at TAFB. The solid waste for producing the
three components is to make up for the 15 percent recycling loss plus the 0.5 percent evaporative
emissions. The three components of PC2 are shown separately to show their separate
Table 5-1. Life Cycle Inventory of Energy Requirements with and without Recycling of PC
Blend 2 Radome Depainting Solvent (In million Btu per 10 KC-135 aircraft radomes
depainted)
Dibasic Ester (DBE)
N-Methyl-Pyrrolidone (NMP)
Propylene Carbonate (PC)
Subtotal *
PC2 Distillation
PC2 Blending
PC2 Use at TAFB
PC2 Disposal Off-SiteA
Total Energy
Baseline
results (1)
9.8
23.8
6.7
40.3
-
0.54
1.5
0.15
42.5
Results with
100 percent recycling (1)
1.5
3.6
1.0
6.2
2.7
0.54
1.5
0.023
10.9
required for producing the three components comprising PC2 blend (i.e., DBE, NMP, PC).
For the recycling system, includes production of PC2 blend to make up for 15 percent loss
assumed in recycling and 0.5 percent evaporative loss assumed in use operation.
A Spent PC2 Solvent is assumed to be incinerated as hazardous waste off-site.
(1) Based on 110 gallons of PC2 used per ten KC-135 aircraft radomes depainted.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
contribution to the total. For instance, although DBE comprises 25 percent by weight of the PC2,
its contribution to solid waste is over 30 percent of the PC2 subtotal.
Total solid waste generation is decreased by about 50 percent for the recycled system when
compared to the baseline system. The reduction of fuel and process-related solid wastes
associated with producing the three components of the PC Blend 2 is primarily responsible for this
reduction. However, a small increase in fuel-related solid waste results from the distillation
process and additional transportation to and from the recovery facility.
5-5
-------
Table 5-2. Life Cycle Inventory of Solid Wastes with and without Recycling of PC Blend 2
Radome Depainting Solvent (In pounds per TO KC-135 aircraft radomes depainted)
Dibasic Ester (DBE)
N-Methyl-PyrroHdone (NMP)
Propylene Carbonate (PC)
Subtotal *
PC2 Distillation
PC2 Blending
PC2 Use at TAFB
PC2 Disposal Off-SiteA
Total Solid Wastes
Baseline
results (1)
14.2
22.9
9.2
46.3
-
8.7
25.4
0.060
80.5
Results with
100 percent recycling (1)
2.2
3.5
1.4
7.1
0.60
8.7
25.4
0.0091
41.9
a- ' . ..
required for producing the three components comprising PC2 blend (i.e., DDE, NMP, PC).
For the recycling system, includes production of PC2 blend to make up for 15 percent loss
assumed in recycling and 0.5 percent evaporative loss assumed in use operation.
A Spent PC2 Solvent is assumed to be incinerated as hazardous waste off-site.
(1) Based on 110 gallons of PC2 used per ten KC-135 aircraft radomes depainted.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
Atmospheric Emissions
Table 5-3 presents atmospheric emissions results for PC Blend 2 aircraft radome depainting
solvent for the baseline and recycle loop scenarios. These results include all emissions associated
with raw materials acquisition, chemical processes for producing the three components
comprising PC Blend 2 (i.e., DBE, NMP, PC), PC Blending 2 and PC2 use and disposal for
depainting radomes at TAFB.
All but four emission categories show a dramatic reduction in emissions for the recycled
system. The exceptions are dibasic ester, propylene carbonate, and n-methyl-pyrrolidone (the
three components of PC Blend 2), and other organics. The three PC Blend 2 components are the
estimated atmospheric emissions during the PC2 use step at TAFB, and are assumed to remain
unchanged with the use of recycled PC2. The "other organics" emissions increase for the
recycled system because they are primarily related to additional transportation fuel pollutants
produced when spent PC2 is transported to and from Texas for recovery.
5-6
-------
Table 5-3. Life Cycle Inventory of Atmospheric Emissions with and without Recycling of
PC Blend 2 Radome Depainting Solvent* (In pounds per 10 KC-135 aircraft radomes
depainted)
Atmospheric Emission
Aldehydes
Ammonia
Carbon DioxideJ
Carbon Monoxide
Chlorine
Dibasic Ester (DBE) f
Hydrocarbons
Hydrogen Chloride
Isobutane
Kerosene
Lead-
Mercury
Methane
N-Methyl-Pyrrolidone (NMP) |
Nitrogen OxidesJ
Other Organics
Particulates
Propylene
Propylene Carbonate (PC) f
Propylene Oxide
Sulfur Oxides
Baseline
results (1)
0.058
0.43
4,415
21.2
9.9E-05
1.2
46.6
7.2E-05
0.82
2.0E-04
1.9E-04
4.4E-05
0.040
2.5
235
0.53
1.3
0.080
1.2
0.039
8.0
Results with
1 00 percent recycling (1)
0.039
0.066
1",251
4.7
2.4E-05
1.2
10.1
1.7E-05
0.13
1.1E-04
9.1E-05
6.8E-06
0.013
2.5
37.7
0.68
0.78
0.012
1.2
0.0060
3.7
r ! associated with raw 1.1C.I.W1UU3
acquisition, chemical processing for producing the three components comprising PC2 blend
(i.e.r DBE, NMP, PC), PC2 blending, PC2 use at TAFB, and disposal of spent PC2 by incineration.
For the recycling system, includes production of PC2 blend to make up for 15 percent loss
assumed in recycling and 0.5 percent evaporative loss assumed in use operation.
f Represents estimated atmospheric emissions at TAFB assuming 0.5 percent evaporative
loss of PC2 blend during aircraft radome depainting.
$ Includes emissions from incineration of spent PC2.
(1) Based on 110 gallons of PC2 used per ten KC-135 aircraft radomes depainted.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
5-7
-------
Waterborne Emissions . .
Table 5-4 presents waterborne emissions for PC Blend 2 aircraft radomeRepainting solvent
for the baseline and recycle loop scenarios. These results include all emissions associated with
raw materials acquisition, chemical processes for producing the three components composing PC
Blend 2 (i.e., DBE, NMP, PC), PC Blending 2 and PC2 use and disposal for depaintmg radomes
atTAFB.
Without exception, all waterborne emissions show a dramatic reduction in emissions for the
recycle loop system.
Table 5-4. Life Cycle Inventory of Waterborne Wastes with and without Recycling of PC
Blend 2 Radome Depainting Solvent* (In pounds per 10 KC-135 aircraft radomes
depainted)
Waterborne Wastes
Acid
Ammonia
BOD
Chromium
COD
Dissolved Solids
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Metal Ion
Nickel
Ofl
Phenol
Sulfides
Sulfurie Acid
Suspended Solids
Zinc
Baseline
results (1)
0.0026
0.026
0.076
3.4E-05
0.098
0.54
0.11
9.6E-07
2.2E-08
0.011
1.2E-08
0.071
5.2E-05
0.0011
0.46
0.086
1.4E-05
Results with
100 percent recycling (1)
3.9E-04
0.0041
0.012
5.4E-06
0.018
0.12
0.062
2.3E-07
3.5E-09
0.0027
. 1.9E-09
0.013
1.1E-05
1.6E-04
0.25
0.014
3.3E-06
* Includes au process aim iuci iciai^u «uuv/.3^/»iw»»~ *..
acquisition, chemical processing for producing the three components comprising PC2 blend
-------
PC2 Use Alternatives-Volume, Yield, And Time Sensitivity
The results of this study are heavily dependent on the assumptions regarding material
requirements and use parameters for PC2 at TAFB. By far the most critical assumption is the
amount of PC2 required to depaint each radome. The personnel at Tinker provided the
assumption that approximately 110 gallons of PC Blend 2 would be required to depaint 10
KC-135 radomes.
The depainting process involves continuous showering of the radome with PC Blend 2. It has
been estimated that two hours of continuous showering will be required. During the depainting
operation/the PC Blend 2 flows over the surface of the radome, passes through a cloth filter, and
returns to a reservoir under the depainting area. The PC2 is then recirculated and re-used until
Tinker personnel determine that the blend contains excessive contamination, or becomes
ineffective in removing the paint. With no full-scale production experience, the amount of PC2
required may be either under-estimated or over-estimated.
The baseline assumption for the KC-135 radomes is that a volume of 110 gallons will depaint
10 radomes. This assumption is varied in two ways for this sensitivity analysis. First, the volume
required (110 gallons) is varied by plus or minus 20 percent (88 gallons to 132 gallons per 10
KC-135 radomes). Next, the yield of radomes depainted is first halved and then doubled for a
fixed volume of 110 gallons of PC2. In other words, the 110 gallons is assumed to yield only 5
radomes or as many as 20 radomes."
Another sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the sensitivity of the overall results to
the amount of time required for each depainting process. The time assumed for the baseline was
two hours per radome. In this sensitivity analysis, the time was bracketed with results for a one
hour processing time and results for a four hour processing time.
Results And Discussion
Energy Requirements
Table 5-5 presents total energy requirements for PC Blend 2 aircraft radome depainting
solvent for the baseline and each of the volume, yield, and time scenarios. These results include
all energy use associated with raw materials acquisition, chemical processes for producing the
three components comprising PC Blend 2 (i.e., DBE, NMP, PC), PC Blend 2 and PC2 use and
disposal for depainting radomes at TAFB.
As shown in Table 5-5, the energy results are very sensitive to any changes in the volume and
yield assumptions. An increase or decrease in volume required brings about a proportional
increase or decrease in the energy required for the PC Blend 2. Similarly an increase or decrease
in yield affects the volume required per radome. Again, the increase or decrease in energy
requirements is approximately proportional to the volume change.
5-9
-------
Changes in the time required for depainting do not have as great an effect on the results: This
is simply because the energy for the use component is only about three percent of the total energy
in the baseline.
Table 5-5. Life Cycle Inventory of Energy Requirements Showing Sensitivity to PC2 use
Assumptions* (In million Btu per 10 KC-135 aircraft radomes depainted)
Varying volume required Varying radome yield Varying depainting time
Baseline
results (1)
Dibasic Ester (DBE)
N-fvfcthyl-Pyn-o«done (NMP)
Propylene Carbonate (PC)
Subtotal *
PC2 Blending
PdUscatTAEB
PC2 Disposal off-site*
ToialEnerQf
9.8
23.8
6.7
403
0.54
1.5
0.15
42.5
plus
20%
11.8
28.5
8.0
483
0.65
1.5
0.18
50.7
minus 5 per
20% 110 gallons
7.9
19.0 ,
5.4
322
0.43
1.5
0.12
343
19.6
47.5
13.4
80.6
1.1
1.5
030
83.4
20 per Ihour 4 hours
110 gallons per radome per radome
4.9
11.9
3.4
20.1
027
1.5
0.076
22.0
9.8
23.8
6.7
403
0.54
0.75
0.15
41.7
9.8
23.8
6.7
403
0.54
3.0
0.15
44.0
req
IJwIViU'C-j UU vlVwlKY U^w «o»>wfc«i*M.w** v>iuk ***T- »»..»». j m.
cquircd for producing the three components comprising PC2 Hend (i.e., DBE, NMP, PC).
A Spent PC2 solvent is assumed to be incinerated as hazardous waste off-site.
(1) Based on 110 galtons of PC2 used per ten KC-135 aircraft radomss depainted and 2 hours
depainting time.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
Solid Waste . ^ . , . .
Table 5-6 presents total solid waste generation for PC Blend 2 aircraft radome depainting
solvent for the baseline and each of the volume, yield, and time scenarios. These results include
all solid waste associated with raw materials acquisition, chemical processes for producing the
three components comprising PC Blend 2 (i.e., DBE, NMP, PC), PC Blend 2, and PC2 use and
disposal for depainting radomes at TAFB.
As with the energy results, the total solid waste is quite sensitive to assumptions regarding
volume of PC2 required per radome. Because over 60 percent of the solid waste is due to the
production of the components (DBE, PC, and NMP) and blending of the PC2, any change in the
amount of PC2 required per radome has a substantial effect on the results.
5-10
-------
Because the process energy used at TAFB is electricity, changes in the processing time (thus,
electricity requirements) result in substantial changes in electricity related fuel pollutants. The
dramatic changes in solid waste which result from variations in process time are due primarily to
solid waste from electricity generating plants (ash from coal).
Table 5-6. Life Cycle Inventory of Solid Wastes Showing Sensitivity to PC2 use
Assumptions* (In pounds per 10 KC-135 aircraft radomes depainted)
Varying volume required Varying radome yield Varying depainting time
Dibasic Ester (DEE)
N-NfettytPynolidoiie (NMP)
Propylene Carbonate (PC)
Subtotal *
PC2 Blending
PC2Use at TAFB
PC2 Disposal Off-Site*
Toted Solid Wastes
Baseline
results (1)
142
22.9
9.2
46.3
8.7
25.4
0.060
80.5
plus
20%
17.1
27.5
11.0
55.6
10.4
25.4
0.073
91.5
minus Sper
20% 110 gallons
11.4
18.4
7.3
37.1
6.9
25.4
0.048
69.5
28.4
45.9
18.3
92.7
17.3
25.4
0.12
136
20 per Ihour 4 hours
110 gallons per radome per radome
7.1
11.5
4.6
232
4.3
25.4
0.030
53.0
142
22.9
9.2
46.3
8.7
12.7
0.060
67.8
142
22.9
92
46.3
8.7
50.9
0.060
106
* InclulesattsoMvvastesassociatedwthrawnBtei^
consonants comprising PC2 blend (ie., DBE, NMP, PC).
A Spent PC2solvetil is assumed to be incinerated as hazardous -waste off-site.
(1) BasedonnOgaUoiBofPC2usedpstenKC-135ain3aftradoniesdepaintedand2hoins
depainting time.
Source: FranklinAssociates, Ltd
Atmospheric Emissions
Table 5-7 presents atmospheric emissions results for PC Blend 2 aircraft radome depainting
solvent for the baseline and each of the volume, yield, and time scenarios. These results includes
all emissions associated with raw materials acquisition, chemical processes for producing the three
components comprising PC Blend 2 (i.e., DBE, NMP, PC), PC Blend 2ing, and PC2 use and
disposal for depainting radomes at TAFB.
Increasing the volume of PC2 required results in increased emissions across the board, while
decreasing the volume required results in decreased emissions. The decreases/increases in most
cases are fairly proportionate to the change in PC2 required. This is because all the "back-end"
steps have been changed proportionately. However some emissions categories are less sensitive
to the PC2 requirements. For example, sulfur oxides, particulate emissions, kerosene (tied to its
5-11
-------
use as a solvent for extraction of uranium concentrate from uranium ore), and lead emissions
change to a lesser degree than the other emissions. This is a reflection of their close tie to
electricity consumption at TAFB which remains unchanged as the volume is varied.
Table 5-7. Life Cycle Inventory of Atmospheric Emissions Showing Sensitivity of PC2 Use
Assumptions* (In pounds per 10 Kc-135 aircraft radomes depainted)
Varying volume required Varying radome yield Varying depainting time
Atmospheric Emission
Aldehydes
Anrnonm
Carbon Dioxide t
Caibonlvfonoxide
Chlorine
Dibasic Ester (DEE) t
Hydrocarbons
Ifrdrogcn Chloride
Isobutone
Kerosene
Lead
Mercury
Nfcthane
N-Msthyl-Fyrolidone (Mvff) T
Ntrogcn Oxides J
Other OrganJcs
Porticuttites
Propyfcne
Propytenc Caibonate (PC) t
Propyksne Oxide
Sulfur Oadcs
Baseline
results (1)
0.058
0.43
4415
21.2
9.9E-05
12
46.6
7.2E-05
0.82
2.0E-04
1.9E-04
4.4E-05
0.040
2.5
235.1
0.53
13
0.080
12
0.039
8.0
plus
20%
0.070
0.51
5,255
25.4
1.2E-04
1.5
55.9
8.7E-05
0.98
22E-04
22E-04
5.3E-05
0.048
3.0
28ZO
0.63
1.5
0.097
1.5
0.047
92.
minus
20%
0.047
0.34
3,575
17.0
7.9E-05
1.0
37.4
5.8E-05
0.65
1.7E-04
1.6E-04
3.5E-05
0.033
2.0
188.3
0.42
1.1
0.064
1.0
0.031
6.8
Sper
110 gallons
0.116
0.85
8,615
422
2.0E-04
2.5
92.9
1.4E-04
1.6
33E-04
33E-04
8.8E-05
0.080
5.0
469.3
1.06
23
0.16
2.5
0.078
14.2
20 per
110 gallons
0.029
0.21
2315
10.7
5.0E-05
0.62
23.5
3.6E-05
0.41
1.4E-04
1.2E-04
22E-05
0.021
12
118.0
027
0.84
0.040
0.62
0.020
4.9
Ihour
per radome
0.058
0.43
4308
21.1
9.9E-05
124
46.5
7.2E-05
0.82
1,6E-04
1.6E-04
4.4E-05
0.040
2.5
234.7
0.53
1.16
0.080
124
0.039
7.1
4 horn's
per radome
0.059
0.43
4,630
21.4
9.9E-05
124
46.9
7.3E-05
0.82
2.7E-04
2.4E-04
4.4E-05
0.042
2.5
236.1
0.53
1.68
0.080
1.24
0.039
9.8
j for producing the three componsrts comprising PC2 Mend (i.e., DBE, NMP, PC), PC2 Wending,
I use at TAFB, and disposal of spent PC2 by incineration.
f R^fesentsestimrtcdatnTCphOTcciii^^
toss ofPC2 Uend during aircraft radome dejainting.
J Lrludcs enissions fixm incineration of spent PC2.
(1) Based on 110 gallons ofPC2 used pertenKC-135 aircraft radomss depainted
SOUKK Franklin Associates, Ltd.
Increasing the yield (less PC2 required per radome) results in decreased emissions across the
board, while decreasing the yield (more PC2 required) results in increased emissions. Again, the
changes in most cases are fairly proportionate to the change in PC2 required, although some
emissions categories are less sensitive to the PC2 requirements.
5-12
-------
The results for varying the amount of time required per radome are shown in the last two
columns. A baseline depainting time of two hours was assumed. For these analyses, the
depainting time was halved and doubled. The comparison shows that decreasing the time to one
hour results in decreased emissions in almost every category, while increasing the time results in
increased emissions. The differences seen are fairly small for most categories of emissions.
However, sulfur oxides, particulates, kerosene, and lead emissions change to a greater degree
than the other emissions. This is a reflection of their close tie to the electricity consumption at
TAFB.
Waterborne Emissions
Table 5-8 presents waterbome emissions for PC Blend 2 aircraft radome depainting solvent
for the baseline and each of the volume, yield, and time scenarios. These results include all
emissions associated with raw materials acquisition, chemical processes for producing the three
components comprising PC Blend 2 (i.e., DBE, NMP, PC), PC Blend 2, and PC2 use and
disposal for depainting radomes at TAFB.
Table 5-8. Life Cycle Inventory of Waterborne Wastes Showing Sensitivity to PC2 Use
Assumptions* (In pounds per 10 KC-135 aircraft depainted)
Varying volume required
Waterbome Wastes
Acid
Ammonia
BOD
Chromium
COD
Dissolved Solids
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Metal Ion
Nickel
Oil
Phenol
Sulfides
SuUuric Acid
Suspended Solids
Zinc
Baseline
results (1)
0.0026
0.026
0.076
3.4E-05
0.098
0.54
0.11
9.6E-07
2.2E-08
0.011
1.2E-08
0.071
5.2E-05
0.0011
0.46
0.086
1.4E-05
plus
20%
0.0031
0.032
0.091
4.1E-05
0.12
0.64
0.13
1.1E-06
2.7E-08
0.014
l.SE-08
0.085
6.3E-05
0.0013
0.52
0.10
1.7E-05
minus
20%
0.0020
0.021
0.061
2.7E-05
0.079
0.43
0.099
7.7E-07
1.8E-08
0.0090
9.9E-09
0.057
4.2E-05
8.4E-04
0.40
0.069
1.1E-05
Vaiying radome yield
5 per
110 gallons
0.0051
0.053
0.15
6.8E-05
0.20
1.1
0.19
1.9E-06
4.5E-08
0.022
2.5E-08
0.14
l.OE-04
0.0021
0.76
0.17
2.8E-05
20 per
110 gallons
0.0013
0.013
0.038
1.7E-05
0.049
0.27
0.076
4.8B-07
1.1E-08
0.0057
6.2E-09
0.036
2.6E-05
5.3E-04
0.30
0.043
7.0E-06
Varying depainting time
Ihour
per radome
0.0026
0.026
0.076
3.4E-05
0.098
0.53
0.095
9.5E-07
2.2E-08
0.011
1.2E-08
0.071
5.2E-05
0.0011
0.38
0.086
1.4E-05
4 hours
per radome
0.0026
0.026
0.076
3.4E-05
0.098
0.54
0.15
9.6E-07
2.2E-08
0.011
1.2E-08
0.071
5.3E-05
0.0011
0.61
0.086
.1.4E-05
* Includes all process and fiiel related waterbome wastes associated with raw materials acquisition, chemical
processine for producing the three components comprising PC2 blend (i.e., DBE, NMP, PC), PC2 blending,
PC2 use at TAFB. and disposal of spent PC2 by incineration.
(1) Based on 110 gallons of PC2 used per ten KC-135 aircraft radomes depainted.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
5-13
-------
Increasing the volume of PC2 required results in increased emissions across the board, while
decreasing the volume required results in decreased emissions. As with atmospheric emissions,
the decreases/increases in most cases are fairly proportionate to the change in PC2 required.
However, sulfuric acid and iron emissions change to a lesser degree than the other emissions.
This is a reflection of their close tie to electricity consumption at TAFB which remains unchanged
as the volume is varied.
Increasing the yield (less PC2 required per radome) results in decreased emissions across the
board, while decreasing the yield (more PC2 required) results in increased emissions. Again, the
changes in most cases are fairly proportionate to the change in PC2 required, although some
emissions categories are less sensitive to the PC2 requirements.
The results for varying the amount of time required per each radome is summarized in the last
two columns. For the analyses, the time was halved and doubled. The comparison shows that
decreasing the time to one hour results in decreased emissions in almost every category, while
increasing the time results in increased emissions. The differences seen are fairly small for most
categories of emissions. However, sulfuric acid and iron emissions change to a greater degree
than the other emissions. This is a reflection of their close tie to electricity consumption at TAFB.
Conclusions
PC2 Recycling
Energy Results
Recycling the spent PC2 reduces the total energy requirements by about 70 percent from
the baseline system.
Solid Waste Results
Total solid waste generation is decreased by about 50 percent for the recycled system
from the baseline system.
Atmospheric Emissions Results
All but four atmospheric emission categories (dibasic ester, propylene carbonate, and
n-methyl-pyrrolidone, and other organics) show a dramatic reduction in emissions for the
recycled system.
The dibasic ester, propylene carbonate, and n-methyl-pyrrolidone (components of the PC
Blend 2) are assumed to remain unchanged with the use of recycled PC2.
5-14
-------
Emissions of "other organics" increase for the recycled system because they are primarily
related to additional transportation fuel pollutants produced when spent PC2 is
transported to and from Texas for recovery.
Waterborne Emissions Results
All waterborne emissions show a dramatic reduction in emissions for the recycle loop
system.
PC2 Volume, Yield, and Time Sensitivities
Energy Results
An increase or decrease in volume of PC2 required brings about a nearly proportional
increase or decrease in the energy required for the PC Blend 2. Similarly an increase or
decrease in yield affects the volume required per radome. Again, the increase or decrease
in energy requirements is approximately proportional to the volume change.
Because the energy for the PC2 use component is only about three percent of the total
energy in the baseline, changes in the time required for depainting do not have as great an
effect on the energy results.
Solid Waste Results
Any change in the amount of PC2 required per radome has a substantial effect on the solid
waste results. An increase or decrease in volume of PC2 required or change in yield of
radomes brings about a nearly proportional increase or decrease in the solid waste results
for the PC Blend 2. . ,
Changes in the processing time (thus, electricity requirements) result hi substantial changes
hi solid waste from electricity generating plants (ash from coal).
Atmospheric Emissions Results
Either increasing the volume of PC2 required or lowering the yield of radomes results in
increased atmospheric emissions across the board; conversely, decreasing the volume
required or increasing the yield of radomes results in decreased emissions. The
decreases/increases in most cases are fairly proportionate to the change in PC2 required.
Decreasing the radome processing time results in decreased emissions in almost every
category, while increasing the time results in increased emissions. The differences seen are
fairly small for most categories of emissions.
5-15
-------
Waterborne Emissions Results
Either increasing the volume of PC2 required or lowering the yield of radomes results in
increased waterborne emissions across the board; conversely, either decreasing the volume
required or improving the radome yield results in decreased emissions. As with
atmospheric emissions, the decreases/increases hi most cases are fairly proportionate to
the change hi PC2 required.
Decreasing the radome processing time results hi decreased emissions in almost every
category, while increasing the tune results hi increased emissions. The differences seen are
fairly small for most categories of emissions.
5-16
-------
Chapter 6
A Partial Impact Assessment Of PC2 Use
In Aircraft Radome Depainting
Introduction
A life cycle inventory (LCI) for the use of PC Blend 2 for depainting aircraft radomes is
described and summarized in Chapters 2 through 5 of this report. The study provides large
quantities of complex information on releases to the environment for the entire "cradle-to-grave"
manufacturing process for products. The LCI starts with extraction of raw materials from the
ground, and ends with the return of the materials to the environment as solid waste or air and
water emissions. For potential impact subcategories that can be expressed in an acceptable
common unit of measure (e.g., energy in Btu, solid waste in pounds or cubic feet), conclusions
can frequently be made based on LCI results. However, the complexity of data is the greatest for
atmospheric and waterborne emissions, and no conclusions can be reached with regards to those
emissions without further analysis.
A simple summing of atmospheric and waterborne emission quantities for each product system
is generally not meaningful. A pound of one type of airborne or waterborne pollutant can cause
vastly different health and environmental effects than a pound of another type of atmospheric or
waterborne pollutant. For example, one pound of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere
creates an entirely different potential impact on human health and the environment than does one
pound of a potent carcinogen. Also, with varying site-specific conditions, a pound of a single
pollutant can cause different effects. For example, weather conditions can influence the
dispersion, concentration, and human exposure of a pollutant.
The Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SET AC) has published a document,
A Conceptual Framework for Life-Cycle Impact Assessment, 1993, that outlines a general
methodology for examining possible applications of impact assessment of atmospheric and
waterborne pollutants generated during the life cycle of product systems. This study applies the
SET AC methodology to the PC2 inventory results to the degree to which science currently
allows. The result is a partial impact assessment which will serve to make the inventory data
more relevant by increasing our knowledge about the potential environmental impacts. It will also
help summarize the inventory data, in forms that are more managable and meaningful to the
decision maker. Readers should not confuse this partial impact assessment with a related tool
6-1
-------
called risk assessment. A risk assessment requires a much more detailed and extensive analysis of
toxicological data combined with site-specific release and exposure information.
Scenarios Examined
A number of different PC2 use scenarios are evaluated in this study and compared to the
baseline PC2 usage scenario. The scenarios are described in detail in Chapter 5 and are listed
below.
Baseline PC2 Use Scenario
10 KC-135 radomes depainted
110 gallons PC2 required for 10 radomes
Each radome is showered continuously for 2 hours
Disposal of spent PC Blend 2 is by incineration (without energy recovery)
Alternative Waste Management Scenario
Recycling of spent PC Blend 2
Alternative PC2 Use Scenarios
Varying volume of PC2 required (plus or minus 20 percent)
Varying yield of radomes per PC2 volume (five radomes to 20 radomes per 110 gallons)
Varying time required (one hour to four hours per radome)
The PC2 use scenarios evaluated include all of the life cycle steps, from raw materials
acquisition through PC2 production and use, and finally the disposal of the spent PC Blend 2
The reasons for selecting these comparisons and discussion of the basis for comparisons can be
found in Chapter 5.
Methodology Summary .
SETAC defines a conceptual framework for impact assessment to consist of three steps:
classification characterization, and valuation. As the impact assessment progresses through each
of these steps it becomes more value laden and less objective. This is a report of a partial impact
assessment which only considers classification, and, to a small extent, characterization. Complete
characterization and valuation are not possible at this time.
Classification . . ,
The first step of the impact assessment is classification. This is the process of assigning and
aggregating results from the emissions inventory into relatively homogenous potential impact
categories Potential impact categories are chosen to represent the issues of interest for a specific
study. For this study, ecosystem quality and human health are the major potential impact
6-2
-------
categories examined. Within these two major categories, subcategories are identified based on an
extensive analysis of environmental literature.
Examples of specific potential impact subcategories are greenhouse gas/global warming acid
ram, and oxygen depletion of water. Each pollutant emission from the LCI is placed into one or
more classification subcategory.
A complete list of subcategories is found in Appendix B, along with the rationale for
classification of the emissions. Forty-three different types of emissions were identified in this
project, and Appendix B explains how they were classified into two major potential impact
categories (ecosystem quality and human health) with 26 specific potential impact subcategories.
Characterization
The second step of the impact assessment is characterization. While classification can be
accomplished in all cases, characterization becomes quite complex. Characterization is the
assessment of the magnitude of potential impacts on the chosen major categories (human health or
ecosystem quality) for each of the subcategories evaluated.
For example, the LCI lists atmospheric emissions of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide
chlorine, and methane! All are classified under the category greenhouse gas/global wanning
Each chemical emission has a potential impact on ecosystem quality through this subcategory
Because it is desirable to combine the different chemicals into a single global warming descriptor
models for the potential impact of each substance are used to equate the quantities of each
pollutant to units of global warming potential. In this case, there is a common potential impact
metric, usually carbon dioxide equivalents. It is desired to do this in a similar fashion for all
subcategories in order to study the potential impact of each system evaluated on the major
categories of human health and ecosystem quality as measured by selected subcategory
Unfortunately, conversion models are known for only a few subcategories.
To develop a characterization system to assess the contribution of each emission, various
models were reviewed. The goal of each of these models is to assess the magnitude of
environmental harm from the product systems being studied. For example, if one system
produces 15 pounds of airborne particulates, and the other system produces 30 pounds some
mechanism is desired to assess whether this is a matter for concern or not. Some of the
characterization models that have been proposed by SETAC in A Conceptual Framework for
Life-Cycle Impact Assessment, 1993 are:
Loading: These models assess inventory chemical data on quantity alone, with the
assumption that less quantity produces less potential impact.
Equivalency: These models use derived equivalency factors to aggregate inventory data
with the assumption that aggregated equivalency factors measure potential impacts.
6-3
-------
Inherent chemical properties: These models pool inventory data based on chemical
properties, toxicity, persistence, and bioaccumulation, with the assumption that these
criteria would normalize the inventory data to provide measures of potential impacts.
Generic exposure/effects: These models estimate potential impact based on generic
environmental and human health information.
Site-specific exposure/effects: These models determine the actual impacts of product
systems based on site-specific fate, transport, and impact information for the relevant area
or site.
Loading , ., -
The loading models are the simplest to execute. The inventory data provide quantities of
physical measures, such as kilograms or pounds of the various pollutants. However, physical
measures alone are not a measure of potential environmental impact. This means that loading
models are best used in a comparative analysis for two or more systems, or for two or more
process steps within one system. In that application, the quantities of a specific emission category
are compared for each product system, and the system that generates the least is considered to
result in the least harm to ecosystem or human health. For example, one system may release 5.3
pounds of atmospheric sulfur oxides for the manufacture of a product, while another system
releases 4.3 pounds of the same chemical. In this case, one might be tempted to conclude that the
second system produces less potential environmental impact from atmospheric sulfur oxides.
There are several problems with this type of conclusion. One problem is that it is not known
if either quantity poses a significant threat and what the severity of that threat is. This would be
conditional, in part, upon the concentration of the chemical in the atmosphere. Concentration for
these amounts of sulfur oxides is highly variable, depending upon, among other factors, whether
the chemical is emitted to the environment in a large amount at one time or is released slowly over
a period of time, the climate and weather conditions, and so on. -
Another problem with the loading characterization model is that many emission categories are
poorly defined. An example is hydrocarbon emissions. Analytical tests performed to measure this
pollutant category do not reveal chemical composition detail. One system may release
considerable quantities of hydrocarbons with significant potential environmental impacts, while
the other system may release equivalent quantities of more benign hydrocarbons. If hydrocarbon
emissions are reported only as a generic total, the product systems will appear equal in potential
impact, using the loading model.
Data quality is also a critical issue. Many emission values reported by companies and by other
databases do not have high levels of accuracy. In the case cited above, the question arises as to
whether the reported value of 5.3 pounds of sulfur oxides is really different from 4.3 pounds.
6-4
-------
tot Z° 7^%Sf ^ ^ 2° PerCent PerhapS the measurement and reporting is error prone
to the extent that if the measurements were retaken, the results would be different After
extensive analysis of emission measurements, Franklin Associates has adopted a generic standard
for analysis that values representing emissions from two different systems are not significantly
s±e?th tl8 <" ?renCe eXTdS 25 PerC6nt ThUS *1S C°nduded that P°s^e errors are
so great that the two values given above are not known to be different.
Another disadvantage of loading models is that emission categories cannot be inter compared
For example, one system produces more COD in wastewater but another system produces more '
phosphates emissions. The loading model provides no guidance on how to conclude which
emiss,on category produces the most potential impact, or if there even is a potential impact.
With all of these caveats and problems, there is still potential utility in loading models In
some cases, one product system may produce more emissions in virtually every category when
compared to other equivalent products. In addition, if the product systems are similar the
hydrocarbon and other combined emission categories may have quite similar composition Under
these condmons limited conclusions can be drawn with some level of certainty. For the analysis
of PC Blend 2, this is clearly the case. The alternative system results which are compared to the
baseline are composed of emissions from identical processes as those included in the baseline
results. Therefore, conclusions are much more easily drawn than if the comparisons were
between two very different systems.
Equivalency
Some of the problems of the loading models could be overcome if equivalency factors could
be found. For example, if we could determine the potential impact on human health and
ecosystems of one pound of sulfur oxides compared to the potential impacts of one pound of
nitrogen oxides, we might be able to construct a system that would allow inter comparison.
The following is a list of possible bases for equivalency factors found in a survey of recent
documents. This list is illustrative, and is not meant to be complete, but shows a number of
possible options.
cancer potency index
molecular weight or other molar basis
reference dose values (Rfd)
hydrogen ion or acid equivalents
carbon equivalents
oxygen equivalents
halogen ion equivalents
acute toxicity values (LD50)
sensory irritation index (RD50)
chemical "potentials" (e.g., ozone depleting potentials, global warming, etc.)
6-5
-------
. environmental or ecotoxicity data (e.g., genetic toxicity values, Ames mutagenicity test,
chromosomal aberration, aquatic toxicity values)
other physical or chemical data (e.g., partition coefficients)
quantitative risk assessment
After assessing all of the techniques listed above, few were considered to be routinely
acceptable. Those that have potential utility are discussed at the end of this section.
The main reason for rejection of most equivalency models is the lack of information. In order
to use equivalency modeling, an LCI must be available to provide quantitative data in sufficient
detail for each emission produced by a product system. One difficulty is to identify what
chemicals compose the inventory items designated as particulates, hydrocarbons, other orgamcs,
aldehydes nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, organic solids, inorganic solids, and metal ion. The
chemical diversity that could exist within each pollutant label makes quantitative risk assessment
and other quantitative techniques difficult to use for equivalency modeling. Unfortunately, more
detailed information on individual manufacturing processes is usually not available. Data are
reported from results of analytical tests completed on waste streams. The data are typically
reported in the level of detail obtained during this testing, which follows standards for responding
to government reporting agencies. Also, the detail of the data reported does not include
information on the exposure rate to the ecosystem or humans.
As an illustration of this problem, particulates in the acid rain potential impact category could
be normalized based on molecular weight or acid equivalents. What values would the researcher
use? To what fraction of particulates should the potential impact apply (i.e., total suspended
particulates or respirable suspended particulates)? The required information is usually not
available. However, in some cases data indicate that sulfur oxides dominate the acid-forming
potential, so that using SOX as a surrogate may be acceptable.
Another example occurs with the eutrophication potential impact category for water
emissions. Does the researcher assume the nitrogen pollutant is nitrates, nitrites, or possibly even
nitrosamines? Most likely, it is a combination of several nitrogen-containing chemical
compounds, but testing would only report total nitrogen and this is what is reported in
inventories Another problem with eutrophication demonstrates the need for site-specific data.
Specific bodies of water can be phosphate limited or nitrogen limited. In nitrogen-limited water,
it is possible that phosphate emissions cause no additional potential impact. Therefore, in this
case, phosphate may not create a negative impact on the environment as it would in other bodies
of water which are phosphate limited.
Use of the cancer potency index illustrates similar problems with health effects measures. For
example does the researcher use the cancer potency index for benzene as a surrogate measure for
the hydrocarbon inventory item? Use of this potency index or other potency estimates (e.g.,
reference doses, acute toxicity values) is also limited in accuracy by differences in the
6-6
-------
experimental design and execution of animal studies, as well as any assumptions (safety factors,
animal-to-human extrapolation) used, or errors made during estimate calculations.
Generalized attempts at equivalency modeling are very common in Europe, and to a lesser
extent in the U.S. Some of the common names include critical volume approaches, environmental
priority strategies, and environmental indicators. A set of dimensionless equivalency impact
factors is frequently derived by which inventory data is multiplied or summed, or to which some
combination of math operations is applied. The problem is that there is no widely accepted single
method for doing this that is endorsed by the scientific community. In fact, in the May 1994 issue
of LCA-NEWS (a SETAC-Europe Publication), it is reported that, at the 1994 Annual
SETAC-Europe Congress, it was generally agreed that "...single result systems (e g eco-points)
are not viable."
One subset of equivalency models, however, has met with some success. These are impact
potentials. An example is the global warming set of chemicals. These include carbon dioxide
methane, and CFCs. There are widely accepted equivalency factors for the various chemicals'
One factor is that each pound of methane is considered to cause 69 times as much global warming
as a pound of carbon dioxide. Factors such as these can be used in the isolated cases where there
is general scientific agreement that valid equivalencies exist and specific exposure and fate data
are not needed. These could include global warming, ozone depletion, and perhaps acid rain.
Inherent Chemical Properties
These models take into account specific properties of various chemicals emitted. Properties
may include toxicity, ignitability, carcinogenicity, bioaccumulation, and so on. Impact ranking
systems require appropriate data on the property selected that is relevant to the inventory data.
For example, a list of air pollutants emitted during the course of product manufacture and
transport can be evaluated for toxicity. In that case, some uniform set of values is needed. An
example might be the LDJO values for each chemical. These values could be multiplied by the
amount of each chemical released, to arrive at a ranking score for the various pollutants emitted
and subsequently products could be ranked.
This approach suffers some of the same serious problems as equivalency models. The use of
LD,0 does not take into account that one chemical may biodegrade at a much faster rate than the
other chemical. With a quicker biodegradation, the potential for exposure would be lowered.
Another fundamental problem is that some pollutants are not reported in terms of chemical
composition. Primary examples of non-specific air pollutants are particulate emissions and
hydrocarbon emissions. These are among the dominant pollutants generated, so this problem is
quite serious. Lacking any knowledge of chemical composition makes an appropriate choice of
properties to'study impossible. This problem is not unique to air pollution, but is a characteristic
common to all environmental emission categories.
6-7
-------
The third major problem is data quality. Many types of specific emissions are included in an
inventory, and accurate measures of all kinds of pollutants are not always available. Thus, while
quite good data may exist for one emission, such as carbon monoxide, the data for highly toxic
materials released in very small quantities may be quite poor. In many cases, reported data on
toxic emissions are only very rough estimates, and may be in error by factors of 10, 100, or more.
While these chemical property models exist, they need to be used with great care, and with a
realization of the potential errors. Typically, use of these models eventually requires an
abandonment of purely analytical modeling in favor of subjective weighting factors or other
opinion-based measures. The historical record is clear that use of models by governments has
sometimes been quite effective at protecting human health and the environment. In these cases,
the model is applied to a specific site where exposure is known and the chemicals have similar
properties. In other cases, however, the use of models has resulted in unnecessary remediation,
and in some cases possibly greater damage to health and the environment than no action at all.
Generic Exposure/Effects
These models seek to use general or generic information to build hypothetical models of the
environment in order to assess the complex interaction of emissions and the environment. These
are generally very large computer models. These models are only as good as the data available
and the ability to accurately model complex environmental and health situations. This requires
knowledge of atmospheric dynamics, hydrological dynamics and the complex ways that stressors
interact with ecosystems and human health.
Two examples of models that attempt to quantify the fate of chemicals primarily in an aquatic
ecosystem are the Mackay unit world approach and the use of "canonical environments." These
models are described in the SETAC document, A Conceptual Framework for Life-Cycle
Impact Assessment, 1993. They use a specific site approach, with the Mackay model defining a
site as a unit world of one cubic kilometer and the canonical model defining a generalized stream,
lake, or other ecosystem as a site. The Mackay model relies on fogacity coefficients to determine
how the chemical will partition between the different environments. The canonical model requires
the knowledge of several environmental factors such as stream flow and soil organic matter
content.
While some computer models exist, there is no general agreement in the scientific community
that the accuracy and reliability of these models is anywhere near what is needed for an LCA
impact assessment. The data quality in many cases is a substantial problem, and there is a large
degree of subjective content. In addition, application of these models to life cycle inventory data
would not be feasible when considering the lack of information on specific chemicals within broad
categories and on exposure data.
6-8
-------
Site-specific Exposure/Effects
These models are potentially much more successful at this point in time than generic
approaches or the approaches that are geographically "global" in scope. The site-specific data are
frequently more accurate, and the specific effects on a local environment can be modeled more
effectively than in broader based analyses. In fact, many of the identified ecosystem and
environmental health problems can be adequately studied only at the local level.
However, LCI is inherently a global approach. The whole point of life cycle assessment is to
include indirect effects that go beyond plant boundaries of a single company. A site-specific
approach would require site-specific data for each site in the entire production system. This
would typically require 40 or more sets of comprehensive site-specific studies, with each set
examining the many different emissions identified from the process. This in itself is so expensive
and extensive that it is impractical, except in special cases.
There are also other problems. In any production system, there comes a point where specific
plants can no longer be tied to the system. For example, if a company is buying fuels on the open
market from a pipeline, they are buying a commodity product. The specific sources of the fuel
may not be known, and in fact may change from day to day. This.makes the site-specific
approach impossible for most LCIs. An unpublished EPA document suggests that site-specific
models be limited to LCAs of limited scope or used as a supplement to generic methods. In any
event, the precise role of site-specific methods for LCAs needs to be carefully analyzed.
Valuation ,
The third and final step of impact assessment is valuation. Valuation is the assignment of
relative values or weights to different impacts. This allows integration across all impact
categories. When valuation is completed, the decision makers can directly compare the overall
potential impacts of each product. Although it is a highly desirable goal, the valuation step is also
highly subjective. The assignment of relative weights to various potential impacts is
inherently value laden, and there is no scientific method for accurately completing the
valuation step of impact assessment. This step is not completed for this study.
The values of one segment of the population can vary greatly from the values of other
segments of the population. Who decides which is more important: the ecosystem or human
health? It is unlikely that the valuation step of impact assessment will reach a common level of
acceptability. It will continue to be an area of discussion for policy makers, environmentalists,
and others with a vested interest in environmental decisions.
Results And Discussion
Procedures are still being formulated for conducting the impact portion of a life cycle
assessment (A Conceptual Framework for Life-Cycle Impact Assessment, SET AC,
6-9
-------
March 1993 page 120) However, for this study, a partial impact assessment is constructed. It is
partial because no valuation is attempted and mass loading models are primarily used for characterization.
Classification
Once life cycle inventories have been completed for the various product systems, the first step
in assessing their comparative potential impacts on the environment is to classify pollutants into
potential impact subcategories. The inventory chemicals are classified as having potential impacts
on ecosystem quality and human health based on reviews of chemical, environmental, and
toxicological data. The classification categories for ecosystem health and human health are shown
in Table 6-1 and are those which have a significant potential impact in each global category. The
categories in this list are "reasonable" and are not intended to. be exhaustive.
Table 6-1. Classification Categories for Ecosystem Quality and Human Health
Categories for Ecosystem Quality
Greenhouse Gas/Global Warming
Ozone Depleting Gas/Stratospheric Ozone
Depletion
Acid Rain Precursor/Acid Rain
Smog Precursor/Photochemical
Smog/Tropospheric Ozone
Air Dispersion/Aging/Transport
Aquatic Life
Eutrophication/Plant Life
Visibility Alterations (air or water)
Weather Alterations
Thermal Changes
pH Alterations
Chemical/Biological Content Alteration
Oxygen Depletion
Aquifer Contamination
Categories for Human Health
Human Carcinogen (Class A)
Irritant (Eye, Lung, Skin, GI Tract)/Corrosive
Respiratory System Effects
Central Nervous System Effects
Allergenicity/Sensitization
Blood Dyscrasias (Methemoglobinemia or
Hematopoietic Effects)
Odors
Cardiovascular System Effects
Reproductive Effects
Behavioral Effects
Bone Effects
Renal Effects
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
In order to determine which pollutants create a significant potential impact, the 14
assumption is made that the emissions are present at low concentrations and under hypothetical
conditions of low level, general population exposure. Adverse effects observed from high acute
and high chronic exposures are not considered in this assessment. Appendix B contains a
detailed discussion of the classification of individual chemicals and emissions categories into
potential impact categories.
6-10
-------
Commentary on Industrial Emission Tables
The atmospheric and waterborne emissions inventory results from all the alternative systems in
the LCI are classified into a series of tables. The data are so extensive that 12 pages of tables
were required. They are presented in Appendix C as Tables C-l through C-4 Each three-page
table summarizes data for a different process scenario. For example, Table C-l reports emissions
tor the comparison of the recycling results to the baseline LCI results. The table lists the
individual pollutants assigned to each potential environmental impact category the pounds of
chemicals emitted by each system, and the percent difference between the systems.
The quantity (pounds) of each type of airborne or waterborne emission calculated in the
inventory is listed in all applicable classification categories, taking into account that a category
may include air emissions only, water emissions only, or both. In the left column the "A" or "W"
following the emission label designates that entry as being airborne or waterborne For this
assessment, only atmospheric emissions are considered to be significant factors in the potential
impact categories of greenhouse gases, photochemical smog, air dispersion/aging/transport
weather alterations, and thermal change. The potential impact category of blood dyscrasias does
not include any applicable emissions categories for this study and has been omitted In the
remaining potential impact categories, both atmospheric and waterborne pollutants are included in
the assessment.
The emissions are ordered in each classification category so that the pollutants released during
the life cycle are listed by largest amount generated to the smallest, according to the baseline
scenario. This is not meant to imply that the pollutant emitting the most pounds will have the
greatest potential impact.
For this assessment, two characterization models may be used: loading and global warming
equivalency models. The global warming equivalency model will only be used if the loading
results are inconclusive in the global warming subcategory. The other models either require
highly subjective measures with unknown, but probably large, errors associated with them or
there simply are not data available to allow their use.
The tables in Appendix C show the classification results for industrial environmental emissions
that may affect ecosystem quality and human health. Industrial emissions are those released
during the manufacture and use of the PC Blend 2. This includes emissions from all steps in the
hfe cycle (from raw material extraction to PC Blend 2 formulation, use, and disposal) of the PC
Blend 2 for radome depamting. Emissions from the combustion of fuels for process or
transportation energy are also included.
A perusal of this very extensive set of data reveals the complexity of interpretation The data
are reported in a series of columns to enhance analysis. For each comparison, the percent change
from the baseline is calculated as:
6-11
-------
f alternative scenario emission - baseline emission')
baseline emission
xlOO.
Thus, negative values mean that the alternative scenario produces less pounds of emissions in
that subcategory, while positive numbers mean that the alternative scenario produces more
pounds of emissions.
Another important aspect of the results presented in the third column is the magnitude of the
percent difference. Because of errors and uncertainty in the data, differences of less than 25
percent are not normally considered to be significant. However, as stated earlier, the processes
included in the alternative scenarios are in most cases identical to the processes in the baseline
analysis. Because of the similarities, a difference of less than 25 percent can be considered
significant.
The results for recycling PC2 are compared to the baseline scenario in Table C-l. A quick
perusal down the percent difference column in Table C-l shows that all but six emissions
categories decrease by over 20 percent, with most categories being more than 75 percent lower
for the recycling system. The exceptions are dimethyl succinate, dimethyl glutarate, and dimethyl
adipate (the three components of DBE), propylene carbonate, and n-methyl-pyrrolidone (which
all remain unchanged), and other organics (which increases). The five which remain unchanged
are the components of the PC Blend 2. They are assumed to occur during the PC2 use step at
TAFB as evaporative losses, and are thus assumed to remain unchanged with the use of recycled
PC2. The "other organics" emissions increase because they are primarily related to transportation
fuel pollutants. The recycled system actually requires more transportation of the waste PC2 than
the baseline due to the round-trip to Texas required for spent PC2 solvent recovery in the
recycled system versus one-way transport to a local combustion facility for the baseline scenario.
Other organic emissions fall into the ecosystem category of ozone depletion, and the human health
categories of irritant/corrosive and allergenicity. This means, with the exception of these three
potential impact categories, recycling the PC Blend 2 results in less potential impact than
the baseline in which the spent PC2 is incinerated.
The results for varying the volume of PC2 required per 10 KC-135 radomes are compared to
the baseline analysis in Table C-2. (This analysis is done to see what effect recirculating a smaller
or larger volume of PC2 for depainting 10 radomes has on the results.) A review of the percent
difference column in Table C-2 shows that increasing the volume of PC2 required results in
increased emissions across the board, while decreasing the volume required results in decreased
emissions The decreases/increases in most cases are fairly proportionate to the change in PC2
required This is because all the "back-end" steps for PC2 production, blending, and incineration
have been changed proportionately. "Back-end" steps refer to the steps for raw material
acquisition through final production of the PC2 components (PC, DBE, and NMP). However
some emissions categories are less sensitive to the PC2 requirements. For example, sulfur oxides,
paniculate emissions, sulfuric acid, iron, kerosene, and airborne lead emissions change to a lesser
6-12
-------
degree than the other emissions. This is a reflection of their close tie to electricity consumption at
»if,'Ch !"emains unchan§ed when the volume is varied. Therefore, reducing the volume of
the rc Blend 2 required per radome results in less potential impact.
The results for varying the yield of radomes depainted per volume of PC2 required are
compared to the baseline analysis in Table C-3. (This analysis is done to see what effect
increasing or decreasing the yield of radomes stripped per volume of PC2 used has on the results )
As with the results in Table C-2, the comparison shows that increasing the yield (less PC2
required) results in decreased emissions across the board, while decreasing the yield (more PC2
required) results in increased emissions. Again, most of the changes are fairly proportionate to
the change m PC2 required, although some emissions categories are less sensitive to the PC2
requirements. This means that increasing the yield of radomes depainted with a set volume
of PC2 results in less potential impact.
The results for varying the amount of time required per each radome are compared to the
baseline analysis in Table C-3. The baseline time assumed was two hours. For these analyses the
time was halved and doubled. The comparison shows that decreasing the time to one hour results
in decreased emissions in almost every category, while increasing the time results in increased
emissions. The differences seen are fairly small for most categories of emissions However
sulfur oxides, particulate emissions, sulfuric acid, iron, kerosene, and airborne lead emissions
change to a greater degree than the other emissions. This is entirely a reflection of their close tie
to electricity consumption at TAFB. This means that reducing the time for depainting
required per radome results in less potential impact. However, this alternative does not
result in differences that are as great as others examined.
Estimates of Ground Level Emission Concentration from Evaporation ofPC2 Solvent Blend
One of the most evident on-site ecological and health risks with the use of volatile solvents is
the inhalation by workers or nearby citizens. For the solvents studied here there are OSHA
and/or ACGIH acceptable limits of concentration in air. The following maximum allowable
concentration (time-weighted average over 8 hours) information was supplied by the
manufacturers.
DBE- 1.5 ppm, or 10mg/m3
- PC- 20 ppm, or 85 mg/m3
NMP- 100 ppm or 410 mg/m3
In order to assess the potential for exceeding these limits during use of the PC2 a model for
estimating ground level concentrations of emitted air pollutants was used The source of the
model was: Christian, Joel B., "Estimate the Effects of Air Emissions with this Process Screening
Model Chemical Engineering Progress, June 1995, pp. 59-62. Personal communication with
the author verified its use for this application.
6-13
-------
The model requires that several assumptions be made. The initial calculations use the
following values.
virtual stack height (height of plume) = 5 m
wind speed = 3.35 m/s
ground level coordinate of measurement point = 10 m
mass flow of contaminant = (assuming 0.5 percent volatilization)
NMP - 2.5 Ib hi 20 hr
DBE - 1.2 Ib in 20 lu-
rC - 1.21bin20hr
meteorological stability = moderately unstable
Under these conditions, the estimated point concentrations are: 0.066 mg/m3 for NMP, and
0.032 mg/m3 for DBE and PC.
The maximum allowable concentrations are about 6,000 times higher for NMP than the
estimated values (410/.066 = 6,000) , 300 times higher for DBE, and 2,700 times higher for PC.
All of the above calculations are estimates. However, the air emission concentrations are
quite conservative. In fact, the wind speeds are generally much higher in central Oklahoma, and
using the ground level coordinate of 10 meters from the source is also conservative, especially if
the workers are equipped with breathing apparatus. The 0.5 percent evaporation loss of the
solvent is also an estimate, but even if it is in error by a factor of 300 (an impossibility), the
ground level concentrations still seem to be in a range considered to be safe.
It is our conclusion, based upon these rough estimates, that the direct emission of solvent
vapors from the processing location does not result in a significant known problem as defined
within the scope of this study to anyone outside the immediate working area.
Summary
The point of this partial impact assessment is to decide whether one system appears to be
environmentally more desirable than another. There is no accepted analytical method to reduce
the information in Appendix C to a single decision. However, the analysis has proceeded to a
point where reasonable judgments can be made.
The four tables in Appendix C are the only level at which scientific interpretation of data is
possible. Using a simple loading model ("less is better" for each subcategory approach), these
tables show a mix of positive and negative signs in the percent difference comparison columns.
This means that in some potential impact subcategories the baseline system produces lower
emissions, while in other subcategories it produces higher levels of emissions. This leads to an
inconclusive result for some comparisons. However, for most of the comparisons, the results do
indicate which improvement alternatives result in less potential environmental impact. In other
6-14
-------
words, the results indicate, at least directionally, which operating parameters should be explored
for the sake of improvement of the LC A results.
Development of Summary Tables for Communication and Subjective Evaluations
In every decision, there is a scientific level of analysis and interpretation, but in many cases
that interpretation must be simplified for communication purposes. It is also common to rely
upon subjective evaluations when communicating results of scientific conclusions. This is
justifiable only if the summaries and subjective evaluations have credibility when verified at the
scientific level.
As an aid to that end, a summary table was developed. The tables in Appendix C are so
cumbersome that each three-page set of information has been summarized in Table 6-2. For
example, from Table C-l, the first column shows the number of emission entries where pounds of
emissions for the alternative system exceeded those for the baseline. Table C-l is summarized in
the first row, with subsequent tables summarized in the following rows. The table reports the
number of impact subcategories in which an alternative system results in less potential impact.
Thus, high numbers would represent more subcategories of less potential impact and thus that
alternative would be more desirable.
In Table 6-2, "less potential impact" means that, in a given subcategory, the system had no
emissions that were considered higher than the other system's emissions, while at least 1 emission
was higher for the other system. If neither system had any emissions higher than the other, the
results for that subcategory were inconclusive. Results for a subcategory were also inconclusive
if each system had at least one emission higher than the other. For example, for the first line in
Table 6-2, the recycled system has significantly less potential impact in 20 subcategories.
However, the results for ozone depletion are considered inconclusive, as are results for the human
health categories of irritant and allergenicity/sensitivity because each system is higher than the
other for at least one emission in these subcategories.
This table has the advantage of summarizing all of the Appendix C tables in a single page, and
continues to convey the conclusions already reached and verified by analysis of the Appendix C
tables.
6-15
-------
Table 6-2. Summary of Partial Impact Analysis
Number of impact subcategories
in which product system named results in
significantly less potential impact
Alternative System
100% closed loop recycling of PC2
20% increase in volume of PC2
20% decrease in volume of PC2
Decrease yield to 5 per 1 10 gallons
Increase yield to 20 per 1 10 gallons
Increase depaint time to four hours per radome
Decrease depaint time to one hour per radome
Baseline
0
23
0
23
0
23
0
Alternative
20
0
23
0
23
0
23
Inconclusive
3
0
0
0
0
Source: Appendix C, Tables C-l to C-4.
Conclusions
With the exception of the ecosystem category of ozone depletion, and the human health
categories of irritant/corrosive and allergenicity, recycling the PC Blend 2 results in less
potential impact than the baseline in which the spent PC2 is incinerated.
Reducing the volume of the PC Blend 2 required per radome results in less potential
impact.
Increasing the yield of radomes depainted with a set volume of PC2 results in less
potential impact.
Reducing the time for depainting required per radome results in less potential impact.
However, this alternative does not result in differences that are as great as others
examined.
The direct emission of solvent vapors from the processing location does not result in a
significant known problem to anyone outside the immediate working area.
6-16
-------
Chapter?
Improvement Analysis
Introduction
This chapter provides an improvement analysis for the use and disposal of PC Blend 2 used
for departing radomes at Tinker Air Force Base (TAFB). The results of the life cycle inventory
(LCI) and impact assessment will be used along with a limited cost analysis to evaluate the
improvement alternatives set forth. Because the use of PC2 has been very limited thus far the
parameters around the use of PC2 may be quite different than assumed in the baseline scenario A
number of alternative scenarios were explored in the earlier chapters to illustrate the effects of
changes in the major assumptions on life cycle inventory and impact results. The results from the
sensitivity analyses can now be used to point the way for a number of improvement options.
Purpose
As a maintenance procedure, TAFB removes paint from radomes for KC-135 B-52 and a
number of other aircraft. The radomes are currently showered with methyl ethyl ketone'(MEK) in
a large ventilated paint booth until the paint is loosened and can be removed All of the MEK
volatilizes and is lost into the atmosphere. As a part of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency s 33/50 Voluntary Reduction Program, the use of MEK is to be reduced by 50 percent bv
the end of 1995. A number of substitute paint stripping blends were analyzed, with PC2 being
identified as the solvent blend with greatest potential to replace the MEK. The PC2 is made up of
PS2?? Pf°Pylene carbonate, 50 percent n-methyl pyrrolidone, and 25 percent dibasic ester
i ne fC2 has been tested on a very limited basis for this application.
This improvement analysis will combine the results from the life cycle inventory, partial impact
assessment, and a cost analysis to recommend areas for process optimization. These alternatives
can provide the focus during process optimization for the use of PC2 in radome departing.
Identification Of Improvement Alternatives
Several improvement alternatives have been identified and analyzed in earlier chapters of this
report. For comparison purposes, the process for depainting KC-135 radomes was chosen as the
baseline scenario. The KC-135 is the predominant radome processed at TAFB Detailed LCI
results for the baseline are presented in Chapters 3 and 4 of this report, and detailed LCI results
for the alternatives can be found in Chapter 5. The improvement scenarios are listed below
7-1
-------
Baseline PC2 Use Scenario
10 KC-135 radomes depainted
110 gallons PC2 required for 10 radomes
Each radome is showered continuously for 2 hours
Disposal of spent PC2 by incineration (without energy recovery)
Alternative Waste Management Scenarios
Recycling of spent PC2
Alternative PC2 Use Scenarios
Varying volume of PC2 required (plus or minus 20 percent)
Varying yield of radomes per PC2 volume (five radomes to 20 radomes per 110 gallons)
Varying time required (one hour to four hours per radome)
Each of the PC2 use scenarios evaluated include all of the life cycle steps, from raw materials
acquisition, through PC2 production and use, and finally the disposal of the spent PC2 blend. The
alternative scenarios were chosen to directionally show the potential improvements that might be
derived from various PC2 depainting process and waste management alternatives. Discussion of
the basis for comparison and detailed system descriptions can be found in Chapter 5.
Technical Evaluation Of Improvement Alternatives
Energy Requirements
Figure 6-1 summarizes the total energy requirements for PC2 aircraft radome depainting
solvent for the baseline and all alternative scenarios. These results include all energy use
associated with raw materials acquisition, chemical processes for producing the three components
comprising PC2 (i.e., DDE, NMP, PC), PC2 blending, and PC2 use and disposal for depainting
radomes at TAFB. The recycled system results also include the energy for transporting the spent
PC2 to a theoretical recycling facility hi Texas, distilling the waste solvent blend, re-blending the
components, and transporting the recycled PC2 back to TAFB for another use.
By recycling the spent PC2, the total energy requirements are reduced to around 25 percent of
the baseline requirements. Most of the reduction comes from decreased process and energy of
material resource requirements in the "back-end" steps for producing the DBE, PC and NMP
components of the blend. "Back-end" steps refer to the steps for raw material acquisition through
final production of the PC2 components (PC, DBE, and NMP). The energy for disposal of waste
is also drastically reduced to -about 15 percent of the baseline amount. The energy for distilling
the spent PC2 is about 25 percent of the total energy for the recycled system.
7-2
-------
As shown in Figure 7-1, the energy results are also very sensitive to any changes in the
volume and yield assumptions. An increase or decrease in volume required brings about a
proportional increase or decrease in the energy required to produce the PC2. Similarly, an
4 hrs /radome
1 hr /radome
20 radomes/110 gal.
5 radomes /I10 gal.
Volume-20%
Volume +20%
Recycle
Baseline
80
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Energy (MMBtu)
D PC2 Production ^ PC2 Use D Distillation Disposal
90
Figure 7-1. LCI energy usage by component showing sensitivity to improvement
alternatives.
Source: Tables 5-1 through 5-5.
7-3
-------
increase or decrease in yield affects the volume required per radome. Again the increase/decrease
in total energy requirements is approximately proportional to the volume change.
Changes in the tune required for depainting do not have as great an effect on the energy
results. This is simply because varying the time only affects the PC2 use component, which is
only about three percent of the total energy in the baseline.
Solid Waste
Figure 7-2 presents total solid waste generation for the baseline and all alternative scenarios.
These results include all solid waste associated with raw materials acquisition, chemical processes
for producing the three components comprising PC Blend 2 (i.e., DBE, NMP, PC), PC2 blending,
and PC2 use and disposal for depainting radomes at TAFB. The recycled system results also
include the solid wastes associated with transportation and recycling of the spent PC2.
Total solid waste generation is decreased by about 50 percent for the recycled system when
compared to the baseline system. The reduction of fuel and process-related solid wastes
associated with producing the three components of the PC2 is primarily responsible for this
reduction. However, a small increase in fuel-related solid waste results from the recycling process
and transportation to and from the recycling facility.
As with the energy results, the total solid waste is quite sensitive to assumptions regarding
volume of PC2 required per radome. Because over 60 percent of the solid waste is due to the
production of the components (DBE, PC, and NMP) and blending of the PC2, any change in the
amount of PC2 required per radome has a substantial effect on the solid waste results.
The process energy used at TAFB is electricity; therefore, changes in the processing time
(thus, electricity requirements) result in substantial changes in electricity related fuel pollutants.
The dramatic changes in solid waste which result from variations in process time are due primarily
to solid waste from electricity generating plants (i.e. ash from coal).
Atmospheric and Waterborne Emissions
Table 7-1 summarizes the partial impact assessment results for the atmospheric and
waterbome emissions from the use of PC2 aircraft radome depainting solvent in all scenarios.
The partial impact assessment is described in detail in Chapter 6.
In Table 7-1, "less potential impact" means that, in a given subcategory, the system had no
emissions that were considered higher than the other system's emissions, while at least 1 emission
was higher for the other system. If neither system had any emissions higher than the other, the
results for that subcategory were inconclusive. Results for a subcategory were also inconclusive
if each system had at least one emission higher than the other. For example,, for the first line in
Table 7-1, the recycled system has significantly less potential impact in 20 subcategories.
7-4
-------
4 hrs. /radome
1 hr. /radome
20 radomes/110 gal.
5 radomes/110 gal.
Volume -20%
Volume +20%
Recycle
Baseline
20 40
60 80
Solid Waste (Ibs)
100 120
140
D PC2 Production H PC2 Use D Distillation
Disposal
Figure 7-2. LCI solid wastes by component showing sensitivity to improvement
alternatives.
Source: Tables 5-2 through 5-6.
7-5
-------
Table 7-1. Summary of Impact Assessment Results with Comparison of Improvement
Alternatives to Baseline
Alternative System Compared to Baseline
100% closed loop recycling of PC2
20% increase in volume of PC2
20% decrease in volume of PC2
Decrease yield to 5 per 110 gallons
Increase yield to 20 per 110 gallons _-_
Increase depaint time to four hours per radome
Decrease depaint time to one hour per radome
Source: Appendix C, Tables C-l to C-4.
Number of Impact
Subcategories with
Less Potential Impact
20
0
23
0
23
0
23
Number of Potential
Impact Subcategories with
Inconclusive Results
0
0
0
0
0
0
However, the results for ozone depletion are considered inconclusive, as are results for the human
health categories of irritant and aUergenicity/sensitivity because each system is higher than the
other for at least one emission in these Subcategories.
Figure 7-3 provides some additional insight as to the magnitude of change in total emissions
(air and water) for the various alternatives. The figure summarizes the average percent difference
(shown by the shaded bars) between the alternative scenario and the baseline. The range of the
percent difference is also shown by the dotted lines. It is important to note that while the
recycling scenario results in the greatest reduction in emissions as measured by the average
percent difference, one emission increases (other organics with a percent difference of about 38
percent) for the recycling scenario. The other organics emissions are found in three different
potential impact Subcategories and cause the "inconclusive" results shown in Table 7-1.
Economic Evaluation Of Alternatives
Because of the evaporative losses associated with MEK, which is currently being used for
depainting radomes, Tinker Air Force Base wants to replace MEK with PC2. An earlier analysis
showed that approximately 33 drums per year of PC2 would be required to replace the
approximately 145 drums of MEK currently used. The purpose of this economic analysis is to
estimate the cost to supply the new solvent (PC2), and the cost of disposal or recovery of the
used solvent for each of the improvement alternatives. This analysis is not a life cycle cost
analysis, but instead analyzes the cost to TAFB for the various improvement alternatives.
It is important to note that the change-over from MEK to PC2 is not expected to require any
7-6
-------
100% -T-
80% --
-80% -
-100% -1-
Recycling
Volume Volume
+20% -20%
5 20
radomcs/ radomes/
110 gal. 110 gal.
4 hours 1 hour
per per
radome radome
Figure 7-3. Summary of impact analysis average percent difference from baseline over all
potential impact categories.
Shaded area shows average percent change from baseline and dotted lines show the range.
Source: Tables C-l through C-4.
7-7
-------
change in capital equipment. Therefore, this cost analysis assumes that no capital expenditures
are required.
Cost of Solvent Supply
PC2 consists of 25 percent propylene carbonate (PC), 50 percent n-methyl pyrrohdone
(NMP) and 25 percent dibasic ester (DBE). Several chemical suppliers were contacted to obtain
estimates of delivered prices. Three estimates, $17.00, $17.03, and $17.20 per gallon, were
received These are costs for the blended solvent, delivered to TAFB, assuming a usage of about
3 drums per month. Based on the previous raw material cost estimate of $9.01 per gallon, about
half of the cost is for blending
Cost of Disposal and Recovery .' ,'.!.+
It is assumed that because of potential heavy metal contamination from the paints, the spent
solvent will need to be handled as a hazardous waste. Therefore, combustion in a hazardous
waste incinerator is assumed for disposal.
There are no commercial hazardous waste incineration facilities in Oklahoma. Facilities are
available in Coffeyville, Kansas (Aptus) and El Dorado, Arkansas (Ensco). The Arkansas facility
is over twice as far away from TAFB as the facility in Kansas, which is about 190 miles from
TAFB. Facilities in Texas are even farther away.
Disposal costs include the cost of transportation plus the cost of incineration. The
transportation cost to Coffeyville, KS depends on the quantity shipped at one time. The cost is
$0.13 per pound with a minimum of $250. (The cost for a single drum shipment would be $250
or $4.50 per gallon.)
The estimated cost to incinerate the solvent is between $115 and $165 per drum, depending
on the waste profile, which is determined by a one-time acceptability test that costs $550. At
$165 per drum, the estimated disposal cost, including transportation, is $7,623 per year, as shown
in Table 7-2. This equates to $4.20 per gallon disposed.
Solvent recovery is assumed to be by distillation. The technical and economic feasibility of
recovering PC2 are not well known. Because of the high boiling points of the solvent
components, and because the contaminant levels from the paint are unknown, laboratory tests will
be required to determine the quality of the product that can be expected from the distillation
process. The three components of the solvent have boiling points of 115°C to 140 C (DBE),
202°C (NMP), and 240°C (PC).
Because of the technical uncertainties of distilling PC2, a broad range of cost estimates was
received The preliminary estimates received range from $0.45 to $1.50 per pound. At $0.45, a
fairly high yield is assumed, and a minimum of 10 drums would be required at one time As
shown in Table 7-2 the cost of distillation may be as high as $29,960 per year ($16.51/gallon),
7-8
-------
Table 7-2 Economic Comparison Disposal and Recovery (1)
DISPOSAL
Transportation
Processing
Totals for incineration
Transportation
Processing
Totals for recycling
S/gal
1.20 (2)
3.00 (3)
S/year
2,178
5,445
4.20
7,623
RECOVERY FOR RECYCLING (4)
$/gal $/year
3.00 (5) 5,445
13.51 (6) 24,515
16.51
29,960
(1) Assumes average usage of 33 drums (1,815 gal) per year and PC2 density of 9.01 Ib/gal
(2) Shipment to Cofteyville, KS hazardous waste incinerator.
Shipping cost is $0.13/lbt with a $250 minimum.
(3) Subject to one-time waste acceptability testing (profiling) for $550.
(4) It is assumed that only minimal solid waste is generated from recycling and
the cost for handling this residual is included in the estimate.
(5) Shipment to San Antonio, TX, round trip.
(6) Assumes $1.50 per pound. Cost estimates range from $0.45 to $1.50 per pound. Actual
may be lower or higher. Laboratory sampling will be required to obtain better estimates.
which is almost four times as costly as disposal by incineration. Industry contacts indicated that
the transportation cost would be about $0.06 per pound.
Evaluation of PC2 Costs (Without Recycling)
Table 7-3 shows the cost estimates for new solvent (PC2) supply, and disposal by
incineration, showing the sensitivity of cost to the actual demand for solvent. In the baseline case
it is assumed 33 drums (1,815 gallons) per year of PC2 are used. The next two rows of Table 7-'
2 show how the cost is affected if the demand is increased and decreased by 20 percent The last
two lines of the table show the effect of doubling and halving the demand for solvent (this also
corresponds to doubling or halving the yield).
Evaluation of Recycling Alternative
The analysis of costs summarized in Table 7-2 above shows incineration to cost less than
recovery by distillation. However, a laboratory analysis of the potential for distillation is
recommended.
Assuming 85 percent recovery of spent PC2 from distillation, and a distillation cost of $16 51
per input gallon, the cost of recycled PC2 would be $19.42 (16.51/0.85) per recovered
7-9
-------
Table 7-3. Sensitivity of PC Blend 2 Costs to Demand
Dollars/vear
Baseline (1,815 gallons/yr)
Baseline \v/+20% volume
Baseline w/-20% volume
Baseline w/+100% volume
Baseline w/-50% volume
New PC2
31,218
37,462
24,974
62,436
15,609
Disposal (1)
7,623
9,148
6,098
15,246
3,812
Total
38,841
46,609
31,073
77,682
19,421
(1) Disposal by incineration in a hazardous waste incinerator
gallon. This is higher than the $17.20 per gallon for new PC2, but since the incinerator disposal
cost would not be required, the total cost would be less with recycling. If distillation proves to be
technically feasible at $16.51 per gallon or less, then the optimum disposal solution,
environmentally and economically, may be distillation for reuse at TAFB.
To further examine the effect of recycling, costs were analyzed for three scenarios of PC2
usage. The scenarios are:
Scenario 1: Base case, no recycling,
Scenario 2: Three years of PC2 usage, with recycling, and
Scenarios: Five years of PC2 usage, with recycling.
Table 7-4 summarizes the estimated costs for these scenarios.
In the first scenario, it is assumed new PC2 would be purchased each year, and the spent
solvent would be disposed of in the Coffeyville hazardous waste incinerator. The total supply and
disposal cost would be about $39 thousand per year. The first year is higher by $550 because of
the one-time compatibility testing required.
Scenario 2 assumes a three year program of PC2 usage, after which all used solvent would be
incinerated. The first year's cost is simply the cost of the new supply of PC2 ($31,218). In the
second year, 85 percent of new supply would be comprised of recycled PC2, and 15 percent
would be new PC2 makeup. The total second year cost would be $34,643. The third year costs
would be like the second, except there would be an additional cost for disposing of the used
7-10
-------
I"
I
II
in oe o
"
R
CU
«
= «!
i
o
a
s^
en
O
c
es
61)
en
en
O
in
O
u
o
cu
5
u
0*
a
w oo o m
13 9
<» oo o «*»
00 O
I
** oo o «n
|5 S
>C CO
I
.1
f
*
e
£1
I
.0°
its
***.£-
r*> Ov < ^ S
g
- 00 O O
s5
2
«!
*4
«o
g
s
I
*s-
lls
oo v5 t-
vo ON
?}
2 S3
sS--=-
5 <«r o\
us;
* 8'
s S
-.
5 §
:§ §
ce
g
S S.S «
li^fS
7-11
-------
solvent, for a total of $42,816. The average for the three years is estimated at $36,225, which is
about $2,800 per year less than the base case scenario.
Scenario 3 estimates the costs for a 5 year program. This is similar to the second scenario,
but the average annual cost ($35,952) is $633 lower. The total 5 year savings over the scenario 1
base case is $16,800.The estimated average annual costs for programs of one through five years
duration are shown graphically in Figure 7-4. The one-year program assumes no recycling and
the other four programs assume recycling of the used solvent, except in the last year of the
program.
Dollars/you-
40,000 T
3yar
Years of PC2 Usage
Note: Cost escalation is not included in this figure.
4jear
Sysar
Figure 7-4. Estimated average annual cost of PC2 supply, recycling, and disposal.
Other Considerations
In the course of this study, a number of issues arose which were judged to be beyond the
scope of this work. However, this information is provided in order that it can be factored into
future decisions.
The evaporative loss of PC2 is estimated from the difference in vapor pressure between PC2
and MEK. The vapor pressure for PC2 is about 0.3 percent that of MEK. Because MEK
experiences 100 percent evaporation, a conservative estimate of 0.5 percent of the total PC2
required was used to estimate the evaporative loss for PC2. While most parameters for use of
PC2 will be the same as for use of MEK, the fact that the PC2 will be re-used a number of times
is quite different than the MEK depainting process. It is possible that the PC2 may be re-used
again and again over a period of several weeks or even months. To ensure that evaporative losses
are kept to a minimum and to guard against contamination, it is recommended that the PC2 be
drummed for storage between uses.
7-12
-------
The recycling of spent PC2 is based on surrogate data for distilling a similar but different
waste fluid. The applicability of the data used was judged to be sufficient for the purposes of
determining, at least directionally, if recycling might be a practical alternative in terms of
energy, solid waste, and air and waterborne emissions. In addition, a recovery of 85 percent
of the spent PC2 was used in both the environmental and cost analysis. Industry sources
indicated that this was a conservative estimate for most solvent mixtures. However there
were some concerns that two components (NMP and the dimethyl succinate portion of the
DBE) of the PC2 may form an azeotropic mixture, thus they could not be fractionally distilled
to separate them. If the three components need to be cleanly separated to be used in a
product other than PC2, this could be a problem. However, if the mixture could be
re-blended into PC2 for use at TAFB, the problem may be quite minor. It should be
emphasized that feasibility of recycling PC2 would need to be proven.
One of the suppliers of NMP also suggested that if the NMP could be easily separated
from the other components by distillation, that they would might be willing to handle the spent
PC2 disposal at no charge. Again, the fractional distillation would need to be run on a pilot
scale, and laboratory tests run to prove the technical feasibility of this disposal option.
The hazardous waste firms contacted suggested that the PC2 would be a prime candidate
for use as a fuel blend for cement kilns. This is a form of energy recovery. This option for
handling hazardous liquid waste carries a substantially lower disposal cost. The cost for a
cement kiln disposal of liquid hazardous waste ranges from $85 per drum to $135 per drum
depending on the degree of contamination. It is expected that the spent PC2 would be
considered relatively clean. Therefore, this option would probably compare favorably to the
estimate of $115 to $165 for incineration of the liquid waste. However the waste
management personnel at TAFB indicated that this is not a preferred alternative for waste
management.
Conclusions
Reducing the volume of the PC Blend 2required per radome by 20 percent results in a
20 percent reduction of material and disposal costs from the baseline scenario.
Increasing the yield of radomes depainted with a set volume of PC2 by 100 percent
results in a 50 percent reduction of material and disposal costs from the baseline
scenario.
Recycling the PC Blend 2 results in moderately less material and disposal costs than
the baseline in which the spent PC2 is incinerated.
7-13
-------
-------
Appendix A
LCI System Components For PC2
Aircraft Radome Depainting Solvent
This appendix provides an overview of each of the steps required for the production, use, and
disposal alternatives for PC2, a potential replacement solvent blend for aircraft radome depainting
at the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center (OC-ALC) at Tinker Air Force Base (TAFB).
Currently, TAFB uses methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) to depaint B-52 and KC-135 aircraft radomes.
The PC2 solvent blend is a mixture of 50 percent n-methyl-pyrrolidone (NMP), 25 percent dibasic
ester (DBE), and 25 percent propylene carbonate (PC).
Included in this appendix are process descriptions, materials flow charts, and tables presenting
energy requirements and environmental emissions summary results. Summary results tables are
presented for the three products comprising PC Blend 2: NMP, DBE, and PC. The data in the
tables are presented on the basis of producing 1,000 pounds of each of the three products
comprising PC2. These results represent energy use and environmental emissions for all steps in
the life cycle of each of the three components, from raw materials extraction through production
of the individual PC2 components. The results also reflect precombustion energy and emissions
as well as fuel related emissions from the use of fuels as process and transportation energy. The
process descriptions are provided to give the reader a basic understanding of the process
parameters. As discussed in the methodology chapter of this report, selected materials such as
catalysts, pigments, and other very small additives are not included in this life cycle inventory,
although they may be mentioned. Generally, such materials total less than one percent of the net
process inputs and are not included.
The following steps are required for the production of the three components comprising the
PC2 solvent, and are discussed in this appendix:
N-methyl-pyrrolidone (NMP)
Natural gas production
Natural gas processing
Carbon dioxide production
Methanol production
Ammonia production
Methyl amine production
Crude oil production
Distillation, desalting, & hydrotreating
A-l
-------
Acetylene production
Formaldehyde production
Butynediol production
Hydrogen production
1,4 Butanediol production
y-Butyrolactone production
N-methyl-pyrrolidone production
Dibasic Ester (DBE)
Natural gas production
Natural gas processing
Carbon dioxide production
Methanol production
Ammonia production
Nitric acid production
Crude oil production
Distillation, desalting, & hydrotreating
Naphtha reforming
Benzene production
Hydrogen production
Cyclohexane production
Salt mining
Sodium hydroxide production
Adipic acid production
Dibasic ester production
Propylene Carbonate (PC)
Natural gas production
Natural gas processing
Crude oil production
Distillation, desalting, and hydrotreating
Propylene manufacture
Oxygen manufacture
Salt mining
Sodium hydroxide manufacture
Propylene oxide manufacture
Carbon dioxide production
Propylene carbonate production
A discussion on departing operations at TAFB and PC2 disposal alternatives is also included
in this appendix. Because PC2 is not currently being used in production at TAFB, key
assumptions regarding PC2 use and disposal were made and are included in the discussion.
A-2
-------
Process data for each production step were documented and compiled for this study. Because
these process data are often proprietary, the data are presented in final aggregated form. That is,
process data for each process step from raw material acquisition through chemical intermediates'
and finally the end product (NMP, DBE, or PC) are combined into one data set for each end
product. More detailed data and references to data sources reside in the internal project files at
,FAL.
N-Methyl Pyrrolidone (NMP)
Brief descriptions of the processes required for the manufacture of NMP are presented in the
following sections. Figure A-l is a process flow diagram illustrating raw material requirements
for the manufacture of 1,000 pounds of NMP.
Natural Gas Production
Natural gas is extracted from deep underground wells, frequently being coproduced with
crude oil. Because of its gaseous nature, it flows quite freely from wells that produce primarily
natural gas. However, some energy is required to pump natural gas and crude oil mixtures to the
surface. Combination wells account for approximately 25 percent of all natural gas production.
Natural Gas Processing
Light straight-chain hydrocarbons are normal products of a gas processing plant. The plants
typically use compression, refrigeration, and oil adsorption to extract these products. Heavy
hydrocarbons are removed first. The remaining components are extracted and kept under
controlled conditions until transported in high-pressure pipelines, insulated railcars, or barges.
Carbon Dioxide, Hydrogen, and Ammonia Manufacture
Carbon dioxide and hydrogen are primarily produced by steam reforming of natural gas and
are by-products of ammonia manufacture. Natural gases, or other light hydrocarbons, and steam
are fed into a primary reformer, over a nickel catalyst to produce hydrogen and carbon dioxides,
generally referred to as synthesis gas. About 70 percent of the hydrocarbon feed is converted to
synthesis gas in the primary reformer. The remaining hydrocarbons are converted in the
secondary reformer. Air is introduced into the second reformer to supply nitrogen for the
ammonia manufacture.
The effluent from the reformers is fed into carbon monoxide shift converters where the carbon
monoxide reacts with water to form hydrogen and carbon dioxide. This provides more hydrogen
for manufacturing ammonia. The effluent from the shift converters is cooled, and condensed
water is removed. The carbon dioxide and some excess hydrogen are then removed from the
synthesis gas as coproducts. The remainder of the synthesis gas is purified, dried, and fed to an
ammonia converter where nitrogen and hydrogen react to form ammonia (References A-l through
A-4).
A-3
-------
I
I
I
A-4
-------
Methanol Production
Methanol is manufactured from methane-rich natural gas. The early operations synthesizing
methanol by this method utilized a high pressure process in the presence of a
ZnO-CrA catalyst with a Zn:Cr ratio of 70:30. More recently, emphasis has been redirected
from the high pressure process to a low or medium pressure process.
The most common low or medium pressure operations for manufacturing methanol occur
through reforming operations (steam, combined, or multi-stage). The natural gas or hydrocarbon
feedstock is first desulfurized because of potential byproducts formed with the Cu-Zn-aluminum
oxide catalyst. A relatively long catalyst life, often up to four years, is typical for this process
*rom the reforming step the gas mixture is fed through a series of steps which include a
circulator, converter, heat exchanger, cooler, and separator. Maximum usage of purge gas and
waste heat in this process reduces the overall process energy requirements. The methanol is
purified through a distillation unit (References A-1, A-4, A-3 0).
Methylamine Production
Monomethylamine, the methylamine used to produce n-methyl-pyrrolidone, is primarily
produced by the alkylation of ammonia by methanol in the presence of a dehydrating catalyst A
number of variables effect the selectivity of this reaction between mono-, di-, and trimethylamine
These include the catalyst used, the nitrogen to carbon ratio, temperature, and residence time
Optimization of these variables will result in the maximum output of mono-methylamine
(Reference A-5). The end product mixture of the various amines, byproducts, and unreacted raw
material is separated by distillations and extractions (Reference A-6).
Crude Oil Production
Oil is produced by drilling into porous rock structures generally located several thousand feet
underground. Once an oil deposit is located, numerous holes are drilled and lined with steel
casing. Some oil is brought to the surface by natural pressure in the rock structure, although most
oil requires some energy to drive pumps that lift oil to the surface. Once oil is on the surface it is
separated from water and stored in tanks to await transportation to a refinery. In some cases it is
immediately transferred to a pipeline that transports the oil to a larger terminal. It is assumed that
50 percent of the crude oil used comes from domestic sources and 50 percent from foreien
sources (Reference A-31).
Distillation, Desalting, and Hydrotreating
A petroleum refinery is a complex combination of processes that serve to separate and
physically and chemically transform the mixture of hydrocarbons found in crude oil into a number
of products. Modern refineries are able to vary the different processing steps through which a
charge of crude oil passes in order to maximize the output of higher value products. This
variation of processing steps can change according to the make-up of the crude oil as well as the
economic value of the products. Because of this variation, it is necessary to make certain
A-5
-------
assumptions about the refinery steps to which crude oil is subjected in order to produce
petrochemical feedstocks.
For this analysis, it is assumed that crude oil used to produce feedstocks for olefins production
goes through the following refinery operations: desalting, atmospheric and vacuum distillation,
and hydrotreating. Due to a lack of facility-specific data, literature sources were used to estimate
the energy requirements for these refining steps. A number of literature references were used,
most of which showed similar energy inputs (References A-8 through A-12).
Crude desalting is the water-washing of crude oil to remove water-soluble minerals and
entrained solids (Reference A-7). Crude oil atmospheric distillation separates the desalted crude
oil into fractions with differing boiling ranges. The residue from the atmospheric distillation unit
passes to a vacuum distillation unit where separation of the various fractions can be accomplished
at lower temperatures than would be required at atmospheric pressure. Hydrotreating is a
catalytic hydrogenation process that reduces the concentration of sulfur, nitrogen, oxygen, metals,
and other contaminants in a hydrocarbon feed.
Acetylene Production
Approximately 90 percent of acetylene used in manufacturing is recovered from the
hydrocarbon cracking of petroleum at high temperatures. The different hydrocarbon-acetylene
processes differ in how the reaction energy is supplied. There are several different methods in
operation or under development, including: arc, flame, and pyrolysis technologies.
For maximum acetylene production, the hydrocarbons must reach a reaction temperature of
about 1500K and be immediately quenched to about 550K. The desired reaction temperature
depends on the length of the hydrocarbon chain. Reaction time is on the order of milliseconds.
Because of its unstable nature, acetylene is usually used close to where it is produced (References
A-13 through A-16).
Formaldehyde Production
Formaldehyde is most commonly produced by oxidation of methanol in the presence of either
a silver or ferric molybdate catalyst. The silver catalyst, methanol, air, and water are preheated
and fed into the reactor vessel. The heat from the reaction gas is recovered by generating steam,
and gases are sent to an absorption tower. The process for the metal oxide catalyst differs from
the silver catalyst process in that the metal oxide reaction occurs at lower temperatures and
requires a much greater excess of air in the feed, and the excess steam is exported.
The formaldehyde is stripped from the reaction gases with water and then distilled. A solution
containing 60% urea can also be used to extract the formaldehyde. The resulting absorber
bottoms can then be condensed into urea/formaldehyde resin (References A-l, A-2, A-4, and
A-17).
A-6
-------
y-Butyrolactone Production
Acetylene and formaldehyde are the raw materials required to produce y-butyrolactone. The
reaction proceeds through several intermediate steps which include hydrogenation and
dehydrogenation of the mixture to produce the y-butyrolactone end product. The reactions are
described as follows (Reference A-18):
HCCH + 2 CH20 -> HOCH2CCH2OH (1,4-butynediol)
H2
HOCH2CCH2OH > HOCH2CH2CH2CH2OH (1,4-butanediol)
-H2
HOCH2CH2C!4CH2OH > OCO(CH2)3 (y-butyrolactone)
The 1,4-butynediol created in the first step, is produced by a formaldehyde ethynylation
process. Acetylene and formaldehyde are reacted at 90°C-100°C and an acetylene partial
pressure of about 500 kPa-600 kPa. 1,4-Butynediol yields are over 90 percent with 4-5 percent
propargyl alcohol being coproduced. 1,4-Butynediol is then hydrogenated to 1,4-butanediol via
the Reppe process. The y-butyrolactone is manufactured by dehydrogenation of 1,4-butanediol.
The dehydrogenation occurs with preheated 1,4-butanediol vapor in a hydrogen carrier over a
supported copper catalyst at 230°C-250°C. Yields of y-butyrolactone after purification by
distillation are about 90 percent (Reference A-18).
n-Methyl-Pyrrolidone Production
Large scale n-methyl-pyrrolidone manufacture is accomplished by condensation of
y-butyrolactone with methylamine at 200°-350°C and 10 MPa (References A-21 and A-22). The
NMP component of the PC2 solvent blend is assumed to be produced on the Texas gulf coast and
transported to Oklahoma City for blending. The total energy requirements and environmental
emissions for producing 1,000 pounds of NMP from raw materials acquisition (crude oil and
natural gas) through NMP production are aggregated and displayed in Table A-l.
Dibasic Ester (DEE)
A brief description of the processes required for the manufacture of DBE are presented in the
following sections. Figure A-2 is a process flow diagram illustrating raw material requirements
for the manufacture of 1,000 pounds of DBE.
The following steps in the production of DBE are discussed previously in this appendix:
Natural gas production
Natural gas processing
Crude oil production
Distillation, desalting, and hydrotreating
Carbon dioxide production
Methanol production
A-7
-------
Ammonia production
Hydrogen production
Nitric Acid Production
Nitric acid is manufactured from ammonia by air oxidation over a metal catalyst. The reaction
occurs at 800 to 950°C to almost 60 percent conversion (Reference A-7).
Naphtha Reforming
The reforming processes are used to convert paraffinic hydrocarbon streams into aromatic
compounds such as benzene, toluene, and xylene. Catalysts such as platinum, alumina, or
silica-alumina and chromium on alumina are used (Reference A-23).
Benzene Production
Benzene is naturally produced from crude oil as it is distilled in the refinery process. Also, a
large portion of benzene is produced by the catalytic reforming of light petroleum distillate
(naphtha). In the reforming process, naphtha is fed through a catalyst bed at elevated
temperatures and pressures. The most common type of reforming process is platforming, in
which a platinum-containing catalyst is used. Products obtained from the platforming process
include aromatic compounds (benzene, toluene, xylene), chemical hydrogen, light gas, and
liquefied petroleum gas. (References A-24 and A-25).
The reformate from the platforming process undergoes solvent extraction and fractional
distillation to produce pure benzene, toluene and other coproducts. Additional benzene is often
produced by the dealkylation of toluene.
Cyclohexane Production
Cyclohexane is produced by catalytic hydrogenation of benzene. Benzene is converted to
cyclohexane in approximately 95 percent yield. A hydrogen-rich, byproduct fuel gas is recovered
for use elsewhere hi the plant.
Salt Mining
Most salt-based chlorine and caustic facilities use captive salt from another process or use
brine salt. Salt is most commonly removed from brine using solution mining. In solution mining,
pressurized fresh water is introduced to the bedded salt through an injection well (Reference
A-26). The brine is then pumped to the surface for treatment. Salt mines are widely distributed
throughout the United States.
Sodium Hydroxide and Chlorine Production ',.,,,.
Caustic soda (sodium hydroxide) and chlorine are produced from salt (sodium chloride) by an
electrolytic process. An aqueous sodium chloride solution is electrolyzed to produce caustic
soda, chlorine, and hydrogen gas. Chlorine and caustic soda each account for about half of the
output of the process, with hydrogen amounting to only one percent by weight.
A-8
-------
Table A-l. Data for the Production of 1,000 Pounds of Nmethyl-Pyrrolidone (NMP)
Energy Usage
Energy of Material Resource
Natural Gas
Petroleum
Total Resource
Process Energy
Electricity
Natural gas
LPG
Distillate oil
Residual oil
Gasoline
Total Process
Transportation Energy
Combination truck
Diesel
Rail
Diesel
Barge
Diesel
Residual oil
Ocean freighter
Diesel
Residual
Pipeline-natural gas
Natural gas
Pipeline-petroleum products
Electricity
Total Transportation
931 Ib
395 ft
206 kwh
12,971 cuft
0.065 gal
0.27 gal
0.79 gal
0.12 gal
310
3.7
36.7
0.11
46.6
0.093
0.028
774
0.077
0.77
61.2
141
54.2
1.2
ton-miles
gal
ton-miles
gal
ton-miles
gal
gal
ton-miles
gal
gal
ton-miles
cuft
ton-miles
kwh
Energy*
Thousand Btu
20,876
7,650
28,526
2,183
14,554
6.8
41.8
132
16.7
569
17.7
14.5
4.7
12.0
130
158
12.6
9
A-9
-------
Environmental Emissions
Atmospheric Emissions
Aldehydes
Ammonia
Carbon Dioxide
Carbon Monoxide
Chlorine
Hydrocarbons
Hydrogen Chloride
Kerosene
Lead
Methane
Nitrogen Oxides
Other Organics
Particulates
Sulfur Oxides
Solid Wastes
Waterbome Wastes
Acid
Ammonia
BOD
Chromium
COD
Dissolved Solids
Iron
Lead
Metal Ion
Oil
Phenol
Sulmric Acid
Suspended Solids
Zinc
Process
Fuel
0.015
0.52
_
34.8
7.8E-05
40.9
5.9E-05
.
5.5E-07
-
0.18
«.
0.023
1.5
0.031
2.7E-04
2,318
2.5
1.1E-05
19.8
8.0E-06
1.2E-04
l.OE-04
0.044
5.0
0.45
0.83
4.5
2.8
4.3E-07
0.032
0.13
1.7E-06
0.12
0.36
1.6E-04
7.7E-07
0.0092
0.030
3.0E-05
0.15
1.1E-05
43.5
5.9E-08
9.5E-05
7.3E-04
2.4E-07
0.0034
0.049
0.065
l.OE-07
0.0013
0.0053
4.1E-06
0.26
6.6E-04
1.5E-06
Total
0.047
0.52
2,318
37.3
8.9E-05
60.7
6.7E-05
1.2E-04
l.OE-04
0.044
Ib
Ib
Ib
Ib
Ib
Ib
Ib
Ib
Ib
Ib
5.2 Ib
0.45 Ib
0.85 ft
6.0 Ib
46.3 Ib
4.9E-07
0.032
0.13
2.0E-06
0.12
Ib
Ib
Ib
Ib
Ib
0.40 Ib
0.065 Ib
8.7E-07 Ib
0.010 Ib
0.036
3.4E-05
0.26
0.15
1.3E-05
Ib
Ib
Ib
Ib
Ib
"* Values include precombustion and combustion energy and emissions.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
A-10
-------
.S
S
« T 8
s
2:
I
JSf
5
I
ea
e
V
u
1
I
ill
M
5
A-ll
S
E
-------
The electrolysis of sodium chloride is performed by one of two processes: the mercury
cathode cell process, and the diaphragm cell process. About 83 percent of electrolyzed chlorine
and caustic soda production comes from the diaphragm process, with the remainder coming from
the mercury cell process (Reference A-27).
Adipic Acid Production -.'-.
Nearly all adipic acid made in the U.S. is made from the nitric acid oxidation ot a
cyclohexanol/cyclohexanone mixture (KA oil). In recent years KA oil has been obtained almost
exclusively from the air oxidation of cyclohexane which is obtained from hydrogenation of
benzene. The reactions are described as follows (References A-l, A-28 and A-29):
C6H6+ 3 H2 > C6H12
(cyclohexane)
(KAoil)
C6H100 +
> C6H,o04 (adipic acid)
Dibasic Ester Production
Dibasic ester (DBE) is a mixture of the following esters: dimethyl adipate (15 wt%), dimethyl
glutarate (60 wt%), and dimethyl succinate (24 wt%). The dimethyl glutarate and dimethyl
succinate are by-products of dimethyl adipate production. Dimethyl adipate is produced by
refluxing adipic acid and methanol in the presence of an acid catalyst and heat (Reference A-19).
The solution is then neutralized, dried, steam filtered, decolorized, and filtered again before being
sent to a holding tank (Reference A-20).
The DBE component of the PC2 solvent blend is assumed to be produced on the Texas gulf
coast and transported to Oklahoma City for blending. The total energy requirements and
environmental emissions for producing 1,000 pounds of DBE from raw materials acquisition
(crude oil and natural gas) through DBE production are aggregated and displayed in Table A-2.
Propylene Carbonate (PC)
A brief description of the processes required for the manufacture of PC are presented in the
following sections. Figure A-3 is a process flow diagram illustrating raw material requirements
for the manufacture of 1 ,000 pounds of PC.
The following steps in the production of PC are discussed previously in this appendix:
Natural gas production
Natural gas processing
Crude oil production
Distillation, desalting, and hydrotreating
Salt mining
A-12
-------
Sodium hydroxide manufacture
Carbon dioxide production
Table A-2. Data for the Production of 1,000 pounds of Dibasic Ester (DBE)
Energy Usage
Energy of Material Resource
Natural Gas
Petroleum
Total Resource
Process Energy
Electricity
Natural gas
LPG
Coal
Distillate oil
Residual oil
Gasoline
Total Process
Transportation Energy
Combination truck
Diesel
Rail
Diesel
Barge
Diesel
Residual oil
Ocean freighter
Diesel
Residual
Pipeline-natural gas
Natural gas
Pipeline-petroleum products
Electricity
Total Transportation
272 Ib
732 Ib
135
12.517
0.12
51.4
0.57
4.9
0.091
255
3.0
38.2
0.12
12.8
0.026
0.0077
1,434
0.14
1.4
17.9
41.2
102
2.2
kwh
cuft
gal
Ib
gal
gal
gal
ton-miles
gal
ton-miles
gal
ton-miles
gal
gal
ton-miles
gal
gal
ton-miles
cuft
ton-miles
kwh
Energy*
Thousand Btu
6,111
14,160
1,428
14,044
12.7
584
88.3
815
12.7
16,984
468
18.4
4.0
1.3
22.3
241
46.3
23.7
825
A-13
-------
Process
Fuel
Environmental Emissions
Atmospheric Emissions
Aldehydes
Ammonia
Carbon Dioxide
Carbon Monoxide
Chlorine
Hydrocarbons
Hydrogen Chloride
Kerosene
Lead
Methane
Nitrogen Oxides
Other Organics
Particulates
Propylene
Propylene Oxide
Sulfur Oxides
Solid Wastes
Waterbome Wastes
Acid
Ammonia
BOD
Chromium
COD
Dissolved Solids
Iron
Lead
Metal Ion
on
Phenol
Sulfuric Acid
Suspended Solids
Zinc
* Values include precombustion and combustion energy and emissions.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
0.054
0.26
8.4
.
1.6E-04
15.3
1.1E-04
l.OE-06
.
«
0.081
0.70
12.2
0.010
0.017
0.038
1.3E-04
0.13
1.1
2.9E-04
1.4E-06
0.017
0.19
1.2E-04
0.039
2.1E-05
0.033
4.5E-04
2,370
2.4
1.8E-05
19.0
1.3E-05
8.2E-05
1.4E-04
0.043
4.8
0.38
0.91
5.0
45.3
9.8E-08
1.6E-04
0.0012
3.9E-07
0.0057
0.080
0.070
1.7E-07
0.0021
0.0067
6.7E-06
0.28
0.0011
2.5E-06
Total
0.087
0.26
2,379
2.4
1.7E-04
Ib
Ib
Ib
Ib
Ib
34.4 Ib
1.2E-04 Ib
8.2E-05 to
1.4E-04 to
0.043
4.8
0.38
0.99
0.010
0.017
0.039
1.3E-04
0.13
0.20
1.3E-04
0.28
0.040
2.3E-05
Ib
Ib
Ib
Ib
Ib
- Ib
5.7 Ib
57.4 Ib
Ib
Ib
Ib
Ib
Ib
1.1 Ib
0.070 Ib
1.6E-06 Ib
0.019 Ib
Ib
Ib
Ib
Ib
Ib
A-14
-------
s
i
i
3
g
i
a
u
«>
S
1
i
A-15
I
M
-------
Propylene Manufacture .
The primary process used for manufacturing propylene and other olefins is the thermal
cracking of saturated hydrocarbons such as ethane, propane, naphtha, and other gas oils.
Currently, the feedstocks in the United States are approximately 75 percent ethane/propane and
25 percent naphtha. .
Typical production of propylene and other coproducts begins when hydrocarbons and steam
are fed to the cracking furnace. After being heated to temperatures around 1,000 degrees
Celsius the cracked products are quenched in heat exchangers which produce high pressure
steam Fuel oil is separated from the main gas stream in a multistage centrifugal compressor. The
main gas stream then undergoes hydrogen sulfide removal and drying. The final step involves
fractional distillation of the various reaction products.
Oxygen Manufacture . .
Oxygen is manufactured by cryogenic separation of air, a technique by which air is liquefied,
and the oxygen is collected by fractionation. The oxygen is produced in the form of a liquid
which boils at 3 00°F below zero at normal atmospheric pressure.
Propylene Oxide Manufacture
The propylene oxide for the production of propylene carbonate in PC2 is manufactured by the
isobutane hydroperoxide process. In this process, propylene oxide and tert-butyl alcohol are
formed from isobutane, oxygen, and propylene. Isobutane is first oxidized to the intermediate,
tert-butyl hydroperoxide. Some tert-butyl alcohol is formed in this step. A low conversion of
isobutane is used to minimize the tert-butyl alcohol that is produced in this reaction. The
unreacted isobutane is recycled.
The tert-butyl hydroperoxide and alcohol mixture is combined with propylene at a rate of two
to six moles of propylene per mole of hydroperoxide. This is reacted to nearly 100 percent
conversion of the hydroperoxide over a catalyst usually made of molybdenum. The products
stream contains propylene oxide and tert-butyl alcohol. Propylene and propylene oxide are
separated from the product in distillation columns. Recoverable catalyst is also obtained in the
heavy end bottoms from the purification columns.
Propylene Carbonate Production . ' j- -j
Propylene carbonate is produced by the reaction of propylene oxide with carbon dioxide over
a tetraethyl/ammonium bromide catalyst. In this case, the equipment used to produce propylene
carbonate is also used to produce ethylene carbonate. Wastewater is generated when equipment
is rinsed between product changes. Solid waste generated is assumed to be small and is not
considered in this study.
The PC component of the PC2 solvent blend is assumed to be produced on the Texas gulf
coast and transported to Oklahoma City for blending. The total energy requirements and
A-16
-------
environmental emissions for producing 1,000 pounds of PC from raw materials acquisition
(natural gas and crude oil) through production of PC are aggregated and displayed in Table A-3.
Table A-3. Data for the Production of 1,000 Pounds of Propylene Carbonate (PC)
Energy Usage
Energy of Material Resource
Natural Gas
Petroleum
559 ft
109 ft
Total Resource
Process Energy
Electricity
Natural gas
LPG
Coal
Distillate oil
Residual oil
Gasoline
Total Process
Transportation Energy
Combination truck
Diesel
Rail
Diesel
Barge
Diesel
Residual oil
Ocean freighter
Diesel
Residual
Pipeline-natural gas
Natural gas
Pipeline-petroleum produc
Electricity
Total Transportation
165 kwh
7,014 cuft
0.018 gal
2.0 ft
0.14 gal
6.7 gal
0.060 gal
240 ton-miles
2.8 gal
64.8 ton-miles
0.20 gal
7.7 ton-miles
0.015 gal
0.0046 gal
213 ton-miles
0.021 gal
0.21 gal
36.8 ton-miles
84.6 cuft
14.9 ton-miles
0.33 kwh
Energy*
Thousand Btu
12,539
2,100
14,639
1,748
7,869
1.9
22.7
21.0
1117
8.4
10,788
440
31.2
2.4
0.77
3.3
35.7
94.9
3.5
612
A-17
-------
Environmental Emissions
Atmospheric Emissions
Aldehydes
Ammonia
Carbon Dioxide
Carbon Monoxide
Chlorine
Hydrocarbons
Hydrogen Chloride
Isobutane
Kerosene
Lead
Methane
Nitrogen Oxides
Other Organics
Particulates
Propylene
Propylene Oxide
Sulfur Oxides
Solid Wastes
Waterbome Wastes
Acid
Ammonia
BOD
Chromium
COD
Dissolved Solids
Iron
Lead
Metal Ion
Oil
Phenol
Sulfuric Acid
Suspended Solids
Zinc
Process
Fuel
0.0042
0.43
3.1
-
2.1E-05
19.1
1.6E-05
3.3
_
1.5E-07
_
_
_
0.0063
0.32
0.16
0.90
0.024
4.4E-04
1,534
1.7
1.7E-05
11.3
1.3E-05
-
9.4E-05
1.3E-04
0.025
3.5
0.34
0.65
-
.'
3.6
2.2
1.2E-07
0.026
0.0015
4.7E-07
0.0069
0.098
4.4E-05
2.3E-07
0.0025
0.0070
8.2E-06
0.0013
3.1E-06
34.8
9.6E-08
1.5E-04
0.0012
3.8E-07
0.0055
0.079
0.052
1.7E-07
0.0020
0.0054
6.6E-06
0.21
0.0011
2.5E-06
Total
0.028
0.43
1,537
1.7
3.9E-05
Ib
lb
lb
lb
lb
30.4 Ib
2.9E-05 lb
3.3 lb
9.4E-05 lb
1.3E-04 lb
0.025 Ib
3.5 lb
0.34 lb
0.66 Ib
0.32 Ib
0.16
4.5
2.1E-07
0.026
0.0026
8.5E-07
0.012
0.012
1.5E-05
0.21
0.0024
5.6E-06
'* Values include precombustion and combustion energy and emissions.
Source: Franklin Associates, Ltd.
lb
lb
37.0 lb
Ib
lb
lb
lb
Ib
0.18 lb
0.052 lb
4.0E-07 Ib
0.0045 lb
Ib
Ib
lb
Ib
lb
A-18
-------
PC Blend 2
PC2 is produced by combining the NMP (50 wt%), DBE (25 wt%), and PC (25 wt%). The
blending of the PC2 is assumed to take place in the Oklahoma City, OK area via a batch blending
process. Energy for blending electricity and transportation to Oklahoma City are included.
Spent PC2 Disposal by Incineration
After the PC2 has been used to depaint the radomes, the sump is emptied by pumping the
spent PC2 into steel drums for disposal. For the baseline scenario, spent PC2 is assumed to be
transported approximately 190 miles to hazardous waste incineration facility in southeastern
Kansas. Process emissions from incineration were calculated assuming complete combustion of
the spent PC2 to carbon dioxide and nitrogen dioxide. The contribution of air combustion to total
emissions was neglected. Fuel related energy and emissions arise from the transportation to the
combustion facility. Combustion is assumed to occur without energy recovery.
The quantity generated and management of the paint chips that are captured in the stripping
booth are not expected to change with the introduction and use of PC2. Paint chips will continue
to be sent off-site for disposal as a hazardous waste. Waste management of paint chips was not
within the scope of this study.
Recycling of Spent PC2
A possible alternative to disposal of the spent PC2 is recycling. DBE, NMP, and PC, the
three components of PC2, have respective boiling temperatures of 115°-140°C, 202°C, and
242°C. Therefore, spent PC2 may be easily separated by,fractional distillation.' Distillation is
assumed to take place at a theoretical recycling facility in Texas. It is assumed that a recovery of
approximately 85 percent can be achieved with the recycling process. The 15 percent may either
be lost at TAFB (adhering to paint chips or absorbed in the filter cloth) or in distillation. Either
way, it is assumed to be collected and incinerated as a hazardous waste. Virgin PC, DBE, and
NMP must be used to make up for the 15 percent loss and also the 0.5 percent evaporative loss.
After recovery, it is assumed that the reblended PC2 mixture is transported back to TAFB for
reuse. Energy and emissions for distillation, transportation to and from the recycling facility, and
transport to the incinerator are included.
There is some concern that two components of the PC2 (NMP and the dimethyl succinate
portion of the DBE) may form an azeotropic mixture, thus they could not be separated by
fractional distillation (Reference A-3). If the three components need to be cleanly separated to be
used in a product other than PC2, this could be a problem. However, if the mixture could be
re-blended into PC2 for use at TAFB, the problem may be quite minor. It should be emphasized
that the feasibility of recycling PC2 would need to be proven.
A-19
-------
Radome Depainting at Taflb Using PC2
Introduction
An important element of any life cycle analysis (LCA) is the usage profile of the product or
process under consideration. Usage practices can have a significant effect on the results of an
LCA- From the standpoint of an LCA for PC2, usage practices at Tinker Air Force Base (TAFB)
have a multiplier effect on energy use and environmental emissions from all the processes
associated with the production of n-methyl-pyrrolidone (NMP), propylene carbonate (PC), and
dibasic ester (DBE).
Because of the importance of usage practices on the results of an LCA, the following
description of the depainting operation at TAFB is provided. The description assumes that PC2 is
used in place of methyl ethyl ketone (MEK). Key assumptions and a detailed description of the
depainting booth operation are presented. It is assumed that the change over to PC2 will not
require any change to the existing capitol equipment. This provides a base case usage scenario
which will be used in the impact and improvement analysis of this study. Disposition and usage
alternatives of PC2 will be considered in the life cycle improvement analysis of this study.
Key Assumptions , . . - * - ^TA
Because PC2 is not currently being used in aircraft radome depainting operations at TAfB,
key assumptions were made based on limited knowledge of how PC2 would likely perform in use.
These assumptions form the baseline scenario and are listed below. A more detailed description
of assumed radome depainting operations using PC2 follows the key assumptions.
Basic radome depainting operations (i.e., receiving, stripping, and sanding) will remain the
same when using PC2 in place of MEK.
PC2 is received pre-blended in 55 gallon drums.
110 gallons of PC2 will be used for depainting ten KC-135 radomes.
180 gallons of PC2 will be used for depainting ten B-52 radomes.
PC2 needed per single radome depainting is estimated to be 11 gallons per KC-135
radome and 18 gallons per B-52 radome. These figures take into account the use
assumption described above.
- No significant spillage losses are expected when using PC2. A total evaporative loss of
1/2% of the PC2 is assumed during use at TAFB.
Two hours of continuous showering per radome is required when using PC2.
A-20
-------
Sump pump and exhaust ventilation system are the only 'significant energy uses associated
with the depainting booth.
No significant water usage is associated with the depainting booth.
Paint chips will continue to be managed off-site as a hazardous waste.
Used PC2 will be pumped back into drums for off-site disposal by incineration as a
hazardous waste
Depainting Booth Operations
For this analysis the PC2 is assumed to be delivered from a local blender to TAFB in 55 gallon
steel drums pre-mixed and ready for use in the depainting booth. Following removal of used PC2
from the stripping booth sump, the new PC2 is poured from the drums into the sump The sump
is located below the grated floor of the booth, with a maximum volume of approximately 110
gallons. If the three chemicals were to be delivered individually, the PC2 would be formulated by
mixing the chemicals in the sump of the stripping booth. The normal operation is assumed to fully
charge the sump with approximately 110 gallons of PC2. No significant PC2 losses (e g
spillage) are assumed for this step of the depainting process. "' '
Radomes are moved under a shower head in the stripping booth for depainting The PC2 is
pumped from the sump to a shower head placed directly over the radome The radome is
continuously showered with the blend, causing removal of the topcoat paint and primer The
residue primer and topcoat is captured by passing the used PC2 through a filter sheet that is
placed on the sump grate below the radome. The solvent flows through the filter to the sump
where it is pumped to the shower head for reuse. When using MEK solvent, radome depainting
in the stopping booth typically takes 1.5 to 3 hours. Based on previous test results similar
shower times are expected with the PC2. (For this analysis, 2 hours of continuous showering per
radome is assumed for the baseline when using PC2.)
For the life cycle inventory analysis, the only significant energy use associated with depainting
aircraft radomes is the electricity used to drive the exhaust ventilation system and the air
compressor (for driving the pneumatic sump pump). Both the pump and exhaust fan are assumed
to run only during depainting operations. Electricity requirements for the air compressor and
exhaust system per radome depainted (i.e., 2 hours in the stripping booth) are estimated to be 1 5
and 11.6 kilowatt-hours (kwh), respectively.
Current radome depainting practices require approximately 50 gallons of MEK per KC-135
radome, and approximately 1.5 drums (83 gallons) for B-52 radomes. In contrast to depainting
with MEK, using PC2 allows the solvent to be reused a number of times. For this analysis new
PC2 is assumed to be reused for ten radome depaintings. Based on estimates provided by TAFB
personnel, PC2 usage requirements are assumed to be 110 gallons per 10 KC-135 radomes, and
A-21
-------
180 ^allons per 10 B-52 radomes. The surface areas of the radomes (49 ft2/KC-135 radome and
116 ft2/B-52 radome) have no direct correlation to the amount of PC2 used for deporting (2.2
«al/ ft2 for KC-135 and 1.6 gal/ft2 for B-52 radomes). Assuming 100 KC-135 radomes and 40
B-52 radomes are depainted annually (estimated based on 1994 statistics), 1,820 gallons, or
approximately 33 drums, of PC2 per year would be required for departing radomes at TAFB.
During departing, a large percentage of the MEK is lost to the atmosphere through
evaporation Because PC2 has a very low vapor pressure, evaporative losses to the atmosphere
during departing are assumed to be insignificant. PC2 evaporative losses do, however, occur
after departing when the radome is allowed to sit and dry. This evaporative loss is estimated
from the differences in the vapor pressures between PC2 and MEK. The vapor pressure of PC2 is
approximately 0.3 percent of the MEK vapor pressure. In this case, MEK was assumed to
represent 100 percent evaporation and a conservative evaporation rate of 0.5 percent was
assumed for the PC2.
After the PC2 has been used to depaint the radomes, the sump is emptied by pumping the
spent PC2 into steel drums for disposal. For the baseline analysis, spent PC2 is assumed to be
shipped off-site for disposal by incineration as a hazardous waste. The quantity generated and
management of the paint chips that are captured in the stripping booth are not expected to change
with the introduction and use of PC2. Paint chips will continue to be sent off-site for disposal as a
hazardous waste. Waste management of paint chips is outside the scope of this study.
A-22
-------
A-l
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
A-10
A-ll
A-12
A-13
A-14
Appendix A References
Series of energy and environmental impact studies performed by Franklin Associates Ltd
for various government and private clients, 1974-1994.
Welch, R.O., et al. Study of Environmental Impacts of Disposables versus Reusables
Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Midwest Research Institute
and Franklin Associates, Ltd. April 1, 1977.
Personal communication between Franklin Associates, Ltd. and industry representatives
(i.e. Jeff Folks).
Hydrocarbon Processing, November issues, 1972-1989.
Riegel's Handbook of Industrial Chemistry. Ninth Edition. Edited by James A Kent
Van Nostrand Reinhold. New York. 1992. p. 1109-1115.
Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. Third Edition. Volume 2 John
Wiley and Sons. New York. 1982. p. 276-282.
Riegel's Handbook of Industrial Chemistry. Ninth Edition. Edited by James A Kent
Van Nostrand Reinhold. New York. 1992.
Energy and Materials Flows in Petroleum Refining. ANL/CNSV-10. Argonne
National Laboratory. February 1981.
Hydrocarbon Processing - Refining Handbook '92. November 1992. Volume 71
Number 11.
1989 Industrial Process Heating Energy Analysis. Gas Research Institute. May, 1991.
Gary, James H. and Glenn E. Handwerk. Petroleum Refining - Technology and
Economics. Marcel Dekker, Inc. 1984.
Meyers, Robert A., ed. Handbook of Petroleum Refining Processes. McGraw-Hill
Book Company. 1986.
Riegel's Handbook of Industrial Chemistry. Ninth Edition. Edited by James A Kent
Van Nostrand Reinhold. New York. 1992. p. 1109-1115.
Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. Third Edition. Volume 1 John
Wiley and Sons. New York. 1982. p. 211-235.
A-23
-------
A-l 5 Encyclopedia of Chemical Processing and Design. Executive editor John M. McKetta.
Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York and Basel. Volume 1. p. 372-382.
A-l 6 Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. Fourth Edition. Volume 1
John Wiley and Sons. New York. 1991. p. 195-215.
A-17 Monsanto Research Corp. Potential Pollutants from Petrochemical Processes. 1975.
A-l 8 Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. Fourth Edition. Volume 1
John Wiley and Sons. New York. 1991. p. 195-215.
A-19 Ullman's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry. Fifth Edition. Volume Al. p. 274.
A-20 Encyclopedia of Chemical Processing and Design. Volume 19. New York and Basel.
John J. McKetta, editor, p. 397-398.
A-21 Ullman's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry. Volume A22. p. 458-459.
A-22 Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. Third Edition. Volume 19.
John Wiley and Sons. New York. 1982. p. 510-517.
A-23 Hydrocarbon Processing. Petrochemical Handbook for the years 1973-1989.
A-24 Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. Third Edition. Volume 13.
John Wiley and Sons. New York. 1982.
A-25 Meyers, Robert A. Handbook of Chemicals Production Processes. McGraw Hill, Inc.
1986.
A-26 U.S. Bureau of Mines. Minerals Yearbook. 1989 and earlier years.
A-27 The Chlorine Institute, Inc. North American Chlor-Alkali Plants and Production
Data Book. Chlorine Institute Pamphlet. January 1994.
A-28 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. Mineral Facts and Problems. 1984.
A-29 U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines. Energy Use Patterns in Metallurgical
and Nonmetallic Mineral Processing (Phase 4 - Energy Data and Flowsheets, etc.).
Prepared by Battelle Columbus Laboratories. Washington, D.C. June, 1975.
A-30 K. Weissermel and H.-J. Arpe. Industrial Organic Chemistry. Verlag Chemie
Weinheim. New York. 1978.
A-24
-------
A-31 Energy Information Administration. Petroleum Supply Annual 1993. Volume 1 June
1994.
A-25
-------
".*.
-------
Appendix B
Classification Methodology and Results
For Partial Impact Assessment for the
Use of PC Blend 2 in Aircraft Radome Depainting
Introduction
This appendix contains the methodology and results for impact classification of the air and
, waterborne releases occurring in the production and use of PC Blend 2 in aircraft radome
depamtmg. These results have been prepared with the assistance of Dr. James Cholakis as a
subcontractor to Franklin Associates, Ltd.
Inventory chemicals reported as atmospheric emissions or waterborne emissions were
classified into potential impact categories by surveying chemical, environmental, and
toxicological data for incorporation under two major global groups: ecosystem and human health
Results from this classification scheme may help to establish common or equivalent impacts for a'
large number of diverse environmental chemicals. No pollutant quantities have been applied to
the categories in this appendix. The solid wastes reported on the emissions inventories were not
classified into potential impacts categories. Once the solid waste is disposed of, any atmospheric
and waterborne emissions that result are related to the combination of wastes from different
sources and not to one single source.
Methodology
The scientific literature was surveyed in order to classify inventory chemicals or emissions
(atmospheric and water releases) into potential impact categories. The following inventory
emissions or chemicals were researched for this classification:
Acid
13OD (Biochemical Oxygen Demand)
Chlorine
Dimethyl Adipate
Dissolved Solids
Iron
Lead
Aldehyde
Carbon Dioxide
Chromium
Dimethyl Glutarate
Hydrocarbons
Isobutane
Mercury
Ammonia
Carbon Monoxide
COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand)
Dimethyl Succinate
Hydrogen Chloride
Kerosene
Metal Ion
B-l
-------
Methane
Nitrogen
Oil
Phenol
Propylene Oxide
Sulfuric Acid
N-Methyl Pyrrolidone
Nitrogen Oxides
Other Organics
Propylene
Sulfides
Suspended Solids
Nickel
Odorous Sulfur
Particulates
Propylene Carbonate
Sulfur Oxides
Zinc
For the major global groups under the ecosystem, potential impact categories may include:
Greenhouse Gas-Global Warming
Ozone Depleting Gas - Stratospheric Ozone Depletion
Acid Rain Precursor - Acid Rain
Smog Precursor - Photochemical Smog - Tropospheric Ozone
Air Dispersion/Aging/Transport
Aquatic Life
Eutrophication/Plant Life
Visibility Alterations (air or water)
Weather Alterations
Thermal Changes .
pH Alterations
Chemical/Biological Content Alteration
Oxygen Depletion
Aquifer Contamination
Many of the impact categories are directly related to chemical emissions and are described in
detail in the potential impacts section which follows. Examples include greenhouse gases,
stratospheric ozone depleting gases, acid rain precursors, and smog precursors. Air
dispersion/aging/transport, visibility alterations, weather alterations, and thermal changes are
impact categories used to describe the dynamics of air-chemical interactions, and may be more
appropriately combined under other potential impact categories (i.e., smog precursor or acid ram
for particulates).
Still others are results of standardized environmental quality measurements that are difficult to
relate to specific chemical emissions. These include suspended solids, chemical oxygen demand,
biochemical oxygen demand, dissolved solids, metal ion, and waterborne acid. These tests are
indicators of water quality and are categorized as potentially affecting aquatic life.
1 Physical chemical, and microbiological tests of water quality may include acidity, alkalinity, color, odor,
turbidity chemical oxygen demand (COD), dissolved oxygen (D), total oxygen demand (TOD), hardness biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD), salinity, pH, acid neutralizing capacity, dissolved organic carbon, suspended solids, total
B-2
-------
For the major global human health group, potential impact categories may include:
* Human Carcinogen (Class A)
Irritant (Eye, Lung, Skin, GI Tract)/Corrosive
Respiratory System Effects
Central Nervous System Effects
Allergenicity/Sensitization
Blood Dyscrasias (methemoglobinemia or hematopoietic)
Odors
Cardiovascular System Effects
Reproductive System Effects
Behavioral Effects
Bone Effects
Renal Effects.
Under human health, inventory chemicals were researched for potential impacts that best
represented potential low level general population exposures. Without concrete exposure data
the estimation or classification of chemicals to impact categories may be an oversimplification of
risk and potentially in error by many orders of magnitude. Furthermore, adverse health effects
observed in humans from high acute or high chronic exposures were not used in this analysis (i e
industrial or occupational accidents or intentional overdoses) because it is unlikely to be relevant'
to the processes studied. These events are unusual occurrences in the processes studied.
To emphasize, there is no representation or implication in this report as to exposure
quantification (i.e., dose). Since actual exposure data is lacking, the classification of a chemical to
a potential ecological impact category or human health target site does not indicate that actual
impacts will be observed. It implies only that there is a potential linkage between the
environmental emissions and the impacts.
Workplace or occupational exposures may have been considered for background information
and, where applicable, included in this report if the inventory chemical was classified by regulatory
agencies as a class A human carcinogen. However, occupational evaluation was not considered
directly relevant to this classification analysis since no exposure or concentration data were
available. Moreover, there are over six million workplaces (industrial and non-industrial) in the
U.S., and an overall impact analysis is not practicable because of variable or unknown
concentration levels.
Similarly, animal toxicology data were not directly incorporated into this analysis since
experimental design criteria (i.e., high dose studies, inbred animal strains) in toxicity studies,
dissolved solids (IDS), electrical conductivity, and bacterial/fungal growth.
B-3
-------
particularly carcinogenesis studies, may not be relevant to very low level general population
exposure. Toxicology data were used as background information.
To repeat, the purpose of this part of the impact analysis was to classify each chemical or
inventory emission into a potential impact site (ecosystem) or potential target organ (human
health), assuming that the chemical or inventory emission was present at very low concentrations
and under hypothetical conditions of low level general population consumer exposure, not
workplace environments. The goal was to produce a relative impact analysis, not an absolute
analysis. It is not certain that all of the inventory releases actually cause the impact under which
they are classified.
Potential Impacts . .
Table B-l (at the end of this appendix) summarizes the classification of inventory chemicals by
potential impact. After a general survey of the scientific literature, the basis for these
classifications is presented below by chemical.
Many of the chemicals can affect multiple impact categories, but, where practicable, the
predominant or the most predictable impact categories were chosen for each inventory chemical.
By reading across the tables, it can be noted that a specific impact category can be affected by a
number of chemicals. For example, inventory chemicals identified as potentially contributing to
the green house gas pool are carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, chlorine compounds, and
methane. Chemicals identified as potentially impacting or contributing to the eutrophication/plant
life category are acid, ammonia, hydrogen chloride, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, metal ion, and
nitrogen.
Similarly, inventory chemicals potentially having an effect on the respiratory system under the
major category of human health were carbon monoxide, chlorine compounds, nitrogen oxides,
particulates, sulfur oxides, and sulfuric acid.
The following background information provides a partial basis for classification of inventory
emissions into potential impact categories. Emissions are discussed in the order in which they are
presented in Table B-l. The letters "A" and/or "W" in parentheses following the name indicates
whether the emission is atmospheric, waterborne, or both.
The following emission categories are not discussed:
Acid (A, W)
BOD(W)
COD(W)
Dissolved Solids (W)
B-4
-------
Metal Ion (W)
Sulfides(W)
Suspended Solids (W)
Some of the categories are results of standardized environmental quality measurements and
are difficult to relate to specific chemical emissions. The specific chemical compositions of
inorganic and organic solids are not identified in the available data and therefore are not discussed
in the following summary information.
1. ALDEHYDES (A)
Ecosystem: Smog Precursor/Tropospheric Ozone
Aquatic Life
Visibility Alterations
Formaldehyde is a common aldehyde released to the environment. It is used in the production
of ethylene glycol, a chemical used in the manufacture of PET resin. The chemical has a short
half-life in the atmosphere because it is degraded by photochemical processes Aldehydes also
occur as a chemical byproduct of manmade hydrocarbons released to the air that photo-oxidize to
form formaldehyde and acrolein and many other byproducts. About 50% of the total aldehyde
concentration in ambient air is formaldehyde, about 15% is acetaldehyde, and about 5% is
acrolein.
Human Health:
Eye Irritant
Respiratory Irritant
Aldehydes probably contribute to photochemical smog and to the eye irritation caused by
smog. Acrolein is more irritating than formaldehyde even at a much lower
concentration. Another aldehyde with similar but lesser effects than formaldehyde is
propionaldehyde.
2. AMMONIA (A, W)
Ecosystem: Eutrophication/Plant Life
Aquatic Life
pH Alterations
Ammonia is a naturally occurring compound which is a key intermediate in the nitrogen cycle
In the environment it is an aquatic plant nutrient which can stimulate excessive plant growth
(eutrophication). The chemistry and toxicity in the environment can be different with the same
concentration of ammonia, depending on other characteristics of the receiving water Rain can be
B-5
-------
ammonia gas deposited to surface waters. Ammonia may kill fish at 1
i/liter of water by decreasing the oxygen combining capability offish hemoglobin. In water, the
..^ actioTdepends on the pH; toxicity increases with increased pH and with low concentrates
of dissolved oxygen.
Human Health: Odors
Eye Irritant
Nasal Irritant
Respiratory Irritant
The main route of exposure to the general population is through inhalation and dermal contact
with household cleaning products.
3. CARBON DIOXIDE (A)
Ecosystem: Greenhouse Gas
hropogenic greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is carbon dioxide, resulting
pnmanry rrozn u« combustion of fossil fuels. It is estimated[that the relative contribution of
carbon dioxide to total greenhouse gases may be as high as 7.0 /o.
Human Health: Central Nervous System Effects
It has been suggested that high concentrations of carbon dioxide in office and school .
eJ^TcSSSlrial workplace environments) may be associated with indoor air quality
complaints (headache and dizziness).
4. CARBON MONOXIDE (A)
Ecosystem: Greenhouse Gas
Ozone Depleting Gas
concentrations) of important greenhouse gases such as methane, CH4.
Human Health:
Respiratory System Effects
Cardiovascular System Effects
B-6
-------
Effects from exposure to carbon monoxide at ambient levels are generally limited to
respiratory symptoms in elderly individuals whose symptoms are closely related to the
carboxyhemoglobin concentration in blood. Although not scientifically established, any chemicals
that decrease the available oxygen to the heart are primary suspects for adverse cardiovascular
effects.
5. ODOROUS SULFUR (CARBONYL SULFIDE) (A)
Ecosystem: Ozone Depleting Gas
The most abundant sulfide in the atmosphere is carbonyl sulfide.
Human Health: Odors
6. CHLORINE COMPOUNDS (A)
Ecosystem: Greenhouse Gas
Ozone Depleting Gas
The inventory chemical "Chlorine Compounds" may also include chlorofluorohydrocarbons
(CFCs), brominated compounds, methyl chloroform (1,1,1-trichloroethane), HCFCs (transitional
fluorocarbons), methyl bromide (fumigant), and carbon tetrachloride. Chlorine and bromine
released into the atmosphere have been implicated as major factors in stratospheric ozone
depletion.
Human Health:
Eye Irritant
Respiratory System Effects
Corrosive
Also see Hydrocarbons (10) and Other Organics (18).
7. DIMETHYL ADIPATE (A)
Ecosystem: Water quality/aquatic Life
Dimethyl adipate (hexanedecanoic acid) is produced in significant quantities but how much is
released to affect the environment is not known. It is used as a plasticizer in cellulose type resins,
thus being a potentially significant source of exposure to consumers. Information on
environmental fate is scanty since few studies are available for review. The low vapor pressure
and capacity to hydrogen bond, along with its high water solubility suggest that the ester will not
readily volatilize from water or soils. Therefore, its potential effects will concern water quality
B-7
-------
and aquatic life. Studies show dimethyl adipate to be moderately toxic to fathead minnows (LC50
at 96 hours is 18-24 mg/L).
Human Health:
Irritant (eye and skin)
Respiratory system (lung)
Exposure to dimethyl adipate most likely occurs in workers during its manufacture as a
plasticizer. The general population might be exposed to it from using products containing
cellulose-type resins in which dimethyl adipate was used as a plasticizer. Dimethyl adipate may
irritate the skin, causing discomfort or rash. Contact with the eyes may cause irritation with
discomfort, tearing, or blurry vision. Blurry vision has also been observed when some individuals
have been overexposed to dimethyl adipate by inhalation or skin contact. Inhalation may cause
irritation of the upper respiratory passages, coughing and discomfort. Animal data from
experiments with rabbits and rats showed it to be mildly irritating to eyes and skin, and very low
toxicity if ingested orally. Animal experiments with rat fetuses show some teratogenic
abnormalities at high concentrations of dimethyl adipate.
8. DIMETHYL SUCCINATE (A)
Ecosystem: Water quality/aquatic Life
Dimethyl succinate (butanedioic acid, dimethyl butanedioate) has been shown to be
moderately toxic to fathead minnows (see dimethyl adipate).
Human Health:
Irritant (eye)
Respiratory system (lung)
Dimethyl succinate may irritate the eyes, nose and throat, and cause blurry vision and tearing.
The mechanism of blurred vision in humans is unknown. However, since the formulation contains
a small amount of methanol, this could be a contributing cause. Inhalation of vapors may cause
irritation of the upper respiratory passages, coughing and discomfort. Animal data for dimethyl
succinate showed it to be a mild eye, but not a skin irritant. The compound did not produce
genetic damage in bacterial cell cultures.
9. DIMETHYL GLUTARATE (A)
Ecosystem: Water quality/aquatic Life
Dimethyl glutarate (pentanedioic acid, dimethyl pentanedioate) has shown moderate toxicity
in bluegill sunfish (96 hour LC50 is 30.9 mg/L) and moderate toxicity in fathead minnows (96
hour LC50 is 18-24 mg/L). Its major use is as a chemical intermediate in different resins for
paper, coating, and plasticizers.
B-8
-------
Human Health:
Irritant (skin and eye)
Respiratory system (lung)
Dimethyl glutarate may cause irritation, discomfort, and rash on contact with the skin
Contact with eyes may cause irritation with discomfort, tearing, or blurring of vision Exposure
by inhalation of dimethyl glutarate may irritate the upper respiratory passages causing discomfort
and coughing. Dermal contact or overexposure by inhalation has caused blurry vision in some
individuals.
10. HYDROCARBONS (A)
Ecosystem: Smog Precursor
The hydrocarbons found in the atmosphere comprise an extremely numerous and chemically
diverse group of compounds. Methane is the most abundant of the hydrocarbons Methane and
kerosene are treated separately. Other hydrocarbon emissions include (but are not limited to)
methyl chloroform (1,1,1-trichloroethane), benzene, toluene, naphthalene, ethyl benzene
isobutane, propylene, and triphenylmethane.
Methyl chloroform is a colorless solvent which can be found in both groundwater and the
atmosphere When discharged or leached into the groundwater, it can eventually evaporate into
the air. In the atmosphere, methyl chloroform photochemically decomposes to produce carbon
monoxide, hydrogen chloride, phosgene, and other halogenated products. Therefore it
contributes to ozone depletion and greenhouse effects:
Human Health:
Eye Irritant
Odor
Human Carcinogen
Various hydrocarbons contribute to different human health effects.
Inhalation is the main route of exposure to methyl chloroform. At high concentrations it
produces mild eye irritation and throat irritation; however, humans may also be exposed dermallv
and orally. J
Benzene is a class A human carcinogen.
Propylene, an aliphatic hydrocarbon, is a colorless, flammable gas of low toxicity.
Ethyl benzene is a flammable liquid with a very pungent odor. High concentrations of ethyl
benzene may primarily present an eye irritation hazard, and secondarily may produce central
nervous system effects.
B-9
-------
Isobutane is a flammable gas, and direct contact may produce chemical bums. High
concentrations of isobutane at or near animal acute LD50 levels may produce central nervous
system and respiratory depression.
Note: The toxicology of hydrocarbons in the context of air pollution Is not of major concern
in this classification since their concentrations in ambient air do not usually reach levels high
enough to produce adverse effects. They are important, however, because most enter into
chemical reactions that may potentially lead to the formation of photochemical smog.
11. HYDROGEN CHLORIDE (A)
Ecosystem: Smog Precursor/Photochemical Smog
Aquatic Life
Eutrophication/Plant Life
pH Alteration (acidity)
Hydrogen chloride (in aqueous solution hydrochloric acid) can be emitted to the atmosphere
during the manufacturing of hydrogen chloride.
Human Health: Irritant (eye, lung, skin)
Hydrochloric acid is a potential cause of chronic bronchitis and asthma because it is carried on
ultra-fine metal particles, which are breathed deeply into the lungs.
12. KEROSENE (A)
Ecosystem: Oxygen Depletion
Chemical/Biological Content Alteration
Kerosene is a mixture of petroleum hydrocarbons, chiefly CIO - C16 alkanes. A typical
chemical analysis may include n-dodecanes, alkyl benzene derivatives, naphthalene, and
tetrahydronaphthalenes. Therefore it is difficult to predict the ecological effects of kerosene as a
whole Several components of kerosene may bioconcentrate in fish and aquatic organisms, and
may bind to soil depending on its water content, whereas other components of kerosene may not
bind to soil and migrate or evaporate.
Human Health: No apparent impact categories
Large concentrations if inhaled or aspirated may cause chemical pneumonitis. Potential
human health effects would be predicted to be consistent with the hydrocarbon category.
B-10
-------
13. LEAD (A, W)
Ecosystem: No apparent impact categories
Lead in the environment is mainly caused by anthropogenic sources such as automobile
gasoline combustion, mining, and smelters; higher concentrations occur in urban areas and alon*
roadsides. It is very persistent in both water and soil. Emissions from farm machinery can lead to
contamination of food crops. Lead in the form of solid wastes is also a large source of lead
contribution to the environment.
Human Health:
Reproductive System Effects
Behavioral Effects
Cardiovascular System Effects
Susceptible general populations are preschool children, unborn fetuses, and white males 40-59
years old. Humans are exposed to excess lead in foods and air (dust). It is not a proven
carcinogen. The same toxic effects occur whether it is ingested or breathed Exposure of
pregnant women transfers to the fetus and may cause preterm birth, lower birth weight or low IQ
in the infant. Preschool children who are exposed through household and lead paint dust by
hand-to-mouth activity may have decreased IQ and reduced growth. Middle-aged white men
may suffer increased blood pressure. At high levels, severe brain and kidney damage have been
reported, along with spontaneous abortion and male sterilization.
14. MERCURY (A, W)
Ecosystem: Aquatic Life
Mercury exists in inorganic and organic forms in nature. The inorganic form exists in drinking
water. The organic form can become highly (10,000-100,000 times) concentrated in the flesh of
certain fish, low levels of organic methylmercury contamination of the oceans and lakes can lead
to high levels in pike, tuna, and swordfish. Eight hundred metric tons per year are released to
global surface water by weathering of rocks containing mercury. Industrial effluents mining
processes, application of fertilizer and fungicides to soil which leaches into water and solid
disposal of mercury-containing products (i.e., batteries and thermometers) in landfills which leach
into the soil also contribute to excess levels in water.
Human Health: Central Nervous System (developing nervous system)
Irreversible damage to the human brain, kidneys, and developing fetuses occurs with excess
mercury exposure, but it has not been proven to be carcinogenic. Humans may be exposed if they
have high dietary fish intake since methylmercury bioaccumulates in the top of aquatic food
chains. The general population is also exposed through drinking water that contains mercury.
B-ll
-------
Recent investigations suggest that humans may be exposed from dental amalgams. Occupational
exposures usually result from inhalation of the organic mercury vapor.
15. METHANE (A)
Ecosystem: Greenhouse Gas
Ozone Depleting Gas
Methane is produced by anaerobic digestion of animal waste, the natural breakdown of
sewage and through industrial production. Combustion of methane gas leads to the production
of carbon monoxide, water, and carbon dioxide (greenhouse gases). Methane is a good absorber
of infrared radiation. In fact, recent analysis suggests that methane contributes about 10/o to the
greenhouse gas pool.
Human Health: No apparent impact categories
Methane has no physiological effects, but at high concentrations can be an asphyxiant by
displacing oxygen.
16. N-METHYL-2-PYRROLIDONE (NMP) (A)
Ecosystem: No apparent impact categories
NMP has many commercial applications. It is used as an intermediate in the pharmaceutical
and agricultural chemical industries and as a replacement solvent for more toxic materials m a
variety of industrial uses such as paint and coating removal. It is approved by the FDA for
indirect contact with food. If released to the environment, it readily undergoes biodegradation
under aerobic conditions in soil and water, and reacts with photochemically induced hydroxyl
radicals in the atmosphere along with removal by wet deposition processes. NMP is considered a
natural substance and has been identified in roasted nuts.
Human Health:
Irritant (eye, skin)
Hematopoietic system (?)
Occupational exposure to NMP may occur by inhalation or dermal contact during its
production or use. It is estimated that the permissible daily inhalation dose to humans is 1.2
mg/kg/day In humans NMP has been found to be mildly irritating to the eye, but is not expected
to cause permanent eye damage. In the general human population, ingestion of food or
contaminated drinking water is the principal pathway for exposure. In animal studies at high test
concentrations, the vapors and mists can produce burning and irritation to the nose, throat and
mucous membranes of the respiratory tract, cough, laryngitis, lung damage, emphysema, and
B-12
-------
death. In animals, based on the available evidence, the hematopoietic system appears to be the
principal target organ for NMP toxicity. No evidence exists for carcinogenicity.
17. NITROGEN OXIDES (A)
Ecosystem: Acid Rain Precursor
Smog Precursor
Aquatic Life
Eutrophication/Plant Life
Visibility Alterations (air)
The key nitrogen oxide in ecological and human health is nitrogen dioxide (NO2) Nitrogen
dioxide is a major by-product of fossil fuel combustion and a major contributor to photochemical
oxidation. As a smog precursor gas, nitrogen dioxide reacts with other atmospheric gases to form
ozone. As an acid ram precursor, nitrogen dioxide is converted to nitric acid, and through wet
and dry deposition (clouds, rain) enters surface and groundwater to lower pH.
The absorption of short wavelength sunlight by gaseous NO2 results in a brownish
discoloration of the atmosphere, thus reducing visibility.
Nitrogen oxides are also a source of nitrogen, which may promote plant growth Because
nitrogen is the most commonly limiting nutrient to growth in both managed and unmanaged
terrestrial ecosystems, deposition of nitrogen in any form has the potential to increase plant
growth. Given the currently low ambient concentrations of nitrogen oxides the effect on
terrestrial ecosystems is probably small. In aquatic systems, however, the addition of nitrogen can
trigger a rapid growth of organisms, turning the water turbid and green.
Human Health:
Respiratory System Effects
Odors
Irritant/Corrosive
Some of the health effects of nitrogen dioxide include impairment of dark adaptation changes
m lung morphology and biochemistry, increased airway resistance, and eye and nasal irritation.
18. OTHER ORGANICS (i.e., carbon tetrachloride) (A, W)
Ecosystem: Ozone Depleting Gases
The emission category "Other Organics" includes a variety of organic chemicals including
carbon tetrachlonde, which can contribute to ozone depletion. Carbon tetrachloride is not
normally occurring in the environment and, since it evaporates rapidly, is found mostly as a gas in
the atmosphere. It is produced in large quantities by man for use in manufacturing refrigerants, its
B-13
-------
major current use. It is no longer used as widely as in the past due to its human health hazards.
Carbon tetrachloride is very stable in air; elimination of 50% takes 30-100 years. In the
troposphere it does not photodissociate since the vapor state has no chromophores to absorb light
in toe visible or near UV region of the spectrum. Ultimately the carbon tetracmoride which is not
removed by rainfall, diffuses up into the stratosphere where it may be photodegraded by shorter
wavelength UV light to form chloroform and chlorine atoms. The chlorine formed by this
reaction in the stratosphere can catalyze reactions that destroy ozone.
Human Health:
Eye Irritation
Skin Irritation
Sensitization (propylene oxide)
Some organic chemicals included in the "Other Organics" category that can affect human
health are carbon tetrachloride, propylene oxide, and acetophenone.
The general population is not exposed to excess levels of carbon tetrachloride. Susceptible
oeoole are usually workers involved in manufacturing chlorofluorocarbons, paint, and glue, or
ffewho^
more susceptible to adverse effects from exposure than those who do not drink. Accidental
excess occupational exposure on the job causes harmful health effects involving three organs.
S liver Sd kidneys. The effects can be very serious and permanent. There are no studies
wS SSh that inhalation exposure to carbon tetrachloride poses a risk of hum- cancer
Concentrations and intake data are highly variable; more studies are needed to define the range of
health risks to humans.
Propylene oxide, an epoxy compound, may produce tissue sensitization after repeated
expose Sd may be classified as severely irritating to the eyes and skin in either he liquid or
fo According to the National Toxicology Program, propylene oxide is classified as an
carcinogen via fhe inhalation route. However, the general population (consumer) exposure
pryfene oxide may occur through the ingestion of residues in foods from its use as an indirect
food additive and as an adjuvant for pesticides.
Acetophenone, a ketone, has an orange blossom odor and a low odor threshold (0.3 ppm).
The principal hazards of high concentration of acetophenone are eye and skin irritation.
19. PARTICULATES (A)
Ecosystem:
Acid Rain Precursor
Smog Precursor
Air Dispersion
Chemical Alteration
Weather Changes
B-14
-------
Thermal Changes
Visibility Alterations (air)
Particulates refer to dispersed solid or liquid matter emitted into the atmosphere of a size
ranging between 0.01 and 100 microns. Particulates come from both natural and anthropogenic
sources. Natural sources (sea spray, crustal erosion) typically result in larger particles, rangW
between 1 and 100 microns, whereas anthropogenic sources (combustion, smelting) typically
result m fine particles, ranging between 0.01 and 1 micron. Fine particles behave almost like a gas
or vapor: they follow the airflow and are capable of traveling hundreds of miles (so are often
called aerosols). They are also capable of coagulation and condensation. Larger particles have
more of the characteristics of solid matter; they are strongly influenced by gravity and usually
settle out close to then- source. my
The ecological effects of participates include increasing atmospheric turbidity leading to
decreased visibility, and an effect on the energy balance of the earth, due to a change in the
atmosphere's ability to absorb and reflect radiation. Particulates also promote the oxidation of
sulfur dioxide to sulfate aerosols contributing to acid rain. Volatile metallic oxides of zinc lead
and arsenic condense on the surfaces of fly ash particles and interact with hydrocarbons to'form'
Human Health: Respiratory System Effects
The chemical behavior of particulates is determined either by the composition of the particles
themselves or by the gases adsorbed by the surfaces of the particles. In some cases the
combination of particle and adsorbed gas produces a synergistic chemical effect more powerful
than that of the individual components.
Particluates between 10 and 100 microns in size are inhaled, but are trapped by the upper
respiratory tract and expelled. Particulates smaller than around 3 microns in size can escape the
defense mechanisms of the upper respiratory tract and penetrate the deep lung It is these fine
particulates that are the cause for concern, for they can alter oxygen transfer in the lungs and
cause: acute irritation of the sensitive lung tissue. Toxic oxides of lead, cadmium vanadium
arsenic, and zinc often occur as fine particulates. In addition, because of their long lifetime in the
atmosphere, fine particulates adsorb significant quantities of toxic gases such as SO and HC1
which can lead to synergistic health effects.
20. PROPYLENE (A)
Ecosystem: Smog precursor
Propylene occurs naturally in some fruits and plants, being biological in origin Its release to
the environment is wide spread since it is a ubiquitous product of incomplete combustion. If
B-15
-------
released to the atmosphere, propylene will exist in the vapor-phase which may be degraded.
Volatilization is expected to be the primary environmental fate in soil and water. It is expected to
be released to the environment in the combustion gasses of hydrocarbon fuels, wood, and
synthetic polymers such as polyethylene. It is unknown if propylene will biodegrade in the
environment, but it is not expected to bioaccumulate or bioconcentrate in organisms and food
chains. Propylene has been shown to affect plant growth.
Human Health:
Respiratory system (lung)
Central nervous system
Under environmental conditions, propylene is a gas, therefore the most probable route of
exposure for the general population is by inhalation of contaminated air. Propylene is usually
handled commercially in liquid form, and will cause freezing burns when in contact with skin or
eves Gross inhalation may cause reduced blood pressure and heart rhythm. Propylene has shown
anesthetic effects in humans. In animal studies, it was found to be a cardiac sensitizer in dogs.
There is inadequate evidence in humans or animals for the carcinogemcity of propylene.
21. PROPYLENE CARBONATE (A)
Ecosystem: No apparent impact categories
Human Health: Irritant (skin and eye)
Respiratory system (lung)
Propylene carbonate (carbonic acid, cyclic propylene ester) is used as a laboratory reagent,
and has many potential uses in which it could react with other chemicals or materials. Human
toxic effects due to overexposure to propylene carbonate include tightness and pain in the chest,
coughing and difficulty in breathing if inhaled; skin irritation if in prolonged contact with the
chemical; and eye irritation. Rabbit skin and eye irritation studies show moderate irritation
effects.
22. PROPYLENE OXIDE (A)
Ecosystem: Smog precursor
Human Health: Irritant (skin and eye)
Respiratory system (lung)
Allergenicity/sensitization
Central nervous system
Propylene oxide, an epoxy compound, may produce tissue sensitization after repeated
exposure, and may be classified as severely irritating to the eyes and skin in either the liquid or
B-16
-------
vapor form. CNS effects have been reported in humans. According to the National Toxicology
Program, propylene oxide is classified as an animal carcinogen via the inhalation route However
the general population (consumer) exposure to propylene oxide may occur through the ingestion '
of residues in foods from its use as an indirect food additive and as an adjuvant for pesticides.
23. SULFUR OXIDES (A)
Ecosystem: Acid Rain Precursor
Air Dispersion/Aging/Transport (acid fogs)
Aquatic Life
Eutrophication/Plant Life
Sulfur oxides are emitted into the atmosphere by the combustion of fossil fuels forming
sulfate aerosols with particulate matter. Through nucleation processes with water (clouds rain)
they grow and form by peroxidation into sulfuric acid aerosols. Sulfur oxides, particularly sulfur
dioxide, are important precursors to acid rain precipitation.
Human Health:
Eye Irritant
Respiratory System Effects
In urban areas, respiratory effects have been associated with elevated sulfur dioxide
concentrations, although its effects have not been separated from those of gaseous and particulate
sulfur oxides. Concerns about sulfur dioxide emissions are mainly related to their role as sulfate
precursors and dispersion to distant regions.
24. CHROMIUM (W)
Ecosystem: Aquatic Life
Solutions of hexavalent chromium occur in many types of industrial waste and are precipitated
by sewage. The more common trivalent form may settle onto the bottoms of lakes where it
affects bottom dwelling aquatic life; in fact, it bioaccumulates in aquatic organisms and mollusks
but not fish. It is not known if the precipitated chromium can reenter the food web. Chromium is
about 1000 times less toxic than mercury to aquatic animals. There is little information regarding
toxicity to plants, mammals, birds, and terrestrial invertebrates.
Human Health: Class A Human Carcinogen (mainly industrial workplace)
Respiratory Irritant/Skin Sensitizer (if air emissions are present)
Hexavalent chromium is mainly an occupational hazard (class A human carcinogen) to
workers in metallurgical, refractory, and chemical industries. Hexavalent chromium is harmful to
humans as a respiratory irritant and a potent sensitizer of the skin. There is extensive evidence of
B-17
-------
lung cancer in people who work in the chromium production industry, usually due to inhaling
insoluble chromium. At high dose levels (2-5g chromate compounds) in drinking water, humans
can exhibit gastrointestinal bleeding, liver and kidney damage, and death. Trivalent chromium
compounds are considerably less toxic than hexavalent forms and are neither irritating nor
corrosive.
25. IRON(W)
Ecosystem: Visibility Alterations (water)
Human Health: Gastrointestinal Tract Irritant
Under normal conditions, excess ingested iron is excreted; however, there are cases of
accidental chronic iron overload in adults. Iron accumulates by abnormal absorption from the
gastrointestinal tract (genetic), by excess dietary iron ingestion, and by regular blood transfusions.
The varied effects can be liver function effects, diabetes mellitus, endocrine disturbances, and
cardiovascular effects. Accidental inhalation of iron oxide fumes may cause a silicosis-like lung
problem among mine and steel workers.
26. NICKEL (W)
Ecosystem:
Aquatic Life
Aquifer Contamination
The primary source of nickel in water is from industrial pollution and waste disposal. The
form of nickel in water depends on the chemical and physical properties of the water; it can be
dissolved, adsorbed, coated, solid, and crystalline. Nickel is very persistent in both water and soil,
but not air. It may significantly bioaccumulate in some aquatic organisms. Nickel present in
dump sites will have higher mobility under acid rain conditions and is more likely to contaminate
the aquifer.
Human Health:
Class A Human Carcinogen
Allergenicity (dermal sensitization)
Eye Irritant
Lung Irritant
The general population exposure to nickel is from breathing air, drinking water, ingesting
food, and skin contact with a wide range of products containing nickel. Ingestion of certain foods
such'as fruits, vegetables, milk, and seafoods containing excess nickel can cause toxic effects, but
since it is poorly absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract, it acts as an emetic.
B-18
-------
27. NITROGEN (W)
Ecosystem: Eutrophication/Plant Life
Oxygen Depletion
Nitrogen occurs in groundwater mainly in three forms: nitrates, nitrites, and as the ammonium
ion. Nitrates can be converted by bacteria to ammonia plus free nitrogen (denitrophication)
Fertilizers and detergents add nitrogen to surface and ground waters as nitrates or nitrites.
Human Health: Methemoglobinemia
There appears to be a potential relationship between high nitrate concentrations in
groundwater consumed for drinking and alimentary methemoglobinemia in infants.
28. OIL(W)
Ecosystem: Oxygen Depletion
Chemical/Biological Content Alteration
The effects of crude oil pollution on wildlife is adverse, destroying marine and inland fisheries
and killing waterfowl. The petroleum industry produces waste effluents of varied compositions
consisting of oil and assorted acids, alkalis, phenols, and sulfides. The oils that cause the worst
pol ution effects are usually the most stable in the environment, although most oils are eventually
broken down by microbial action. The main adverse effect of oil pollution is on aquatic life and
crude oil is known to injure fish and shellfish. The oxygen demand of oils is quite high tending to
decrease dissolved oxygen in polluted waters.
Human Health: No apparent impact categories (see Hydrocarbons)
There is not much literature to substantiate the danger to human health of crude oils in the
water environment. Most information on its toxicity focuses on effects on animal or aquatic life
Many petrochemicals do have animal carcinogenic properties, but there is little evidence that it
causes cancer in man. Cutting oil in particular has some possible carcinogenic potential if
ingested, and crude oil may be irritating to the human skin under certain conditions.
29. PHENOL (W)
Ecosystem: No apparent impact categories
Phenol is chiefly a manmade chemical whose largest single use is as an intermediate in
phenolic resin production. It is found in a large number of consumer products typically used by
B-19
-------
the general population. It is released to the environment as an industrial effluent at hazardous
waste sites and leaches through the soil to ground-water.
Human Health: Corrosive
The largest consumer exposure is through dermal contact or ingestion of phenol contaminated
drinking water. Phenol produces irritation, blisters, and burns when applied to the skin in
concentrated forms; even in dilute forms, it can cause death if large areas of skin are exposed.
Phenol can enter the body through ingestion of drinking water, food, and other products
contaminated with phenol, although the health effects from exposure to phenol in food and air are
not known. Repeated exposure to low levels in drinking water has been associated with diarrhea
and mouth sores in humans. Ingestion of very high concentrations of phenol in water has caused
death in humans.
30. SULFURIC ACID (W)
Ecosystem:
Aquatic Life
Acid Rain Precursor
pH Alteration (acidity)
The largest source of waterborne sulfuric acid is acid mine drainage from coal mines.' Acid
mine drainage results primarily from the subsidence of layers of material above deep coal mines as
abandoned tunnels collapse. Invariably this subsidence ruptures water bearing structures above
the mine level and water eventually fills the mine. This water leaches minerals from the structure
through which it moves. The resulting acidified water usually ends up in local lakes and streams,
lowering pH levels and adversely affecting aquatic organisms.
Human Health:
Respiratory System Effects
Pulmonary Irritant
Sulfuric acid is a potential cause of chronic bronchitis and asthma because it is carried on
ultra-fine metal particles, which are breathed deeply into the lungs.
31. ZINC(W)
Ecosystem: No apparent impact categories
Waste sites and industrial areas such as lead smelters are the greatest source of ambient zinc
released to surface and groundwater with the highest concentrations. Since zinc is so common in
the earth's crust, the largest input of zinc to water results from erosion of soil particles containing
natural zinc traces. Concentrating in the sediments of streams and rivers, zinc finds its way into
drinking water.
B-20
-------
Human Health: No apparent impact categories (mainly industrial workplace)
A deficiency of zinc in humans is equally as important as the effects caused by excess zinc for
the general population. Except for high workplace exposure to zinc, it is relatively uncommon to
have health effects from ingesting excess zinc. However, some cases have been reported
involving ingestion of large doses of zinc in which stomach and digestion problems resulted,
possibly due to zinc interference with the body's ability to absorb and use other essential minerals.
Zinc may possibly cause a decrease in HDL cholesterol blood levels, increasing the risk of heart
disease, or it may cause problems with the immune system. It is not known to cause cancer or
birth defects. Occupational exposure occurs from inhaling zinc dust or fumes from galvanizing,
smelting, welding, or brass foundry operations; the effect is called "metal fume fever" and can be
fatal at very high exposure levels.
B-21
-------
u
.2
1
ee
U
ea
-------
B-23
-------
-------
S>
*
e*.
O
S
sn
en
ee
CO
N
g
i
£
I
I
^8
^
P
i
i
'5
I
u
i
o
§
3
B-25
-------
Appendix B
Bibliography of
Data Bases and Documents
Medline, National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD.
Toxline, The National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD.
Toxnet, The National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD.
Hazardous Substances Data Base (HSDB),
Chemical Carcinogenesis Research Information System (CCRIS),
Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (RTECS).
Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for propylene carbonate, dibasic ester (dimethyl
glutarate, dimethyl adipate, dimethyl succinate, methanoL, hydrogen cyanide,
l-methyl-2-pyrrolidinone [M-Pyrol]), dimethyl glutarate, dimethyl succinate, and dimethyl
adipate.
Bundavari, S. (ed.) 1989. The Merck Index, Eleventh edition. Rahway: Merck & Co.
Amdur, M.O., Doull, I, and Klaassen, C.D. (eds.) 1991. Casarett and Doull's Toxicology:
The Basic Science of Poisons. Fourth edition. New York: Pergamon Press.
Sullivan, J.B. and Krieger, G.R. (eds.) 1992. Hazardous Materials Toxicology: Clinical
Principles of Environmental Health. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.
International Specialty Products, 1994. Toxicity Overview of N-Methyl Pyrrolidone
(M-Pyrol).
B-26
-------
! Appendix C
Tables of Industrial Environmental Emissions
By Potential Impact Classification Subcategory
This appendix contains four tables, which are each three pages in length. They contain
atmospheric and waterborne emission values from the life cycle inventory (LCI) results
summarized in Chapters 3 through 5 of this report.
The values report pounds of emissions, organized into classification categories (ecosystem
quality and human health). Pounds of emissions are reported for each applicable impact category
Therefore, the same emissions may be shown in more than one impact subcategory, depending on
the potential impacts that could be caused by .each emission. For example, atmospheric carbon
monoxide appears in four subcategories: greenhouse gas/global warming, ozone depletion,
respiratory system effects, and cardiovascular system effects. The letter "A" or "W" in
parentheses following the name of the emission indicates whether it is an atmospheric or
waterborne emission.
On each table, the values for the baseline analysis are displayed, followed in the next
columns,by the values for alternative analyses. The next column is the percent change from the
baseline, calculated as:
(alternative scenario emission - baseline emission)
baseline emission
xlOO.
Thus, a negative value means that the alternative scenario produces less pounds of
emissions in that subcategory, while a positive number means that the baseline scenario produces
less pounds of emissions.
C-l
-------
Table C-l. Industrial Environmental Emissions by Potential Impact Subcategory for PC Blend 2 Raclome
Dcpainter Improvement Alternatives
Greenhouse Gas/Global Wanning
Fossil Carbon Dioxide (A)
Carbon Monoxide (A)
Methane (A)
Chlorine (A)
Ozone Depleting Gas/Ozone Depletion
Carbon Monoxide (A)
Other Organics (A)
Methane (A)
Chlorine (A)
Acid Rain Precursor/Acid Rain
Nitrogen Oxides (A)
Sulfiir Oxides (A)
Particulatcs(A)
Smog Precursor/Photochemical Smog
Nitrogen Oxides (A)
Hydrocarbons (A)
ParticuIates(A)
Isobutane(A)
Propyiene (A)
Aldehydes (A)
Propyiene Oxide (A)
Hydrogen Chloride (A)
Air Dispersion/Aging/Transport
Sulfiir Oxides (A)
Particulates(A)
Aquatic Life
Nitrogen Oxides (A)
Sulfiir Oxides (A)
Dimethyl Glutarate (A)
Dissolved Solids (W)
SulfuricAcidfW)
Ammonia (A)
Dimethyl Succinate (A)
Dimethyl Adipate (A)
COD(W)
Suspended Solids (W)
BOD(W)
Aldehydes (A)
Propyiene Oxide (A)
Ammonia (W)
Metal Ion (W)
Acid(W)
SuIfides(W)
Hydrogen Chloride (A)
Mercury (A)
Chromium (W)
Mercury (W)
Nickel (W)
Eutrophicati on/Plant Life
Nitrogen Oxides (A)
Sulfur Oxides (A)
Ammonia (A)
Ammonia (W)
Source: Tables 5-3 and 5-4
Baseline Results with 100 percent % Change
results (1) closed loop recycling (1) from baseline
"»vffr-?\ 'A,*<4**'%%*""' ";%C??-.S ~\r"3'?~*-*i*ix3*ii'*"~'*"'
"> iks^ssv -J:-.-*y&.v%K'f* -. >^
4,415
0.040
9,9E-05
21.2
0.53
0.040
9.9E-05
235
8.0
1.3
235
46.6
1.3
0.82
0.080
0.058
0.039
7.2E-05
8.0
1-3
235
8.0
0.74
0.54
0.46
0.43
0.30
0.19
0.098
0.086
0.076
0.058
0.039
0.026
0.011
0.0026
0.0011
7.2E-05
5.5E-05
3.4E-05
2.2E-08
1.2E-08
235
8.0
0.43
0.026
1,311
4.9
0.014
2.5E-05
4.9
0.78
0.014
2.5E-05
38.1
3.7
0.80
38.1
10.6
0.80
0.13
0.012
0.045
0.0060
1.8E-05
3.7
0.80
38.1
3.7
0.74
0.13
0.25
0.066
0.30
0.19
0.018
0.014
0.012
0.045
0.0060
0.0041
0.0029
3.9E-04
1.6E-04
I.8E-05
1.1E-05
5.4E-06
3.5E-09
1.9E-09
38.1
3.7
0.066
0.0041
fft > VWV!i&t «
-70.3%
-76.9%
-66.4%
-74.8%
-76.9%
47.0%
-66.4%
-74.8%
-83.8%
-53.3%
-39.6%
-83.8%
-77.3%
-39.6%
-84.6%
-84.6%
-23.3%
-84.6%
-74.5%
-53.3%
-39.6%
-83.8%
-53.3%
0.0%
-76.4%
-45.7%
-84.5%
0.0%
0.0%
-81.4%
-83.9%
-83.7%
-23 .3%
-84.6%
-84.2%
-74.5%
-84.6%
-84.6%
-74.5%
-79.9%
-83.9%
-84.6%
-84.6%
-83.8%
-53.3%
-84.5%
-84.2%
C-2
-------
Table C-l. Industrial Environmental Emissions
Depaintcr Improvement Alternatives
Metal Ion (W)
Hydrogen Chloride (A)
Visibility Alterations
Nitrogen Oxides (A)
Participates (A)
Iron (W)
Aldehydes (A)
Weather Alterations
by Potential Impact Subcategory for PC Blend 2 Radome
Thermal Changes
pH Alterations
Participates (A)
s
Participates (A)
Sulfiiric Acid (W)
Ammonia (A)
Ammonia (W)
Acid (W)
Hydrogen Chloride (A)
Chemical/Biological Content Alteration
Participates (A)
COD(W)
BOD (W)
Oil(W)
; Sulfides(W)
Kerosene (A)
Oxygen'Depletion
COD(W)
BOD(W)
.: Oil (W)
Kerosene (A)
Aquifer Contamination
Hydrocarbons (A)
Isobutane (A)
Nickel (W)
Baseline
results (1)
0.011
7.2E-05
235
1.3
0.11
0.058
1.3
1.3
0.46
0.43
0.026
0.0026
7.2E-05
1.3
0.098
0.076
0.071
0.0011
2.0E-04
0.098
0.076
0.071
2.0E-04
46.6
0.82
1.2E-08
Results with 100 percent
closed loop recycling (1)
0.0029
1.8E-05
38.1
0.80
0.062
0.045
0.80
0.80
0.25
0.066
0.0041
3.9E-04
1.8E-05
0.80
0.018
0.012
0.013
1.6E-04
1.1E-04
0.018
0.012
0.013
1.1E-04
10.6
0.13
1.9E-09
*/o Change
from baseline
-74.5%
-74.5%
-83.8%
-39.6%
-45.8%
-23.3%
-39.6%
-39.6%
-45.7%
-84.5%
-84.2%
-84.6%
-74.5%
-39.6%
-81.4%
-83.7%
-81.0%
-84.6%
-43.3%
-81.4%
. -83.7%
-81.0%
-43.3%
-77.3%
,-84.6%
-84.6%
. , ^f ,«% X
Human Carcinogen
Hydrocarbons (A)
Chromium (W)
Nickel (W)
Irritant (Eye, Lung, Skin, GI Tract, etc.yCorrosive
Nitrogen Oxides (A)
Hydrocarbons (A)
Sullur Oxides (A)
n-Methyl-Pyrrolidone (A)
Propylene Carbonate (A)
Isobutane (A)
Dimethyl Glutaratc (A)
OtherOrganics(A)
Sulfiiric Acid (W)
Ammonia (A)
Dimethyl Succinate (A)
Dimethyl Adipate (A)
Iron(W)
Aldehydes (A)
' . Propylene Oxide (A)
Source: Tables 5-3 and 5-4
46.6
3.4E-05
1.2E-08
235
46.6
8.0
2.5
1.2
0.82
0.74
0.53
0.46
0.43
0.30
0.19
0.11
0.058
0.039
10.6
5.4E-06
1.9E-09
38.1
10.6
3.7
2.5
1.2
0.13
0.74
0.78
0.25
0.066
0.30
0.19
0.062
0.045
0.0060
-77.3%
-83.9%
-84.6%
-83.8%
-77.3%
-53.3%
0.0%
0.0%
-84;6%
0.0%
47.0%
-45.7%
-84.5%
0.0%
0.0%
-45.8%
-23.3%
-84.6%
G-3
-------
Table C-I. Industrial Environmental Emissions by Potential Impact Subcategory for PC Blend 2 Radome
«,.«.«. ^r..,.~ -.._ Baseline Results with 100 percent '/.Change
results (1) closed loop recycling (1) from baseline
Ammonia (W)
Chlorine (A)
Hydrogen Chloride (A)
Phend(W)
Nickel (W)
Respiratory System Effects
Nitrogen Oxides (A)
Carbon Monoxide (A)
Sulfur Oxides (A)
Paiticulates(A)
Propyiene Carbonate (A)
Dimethyl Glutarate(A)
Ammonia (A)
Dimethyl Succinate (A)
Dimethyl Adipate (A)
Propylene (A)
Propylene Oxide (A)
Chlorine (A)
Central Nervous System Effects (CNS)
Fossil Carbon Dioxide (A)
Propylene (A)
Propylene Oxide (A)
Mercury (A)
Mercury(W)
Allergenicity/Sensitization
OtherOrganics(A)
Propylene Oxide (A)
Metal Ion (W)
Nickel (W)
Odors
Nitrogen Oxides (A)
Hydrocarbons (A)
Isobutanc(A)
Ammonia (A)
Ammonia (W)
Cardiovascular System Effects (CVS)
Carbon Monoxide (A)
Lead (A)
LeadCW)
Reproductive Eflects
Propylene Oxide (A)
Lead (A)
Lead(W)
Behavioral Effects
Lead (A)
Lead(W)
Renal Effects
Other Organics (A)
Lead (A)
Mercury (A)
Chromium (W)
LeadCW)
Mercurv (W)
0.026
9.9E-05
7.2E-05
5.2E-05
1.2E-08
235
21.2
8.0
1.3
1.2
0.74
0.43
0.30
0.19
0.080
0.039
9.9E-05
4,415
0.080
0.039
5.5E-05
2.2E-08
0.53
0.039
0.011
1.2E-08
235
46.6
0.82
0.43
0.026
21.2
1.9E-04
9.6E-07
0.039
1.9E-04
9.6E-07
1.9E-04
9.6E-07
0.53
1.9E-04
5.5E-05
3.4E-05
9.6E-07
2.2E-08
0.0041
2.5E-05
1.8E-05
L2E-05
1.9E-09
38.1
4.9
3.7
0.80
1.2
0.74
0.066
0.30
0.19
0.012
0.0060
2.SE-05
1,311
0.012
0.0060
1.1E-05
3.5E-09
0.78
0.0060
0.0029
1.9E-09
38.1
10.6
0.13
0.066
0.0041
4.9
9.2E-05
2.4E-07
0.0060
9.2E-05
2.4E-07
9.2E-05
2.4E-07
0.78
9.2E-05
1.1E-05
5.4E-06
2.4E-07
3.5E-09
-84.2%
-74.8%
-74.5%
-77.6%
-84.6%
-83,8%
-76.9%
-53.3%
-39.6%
0.0%
0.0%
-84.5%
0.0%
0.0%
-84.6%
-84.6%
-74.8%
-703%
-84.6%
-84.6%
-79.9%
-84.6%
47.0%
-84.6%
-74.5%
-84.6%
-83.8%
-77.3%
-84.6%
-84.5%
-84.2%
-76.9%
-51.6%
-74.7%
-84.6%
-51.6%
-74.7%
-51.6%
-74.7%
47.0%
-51.6%
-79.9%
-83.9%
-74.7%
-84.6%
Source: Tables 5-3 and 5-4
C-4
-------
Table C-2. Industrial Environmental Emissions
Dcpainter Improvement Alternatives
by Potential Impact Subcategory for PC Blend 2 Radome
Greenhouse Gas/Global Wanning
Fossil Carbon Dioxide (A)
Carbon Monoxide (A)
Methane (A)
Chlorine (A)
Ozone Depleting Gas/Ozone Depletion
Carbon Monoxide (A)
OtherOrganics(A)
Methane (A)
Chlorine (A)
Acid Rain Precursor/Acid Rain
Nitrogen Oxides (A)
Sul&r Oxides (A)
Particulates(A)
Smog Precursor/Photochemical Smog
Nitrogen Oxides (A)
Hydrocarbons (A)
Paru"cuiates(A)
Isobutane(A)
ftopjlene(A)
Aldehydes (A)
Prop>leneOxide(A)
Hydrogen Chloride (A)
Air Dispersion/Aging/Transpoit
Sulfur Oxides (A)
Particulates(A)
Aquatic Life
Nitrogen Oxides (A)
Sulfur Oxides (A)
Dimethyl Glutarate (A)
Dissolved Solids (W)
SuIfuricAcid(W)
Ammonia (A)
Dimethyl Succinate (A)
Dimethyl Adipate (A)
COD(W)
Suspended Solids (W)
BOD(W)
Aldehydes (A)
ftopyleiieOxide(A)
Ammonia (W)
MetalIon(W)
Acid(W)
Sulfides(W)
Hydrogen Chloride (A)
Mercury (A)
Chromium (W)
Mercury (W)
Nickel (W)
Eutrophication/Plant Life
Nitrogen Oxides (A)
Sulfur Oxides (A)
Ammonia (A)
Ammonia (W)
Source: Tables 5-7 and 5-8
Baseline % Change
results (1) plus 20% fram baseline
V- OS " «^»
4,415 5,255
21.2 25.4
0.040 0.048
9.9E-05 1.2E-04
21.2 25.4
0.53 0.63
0.040 0.048
9.9E-05 1.2E-04
235 282
. 8.0 9.2
1.3 1.5
235 282
46.6 55.9
1.3 1.5
0.82 0.98
0.080 0.097
0.058 0.070
0.039 0.047
7.2E-05 8.7E-05
8.0 9.2
1.3 1.5
235 282
8.0 9.2
0.74 0.89
0.54 0.64
0.46 0.52
0.43 0.51
0.30 0.36
0.19 0.22
0.098 0.12
0.086 0.10
0.076 0.091
0.058 0.070
0.039 0.047
0.026 0.032
0.011 0.014
0.0026 0.0031
0.0011 0.0013
7.2E-05 8.7E-05
5.5E-05 6.6E-05
3.4E-05 4.1E-05
2.2E-08 2.7E-08
1.2E-08 1.5E-08
235 282
8.0 9.2
0.43 0.51
0.026 0.032
C-v's^ , -Kv
19.0%
19.8%
19.3%
19.9%
19.8%
19.9%
19.3%
19.9%
19.9%
15.4%
14.7%
19.9%
19.9%
14.7%
20.0%
20.0%
19.9%
20.0%
19.9%
15.4%
14.7%
19.9%
15.4%
20.0%
19.9%
13.3%
20.0%
20.0%
20.0%
20.0%
20.0%
20.0%
19.9%
20.0%
20.0%
19.9%
20.0%
20.0%
19.9%
19.2%
20.0%
20.0%
20.0%
19.9%
15.4%
20.0%
20.0%
% Change
minus 20% from baseline
,\ , * J,-"
3,575
17.0
0.033
7.9E-05
17.0
0.42
0.033
7.9E-05
188
6.8
1-1
188
37.4
1.1
0.65
6.064
0.047
0.031
5.8E-05
6.8
1.1
188
6.8
0.59
0.43
0.40
0.34
0.24
0.15
0.079
0.069
0.061
0.047
0.031
0.021
0.0090
0.0020
8.4E-04
5.8E-05
4.5E-05
2.7E-05
1.8E-08
9.9E-09
188
618
0.34
0.021
^ % ^ %
-19.0%
-19.8%
-19.3%
-19.9%
-19.8%
-19.9%
-19.3%
-19.9%
-19.9%
-15.4%
-14.7%
-19.9%
-19.9%
-14.7%
-20.0%
-20.0%
-19.9%
-20.0%
-19.9%
-15.4%
-14.7%
-19.9%
-15.4%
-20.0%
-19.9%
-13.3%
-20.0%
-20.0%
-20.0%
-20.0%
-20.0%
-20.0%
-19.9%
-20.0%
-20.0%
-19.9%
-20.0%
-20.0%
-19.9%
-19.2%
-20.0%
-20.0%
-20.0%
-19.9%
-15.4%
-20.0%
-20.0%
C-5
-------
Table C-2. Industrial Environmental Emissions by Potential Impact Subcategory for PC Blend 2, Radome
Varvins volume required
scpainicr improvement Aitcruaiivn _
% Change
% Change
results (1) plus 20% from baseline minus 20% from baseline
Metal Ion (W)
Hydrogen Chloride (A)
Visibility Alterations
Nitrogen Oxides (A)
ParticuJates(A)
Iron(W)
Aldehydes (A)
Weather Alterations
Thermil Changes
Reticulates (A)
pH Alterations
SuIfincAcid(W)
Ammonia (A)
Ammonia (W)
Acid(W)
Hydrogen Chloride (A)
Chemical/Biological Content Alteration
BKticulates(A)
COD(W)
BOD(W)
Sulfides(W)
Kerosene (A)
Oxygen Depletion
COD(W)
BOD(W)
Kerosene (A)
Aquifer Contamination
Hydroc«rbons(A)
Isobutane(A)
Nickd(W)
Human Carcinogen
Hydrocarbons (A)
Chromium (W)
Nkkd(W)
Irritant (Eye, Lung, Skin, (3 Tract, etc.yCorrosive
Nitrogen Oxides (A)
Hydrocarbons (A)
Sulfur Oxides (A)
n-Methyl-Pyrrolidone (A)
Propjlene Carbonate (A)
Isobutane(A)
Dimcmji Gtatarate(A)
OtberOrganics(A)
SulfuricAcid(VV)
Ammonia (A)
Dimethyl Succinate (A)
Dimethyl Adipate (A)
Iron(W)
Aldehydes (A)
Propvlene Oxide ( A>
0.011
7.2E-05
235
1.3
0.11
0.058
13
13
0.46
0.43
0.026
0.0026
7.2E-05
1.3
0.098
0.076
0.071
0.0011
2.0E-04
0.098
0.076
0.071
2.0E-04
46.6
0.82
1.2E-08
46.6
U2E-08
235
46.6
8.0
2.5
12.
0.82
0.74
0.53
0.46
0.43
0.30
0.19
0.11
0.058
0.039
0.014
8.7E-05
282
1.5
0.13
0.070
1.5
1.5
0.52
0.51
0.032
0.0031
8.7E-05
1.5
0.12
0.091
0.085
0.0013
23E-04
0.12
0.091
0.085
Z2E-O4
55.9
0.98
1.5E-08
55.9
4.1E-05
1.5E-08
282
55.9
92
3.0
1.5
0.98
0.89
0.63
0.52
0.51
0.36
0.22
0.13
0.070
0.047
19.9%
19.9%
19.9%
14.7%
13.3%
19.9%
14.7%
14.7%
133%
20.0%
20.0%
20.0%
19.9%
14.7%
20.0%
20.0%
20.0%
20.0%
12.9%
20.0%
20.0%
20.0%
12.9%
19.9%
20.0%
20.0%
19.9%
20.0%
20.0%
19.9%
19.9%
15.4%
20.0%
20.0%
20.0%
20.0%
19.9%
13.3%
20.0%
20.0%
20.0%
13.3%
19.9%
20.0%
0.0090
5.8E-05
188
1.1
0.099
0.047
1.1
1.1
0.40
0.34
0.021
0.0020
5.8E-05
1.1
0.079
0.061
0.057
8.4E-04
1.7E-04
0.079
0.061
0.057
1.7E-04
37.4
0.65
9.9E-09
37.4
2.7E-05
9.9E-09
188
37.4
6.8
2.0
1.0
0.65
0.59
0.42
0.40
0.34
0.24
0.15
0.099
0.047
0.031
-19.9%
-19.9%
-19.9%
-14.7%
-13.3%
-19.9%
-14.7%
-14.7%
-13.3%
-20.0%
-20.0%
-20.0%
-19.9%
-14.7%
-20.0%
-20.0%
-20.0%
-20.0%
-12.9%
-20.0%
-20.0%
-20.0%
-12.9%
-19.9%
-20.0%
-20.0%
SS*ffiS^8:$S8
-19.9%
-20.0%
-20.0%
-19.9%
-19.9%
-15.4%
-20.0%
-20.0%
-20.0%
-20.0%
-19.9%
-13.3%
-20.0%
-20.0%
-20.0%
-13.3%
-19.9%
-20.0%
Sourett Tables 5-7 and 5-R
C-6
-------
Table C-2. Industrial Environmental Emissions by Potential Impact Subcategory for PC Blend 2 Radome
Depainter Improvement Alternatives
Ammonia (W)
Chlorine (A)
Ffydrogen Chloride (A)
Phenol (W)
Nickel (W)
Respiratory System Effects
Nitrogen Oxides (A)
Carbon Monoxide (A)
Sulfur Oxides (A)
Particulates(A)
Propylene Carbcnate (A)
Dimethyl Glutarate (A)
Ammonia (A)
Dimethyl Sucdnate (A)
Dimethyl Adipate (A)
Propylene (A)
Propylene Oxide (A)
Chlorine (A)
Central Nervous System Effects (CNS)
Fossil Carbon Dioxide (A)
Propylene(A)
Propylene Oxide (A)
Mercury (A)
Msrcury(W)
Allergenicity/Sen situation
Other Organic (A)
PropylcneOxide(A)
Mstal Ion (W)
Nickel (W)
Odors
Nitrogen Oxides (A)
Hydrocarbons (A)
Isobutane(A)
Ammonia (A)
Ammonia (W)
Cardiovascular System Effects (CVS)
Carbon Monoxide (A)
Lead (A)
Lead(W)
Reproductive Effects
Propylene Oxide (A)
Lead (A)
Lead(W)
Behavioral Effects
Lead(A)
Lead(W)
Varying volume required
Renal Eflects
OtherOrganics(A)
Lead (A)
Mercury (A)
Chromium (W)
Lead(W)
Mercury (W)
Source: Tables 5-7 and 5-8
Baseline
results (1) plus 20%
0.026 0.032
9.9E-05 1.2E-04
7.2E-05 8.7E-05
5.2E-05 6.3E-05
1.2E-08 1.5E-08
235 282
21.2 25.4
8.0 9.2
1.3 1.5
1.2 1.5
0.74 0.89
0.43 0.51
0.30 0.36
0.19 0.22
0.080 0.097
0.039 0.047
9.9E-05 1.2E-04
4,415 5,255
0.080 0.097
0.039 0.047
5.5E-05 6.6E-05
2.2E-08 2.7E-08
0.53 0.63
0.039 0.047
0.011 0.014
1.2E-08 1.5E-08
235 282
46.6 55.9
0.82 0.98
0.43 0.51
0.026 0.032
21.2 25.4
1.9E-04 2.2E-04
9.6E-07 1.1E-06
0.039 0.047
1.9E-04 2.2E-04
9.6E-07 1.1E-06
1.9E-04 2.2E-04
9.6E-07 1.1E-06
0.53 0.63
1.9E-04 23E-04
5.5E-05 6.6E-05
3.4E-05 4.1E-05
9.6E-07 1.1E-06
2.2E-08 2.7E-08
% Change
from baseline
20.0%
19.9%
19.9%
19.9%
20.0%
19.9%
19.8%
15.4%
14.7%
20.0%
20.0%
20.0%
20.0%
20.0%
20.0%
20.0%
19.9%
19.0%
20.0%
20.0%
19.2%
20.0%
19.9%
20.0%
19.9%
20.0%
19.9%
19.9%
20.0%
20.0%
20.0%
19.8%
14.4%
19.9%
20.0%
14.4%
19.9%
14.4%
19.9%
19.9%
14.4%
19.2%
20.0%
19.9%
20.0%
rrinus20%
0.021
7.9E-05
5.8E-05
4.2E-05
9.9E-09
188
17.0
6.8
1.1
1.0
0.59
0.34
0.24
, 0.15 -
0.064
0.031
7.9E-05
3,575
0.064
0.031
4.5E-05
1.8E-08
0.42
0.031
0.0090
9.9E-09
188
37.4
0.65
0.34
0.021
iro
1.6E-04
7.7E-07
0.031
1.6E-04
7.7E-07
1.6E-04
7.7E-07
0.42
1.6E-04
4.5E-05
2.7E-05
7:7E-07
1.8E-08
% Change
from baseline
-20.0%
-19.9%
-19.9%
-19.9%
-20.0%
-19.9%
-19.8%
-15.4%
-14.7%
-20.0%
-20.0%
-20.0%
-20.0%
-20.0%
-20.0%
-20.0%
-19.9%
-19.0%
-20.0%
-20.0%
-19.2%
-20.0%
-19.9%
-20.0%,
-19.9%
-20.0%
-19.9%
-19.9%
-20.0%
-20.0%
-20.0%
-19.8%
-14.4%
-19.9%
-20.0%
-14.4%
-19.9%
-14.4%
-19.9%
-19.9%
-14.4%
-19.2%
-20.0%
-19.9%
-20.0%
C-7
-------
Table C-3. Industrial Environmental Emissions by Potential Impact Subcategory for PC Blend 2 Radome
Depainter Improvement Alternatives
'Greenhouse Gas'Gobol Wanning
Fossil Carbon Dioxide (A)
Carton Monoxide (A)
Ivfcthane(A)
Chlorine (A)
Ozone Depleting GasKJzone Depletion
Carbon Monoxide (A)
Other Organic. (A)
Methane (A)
Chlorine (A)
Acid Bain Prtcuraor/Acid Bain
NtrogoJ Oxides (A)
Sulfur OMdes(A)
Rnticulates(A)
Smog Rrecunot/Fhotochemicil Smog
Ntaogen Oxides (A)
Hjdrooffbons(A)
laobutane(A)
Propjlme(A)
Aldehydes (A)
FK>p>lcneOxide(A)
Hydrogen Chloride (A)
Air Dbpersion/Aging/Transport
Sulfur Oxides(A)
RuticuUles(A)
Aquatic life
Nitrogen Oxides (A)
Sulfiff Oxides (A)
Dimethyl Qutarate (A)
Dissolved Solids (W)
SulfuricAcid(W)
Ammonia (A)
Dimethyl Succinale (A)
Dimethji Adjpate (A)
COD(W)
Suspended Solids (W)
BOD(W)
Aldehydes (A)
ftopykne Oxide (A)
Ammonia (W)
MetalIon(W)
Acid(W)
Sulfides(W)
Hjdrogen Chloride (A)
Macaiy(A)
Chromium (W)
Meremv(W)
Eutrophication/Hsnt life
Nitrogen Oxides (A)
Sulfur Oxides (A)
Ammonia (A)
Ammonia fW)
Source: Tables 5-7 and 5-8
edine %Ounge
litefl) Sper 110 gallons fron baseline 20 per 100 gallons freni baseline
4,415
0.040
9.9E-05
212
0.53
0.040
9.9E-05
235
8.0
13
235
46.6
13
0.82
0.080
0.058
0.039
72E-05
8.0
13
235
8.0
0.74
0.54
0.46
0.43
030
0.19
0.098
0.086
0.076
0.058
0.039
0.026
0.011
0.0026
0.0011
72E-05
5.5E-05
3.4E-05
22E-08
12&08
235
8.0
0.43
0.026
8,615
422
0.080
2.0EO4
422
1.1
0.080
2.0E-04
469
142
23
469
92.9
23
1.6
0.16
0.12
0.078
1.4E-04
142
23
469
142
1.5
1.1
0.76
0.85
0.59
037
020
0.17
0.15
0.12
0.078
0.053
0.022
0.0051
0.0021
. 1.4E-04
1.1&04
6.8E-05
4.5E-08
Z5E-08
469
142
0.85
0.053
95.1%
99.0%
96.7%
99.5%
99.0%
99.6%
96.7%
99.5%
99.6%
77.1%
73.6%
99.6%
993%
73.6%
100.0%
100.0%
993%
100.0%
99.4%
77.1%
73.6%
99.6%
77.1%
100.0%
99.5%
66.4%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
99.8%
100.0%
100.0%
993%
100.0%
100.0%
. 99.4%
100.0%
100.0%
99.4%
96.1%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
99.6%
77.1%
100.0%
100.0%
2315
10.7
0.021
5.0E-05
10.7
027
0.021
5.0E-05
118
4.9
0.84
118
23.5
0.84
0.41
0.040
0.029
0.020
3.6E-05
4.9
0.84
118
4.9
037
027
030
021
0.15
0.093
0.049
6.043
0.038
0.029
0.020
0.013
0.0057
0.0013
53E-04
3.6E-05
2.9E-05
1.7E-05
LIE-OS
62E-09
118
4.9
021
0.013
-47.6%
-49.5%
^8.3%
-49.7%
-49.5%
^9.8%
-483%
^9.7%
-49.8%
-38.6%
-36.8%
^9.8%
49.7%
-36.8%
-50.0%
-50.0%
-49.7%
-50.0%
49.TA
-38.6%
-36.8%
-49.8%
-38.6%
-50.0%
.49.8%
-332%
-50.0%
-50.0%
-50.0%
*49.9%
-50.0%
-50.0%
-49.7%
-50.0%
> -50.0%
-49.7%
-50.0%
-50.0%
49.7%
48.1%
-50.0%
-50.0%
-50.0%
-49.8%
-38.6%
-50.0%
-50.0%
C-8
-------
Table C-3. Industrial Environmental
Depaintcr Improvement Alternatives
Metal Ion (W)
Hydrogen Chloride (A)
Visibility Alterations
Nitrogen Oxides (A)
Particulates(A)
Iron(W)
Aldehydes (A)
Weather Alterations
Emissions by Potential Impact Subcategory for PC Blend 2 Radome
Varying radome yidd
Baseline % Change % Change
results (1) 5 per 110 gallons from baseline 20 per 100 gallons fran baseline
0.011 0.022 99.4% 0.0057 -49.7%
7.2E-05 1.4E-04 99.4% 3.6E-05 -49.7%
Thermal Changes
Particulates(A)
pH Alterations
Particulates(A)
SulturicAcid(W)
Ammonia (A)
Ammonia (W)
Acid(W)
Hydrogen Chloride (A)
Chemical/Biological Content Alteration
ParticuIates(A)
COD(W)
BOD(W)
CX1(W)
Sulfides(W)
Kerosene (A)
Oxygen Depiction
COD(W)
BOD(W)
Kerosene (A)
Aquifer Contamination '
Hydrocarbons (A).
Isobutane(A)
Nickel (W)
235
1.3
0.11
0.058
13
13
0.46
0.43
0.026
0.0026
7.2E-05
1.3
0.098
0.076
0.071
0.0011
2.0E-04
0.098
0.076
0.071
2.0&04
46.6
0.82
1.2E-08
Human Carcinogen
" H>drocarbons(A)
Chromium (W)
Nickel(W)
Irritant (Eye, Lung, Skin, GI Tract, ete.yCorrosive
Nitrogen Oxides (A)
Hydrocarbons (A)
Sulrur Oxides (A)
n-MethM-Pyrrolidone (A)
Propylene Carbonate (A)
Isobutane(A)
Dimethyl Glutarate(A)
Other Organics (A)
SulfuricAcid(W)
Ammonia (A)
Dimethyl Succinate (A)
Dimethyl Adipate (A)
Iron(W)
Aldehydes (A)
ftopvleneOxide(A)
Source: Tables 5-7 and 5-8
/,
46.6
3.4E-05
1.2E-08
235
46.6
8.0
2.5
12
0.82
0.74
0.53
0.46
0.43
030
0.19
0.11
0.058
0.039
469
23
0.19
0.12
23
23
0.76
0.85
0.053
0.0051
1.4E-04
23
0.20
0.15
0.14
0.0021
33E-04
0.20
0.15
0.14
33E-04
92.9
1.6
2.5E-08
929
6.8E-05
Z5E-08
469
92.9
14.2
5.0
2.5
1.6
1.5
1.1
0.76
0.85
0.59
037
0.19
0.12
0.078
99.6%
73.6%
66.4%
993%
73.6%
73.6%
66.4%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
99.4%
73.6%
99.8%
100.0%
99.8%
100.0%
643%
99.8%
100.0%
99.8%
643%
99.3%
100.0%
100.0%
*** * ,l/''4-'
993%
100.0%
100.0%
99.6%
993%
77.1%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
99.6%
66.4%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
. 66.4%
99.3%
100.0%
118
0.84
0.076
0.029
0.84
0.84
0.30
021
0.013
0.0013
3.6E-05
0.84
0.049
0.038
0.036
53E-04
1.4E-04
0.049
0.038
0.036
1.4E-04
23.5
0.41
6.2E-09
23.5
1.7&05
118
23.5
4.9
12
0.62
0.41
037
0.27
0.30
021
0.15
0.093
0.076
0.029
0.020
-49.8%
-36.8%
-33.2%
-36.8%
-36.8%
-33.2%
-50.0%
-50.0%
-50.0%
-49.7%
-36.8%
-49.9%
-50.0%
-49.9%
-50.0%
-32.1%
-49.9%
-50.0%
-49.9%
-32.1%
49-T/o
-50.0%
-50.0%
-49.7%
-50.0%
-50.0%
-49.8%
-49.7%
-38.6%
-50.0%
-50.0%
-50.0%
-50.0%
-49.8%
-33.2%
-50.0%
-50.0%
-50.0%
-332%
49.1%
-50.0%
C-9
-------
Table C-3. Industrial Environmental Emissions by Potential Impact Subcategory for PC Blend 2 Radome
Dcpaintcr Improvement Alternatives
Varying radome yield
Ammonia (W)
Chlorine (A)
Hydrogen Chloride (A)
Fhend(W)
Ndcd(W)
RcspiratcrySystejnEffects
NtrogenQddes(A)
Caibon Maradde (A)
Sulfcr Oxides (A)
Particu!ate(A)
Ropylene Caifconate (A)
Dmethyl autarate(A)
Ammonia (A)
Dimethyl Sucdnale (A)
Dimethyl Adipate (A)
Ropyiene(A)
Prop>1eneQdde(A)
Chlorine (A)
Central Nerrais System Effects (CM?)
Fossil Caifaon Dioxide (A)
ftop>icnc(A)
Ropylene Oxide (A)
Mscuiy(A)
Mciany(W)
Allcrgaudty/Scnstizaaan
OtherOiganics(A)
Ropylene Oxide (A)
KtlalIan(W)
Odors
Ntrogrn Oxides (A)
HydrocaAans(A)
bcbutanc(A)
Ammonia (A)
Ammonia (W)
Cunfiovascular System Effects (CVS)
Caibcn Ninodde (A)
Lend (A)
Lend(W)
Reproductive Effects
Ftop>ieheQdde(A)
Lead (A)
Lend(W)
Behavioral Effects
Lead (A)
Lead(W)
RrniilESccts
Olha-Orcanics(A)
Lead (A)
M=rcury(A)
Chromium (W)
Leod(W)
astiine % Change
% Change
aits (I) S per 110 gallons fromhueline 20 per 100 gallons from baseline
0.026
9.9E05
72E-05
S2E-05
12&08
235
212
8.0
13
12
0.74
0.43
030
0.19
0.080
0.039
9.9EO5
4,415
0.080
0.039
5.5E-05
22E-08
0.53
0.039
0.011
12E-08
235
46.6
0.82
0.43
0.026
212
1.9E-04
9.6&07
0.039
1.9&04
9.6E-07
1.9E-04
9.6E-07
0.53
1.9E-04
5.5E05
3.4E-05
9.6E-07
22E08
0.053
2.0&04
1.4E-04
1.0E04
25E-08
469
422
142
23
2.5
1.5
0.85
0.59
037
0.16
0.078
2.0E-04
8,615
0.16
0.078
1.1&04
4JE-08
1.1
0.078
0.022
Z5&08
469
92.9
1.6
0.85
0.053
422
33E-04
1.9E-06
0.078
33E-04
1.9E-06
33E-04
1.9E-06
1.1
33E04
1.1B04
6.8&05
1.9B06
4.5E-08
100.0%
99.5%
'99.4%
99.6%
100.0%
99.6%
99.0%
77.1%
73.6%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
99.5%
95.1%
100.0%
100.0%
96.1%
100.0%
99.6%
100.0%
99.4%
100.0%
99.6%
993%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
99.0%
71.8%
99.5%
100.0%
71.8%
99.5%
71.8%
99.5%
99.6%
71.8%
96.1%
100.0%
99.5%
100.0%
0.013
5.0E-05
3.6&05
2.6E-05
62E-09
118
10.7
4.9
0.84
0.62
037
021
0.15
0.093
0.040
0.020
5.0&05
2315
0.040
0.020
2.9E-05
LIE-OS
027
0.020
0.0057
62E-09
118
23.5
0.41
021
0.013
10.7
12E-04
4.8E-07
0.020
12E44
4.8E-07
12E-04
4.8E-07
027
12E-04
2.9E-05
1.7&05
4.8E-07
1.1&08
-50.0%
^t9.7%
^9.7%
-49.8%
-50.0%
-49.8%
-49.5%
-38.6%
-36.8%
-50.0%
-50.0%
-50.0%
-50.0%
-50.0%
-50.0%
-50.0%
-49.7%
-47.6%
-50.0%
-50.0%
-48.1%
,50.0%
^9.8%
-50.0%
-49.7%
-50.0%
^9.8%
-49.7%
-50.0%
-50.0%
-50.0%
49.5%
-35.9%
49.7%
-50.0%
-35.9%
-49.7%
-35.9%
-49.7%
-49.8%
-35.9%
-48.1%
-50.0%
-49.7%
-50.0%
Source: Tables 5-7 and 5-8
C-10
-------
Table C-4. Industrial Environmental Emissions
Depainter Improvement Alternatives
by Potential Impact Subcategory for PC Blend 2 Radome
Varying Depainting Time
Greenhouse Gas/Gobal Wanning
Fossil Carbon Dioxide (A)
Carbon Monoxide (A)
Msthane(A)
Chlorine (A)
Ozone Depleting Gas/Ozone Depletion
Carbon Monoxide (A)
Other Organic; (A)
Methane (A)
Chlorine (A)
Acid Rain Precursor/Acid Rain
Nitrogen Oxides (A)
Sulfur Oxides (A)
Participates (A)
Smog Frecursor/Fhotochemical Smog
Nitrogen Oxides (A)
ffydrocarbons (A)
Rarn'culates(A)
Isobutane(A)
Profryicnc(A)
Aldeh\des(A)
PropjieneOxide(A)
rfydrogen Chloride (A)
Air Dispersion/Aging/Transport
Sulfur Oxides (A)
Particulars (A)
Aquatic Life
Nitrogen Oxides (A)
Sulfur Oxides (A)
DimethjiGlutarateCA)
Dissolwd Solids (W)
SulfuricAcid(W)
Ammonia (A)
DimetrrviSuccinate(A)
Dimetrrvl A/Spate (A)
COD(W)
Suspended Solids (W)
BOD(W)
Aldeh>des(A)
PropyieneOxide(A)
Ammonia (W)
Metal Ion(W)
Atid(W)
Sulfides(W)
rfcdrogen Chloride (A)
Mercury(A)
Chromium (W)
Msreury(W)
Nickel (W)
Eutrophication'Plant Life
Nitrogen Oxides (A)
Sulfur Oxides (A)
Ammonia (A)
Ammonia (W)
Source: Tables 5-7 and 5-8
asdine % Change
% Change
^.ffl....,VI^I^.P^.K?^....'*1t?1:l.{'ia9E'me 4 Hours per KC135 front baseline
^ %
4,415
212
0.040
9.9E-05
212
0.53
0.040
9.9E-05
235
8.0
13
235
46.6
13
0.82
0.080
0.058
0.039
72E-05
8.0
13
235
8.0
0.74
0.54
0.46
0.43
030
0.19
0.098
0.086
0.076
0.058
0.039
0.026
0.011
0.0026
0.0011
72E-05
5.5E-05
3.4EO5
22E-08
12E-08
235
8.0
0.43
0.026
% \ % ' % w. \ ^ %
4,308
21.1
0.040
9.9E-05
21.1
0.53
0.040
9.9E-05
235
7.1
12
235
46.5
12
0.82
0.080
0.058
0.039
72&05
7.1
12
235
7.1
0.74
0.53
038
0.43
030
0.19
0.098
0.086
0.076
0.058
0.039
0.026
0.011
0.0026
0.0011
72E-05
5.4E05
3.4E-05
22E-O8
12E-08
235
7.1
0.43
0.026
1 -V. O « VWS
-2.4%
-0.5%
-1.7%
-03%
-0.5%
-02%
-1.7%
-03%
-02%
-11.4%
-132%
-02%
-03%
-132%
0.0%
0.0%
-03%
0.0%
-03%
-11.4%
-132%
-02%
-11.4%
0.0%
-02%
-16.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
-03%
0.0%
0.0%
-03%
0.0%
0.0%
-03%
-1.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-02%
-11.4%
0.0%
0.0%
x ^
4,630
21.4
0.042
9.9E-05
21.4
0.53
0.042
9.9E-05
236
9.8
1.7
236
46.9
1.7
0.82
0.080
0.059
0.039
73E-05
9.8
1.7
236
9.8
0.74
0.54
0.61
0.43
030
0.19
0.098
0.086
0.076
0.059 .
0.039
0.026
0.011
0.0026
0.0011
73E-05
5.7E-05
3.4E-05
22E-08
12E-08
236
9.8
0.43
0.026
*\ s
4.9%
1.0%
33%
0.5%
. 1.0%
0.4%
33%
0.5%
0.4%
22.9%
26.4%
0.4%
0.7%
26.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.7%
Off/0
0.6%
22.9%
26.4%
0.4%
22.9%
0.0%
0.5%
33.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
02%
0.0%
0.0%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
3.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
22.9%
0.0%
0.0%
C-lli
-------
Table C-4. Industrial Environmental Emissions
Dcpstinter Improvement Alternatives
by Potential Impact Subcategory for PC Blend 2 Radome
Varying
Hydrogen Chloride(A)
VisibilityAIteratians
Ntiogcnaddes(A)
Rriaiates(A)
Ircn(W)
Aldehjdcs(A)
Weather Alterations
Facticdata(A)
Thanrl Changes
FarticuJate(A)
PH Alterations
Siifi*icAcid(W)
Aramcni*(A)
Amoma(W)
Add(W)
Oxanical/Hological Cental Alteration
Particdjte(A)
COD(W)
BOD(W)
OQ(W)
Kerosene (A)
Ctcvgen Depletion
COD(W)
BCD(W)
OB(W)
Kcoxne(A)
Aquifer CoolMiinttion
IfvUt ucjif cons (A)
bobuane(A)
';fS?^':.: JUiw^iSI
ftjuwi Carcinogen
H5drcartons(A)
Chroniiin(W)
Nkkd(W)
Irritant (E>e, lisas. Skin, CH Tract, ctc.yCotroaw:
MtregenQo*s(A)
SdfirObddcs(A)
n.^toh\^-I^Iroljdone(A)
Isobutane(A)
Odicr<>ganks(A)
Sd&ricAeJd(W)
Amncria(A)
DunethvlSuc«anate(A)
DimdhllAjipate(A)
Aldehydes (A)
FhxMeneQddefA)
Baseline
% Change V* Change
Rsdts(l) lHowperK£135. from baseline 4HousperKC135 from baseline
0.011
72&05
235
13
0.11
0.058
13
13
0.46
0.43
0.026
0.0026
72E-05
13
0.098
0.076
0.071
0.0011
2.0E-04
0.098
0.076
0.071
2.0E-04
46.6
0.82
12&08
46.6
3.4E^05
12E-08
otroavc
235
46.6
8.0
25
12
0.82
tt74
0^
0.46
0.43
030
0.19
0.11
0.058
0.039
0.011
72E05
235
12
0.095
0.058
12
12
038
0.43
0.026
0.0026
72E-05
12
0.098
0.076
0.071
0.0011
1.6&04
0.098
0.076
0.071
1.6&04
46.5
0.82
12B08
46.5
3.4&05
12&08
235
46J
7.1
25
12
0.82
0.74
053
038
0.43
030
0.19
0.095
0.058
0.039
-03%
-03%
-02%
-132%
-16.8%
-03%
-132%
-132%
-16.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-03%
-132%
-0.1%
0.0%
-0.1%
0.0%
-17.9%
-0.1%
0.0%
-0.1%
-17.9%
-03%
0.0%
0.0%
-03%
0.0%
0.0%
02%
03%
-11.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-02%
-16.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-16.8%
-03%
0.0%
0.011
73E05
236
1.7
0.15
0.059
1.7
1.7
0.61
0.43
0.026
0.0026
73E-05
1.7
0.098
0.076
0.071
0.0011
Z7&04
0.098
0.076
0.071
2.7E-04
46.9
0.82
12&08
46.9
3.4&05
12&08
236
46.9
9.8
25
12
0.82
0.74
0.53
0.61
0.43
030
0.19
0.15
0.059
0.039
0.6%
0.6%
0.4%
26.4%
33.6%
0.7%
26.4%
26.4%
33.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
26.4%
02%
0.0%
02%
0.0%
35.7%
02%
0.0%
02%
35.7%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
0.7%
22.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
33.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
33.6%
0.7%
0.0%
Source: Tables 5-7 and 5-8
C-12
-------
Table C-4. Industrial Environmental Emissions by Potential Impact Subcategory for PC Blend 2 Radome
Depaintcr Improvement Alternatives
Ammonia (W)
Chlorine (A)
Hydrogen Chloride (A)
Phenol (W)
Nickel (W)
Basdine
% Change
% Change
resets (1) IHoiM-perKCtJS fhmbasetine 4 Ifaun per KC33S (ran baseline
0.026 0.026 0.0% 0026 00%
9.9E-05
72E-05
52E-05
12E-08
9.9E-05
73&05
52B05
12B08
-03%
-03%
-02%
0.0%
Respiratory System Effects
Nitrogen Qddes(A)
Carton Nfcnccdde(A)
Sulfur Oxides (A)
Parn'ailates(A)
Propyiene Carbonate (A)
Dimethyl Qutarate (A)
Ammonia (A)
Dimethyl Suocinate (A)
Dimethyl Adipate(A)
Propylene(A)
PrapyiencOdde(A)
Chlorine (A)
235
212
8.0
13
12
0.74
0.43
030
0.19
0.080
0.039
9.9E05
235
21.1
7.1
12
12
0.74
0.43
030
0.19
0.080
0.039
9.9B05
02%
-0.5%
-11.4%
-132%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-03%
Central Nervous System Effects (CMS)
Fossil Carbon Dioxide (A)
Prcpy!ene(A)
PrcpyleneOxjde(A)
Mscury(A)
Mercury (W)
4,415
0.080
0.039
5.5E05
22E-08
4308
0.080
0.039
5.4E-05
22E08
-Z4%
0.0%
0.0%
-1.9%
0.0%
9.9E05
7.3E-05
53B05
12E-08
236
21.4
9.8
1.7
12
0.74
0.43
030
0.19
0.080
0.039
9.9E-05
4,630
0.080
0.039
5.7&05
22E-08
0.5%
0.6%
0.4%
0.0%
0.4%
1.0%
2Z9%
26.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
4.9%
0.0%
0.0%
3.9%
0.0%
AllergenidtySensitizaticn
Odors
OtherOganics(A)
PrapyieneQdde(A)
MrtalIon(W)
Nickel(W)
Nitrogen Oxides (A)
Hydrocarbons (A)
Isobutane(A)
Ammonia (A)
Ammonia (W)
0.53
0.039
0.011
12E-08
235
46.6
0.82
0.43
0.026
0.53
0.039
0.011
12E-08
235
46.5
0.82
0.43
0.026
-02%
0.0%
-03%
0.0%
-02%
-03%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.53
0.039
0.011
12&08
236
46.9
0.82
0.43
0.026
0.4%
0.0%
0.6%
0.0%
0.4%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Gmfiavascular System Effects (CVS)
RfuisxJuc1
Carbon Monoxide (A)
Lead (A)
Lead(W)
PrcpyleneQdde(A)
Lead (A)
Leud(W)
212
1.9E-04
9.6EW
0.039
1.9E-04
9.6E07
21.1
1.6E-04
9.5&07
0.039
1.6E-04
9.5B07
-0.5%
-14.1%
-03%
0.0%
-14.1%
-03%
21.4
Z4B04
9.6E-07
0.039
Z4E-04
9.6E07
1.0%
282%
0.5%
0.0%
282%
0.5%
Behavioral Effects
Lead (A)
Lead(W)
1.9E-04
9.6E07
1.6E-04
9.5E-07
-14.1%
-03%
Z4E04
9.6E07
282%
0.5%
Renal Effects
OtherOrganics(A)
Lead (A)
Mercury (A)
Chromium (W)
Lcad(W)
Maunv(W)
0.53
1.9B04
5.5E^05
3.4E-05
9.6E-07
22B08
0.53
1.6&04
SA&OS
3.4E-05
9.5E07
22E-08
-02%
-14.1%
-1.9%
0.0%
-03%
0.0%
0.53
Z4E-04
5.7E-05
3.4E-05
9.6E07
22E-08
0.4%
282%
3.9%
0.0%
0.5%
0.0%
Source: Tables 5-7 and 5-8
C-13 * u-s- GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1996 - 750-001/41035
-------
------- |