EPA/600/R-96/104
September 1996
LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT FOR
CHEMICAL AGENT RESISTANT COATING
By
Battelle Columbus
and
Lockheed-Martin Environmental
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 information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency under Contract 68-C4-0020 to Lockheed Environmental Services
Division through Purchase Order Number 07PPG7 from Lockheed to Battelle. Mention of trade
names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
Foreword
Today's rapidly developing and changing technologies and industrial products and practices
frequently carry with them the increased generation of material that, if improperly dealt with, can
threaten both public health and the environment. 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 carry out action leading to a
compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and
nurture life. These laws direct the EPA to do research to define our environmental problems,
measure the impacts, and search for solutions.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory is responsible for planning,
implementing, and managing research development, and demonstration programs. These provide an
authoritative defensible engineering basis in support of the policies, programs and regulation of the
EPA with respect to drinking water, wastewater, pesticides, toxic substances, solid and hazardous
wastes, and Superfund -related activities. This publication is a product of that research and provides
a vital communication link between researchers and users.
This report describes a life cycle assessment on the painting, depainting and repainting of
military vehicles with chemical agent resistant coating (CARC). A life cycle design approach that
follows EPA's guidance manual includes consideration in the areas of environmental, performance,
and cost requirements for the products and processes evaluated. Four specific final products
associated with the painting, depainting, and repainting of military vehicles were used in the life-
cycle assessment.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
-------
Abstract
This project was sponsored by the Department of Defense Strategic
Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) and conducted by the
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency National Risk Management Research
Laboratory (NRMRL). In support of SERDP's objective to develop environmental
solutions that improve mission readiness for federal activities, this report was
developed to determine the optimum materials and equipment for applying chemical
agent resistant coating (CARC) to vehicles at the Army Transportation Center at
Fort Eustis, VA. A life cycle assessment (LCA) was conducted to identify the
performance, cost, and environmental impacts of various combinations of CARC
materials and equipment. The variables for this study were the primer, thinner,
CARC topcoat, and spray application equipment. Combinations of the variables
were grouped to develop five alternatives. The recommended alternative would
change the existing primer and application equipment, but retain the existing thinner
and topcoat. This alternative would maintain required performance characteristics,
achieve cost objectives, and result in low environmental impacts in relation to the
other alternatives.
IV
-------
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction 1-1
1.1 Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program 1-1
1.2 Life Cycle Assessment Research Program 1-1
1.3 DfE Life-Cycle Approach 1-1
1.4 Life Cycle Assessment for CARC 1-2
1.5 CARC System Improvement Potential 1-3
2.0 Life Cycle Inventory 2-1
2.1 LCI Scope and Limitations 2-1
2.2 LCI Methodology 2-3
2.3 LCI Data Development 2-3
2.4 LCI Baseline Revisions and Enhancements 2-4
2.5 LCI Functional Unit 2-5
2.6 LCI Data 2-5
3.0 Parameters Evaluated 3-1
3.1 Inventory Analysis 3-1
3.2 Environmental Impact/Hazard Assessment 3-4
3.2.1 Classification and Stressor/lmpact Chains 3-5
3.2.2 Characterization 3-5
3.2.3 Key Assumptions for LClAs 3-6
3.3 Economic Assessment 3-6
3.3.1 Methodology 3-6
3.3.2 Evaluated Parameters 3-8
3.4 Performance Assessment 3-13
3.4.1 Application Equipment 3-13
3.4.2 Primers 3-14
3.4.3 Thinners 3-14
3.4.4 Application Equipment Evaluation Parameters 3-15
3.4.5 Primer Evaluation Parameters 3-15
3.4.6 Thinner Evaluation Parameters 3-17
3.5 Valuation Procedure 3-17
4.0 Description and Screening of Improvement Options 4-1
4.1 Alternatives Identified/Selected 4-1
4.2 Environmental Impact/Hazard Classification . 4-1
4.3 Economic Assessment . . 4-8
4.4 Performance Assessment 4-8
4.4.1 Application Equipment 4-8
4.4.2 Primers .'. ... 4-9
4.4.3 Thinners 4-9
-------
5.0 Life Cycle Impact Assessment Results ": 5-1
5.1 Environmental Impact Characterization/Valuation 5-1
5.1.1 Impact Characterization 5-1
5.1.2 Impact Valuation 5-1
5.2 Economic Assessment 5-6
5.2.1 Fixed Capital Investment 5-6
5.2.2 Annual Operating Cost 5-6
5.2.3 Annualized Cost 5-7
5.3 Performance Assessment 5-8
5.3.1 Application Equipment 5-8
5.3.2 Primer 5-8
5.3.3 Thinners . . 5-9
6.0 Technical and Economic Evaluation of Improvements 6-1
6.1 Inventory Analysis 6-1
6.2 Environmental Impact/Hazard Characterization 6-18
6.2.1 Impact Characterization 6-18
6.2.2 Sensitivity Analysis , . 6-25
6.3 Economic Assessment 6-26
6.3.1 Fixed Capital Investment 6-26
6.3.2 Annual Operating Cost 6-27
6.3.3 Annualized Cost 6-27
6.4 Performance Evaluation 6-31
6.4.1 Application Equipment 6-31
6.4.2 Primers 6-32
6.4.3 Thinners . 6-33
6.5 Valuation Process 6-34
6.6 Overall Improvement Assessment Results 6-36
7.0 Implementation Plan 7-1
7.1 Performance Demonstration 7-1
7.1.1 Application Equipment 7-1
7.1.2 Primer . . . 7-1
7.1.3 Thinner 7-2
7.2 Procurement Considerations . 7-2
7.2.1 Application Equipment 7-2
7.2.2 Primers and Thinners 7-2
7.3 Training Requirements 7-3
7.3.1 Application Equipment 7-3
7.3.2 Primers and Thinners 7-3
8.0 Conclusions • 8-1
9.0 Bibliography • • • • 9-1
Appendix A: Process Flow Diagrams A-1
Appendix B: Material Safety Data Sheets • • • B-1
Appendix C: Detailed Inventory Tables . . C-1
Appendix D: Environmental Impact Equivalency Value Calculations and Decision Trees ...... D-1
Appendix E: Sensitivity Analysis E-1
VI
-------
List of Tables
Number
Page
Table 1-1. CARC Systems for Evaluation in LCImA 1-4
Table 2-1. Various CARC, Primers, and Thinners Used at Major Army Installations 2-2
Table 3-1. Percent Composition of Baseline CARC Topcoat 3-1
Table 3-2. Percent Composition of Baseline and Alternative Primers 3-2
Table 3-3. Percent Composition of Baseline and Alternative Thinners 3-3
Table 3-4. Raw Material Unit Costs 3-11
Table 3-5. Process Assumptions 3-12
Table 4-1. Stressor/lmpact Networks for Impacts of Primary Concern in CARC Life Cycle 4-2
Table 4.2. Chemical Equivalency Factors for Major Impact Categories Associated with CARC LCA
4-4
Table 5-1. Life Cycle Impact Valuation Calculations 5-5
Table 5-2. Estimated Baseline FCI, Annual Operating Cost, and Annualized Costs 5-6
Table 5-3. Estimated Baseline Fixed Capital Investment 5-6
Table 5-4. Estimated Baseline Annual Operating Cost 5-7
Table 5-5. Annualized Baseline Cost 5-8
Table 6-1. Baseline CARC System Life Cycle Inventory Summary Results 6-2
Table 6-2. Alternative Primer CARC System Life Cycle Inventory Summary Results 6-5
Table 6-3. Alternative Gun CARC System Life Cycle Inventory Summary Results 6-9
Table 6-4. Alternative Primer & Gun CARC System Life Cycle Inventory Summary Results ... 6-12
Table 6-5. Alternative Thinner CARC System Life Cycle Inventory Summary Results 6-15
Table 6-6. Alternative Primer and Thinner CARC System Life Cycle Inventory Summary Results
6-19
Table 6-7. Comparison of Normalized, Factored Environmental Impact 6-24
Table 6-8. Estimated FCI, Annual Operating Cost, and Anualized Costs 6-27
Table 6-9. Estimated Baseline Fixed Capital Investment . 6-28
Table 6-10. Estimated Annual Operating Cost 6-29
Table 6-11. Annualized Cost 6-31
Table 6-12. Life Cycle Impact Valuation Calculations for Baseline 6-38
Table 6-13. Life Cycle Impact Valuation Calculations for Alternative Primer 6-39
Table 6-14. Life Cycle Impact Valuation Calculations for Alternative Gun 6-40
Table 6-15. Life Cycle Impact Valuation Calculations for Alternative Primer and Gun 6-41
Table 6-16. Life Cycle Impact Valuation Calculations for Alternative Thinner 6-42
Table 6-17. Life Cycle Impact Valuation Calculations for Alternative Primer and Thinner 6-43
VII
-------
List of Figures
Number Page
Figure 3-1. CARC application and depainting processes at Fort Eustis (from Hendricks, et al.,
1995) 3-7
Figure 3-2. Fort Eustis depainting building . 3-9
Figure 5-1. Results of impact category valuation by the AHP 5-3
Figure 5-2. Relative importance of nine primary impact categories based on AHP 5-4
Figure 6-1. Energy consumption by type 6-22
Rgure 6-2. Solid/hazardous waste. 6-22
Figure 6-3. Criteria air pollutants 6-23
Figure 6-4. Structure of the analytic hierarchy for CARC alternatives . . . . : 6-35
Figure 6-5. Overall weights derived for the valuation of CARC alternatives 6-37
VIII
-------
Acronyms
AG
AHP
AP
BCF
BG
BOD
BTU
CARC
CAS
CIS
CSD
DfE
DoD
DOE
EC
EPA
FCI
FSC
ft2
gal
GWP
HAP
HSDB
HV
HVLP
IRIS
kw
Ibs
LC50
LCA
LCI
LCIA
LCImA
LD50
In
MEDLARS
MEK
MIL-SPEC
MSDSs
NIINs
NOX
NRMRL
OOP
alternative gun
Analytical Hierarchy Process
acidification potential
bioconcentration factor
baseline gun
biological oxygen demand
British Thermal Unit
chemical agent resistant coating
Chemical Abstract Service
Chemical Information Systems
Chemical Specialists & Development
design for the environment
Department of Defense
Department of Energy
Expert Choice™
Environmental Protection Agency
fixed capital investment
Federal Stock Class
square feet
gallon
global warming potential
hazardous air pollutant
Hazardous Substances Databank
hazard value
high-volume, low-pressure
Integrated Risk Information System
kilowatt
pounds
lethal concentration, 50%
life cycle assessment
life cycle inventory
life cycle impact assessment
life cycle improvement assessment
lethal dose, 50%
natural log
Medical Literature and Analysis Retrieval System
methyl ethyl ketone
military specification
Material Safety Data Sheets
National Item Identification Number
nitrogen oxides
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
ozone depletion potential
IX
-------
P2
Pb
PE
PES
PM
POCP
ppm
PPOA
QSAR
RD&D
RTECS
SAR
SERDP
SETAC
SOX
SRI
TE
TRI
VOC
WA
WREAFS
pollution prevention
lead
purchased equipment
Pacific Environmental Services
paniculate matter
photochemical oxidant creation potential
parts per million
pollution prevention opportunity assessment
quantitative structure-activity relationship
Research, Design and Development
Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances
structure-activity relationship
Strategic Environmental Research and Developement Program
Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
sulfur oxides
Southern Research Institute
transfer efficiency
toxic release inventory
volatile organic compound
Work Assignment
Waste Reduction Evaluation At Federal Sites
-------
1.0 Introduction
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 technques 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) and conducted by the EPA's Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
Research Team at the National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL).
1.1 Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program
SERDP
Strategic Environmental Research
and Development Program
Improving Mission Readiness Through
Environmental Research
SERDP was established in order 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.
1.2 Life Cycle Assessment Research Program
Since 1990, NRMRL has been at the forefront of development of Life Cycle Assessment 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 a part of an expanding program of
research in LCA taking place under the direction of NRMRL in Cincinnati, Ohio.
1.3 DfE Life-Cycle Approach
A life-cycle design for the environment (DfE) approach that follows EPA's (1993a) guidance
manual includes consideration of requirements in the following areas: environmental, performance,
cost, cultural, and legal requirements. However, this report focuses on evaluation of the first three
life-cycle design requirements. The life-cycle environmental evaluation and cost and performance
information are based on data from the draft life cycle inventory (LCI) (Hendricks et al., 1995),
pollution prevention opportunity assessment (PPOA) (Cavender et al., 1994), and supplementary
information collected as part of the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) and life cycle improvement
assessment (LCImA).
1-1
-------
The DfE approach is derived from a generalized process for product design, which begins with a
needs analysis, defines product or process requirements, and identifies design solutions. When
implemented as a DfE effort, the requirements assessment includes environmental elements
specified as essential or desirable features. The design solutions then have a broader range of
attributes than would be the case in a traditional analysis.
The procedures for interpreting LCI and LCIA results for the determination of improvement
opportunities are not standardized. A multi-step process combining analysis of the baseline
environmental data along with the possible engineering changes in the system was used to
directionally identify promising options. The steps include:
• Definition of improvement objectives and constraints
• Translation of objectives into design/technology requirements
• Preliminary identification of options
• Determination of potential changes in system boundaries
These steps were conducted as part of the exercise to define the baseline and complete the
inventory analysis and impact assessment. The alternatives assessment process, which constitutes
the LCImA, then continues with the following elements:
• Identification of data needs for alternatives
• Generation of LCI/LCIA data for alternatives
• Generation of economic and performance data for alternatives, and
• Application of a decision support process for conducting tradeoffs analysis.
1.4 Life Cycle Assessment for CARC
NRMRL has developed projects to promote the integration of pollution prevention concepts into
the design of systems. The purpose is to enhance performance, reduce logistics and maintenance
requirements, reduce environmental and energy burdens and extend service life. Under this
program, SERDP and NRMRL are focusing on painting and depainting operations for aircraft and
military vehicles.
The U.S. Army's Transportation Center at Fort Eustis, Virginia provides educational and training
services in military transport to Army personnel. Part of the mission at Fort Eustis is to paint,
depaint and repaint military vehicles with a chemical agent resistant coating (CARC). The purpose
of this project is to conduct an LCA for CARC operations at Fort Eustis which also considers cost
and performance as described in EPA's life-cycle design manual (EPA 1993a).
A PPOA was conducted by Southern Research Institute (SRI) and PES at Fort Eustis to evaluate
waste reduction opportunities associated with CARC painting and depainting operations (Cavender
et al., 1994). The PPOA was part of the Waste Reduction Evaluations at Federal Sites (WREAFS)
program and involved identification and evaluation of new technologies and techniques for reducing
waste generation from CARC painting/depainting operations at Fort Eustis. The advantages and
disadvantages of the base case and each P2 option are discussed. As in the case of most P2
studies, this PPOA only considered the use stage (depainting/painting) of the CARC life cycle. The
PPOA was used to establish the potential options for the LCA.
A draft LCI was prepared by Pacific Environmental Services (PES) to provide a baseline of
environmental and utility data that describes the production of components for the CARC .
painting/depainting system (i.e., topcoat, primer, thinner, and blast media), their raw materials, paint
application and depainting, and disposal of spent CARC and blast media (Hendricks, et.al., 1995).
The LCI baseline was revised to account for actual operations at Ft. Eustis and additional impact
1-2
-------
information was included to complete the LCA. The LCIA and LClmA were prepared according to
EPA's LCA guidance document (EPA, 1993b) and the Society of Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry (SETAC 1991, 1993, and 1994) framework documents. This document contains a
revised and summarized version of the LCI data along with the LCIA and LClmA results.
1.5 CARC System Improvement Potential
Within the established environmental criteria for the LCA, the baseline CARC system
improvement potential appears to be greatest in the relative environmental impact contribution to
global warming. However, this does not imply that CARC is a major contributor to this issue on an
absolute basis. Somewhat less important are the regional scale impacts of photochemical smog and
the aggregated indicators associated with toxicity potential. Alternative formulations emitting less
of these constituents throughout the life cycle coupled with application practices that increase the
efficiency of material usage (translating back up the life-cycle stages due to lower contributions per
functional unit) are the most attractive.
However, the environmental aspects of CARC painting must be balanced with economic and
performance aspects. It may be possible to conceive of a system where the coating is transferred
with 100% efficiency through the use of no solvent at all (a powder coating for example). Although
such a system may be a long-term R&D goal, its performance could not be guaranteed according to
current military specifications (MIL-SPECS) and its cost may be prohibitive. Considering that
operating labor and overheads represent more than half the baseline costs, alternatives that decrease
the human input at the expense of modest increases in material or variable operating costs (material
costs, electricity, and supplies represent about 25% of the total baseline costs) would be an overall
improvement, especially if there were corresponding performance and environmental benefits.
The assessment of CARC alternatives is intended to identify and evaluate alternatives that are
able to be implemented with a reasonable level of institutional, logistical, and operational challenges
and within a short-term time frame. Therefore, it was decided that certain performance and cost
constraints should be imposed as preliminary assessment thresholds. Identification of CARC
systems that are improvement candidates on all three assessment dimensions (environmental,
performance, cost) were constrained to those that currently provide acceptable performance (i.e.
that are MIL-SPEC compliant), that are cost-competitive, and reduce environmental impacts.
Systems considered to be attractive included various combinations of CARC topcoat, primer, and
thinner, having different environmental properties than the baseline, as well as application methods
and tools that potentially could increase materials use efficiency and decrease the time involved for
painting operations. Equipment and technology to implement the improvements was also a
consideration.
Application of the cost and performance thresholds resulted in a matrix of alternatives to be
considered. The alternatives shown in Table 1-1 include permutations of alternative primer, thinner,
and application technology (spray gun). Additional technology-related options appeared to be site-
specific (e.g., spray booth configuration, filtration systems, and material storage, and were not
considered separate alternatives). Similarly, the blast medium and technology (aluminum oxide) was
considered both cost-effective and environmentally acceptable and was not subject to evaluation.
1-3
-------
Table 1-1. CARC Systems for Evaluation in LCImA
CARC Systems Evaluated
1 (Baseline)
2
3
4
5
6
CARC Topcoat'3'
BC
BC
BC
BC
BC
BC
Primer""
BP
AP
BP
AP
BP
AP
Thinner101
BT
BT
BT
BT
AT
AT
Topcoat Spray Gun'd)
BG
BG
AG
AG
BG
BG
'" BC = Baseline CARC Topcoat, MIL-C-53039A, Hentzen 08605GUZ-GD, 1-part urethane
«M BP = Baseline Primer, MIL-P-53022, Niles 2-part epoxy, solvent thinned; AP = Alternative
Primer, MIL-P-53030, Deft 2-part epoxy, water thinned
tcl BT = Baseline Thinner, MIL-T-81772B, CSD; AT = Alternative Thinner, Fed. Std. A-A-857B
(used by Fort Eustis, but not evaluated by in LCI)
w BG = Baseline Gun, high volume, low pressure (HVLP) spray gun (thinning of topcoat required);
AG = Alternative Gun, turbine HVLP spray gun with increased transfer efficiency relative to
conventional HVLP gun.
1-4
-------
2.0 Life Cycle Inventory
To fully account for all impacts of the CARC operation, a complete evaluation must be made of
the raw materials used, energy required, water used, and the generation of atmospheric emissions,
solid waste, waterborne waste, and hazardous waste. A baseline should incorporate inputs and
outputs from every operation used, from processing the basic raw materials through all operations
involved in taking the material from the earth and disposal of the residue material back to the earth.
To be practical and useful, a baseline must reflect the reality of the process as it is currently
practiced.
2.1 LCI Scope and Limitations
The initial phase of the life cycle inventory (LCI) consisted of studying available information on
the CARC application and depainting processes and conducting an intensive, three-day site survey,
literature search, and phone survey of major Army installations. Using the information obtained from
the site survey, literature survey, and telephone contacts with the major U.S. Army facilities, a
scoping document was prepared. The scoping document identified uses of CARC, the CARC
product manufacturers, the primers and the thinners used in CARC systems, the blasting media used
in the removal of CARC systems, and the types of CARC application and depainting techniques
used.
The scoping document and input from EPA's NRMRL personnel were used to identify the
specific products (the CARC, the primer, the thinner) to be addressed in the LCI. The specific
application and depainting techniques to be investigated were also selected. The recommendations
were based mainly on the products and techniques being used at Fort Eustis. A one-component
topcoat is used as the final CARC layer to protect military vehicles from chemical warfare agents,
primarily because it is more resistant to penetration by these chemical agents than alkyd paints.
CARC paint does not absorb these substances, while alkyd paints absorb these toxic chemical
agents and slowly release them. Also, CARC can last up to four times longer than alkyd paints.
The only CARC topcoat used at Fort Eustis is MIL-C-53039A produced by Hentzen Coatings under
the name 383 Green Zenthane.
Primers are applied to the surface of military equipment after depainting and surface preparation,
in order to provide anticorrosive properties and adhesion of the topcoat. The CARC primer used at
Fort Eustis and most other military installations is MIL-P-53022, a two-component epoxy primer.
The brand used at Fort Eustis is produced by Niles Chemical Company and was chosen for the
baseline LCI. The two-component epoxy primer is prepared for application by mixing four parts of
Part A with one part of Part B. Once the primer is dry, a one-component CARC topcoat is applied.
Both the primer and topcoat are applied with a high-volume, low-pressure (HVLP) spray gun.
A thinner is used to dissolve, dilute, suspend, or change the physical properties of other
materials. At most Army bases except Fort Eustis, thinner MIL-T-81772 is used to dilute CARC and
primer, in order to enhance ease of application, and to control the coating drying rate. Thinner MIL-
T-81772 was used for the baseline LCI due to its wide-range use at Army facilities (Table 2-1).
Thinner is also used prior to CARC painting to remove dust and grease from the vehicles that may
2-1
-------
interfere with proper paint adhesion. Fort Eustis used a thinner that is not recognized specifically as
a CARC thinner until 1995. Checks with Fort Eustis determined they preferred the characteristics of
the thinner they were using (A-A-857B); they claimed it performed better in the hot, humid weather
found at Fort Eustis. However, Fort Eustis and Fort Campbell were contacted in 1996 and both
facilities had stopped use of A-A-857B. Based on the telephone survey conducted, 11 of the 13
Army facilities contacted used another thinner (MIL-T-81772) which according to painting
instructions of Department of the Army is the applicable solvent for the CARC used at Fort Eustis
{MIL-C-53039A).
Since aluminum oxide is used as a blasting medium at Fort Eustis to remove CARC, it was
selected for the baseline LCI. It is preferred over other blasting materials for the depainting process
because of its high efficiency and low cost. Aluminum oxide is extremely hard and the crystal
surface is covered with sharp angles, which makes it an ideal blast media for the removal of CARC
from steel surfaces.
Table 2-1. Various CARC, Primers, and Thtnners Used at Major Army Installations
U.S. Army
Installations State
Anniston AL
Army Depot
Corpus TX
Christ! Army
Depot
Fort Banning GA
Fort Bliss TX
Fort Bragg NC
Fort KY
Campbell
Fort Davens MA
Fort Eustis VA
Fort Hood TX
Fort Knox KY
Fort Lewis WA
Red River TX
Army Depot
Fort Riley KS
CARC used
MIL-C- MIL-C- MIL-C-
53039 46168 22750
X X
X XX
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
XXX
X
Primer used
MIL-P- MIL-P- MIL-P-
53022 53030 23377
X
X X
X
X
X
X
XXX
X
X
Thinner used
A-A-857B MIL-T- MIL-T-
6095 81772
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
The products and techniques evaluated for the LCI were:
• CARC: MIL-C-53039A
• Primer: MIL-P-53022
• Thinner: MIL-T-81772
• Blasting Media: Aluminum oxide
• Blasting Technique: high pressure air blasting
• Painting Technique: HVLP spray painting
2-2
-------
Additional limitations in scope were used to streamline the LCI. The study focused on
evaluating the main process reactions and excluded the low concentration ingredients (less than 1
percent) and catalysts used in the process reactions. It was assumed that ingredients used in small
concentrations have small environmental impact in the life cycle.
2.2 LCI Methodology
In developing the LCI, all of the principal ingredients used to produce the final products were
identified. The specific chemicals were identified using Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS)
provided by the manufacturers. Literature research was then conducted to identify the processes
used to make the principal ingredients and to identify the raw materials. This process was repeated
until every raw material was traced back to a fundamental precursor (i.e., one identified as coming
from the earth as an ore or a petroleum product). Appendix A contains process flowsheets for the
production of each of these final products, and Appendix B contains the MSDSs.
Each process was reviewed to determine the process inputs and the outputs. Process inputs
include raw materials, water, and energy (i.e., electrical, natural gas (as fuel3), oil and coal).
Outputs include the end product atmospheric emissions, waterborne waste and solid waste.
Atmospheric emissions are the total for all pollutant types, including criteria pollutants'1 and
hazardous air pollutants (HAP). Solid waste totals include hazardous and non-hazardous waste
streams.
2.3 LCI Data Development
For each manufacturing process in the life cycle, data were required for raw material usage,
utility requirements, and waste generation. Many manufacturers would not divulge information,
because they were suspicious about unsolicited attempts to obtain proprietary process information.
Secondary sources of data, such as industry reports, EPA documents, and magazine articles are
available but vary in quality, completeness and timeliness. In general, chemicals produced in large
quantities tended to have better quality and more complete information. Where primary process
information was missing, streamlining measures were taken, and engineering estimates and
assumptions were made. With this approach, it was possible to develop an "order-of-magnitude"
estimate for the CARC LCI.
A typical search for data began by consulting general reference books on industrial chemical
production processes such as Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology or the
Encyclopedia of Chemical Processing and Design. These sources often provided the necessary
information, such as the process descriptions, raw materials consumption or utilities requirements,
generally in the form of industry averages. The next level of the search involved resources on
particular subjects such as the Handbook of Petrochemicals and Processes, The USEPA 's Industrial
Process Profiles for Environmental Use, or the Environmental Sources and Emissions Handbook.
Again, the data were given in industry averages or averages from a number of monitored plants.
Searches for reports, articles or other sources of information were undertaken in an attempt to
fill remaining gaps in the data. These searches sometimes yielded EPA reports, EPA contracted
reports, or industry trade magazine articles. Information published after 1974 was considered
sufficiently current.
Natural gas used in manufacturing is shown as a raw material, not as an energy input.
Criteria pollutants are volatile organic compounds (VOCs), sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate
matter (PM), inhalable particulate matter (PM,0), carbon monoxide (CO), and lead (Pb).
2-3
-------
2.4 LCI Baseline Revisions and Enhancements
As part of the scoping activity for the LCIA, it was determined that several of the chemical
components in the CARC life cycle described in the draft LCI (Hendricks et al., 1995) could be
revised to fill in missing data or to provide more recent data on the manufacturing processes.
Chemicals identified as most important for collection of additional LCI data were adiponitrile, cobalt
chromite green, hexamethylenediamine, magnesium ferrite, phosgene, sodium cyanide, and sodium
dichromate. Second tier chemicals included butyl acetate, butyl alcohol, and methyl isoamyl ketone.
Additional chemicals derived closely from the crude oil and natural gas refining processes were not
included in this ranked system, because they are part of the crude oil and natural gas extraction and
refining models incorporated into the inventory model. This included aromatic 100, carbon
monoxide, hydrogen, and propane.
Emissions for electrical production, crude oil refining, and natural gas production were taken
from Battelle's LCI databases. The electrical production model calculates the pollutant loadings for
the national electrical grid based on the fractions of power created from coal, hydrocarbons, nuclear,
hydropower, wind, etc. The crude oil and natural gas models included detailed data on many of the
primary refinery chemicals such as hydrogen, propane, aromatic 100, etc.
The next best readily available source for emissions data was to determine manufacturers of the
chemicals of interest in Southern Research Institute's (SRI) (1993) 1993 Directory of Chemical
Producers and cross reference the manufacturer with 1993 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) emission
data. 1993 was the latest year for which both SRI and TRI data were both available. Production
tables were available in the SRI directory for several chemicals of interest to the CARC study, thus
allowing direct calculation of the emission rates per pound of product production.
The chemical producers listed in the SRI directory often produced several chemicals. Specific
plants were selected for their production of only the chemical of interest of a small number of
related products, thus minimizing the need for extensive allocation of the individual TRI facility
emissions. Phosgene and sodium cyanide could be taken directly from the combination of the
SRI/TRI data.
Hydrogen is produced from propane feedstock or as a co-product of chlorine/sodium hydroxide
production. Analysis of the chlorine/sodium hydroxide manufacturing process required allocation of
the emissions on a mass basis, thus allocating only a fraction of the emissions directly to the
hydrogen production.
Adiponitrile and hexamethylenediamine production was more complicated in the selection of a
plant to analyze and calculate the allocation of the emission streams. An analysis was performed on
the SRI data to determine the relevant chemicals to the adiponitrile and hexamethylenediamine
production processes and eliminate the unrelated process streams. TRI reportable releases were
allocated on a mass basis to the appropriate process scheme.
Three of the butylated organic chemicals were analyzed together from the SRI/TRI data due to
the close interlinkage of the processes as butyl aldehyde is a feedstock for the butyl alcohol process
and butyl alcohol is a feedstock for the butyl acetate process with the addition of glacial acetic acid.
The results were compared with the data existing in the model for completeness and consistency.
Several of the chemicals did not have production data to allow for proper emissions allocation on
a per pound basis (e.g., sodium dichromate) and some of the organic chemicals were made in plants
producing such a tremendous variety of chemicals that allocation would require an extensive
understanding of the specific facility (e.g., methyl isoamyl ketone produced by Tennessee Eastman).
2-4
-------
In addition, no emissions data were obtained for the production of isopropyl alcohol and
butylcellosolve. Thus, the LCI data exclude emissions from manufacturing of these four chemicals.
Several chemicals were referenced in the Merck Index (Merck, 1983) and Aldrich Chemical
Company's (Aldrich, 1992) Catalog Handbook of Fine Chemicals to other literature references.
Energy requirements and emissions for the pigments cobalt chromite green and magnesium ferrite
proved difficult. Data obtained could not be fit into the model. Cobalt chromite green was
referenced by Merck (1983) to Gmelin's (1932 and 1961) Handbook of Inorganic Chemistry, printed
in German. The process description indicated that airborne pollutants were the most common, but
did not quantify the individual chemical pollutants which would then pass through various modern
emission control devices.
Chemicals often may be manufactured in several ways. It was assumed the process diagrams
(Appendix A) represented the typical method of manufacture of a given chemical and did not
necessarily represent the documented process for each chemical in the CARC production process.
Whenever possible, this same production methodology was utilized by examining the most common
commercial production method(s). One exception was in the production of hydrogen, which in order
to obtain readily separable data, used a caustic soda production process in which hydrogen is a co-
product rather than the more common hydrocarbon derivation.
2.5 LCI Functional Unit
One of the first requirements during scoping activities for an LCA is the selection of a functional
unit, so that resource use, energy use, and environmental releases from different life-cycle stages, or
for different alternatives, can be expressed in the same units for comparative purposes. For the
draft LCI, the functional unit selected was 1,000 gallons of CARC used. Paint application and
depainting data were developed in units per 1,000 gallons of CARC used, which is slightly less than
CARC produced due to spills and discarded old paint.
As part of the revisions and enhancements to the LCI data, this functional unit was reevaluated.
Since the important requirement for any type of paint is the amount of materials (e.g., primer,
thinner, and topcoat) required to produce a good finish over a specific area, 1,000 square feet (ft2)
was selected as the appropriate functional unit. Thus, quantities of materials required or emissions
released from any process in the CARC life cycle are expressed relative to a functional unit of 1,000
ft2 of painted surface. In the LCImA all alternatives are compared on an equivalent functional unit
basis with adjustments made to the amounts of material, labor, and capital associated with each
option required to paint one functional unit of surface.
2.6 LCI Data
The revised baseline LCI results are provided in Appendix C. The tables in this appendix are
organized by the following inputs and outputs to the CARC life cycle: Resource and Energy
Consumption, Air Emissions, Wastewater Emissions, and Solid Wastes. The totals for each
resource or emission are further divided by (1) Raw Material Extraction plus Materials Manufacture
Stages and (2) Use/Reuse/Maintenance Stage plus Disposal (depainting/painting activities at Fort
Eustis). All data are reported in the quantity per functional unit (1,000 ft2 of CARC painted surface).
These LCI data are the basis for the LCIA and LCImA results.
2-5
-------
-------
3.0 Parameters Evaluated
3.1 Inventory Analysis
The inventory analysis used for the LCI consists of the inventory for the baseline CARC system
and the inventories for each of the five alternatives. The percent compositions of the baseline
topcoat, baseline and alternative primers, and baseline and alternative thinners are listed in Tables 3-
1, 3-2, and 3-3.
Table 3-1. Percent Composition of Baseline CARC Topcoat
CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS
Methyl Isoamyl Ketone
Magnesium Ferrite Pigment
Aromatic Hydrocarbons'8'
Butyl Acetate
VM&P Naptha
Xylene
Cobalt Chromite Green Spinel Pigment
Trivalent Chrome
Hexamethylene Diisocyanate
Diatomaceous Silica Pigment
TOTAL
MIL-C-53039A
(Hentzen 383 Green Zenthane,
08605GUZ-GD)
(%)
23.8
3.9
1.5
1-2
4.8
2.0
3.9
6.9
26.0
26.0
100
Mix of C8s to C10s
3-1
-------
Table 3-2. Percent Composition of Baseline and Alternative Primers
CHEMICAL
CONSTITUENTS
Epoxy resin solids
Proprietary ingredients
Ti02{c)
Extenders (Pigment)(cl
Xylene
n-Butyl Acetate
MIBK
Zinc Phosphate
Diethylenetriamine
2-Ethoxyethanol
n-Butyi Alcohol
Aromatic hydrocarbon
Nitroethane
TOTAL
BASELINE
(Niles(al, 2-part epoxy, solvent thinned)
53022A, 4-partlb)
(%)
22
20
18
26
2
4
8
100
53022B, 1- part
(%)
23
2
11
28
8
11
17
100
ALTERNATIVE
(Deft, 2-part epoxy, water
thinned)
53030A, 4-
part(bl (%)
16.03
0.10
33.96
27.85
10.83
11.26
100
53030B, 1-
part (%)
71.17
0.06
4.13
24.64
100
w Niles does not manufacture Mil-P-53030
w Note: The 4:1 mixture has not been pro-rated
tel MSDS reports 38% proprietary ingredients, which were assumed to be divided between TiO2
and pigment extenders, respectively, as 20% and 18%.
3-2
-------
Table 3-3. Percent Composition of Baseline and Alternative Thinners
CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS
MEK
Hexyl acetate mixed isomers
Isobutyl acetate
Toluene
n-butyl acetate
Xylenes
Aliphatic petroleum distillates
n-butyl alcohol
Isopropyl alcohol
TOTALS
BASELINE
(CSD(al designed for
thinning aircraft coating,
MN-T-81772B) (%)
30.5
41.0
10.5
11
7.0
100
ALTERNATIVE
(CSD designed for thinning dope
and cellulose nitrate lacquer. Fed
Std A-A-857B) (%)
12
31
12
16
11
18
100
(al CSD = Chemical Specialists & Development
As noted from the composition listings, most of the ingredients of the primer and thinner are
qualitatively similar between the baseline and alternative formulations, with the differences arising in
the amounts of each used. Exceptions are the use of nitromethane in the primer and the
substitution of different members of the same class of compound (e.g. isobutyl instead of hexyl
acetate in the thinner). Each of the differences was carried through the inventory analysis by
creating new data modules where necessary or modifying others.
Inventories for each of the alternatives were constructed by modifying the baseline inventory to
account for both differences in the type of ingredients and in the proportions of ingredients in the
alternative primer and thinner as well as the changes in the transfer efficiency associated with the
alternative spray gun. The resulting alternatives are also described below.
In general, preparing the inventory analysis for the alternative primer and thinner options
consisted of a two-step process. The first step consisted of replacing certain data modules in the
baseline inventory with those appropriate to the alternative formulations followed by adjustment of
those modules that were qualitatively similar but proportionately different. In the case of the
options involving the alternative gun, a further adjustment (decrease) was made in the overall
amount of materials used to coat a functional unit area.
The only additional ingredient for which completely new data modules were required for the
alternative primer was nitromethane. The MSDS for the alternative primer also listed aromatic
hydrocarbons in distinction to the xylene shown for the baseline. However, because of the manner
in which the refinery operations producing the aromatics occur, this distinction is not critical for the
inventory. Further commentary on this issue regarding its effect on the impact assessment is
3-3
-------
discussed below. Additional data modules required for the thinner were isobutyl acetate, n-butyl
alcohol, isobutyl alcohol, and aliphatic hydrocarbons. Of these, only the isobutyl acetate and
aliphatic hydrocarbons are not ingredients anywhere in the baseline system. The isobutyl acetate is
produced using the same chemical operations (Oxo process) as the n-butyl acetate in the baseline
primer and therefore employed the same data sources and allocation procedures. Aliphatic
hydrocarbons data were derived from Battelle's refinery module. In general, data necessary for
preparing the inventory of the new chemical ingredients (and their precursors back to the raw
materials) were collected in much the same manner and using primarily the same sources as those
described for the baseline case.
3.2 Environmental Impact/Hazard Assessment
An LCIA (as defined by SETAC, 1993) involves the examination of potential and actual
environmental and human health effects related to the use of resources (energy and materials) and
environmental releases. An LCIA is divided into the following two stages: classification and
characterization. In instances where the purpose of an LCA is the assessment of the current system
(i.e., a baseline analysis) a valuation phase may logically be included in the LCIA (or optionally, as
was done here, may be part of interpretation). Also, a normalization stage, which compares the
contributed potential impact of the system under investigation to the overall environmental problem
magnitude, may be added after characterization to place the system-level results in perspective
relative to the regional, national, or global perspective of the impact. In order to compare the
potential environmental impacts of each alternative with the baseline conditions, an LCIA was
conducted on each alternative in the same fashion as the baseline.
Classification was conducted after scoping and is the process of linking or assigning data from
the LCI (Hendricks et al., 1995) to individual stressor categories within the three major stressor
categories of human health, ecological health, and resource depletion. This process included
creation of complex stressor/impact chains because a single pollutant can have multiple impacts,
and a primary impact can result in secondary (or greater) impacts as one impact results in another
along the cascading impact chain.
Characterization involved the analysis and estimation of the magnitude of impacts for each of
the stressor categories by multiplying equivalency factors times the quantity of a resource or
pollutant associated with a functional unit of CARC. The equivalency analysis approach functions
by converting a larger number of individual inventory items within a homogeneous inventory
category into a single value expressed as an amount of a reference material. The procedure
generally involves multiplying the appropriate equivalency factor by the quantity of a resource or
pollutant associated with a functional unit of CARC and summing over-all of the items in a
classification category. Finally, valuation involved assigning relative values or weights to different
impacts, so they can be integrated across impact categories for use by decision makers. The
valuation method used in this study is known as the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). AHP is a
methodology for supporting decisions based on relative preferences (perceptions of importance) of
pertinent factors. Preferences were expressed pairwise in a structured manner supported by a
software package known as Expert Choice (EC). For the LCImA, the characterization involved the
analysis and estimation of the magnitude of the potential for each CARC system alternative to
contribute to impacts in each of the stressor categories.
Five levels of analysis have been suggested by SETAC for assessing the potential human health
and ecological impacts of chemical releases associated with the life cycle of a product (SETAC,
1993). These five levels of impact analysis in increasing level of complexity, effort, and site-
specificity can be grouped as site-independent or site-dependent. The LCIA approach used in this
report focuses on a combination of the Level 2 and Level 3, site-independent approaches discussed
below:
3-4
-------
• Level 2 - Equivalency Assessment (data aggregated according to equivalency factors for
individual impacts [e.g., ozone-depletion potential or acidification potential]; assumption is
that less of the chemicals with the greatest impact potential is better)
• Level 3 - Toxicity, Persistence, and Bioaccumulation Potential (data are grouped based on
physical, chemical, and toxicological properties of chemicals that determine exposure and
type of effect; assumption is that less of the chemicals with the greatest impact potential is
better).
3.2.1 Classification and Stressor/lmpact Chains
The classification phase involved linking or assigning data from the LCI to individual stressor
categories within the three major stressor categories of human health, ecological health, and
resource depletion. Stressor/impact chains were developed by considering the energy, water, and
raw material inputs to each life-cycle stage, as well as the air, water and solid waste emission
outputs from each life-cycle stage. The inputs and outputs were then compared against lists of
potential impacts (e.g., SET AC, 1993 and Heijungs, 1992a and 1992b), in order to develop
stressor/impact chains.
3.2.2 Characterization
The characterization phase involved a site-independent evaluation of the magnitude of potential
impacts caused by individual stressors. For chemical stressors, this took the form of a Level 2
and/or Level 3 assessment of the physical and chemical properties of each chemical to determine
the potential hazard of that chemical.
For the Level 2 evaluation, a limited subset of the chemicals identified during the LCI had already
been assigned impact equivalency units in published documents. Examples of groups of chemicals
that have been evaluated for impact equivalency include nutrients, global warming gases, ozone
depletion gases, acidification potential chemicals, and photochemical oxidant precursors (Heijungs,
1992a; Nordic Council, 1992).
New impact equivalency units were created for some chemicals identified in the baseline or
alternative LCls, by a modification of the Level 3 Toxicity, Persistence, and Bioaccumulation
Potential Approach, by adapting the hazard ranking approach described in an EPA (1994) report.
This included evaluation of impacts (e.g., toxicity to humans, fish, or wildlife) other than the
impacts evaluated in Level 2, although a few chemicals with multiple impacts were evaluated by
both the Level 2 and 3 approaches. Some data were obtained from the EPA (1994) report, which
described a method for ranking and scoring chemicals by potential human health and environmental
impacts. Toxicity or persistence data for chemicals not included in the EPA (1994) chemical
ranking report were obtained from electronic non-bibliographic databases available through the
Medical Literature and Analysis Retrieval System (MEDLARS) or Chemical Information Systems (CIS)
clearinghouses. The MEDLARS clearinghouse is available through the National Library of Medicine
and contains databases such as Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (RTECS),
Hazardous Substances Databank (HSDB), and Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). The CIS
clearinghouse is available from Chemical Information Systems and contains databases such as
AQUIRE and ENVIROFATE. Toxicity data are available for humans and standard laboratory animals
from IRIS, RTECS, and HSDB. AQUIRE contains data on toxicity of chemicals to aquatic animals.
Evaluation of the magnitude of resource depletion impacts associated with the life-cycle of
CARC started with the resource use inventory information from the LCI (Hendricks et al, 1995).
Resources included in the analysis involved both flow resources, such as water, and stock
resources, such as minerals, primary energy sources (e.g., gas, oil, coal), and land. These impacts
were evaluated from a sustainability (time-metric standpoint), which considers the time to
3-5
-------
exhaustion of the resource. Information on the world reserve base and production of minerals came
from various U.S. Bureau of Mines publications. Information for energy sources came from the
Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy.
3.2.3 Key Assumptions for LCIAs
Key assumptions regarding the LCIAs for the baseline and each alternative include the following:
• Evaluation of the primary impact for a particular impact category is assumed to be a good
indicator of the true impact of concern, which is typically further down the stressor/impact
chain (e.g., an increase in the acid precipitation potential is a good indicator of the loss of
aquatic biodiversity, including sport fishing).
• The generic hazard evaluation criteria discussed in Section 4 are assumed to be useful
indicators of the general impact potential and incorporate some of the factors dictating the
magnitude of site-specific impacts (e.g., the criteria for human, terrestrial, and aquatic
toxicity include consideration of chemical toxicity and persistence). However, the exposure
dose and existing environmental conditions cannot be evaluated without site-specific
modeling.
• The fact that equivalency factor information was not available for a few chemicals (e.g., the
toxicity or persistence of some chemicals were not in the databases searched) is assumed to
have an insignificant impact on comparable impact category scores for each of the
alternatives (i.e., if the information for a particular chemical is missing for the baseline, it
would also be missing for the alternatives).
• The consequences of having a specific compound in the inventory for one alternative (e.g.,
xylene) and a class of compounds (e.g., aromatic hydrocarbons) in another was investigated
using a sensitivity analysis. By evaluating the chemistry of the contributing operation and/or
ingredient group, it was possible to estimate which compound or compounds were likely
members of the category. Data for the selected specific compounds were then substituted
and the impact equivalencies recomputed to assess the overall effect on the comparison.
3.3 Economic Assessment
3.3.7 Methodology
The annualized costs estimated in this analysis were restricted to internal costs (i.e., cost
associated with the Army's depainting and painting operations). These costs were further classified
into direct and indirect costs. Direct costs are closely associated with the depainting and painting
operations and include expenses related to capital expenditures for building, equipment, renovations,
etc., and operating cost such as operating labor, materials, utilities, maintenance, and waste
disposal. Indirect costs are costs which are incurred but might be spread across several facilities on
base and (as was done in this analysis) included in labor overhead. Examples include items such as
regulatory compliance (permitting, reporting, waste handling, waste tracking, training, monitoring
and analysis, emergency preparedness, and medical surveillance), waste storage, insurance,
penalties and fines, and personal injury and property damage liability.
External costs, for items such as the opportunity cost of the landfill where the waste is disposed
(since the site could be put to other uses, some of which might have offered more to society) have
not been included in the analysis. The advantage of this approach is that information on direct and
indirect internal costs were available from the Army, suppliers, and private industry. Restricting the
scope in this manner allowed efforts to be focused on developing data and data analysis.
3-6
-------
The annualized cost to depaint and paint Army vehicles was estimated using a factored estimate
approach. A base case and five alternative cases (Cases 2 through 6) were evaluated (see Table 1-
1). Fort Eustis was selected as the baseline site, so its plant capacity; staffing; and paint, primer,
thinner, and abrasive media usage rates were used to estimate typical costs.
The factored estimate costing procedure (Peters and Timmerhaus, 1991) provides a straight-
forward approach to preparing cost estimates with a medium level of accuracy. Capital costs are
typically accurate within ± 40 percent, and operating costs within ± 30 percent. Preparation of a
more accurate estimate requires development of a detailed design, complete equipment
specification, acquisition of vendor quotes, etc.
Capital Costs
Capital costs were estimated for a facility capable of depainting and painting Army vehicles with
CARC paints. At Fort Eustis, 3,096 gallons (gal) of CARC and 32,000 pounds (Ibs) of aluminum
oxide were used in 1993. The plant flowsheet is shown in Figure 3-1. Capital costs were
estimated for depainting, marking and equipment preparation, primering, and CARC application
operations for a new facility. The primary difference in capital costs for the base case and five
alternatives was use of an expensive, but more effective "Alternative Gun." The turbine-HVLP gun
was capable of significantly higher spray efficiencies (90 percent versus 60 percent level assumed
for the baseline gun).
buildin
1 Receiving
1
i
r^| Cyclone |
blast
media
recycled
>
f
3 exhaust ^ _ ..
I
dust to
hazardous waste
VOC and HAPs
emissions
t
participate
emissions
1
VOC, HAPs, and
paniculate emissions
t
_*.| Depainting | >-\ EqufpmentRep | >> | CARC Application | >. j Shipping |
1
solid waste to
landfill
* 1
solid waste T
waterbome waste
Figure 3-1. CARC application and depainting processes at Fort Eustis (from Hendricks, et al.,
1995).
The factored estimate approach to estimating capital costs starts with purchased equipment.
Each major item included in the design is identified, sized, and costed (using cost files, standard
texts, vendor quotes, recent purchase information) to estimate the total delivered equipment costs.
Then, a series of factors are applied to estimate other costs. The factors depend on the type of
plant proposed, (e.g., the factors differ for a solid-solid handling plant versus a solid-liquid, or liquid-
liquid facility). The factors for solid-solid processing 'were felt most appropriate for CARC depainting
3-7
-------
and painting. The factors were obtained from a standard engineering-economics text that has been
found to provide reasonable estimates of capital costs (Peters and Timmerhaus, 1991).
Operating Costs
Operating costs are composed of the annual costs to operate the depainting and painting
operations. They include raw materials, utilities, labor, supplies, maintenance, plant overhead,
waste disposal, insurance, and regulatory compliance charges. At Fort Eustis, a team of five
operates the depainting facility and a team of eight mans the painting facility. In 1993, 32,000 Ibs
of aluminum oxide abrasive and 3,096 gal of CARC were used to depaint and paint approximately
480 Army vehicles (Hendricks, et a!., 1995; Cavender, et al., 1994).
To estimate operating costs, the quantity of raw materials, utilities, and labor used were
estimated based on the experience at Fort Eustis. The effect of the alternative cases on these usage
rates were also estimated. Appropriate factors were applied to convert the usage rates to annual
costs (i.e., the gallons of CARC used per years were multiplied by the CARC purchase price). Other
charges, such as for maintenance, plant overhead, etc, were estimated using factors (e.g.,
maintenance charges were estimated as a function of the estimated fixed capital investment).
These factors were obtained from the same engineering-economics text (Peters and Timmerhaus,
1991).
Annualized Cost
Annualized costs equal the annual operating cost plus amortization of the fixed capital
investment (FCI). There are many procedures employed to amortize capital costs. The factor used
is usually dependent on the interest rate and time period selected. For this estimate, an annual
charge was applied equivalent to making 12 monthly "mortgage" payments, at 6 percent interest
over a loan life of 11 years to repay the base case FCI or the alternatives FCIs. The total annualized
cost is then computed as:
Operating Cost, $/yr + Amortization, $/yr = Annualized cost, $/yr
This cost was also divided by the annual quantity of CARC painted surface to compute costs on a
$71000 ft2 basis. The annual surface coated (619,000 ft2) was estimated from the 1993 Fort Eustis
CARC paint consumption level of 3,096 gallons and a calculated CARC usage rate of 5 gal/1,000 ft2
(200 ft2/gal).
5.3.2 Evaluated Parameters
Capital Costs
Depainting
A schematic of the depainting booth at Fort Eustis is presented in Figure 3-2. The depainting
building is approximately 24 feet by 36 feet. Operations include receiving the 16-mesh aluminum
oxide grit, feeding it to holding pots, and high-pressure air blasting through a nozzle to remove old
paint and/or rust from steel substrates. Two induced draft fans are employed to transport paint
chips and fine aluminum oxide dust suspended in the air to a series of dust collectors for dust
removal. After the initial blasting, most of the media used is still large enough for reuse. This media
and paint chips, flakes, masking tape, small pieces of debris, etc. are manually swept into floor
grates. Screw conveyors in the grates move the media to a bucket elevator which discharges into a
collection hopper. Media is discharged from the hopper and passed through an air stream. .The
lighter materials are picked up by the air and carried to a cyclone separator to remove the waste
materials. The larger, heavier material drops to a storage hopper for reuse.
3-8
-------
Door
Air
Compressor
contains airborne
participate and
paint chips
Dust
Collector
Exhaust
Stack
Cyclone
Elevator
Door
Figure 3-2. Fort Eustis depainting building (Cavender, et al., 1995).
3-9
-------
The estimated purchased equipment costs for the depainting totaled $75,000 for the screw
conveyor, cyclone, air wash system, platform, building ventilation blower, air compressor,
depainting hoses, nozzles, etc., dust collector, and duct work. The building was estimated
separately based on floor space (30 feet by 50 feet) and building type at $65,000. To these
delivered purchased costs, factors described earlier were applied to estimate the direct cost, indirect
cost, and fixed capital investment.
Painting
After depainting, the vehicles are hand-wiped with thinner to remove grease and dirt. Once
cleaned, the vehicles are hand-masked with tape and paper before being moved into one of two
downdraft painting booths.
In the base case, vehicles are first painted with a two-part epoxy primer (MIL-P-53022). The
primer is composed of 80 percent part A and 20 percent part B, by volume. The primer is thinned
with the base case thinner MIL-T-81772B prior to application. The primer is applied using the base
case spray applicator a HVLP gun. The primed surface is allowed to dry for 2 hours before
application of CARC. Alternative primers, thinners, and spray guns were also evaluated.
A single component CARC (MIL-C-53039A), Hentzen 08605 GUZ-GD, 1-part urethane, is
applied using the base case applicator a HVLP gun. Prior to application the CARC is mixed with
thinner to achieve the desired viscosity and drying time. After painting, the guns and hoses are
cleaned with thinner at the end of each shift. The waste thinner is collected, allowed to settle, and
reused. The collected sludge is disposed as hazardous waste. An alternative gun was also
evaluated. It was assumed that the same type of gun was used for both primer and CARC
application.
The purchased equipment costs for the painting operation totaled $35,000 for the building
ventilation blower, duct work, water-wall collection system, and the dust collectors. The base case
gun (HVLP) capital costs were estimated at two guns at $250 each plus $10,000 for a 30-
horsepower (HP) air compressor and associated painting equipment. The cost for the alternative
gun, a turbine HVLP gun, was $20,000 for four guns and all associated equipment. The difference
in gun cost was the only significant capital cost difference between the baseline case and the five
alternative cases. The building (24 feet by 36 feet) was estimated separately at $37,000. The
factors noted before were applied to estimate FCI. The combined estimated capital cost was
$547,000 for the depainting and painting facilities using the base case HVLP spray applicator, and
$581,000 for the depainting and painting facilities using the alternative gun.
Operating Costs
Numerous assumptions were required to estimate operating costs. Unit costs for raw materials,
utilities, labor, and waste disposal are provided below. The raw materials required and their unit
costs are provided in Table 3-4. The only utility used in significant quantities was electricity. The
unit cost was assumed to be $0.06/kilowatt (kW-hr). A labor rate of $25/man-hr was assumed.
Supervisory labor and plant overhead charges were estimated as separate items using factors
presented earlier.
Disposal costs for waste paint and primer, thinner sludge, etc. were estimated at $500/drum or
$10/gal. Disposal charges for waste painting materials, tape, paper, filters, etc. were estimated at
100 percent of paint and primer waste disposal charges. Spent blasting media disposer costs were
estimated at $0.58/lb (Mayer, 1994).
3-TO
-------
Table 3-4. Raw Material Unit Costs
Item
Topcoat
Base case Primer
Alternative Primer
Base case Thinner
Alternative Thinner
Abrasive
Description
MIL-C-53039A, 1 -part urethane
MIL-P-53022, 2-part epoxy
MIL-P-53030, Deft 2-part epoxy
MIL-T81772B
Fed. Std. A-A-857B
16-mesh aluminum oxide
Price
$36.00/gal
$17.00/gal
$20.33/gal
$15.00/gal
$15.00/gal
$0.25/lb
Reference
Miller, 1994
Miller, 1994
Taylor, 1995
Taylor, 1995
Taylor, 1995
Skillen, 1994
Process Related Assumptions
Assumptions on work load, coating thickness, density, percent solids, coating efficiency, waste,
dilution, coverage rate, work period, depainting rate and abrasive usage were estimated. These
assumptions and information sources are presented in Table 3-5. The required materials for
619,000 ft2 painted (primer and topcoat) per year, based on 190 painting days/year at Ft. Eustis
were:
3,096 gal CARC/yr
• 1,827 gal primer/yr
• 1,627 gal thinner/yr
• 32,970 Ib aluminum oxide abrasive/yr, and
• 73,972 Ib spent abrasive/yr.
Since power and labor were anticipated to be significant cost factors, they were estimated in
detail. Total power requirements were summarized at 94 HP (or HP equivalent) for the following
operations:
• Painting building ventilation
• Painting building lights
• Painting building heating/air conditioning
• Air compressor for painting
• Air compressor for primering
• Depainting building ventilation
• Depainting building lights
• Depainting building heating/air conditioning
• Depainting pneumatic conveying
• Depainting air cleaner blower, and
• Air compressor for depainting blast nozzles.
Use of the alternative gun lowered total power usage to 72 HP. The difference results from the
need to use a 30-HP air compressor for the HVLP spray application gun versus 7.5-HP for the
alternative gun {turbine HVLP gun) (Bunnell, personal communication, 1995).
3-11
-------
Table 3-5. Process Assumptions
Item
Workload
Topcoat with HVLP gun
Topcoat with alternative gun
Bass case primer with HVLP gun
Alternative primer with HVLP gun
Base case primer with alternative gun
Alternative primer with alternative gun
Thinner with topcoat - HVLP gun
Thinner with topcoat and base case or
alternative primer - alternative gun
HVLP gun with topcoat
Alternative gun with topcoat
HVLP gun with primer
Alternative gun - base or alt. primer
Work factor, minutes painting day
Work factor, days painting/year
HVLP gun for topcoat
Alternative gun for topcoat
HVLP gun - base or alternative primer
Alternative gun for base case primer
Alternative gun for alternative primer
Dcpainting
Existing units average paint thickness
Density of old paint
Grit usage
Description | Value
Painting 1 000 ft2/ day
Usage, gal/1 000 ft2
Usage, gal/1 000 ft2
Usage, gal/1 000 ft2
Usage, gal/1 OOO ft2
Usage, gal/1 000 ft2
Usage, gal/1 000 ft2
Usage, gal/1 000 ft2
Usage, gal/1 000 ft2
Coverage, ft2 topcoat/min
Coverage, ft2 topcoat/min
Coverage, ft2 primer/min
Coverage, ft2 primer/min
Painting min/day
Painting day/yr
Guns required to paint
1 000 ft2 topcoat/day
Guns required to paint
1000 ft2 topcoat/day
Guns required to apply
primer 1 000 ft2/day
Guns required to apply'
primer 1000 ft2 /day
Guns required to apply
primer 1000 ft2 /day
Depainting rate, ft2/™ in
Thickness, mil paint
removed
Density, Ib/gal
Required grit, Ib/lb paint
removed
3.26 1000-ft2
units/day
5. 00 gal/1 000 ft2
3.66 gal/1 000 ft2
2.50 gal/1 000 ft2
2.50 gal/1 000 ft2
1 .805 gal/ 1 000 ft2
1 .805 gal/ 1 000 ft2
1 .625 gal/ 1 000 ft2
1.625 gal/ 1000ft2
2.0 ft2/min
3.0 ft2/min
2.0 ftVmin
3.0ftz/min
3,260 min/day
1 90.0 days/yr
0.2/1 000 ft2/day
0.1 3/1 000 ft2 /day
0.2/1 000 ft2/day
0.1 3/1 000 ft2 /day
0.10/1000 ft2 /day
1.1 ft2/min
6.9 mil
77.0 Ib/ft3
0.76 Ib/lb paint
removed
Reference
Estimated based on LCI'"'
3,096 gal CARC used/yr
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
(K. Taylor, Battelle,
personal experience)
Calculated
(K. Taylor, Battelle,
personal experience)
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
(Skillen, 1994, p 26)
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated from LCI°
*•' Hendricksetal. (1995)
*» Cavenderet al. (1994)
3-12
-------
Base case .labor requirements were estimated at 110 man-hr/day for the 3,260 ft2 of topcoat
applied each working day at Fort Eustis. The rates by application were:
• Depainting (pre-strip preparation, depainting, post strip completion inspection and clean-up):
41 hours
• Primering (thin primer with thinner, preprimering preparation, apply primer, post primer
application inspection and cleaning): 44 hours
• Topcoat (thin topcoat with thinner, apply top coat using HVLP gun, post topcoat application
inspection and clean-up): 24 hours
This was reduced to an estimated 96 hours when the more efficient alternative gun was
employed. Depainting time naturally stayed the same (41 hours), but preparation and primering
dropped to 38 hours and topcoat application, inspection, and cleanup dropped to 17 hours.
3.4 Performance Assessment
The major technology driver for advances in coatings and in application equipment is the
reduction of emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Coatings are currently being
formulated that either reduce the level of solvent in the coating (high solids), eliminate the use of
solvents (powder coating, 100% reactive-UV curable) or use water as a solvent or co-solvent
(waterborne, waterthinned). The application equipment manufacturers are working with coatings
manufacturers to allow the use of these reduced VOC coatings. High-solids systems require
increased nozzle pressures to provide atomization of the high viscosity materials. Powders coatings
require the use of electrostatic equipment which electrically charges the powder to provide an
attractive force between the powder and the substrate. Waterborne coatings require the use of
stainless systems to prevent corrosion.
At this time there is only one military specification (Mil-C-53039) approved for use as a CARC
topcoat for the exterior of vehicles. This is a one-component, moisture-cured, solvent-based
polyurethane. High-solids, water-based, and 100% reactive systems are currently being
investigated. However, none of these systems are expected to receive approval in the short term
according to personnel at Fort Belvoir (U. S. Army Coatings Research Facility) (Duncan, personal
communication, 1995). Primers are limited to two military specifications (Mil-P-53022 and Mil-P-
53030). Both system are two component epoxy-amine systems. Mil-P-53030 is a water-thinnable
formulation.
Other formulations may exist that provide all of the necessary performance characteristics
obtained from the currently used systems. However, without available supporting data, these
systems can not be explored within the scope of this program.
3.4.1 Application Equipment
Electrostatic guns and HVLP guns are the two most commonly used market advances.
Electrostatic guns charge atomized paint particles and use the attractive force of a grounded target
to attract and hold the coating particle. This reduces both the amount of bounceback and
overspray. Bounceback is due to high momentum particles not having enough attractive force upon
impacting a target to inhibit the particle from bouncing off the target. Overspray is due to the
turbulence involved in forcing a coating through a gun path toward a target. Both bounceback and
overspray are reduced because the attractive force of the target allows for reduced forward pressure
from the guns. The HVLP guns reduce the pressure or force on the particles, which reduces the
amount of bounceback. However, HVLP guns often require a conversion zone which changes high
pressure air into large volumes of low pressure which influences the amount of turbulence and the
amount of overspray.
3-13
-------
Transfer efficiency is the defining value of the ability of application equipment to minimize
overspray and bounceback. Transfer efficiency is measured,as the amount of coating that is applied
to the surface over the total amount sprayed. Higher transfer efficiencies result in use of less
material and thus less VOC release. ,
While manufacturers strive for increases in transfer efficiencies, the equipment must also
continue to impart a quality coating on the target surface. The surface characteristics of the applied
film are directly related to the atomization, and velocity of the applied coating particles. The effect
of varying levels of atomization and velocities on proper film formation are reviewed in available
literature, but will not be discussed in this review. The equipment must also allow for coating at a
range of film thicknesses and coverage areas similar to that available from conventional application
equipment.
5.4.2 Primers
Primers serve two basic functions which are corrosion protection and as tie layers which aid
adhesion of topcoats. The area of corrosion is complex and will not be covered in detail in this
discussion, as much literature is available on the subject (Wicks, 1987). However, in general the
most common driver is electrochemical corrosion. Electrochemical corrosion is in turn a function of,
but not limited to, the following: the type of metals involved, the environmental conditions present
including humidity and salt levels, and mechanical stress found in the metal structure.
Adhesion is affected by both the materials used and the condition of the substrate. Most
primers considered for use under CARC topcoats on steel consist of two-component, amine-cured,
epoxy systems. The amine component is used because of strong hydrogen bonding that occurs
with oxides formed on the steel surface. Epoxy-amine systems have been traditionally viewed as
having excellent adhesion and hardness. However, they do not have the required environmental and
chemical exposure resistance needed to be used as an external CARC topcoat. Therefore, these
primers must also be reviewed in terms of the adhesive strength between the primer and a more
environmentally durable polyurethane topcoat.
The condition of the substrate is important, because small levels of contaminates such as oils
and greases can dramatically reduce the bonding of the primer. Systems with the greatest adhesion
are often less dependent upon absolute cleanliness of the substrate and are therefore less
susceptible to oversights in surface cleaning.
An additional performance related factor that can be included toward the selection of a primer is
the ease of use of the primers. Two component systems require the blending of a base and a
catalyst which initiates immediate crosslinking, which in turn results in increases in viscosity.
Therefore, the systems must be applied before the reaction of the two components increases the
viscosity beyond application limits. This rate of reaction is reported as the cure rate and is often
more simply expressed in terms of a system's "pot life". "Pot life" is generally defined as the
amount of time elapsed after initial mixing before the viscosity of the system doubles. The ease of
cleanup of the primers can also be considered. Systems that require extensive use of solvents to
clean gun lines require more effort than those that can be cleaned using water.
3.4.3 TMnners
There are three major factors associated with the selection of a solvent or thinner. The first is
the solubility of the solute (i.e., the paint and/or resin) by the solvent. This factor is based on the
compatibility of the solute and the solvent, which is demonstrated as the ability of the solute and
the solvent to form a homogenous solution and it is often referred to in terms of the solubility
parameter. The second factor is the viscosity reduction introduced by the addition of the solvent.
The first two factors are related as the solvency of the thinner. Solvency is generally dominated by
3-14
-------
the viscosity of the solvent when low concentrations of resin are present. When higher
concentrations of resin are introduced, then the solubility factor dominates the overall viscosity.
However, the amount of thinner required to thin the paint and or primer are more commonly
considered by end users than the individual contributions of solvency. The final factor is the
evaporation rate of the resin and its affect on film formation. "If solvent evaporation is too fast, the
film will not level nor wet the substrate well enough for good adhesion. If the solvent evaporation is
too slow, the film will sag and perhaps become too thin. If solvent composition changes during
evaporation, precipitation of the resin can occur, and the film will have no integrity" (Ellis, 1986). It
is the effect of the evaporation rate on the film forming characteristics of the coating that are of
primary concern and of which the most informative data can be obtained.
One additional factor that can also be considered is the level of purity of the thinners. Thinners
with significant levels of contaminates such as water or solid particulates can affect the film
characteristics of the coating.
3.4.4 Application Equipment Evaluation Parameters
Surface quality and transfer efficiency were selected as the two evaluation parameters. The
ability of the application equipment to provide sufficient atomization and desired thickness levels and
coverage areas were not chosen as evaluation parameters due to information provided by equipment
manufacturers stating that these issues could be ignored assuming the proper selection of nozzles
and tips.
Surface Quality
The ability of the application equipment to effectively apply CARC was ranked according to the
surface quality of the applied coating. An acceptable finish is one with no. visible application
induced surface blemishes (e.g., orange peel, blistering). Data were obtained from published
literature. Results were ranked in terms of acceptable and not acceptable, as follows:
2: Acceptable: No visible application induced surface blemishes
1: Not Acceptable: Noticeable surface blemishes requiring significant reformulation efforts
such as addition of thinners, or surfactants.
Transfer Efficiency
Transfer efficiency (TE) was rated by definition as the percentage of paint applied to the target
divided by the total paint sprayed. Data were obtained from published literature and
communications with users. Results were reported from 0-100 percent, and were ranked as
follows:
4: TE for alternative > 20% + TE for baseline
3: TE for alternative >( 10% to 20%) + TE for baseline
2: TE for alternative > (0% to 10%) + TE for baseline
1: TE for alternative < TE for baseline
The evaluation parameters Surface Quality and TE are weighted 2-1, respectively.
3.4.5 Primer Evaluation Parameters
The two major issues of primers are corrosion inhibition and adhesion. Cure rate was also
identified as a possible selection parameter in the methodology section. Unfortunately, a lack of
data for primers is available in terms of corrosion inhibition. However, as stated in the assumptions,
the reviewed primers have all met military specification approval and thus are assumed to provide
sufficient corrosion inhibition.
3-15
-------
Adhesion is reviewed,in terms of the level of cleaning of the substrate required for acceptable
adhesion. Adhesion of the primer and the topcoat can also be affected by changes in environmental
conditions and will thus be reviewed separately. Cure rate and ease of cleanup will be reviewed in
respect to the impact on the painting schedule and the level of effort required.
Effect of Temperature and Humidity
Adhesion of the primer to the substrate and also the adhesion of the topcoat to the primer can
be affected by differences in environmental conditions. Data were obtained from personal
interviews with users. The level of impact of changes in temperature and humidity were reviewed,
and the effect of each criterion was ranked according to the following scale:
Changes in humidity and temperature have:
4: No observable impact
3: Minimal impact not seen as having practical significance
2: Noticeable impact
1: Critical impact
Cure Rate
The rate of viscosity increase can induce limitations on the amount of primer that can be mixed
at a given time if the cure rate is too fast. This results in an increase in time spent preparing the
primer and also in maintaining flow in the application lines. Cure rates that are too slow can result
in increased down time due to required waiting periods between coats.
The impact of the primer cure rate was reviewed. Data were obtained from personal interviews
with users. Results were reported in terms of the following scale:
4: Cure rate had no effect on the painting schedule
3: Cure rate had minimal effect on the painting schedule
2: Cure rate had dramatic effect on the painting schedule
1: Cure rate had unacceptable effect on the painting schedule
Surface Pretreatment Requirements ,
The level of cleaning of the surface to be coated with primer was reviewed. Data were obtained
from personal interviews with users. Results were reported in terms of the following scale:
4: ho cleaning was required
3: minimal cleaning with dry rag required
2: minimal cleaning with solvent rag required • *
1: repeated cleaning with solvent rag required
Ease of Cleanup of the Primer
Primers were ranked in terms of ease of cleanup. Those that are easily thinned increase the
ease of cleanup, which results in a decrease in time spent and in the use solvents. Data were
obtained from personal interviews with users. Results were reported in terms of the following scale:
4: no effort required for cleanup
3: minimal effort required for cleanup
2: moderate effort required for cleanup
1: extreme effort required for cleanup
3-16
-------
The evaluation parameters Effect of Temperature and Humidity, Cure Rate, Surface Pretreatment
Requirements, and Ease of Cleanup of the Primer Changes are weighted 3-1-1-1, respectively.
3.4.6 Thinner Evaluation Parameters
Thinning Ratio or Thinner Effectiveness
Thinners were evaluated based on the percentage of thinner needed to dilute CARC to within
sprayable viscosity limits. Data were obtained from personal interviews with users. Results were
ranked as follows:
4: Thinning ratio for alternative >
3: Thinning ratio for alternative >
2: Thinning ratio for alternative >
1: Thinning ratio for alternative >
Thus, the score for the baseline is 2.
(50%) reduction
(25% to 50%) reduction
(0% to 25%) reduction or no change
(0% to 25%) increase
Film Characteristics
Thinners were also ranked according to the ability of the thinner to provide an acceptable finish.
Thinners that evaporate too slowly or too quickly can cause undesirable surface defects such as
sagging or running and blushing, popping, and orange peel. Data were obtained from personal
interviews with users. Results were reported in terms of level of surface flaws as follows:
4: No noticeable blemishes
3: Minimal blemishes not believed significant
2: Noticeable blemishes bordering acceptability
1: Unacceptable level of blemishes
The evaluation parameters Thinning Ratio or Thinner Effectiveness and Film Characteristics are
weighted equally.
3.5 Valuation Procedure
Finally, as noted above, valuation involves assigning relative values or weights to different
impacts, so they can be integrated across impact categories for use by decision makers. It should
be recognized that this is largely a subjective process, albeit one that is informed by knowledge of
the nature of the issues involved. The valuation method used in this study is known as the
Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). AHP is a recognized methodology for supporting decisions
based on relative preferences (importance) of pertinent factors (Saaty, 1990).
The AHP process involves a structured description of the hierarchical relationships among the
problem elements, beginning with an overall goal statement and working down the branches of the
tree through the major and minor decision criteria. Once the decision tree is defined, the actual
assignment of the weight factors occurs. In this study, the assignment of weights was done as a
group exercise. The advantages of the AHP method include its structured nature and the fact that
the valuation process does not deal with the entire set of criteria at one time, an effort that would
be overwhelming. Rather, preferences are expressed by the team in a pair-wise manner supported
by a software package known as Expert Choice™ (EC). The four member team was asked to reach a
consensus on the weight factors prior to their being entered into the model. Although divergences
of preference could in principle be retained as separate sets of criteria, it was felt that for this
application, a single internally consistent process would lead to clearer understanding of how the
implementation of the results should proceed.
3-17
-------
One of the key assumptions in applying the AHP method is that the environmental, cost, and
performance perspectives of the four Battelle staff conducting the AHP to determine the assignment
of weighting values for comparison of different impact criteria are assumed to be a reasonably good
cross section of the views held by similar stakeholders in the decision process. Because the four
staff included one cost engineer, one paints/coatings specialist, a civil engineer and an ecologist, we
believe that the mix (and the resulting weights) are reasonable. Facility/production engineers and
other "non-environmental" staff within the Army, however, may have derived somewhat different
weight values.
3-18
-------
4.0 Description and Screening of Improvement Options
4.1 Alternatives Identified/Selected
The scoping process conducted for the baseline and alternatives was designed to identify
candidate improvement options that could be evaluated and implemented with a moderate amount
of effort and within a reasonable timeframe. It was therefore determined that options requiring large
changes in technology or overcoming major institutional barriers, for example, a modification to the
MIL-SPEC, a significant change in Army purchasing practices, or a major capital acquisition, would
not be included in the suite of candidate systems even though these might, in the long run, be very
much better environmentally than those considered. The five alternatives selected (see Table 1-1)
represent a mix of evolutionary, directional changes in paints and technology that individually and in
combination represent an incremental improvement potential in the areas most directly affecting the
environmental profile as determined by the baseline analysis.
Three of the alternatives consider the use of an alternative primer consisting of a water-thinned
rather than a solvent-thinned formulation. Although primarily expected to reduce VOC releases
during the painting operation, this substitution also offers potential changes in the entire life-cycle of
the primer manufacture, use, and disposal. This alternative material is also combined with an
alternative thinner in one scenario and with an alternative spray gun in another. The alternative
thinner would be anticipated to offer further directional improvements in chemical emissions and the
alternative gun application of both more paint on the surface as well as greater labor efficiency.
Finally, the alternative thinner and gun systems can be used independently of the alternative primer,
although any additive benefits (or costs) would not occur. The following section presents and
discusses the factors comprising the improvement assessment process in each of the three target
assessment areas.
4.2 Environmental Impact/Hazard Classification
Based on a scoping process using the LCI data that was revised and updated for the baseline
and alternatives, and a review of stressor/impact chains for all resources used, and environmental
releases from, the entire CARC life cycle, nine major environmental impact categories were selected
for the streamlined LCIA described in this report. These nine impact categories include:
• photochemical oxidant creation potential (POCP; also called smog formation potential),
• ozone depletion potential (OOP; stratospheric ozone depletion),
• acidification potential (AP; acid rain/fog),
• global warming potential (GWP; also called greenhouse effect potential),
• human health inhalation toxicity (acute inhalation toxicity),
• terrestrial toxicity (acute oral wildlife toxicity),
• aquatic toxicity (acute fish toxicity),
• land use (for solid waste disposal), and
• natural resource depletion (including fossil fuels and minerals).
Stressor/impact networks for these nine major impacts are shown in Table 4-1. This table
shows the secondary, tertiary, and quaternary impacts that can result from the primary impact used
4-1
-------
in the impact equivalency calculations. Thus, impacts to human health can result from several of
these major impact categories (e.g., inhalation toxicity, smog formation, and ozone depletion). The
potential for both positive and negative impacts were viewed from a global perspective. For
example, global warming may increase food production in some areas (e.g., cold climates) and
decrease food production in other areas (e.g., warm climates). Where the global net difference in
positive and negative change for a single impact criterion was not clear, both types of impacts were
listed for that criterion. Although other minor impacts are associated with the CARC life cycle,
these major impact categories were expected to show significant differences between the
alternatives to the base case selected for this LCImA. Many of the impacts selected for analysis
were also identified in a document by Inform, Inc. titled "Stirring Up Innovation: Environmental
Improvements in Paints and Adhesives" (Young et al., 1994). The Inform study was conducted
with the cooperation of major paint manufacturing companies.
Table 4-1. Stressor/lmpact Networks for Impacts of Primary Concern in CARC Life Cycle
CO,
Carbon
totrachtoride
Trichloroethane
SO,
NO,
Ammonia
Hydrochloric acid
VOCs
Acotaldehyde
Toluene
Benzene
n-Butane
n-Octana
n-Butyl Acetate
Chloroform
etc.
Global warming
Acid rain/fog
Ground-level ozone
(smog) creaton by
photochemical
oxidants
Polar melt
Soil moisture loss
Longer season
Forest loss/change
Change in wind and
ocean patterns
Building corrosion
Water quality
(acidification)
Vegetation effects
j
Soil effects
Decreased visibility
Eye irritation
Respiratory tract
problems and lung
irritation
Vegetation damage
Tertiary Impact
Flooding/land loss
Lower food production
More food production
Decreases biodiversity
and forest production
Loss of infrastructure,
loss of heritage
resouces
Decreased aquatic biota
reproduction and
populations
Agricultrual and
terrestrial productivity
effects
Vegetation effects
Morbidity
Decreased agricultural /
terrestrial productivity
Quaternary Impact
Decreased
biodiversity,
decreased
recreational and
commercial fishing,
decrease in water
birds
Agricultural and
terrestrial
productivity effects
4-2
-------
Table 4-1. Stressor/lmpact Networks for Impacts of Primary Concern in CARC Life Cycle (continued)
Stressors
Ammonia
Fluorine
Xylene
Chlorine
Vinyl Chloride
Phenol
CO, etc.
Heavy Metals
(Arsenic, cadmium.
chromium.
mercury)
Ammonia
Benzene
Hydrochloric acid
Phenol
Sulfuric acid, etc.
Coal use
Iron ore use
Magnsium ore use
Petroleum use
Thallium use
Titanium use
Water use
Zinc use, etc.
Heavy Metals
(Arsenic, cadmium.
chromium, lead)
Formaldehyde
Sulfuric acid
Hydrogen cyanide
Carbon
tetrachloride
Trichloroethane
Bottom ash
FGD solids
Fly ash
Hazardous waste
Plutonium
Slag
Solid waste
Uranium
Primary Impact
Human health and
inhalation toxicity
Aquatic biota toxicity
Resource depletion
Terrestrial animal
toxicity
Stratospheric ozone
depletion
Land use for disposal
Secondary Impact
Morbidity or mortality
Decreased aquatic
plant and insect
production and
biodiversity
Resources unavailable
for future generations
Decreased production
and biodiversity
Increased ultraviolet
radiation penetration
of Earth's atmosphere
Loss of terrestrial
habitat for wildlife
Decreased landfill
space
Tertiary Impact
Decreased commercial
or recreational fishing
Decreased wildlife for
hunting or viewing
Increased incidence of
human skin cancer and
ecosystem effects
Quaternary Impact
In order to combine data on individual chemicals or resources within an impact category, it was
necessary to select existing, or develop new, impact equivalency factors as recommended by
SETAC (1993) for a Level 2/3 LCIA. The equivalency factors for each impact category are listed in
Table 4-2. The equivalency factors for POCP, AP, GWP, and OOP were taken from Heijungs et al.
(1992b); the derivation of these factors is described in a companion document (Heijungs et al.,
1992a). The general approach for calculation of equivalency factors for the three toxicity impact
criteria was modified from an EPA (1994) document prepared by the University of Tennessee.
Details for determining the equivalency factors for the three toxicity criteria, land use, and resource
depletion are discussed below.
4-3
-------
LU
*F
§5
V) OL
;y
•a
u
CM
i
n
d
IALDEHYDES
ALIPHATIC PETROLEUM DISTILATEJ
o
0
CO
ri
ALUMINUM
in
CO
to
o
CO*
in
en
CO
AMMONIA
z
D
0
S
lAROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (C8-C1
o
o"
AROMATIC SOLVENT
n
o'
o
b
C
LU
CO
TT
X
m
3
0
Z
g
o
BENZENE
o
•z.
o
cc.
d
CM
BOTTOM ASH
in
,-
o
u
^
CD
£
in
o
o
tv.
u
1
m
o
CO
CO
n
o
BUTYL ACETATE(n-)
o
CO
CD'
in
CO
o
8
o
IBUTYL ALCOHOL (BUTANOL)
s
CO
CM
M
Ul
C
W
C
I
o
m
r
5
«
CM
r-
LL
X
u
LL
m
in
CM
CO
CO
CO
o
M
in
CM
CM
ICADMIUM
CM
JT-
8
0
o
o
m
o
ICARBON TETRACHLORIDE
*
LL
5
5
in
CM
CM
o
m
o
CM
CM
Ul
z
a
5
o
n
CO
CD
CO
n
CM
§
o
CHLOROFORM
CM
CHROME OXIDE
o'
CO
CM
CO
a
ICHROMIUM. TRIVALENT
s
0
o
z
-
S
o
CO
n
CO
CO
d
CM
COBALT COMPOUNDS
CO
COBALT OXIDE
o
CO
M
0
COPPER COMPOUNDS
csi
in
to
CUMENE
Z
CYCLOPARAFFINS, C-7
z
CYCLOPARAFFINS, C-8
r
to
CO
o
o
3
5
0
LU
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHAh
N
iri
IDIETHEYLENETRIAMINE
•
i
o
ETHANE
to
CO
to
to
CO
in
o
ETHYL BENZENE
o
LU
Q
cr
C
i
o
o
u.
LL
Ul
CO
CO
CM
CO
ETHYLENE DICHLORIDE
CM
FGD SOLIDS
CM
FLY ASH
i
FLUORINE
CO
M
CO
in
FORMALDEHYDE
CM
HAZARDOUS WASTE
!
{
«
HEAVY AROMATIC
" ~
1
a>
o
en
CJ
in
| HEPTANE (n-)
-------
O
OTIO
IIS
_,
: X!2
!O
O
M
in
•*r
II
!o
!§
o
LJJ
: 01
o
00
•z
j£
Q
O
O
cS
EIS
O t
CO
O
i IU
• 2
:&
: a:
a
E
i O
i O
4-5
-------
Tl
cu
_c
*3
§
U
§
3
O
v>
00
CO
O
I
I
I
CO
u.
J
CO
I
CO
o
E
5
3
SOURCE 1
LU
0£
a
3
AQUATIC
1
or
u
—
INHALATION
X
PLETIONI
UI
a
in
W
TOXICITY
u
O
*-
TOXICITY
L
o
a.
^
a.
§
'
a.
in
8!
"•1
,
»
IT
i
Ull
SI
il
UJI-J
x;o
O'CO
il
) CQ
*
LI
E
_ i
eoi
in
CO
SULFURICACID
SULFUR DIOXIDE
SI
1
CO
TITANIUM DIOXIDE
o
o
CO
CO
in
o
ID
PI
0
CD
iri
§
0
,_
8
o*
„
g
n
5
o
T
TRICHLOROETHANE (MET
CO
2
0
URANIUM (235. 236, 23
o
i^-
s
co'
VINYL CHLORIDE
I
^
o
o
I
Z
5
K
LI
i
CN
CD"
o
CN
0)
TT
CO
o
IXYLENE
,
CO
8
o
0
FJ
S
0)
0)
JZ
t?
8
p
0)
.
ra
Q.
p
CO
•5
y
5
u
0>
ro
w
al
,
* POCP average is fo
>,
o
r* Applies to air emissic
•n
F
0)
o
E
'
{-)
»~
o
k.
n
0
>s
0
c
s
*** Applies to air emissi
-------
Equivalency factors for human health inhalation toxicity, terrestrial toxicity, and aquatic toxicity
used in this LCIA incorporate both toxicity and persistence information (EPA, 1994) as
recommended by SETAC (1993) for a Level 3 LCIA. The toxicity data used for each of these three
impact criteria were as follows:
• human health inhalation toxicity - use the lowest rodent concentration lethal to 50% (LC50)
of exposed animals in parts per million (ppm) experimental or structured-activity relationship
(SAR) value and convert to a 4-hr acute test basis,
• terrestrial toxicity - use the lowest rodent dose lethal to 50% (LD50) of exposed animals in
millligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) experimental or SAR value, and
• aquatic toxicity - use the lowest fish LC50 in milligrams per liter (mg/l) experimental or
quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) value for a 96-hr test.
In each case, the log of the toxicity data was used to establish a toxicity hazard value (HV).
The HV was given a 0 or 5, respectively, if it was above or below a threshold value, as indicated in
the EPA (1994) chemical ranking document. The HVs for toxicity data between these threshold
values were determined from the formulas indicated in the EPA (1994) document. A similar
approach was used to obtain the following three measures of persistence: biological oxygen
demand (BOD) half-life, hydrolysis half-life, and bioconcentration factor (BCF). The natural log (In)
of the BOD and hydrolysis half-lives and the log of the BCF were used with the formulas in the EPA
(1994) document to develop HVs from 1 to 2.5. The final equivalency factor for a chemical was
based on the formula:
Equivalency Factor = (toxicity HV)(BOD HV + hydrolysis HV + BCF HV)
Thus, the maximum equivalency factor any chemical could have is (5) (2.5 + 2.5 + 2.5) = 37.5.
The equivalency factor for land use was the estimated density of each type of solid waste.
Since the LCI data for solid wastes are expressed as weight/functional unit, multiplication of the
weight and density gives an indication of the waste volume, and thus, the landfill volume required.
The equivalency factor for resource depletion was sustainability, which can be expressed as the
world reserve base of a mineral or fossil fuel divided by the world annual production. The minerals
information was obtained from the 1992 Minerals Yearbook: Volume I, Metals and Minerals (U.S.
Bureau of Mines, 1992) or from more recent Minerals Commodity Summaries for individual minerals
(U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1995a, 1995b, 1995c, 1995d, 1995e, 1995f, 1995g, 1995h, 1995i,
1995J, 1995k). The fuel data was based on U.S. reserves and production, and was obtained from
the Energy Information Administration's Annual Energy Review for 1992 (U.S. Department of
Energy, 1993). The sustainability value in years for a mineral or fuel was given an equivalency
score of 1 to 5 based on the following scoring ranges:
Equivalency
Score
5
4
3
2
1
Sustainability Scoring Ranges (years)
< 5
5-49
50-499
500-999
;> 1,000
It should be noted that these scores do not take into account potential technological
advancements for economically locating or mining natural resource deposits not currently included in'
the reserve base. Also, the scores do not consider the influence of increased recycling on
4-7
-------
decreasing the demand for remaining reserves (e.g., aluminum recycling reducing the demand for
bauxite).
4.3 Economic Assessment
The economic assessment is based on calculation of the cost in dollars for depainting and
painting one functional unit (1,000 ft2) at Fort Eustis. The baseline case and the five alternative
cases are evaluated. In addition to capital costs the annualized costs (consisting of the annual
operating cost and amortization of the capital costs) are assessed. The primary cost components of
the annualized costs are as follows:
• Raw Materials (includes topcoat, primer, thinner, and depainting abrasive)
• Utilities (electricity)
• Labor (operating, maintenance, and supervision)
* Operating Supplies
• Maintenance Supplies
• Laboratory Charges
• Plant Overhead
• Waste Disposal
• Insurance
• Regulatory Compliance
• Annual Operating Cost, and
• Capital Amortization.
4.4 Performance Assessment
In this section, all performance evaluation parameters (see Section 3) have been assigned a
ranking system to discriminate between noticeable changes in performance. However, each ranking
can include a range of performances. Since the baseline components discussed in this report will be
compared to their alternatives in a subsequent report, it is likely that one of the baseline components
and an alternative may be viewed to be alike in terms of practical considerations, and thus would fall
within a given ranking. In this situation, if one system is believed to be slightly different, written
descriptions will be used to describe the subtle differences. These descriptions have not been
incorporated into the rankings discussed below.
Each set of evaluation parameters for application equipment, primers, or thinners was weighted
in terms of importance. Therefore, a set that is weighted 2-1 would require a change of two ranking
categories in the latter evaluation parameter to equal one change of rank in the higher weighted
evaluation parameter.
4.4.1 Application Equipment
Initially, the selection of application equipment that does not require thinning of the CARC
topcoat was thought to provide the best potential for improvements in reducing emissions without
affecting performance. It was theorized that selection of application equipment that uses higher,
atomization pressure could reduce or eliminate the need for thinning of the CARC topcoat. It was
assumed that some loss in transfer efficiency might occur, but that this would be offset by the
elimination or reduction in thinner usage.
Unfortunately, due to the nature of the topcoat and its method of curing, the degree of thinning
required is very dependent upon the environmental conditions in which the topcoat is applied. The
topcoat cures upon exposure to airborne moisture. Therefore, under high humidity conditions an
opened can of topcoat might cure to a solid block overnight. This rapid cure resulted in a wide
variety of opinions as to the level of thinning required. While some application equipment
manufacturers (Seffick, 1995) and some users believe that it is possible to apply the CARC topcoat
4-8
-------
without thinning, an equal number of opposing opinions were also found. At this time, no
supporting literature has been found that can detail the techniques and equipment required to spray
without thinning.
A second area of investigation was the use of improved housekeeping techniques. These
techniques included using a gun cleaning bath that recycles solvents for multiple uses. Another
technique would be the use of an inert gas "blanket" for purging moisture laden air from the topcoat
cans to reduce the cure reaction in the can. This would increase the shelf-life of the topcoat and
reduce the amount of thinner needed to maintain spraying viscosity. These alternatives were also
eliminated due to a lack of information on the effectiveness of each technique.
The third and selected alternative was to reduce the amount of overspray by changing the
application equipment. Electrostatic equipment was eliminated because of its inability to coat non-
conductive surfaces. Therefore, it would be unable to coat the polymer sections of targets which
are generally the most susceptible to chemical agent exposure.
There is a large pool of HVLP spraying equipment that shows a wide range of values of transfer
efficiency. The turbine-powered Can-am system was chosen for analysis. This equipment was
independently analyzed (Hughes Aircraft Company, 1991 as reported in Cavendar et al., 1994)
against several other HVLP systems so side-by-side comparative information was available. This
system is also currently used at several bases so additional user opinions could be obtained. The
equipment uses a patented turbine technology to provide high volume low pressure air instead of
the traditional method of using normal compressed air which passes through a conversion zone
which in turn converts high pressure low volume air into HVLP. The turbine system thus reduces
the amount of turbulence which decreases the amount of overspray. Bounceback of both HVLP
technologies is minimal due to the low pressures involved.
4.4.2 Primers
Primer alternatives were limited to either selection of primers that fall within the same military
specification (Mil-P-53022), but are made by alternative manufacturers, or to selection of a primer
that falls within the only accepted alternative military specification (Mil-P-53030). Primers used for
other materials were not considered because the information regarding adhesion to CARC topcoats
would not be available. Due to the similarity of constituents used by different manufacturers when
creating a primer for a given specification, it was decided that a review of the alternative
specification would provide more substantial opportunity for improvement.
The alternative and the baseline are epoxy-polyamide systems. However, the alternative is
water thinnable while the baseline can only be solvent thinned. While both primers do not generally
require thinning for application, the baseline does require the use of a solvent for cleanup. The
alternative can be cleaned with water. Unfortunately, the levels of solvent used for cleaning are not
tracked as closely as those for thinning. Therefore, engineering judgements had to be made as to
the level of reductions obtainable from the elimination of solvents for thinning. Since both systems
have obtained military specification approval, they are expected to perform similarly in terms of
adhesion and corrosion resistance.
4.4.3 Thinners
Thinner alternatives were again limited to selecting alternative manufacturers or selecting the
only other currently used thinner which is classified under Federal Standard A-A-857B. Again, the
choice was to select the alternative standard and not an alternative manufacturer. Thinner
specifications describe the actual constituents required and the minimum or maximum levels which
than can be used. Therefore, a comparison of thinners from different manufacturers would be
unlikely to provide noticeable differences.
4-9
-------
The baseline system is specifically designed as a thinner for aircraft coatings, while the
alternative was designed as a dope and lacquer thinner. However, the lacquer thinner has been
found to be an effective thinner of CARC by some who have used it (Ft. Eustis). The alternative
thinner is currently being used at Ft. Eustis and believed to be effective. The performance of the
thinners, like the primers, does appear to be dependent on the environmental conditions in which it
fs used.
4-10
-------
5.0 Life Cycle Impact Assessment Results
5.1 Environmental Impact Characterization/Valuation
5.1.1 Impact Characterization
The environmental impact significance of each resource and emission from the CARC LCI data
shown in Appendix C was characterized (evaluated) using the equivalency factors reported in Table
3-3. The importance of each individual resource or chemical within an impact category was
determined by multiplying the equivalency factor times the inventory value in pounds per functional
unit. The results of these calculations for each resource or emission are provided as "factored
scores" within each of the nine impact categories in Appendix D (Tables D-1 through D-9). These
"factored scores" are the basis for the environmental impact valuation results discussed below,
which are combined with the results for the economic and performance assessments in arriving at
the conclusions regarding primary improvement opportunities that are described in Section 7.
5.1.2 Impact Valuation
In order to make comparisons between impact categories, the factored scores were normalized
within an impact category and a valuation process was conducted on the nine impact categories.
Normalization of "factored scores" was accomplished within an impact category by using the
highest "factored score" in an impact category. The resulting "normalized factored scores" for each
inventory item, including the total for all resources or chemicals in each impact category, are
provided in Appendix D. The impact category totals from the tables in Appendix D are also shown
in Table 6, which summarizes the valuation results.
Valuation of the nine impact categories was conducted using the AHP. A team of four Battelle
staff representing substantially different scientific disciplines (chemical engineer, water chemist, civil
engineer, and ecologist) were used to select preferred impact categories in a structured manner
supported by the EC software package. A hierarchy "tree" was constructed as shown in Figure 5-1,
with the goal to choose the most important environmental categories as the main "branches" and
the nine individual impact categories selected for the streamlined CARC LCIA as the "leaves" on the
tree. Impact categories were first broken down on a spatial basis, according to their influence on a
global, regional, or local basis. The result of this process is the calculation of the weighting factors
shown in Figure 5-2, which indicate the relative importance of each of the nine impact categories.
These results indicate that the impacts of greatest concern to this group are ozone depletion (weight
= 0.332), global warming (weight = 0.124), and smog creation (weight = 0.189). Although
water use was included in the valuation process, it was not included in the LCIA, because net water
used for each process in the lifecycle was not determined, because water availability is plentiful in
most areas of the U.S. associated with CARC life-cycle operations, and because water is typically
treated and reused or released to the environment.
When the normalized factored scores for each impact category are multiplied by the AHP
weighting factors for the same category, the results provide a relative environmental impact ranking
among impact categories for the baseline conditions (Table 5-1). Based on the normalized,
weighted, factored scores, the three impact categories with the greatest impact for the CARC life-
5-1
-------
cycle under baseline conditions are the same three impact categories identified to be of greatest
concern by the AHP valuation process (i.e., ozone depletion = 0.362, acid deposition = 0.219, and
global warming = 0.126). Thus, these are the impact areas with the greatest potential for reducing
the overall environmental impact. However, it should be noted that all forms of toxicity (human,
terrestrial, and aquatic) combined have a normalized, weighted, factored score of 0.316, which
would make these combined impact subcategories second in overall potential for impact reduction.
5-2
-------
GOAL
•CARCOPT
(1.)
GLOBAL
(.493)
REGIONAL
(.311)
OOP
(.332)
GLBLWRM
(.124)
- FSLFUELS
(.037)
ACIDDEP
(.189)
SMOG
(.097)
WTRUSE
(.025)
LOCAL
(.196)
TOXICITY
(.138)
HUMAN —
(.099)
ENVTERR
(-02)
ENVAQ —
(.02)
LANDUSE
(.058)
Abbreviation
ACIDDEP
CARCOPT
ENVAQ
ENVTERR
FSLFUELS
GLBLWRM
GLOBAL
HUMAN
LANDUSE
LOCAL
OOP
REGIONAL
SMOG
TOXICITY
WTRUSE
Definition
Acidic Materials Deposition
Choose best CARC option
Aquatic toxicity metrics
Terrestrial toxicity metrics
Depletion of fossil fuels
Global wanning potential
Global level impacts
Various measures of human health toxicit}
Area of land "consumed"
Local scale impacts
Ozone depletion potential
Regional to national scale impacts
Photochemical smog formation potential
Lethal or chronic toxicity effects
Water consumption
Figure 5-1. Results of impact category valuation by the AHP (distributive mode).
5-3
-------
Synthesis of Leaf Nodes with respect to GOAL
Distributive Mode
OVERALL INCONSISTENCY INDEX = 0.09
OOP .332
ACIDDEP .189
GLBLWRM .124
HUMAN .099
SMOG .097
LANDUSE .058
FSLFUELS .037
WTRUSE .025
ENVTERR .020
ENVAQ .020
Abbreviation
Definition
OOP
Ozone Depletion Potential
ACIDDEP
Acidic Materials Deposition
GLBLWRM
Global Warming Potential
HUMAN
Various measures of human health toxicity
SMOG
Photochemical Smog Formation Potential
LANDUSE
Area of land "consumed"
FSLFUELS
Depletion of Fossil Fuels
WTRUSE
Water Consumption
ENVTERR
Terrestrial toxicity metrics
ENVAQ
Aquatic toxicity metrics
Rgure 5-2. Relative importance of nine primary impact categories based on AHP.
5-4
-------
o
I
o
•5
O
1
To
CD
Q.
O
in
(0
is
0> 0
«9 O
nco
00
of
•£• QI
i *
15
-S
11
.rai£
"5
1
l-o
N Q) m
O |Z
O)
e i_
eLJg o
"S u.
S
W
0)
0
O)
S
S
•3
ra
Q.
5 _
m T5
a. o
CO CO
in
h^
CNI
^
k
r
I
g
^
)
!
j
"
CM
O
O
§
CO
CM
O
T™
O
COICM
old
i
i
|
•
§
0
CO
CO
CM
§
d
g
0
^
/
1 IV'— '
< >iUJ
: «. -J Ll_
' :^ mil
: 'O —!'(/}
OOu:
*
CM
O
i
CD
CO
T
O
00
o
o
*:
p
d
11
o
§
0
in
3
d
1
1
Q. UJ
till CO!
QjOO
QiO!^
OlSigi
_l ^i
^ loi
3
o
^ ; !
o; !
0:
SEi
0|
1
1
CD
UJ
Q:
-------
5.2 Economic Assessment
The estimated costs for CARC depainting and painting at Fort Eustis are shown in Table 5-2.
Table 5-2. Estimated Baseline FCI, Annual Operating Cost, and Annualized Costs
Rxed Capital Investment (FCI), $1,000
$516
Annual operating cost, $1,000
$1,797/yr (or $2,903/1,000 ft2)
Annualized cost, $1,000
$1,845/yr (or $2,981/1,000 ft2)
5.2.1 Fixed Capital Investment
The estimated baseline FCI, $516,000, was based
Tablo 5-3. Estimated Baseline Rxed Capital Investment
on operations at Fort Eustis (Table 5-3).
Cost Item I
Purchased equipment (PE)
PE installation
Instrument and control
Piping
Electrical
Building
Yard improvement
Service facilities
Land
Total Direct Plant Cost
Engineering and supervision
Construction expense
, Total Direct and Indirect Costs
Contractors fees
Contingency
Fixed Capital Investment
Base Case
======
$120,500
54,225
10,845
19,280
1 2,050
102,000
15,665
48,200
0
$382,765
39,765
46,995
$469,525
23,476
23,476
$516,478
Basis
100% of purchased equipment (PE) cost
45% of PE cost
9% of PE cost
15%ofPEcost
1 0% of PE cost
$43 per ft2, 24 ft x 36 ft adjusted
1 3% of PE cost
40% of PE cost
Provided by base
33% of PE cost
39% of PE cost
5% of direct and indirect costs
5% of direct and indirect costs
5.2.2 Annual Operating Cost
The estimated annual operating cost, $1,797,000/yr as shown in Table 5-4, was based on
operations typical of Fort Eustis.
5-6
-------
Table 5-4. Estimated Baseline Annual Operating Cost
Cost Item
Raw Materials
Basecase topcoat
Basecase primer
Basecase thinner
Depainting grit
Utility
Electricity
Labor
Operating
Maintenance
Supervision
Operating Supplies
Maintenance Supplies
Laboratory Charges
Plant Overhead
Waste Disposal
Topcoat applied with HVLP gun
BP primer
Painting materials
Abrasive
Insurance
Regulatory Compliance
Total Annual Operating Costs
per painted area
Capital amortization
per painted area
Total cost
per painted area
Base Case
§111,431
31,096
24,437
7,993
89,954
520,296
13,524
78,044
78,044
18,031
78,044
367,118
3,095
1,829
4,924
42,904
4,508
52,030
$1,527,302
$3,240
42,220
$90
1,569,522
$3,330
Basis
$36/gal
$17/gal
$15/gal
$0.25/lb
$0.06/kWhr
$25/hr
3% of FCI
15% of operating labor
15% of operating labor
4% of FCI
15% of operating labor
60% of operating/maintenance labor
$10/gal
$10/gal
1OO% of paint/primer disposal costs
$0.58/lb
1 % of FCI
1 0% of operating labor
per 1 ,OOO ft2
9.37% FCI (11 yrs service @ 6%)
per 1 ,OOO ft2
per 1 ,000 ft2
5.2.3 Annualized Cost
The estimated annualized cost, $1,845,000/yr, is the sum of the annual operating cost and
amortization. Details are provided in Table 5-5.
5-7
-------
Table 5-5. Annualized Baseline Cost
Cost Element
Annual operating cost
Amortization
Annualized cost
Value
$1,000/yr
1,797
48
1,845
$1,000/ft2
2,903
103
2,981
5.3 Performance Assessment
5.3.7 Application Equipment
The evaluation parameter results for the baseline application equipment used at Fort Eustis,
which is the MACH 1 HVLP spray gun with a 97-95 nozzle made by Binks, are as follows:
• Transfer Efficiency (TE): Rating 65% (Martin, personal communication, 1995; Miller,
personal communication, 1995; Hughes Aircraft Company, 1991 as reported in Cavendar et
al., 1994)
• Surface Quality: Rating Acceptable (Martin, personal communication, 1995; Miller, personal
communication, 1995; Hughes Aircraft Company, 1991 as reported in Cavendar et al.,
1994)
Transfer efficiency shows the most potential for significant improvement. Significant improvement
in surface quality is not considered to be needed.
5.3,2 Primer
The baseline primer used at Fort Eustis is Mil-P-53022, which is a corrosion inhibiting, lead (Pb)
and chromate free, epoxy coating, made by Niles. The evaluation parameter results for the baseline
primer are as follows:
. Effect of Temperature and Humidity: Rating 3, minimal impact not seen as having practical
significance (Hale, personal communication, 1995; Miller, personal communication, 1995)
• Cure Rate: Rating 3, cure rate had minimal affect on painting schedule (Hale, personal
communication, 1995; Miller, personal communication, 1995)
. Surface Pretreatment Requirements: Rating 2, minimal cleaning with solvent rag required
(Hale, personal communication, 1995; Miller, personal communication, 1995)
. Ease of Cleanup of the Primer: Rating 2, moderate effort required for cleanup (Hale,
personal communication, 1995; Miller, personal communication, 1995)
* Improvement in any of the three areas is possible. However, decreases in the primer's ranking
in terms of effect of temperature and humidity would be viewed as most significant as is indicated
by the weighting factor.
5-8
-------
5.3.3 Thinners
The baseline thinner is MH-T-81772B and is an aircraft coating made by CSD. The evaluation
parameter results for the baseline thinner are as follows:
. Thinning Ratio or Thinner Effectiveness: 4:1 ratio for CARC:Thinner (Woody, personal
communication, 1995; Miller, personal communication, 1995)
. Film Characteristics: Rating 3, minimal blemishes not believed significant (Woody, personal
communication, 1995; Miller, personal communication, 1995)
The thinning ratio is seen as the most likely area for improvement.
5-9
-------
-------
6.0 Technical and Economic Evaluation of Improvements
This section provides the reader with the basis for analyzing each of the alternatives according
to each of the three evaluation dimensions individually and then through the use of the valuation
results, collectively. The LCA inventory results are presented first because in some cases an
alternative may be possible to analyze on the basis of a "less is better" strategy, in cases where all
or most of the inventory categories are lower than those of the baseline or current system. When
this occurs, interpretation using the impact results becomes unnecessary. However, this is rarely
the situation so the impact-based results are presented next. Finally, the results for the cost and
performance elements are provided.
6.1 Inventory Analysis
Five alternatives were each evaluated against the baseline CARC system. Summary tables and
graphs for the inventory results are provided below; additional details may be found in Appendix C.
The baseline inventory results are summarized in Table 6-1. The first column in the table shows the
total life-cycle aggregated information, the second column values are associated with the raw
materials and manufacturing life-cycle stages, and the third column values are associated with
depainting operations, application of the CARC at a base together with any disposal or recycling
activities.
The first alternative utilized an alternative primer coupled with the baseline CARC topcoat and
thinner. The baseline HVLP gun was used with both the primer and topcoat materials. The primary
difference in the two primer formulations is the substitution of various solvents and the addition of
more TiO2 pigment to produce an alternative product capable of being water-thinned. The summary
level inventory results shown in Table 6-2 indicate a combination of both increases and decreases in
resource and energy consumption data relative to the baseline. A small decrease in resource
consumption is noted for electricity, natural gas, steam, water, crude oil, refinery gases, oxygen and
other minor components. Small increases were noted for fuel, sodium chloride, chlorine and the
ilmenite and rumenite involved in the production of TiO2. Use of phosphate and zinc ores was
eliminated. Major categories of air emissions showed decreases in CO2, VOC, PM, NOX,
hydrocarbons, and CO. There were slight increases in chlorine and methane. Water usage and
discharges were also generally reduced including mobile ions, sodium, chloride, oil and grease, and
boron. Increased water discharges were noted for titanium dioxide, chlorine and heavy metals
including cadmium, lead, and chromium. Hazardous solid wastes were reduced slightly while
several chemicals were added to the list from the production of nitroethane including acetaldehyde,
methanol, 2-nitropropane, acetone, acetonitrile, nitric acid, and ammonia. Because these chemical
emissions are different than those for the baseline, it is difficult to unequivocally interpret the
inventory results alone with respect to trace emissions to air and water.
6-1
-------
LCI Components
Functional Unit (FU)
Resource and Energy Consumption
Electricity
Natural gas
Water
Fuel
njci
Crude oil
Dot tyitp
DClwAllC
Air
/All
Refinery gases
Sodium Chloride
Oxygen
Chlorine
Zinc ore
Rumenite
Sulfuric acid
Limestone
Chrome oxide
Soda ash
llmenite
Magnesium ore
Phosphate ore
Irnn nfA
II Ul 1 Ul C
Coke
Colbalt oxide
Magnetite
Sodium hydroxide
Starch
SiAl
Phosphoric acid
Hydrocarbons C8 to C10
Hydropotential
Sulfur dioxide
Residual Fuel Oil
Distillate Fuel Oil
Uranium
Proprietary Primer Ingredients
Air Emissions
Cnv
OUX
vnp
V \J w
D««
Hydrocarbons
Co
w
Chlorine
Isobutyraldehyde
Methane
Heavy Aromatics
Butyl acetate
Toulene
Acetaldehyde
Heptane
Units
ft"2
BTU/FU
BTU/FU
BTU/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
m"3-m/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
CARC CARC
Baseline System System
CARC Materials Use/Reuse
System Manufacture Maintenance
Quantity Quantity Quantity
1,000
8.3E + 05
1.4E + 07
5.9E + 05
4.4E + 04
3.9E + 04
2.8E + 03
8.4E + 01
7.6E + 01
7.2E + 01
4.3E + 01
1.5E + 01
1.4E + 01
1.3E + 01
8.3E + 00
6.1E + 00
6.0E + 00
4.7E + 00
4.6E + 00
2.6E + 00
2.4E + 00
2.2E + 00
2.1E + 00
1.3E + 00
1.1E + 00
1.0E + 00
4.0E-01
3.2E-01
2.9E-01
2.1E-01
5.4E-02
4.8E-02
1.7E-02
6.9E-03
2.2E-03
4.9E-06
4.2E-07
4.2E-09
O.OE + 00
3.0E + 02
2.2E + 01
1.5E + 01
6.1E + 00
6.0E + 00
3.3E + 00
1.4E + 00
5.8E-01
5.2E-01
3.3E-01
3.1E-01
2.8E-01
2.0E-01
2.0E-01
1.5E-01
1.3E-01
8.9E-02
8.6E-02
8.3E + 05
1.4E + 07
5.9E + 05
4.4E + 04
3.9E + 04
2.8E + 03
8.4E + 01
7.6E + 01
7.2E + 01
4.3E + 01
1.5E + 01
1.4E + 01
1.3E + 01
8.3E + 00
6.1E + 00
6.1 E + 00
4.7E + 00
4.6E + 00 .
2.6E + 00
2.4E + 00
2.2E + 00
2.1E + 00
1.3E + 00
1.1E + 00
1.0E + 00
4.0E-01
3.2E-01
2.9E-01
2.1E-01
5.4E-02
4.8E-02
1 .7E-02
6.9E-03
2.2E-03
4.9E-06
4.2E-07
4.1E-09
O.OE + 00
3.0E + 02
2.2E + 01
1.5E + 01
6.1E + 00
6.0E + 00
3.3E + 00
1.4E + 00
5.8E-01
7.1E-02
3.3E-01
3.1E-01
2.8E-01
2.0E-01
2.0E-01
0.0 + 00
1.2E-01
8.9E-02
8.6E-02
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
.O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
4.5E-01
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
1.5E-01
1 .4E-02
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
6-2
-------
Table 6-1. Baseline CARC System Life Cycle Inventory Summary Results (continued)
LCI Components
Functional Unit (FU)
Propane
Hexane
Naptha
n-Butane
MEK
Octane
Hexyl acetate
Xylene
Ethane
Pentane
Butyl alcohol
Fluorine
Cumene
Organic Acids
MIBK
Aromatic hydrocarbons
Phenol
Formaldehyde
Aldehydes
C-7 cycloparaffins
Acetone
Ethylene dichloride
HCN
C-8 cycloparafins
Ethyl chloride
Iso-Butane
Carbon tetrachloride
Ethylene
Trichioroethane
Ethyibenzene
Vinyl chloride
Chloroform
Hydrochloric acid
Lead
Ammonia
Kerosene
Naththalene
Methanol
Butyl cellosolve
Nitric acid
Bromotrifluoromethane
Nitroethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Sulfuric acid
Bromochlorodifluoromethane
Acetonitrile
2-nitropropane
1 ,2-butylene
Propylene
MPK
Isopropyl alcohol
Propyl acetate
Aliphatic hydrocarbons
Wastewater Emissions
Wastewater
WW reinj'd
WW discharg.
Mobile ions
Units
fT2
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Baseline
CARC
System
Quantity
1,000
7.4E-02
6.7E-02
6.6E-02
5.9E-02
5.9E-02
5.7E-02
5.6E-02
5.6E-02
4.7E-02
4.3E-02
3.4E-02
2.8E-02
2.7E-02
2.5E-02
2.3E-02
2.3E-02
2.2E-02
2.1E-02
1 .9E-02
1 .2E-02
8.3E-03
7.7E-03
6.7E-03
4.4E-03
3.0E-03
2.9E-03
2.8E-03
2.8E-03
2.3E-03
2.2E-03
1 .4E-03
1.3E-03
1.3E-03
8.8E-04
6.2E-06
4.4E-09
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE+00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
3.3E + 03
1.6E + 02
7.1E + 01
3.5E + 01
CARC
System
Materials
Manufacture
Quantity
7.4E-02
6.7E-02
O.OE + 00
5.9E-02
2.0E-02
5.7E-02
O.OE + 00
9.4E-03
4.7E-02
4.2E-02
O.OE + 00
2.8E-02
2.7E-02
2.5E-02
1.1E-02
4.0E-04
2.2E-02
2.1E-02
1.9E-02
1 .2E-02
8.3E-03
7.7E-03
6.7E-03
4.4E-03
3.0E-03
2.9E-03
2.8E-03
2.8E-03
2.3E-03
2.2E-03
1 .4E-03
1 .3E-03
1 .3E-03
8.8E-04
6.2E-06
4.4E-09
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
3.3E + 03
1.6E + 02
7.1E + 01
3.5E + 01
CARC
System
Use/Reuse
Maintenance
Quantity
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
6.6E-02
O.OE + 00
3.8E-02
O.OE + 00
5.6E-02
4.7E-02
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
3.4E-02
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
1 .2E-02
2.3E-02
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE+00
O.OE + 00
O.OE+00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
6-3
-------
Table 6-1. Baseline CARC System Life Cycle Inventory Summary Results (continued)
LCI Components
Functional Unit (FU)
WW Injected
Sodium
Chloride
Oil and Grease
titanium dioxide
Chlorine
Boron
Cadmium
Lead
Benzene
Aluminum
Chromium
Vanadium
Copper
Zinc
Arsenic
Iron
Mercury
Thallium
Dissolved Solids
Magnesium
Sulfuric Acid
COD
Suspended Solids
BOD
Acid
Oil
Metals
Phenol
Sulfide
Hydrogen cyanide
Solid Wastes
Hazardous Wastes
Solid Wastes
U238
Fly Ash
FGD Solids
Bottom Ash
Slaa
wlQM
U235
Pu (fissile)
Fission Products
Pu (nonfissile)
U236
Methanol
Ammonia
Nitric acid
Naphathalene
Formaldehyde
2-nitropropane
Acetonitrile
Acetone
Acetaldehyde
Hydrogen cyanide
Units
ft"2
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Baseline
CARC
System
Quantity
1,000
2.3E + 01
1.4E + 01
1.1E + 01
3.6E-01
1.3E-01
3.9E-02
1.5E-02
5.0E-03
1.8E-03
7.1E-04
5.9E-04
5.5E-04
1.3E-04
4.1E-05
4.1E-05
3.0E-05
8.1E-06
6.1E-06
5.2E-06
6.8E-07
1.2E-07
9.4E-08
4.5E-09
2.3E-09
1 .4E-09
7.6E-10
7.6E-10
3.8E-10
3.8E-10
3.8E-10
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
,
8.1E + 01
6.2E + 01
5.4E-09
2.0E-09
7.9E-10
5.7E-10
2.2E-10
4.5E-1 1
3.7E-1 1
2.6E-1 1
1.4E-11
3.6E-12
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
CARC
System
Materials
Manufacture
Quantity
2.3E + 01
1.4E + 01
1.1E + 01
3.6E-01
1.3E-01
3.9E-02
1 .5E-02
5.0E-03
1.8E-03
7.1E-04
5.9E-04
5.5E-04
1 .3E-04
4.1E-05
4.1E-05
3.0E-05
8.1E-06
6.1E-06
5.2E-06
6.8E-07
1 .2E-07
9.4E-08
4.5E-09
2.3E-09
1 .4E-09
7.6E-10
7.6E-10
3.8E-10
3.8E-10
3.8E-10
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
2.3E + 00
6.2E + 01
5.4E-09
2.0E-09
7.9E-10
5.7E-10
2.2E-10
4.5E-1 1
3.7E-11
2.6E-11
1.4E-11
3.6E-12
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
CARC
System
Use/Reuse
Maintenance
Quantity
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE+00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
7.8E + 01
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
6-4
-------
Table 6-2. Alternative Primer CARC System Life Cycle Inventory Summary Results
LCI Components
Baseline
CARC
System
Units Quantity
CARC
System
Materials
Manufacture
Quantity
CARC
System
Use/Reuse
Maintenance
Quantity
Functional Unit (FU)
Resource and Energy Consumption
Electricity
Natural gas
Steam
Fuel
Water
Crude oil
Air
Bauxite
Refinery oases
Sodium Chloride
Chlorine
Silica
Oxygen
Rumenite
Sulfuric acid
Limestone
Chrome oxide
llmenite
Soda ash
Magnesium ore
CoKe
Iron ore
Cobalt oxide
Sodium hydroxide
Magnetite
Starch
Hydrocarbons C8 to C10
SiAl
Phosphoric acid
Hydropqtential
Sulfur dioxide
Coal
Residual Fuel Oil
Distillate Fuel Oil
Uranium
Phosphate ore
Propritary Primer Ingredients
Zinc ore
Air Emissions
CO2
Sox
VOC
PM
Nox
Hydrocarbons
CO
Chlorine
Isobutyraldehyde
PM10
Methane
Benzene
Heavy Aromatics
Toulene
Heptane
MfAK
Propane
Hexane
BTU/FU
BTU/FU
BTU/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
nrTS-m/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
1,000
7.6E + 05
1.3E + 07
5.4E + 05
6.4E + 04
4.0E + 04
2.4E+03
1.2E + 02
8.4e + 01
6.7E + 01
4.3E + 01
1.5E + 01
1.3E + 01
1.3E + 01
9.9E + 00
8.2E + 00
4.7E + 00
4;6E + 00
3.9E + 00
2.6E + 00
2.2E + 00
1.8E + 00
1.3E + 00
1.0E + 00
5.3E-01
4.0E-01
2.1E-01
9.2E-02
8.8E-02
4.8E-02
6.3E-03
2.2E-03
1.6E-05
4.4E-06
3.9E-07
3.8E-09
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
2.7E + 02
2.1E + 01
1.4E + 01
6.0E + 00
5.9E + 00
2.9E + 00
7.9E-01
5.9E-01
3.3E-01
3.1E-01
2.4E-01
2.0E-01
2.0E-01
1.1E-01
7.6E-02
7.1E-02
6.6E-02
5.9E-02
7.6E + 05
1.3E + 07
5.4E+05
6.4E + 04
4.0E + 04
2.4E+03
1.2E + 02
8.4e + 01
6.7E + 01
4.3E + 01
1.5E + 01
1.3E + 01
1.3E + 01
9.9E + 00
8.2E + 00
4.7E + 00
4.6E + 00
3.9E + 00
2.6E + 00
2.2E + 00
1.8E + 00
1.3E + 00
1.0E + 00
5.3E-01
4.0E-01
2.1E-01
9.2E-02
8.8E-02
4.8E-02
6.3E-03
2.2E-03
1.6E-05
4.4E-06
3.9E-07
3.8E-09
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
2.7E + 02
2.1E + 01
1.4E + 01
6.0E + 00
5.9E + 00
2.9E + 00
7.9E-01
5.9E-01
3.3E-01
3.1E-01
2.4E-01
2.0E-01
2.0E-01
1.1E-01
7.6E-02
7.1 E-02
6.6E-02
5.9E-02
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE +00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE+00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE+00
6-5
-------
Table 6-2. Baseline CARC System Life Cycle Inventory Summary Results (continued)
LCI Components
Functional Unit (FU)
n-Butane
X \j\ot~ia
VICI 1C
Butyl alcohol
Acetaldehyde
Aromatic hydrocarbons
Pentane
Curnene
Organic Acids
Phenol
MEK
Formaldehyde
Aldehydes
C-7 cycloparaffins
Acetone
HCN
Ethylbenzene
C-8 cycloparaffins
Nitroethane
Iso-Butane
Hydrochloric acid
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ammonia
Naphthalene
2-nitropropane
Ethylene
Acetonitnle
Methanol
Bromotrifluoromethane
Nitric acid
Bromochlorodifluoromethane
1 ,2-butyIene
Kerosene
Lead
Hexyl acetate
Propylene
Sulturic acid
Ethyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Isopropyl alcohol
Propyl acetate
Naptha
Butyl acetate
Fluorine
MIBK
Trichloroethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Butyl cellosolve
Ethylene dichloride
Aliphatic hydrocarbons
Wastewater Emissions
Wastewater
WW Reini'd
WW Discnarg.
Mobile ions
Units
ft~2
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
. Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Baseline
CARC
System
Quantity
1,000
5.2E-02
5.1E-02
4.3E-02
4.2E-02
4.2E-02
4.0E-02
3.8E-02
3.7E-02
2.3E-02
2.2E-02
2.1E-02
2.0E-02
1.9E-02
1 .7E-02
1.1E-02
1 .4E-03
6.8E-03
4.5E-03
3.9E-03
3.9E-03
2.6E-03
1 .9E-03
1.1E-03
8.9E-04
6.43-04
6.1E-04
5.6E-04
2.4E-05
1.9E-05
8.3E-06
5.5E-06
2.2E-06
7.0E-07
4.1E-09
9.1E-11
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
2.9E + 03
1.4E + 02
6.3E + 01
3.1E + 01
CARC
System
Materials
Manufacture
Quantity
5.2E-02
5.1E-02
4.3E-02
4.2E-02
O.OE + 00
4.0E-02
O.OE + 00
3.7E-02
2.3E-02
2.2E-02
2.1E-02
2.0E-02
1.9E-02
1 .7E-02
1.1E-02
1 .4E-03
6.8E-03
4.5E-03
3.9E-03
O.OE + 00
2.6E-03
1.9E-03
1.1E-03
8.9E-04
6.43-04
6.1E-04
5.6E-04
2.4E-05
1 .9E-05
8.3E-06
5.5E-06
2.2E-06
7.0E-07
4.1E-09
9.1E-11
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
2.9E + 03
1.4E + 02
6.3E + 01
3.1E + 01
CARC
System
Use/Reuse
Maintenance
Quantity
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
4.2E-02
O.OE + 00
3.8E-02
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
3.9E-03
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
6-6
-------
Table 6-2. Baseline CARC System Life Cycle Inventory Summary Results (continued)
LCI Components
Functional Unit (FU)
WW Injected
Sodium
Chloride
Oil and Grease
Titanium dioxide
Chlorine
Boron
Cadmium
Lead
Aluminum
Chromium
Benzene
Vanadium
Copper
jr. KK^"
Zinc
Arsenic
Iron
Mercury
Thallium
Ammonia
Dissolved Solids
Magnesium
Hydrogen cyanide
Sulfunc Acid
COD
Suspended Solids
BOD
Oil
Acid
Metals
Sulfide
Phenol
Solid Wastes
Hazardous Wastes
Solid Wastes
Acetaldehyde
Methanol
2-nitropropane
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Nitric acid
Ammonia
Formaldehyde
Naphathalene
Hydrogen cyanide
U238
Fly Ash
FGD Solids
Bottom Ash
Slag
U235
Pu (fissile)
Fission Products
Pu (nonfissile)
U236
Units
fT2
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Baseline
CARC
System
Quantity
1,000
2.1E + 01
1.3E + 01
1.0E + 01
3.1E-01
2.1E-01
1.2E-01
1.3E-02
8.0E-03
2.9E-03
9.7E-04
8.9E-04
6.3E-04
2.1E-04
6.8E-05
6.8E-05
2.6E-05
7.4E-06
5.8E-06
4.6E-06
1 .7E-06
6.3E-07
1 .9E-07
1 .2E-07
8.6E-08
4.1E-09
2.1E-09
1 .3E-09
6.9E-10
6.9E-10
3.5E-10
3.5E-10
3.5E-10
7.9E + 01
6.2E + 01
1 .OE-02
9.2E-03
8.1E-03
5.6E-03
4.6E-03
6.4E-04
1.4E-04
8.0E-05
6.6E-06
6.6E-06
4.9E-09
1 .9E-09
7.2E-10
5.2E-10
2.0E-10
4.2E-1 1
3.4E-1 1
2.4E-1 1
1.3E-11
3.3E-12
CARC
System
Materials
Manufacture
Quantity
2.1E + 01
1.3E + 01
1.0E + 01
3.1E-01
2.1E-01
1.2E-01
1.3E-02
8.0E-03
2.9E-03
9.7E-04
8.9E-04
6.3E-04
2.1E-04
6.8E-05
6.8E-05
2.6E-05
7.4E-06
5.8E-06
4.6E-06
1 .7E-06
6.3E-07
1 .9E-07
1 .2E-07
8.6E-08
4.1E-09
2.1E-09
1.3E-09
6.9E-10
6.9E-10
3.5E-10
3.5E-10
3.5E-10
9.8E-01
6.2E + 01
1. OE-02
9.2E-03
8.1E-03
5.6E-03
4.6E-03
6.4E-04
1 .4E-04
8.0E-05
6.6E-06
6.6E-06
4.9E-09
1 .9E-09
7.2E-10
5.2E-10
2.0E-10
4.2E-1 1
3.4E-1 1
2.4E-1 1
1.3E-11
3.3E-12
CARC
System
Use/Reuse
Maintenance
Quantity
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE+00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
7.8E + 01
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE+00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
O.OE + 00
6-7
-------
The second alternative involved the substitution of the turbine HVLP gun for the standard HVLP
gun. All of the materials used were those included in the baseline scenario. This alternative
resulted in significantly lower levels of resource consumption, energy usage, and emissions than the
baseline (Table 6-3). This is a direct result of the more efficient use of materials and energy.
Because a much higher percentage of the CARC sprayed actually ends up on the vehicle surface,
not only are the emissions during the application reduced but also the upstream consequences of
manufacturing materials that never get applied are eliminated.
The third alternative combines the alternative primer with the alternative gun (Table 6-4). As
might be expected, this option shows even greater reductions in energy and resources than the
previous alternatives where the primer and gun substitutions were considered independently. In the
case of emissions, the picture was mixed. The alternative primer emissions comprise both different
compounds than are present in the baseline primer and different amounts of those compounds that
are ingredients in common. Thus, the inventory data alone cannot be interpreted in an unequivocal
fashion. For those emissions that are in common, some decreased and some increased. The overall
amounts decreased but by a smaller amount than for the previous alternative.
The fourth alternative utilized an alternative thinner along with the baseline topcoat, primer, and
gun (Table 6-5). The primary difference in the thinners is a reduction and substitution of the
acetate-based solvents and the addition of more alcohol-based solvents. The results for this
scenario indicate reduced resource and energy demands for electricity, steam, water, crude oil,
bauxite, air, residual and distillate fuel oils compared to the data shown for the baseline. Major
categories of air emissions showed reduced CO2 and hydrocarbons with slightly increased SOX. The
data also showed lower water usage and discharge rates in addition to reduced mobile ions,
chloride, oil and grease and other minor constituents. Solid wastes showed reductions in the minor
categories, but little change was indicated in the amounts of general hazardous and solid wastes.
6-8
-------
Table 6-3. Alternative Gun CARC System Life Cycle Inventory Summary Results
LCI Components
Functional Unit (FU)
Resource and Energy Consumption
Electricity
Natural gas
Steam
Water
Fuel
Crude oil
Bauxite
Air
Refinery gases
Sodium Chloride
Oxygen
Silica
Chlorine
Zinc ore
Limestone
Rumenite
Sulfuric acid
Chrome oxide
Soda ash
llmenite
Magnesium ore
Phosphate ore
Iron ore
Coke
Cobalt oxide
Magnetite
Sodium hydroxide
Coal
Starch
SiAl
Phosphoric acid
Hydrocarbons C8 to C10
Hydropotential
Sulfur dioxide
Residual Fuel Oil
Distillate Fuel Oil
Uranium
Proprietary Primer Ingredients
Air Emissions
CO2
SOX
VOC
PM
NOx
Hydrocarbons
CO
Chlorine
PM10
MIAK
Isobutyraldehyde
Methane
Benzene
Heavy Aromatics
Toluene
Butyl acetate
Acetaldehyde
Heptane
Propane
Hexane
rt-Butane
Octane
Units
ftA2
BTU/FU
BTU/FU
BTU/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
. Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
mA3-m/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
CARC CARC
Baseline System System
CARC Materials Use/Reuse
System Manufacture Maintenance
Quantity Quantity Quantity
1,000
6.1E+05
1.0E+07
4.6E+05
3.2E+04
2.8E+04
2.0E+03
8.4E+01
5.5E+01
5.2E+01
3.1E+01
1.1E+01
9.9E+00
9.5E+00
6.0E+00
4.7E+00
4.4E+00
4.4E+00
3.3E+00
2.6E+00
1.7E+00
1.6E+00
1.5E+00
9.3E-01
7.7E-01
7.2E-01
2.9E-01
2.3E-01
2.1E-01
2.1E-01
3.9E-02
3.4E-02
1.2E-02
5.0E-03
1.6E-03
3.5E-06
3.1E-07
3.0E-09
O.OE+00
2.2E+02
2.1E+01
1.1E-K11
4.4E+00
4.4E+00
2.4E+00
1.0E+00
4.2E-01
2.9E-01
2.9E-01
2.6E-01
2.0E-01
1.5E-Q1
1.4E-01
9.8E-02
7.9H-02
6.6E.02
6.3E-02
5.4E-02
4.9E-02
4.3E-02
4.2E-02
6.1E+05
1.0E+07
4.6E+05
3.2E+04
2.8E+04
2.0E+03
8.4E+01
5.5E+01
5.2E+01
3.1E+01
1.1E+01
9.9E+00
9.5E+00
6.0E+00
4.7E+00
4.4E+00
4.4E+00
3.3E+00
2.6E+00
1.7E-KJO
1.6E+00
1.5E+00
9.3E-01
7.7E-01
7.2E-01
2.9E-01
2.3E-01
2.1E-01
2.1E-01
3.9E-02
3.4E-02
1.2E-02
5.0E-03
1.6E-03
3.5E-06
3.1E-07
3.0E-09
O.OE+00
2.2E+02
2.1E+01
1.1E+01
4.4E+00
4.4E+00
2.4E+00
1.0E+00
4.2E-01
2.9E-01
5.1E-02
2.6E-01
2.0E-01
1.5E-01
1.4E-01
9.0E-02
O.OE+00
6.6E-02
6.3E-02
5.4E-02
4.9E-02
4.3E-02
4.2E-02
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
2.4E-01
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
8.7E-03
"7.9E-02
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
6-9
-------
Table 6-3. Alternative Gun CARC System Life Cycle Inventory Summary Results (continued)
LCt Components
Functional Unit (FU)
MEK
Hexyl acetate
Ethane
Naphtha
Xytena
Pcntano
Fluorine
Cumcno
Organic Acids
Butyl alcohol
Phenol
Formaldehyde
MISK
Aldehydes
Aromatic hydrocarbons
C-7 cydoparaffins
Acetone
Ethytene dichkxtds
HCN
C-fl eye topara dins
Ethyl chloride
l&o-Butane
Ethyiene
Carbon tetrachtoride
Trichloroethane
EUrytbenzene
Vinyl chloride
Chloroform
Hydrochloric add
Lead
Ammonia
Kerosene
Naphthalene
Methanol
Butyl cettesolve
Nitric add
Bromotrifluoromethane
Nitroethane
Oichlorodifluoromethane
Sutfuricadd
Bromochtorodifluoromethane
AcetonitrUe
2-nitropropane
1,2-botyteno
Propytene
MPK
I topropyl alcohol
Propyl acetate
Aliphatic hydrocarbons
WaiUwater Emissions
Wattewoter
WWRekij-d
WWOischarg.
MobBetons
WW Injected
Sodium
CWoridc
oa and Grease
Titanium dioxide
Chlorine
Boron
Cadmium
Units
ftA2
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
• Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
CARC CARC
Baseline System System
CARC Materials Use/Reuse
System Manufacture Maintenance
Quantity Quantity Quantity
1,000
4.0E-02
3.5E-02
3.5E-02
3.4E-02
3.2E-02
3.0E-02
2.0E-02
1.9E-02
1.8E-02
1.8E-02
1.6E-02
1.5E-02
1.4E-02
1.4E-02
1.2E-02
8.8E-03
6.1E-03
5.6E-03
4.9E-03
3.2E-03
2.2E-03
2.1E-03
2.1E-03
2.0E-03
1.7E-03
1.6E-03
1.0E-03
9.7E-04
9.5E-04
6.3E-04
4.5E-06
3.2E-09
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
2.4E+03
1.2E+02
5.2E+01
2.5E+01
1.7E+01
1.1E+01
8.3E+00
2.6E-01
9.4E-02
2.8E-02
1.1E-02
3.6E-03
1.6E-02
O.OE+00
3.5E-02
O.OE+00
6.8E-03
3.0E-02
2.0E-02
1.9E-02
1.8E-02
O.OE+00
1.6E-02
1.5E-02
8.0E-03
1.4E-02
2.9E-04
8.8E-03
6.1E-03
5.6E-03
4.9E-03
3.2E-03
2.2E-03
2.1E-03
2.1E-03
2.0E-03
1.7E-03
1.6E-03
1.0E-03
9.7E-04
9.5E-04
6.3E-04
4.5E-06
3.2E-09
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
2.4E+03
1.2E+02
5.2E+01
2.5E+01
1.7E+01
1.1E+01
8.3E+00
2.6E-01
9.4E-02
2.8E-02
1.1E-02
3.6E-03
2.4E-02
3.5E-02
O.OE+00
3.4E-02
2.5E-02
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
1.8E-02
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
6.4E-03
O.OE+00
1.2E-02
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
6-10
-------
Table 6-3. Alternative Gun CARC System Life Cycle Inventory Summary Results (continued)
LCI Components
Functional Unit (FU)
Lead
Benzene
Aluminum
Chromium
Vanadium
Copper
Zinc
Arsenic
Iron
Mercury
Thallium
Dissolved Solids
Magnesium
Sulfuric Acid
COD
Suspended Solids
BOD
Acid
Oil
Metals
Phenol
Sulfide
Ammonia
Hydrogen cyanide
Solid Wastes
Hazardous Wastes
Solid Wastes
U23B
Fly Ash
FGD Solids
Bottom Ash
Slag
U235
Pu (fissile)
Rssion Products
Pu (nonfissile)
U236
Methanol
Ammonia
Nitric acid
Naphathalene
Formaldehyde
2-nitropropane
Acetonitrile
Acetone
Acetaldehyde
Hydrogen cyanide
Units
ftA2
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU'
. Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
_ Ib/FU.
CARC CARC
Baseline System System
CARC Materials Use/Reuse
System Manufacture Maintenance
Quantity Quantity Quantity
1,000
1.3E-03
5.2E-04
4.3E-04
4.0E-04
9.4E-05
3.0E-05
3.0E-05
2.2E-05
S.9E-06
4.4E-06
3.8E-06
5.0E-07
8.5E-08
6.8E-08
3.3E-09
1.7E-09
9.9E-10
5.5E-10
5.5E-10
2.7E-10
2.7E-10
2.7E-10
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
8.0E+01
5.3E+01
3.9E-09
1.5E-09
5.7E-10
4.1E-10
1.6E-10
3.3E-11
2.7E-11
1.9E-11
1.0E-11
2.6E-12
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+PO
1.3E-03
5.2E-04
4.3E-04
4.0E-04
9.4E-05
3.0E-05
3.0E-05
Z2E-05
5.9E-06
4.4E-06
3.8E-06
5.0E-07
8.5E-08
6.8E-08
3.3E-09
1.7E-09
9.9E-10
5.5E-10
5.5E-10
2.7E-10
2.7E-10
2.7E-10
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
1.7E+00
5.3E+01
3.9E-09
1.5E-09
5.7E-10
4.1E-10
1.6E-10
3.3E-11
2.7E-11
1.9E-11
1.0E-11
2.6E-12
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00 '
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
7.8E+01
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
6-11
-------
Table 6-4. Alternative Primer & Gun CARC System Life Cycle Inventory Summary Results
LCI Components
Functional Unit (FU)
Resource and Entrgy Consumption
Electricity
Natural gas
Steam
Fuel
Water
Crude oil
Air
Bauxite
Refinery gases
Sodium Chloride
Chlorine
Silica
Oxvocn
**«/)(«•»«
Rumcnite
Suftjriczcid
Limestone
Chrome oxide
Hmenjie
Soda ash
Magnesium ore
Coke
Iron ore
Cobalt oxide
Sodium hydroxide
Magnetite
Starch
Hydrocarbons C8 to CIO
SiAl
Phosphoric acid
Hydropotential
Sulfur dioxide
Coal
Residua! Fuel Oft
Dtstiuate Fuel Oil
Uranium
Phosphate ore
Proprietary Primer Ingredients
Zinc ore
Air Emissions
CO2
SOx
VOC
FM
NOx
Hydrocarbons
CO
Chlorine
FM10
IsobutyraJdehyde
Methane
Benzene
Heavy Anomalies
Toluene
Heptane
MIAK
Propane
Hexano
rvButane
Octane
Acetatdehyde
Xytene
Ethane
Pentane
Butyl alcohol
Units
ft*2
BTU/FU
BTU/FU
BTU/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU •
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
mA3-m/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
!b/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ih/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
CARC CARC
Baseline System System
CARC Materials Use/Reuse
System Manufacture Maintenance
Quantity Quantity Quantity
1,000
5.6E+05
9.3E+06
4.3E+05
4.6E+04
2.9E+04
1.8E+03
9.0E+01
8.4E+01
4.9E+01
3.1E+01
1.1E+01
9.7E+00
9.6E+00
7.2E+00
5.9E+00
4.7E+00
3.3E+00
2.8E+00
2.6E+00
1.6E+00
1.3E+00
9.7E-01
7.2E-01
3.BE-01
2.9E-01
2.1E-01
6.6E-02
6.3E-02
3.4E-02
4.6E-03
1.6E-03
1.2E-05
3.2E-06
2.8E-07
2.8E-09
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
2.0E+02
2.1E+01
1.0E+01
4.4E+00
4.3E+00
2.1E+00
5.8E-01
4.2E-01
2.9E-01
2.6E-01
1.8E-01
1.5E-01
1.4E-01
8.8E-02
5.5E-02
5.1E-02
4.8E-02
4.3E-02
3.8E-02
3.7E-02
3.1E-02
3.1E-02
3.1E-02
Z7E-02
2.2E-02
5.6E+05
9.3E+06
4.3E+05
4.6E+04
2.9E+04
1.8E+03
9.0E+01
8.4E+01
4.9E+01
3.1E+01
1.1E+01
'9.7E+00
9.6E+00
7.2E+CO
5.9E-H30
4.7E+OO
3.3E-KJO
2.8E+00
2.6E+00
1.6E+00
1.3E+00
9.7E-O1
7.2E-01
3.8E-01
2.9E-01
2.1E-01
6.6E-02
6.3E-02
3.4E-02
4.6E-03
1.6E-03
1.2E-05
3.2E-06
2.8E-07
2.8E-09
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
2.0E+02
2.1E+01
1.0E+01
4.4E+00
4.3E+00
2.1E+00
5.8E-01
4.2E-01
2.9E-01
2.6E-01
1.8E-01
1.5E-01
1.4E-01
8.8E-02
5.5E-02
5.1E-02
4.8E-02
4.3E-02
3.8E-02
3.7E-02
3.1E-02
3.1E-02
3.1E-02
2.7E-02
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
2.2E-02
6-12
-------
Table 6-4. Alternative Primer & Gun CARC System Life Cycle Inventory Summary Results (cont.)
LCI Components
Functional Unit (FU)
Aromatic hydrocarbons
Cumene
MEK
Organic Acids
Phenol
Formaldehyde
Aldehydes
C-7 cycloparaffins
Acetone
HCN
Ethylbenzene
C-8 cycloparaffins
Nitre-ethane
Iso-Butane
Hydrochloric acid
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Ammonia
Naphthalene
2-nitropropane
Ethylene
Acetonitrile
Methanol
Bromotrifluoromethane
Nitric acid
Bromochlorodifluoromethane
1 ,2-butylene
Kerosene
Lead
Hexyl acetate
Propylene
Sulfuric acid
Ethyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Isopropyl alcohol
MPK
Propyl acetate
Naphtha
Butyl acetate
Fluorine
MIBK
Trichloroethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Butyl cellosolve
Ethylene dichloride
Aliphatic hydrocarbons
Wastewater Emissions
Wastewater
WW Reinfd
WW Discharg.
Mobile ions
WW Injected
Sodium
Chloride
Oil and Grease
Titanium dioxide
Chlorine
Boron
Cadmium
Lead
Aluminum
Chromium
Benzene
Vanadium
Copper
Units
nA2
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
CARC CARC
Baseline System System
CARC Materials Use/Reuse
System Manufacture Maintenance
Quantity Quantity Quantity
1,000
2.0E-02
1.6E-02
1.6E-02
1.6E-02
1.5E-02
1.4E-02
1.2E-02
7.8E-03
5.4E-03
4.9E-03
3.2E-03
2.9E-03
2.0E-03
1.9E-03
1.4E-03
8.0E-04
6.4E-04
4.6E-04
4.4E-04
4.3E-04
1.7E-05
1.4E-05
6.0E-06
4.0E-06
1.6E-06
5.0E-07
3.0E-09
6.6E-11
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
2.1E+03
1.0E+02
4.6E+01
2.3E+01
1.5E+01
9.3E+00
7.4E+00
2.3E-01
1.5E-01
8.7E-02
9.8E-03
5.7E-03
2.1E-03
7.0E-04
6.4E-04
4.6E-04
1.5E-04
4.9E-05
O.OE+00
1.6E-02
1.6E-02
1.6E-02
1.5E-02
1.4E-02
1.2E-02
7.8E-03
5.4E-03
4.9E-03
3.2E-03
2.9E-03
O.OE+00
1.9E-03
1.4E-03
8.0E-04
6.4E-04
4.6E-04
4.4E-04
4.3E-04
1.7E-05
1.4E-05
6.0E-06
4.0E-06
1.6E-06
5.0E-07
3.0E-09
6.6E-11
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
0.'OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
2.1E+03
1.0E+02
4.6E+01
2.3E+01
1.5E+01
9.3E+00
7.4E+00
2.3E-01
1.5E-01
8.7E-02
9.8E-03
5.7E-03
2.1E-03
7.0E-04
6.4E-04
4.6E-04
1.5E-04
4.9E-05
2.0E-02
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
2.0E-03
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
6-13
-------
Table 6-4. Alternative Primer & Gun CARC System Life Cycle Inventory Summary Results (cont.)
LCI Components
Functional Unit (FU)
7ino
£JIIU
Ancpnic
Ajaclw*
Iron
Mercury
Tbalfium
Ammonia
Dissolved Soiids
Magnesium
Hydrogen cyanide
SutfuricAcid
COO
Suspended Solids
BOO
ttftift
ACiO
f^t
OH
Metals
Phenol
Suifide
Solid Wastes
Hazardous Wastes
Solid Wastes
Acetakkfiyde
Methanol
2-nHropropane
Acetone
AcctooHnio
Marie add
Ammonia
Formaldehyde
Naphathafcne
Hydrogen cyanide
U23S
Fly Ash
FGO Solids
Bottom Ash
Stag
U235
PU(5ssBe)
Fission Products
Pu (nonftssile)
U236
Units
(1A2
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
• Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
CARC CARC
Baseline System System
CARC Materials Use/Reuse
System Manufacture Maintenance
Quantity Quantity Quantity
1,000
4.9E-05
1.9E-05
5.4E-06
4.2E-06
3.4E-06
1.3E-06
4.6E-07
1.4E-07
8.4E-08
6.3E-08
3.0E-09
1.6E-09
9.1E-10
5.0E-10
5.0E-10
2.5E-10
2.5E-10
2.5E-10
7.9E+01
5.3E+01
7.5E-03
6.6E-03
5.8E-03
4.0E-03
3.3E-03
4.6E-04
1.0E-04
5.7E-05
4.8E-06
4.8E-06
3.6E-09
1.4E-09
5.2E-10
3.8E-10
1.4E-10
3.0E-11
2.5E-11
1.7E-11
9.5E-12
2.4E-1.2
4.9E-05
1.9E-05
5.4E-06
4.2E-06
3.4E-06
1.3E-06
4.6E-07
1.4E-07
8.4E-08
6.3E-08
3.0E-09
1.6E-09
9.1E-10
5.0E-10
5.0E-10
2.SE-10
2.5E-10
2.5E-10
7.0E-01
5.3E+01
7.5E-03
6.6E-03
5.8E-03
4.0E-03
3.3E-03
4.6E-04
1-.OE-04
5.7E-05
4.8E-06
4.8E-06
3.6E-09
1.4E-09
S.2E-10
3.8E-10
1.4E-10
3.0E-11
2.5E-11
1.7E-11
9.5E-12
2.4E-12
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
7.8E+01
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
6-14
-------
Table 6-5. Alternative Thinner CARC System Life Cycle Inventory Summary Results
LCI Components
Functional Unit (FU)
Resource and Energy Consumption
Electricity
Natural gas
Steam
Water
Fuel
Crude oil
Bauxite
Air
Refinery gases
Sodium Chloride
Oxygen
Silica
Chlorine
Zinc ore
Rumenite
Sulfuric acid
Limestone
Chrome oxide
Soda ash
llmenite
Magnesium ore
Phosphate ore
Iron ore
Coke
Cobalt oxide
Magnetite
Sodium hydroxide
Coal
Starch
SiAl
Phosphoric acid
Hydrocarbons C8 to C10
Hydropotential
Sulfur dioxide
Residual Fuel Oil
Distillate Fuel Oil
Uranium
Proprietary Primer Ingredients
Air Emissions
CO2
SOx
VOC
PM
NOx
Hydrocarbons
CO
Chlorine
MIAK
PM10
Methane
Heavy Aromatics
Butyl acetate
Benzene
Heptane
Propane
Naphtha
Hexane
Acetaldehyde
n-Butane
Octane
Xylene
Ethane
Units
ftA2
BTU/FU
BTU/FU
BTU/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
m*3-m/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU '
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU •
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
CARC CARC
Baseline System System
CARC Materials Use/Reuse
System Manufacture Maintenance
Quantity Quantity Quantity
1,000
7.7E+05
1.3E+07
5.5E+05
4.0E+04
3.9E+04
2.4E+03
8.4E+01
7.6E+01
6.8E+01
4.3E+01
1.4E+01
1.4E+01
1.3E+01
8.3E+00
6.1E+00
6.0E+00
4.7E+00
4.6E+00
2.6E+00
2.4E-KJO
2.2E+00
2.1E+00
1.3E+00
1.1E+00
1.0E+00
4.0E-01
3.2E-01
2.9E-01
2.1E-01
5.4E-02
4.8E-02
1.7E-02
6.3E-03
2.2E-03
4.5E-06
3.9E-07
3.8E-09
O.OE+00
2.7E+02
2.1E+01
1.4E+01
5.9E+00
5.9E+00
3.0E+00
1.3E+00
5.8E-01
5.2E-01
3.1E-01
2.5E-01
2.0E-01
1.4E-01
1.1E-01
7.6E-02
6.6E-02
6.6E-02
5.9E-02
5.4E-02
5.3E-02
5.1E-02
4.7E-02
4.2E-02
7.7E+05
1.3E+07
5.5E+05
4.0E+04
3.9E+04
2.4E+03
8.4E+01
7.6E+01
6.8E+01
4.3E+01
1.4E+01
1.4E+01
1.3E+01
8.3E+00
6.1E+00
6.0E+00
4.7E+00
4.6E+00
2.6E+00
2.4E+00
2.2E+00
2.1E+00
1.3E+00
1.1E+00
1.0E+00
4.0E-01
3.2E-01
2.9E-01
2.1E-01
5.4E-02
4.8E-02
1.7E-02
6.3E-03
2.2E-03
4.5E-06
3.9E-07
3.8E-09
O.OE+00
2.7E+02
2.1E+01
1.4E+01
5.9E+00
5.9E+00 •
3.0E+00
1.3E+00
5.8E-01
7.1E-02
3.1E-01
2.5E-01
2.0E-01
O.OE+00
1.1E-01
7.6E-02
6.6E-02
O.OE+00
5.9E-02
5.4E-02
S.3E-02
5.1E^)2
9.3E-03
4.2E-02
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00-
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
4.5E-01
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
1.4E-01
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
6.6E-02
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
3.7E-02
O.OE+00
6-15
-------
Table 6-5. Alternative Thinner CARC System Life Cycle Inventory Summary Results (continued)
LCI Components
Functional Unit (FU)
Butyl alcohol
Fluorine
Convene
MIBK
Aromatic hydrocarbons
Organic Acids
Formaldehyde
Aldehydes
C-7 cydoparalfins
Elhytcne dichtonde
Acetone
C-8 cycloparaffins
Ethyl chloride
Carbon tetrachtoride
teo-Butane
Ethytene
Trichloroethane
tsopropyl alcohol
Ethyibenzene
ABphaUc hydrocarbons
Vinyl chloride
Chloroform
Hydrochloric acid
Propyfene
I ^mr4
Lead
SuHuricadd
Ammonia
Kerosene
Hexyl acetate
Otchlorodifluoromethane
Nitroethane
Nitric actd
Naphthalene
Methanol
Bromochlorodifluoromethane
Brornotrifluoromethane
Isobutyraldehyde
Acetonitrlle
2-nitropropane
1.2-butytene
Propyl acetate
Butyl cetlosolve
MFK
Wastawatar Emissions
Wastewaier
WWReinfd
WW Discharg.
Mobile Ions
WW Injected
Sodium
Chloride
OB and Grease
Titanium dia»de
Chlorine
Boron
Cadmium
Benzene
Units
(1A2
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
!b/FU
!b/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU ;
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Its/FU
Ib/FU
CARC
Baseline System
CARC Materials
System Manufacture
Quantity Quantity
1,000
3.7E-02
3.6E-02
2.8E-02
2.7E-02
2.4E-02
2.3E-02
2.3E-02
2.2E-02
2.2E-02
1.9E-02
1.7E-02
1.1E-02
7.7E-03
7.4E-03
6.7E-03
3.9E-03
3.0E-03
2.8E-03
2.6E-03
2.5E-03
2.3E-03
2.2E-03
2.1E-03
2.1E-03
1.7E-03
1.4E-03
1.3E-03
1.3E-03
1.1E-03
8.8E-04
8.3E-05
6.2E-06
4.1E-09
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
3.0E+03
1.4E+02
6.4E+01
3.1E+01
2.1E+01
1.3E+01
1.0E+01
3.2E-01
1.3E-01
3.9E-02
1.3E-02
4.9E-03
1.8E-03
6.3E-04
3.7E-02
O.OE+00
2.8E-02
2.7E-02
2.2E-02
1.1E-02
4.0E-04
2.2E-02
2.2E-02
1.9E-02
1.7E-02
1.1E-02
7.7E-03
•7.4E-03
6.7E-03
3.9E-03
3.0E-03
2.8E-03
2.6E-03
2.5E-03
2.3E-03
7.8E-04
O.OE+00
2.1E-03
O.OE+00
1.4E-03
1.3E-03
1.3E-03
1:1E-03
8.8E-04
8.3E-05
6.2E-06
4.1E-09
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
3.0E+03
1.4E+02
6.4E+01
3.1E+01
2.1E+01
1.3E+01
1.0E+01
3.2E-01
1.3E-01
3.9E-02
1.3E-02
4.9E-03
1.8E-03
6.3E-04
CARC
System
Use/Reuse
Maintenance
Quantity
O.OE+00
3.6E-02
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
1.6E-03
1.2E-02
2.3E-02
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
1.5E-03
• 2.1E-03
O.OE+00
1.7E-03
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
6-16
-------
Table 6-5. Alternative Thinner CARC System Life Cycle Inventory Summary Results (continued)
LCI Components
Functional Unit (FU)
Aluminum
Chromium
Vanadium
Copper
Zinc
Arsenic
Iron
Mercury
Thallium
Dissolved Solids
Magnesium
Sulfuric Acid
COD
Suspended Solids
BOD
Acid
Oil
Metals
Phenol
Sulfide
Ammonia
Hydrogen cyanide
Solid Wastes
Hazardous Wastes
Solid Wastes
U238
Fly Ash
FGD Solids
Bottom Ash
Slag
U235
Pu (fissile)
Fission Products
Pu (nonfissile)
U236
Methanol
Ammonia
Nitric acid
Naphathalene
Formaldehyde
2-nitnopropane
Acetonitrile
Acetone
Acetaldehyde
Hvdjroflen Cyanide
Units
ft"2
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
CARC CARC
Baseline System System
CARC Materials Use/Reuse
System Manufacture Maintenance
Quantity Quantity Quantity
1,000
5.9E-04
5.5E-04
1.3E-04
4.1E-05
4.1E-05
2.6E-05
7.4E-06
5.5E-06
4.7E-06
6.3E-07
1.2E-07
8.7E-08
4.2E-09
2.2E-09
1.3E-09
7.0E-10
7.0E-10
3.5E.10
3.5E-10
3.5E-10
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
8.1E+01
6.2E+01
5.0E-09
1.9E-09
7.2E-10
5.3E-10
2.0E-10
4.2E-11
3.4E-11
2.4E-11
1.3E-11
3.3E-12
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00. .
5.9E-04
5.5E-04
1.3E-04
4.1E-05
4.1E-05
2.6E-05
7.4E-06
5.5E-06
4.7E-06
6.3E-07
1.2E-07
8.7E-08
4.2E-09
2.2E-09
1.3E-09
7.0E-10
7.0E-10
3.5E-10
3.5E-10
3.5E-10
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
2.3E+00
6.2E+01
5.0E-09
1.9E-09
7.2E-10
5.3E-10
2.0E-10
4.2E-11
3.4E-11
2.4E-11
1.3E-11
3.3E-12
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
7.8E+01
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
6-17
-------
The fifth and ffnal alternative utilized both an alternative thinner and alternative primer combined
with the baseline gun (Table 6-6). As expected, the combined alternatives showed reduced
resource and energy consumption in many areas including electricity, natural gas, steam, water,
crude oil, air, and refinery gases. Increases were seen in fuel, sodium chloride, chlorine, rumenite,
ilmenite mainly from the TiO2 production stages. Major air emissions categories showed the
expected reductions in C02, VOC, PM, NOX/ hydrocarbons, and CO. Slight increases were noted in
minor organic chemical releases. Water usage and emissions were generally reduced, but increases
were noted in the heavy metal content. Solid wastes were generally reduced with the exception of
those from the nitroethane production processes.
The comparison of energy usage across the alternatives in comparison with the baseline is
shown in Figure 6-1. This again illustrates the preferability of Alternative 2 (turbine HVLP gun) and
Alternative 3 (gun plus primer substitution). A consistent reinforcement of this is observed in the
solid/hazardous waste (Figure 6-2) and air pollutant (Figure 6-3) graphs as well.
6.2 Environmental Impact/Hazard Characterization
6.2.1 Impact Characterization
The environmental impact significance of the resource and emission data from the baseline and
each alternative CARC LCI was characterized (evaluated) using the same set of equivalency factors
derived during the baseline analysis (see Table 4-2). The importance of each individual resource or
chemical within an impact category was determined by multiplying the equivalency factor times the
inventory value in pounds per functional unit. The results of these calculations for each resource or
emission are provided as "factored scores" within each of the nine impact categories in Appendix D.
These "factored scores" are the basis for the environmental impact valuation results, which combine
the results for the economic and performance assessments and the values from the AHP weighting
factors in arriving at the conclusions regarding the best improvement opportunity.
The potential environmental impacts associated with each of the alternatives can be evaluated
by comparing the normalized, factored, impact scores for each of the nine major impact categories
(Table 6-7). As indicated by the bold scores in Table 6-7, the CARC system with the most (7 out of
9) low scores (least potential impacts) in each impact category is the option with both the
alternative primer (water-thinned) and alternative spray gun (turbine). Use of the alternative gun
decreases the use rates of topcoat, primer, and thinner, which reduces the potential environmental
impact in all nine of the impact categories compared to the baseline.
6-18
-------
Table 6-6. Alternative Primer and Thinner CARC System Life Cycle Inventory Summary Results
LCI Components
Functional Unit (FU)
Resource and Energy Consumption
Electricity
Natural gas
Steam
Fuel
Water
Crude oil
Air
Bauxite
Refinery gases
Sodium Chloride
Chlorine
Silica
Oxygen
Rumenite
Sulfuric acid
Limestone
Chrome oxide
llmenite
Soda ash
Magnesium ore
Coke
Iron ore
Cobalt oxide
Sodium hydroxide
Magnetite
Starch
SiAl
Phosphoric acid
Hydrocarbons C8 to C10
Hydropotential
Sulfur dioxide
Coal
Residual Fuel Oil
Distillate Fuel Oil
Uranium
Phosphate ore
Proprietary Primer Ingredients
Zinc ore
Air Emissions
CO2
SOx
VOC
NOX
PM
Hydrocarbons
CO
Chlorine
MIAK
PM10
Benzene
Methane
Heavy Aromatics
Toluene
Heptane_
Propane
Naphtha
Hexane
Aromatic hydrocarbons
n-Butane
Octane
Xylene
Ethane
Units
ftA2
BTU/FU
BTU/FU
BTU/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
mA3-m/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
CARC CARC
Baseline System System
CARC Materials Use/Reuse
System Manufacture Maintenance
Quantity Quantity Quantity
1,000
7.7E+05
1.3E+07
5.0E+05
6.4E+04
4.1E+04
2.6E+03
1.2E+02
8.4E+01
6.4E+01
4.3E+01
1.5E+01
1.3E+01
1.2E+01
9.9E+00
8.2E+00
4.7E+00
4.6E+00
3.9E+00
2.6E+00
2.2E+00
1.8E+00
1.3E-H)0
1.0E+00
1 5.3E-01
4.0E-01
2.1E-01
8.8E-02
4.8E-02
1.7E-02
6.4E-03
2.2E-03
1.6E-05
4.5E-06
3.9E-07
3.8E-09
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
2.9E+02
2.1E+01
1.3E+01
6.0E+00
6.0E+00
3.1E+00
8.3E-01
5.9E-01
5.2E-01
3.1E-01
2.7E-01
2.6E-01
2.0E-01
1.9E-01
8.1E-02
7.0E-02
6.6E-02
6.3E-02
6.1E-02
5.6E-02
5.4E-02
4.7E-02
4.6E-02
7.4E+05
1.3E+07
5.0E+05
6.4E+04
4.1E+04
2.3E+03
1.2E+02
8.4E+01
6.4E+01
4.3E+01
1.5E+01
1.3E+01
1.2E+01
9.9E+00
8.2E+00
4.7E+00
4.6E+00
3.9E+00
2.6E+00
2.2E+00
1.8E+00
1.3E+00
1.0E+00
5.3E-01
4.0E-01
2.1E-01
8.8E-02
48E-02
1.7E-02
6.1E-03
2.2E-03
1.5E-05
4.3E-06
3.8E-07
3.7E-09
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE-H30
2.6E+02
2.1E+01
1.3E+01
5.8E+00
6.0E+00
2.8E+00
7.6E-01
5.9E-01
7.1E-02
3.1E-01
2.7E-01
2.3E-01
2.0E-01
1.9E-01
7.3E-02
6.3E-02
O.OE+00
5.7E-02
O.OE+00
5.0E-02
4.9E-02
8.9E-03
4.0E-02
3.1E+04
3.5E-03
4.1E+03
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
2.6E+02
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
2.5E-04
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
2.7E+01
3.2E-02
O.OE+00
1.9E-01
O.OE+00
3.1E-01
7.0E-02
O.OE+00
4.5E-01
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
2.6E-02
O.OE+00
1.4E-03
8.0E-03
6.9E-03
6.6E-02
6.2E-03
6.1E-02
5.5E-03
5.3E-03
3.8E-02
4.4E-03
6-19
-------
Table 6-6. Alternative Primer and Thinner CARC System Life Cycle Inventory Summary Results
(cent.)
LCI Components
Functional Unit (FU)
Butyl alcohol
Pentane
Butyl acetate
Organic Acids
Cumene
Phenol
Formaldehyde
Aldehydes
C-7 cydoparaffins
Actions
HCN
AeelakJenyde
Hcxyl acetate
MEK
C-8 cyctoparaffins
Nitroethane
Iso-Butane
Hydrochloric add
Elhy! benzene
PropytenB
Dlchiorodrfluoromethane
Ammonia
Naphthalene
2-tvtropfOpane
Ethytene
Sutfuricacid
Acetonitrile
Mcihanol
Bromotrifluoromethane
NHrfcacid
Brornochlorodifluoromethane
1,2-butylene
Kerosene
Lead
Ethyl chloride
Vinyl chloride
Fluorine
MPK
Propyl acetate
teopropyl alcohol
MIBK
IsobutyrakJenyde
Trichtoroethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlcroform
Butyl cettosolve
Elhytene tfchtonde
Aliphatic hydrocarbons
Wastawatar Emissions
Wastewater
WWReinfd
WWDischarg.
Mobile ions
WW Injected
Sodium
Chloride
Oil and Grease
Titanium dioxide
Chlorine
Boron
Cadmium
Lead
Aluminum
Units
ft*2
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU .
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
!b/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
CARC CARC
Baseline System System
CARC Materials Use/Reuse
System Manufacture Maintenance
Quantity Quantity Quantity
1,000
4.2E-02
3.9E-02
2.4E-02
2.3E-02
2.3E-02
2.1E-02
2.0E-02
1.8E-02
1.1E-02
7.9E-03
6.8E-03
6.2E-03
5.5E-03
4.5E-03
4.2E-03
3.9E-03
2.8E-03
1.9E-03
1.8E-03
1.1E-03
1.1E-03
8.9E-04
6.4E-04
6.1E-04
2.9E-04
8.3E-05
2.4E-05
1.9E-05
8.3E-06
5.5E-06
2.2E-06
7.0E-07
4.1E-09
9.2E-11
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+OO
O.OE+00
O.OE+OO
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
3.0E+03
1.5E+02
6.7E+01
3.3E+01
2.2E+01
1.4E+01
1.1E+01
3.3E-01
2.1E-01
1.2E-01
1.4E-O2
8.0E-03
2.9E-03
9.7E-04
O.OE+00
3.5E-02
O.OE+00
2.1E-02
2.3E-02
2.1E-02
1.8E-02
1.6E-02
1.0E-02
7.1E-03
6.8E-03
6.2E-03
O.OE+00
7.8E-04
3.8E-03
O.OE+00
2.5E-03
1.9E-03
1.8E-03
1.1E-03
1.1E-03
8.9E-04
6.4E-04
6.1E-04
2.9E-04
8.3E-05
2.4E-05
1.9E-05
8.3E-06
5.5E-06
2.2E-06
7.0E-07
3.9E-09
8.8E-11
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
3.0E+03
1.4E+02
6.1E+01
3.0E+01
2.0E+01
1.2E+01
9.7E+00
3.0E-01
2.1E-01
1.2E-01
1.3E-02
8.0E-03
2.9E-03
9.7E-04
4.2E-02
3.9E-03
2.4E-02
2.3E-03
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
1.9E-03
1.8E-03
1.1E-03
7.7E-04
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
5.5E-03
3.7E-03
4.1E-04
3.9E-03
2.7E-04
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
1.5E+01
6.6E+00
3.2E+00
2.2E+00
1.3E+00
1.1E+00
3.3E-02
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
1.4E-03
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
6-20
-------
Table 6-6. Alternative Primer and Thinner CARC System Life Cycle Inventory Summary Results
(cont.)
LCI Components
Functional Unit (FU)
Chromium
Benzene
Vanadium
Copper
Zinc
Arsenic
Iron
Mercury
Thallium
Ammonia
Dissolved Solids
Magnesium
Hydrogen cyanide
Sulfuric Acid
COD
Suspended Solids
BOD
Oil
Acid
Metals
Sulfide
Phenol
Solid Wastes
Hazardous Wastes
Solid Wastes
Acetaldehyde
Methanol
2-nitropropane
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Nitric acid
Ammonia
Formaldehyde
Naphathalene
Hydrogen cyanide
U238
Fly Ash
FGD Solids
Bottom Ash
Slag
U235
Pu (fissile)
Fission Products
Pu (nonfissile)
U236
Units
HA2
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Ib/FU
Jb/EU
CARC CARC
Baseline System System
CARC Materials Use/Reuse
System Manufacture Maintenance
Quantity Quantity Quantity
1,000
8.9E-04
6.7E-04
2.1E-04
6.8E-05
6.8E-05
2.8E-05
7.5E-06
6.1E-06
4.9E-06
1.7E-06
6.3E-07
1.9E-07
1.2E-07
8.7E-08
4.2E-09
2.2E-09
1.3E-09
7.0E-10
7.0E-10
3.5E-10
3.5E-10
3.5E-10
7.9E+01
6.2E+01
1.0E-02
9.2E-03
8.1E-03
5.6E-03
4.6E-03
6.4E-04
1.4E-04
8.0E-05
6.6E-06
6.6E-06
4.8E-09
1.8E-09
7.0E-10
5.1E-10
1.9E-10
4.0E-11
3.3E-11
2.3E-11
1.3E-11
3.2E-12
8.9E-04
6.1E-04
2.1E-04
6.8E-05
6.8E-05
2.5E-05
7.2E-06
5.6E-06
4.4E-06
1.7E-06
6.1E-07
1.9E-07
1.2E-07
8.4E-08
4.0E-09
2.1E-09
1.2E-09
6.7E-10
6.7E-10
3.4E-10
3.4E-10
3.4E-10
9.8E-01
6.2E+01
1.0E-02
9.2E-03
8.1E-03
5.6E-03
4.6E-03
6.4E-04
1.4E-04
8.0E-05
6.6E-06
6.6E-06
4.8E-09
1.8E-09
7.0E-10
5.1E-10
1.9E-10
4.0E-11
3.3E-11
2.3E-11
1.3E-11
3.2E-12
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
7.8E+01
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
O.OE+00
6-21
-------
til
Baseline Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4
Alt5
I Electricity El Natural gas d Steam
Rgure 6-1. Energy consumption by type.
95
Baseline AK1 AH2 Alt3 AK4 AK5
IE3 Solid Waste H Hazardous Waste |
Figure 6-2. Solid/hazardous waste.
6-22
-------
Q.
D
O
§
6
E
§
o
Q.
a
(O
1"
O»
6-23
-------
to
CO
5
e>
©
•a
i
CO
S3
CO
O
03
O
CO
I
•a
1
a
II
Ul
Is
S z
is
U1X
Ul
2*9
i|i
sl°
a.
T3
Q>
S
"S
•S
I
I
o
O
CO
CO
<
Ul
II
s^
u
CO
^
*»
t
t
*
1
i
1
If
to"t
>. •*• o
D'CO ICO
cojen o
S «?— r- «5^
.i s^.i
C CD S "5
« __•§ §
£ w •§ S
6-24
-------
The scores for all three of the global scale impact categories were lowest in the option involving
the alternative primer and spray gun. The normalized, factored, impact scores for ozone depletion
potential suggest that this impact category is reduced by using the alternative primer and spray gun,
which is the result of a reduction in the emission of carbon tetrachloride and trichloroethane during
manufacture of ingredients for the alternative versus baseline primers. However, the ozone
depletion impact from the baseline primer is expected to be eliminated in the near future as the
manufacturer eliminates trichloroethane, which is used during manufacture. The normalized,
factored, impact scores for global warming potential suggest that this impact category is reduced by
using the alternative primer and spray gun, which is the result of a reduction in the emission of
carbon tetrachloride, C02, and trichloroethane during manufacture of ingredients for the alternative
versus baseline primer. There is also a reduction in the normalized, factored, impact score for
natural resource use (e.g. fossil fuels, phosphate rock, and zinc) with use of the alternative primer
and spray gun, associated with the decreased manufacture of intermediate materials.
The scores for the two relevant regional scale impact categories were lowest in the option
involving the alternative primer and spray gun. There is a decrease in the normalized, factored,
impact score for acid deposition potential with use of the alternative primer & gun, mainly due to a
decrease in all acid deposition precursor emissions, resulting from decreased use rates of topcoat,
primer, and thinner. There is also a decrease in the smog creation potential score with the use of
the alternative primer and spray gun, mainly due to a decrease in release of total VOC emissions
(chemical species not available) during manufacture of ingredients for the alternative versus baseline
primer, as well as decreased use rates of topcoat, primer, and thinner associated with, use of the
alternative spray gun.
Of the three toxicity impact categories considered, human health and terrestrial wildlife toxicity
impact potentials showed the greatest reduction for the option involving the alternative primer and
spray gun. Aquatic biota toxicity, however, was lowest with the option involving the baseline
primer and alternative spray gun. There is a decrease in the normalized, factored, impact score for
human toxicity potential associated with the manufacture of intermediate materials for the
alternative versus baseline primer, which is the result of a reduction in the emission of several toxic
materials (e.g., acetaldehyde, n-butane, n-butyl acetate, chlorine, CO, ethylene dichloride, fluorine,
isobutyraldehyde, MIAK, MIBK, and n-pentane) during manufacture of ingredients for the alternative
primer or during drying of the primer after application. There is a decrease in the normalized,
factored, impact score for terrestrial wildlife toxicity potential associated with the manufacture of
intermediate materials for the alternative versus baseline primer, which is the result of a reduction in
the emission of several toxic materials (e.g., n-heptane, isobutyraldehyde, and MIAK) during
manufacture of ingredients for the alternative primer or during drying of the primer after application.
Use of the alternative primer, even with the alternative gun, is worse than the baseline in the aquatic
toxicity impact area. This is due to the increase in cadmium and chlorine in the wastewater
associated with manufacture of the ingredients for the alternative primer. However, use of the
alternative gun with the baseline primer gives the lowest potential impact score for aquatic biota.
The local scale impact of land use resulting from waste disposal shows the greatest reduction in
potential impact score for two alternatives: the alternative gun and the alternative gun with
alternative primer. This is associated with a reduction in the quantity of hazardous and
nonhazardous waste from manufacturing of different ingredients for the alternative primer and from
decreased use rates of topcoat, primer, and thinner resulting from use of the alternative spray gun.
6.2.2 Sensitivity Analysis
One of the considerations in conducting an LCA is the integration of the understanding of the
uncertainties in the information with the results. In this case the uncertainties in the inventory data
were overlaid with the possible uncertainties introduced in the impact assessment. To assess the
6-25
-------
possible consequences, if any, on the results of having missing or incorrect equivalency factors, a
sensitivity analysis was performed. In this analysis, the details of which are provided in Appendix E,
two value substitutions were made for the equivalency factors. One situation occurred where the
baseline CARC system contained a specific chemical species, for example toluene, and the
alternative formulation simply identified a chemical category, for example aromatic hydrocarbons.
To test the effect of this on the impact scores, a worst case scenario consisting of selecting the
most adverse equivalency factor appropriate to the impact category (ozone depletion, global
warming, toxicity, etc.) was chosen and the modeling calculations repeated. The resulting values
were then compared to the "expected" value and a percentage difference computed. Although large
differences in any one environmental category could occur if this scenario were true, the overall
environmental impact scores varied by an average of 5.4% with a range from 3.2% for Alternative 4
(alternative thinner) to 8.6% for Alternative 5 (alternative thinner and primer). Thus, the analyzed
results are considered to be acceptable to within about 5 to 6% when the effect of factor specificity
is concerned.
A second type of uncertainty arises if an equivalency factor is known for one component of the
baseline system and completely unknown for a substitute. In this case the alternative could be
favored simply because more adverse impacts were loading onto the baseline system. This situation
did not occur for any constuents considered to contribute in significant mass quantities to the
overall impact, but should be kept in mind in applying the valuation procedure in general.
A third type of uncertainty exists that was not evaluated directly. This uncertainty pertains to
the variability in the equivalency factor themselves. For example, the basis for global warming
equivalencies is the modeling of climatological effects of insertion of a known amount of a global
warming gas into the atmosphere. The impact potential is followed by tracking its chemistry
through time and integrating the incremental effect over periods of 20 to 500 years. Uncertainty
exists in the models and the understanding of the basic chemistry. The overall magnitude of the
uncertainties have been estimated by the international or regional bodies responsible for creating the
equivalency factors. In a comparative analysis of this type the uncertainties would be expected to
affect both the baseline and alternatives.
6.3 Economic Assessment „ _ _ ....
The estimated costs for CARC depainting and painting are summarized in Table 6-8. Fort Eustis
costs are represented by the baseline cost. Costs for five alternative systems are also presented.
6.3.1 Fixed Capital Investment
The estimated baseline FCI, $516,000, was based on operations at Fort Eustis. A breakdown of
the estimated FCI costs for CARC depainting and painting is shown in Table 6-9. Fort Eustis costs
are represented by the baseline cost. Costs for five alternative systems are also presented.
6-26
-------
Table 6-8. Estimated FCI, Annual Operating Cost, and Anualized Costs
Fixed Capital
Investment (FCI),
$1000
Annual operating cost
$1000/yr
$/1000ft2
Annualized cost
$1000/yr
$71000 ft2
Baseline
516
1,797
2,903
1,845
2,981
Alt. 1
516
1,788
2,888
1,837
2,966
Alt. 2
548
1,574
2,542
1,625
2,625
Alt. 3
548
1,565
2,928
1,616
2,611
Alt. 4
516
1,797
2,901
1,845
2,979
Alt. 5
516
1,787
2,885
1,835
2,963
6.3.2 Annual Operating Cost
The estimated annual baseline operating cost, based on operations typical of Fort Eustis, is
$1,797,000/yr. Details for the basecase and the five alternative systems are shown in Table 6-10.
6.3.3 Annualized Cost
The estimated baseline annualized cost, $1,797,000/yr, is the sum of the annual operating cost
and amortization at Ft. Eustis. Annualized cost for the baseline case and five alternative systems
are summarized in Table 6-11.
6-27
-------
Toblo 6-9. Estimated Baseline Fixed Capital Investment
Cost Item
Purchased equipment
PE installation
Instrument and control
Piping
Electrical
Building
Yard improvement
Service facilities
Land
Total Direct Plant Cost
Engineering and
Construction expense
Total Direct and Indirect
Contractors fees
Contingency
Fixed Capital
Baseline
120,500
54,225
10,845
19,280
12,050
102,000
15,665
48,200
0
382,765
39,765
46,995
469,525
23,476
23,476
516,478
Alt. 2
120,500
54,225
10,845
1 9,280
1 2,050
102,000
15,665
48,200
0
382,765
39,765
46,995
469,525
23,476
23,476
516,478
Alt. 2
1 30,000
58,500
1 1 ,700
20,800
13,000
102,000
16,900
52,000
0
404,900
42,900
50,700
498,500
24,925
24,925
548,350
Alt. 3
1 30,000
58,500
1 1 ,700
20,800
1 3,000
102,000
16,900
52,000
0
404,900
42,900
50,700
498,500
24,925
24,925
548,350
Alt. 4
1 20,500
54,225
10,845
19,280
12,050
102,000
15,665
48,200
0
382,765
39,765
46,995
469,525
23,476
23,476
516,478
Alt. 5
1 20,500
54,225
10,845
19,280
1 2,050
102,000
15,665
48,200
0
382,765
39,765
46,995
469,525
23,476
23,476
516,478
Basis'1"
1 00% of PE
45% of PE cost
9% of PE cost
15% of PE cost
10% of PE cost
$43 per sq ft
1 3% of PE cost
40% of PE cost
33% of PE cost
39% of PE cost
5% of direct
5% of direct
(a) Peters and Timmerhaus, 1991
6-28
-------
Table 6-10. Estimated Annual Operating Cost
Cost Item
Raw Materials
Basecase
topcoat
Basecase
primer
Alternative
primer
Basecase
thinner
Alternative
thinner
Depainting
grit
Utility
Electricity
Labor
Operating
Maintenance
Supervision
Operating
Supplies
Maintenance
Supplies
Laboratory
Charges
Plant Overhead
Baseline
111,456
26,316
0.00
15,093
0.00
7,992
1,053
683,700
15,493
102,555
102,555
20,657
102,555
481,049
Alt. 1
111,456
0.00
22,727
15,093
0.00
7,992
1,053
682,410
15,493
102,363
102,363
20,657
102,362
480,159
Alt. 2
81,586
26,316
0.00
15,093
0.00
7,992
1,053
597,700
16,451
89,655
89,655
20,657
89,655
422,283
Alt. 3
81,586
0.00
22,727
15,093
0.00
7,992
807
596,410
16,451
89,462
89,462
20,657
89,462
421,393
Alt. 4
111,456
26,316
0.00
0.00
15,093
7,992
807
683,700
15,493
102,555
102,555
20,657
102,555
481,049
Alt. 5
111,456
0.00
22,727
0.00
15,093
7,992
1,053
682,410
15,493
102,362
102,362
20,657
102,362
480,159
Basis
$36/gal""
$17/gal""
$20.33/gal""
$15/gal"'
$15/gal""
$0.25/lb<"
$0.06/kWhr
$25/hrlb)
3% of FCI(cl
15% of
operating
labor""
15% of
operating
labor101
4% of FCI""
15% of
operating
labor""
60% of
operating/
maintenance
labor
6-29
-------
Tablo 6-10. Estimated Annual Operating Costs (continued)
_ 1
Waste Disposal
Topcoat
applied with
HVLP gun
Topcoat
applied with
improved gun
BP primer
AP primer
Painting
materials
Abrasive
Regulatory
Compliance
Total Annual
per painted area
Capital
amortization
per painted area
per painted area
3,095
1,829
4,924
42,904
5,165
68,370
1,796,760
2,703
48,369
78
1,845,129
2,981
Alt 1
3,095
1,829
4,924
42,904
5,165
68,241
1,788,453
2,888
48,369
78
1,836,822
2,966
Alt 2
2,064
1,829
3,893
42,904
5,484
59,770
1 ,574,039
2,542
51,358
83
1,625,397
2,625
Alt. 3
2,064
1,829
3,893
42,904
5,484
59,641
1,565,488
2,928
51,358
83
1,616,846
2,611
Alt. 4
3,095
1,829
4,924
42,904
5,165
68,370
1,796,516
2,901
48,369
78
1,844,855
2,979
Alt. 5
3,095
3,095
42,904
5,165
68,241
1,786,624
2,885
48,369
78
1,834,993
2,963
Basis
S10/gallbl
$10/gal"»
100% of
paint/primer
disposal
costs1"1
$0.58/lb""
1 % of FC(cll
10% of
operating
labor'01
per 1 ,000
ft2
9.37% FCI .
(1 1 yrs
service @
6%)
per 1 ,000
ft2
per 1,000
ft2
(a) See Table 6 for basis references.
(b) Assumed based on standard values/practices.
(c) Peters and Timmerhaus, 1991.
6-30
-------
Table 6-11. Annualized Cost
Cost Element
Annual operatinq cost:
$1000/yr
$/1 000 ft2
Amortization:
$1000/yr
$/1 000 ft2
Annualized cost:
$1000/yr
$71000 ft2
Baseline
1,797
2,903
48
78
1,845
2,981
Alt. 1
1,788
2,888
48
78
1,837
2,966
Alt. 2
1 ,974
2,542
51
83
1,625
2,025
Alt. 3
1,565
2,928
51
83
1,616
2,611
Alt. 4
1,797
2,901
48
78
1,845
2,979
Alt. 5
1,787
2,885
48
78
1,835
2,963
6.4 Performance Evaluation
Descriptions of the scoring ranks for each of the performance evaluation parameters were
provided in Section 4.
6.4.1 Application Equipment
The Can-am system was reviewed independently and was found to provide a transfer efficiency
of 90%, while maintaining acceptable surface quality. This is an increase in transfer efficiency of
approximately 38%. The surface characteristics of the topcoat were found to be acceptable. It is
being or has been used at several bases including Tobyhanna. Training for use of the alternative is
believed to be minimal « one day per man). However, due to some equipment failures at
Tobyhanna they have not been able to completely rely on this system. There is insufficient
supplemental information to determine if equipment failure is a point of major consideration.
The substantial improvement in transfer efficiency without noticeable loss in surface quality
make the turbine HVLP system, or similar increased efficiency systems, appropriate for
recommendation based on performance.
Surface Quality
Baseline Acceptable (Martin, 1995; Miller, 1995; Hughes Aircraft Company, 1991 as reported
in Cavendar et al., 1994)
Rating: 2
Alternative Acceptable (Tierney, 1995; Hughes Aircraft Company, 1991 as reported in Cavendar
etal., 1994)
Rating: 2
Transfer Efficiency (TE)
Baseline T.E= 65% (Martin, 1995; Miller, 1995; Hughes Aircraft Company, 1991 as reported
in Cavendar et al., 1994)
Rating: 2
6-31
-------
Alternative
Ranking Delta
T.E. = 90% (Tierney, 1995; Hughes Aircraft Company, 1991 as reported in
Cavendaretal., 1994, Bunnell, 1995)
Rating: 4
Surface Quality: 0 weight = 2
Transfer Efficiency: 2 weight = 1
Total after weighting: (2*0 + 1*2)73 = +2/3
6.4.2 Primers
The performance of the two primers (Baseline MIL-P-53022, Niles; Alternative MIL-P-53030,
Deft) was viewed differently by different sources. Some users (Miller, 1995) expressed concern
about adhesion between the primer and the topcoat, while others were not aware of this as a
significant concern (Ewalt, 1995). It is not clear as to why there were occasional primer-topcoat
adhesion problems. However, it is likely that different environmental conditions had some impact.
Most paints, including primers, react differently to varying environmental conditions. One primer
might perform better than a second primer when applied in a cool dry environment, but fail
dramatically when applied under hot, humid conditions. Efforts to contact additional users (Ft.
Hood: Chief Warrant Officer Ferrell,. Sgt. Abrahamson and others) of both primers were unsuccessful
due to their commitments. Further collection of opinions may have provided useful information, but
could not be accomplished at this time.
Using the water thinnable alternative may require some minimal changes in application
procedures, such as longer wait times between coats. This is needed because water used to thin
the primer must evaporate before the topcoat is applied. Presence of water in the primer could
cause premature curing of the topcoat and an inferior bond. Also, since the alternative primer is
moisture thinnable, it is likely that under humid conditions it would absorb environmental moisture
which would extend the wait time before the topcoat could be applied.
To appropriately analyze the effectiveness of the baseline and the alternative primer, a blind
side-by-side comparison on similar targets under a range of temperature and humidity conditions
should be made. Small test panels could be painted with both of the primers and a topcoat. The
manufacturers' application recommendations should be strictly followed. If the adhesion between
the two primers does not vary, then the improved ease of cleanup using water does make the
alternative primer appropriate for recommendation based upon performance factors.
Effect of Temperature and Humidity
Baseline Rating: 3, minimal impact not seen as having practical significance (Miller, 1995;
Duncan, 1995)
Alternative Rating: 2.5, a range of opinions describe the level of impact as a 2 and a 3
depending on the source (Miller, 1995; Duncan, 1995, Ewalt, 1995)
Cure Rate
Baseline Rating: 3, cure rate had minimal effect on the painting schedule (Hale, 1995;
Miller,! 995)
Alternative Rating: 3, cure rate had minimal effect on the painting schedule (Miller, 1995;
Duncan, 1995; Ewalt, 1995)
6-32
-------
Surface Pretreatment Requirements
Baseline Rating: 2, minimal cleaning with solvent rag required (Hale, 1995; Miller, 1995)
Alternative Rating: 2, minimal cleaning with solvent rag required (Miller, 1995; Duncan, 1995;
Ewalt, 1995)
Ease of Primer Cleanup
Baseline Rating: 2, moderate effort required for cleanup (Hale, 1995; Miller, 1995)
Alternative Rating: 3, minimal effort required for cleanup (Miller, 1995, Duncan, 1995, Ewalt,
1995)
Ranking Delta
Effect of Temperature and Humidity: weight = 3
Cure Rate: weight = 1
Surface Pretreatment Requirements: weight = 1
Ease of Primer Cleanup: weight = 1
Total after weighting: (3*(-0.5) + 1 *0 +1 *0 + 1 *0)/6 = -0.25.
6.4.3 Thinners
The performance of the two thinners (Baseline: MH-T-81772B; Alternative: Federal Standard A-
A-857B) varied from user to user. The effects of environmental differences are again believed to be
the reason for differences in performance opinions. Differences in the ability to thin the topcoat
were not discernable. However, the effect on the surface characteristics of the topcoat was
noticeable. The effect of the thinner on the appearance and performance of the topcoat needs to be
evaluated by each base to determine the impact on the topcoat for their specific conditions. The
amount of thinner required is not expected to be affected dramatically by the selection of either of
the two thinners.
Even if the alternative thinner is found to be unacceptable for use with the topcoat it should be
considered for use in cleaning of the guns and hoses. Since, the thinning effectiveness of the two
thinners is similar, the alternative can be recommended for use as a cleaning solvent at a minimum
based on performance. The use of the thinner in conjunction with the topcoat needs to be
determined on a base by base comparison.
Thinning Ratio or Thinner Effectiveness
Baseline 4:1 ratio for CARC: Thinner (Woody, 1995; Miller, 1995)
Rating: 2
Alternative 4:1 ratio for CARC: Thinner (Woody, 1995; Miller, 1995)
Rating: 2
Film Characteristics
Rating: 3, minimal blemishes not believed significant (Woody, 1995; Miller, 1995)
Rating: 2.5, a range of opinions make describe the level of impact as a 2 and a 3
depending on the source (Woody, 1995; Miller, 1995)
Ranking Delta
Effectiveness: weight = 1
Film Characteristics: weight = 1
Total after weighting: (1 *0 + 1 *(-0.5))/2 = -0.25.
6-33
-------
6.5 Valuation Process
The valuation process was conducted in a step-wise fashion, beginning with the construction of
the hierarchy tree and continuing with the environmental, cost, and performance weighting,
respectively. The "final" decision hierarchy is shown in Figure 6-4. The term "final" in quotes is
used to ensure that the reader understands that the structure of the hierarchy is determined by the
analyst and the technical team. There is no single correct hierarchy, only decision structures that
appear to make sense in analyzing the weights to be assigned. Each of the three major decision
dimensions, environment, cost, and performance, are shown at the topmost level of the hierarchy.
In turn these are further divided according to criteria and subcriteria within each of the areas. The
environmental criteria are first grouped by spatial/temporal scales into global (long term), regional
(intermediate term), and local (short to intermediate) term issues.
This arrangement provides a useful framework for consideration of elements that would be
important at the facility versus larger, national to societal levels. Within the global, regional and
local criteria, further subdivision is made to facilitate assigning preferences in an intuitive manner.
Within the cost dimension, only two criteria were identified, corresponding to the variable (O&M)
versus fixed (capitalized) cost categories. Further breakdown within each of these criteria was not
felt to offer additional potential for assignment of the weights. Finally, the performance dimension
criteria were divided according to the application equipment, primer, or thinner component and then
further into specific performance subcriteria relevant to each component.
6-34
-------
SOAL — —
. ENVRNMT —
COST — —
PERFORM —
ACIDDEP
APPLICEQ
CAPITAL
CARCOPT
CLEANUP
COST
CURERATE .
CURERTE
ENVAQ
ENVRNMT
ENVTERR
FILMCHAR
FSLFUELS
GLBLWRfvT
GLOBAL
HUMAN
LANDUSE
LOCAL
O&M COST
OOP
PERFORM
PRIMER
REGIONAL
SMOG
SRFPREP
SRFQUAL
TEMPHUMD
THINNER
THNRATIO
Toxicity
TRNSFREF
WTRUSE
-OOP
f GLOBAL — f GLBLWRM —
L FSLFUELS —
4ACIODEP —
SMOG — —
WTRUSE —
••HUMAN —
pTOXICrrY —f ENVTERR —
1 LENVAQ
L LOCAL 1
L LANDUSE —
f O&M COST —
!• CAPITAL —
f APPUCEQ —f TRNSFREF —
«• SRFQUAL—-
f TEMPHUMD —
•PRIMER I CURERATE ^~
f SRFPREP —
I CLEANUP —
.THINNER ——f THNRATIO —
L FILMCHAR —
Oifinitian
Acidic Materials Deposition
Relative performance of equipment for applying CARC
Annualized (6 yr amort) cost of facilities and capital equipment
Choose best CARC option
Amount of effort needed for cleanup
Direct cost elements (excludes externalities)
Effect of primer cure rate on schedule
Effect of primer cure rate on schedule
Aquatic toxicity metrics
Environmental issues associated with CARC system
Terrestrial toxicity metrics
Effect of thinner on surface quality e.g. blemishes
Depletion of Fossil Fuels
Global Warming Potential
Global Level Impacts
Various measures of human health toxicity
Area of land "consumed"
Local Scale Impacts
Annualized o&m costs including materials
Ozone Depletion Potential
Aspects of material/system functional behavior/efficiency
Performance characteristics of primer systems
Regional to National Scale Impacts
Photochemical Smog Formation Potential
Extent of surface treatment needed
Effect of application equipment on surface quality
Effect of temperature and humidity on primer system
Performance characteristics of thinner systems
Need for thinning prior to use
Lethal or Chronic Toxicity Effects
Application efficiency of equipment used
Water Consumption
Figure 6-4. Structure of the analytic hierarchy for CARC alternatives.
6-35
-------
The results of the weighting exercise assigned 65% of the value to the environmental
dimension, 24% to the performance aspects, and 11 % to the cost (Figure 6-5). This result
should be viewed in the light of the scoping process where the threshold criteria were
anticipated to result in alternatives that performed adequately and did not differ markedly in
cost. Further tracing the weighting process into the three major branches indicates that global
environmental issues were assigned approximately 32% of weight, or about half of the overall
environmental contribution. Regional and local issues received 20% and 13%, respectively. In
the cost branch, the O&M costs were considered approximately 3 times as important as the
capital costs. Again, it should be borne in mind that the scoping exercise almost guaranteed
that none of the alternatives would require and major capital expenditure. Finally, in the
performance branch the primer was considered the most important with the thinner and gun
receiving about equal consideration.
In each case the procedure for applying the valuation process to the impact assessment results
was to create a "ruler" by normalizing the baseline impact scores to the highest value in each
category. Then, the values for an alternative could be measured relative to that score. This
produces a set of values that is internally consistent to the decision being made, but neither
guarantees the metric is theoretically as robust as possible (i.e., its ability to differentiate
alternatives in principle could be greater) nor allows decisions made in one setting to be
compared to those made in another. As an example, recommendations made regarding CARC
alternatives in this effort would not be comparable to those made about procuring plating
equipment if that decision was made using a set of normalizing factors derived as part of that
decision process.
6.6 Overall Improvement Assessment Results
The application of the valuation weights to the normalized impact scores is summarized in
Tables 6-12 through 6-17 for the baseline and each of the alternatives. The score summaries
(lower is preferable) are shown below in decreasing order:
Baseline:
Alternative Thinner:
Alternative Primer:
Alternative Thinner and Primer:
Alternative Gun:
Alternative Primer and Gun:
1.191
1.134 (Alternative 4)
1.019 (Alternative 1)
1.016 (Alternative 5)
1.006 (Alternative 2)
0.898 (Alternative 3).
These results indicate that the use of the alternative gun makes the largest potential
improvement for an alternative that changes only a single factor, and combining this with the
alternative primer results in the best CARC option. Therefore, it is recommended that the next
phase of the effort include the demonstration of the alternative primer and gun combination.
Also, a further scenario consisting of the alternative thinner, primer, and gun should be analyzed
to assess whether this combination may be even better than the primer/gun combination.
6-36
-------
GOAL-
ENVRNMT-
(.652)
GLOBAL-
(.322)
REGIONAL •
LOCAL-
(.128)
OOP ——
(.18)
GLBLWRM -
(.113)
FSLFUELS •
(.028)
ACIODEP <
(.063)
SMOG
(.13)
WTRUSE •
(.01)
TOX1CITY •
(.103)
LANOUSE <
(.025)
HUMAN —
(.062)
ENVTERR -
(.021)
ENVAQ —
(.021)
COST
(.113)
[• OSM COST —
I (.08)
I CAPrfAL-^—
PERFORM •
(.235)
(.033)
APPUCEQ r TRNSFREF -
(.052) I (.017)
L SRFOUAL—
(.035)
PRIMER •
(.12)
THINNER
(.063)
TEMPHUMD —
(.058)
OPERATE —
(.02)
SRFPREP •
(.021)
CLEANUP <
(-021)
I THNRATIO —
I (.031)
LFILMCHAR —
(.031)
Figure 6-5. Overall weights derived for the valuation of CARC alternatives
6-37
-------
I
tn
ai
m
«
_ li.
g
T3
Q> T3
£ £ £
ra O o
E "5 °
g SCO
O u.
z
O)
x -5, "5
< .Sf ra
CO U.
5
A
W
0)
U)
Jfl
CO
"5
CO
s
T""
^.1
)k
~~H
/
V
^—
CO
s
A
\
ji
t
1-
CQ
3
CD
CL!
8!
SI
3
! 1
§
°'
55
CO
o
Qu
O
0
m
o*
CO
o
00
S
o
GLBLWRM
— ^,
1
o
CO
CO
CM
in
in
CO
S
o
FSLFUELS
o
CM
CM
O
^
<
2
O
CD
UJ
ce
,*•—
in
0
••**.«
CO
31
CO
m
1
o
ACIDDEP
in
o
T—
T—
1
0
CD
i
CO
-
— ^.
8
o
o
— '
1
o
0
WTRUSE
D
N
R
5!
0
o
^ r 1 t
r
CO
CM
O
1
TOXICITY
s~~
g
O
^ —
1
CM
tn
in
§
0
|
CO
o
o
en
o
CO
CM
S
s
0
a:
a:
UJ
—~\\^
I
UJ
(O
s
0
— -•
o
CO
CM
*"
a
a
o
o
1
z
UJ
*\
1
0
A
T~
O
m
S
0
LANDUSE
CO
^
o
1
\
fe
CO
0
O
o
3
^"
N
O
O
O
O
i
O
CO
CO
o
o
o
8
T~
1
o
CAPITAL
in
CO
CM
O
i
o
u.
UJ
o.
^
J
^
g
o
\
I
I
\
'•
APPLICEQ
^ —
^^
o
o
§
CO
o
o
UJ
a:
u.
CO
z
i—
1
in
S
o
8
o
in
S
o
•^
a
u.
CO
o
CM
O
k
-v
I
}\
*/
PRIMER
00
^O
^^
o
1^
o
8
CO
in
o
o
s
1)
a.
LU
1
j
, i
1
o
o
8
CO
o
p
i
UJ
a:
,.
§
O
! i,. i : ...
§
o
j,
8
0
1
p
a.
UJ
a:
a.
u.
DICE
o
CO
o
o
o
in
o
S
o
EANUP
_J
o
,;;,„ L :
I!:!"1 f ' !"
,,;, j ,,,,(, ,
,
i
^
CO
g
0
\
\
J
/
THINNER
\
;
CO
o
o
co
o
o
V J
o
0
p
CO
o
o
NRATIO
I
1-
o
o
p
CO
o
o
.MCHAR
_
LL.
c>-38
-------
<£
0)
>
CO
o
I
o
•a
O
o
'i
_3
CD
CO
Q.
CO
^-
(O
9)
to
o
53 T- CO
E o §
« Zen
•o
0)
II
' 1
I 5
£ "
£>£
i
!•§„
11 8
E Sco
0^
O)
rf 2* «8
;
IO
0
o
CM
O>
O
CO
CM
CO
^~
^"
O!O
!
— "s
o
o
CM
T-
IO
IO
00
s
0
t
CO
o
CM
d
^
\
! : !^>tCOi
O — licO'
i !0;0:u:
i
| t i
oj
jo!
H-
fei i
o
D:
o
1
CO
&
o
CO
T™
T-
s
CNl
CO
o>
CM
T-
o
CO
CD
CD
O
0
CO
T"
§
o
CM
S
0
OIOIO
Q.
111!
QiO
iQ O
o!2
< CO
^
<
o
jo
lUJ
10:
i
i
i
LU
ICO
la:
co
CO
CM
^
^
(O
O
V|L
y
i
1
s-
ii
did
^_ i
1
CM
CD
t-
IO
IO
§
o
HUMAN
TOXjCITY
_l
O
o
t
!
i
j
1
j
CO
'^^
^2
d
coieo
COIU)
CM
CM
IO
o
CM
o
CO
CM
IO
1
did
ENVTERR
1
LU
i
i
i
I
i
[
0
d
J
\
)
g
T-
o
to
s
o
LANDUSE
i
| 1
1 '
CO
^™
*™
d
"
,_
CO
o
o
i
i
\
o
00
o
d
IO
o>
o>
o
1
CO
CO
o
d
o
o
o
•«-
1
did
L.
CO
o
o
03
0
: i i
CAPITAL
j
CO
CO
CM
d
\
v
wg
IT
O
u_
o:
HI
0.
N
J
CM
10
O
d
1 1
-
v
APPLICEQ
i
o
o
1
*~
CO
0
IO
Q
o
o
o
o
*~
CM
§
o'io
TRNSFRE
i
SRFQUAL
|
d
ki
l|
\
j
PRIMER
•
\ :
x^
1
i
o o
V —
CO
CO
00
o
00
to
o
d
TEMPHUM
8
0
CO
§
o
j •
! |
CM
O
O
o
o
o
CM
§
O|O
o:
LU
o:
Z)
o
SRFPREP
-s
CO
8
d
-v
*
\
1
s
§
i>
oil
J v
1
o
o
IO
g
CM
O
CLEANUP
THINNER
i
'
—
§
0
— —i
§
••a-
TT
CO
o
o
THNRATIO
— s
i
0
— '
s
0
T
i
o
FILMCHAR
6-39
-------
c
a
a>
S
§
(O
03
O
§
03
f
.£
u
O
fi
n
^t
T-
CD
e>
Pi
•o
1 S
£
CD °
!>!
i
•O
0 T3
£ £ £
CO O Q
CO
e is co
*s*
<^
A
i
i
i
en
c
c
o
71
t
o
o
3
"H
I
S
CM
\
i
t
;
I
i
i_j
IS
CL.
Ol
0!
d!
^f
O
f —
5
O
a>
o>
o
O)
d
i
a.
3
I
X)
O
o
CO
CO
r*.
o
CO
CM
CO
d
GLBLWRM
•«s
i»-
T"
C
— j-i
N
O
at
S
o
m
in
CO
CM
o
d
CO
_l
UJ
=31
U.
2
4
t
(
(
\
(
i
tl
O
O
o
CD
T-
CM
8
d
ACIDDEP
<
D
3
11
r
S
o
o
o
00
o
i
CO
o'
!
!CD
i
CO
o
§
o
CM
O
O
O
d
WTRUSE
CM
q^
-j
§
I
f*~^
I
O
vk
^
;
g
s~-
:o
—\
d
^
o
*"
in
in
i
0*
1
X
i
CO
in
o
d
in
CO
in
CM
CM
in
S
0
d
ENVTERR
—
O
O
O*
m
CM
o>
0
CM
in
o
CM
o
d
a
IZ
UJ
^
§
O
J
\
CO
01
*~
CD
m
3
o
LANDUSE
1
: I
§
d
\
l
,_
CO
O
O
1
3
3
O
DO
O
i
c
g
C
ofl
O
S
o
i
^~
CN
C
d
CAPITAL
^
CM
d
tr
u
c
c
"\
y
CO
Q
O
^
a
UJ
c
c
c
0
o
3
CO
o
TRNSFRE
o
0
o
S
CM
CM
CM
m
S
o
SRFQUAL
o
CM
T™
\\
\
PRIMER
B
O
0
CO
n
CD
o
3O
in
o
0
TEMPHUM
•-
; : t •
O
CM
01
O
§
o
CO
o
o
CURERAT
CM
0
O
i
N
1
0
SRFPREP
i
CO
o
0
0
8
T—
1
o
CLEANUP
j
t
O"
-tf
^
1
/
THINNER
nl
o
o
3
T
0
d
THNRATIO
CO
o
0
c
pi
o
d
i<
3
O
p
ILL
-------
(S
•a
a>
£
s
CO
o
I
3
_O
<0
09
0
•~ «
To " £
E o g
£ZlO
•o
0
== S.
as o
E o
"S o
£ «
I""
•o
0 V
= S 2
IIS
C 5 co
o u.
Z
O>
Q. 33 2
rf ^ re
0 U.
fy
\
i
in
in
0
75
u
to
i
i
00 !
00
o"
(
\
> —
OO
T—
0
'HL
>
y>
\
|
i
j
i
i
j i
CO
g
o
^
in
IDiZ Z
O
X
XjUJjUJ
0
oo
S
o
^J
\
.
1
1
CO
«r~
^
o*
-j i
V
J
1
*~
CM
O
0
UJ
(O
o
1
'
H-
(0
0
O
CO
o
d
§
*~
r*.
8
8
o
to
o
o
2
f
• !
• ' • •
ill i • ! • •
1 i : • ' i
in
8
0
8
T~
CM
O
E
oo
T-
f>m»
CM
Q
_k
^
jg
Q:
o
u.
OL
UJ
a.
>
-^
oo
00
o
d
Nt
^
\
o
d
^^
CO
N.
0
id
a
UJ
o
a.
a.
UJ
o
£
d
CM
CM
CM
in
0
o*
_,
f)f f^^
toia
1
O
CM
d
-k
\
ZlU-i
cr
H-
IT
(O
a:
UJ
E
a.
i
i
CD
S
d
SH^
i.
o'
8
d
0
8
CO O
88
8
d
0
8
o
8
o" did
H
^ <.
x a:
Q-IUJ
a.
CO
1
! t
«
0
d
_,
1
in
o
8
0
a.
^
I /
* \
UJ 31
2i<£ u-iui
LJJ D £E|_J
O
03
o
o:
UJ
z
z
f
i
)
'
S
d
S
0
8
— ^s
CO
O
d
I
CO
o
o" o
Q
I—
a:
-.*-
<
2o
^T j^>
X
1-
— J
U.
&41
-------
iS
I
1
U)
C
I
^o
O
I
I
I
I
_2
S
03
«»•
CD*
*—
CD
to
£)
a
0
=3 ^ £
E o g
« 2=OT
•o
1*
2 o
0 ^
^ £
if
i
•o
0) "O
£ £ £
to 2 °
C m CO
0 LL.
z
n-lS
5»8
"*• o> U.
A
1
Issues
ea
"5
t;
CO
^j.
O
t
~n
/
1
V
X-—
CO
CO
3
\
v
i
t
1-
t.
I
CD
C
0.1
o
o
f£
!
^f I
oi
1
^— -
O)
O)
T—
o
8
,_
S
en
r-
0
CL
§
i
CO
o
o
in
§
0
CO
CM
£
o
— • N,
CM
CO
O
0
_— "
CO
CO
r—
T_
in
m
CO
CM
o
o
en
o
CM
o'
A
GLBLWRM
IFSLFUELS
_i
o
C3
UJ
o:
,,'
i .
g
0
**-—
inio
COIO
T- O
O
f- in
coico
T-!O
T—
CO
in
CM
E
^_
o
o
T-
0
— -^
jl
S'
?
0
o'io'so'
1.
*
0)1
CM
^
•.:,,
1
:;]
1;
| • v|;"
il*j' •
i ! „
i
Q-j iuji
LU ;co|
QiQ CCl
1
_1
o
v i
\s-
3)
O
^
\;
TOXICITY
1
„
•
rr~
CO O
CM CO
•«-!O
O
^ —
1
^
in
m
i
0
:
z
s
0*
CO
CD
CM
CM
in
o
CM
0
j
|CO
^x
CO
o
0)
l«~
CM
•r-
CM
in
o
s
o'io"
&.
tr
LU
i
\
0
S
o'
J
\
r^-
55
i^
&
m
CM
o
0
^r
•
i
i
LUILJJ
1,1,
LANDUSE
,„,
^^
^~
o'
It
\
• , :n<
I
fe
O
O
0
g
o'
en
CD
en
o
•
CO
CO
o
o'
--
o
o
o
T—
^w ^^
c^ if*"1""
COICO
0 0
0
CO
o
O
00
O
0
CAPITAL
o
CO
CM
o'
-k
\
(
\
•'
tr
o
u.
o:
LU
CL
\
I
I
J
:
CM
n
o*
-l
1
^
• '
APPLICEQ
o
o
o
8
CO
0
o
UJ
tr
LL
CO
z
in
CO
o
0
0
8
CM
CM
CO
O
O
_J
D
O
LU
0:10:
H- CO
|
O
CM
T—
O
^
\ /
Jl
1
PRIMER
CO
in
o
1 ; 1 • -: ' '• "'•
i
1
, "*
O 1- T-
CMICMICM
OIOIO
0 0
o
8
CO
in
o
o
"
MPHUM
UJ
0
o
o
CO
1
o
JJ
r
ID
o
o
o
80
10
OIO
CM
0
CM
O
o
CM
0
OIO
v -
CL
LU
cr
8:
CL
:r>
1
— -^
CO
in
0
o
t
]
y.-v
''
Q— — J 1
CO
o
1
THINNER
, | ,,
i
)
/
T-!«O
COICM
OIO
0 0
-J
j
p
^~
§
O
NRATIO
CO
CO
QC
c
?:
o
.MCHAR
z:\=i
i-
LL.
&42
-------
•a
to
if
CD
E
•<-»
<
I
CO
o
_
CD
O
.o
"-P
CD
_3
CD
CO
CL
_
U
Cj"
r^
r—
CD
0
1 "» £
|||
•o
Q>
= £
1 °
i«
2
£ 0
1
•o
V *O
£ 2 2
CO O O
C Jo CO
ou.
O)
rf 5* CO
0> U.
5
.1
(0
0>
CO
JO
o
CJ
CO
CO
T—
o
1
1
v
§
T—
9
\
i
/
^
1
j
i
i
!
i
8
o
o
*•• -
fi
o
CO
CO
CO
T—
0
o
CO
O)
00
o
00
CM
CO
010
Q.
Q
O
j
_ij
i
o
_-^-
i
CM
O
0
! I
I
S
CM
O
^
.»• "
CO
o
^——
8
1-
co
CM
(O
o
O
O)
CM
~'"^,
0
oio
CO
CO
o
c5
o
52
jj
CM
Q
*
1
CM
O
O
0
oio'
:
:
- ' i •
GLBLWRM
FSLFUELS
imi
iO
CD
1 '
1 —
Q.
O
o
o
I
ACIDDEP
SMOG
WtRUSE
j^J i J I
II
•
iV-X i
0
i
i
UH
o:
i
_j
V
f
CO
CM
O
VK
^
-<- —
o
o
^ —
o
o
(^
•«-
IS
i
o
z
S
1
fc
o
o
CO
r^
CM
CM
m
§
o
DC.
UI
CO
0
00
CO
m
CO
CM
S
S
0
a
Z>IZ Z
TOXICITY
X
UI
i
! iO!
i
Ol
i 1
i
i
i
i
LU
i
\
o
S
o
^/
\
J
in
CO
in
T-
1
O
LANDUSE
CO
T™
V"
o
^
I—
CO
o
o
g
o
o
S
CO
o
i
o
S
o
o
o
o
o
•«-
CM
CO
O
o
CO
CM
^
\
J
O 0
te
o
o
00
0
CAPITAL
K.
O
u_
oi
\
1
^
CM
o
ff
1
\
APPLICEQ
IUI!
a.
o
o
o
o
o
*~
CO
o
o
UI
a:
u_
CO
z
in
CO
o
o
1
T"*
CM
CM
in
CO
o
0
1
2
i i ', i : '
! : I ;
I ' '"• i
O
CM
O
^
)
J
fV
CO
PRIMER
o>
S
o
CO
CO
00
o
S
in
O
o
MPHUM
o
S
o
o
o
o
"~
CO
o
CM
0
o
IRERAT
3
o
1 . •
o
0
OiO
oio
oiin
^~
CM
I
O
T-
fc
o
8
o.
FPREP
EANUP
"^
00
in
o
Q
\
)
1
uji-3 o::-J
J-
o
CO
o
THINNER
1
i
§
o
§
*~
CO
o
0
NRATIO
(O
s
o
S
00
o
CO
o
0
.MCHAR
"^r* !•
u.
643
-------
-------
7.0 implementation Plan
Previous sections have developed information on the environmental, cost, and performance
aspects of five alternative CARC systems and combined this information through the use of a
valuation process to provide an overall prioritization of the screened options. The results indicated
that certain of the options provide significantly lower environmental hazard potential with minimal
impact on cost and no discernable performance impairment. However, in order to implement the
findings, there may be non-technical and non-economic issues to be dealt with. These areas include
a lack of demonstrated application of the alternative in actual production operations, considerations
relating to procurement practices of either materials or capital, and any incremental training of
operators to use and properly dispose of the alternative equipment and materials. This section
addresses these types of considerations.
7.1 Performance Demonstration
Performance demonstration refers to the actual painting of vehicles using the alternative
system(s). Although the constraints established during the scoping exercise should be sufficient to
ensure a reasonably high probability of success in implementing the alternative gun and/or primer
system, it will likely be necessary to demonstrate their effectiveness prior to widespread adoption by
the Army.
7.1.1 Application Equipment
The manufacturer should be able to recommend and demonstrate the necessary gun, nozzle, tip,
and pressures for optimum coating with minimal thinning of all used coatings {primer and topcoat
along with other non-CARC related coatings). Some manufacturers demonstrate the capabilities of a
piece of equipment with a generic paint that highlights the optimum range of the equipment.
Therefore, it is advisable that the manufacturer is instructed that the equipment will not be
purchased without a demonstration of its use with the paints that are to be applied. Issues such as
power and space requirements should also be discussed at this time. Any necessary modifications
to the analysis should be incorporated before a final decison is made.
7.7.2 Primer
The major issue of the alternative primer is adhesion to the CARC topcoat. The level of
adhesion between the primer and the topcoat can be influenced both by local environmental
conditions and variations in topcoats amongst the different manufacturers. To determine local
influences, the currently used primer and the alternative primer should be applied to test panels
according to the manufacturer's recommendations. Topcoats should then be applied over the
primers. Once the topcoat has been applied and allowed to cure, a cross-hatch adhesion test
(ASTM D3359) should be used to check for adhesion between the primer and the topcoat. This
procedure should be. repeated periodically to test for the effects of changing environmental
conditions. If any negative effects are noticed, then the temperature and humidity conditions should
be noted along with any other changes in procedures that may have occurred. If the primer is found
to perform poorly under certain conditions, then it may need to be limited to seasonal use. Again,
any implications of this should be factored back into the analysis.
7-1
-------
7.1.3 Thinner
A purchase of one gallon of the alternative thinner can easily be used for a performance
evaluation. The thinner should be added to the CARC topcoat material until sprayable viscosity is
achieved. The thinned topcoat should then be applied to a primed test panel. The surface should
then be visually compared to a surface topcoated using the baseline thinner or currently used
thinner. This procedure should also be repeated periodically to test for influences of changes in
environmental conditions.
Comparisons of the change in viscosity of the currently used CARC topcoat due to equal
additions of baseline or alternative thinner can also be measured. Typically, the difference in the
effect on viscosity has not been noticeable. However, variations in topcoat formulations between
manufacturers may result in more significant differences in thinner effectiveness. It is unlikely that
the amount of alternative thinner will be measurably higher than that of the baseline. However,
based on the foregoing analysis, if the amount of alternative thinner required is more than a modest
percentage greater than that of the baseline, it will no longer provide a detectable advantage in
terms of an environmental benefit.
7.2 Procurement Considerations
This implementation issue area addresses two considerations. One, if the alternative involves a
capital item acquisition, it would be desirable to explore what steps might be necessary to justify its
purchase and also to understand who would make the decision, particularly when the painting
operations may not be performed by Army personnel. Second, if the materials used are not those
currently being procured, it should be questioned how much of an issue it would be to change the
procurement specification, especially if the initial cost is higher. Responses to these questions from
the base personnel were used to formulate the information provided below. It should be noted that
an exhaustive survey was not performed. It is possible that some locations may have more
stringent requirements than those cited. However, the information presented is believed to be
reasonably representative.
7.2.1 Application Equipment
The acquisition of a turbine HVLP system should require no approval beyond acceptance of the
Item managers involved. The item managers for the painted targets have the ultimate approval for
how an item is painted. However, as long as the coated parts meet quality standards, the specific
components or methods used are generally not an issue. Therefore, once the alternatives have been
found acceptable via the performance demonstration, there should not be additional approval
requirements.
The purchase price of a turbine system (approximately $20,000 for four guns and a turbine) is
significantly more than that of traditional HVLP equipment and thus merits additional considerations.
This price and the presence of some information suggesting possible reliability problems may justify
requesting or requiring a lease option. A lease would allow for the investigation of new equipment
as it becomes available. Due to the competitive nature of the equipment manufacturers market, it is
likely that other, less expensive equivalent turbine systems will be marketed in the next few years.
Also, a service agreement which includes next day loaner equipment might prove invaluable, since
the occurrence of downtime at key periods cannot be accepted.
7.2.2 Primers and Thlnners
The primer and the thinner should also require no approval beyond the acceptance of the item
managers. This acceptance should be received after the two alternatives have passed the .
performance demonstrations. Since both the alternative thinner and primers are either Military-
Specified or Federal-Standard-Approved, they should be obtainable through the standard
procurement channels. The Federal Stock Classes (FSCs), National Item Identification Number
7-2
-------
(NIINs), manufacturer's CAGE numbers and Part Name/Number of the materials reviewed are
available in the MSDSs provided.
7.3 Training Requirements
7.3.1 Application Equipment
The alternative application equipment, the Can-am turbine HVLP system, has been used at
several locations and found to require only a few hours per man of familiarization. Safety concerns
should be similar to those of standard HVLP equipment with the additional concerns of slightly larger
air lines and the turbine itself. However, a demonstration by the manufacturer which includes
discussions of safety and technique issues should still be utilized.
7.3.2 Primers and Tfjinners
There are no known new special handling requirements or training issues associated with the
alternative primer or the alternative thinner. The same safety methods that are used for the current
baselines should be followed. MSDS sheets should be read by each user and special consideration
should be taken in the case of users who have sensitivities to certain chemicals. The primer is an
amine-cured epoxy like the baseline and these systems have been associated with increased
sensitivity among some users over time. The differences in the manufacturing of the alternative
epoxy-amine system may have an effect on the rate of sensitization.
Some minor alterations in the application equipment's setup may be required to achieve
optimum performance for the alternatively thinned topcoat and the alternative primer. The primer
may also require slightly different application thicknesses or drying times between recoats. This
information is available from the manufacturers. Finally, the thinner might change the curing rate of
the topcoat and minor changes in scheduling may be required.
7-3
-------
-------
8.0 Conclusions
The analysis undertaken during the study leads to conclusions in two areas:, LCImA
methodology and specific findings of the CARC case study. In the former, the results of the effort
indicate:
• an LCA-based methodology for DfE is viable and leads to both broader and more cohesive
insights into the tradeoffs among decision elements,
• the use of a valuation methodology, although not essential, makes it easier for the decision
maker to identifiy preferred alternatives,
• aspects of the LCImA methodology are still limited in two ways; one, the analytic framework
associated with the impact characterization could benefit from additional refinement efforts
relative to the normalization step and two, there are data gaps and deficiencies in both the
inventory and the impact assessment that must be carefully assessed before conclusions are
drawn,
• the DfE approach, while applicable to the development of processes/procedures and their
implementation, likely would fit better with a true LCA-based design exercise for a product.
In the area of application to the CARC case study, the following conclusions are drawn:
• the LCImA effort provided an excellent framework for the analysis - CARC specialists, cost
engineers, and environmental scientists were able to coherently address and integrate the
various aspects of their work into a combined analysis that clearly identifies the tradeoffs
involved,
• of the five alternatives considered, two of them (alternative gun and a combination of
alternative primer and gun) demonstrate the potential for clear environmental improvement;
the remaining three exhibit slight improvements that are not significant within the
uncertainty of the analysis,
• when cost and performance are considered simultaneously with environment, the same two
alternatives emerge as the preferred candidates for implementation but the degree "of
differentiation relative to the baseline is less. This fnay be understood in the light of the
valuation process which assigns a level of influence in the final analysis to each of the three
improvement assessment dimensions. When considered alone, environmental factors
obviously exert all of the differentiating ability. When cost and performance considerations
are added, the nature of the scoping process in this application limited the alternatives to
those that were not expected to be strongly differentiable on these two dimensions. Thus,
when the combined influence ascribed to these factors (35%) is considered, the overall
differentiation magnitude is decreased. Nevertheless, Alternative 3 (primer and gun) still
8-1
-------
clearly emerges as the recommended implementation choice followed by Alternative 2 (gun
only).
8-2
-------
9.0 Bibliography
Aid rich Chemical Company. 1992. Catalog Handbook of Fine Chemicals. 1992-1993 ed. Aldrich
Chemical Company, Milwaukee, Wl. 1992 pp.
Brown, H.L., B.B. Hamel, and B.A. Hedman. 1985. Energy Analysis of 108 Industrial Process.
Fairmont Press, Philadelphia, PA. 314pp.
Bunnell, M. 1995. Telephone conversation between Mr. Mike Bunnell, President, Can-am and Mr.
Kevin Taylor, Battelle, August 28, 1995.
Cavender, K., S. Piccot, M. Tedijanto, and D. Russell. 1994. Pollution Prevention Opportunity
Assessment: Chemical Agent Resistant Coating Operation at Ft. Eustis, Virginia. Draft Report.
Prepared by Southern Research Institute, and Pacific Environmental Services, Incorporated for
the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Office of
Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH.
Chemical Marketing Reporter, vol. 247. Jan-Jun 1995. Schnell Publishing Co., New York, NY.
Department of the Army Technical Bulletin, 1991. CARC Spot Painting. Headquarters, Department
of the Army.
Duncan, J. 1995. Multiple telephone conversations between Jeff Duncan, Fort Belvoir Army Paint
Research Facility and Kevin Taylor, Battelle, March 1995. Information is a composite of several
communications between Mr. Duncan and Mr. Taylor.
Ellis, W. 1986. Solvents. Federation Series on Coatings Technology. Federation Series on Coating
Technologies, Philadelphia, PA, October, 29 pp.
Ewalt, L. 1995. Multiple telephone conversations between Mr. Leon Ewalt, technical representative,
Deft and Mr. Kevin Taylor, Battelle, July 95.
Gmelin. 1932. Gmelins Handbuch der Anorganischen Chemie. Teil A, System Number 58. p 479.
Gmelin. 1961. Gmelins Handbuch der Anorganischen Chemie. Supplement pp 58-61.
Hale, J. 1995. Telephone conversation between Jerry Hale, Supervisor of CARC painting
operations Ft. Eustits and Kevin Taylor, Battelle, July, 26, 1995. Results are based on
conclusions drawn by Mr. Taylor from information obtained from conversations with Mr. Hale.
Heijungs, R. (Final Editor). 1992a. Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment of Products: Guide -
October 1992. Report 9266. CML (Centre of Environmental Science) in Leiden, TNO
(Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research) in Apeldoorn, and B&G (Fuels and
Raw Materials Bureau) in Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 96 pp.
9-1
-------
Heijungs, R. (Final Editor). 1992b. Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment of Products: Backgrounds
- October 1992. Report 9267. CML (Centre of Environmental Science) in Leiden, TNO
(Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research) in Apeldoorn, and B&G (Fuels and
Raw Materials Bureau) in Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 130 pp.
Hendricks, D., R. Purcell, M. Tedijanto, and D. Russell. 1995. Life Cycle Inventory for Chemical
Agent Resistant Coating. Draft Report. Prepared by Pacific Environmental Services,
Incorporated for the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH.
Hocking, M.B. 1985. Modern Chemical Technology and Emission Control. Springer-Verlag, New
York. 460 pp.
Kirk-Othmer. 1978. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. 3rd Edition.. Wiley
Interscience, New York, NY.
Kirk-Othmer. 1991. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. 4th Edition. Wiley
Interscience, New York, NY.
Lowenheim, F.A., and M.K. Morgan. 1975. Faith, Keyes, and Clark's Industrial Chemicals. 4th
Edition. Wiley-Interscience, New York. 904 pp.
Martin, J. 1995. Telephone conversation between Jimmy Martin, Sales Representative for Sinks
and Kevin Taylor, Battelle, 8/4/1995.
Mayer, S. 1994. Personal communication, Nick Conkle to Steve Mayer, June 23, 1994 (Mayer
was in charge of waste blasting-media disposal)
McKetta. John J., Ed. 1992. Chemical Processing Handbook. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, NY.
972 pp.
Merck. 1983. The Merck Index. 10th ed. Merck & CO, Rahway, NJ.
Miller, T. 1995. Telephone conversations and facsimile questionaire between Tom Miller, Northrop
Worldwide Aircraft Services (subcontracted by Fort Eustis to perform the painting) and Kevin
Taylor Battelle, August 9-11, 1995. Results are based on conclusions drawn by Mr. Taylor from
information obtained from conversations with Mr. Miller.
Monzyk, B.F. 1995. Personal communication to J.R. Becker, Battelle by B.F. Monzyk, Chemical
Process Engineer at Battelle (previously employed by Monsanto), August 10.
Nordic Council. 1992. Product Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and Methodology. The Nordic
Council, Stockholm, Sweden. 288 pp.
Peters, M.S., and K.D. Timmerhaus. 1991. Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engineers.
4th Edition. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY. 910pp.
Saaty, T.L. 1990. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, PA. 287pp.
Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). 1991. A Technical Framework for
Life-Cycle Assessments. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, and SETAC
Foundation for Environmental Education, Inc., Washington, DC. 134pp.
9-2
-------
Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). 1993. A Conceptual Framework for
Life-Cycle Impact Assessment. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, and
SETAC Foundation for Environmental Education, Inc., Pensacola, FL. 160pp.
Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC). 1994. Life-Cycle Assessment Data
Quality: A Conceptual Framework . Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, and
SETAC Foundation for Environmental Education, Inc., Pensacola, FL. 157pp.
Seffick, S. 1995. Telephone conversation between Mr. Steve Seffick, sales representative,
DeVilbiss and Mr. Kevin Taylor, Battelle July 24, 1995.
Sittig, M. 1975. Environmental Sources and Emissions Handbook. Noyes Data Corporation, Park
Ridge, NJ. 523 pp.
Skillen, A. 1994. "Abrasive Blast Cleaning: Evolution or Revolution," Industrial Minerals, February,
pp. 25-39.
SRI International. 1993. 1993 Directory of Chemical Producers. SRI International, Menlo Park, CA.
TRI. 1993. 1993 Toxic Release Inventory. On-line database available through TOXNET in the
MEDLARS Clearinghouse offered by the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of
Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, MD.
U.S. Bureau of Mines. 1992. 1992 Minerals Yearbook: Volume I, Metals and Minerals. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
DC., 1,495pp.
U.S. Bureau of Mines. 1995a. Mineral Industry Surveys: Chromium in 1994. Minerals Commodity
Summaries - - January. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Washington, DC., 4
pp.
U.S. Bureau of Mines. 1995b. Minerals Commodity Summaries 1995: Cobalt. FaxBack Document.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Washington, DC., 2 pp.
U.S. Bureau of Mines. 1995c. Minerals Commodity Summaries 1995: Iron Ore. FaxBack
Document. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Washington, DC., 2 pp.
U.S. Bureau of Mines. 1995d. Minerals Commodity Summaries 1995: Salt. FaxBack Document.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Washington, DC., 2 pp.
U.S. Bureau of Mines. 1995e. Minerals Commodity Summaries 1995: Magnesium. FaxBack
Document. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Washington, DC., 2 pp.
U.S. Bureau of Mines. 1995f. Minerals Commodity Summaries 1995: Zinc. FaxBack Document.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Washington, DC., 2 pp.
U.S. Bureau of Mines. 1995g. Minerals Commodity Summaries 1995: Bauxite and Alumina.
FaxBack Document. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Washington, DC., 2 pp.
U.S. Bureau of Mines; 1995h. Minerals Commodity Summaries 1995: Soda Ash. FaxBack
Document. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Washington, DC., 2 pp.
9-3
-------
U.S. Bureau of Mines. 1995i. Minerals Commodity Summaries 1995: Thallium. FaxBack
Document. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Washington, DC., 2 pp.
U.S. Bureau of Mines. 1995J. Minerals Commodity Summaries 1995: Stone (Crushed). FaxBack
Document. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Washington, DC., 2 pp.
U.S. Bureau of Mines. 1995k. Minerals Commodity Summaries 1995: Phosphate Rock. FaxBack
Document. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Washington, DC., 2 pp.
U.S. Department of Energy. 1993. Annual Energy Review 1992. Energy Information
Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC., 350 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1976. Quality Criteria for Water. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 256 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1977. Industrial Process Profiles for Environmental
Use. EPA-600/2-77-023. Cincinnati, Ohio.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1990. AIRS Facility Subsystem Source Classification
Codes & Emission Factor Listing for Criteria Air Pollutants. EPA 450/4-90-003. Office of Air
Quality Planning & Standards: Technical Support Division: Monitoring & Reports Branch,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993a. Life Cycle Design Guidance Manual:
Environmental Requirements and the Product System. EPA600/R-92/226. Prepared by the
National Pollution Prevention Center, University of Michigan for the Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, OH. 181 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993b. Life-cycle Assessment: Inventory Guidelines
and Principles. EPA/600/R-92/245. Prepared by Battelle and Franklin Associates, Inc. for the
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH. 108pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1994. Chemical Hazard Evaluation for Management
Strategies: A Method for Ranking and Scoring Chemicals by Potential Human Health and
Environmental Impacts. Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Office of Research and
Development,U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, 95 pp.
Wells, G. Margaret. 1991. Handbook of Petrochemicals and Processes. Gower Publishing
Company, England.
Wicks, Z.W., Jr. 1987. Corrosion Protection by Coatings. Federation Series on Caoatings
Technology. Federation of Societies for Coatings Technology, Philadelphia, PA, February, 21 pp.
Woody, G. 1995. Telephone conversation between Gene Woody, Supervisor of CARC painting
operations Ft. Campbell and Kevin Taylor, Battelle, July 21, 1995. Results are based on
conclusions drawn by Mr. Taylor from information obtained from conversations with Mr. Woody.
Young, J.S., L. Ambrose, and L. Lobo. 1994. Stirring Up Innovation: Environmental Improvements
in Paints and Adhesives. Inform, Inc., New York, NY. 116pp.
9-4
-------
APPENDIX A
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAMS
o
o
s
I
i
o
81
u
I,
I
s
b
r
o>
0
u
I
5o
S
u
o
ui
o
^
I
A-1
-------
V
I
w
i
CM
<
s
I
A-2
-------
•oo
38
(A
-------
I Crude Oil
-I Petroleum Refining J-
Naphtha
04-05-01
CARC Thinner
MIL-T-81772
Rgure A-4. Process flowsheet for baseline thinner
A-4
-------
A-5
-------
A-6
-------
! s
A-7
-------
-------
APPENDIX "B
MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEETS (MSDSs)
CARC PAINT
MATERIAL SAFETT DATA SHEET
FOR COATINGS. RESINS AND RELATID MATERIALS
Pase l
0860SGUZ-GD
Prepared By- JANE FREEMAN
Oats o£ Preparatioa- 04-25-93
Manufacturer: Heatraa Coatiass . lac.
Address : 5337 West Hill Road
Milwaukee. Wisconsin 53-13
Talephone #: C414) 353-4200 Might: list Available
Saersaacy #: (414)353-4200 Ni?ht: C=C-0)424-9300 (Chamtrec)
***>>***x***«»xx**a«a**a*s*<*****««x* : Tes
»«*«««*«»««*««»*»««»««*««»««««««a»«*
SECTION'ii -- HAZARDOUS INGREDIENTS
METHYL ISOAMTL KETONE SOLVENT
01 CAStt 110-12-3
% B7 WT: 23.787
EXPOSURE LIMIT:
ACGIH TL7/TVA SO PPM
OSHA PEL SO PPM
OTHER INFORMATION RTECS SMP3350000
MAGNESIUM-FERRITS PIGMENT
02 CAS# 12068-86-S
% BT WT: 1-5
EXPOSURE LIMIT:
ACGIH TLV/TVA IS HG/M3
OSHA PEL 10 MG/M3
OTHER LIMITS (NUISANCE DUST)
OTHER INFORMATION NO RTECS S FOUND
SILICA PIGMENT
03 CASft 14803-50-7
X B? WT: 20 - 30
EXPOSURE LIMIT:
ACCIH TL7/TVA
OSHA PEL
0.1 HG/H3
0.1 MG/M3
B-l
-------
,tjlxaaaaaaaasaaaaaaaaaa*aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa*<««aaaaaa8a*aaaaaaaaa'a«*«**
HSNTZZN COATINGS. INC.
oaeoscus-GD MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET page 2
383 GREEN ZSNTHANE. MIL-C-S3039A
xaaaaaaaaxaxaaaxaaaaaxaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaata
•xaaaaaaaaaaxaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaxxaaaaaaaaaaaa«aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa**a*x
SECTION II -- HAZARDOUS INGREDIENTS
OTHER INFORMATION RTECS #VV7330000
HOKOPOLTMER OF HEXAHETHYLENE DIISOCYANATE
04 CAS* 28182-81-2
% BY WT: 20-30
EXPOSURE LIHIT:
•EXACT PERCENTAGE: EXACT PERCENTAGE IS A TRADE SECRET
ACGIH TLV/TWA NOT ESTABLISHED
OSHA P*L NOT ESTABLISHED
OTHER LIMITS MFR.'S TWA * O.S MC/M3 . STEL = 1.0 MG/M3
OTHER INFORMATION NO RTECS * FOUND
TRIVALSNT CHROME
05 (INSOLUBLE) CAS# 7440-47-3
JS BY WT: 6.866
EXPOSURE LIWIT:
ACGIK TI7/TWA C.S HG/M3
OSHA PEL 0-S MG/M3
OTHER INFORMATION RTECS SGB4200000
INORGANIC SPINEL PIGMENT
oe CAS# NOT AVAIL.
% BY WT: 1 - 5
EXPOSURE LIHIT:
ACGIH TLV/TWA NOT ESTABLISHED
OSHA r"L NOT ESTABLISHED
OTHER LIXITS NOT LISTED BY OSHA OE ACGIH.
OTHER INFORMATION NO RTECS * FOUND
AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
(MIXTURE OF C3'S TO ClO'S) „,.„-,.
07 CAS# 64742-SS-S
« BY WT: 1.498 .
EXPOSURE L3HI":
ACGIH TL7/TWA NOT ESTABLISHED
OSHA r*L MOT ESTABLISHED
OTHER LIMITS 100 P?M = MFR.'S LIMIT
OTHER INFORMATION NO RTECS * FOUND
BUTYL ACETATE SOLVENT
oa
% BY WT: 1.194
EXPOSURE LIMIT:
ACGIK TLV/TWA
OSKA PFT
ISO PPM
150
B-2
-------
fcENTZSN COATINGS. INC.
08SOSGUZ-GD MATERIAL SAFETT DATA SHEET Page 3
383 GREEN ZENTHANE, MIL-C-53039A
xxxxxxxaxxxx*axxxxxxx*XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
This product contains no known carcinogens ziat are reportable
XKXxxzxxxxxxxxxxxxxxaxxxxxxxxxxxxaxxxxxx
X»XXXX»XXXXXXXX«*XXXXXXXXXXXX*X»XXXXXXXXXt»X«»XX»XXX»XXX«»X«X*XXi
SECTION III -- "PHYSICAL 2ATA
Boiling Range: High- 4115.0 F (214"C) Low- 344.0 F (iia'C)
Vapor Pressure: IS.00 nn Hg at is F
Vapor Dens if/: Heavier Than Air
Evaporation Rats: Fastsr than Butyl Acstats
Weight per Gallon: 10.29/
Specific Gravity: 1.23
% Nonesempt Solvent by Voluse: SI. S3
% Nonesempt Solvent by Weight: 33.94
VOC: 3.438 Lbs/Gal 413.542- Graas/^iter
Appearance: Opaque Liquid
Odor: Solvent Odor
Odor Threshhold:. 0.1 PPM
pH: Not Applicable Viscosity: 63 - 68 Krebs Onits
B-3
-------
HENTZSN COATINGS. INC.
08SOSGUZ-GD MATEHIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET
383 GREEN ZSNTHANE. MIL-C-S3039A
Page
«««»«««««««««««»«»»«««»*»»«»««»»»»*«»«*«*»»»»*
*********:
r * «« « *'
Hot Availible
««»*««*«"***»»*•«"""*"*"*•••*
Freesiag Poiat: Mot Available
Water Solubility: REACTS WITH WATEH
Coe££icieat o£ Water/Oil Distribution:
«««»««««««»«»»««««**»*«»»«««««
SECTION IV -- FIRE AND E2PLOSION HAZARD DATA
Flammability Classification: Class IB DOT: Flammable Liquid
Actual Flashpoint TCC: 54.0 F .(12'C)
Explosion Level: Lower- 0.9 Upper- 8.2
Auto Ignition Temperature: 450.0 F (232"C)
Decomposition Temperature: 400F (204C)
Melting point: Not Applicable
Magnetism & Csrrosion Rate: Not Applicable
EXTINGUISHING MEDIA: ( 2 )-FQAK ( X )- ALCOHOL ?3AM ( X )-C02
( 2 )-DHT CHEMICAL ( ) -WATE2 FOG ( ) -OTHER
UNUSUAL FIRE AND EXPLOSION' HAZARDS: Keep contaicars tightly closed.
Isolate £ron haat, electrical equipment, sparks sad open flame. Closed
container may ssplode when ezposad to extreme heat or burst when coatami-
aa.ted with vater (COS evolved). Do not apply ts fcot surfaces." Never use
welding or cutting torch on or asar drua (even espty) because product (even
residue), can ijsita espiosively.
SPECIAL FIHE FIGHTING PROCEDURES: Full protaetiss equipment with self-
contained breathing apparatus should be worn. Owing a fire, irritatiag
aad highly to=ic gasas (sea Reactivity Data) and saoke are present from tha
d-ecompositioa/combustion products .
»««a»««»«»x«a
SECTION V -- REACTIVITY DATA
NEUTRALIZING AGENT: OX - 10S Ammonium Hydrosida , 2J8 - 5S Detergent and th-e
balance is water; or a solution of BIACT Corp. '5 Targitol TMN-10 (20%) and
water (80%).
STABILITY: ( ) - UNSTABLE ( X ) - STA3LE
HAZARDOUS POLYMERIZATION ( -) - WILL OCCUR ( X ) - WILL NOT OCCUR
HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: BT FIRE: CQ2. CO. osides of Nitrogen,
traces of Hydrogen Cyanide. Heramethylene Di'isocyaaate.
CONDITIONS TO AVOID: Contamiaatioa with water, tposy catalysts, alcohols,
glycol ethers, bases, aetal complesas or other active materials.
Once the material has beea esposed to aay of the ibove or atmospheric
moisture, do aat seal coatainer as hazardous C02 jis could build up ia the
coataiaer resulting ia rapid depressurisatioa.
INCOMPATIBILITY: See CONDITIONS TO AVOID.
SECTION VI -- HEALTH HAZAF.D DATA
EFFECTS OF OVEHEXPOSURS:
TO VAPOR AMD/OR MIST: Caa cause irritatioa to skia. eyes and respiratory
tract (nose, throat, luags). Symptoms may be watariag eyes, dryness of
throat, coughiag, headache, tightaess ia chest o? burning seasation.
Headache, disziaess or aausea may ba esperieaeed by some as a result of
esposure to solveats.
PRIMARY ROUTES OF ENTRY: DERMAL aad INHALATION
B-4
-------
HENTZEN COATINGS, INC.
0850SGUZ-GD MATERIAL SAFST7 DATA SHEET
383 CREItf ZENTKfABE. MIL-C-33039A
Page
systea damage, liver and kidney damage.
Chronic overerposure to isocyanate containing products may lead to
respiratory sensitization characterized 'by asthma-like symptoms and/or
skin sensitization characterized by allergic dermatitis which may include
rash, itching, hives and swelling of the extremities.
Based upon laboratory animal data, IARC has listad Silica as a "Probable
Human Carcinogen". May causa lung injury if respiratory protection is not
used.
Some reports have associated repeated and prolangad contact with Trivalent
Chrome to dermatitis. Avoid contact with eves. tJfin and clothing. Wash
thoroughly after handling.
EMERGENCY AND FIRST AID PROCEDURES: INHALATION: Simove from a=?osura.
Restore breathing. Kesp warm and quiat. Notify a physician.
ETES: Flush immediately with large amounts of raaaing water for at least
15 minutes while lifting eyelids. Take to a physician for treatment.
SKIN: Wash affected areas with soap and water. Remove contaminated cloth-
ing. Wash before reuse. Consult a physician i-E irritation develops or
persists.
INGESTION: I£ swallowed. CALL A PH?S1C!AN OR POISON CONTROL CENTER
IMMEDIATELY
MEDICAL CONDITIONS PHONE TO AGGRAVATION BT EXP03USE: Asthma and other
respiratory ailments; chemical sensitization.
* x X x a x :
SECTION VII -- PRECAUTIONS FOR SAFI HANDLING AND US2
STEPS TO HE TAKEN'IN CASE MATERIAL IS RELEASED OS SPILLED: Evacuate nca-
essential personnel. Remove all sourcss of igaitisn (flames, hat surfaces,
electrical, static or frictional sparks). -Ventilate area. Avoid breathia?
vapors. Cover spill with inert absorbent. Pour Siquid decontaainant over
spillage--allow to react lor at leas- 10 minutes; collect material in open
containers — add further amounts o£ decontamination solution. Remove
containers to safe place — cover loosely. Wash dcwa area with decontaniaant
and flush spill area with water.
WASTE DISPOSAL METHODS: Dispose of ia accordance with local, state and
Federal regulations. Decontaminate containers prior to disposal.
PRECAUTIONS TO BE TAKEN IN HANDLING AMU STORING; Do not store above 120 F
or below 32 F. Store large quantities in buildia;s designed to comply vith.
OSHA 1910.105. Keep away from sparks and open fl=ae. Keep containers
tightly closed and protect from moisture. If ac^sture enters container,
pressure can build up due to reaction producing CG2 which can cause sealed
container ts pressurise »nd burst. Do act resaal ££ contamination is
suspected.
OTHER PRECAUTIONS: Do nat take iaterbally. Containers should be grounded
when pouring. Avoid free fall of liquid in excess of a few inches. Use
with adequate ventilation and respiratory equipment. Emptied containers
may retain hazardous residue or explosive vapors. Follow all precautions
in this data sheet uatil container is thoroughly cleaned or destroyed.
B-5
-------
**a**«a«**«*aaaaaa*aaaa«aaaaaaaaaaaaa-aaaaa*aaaaaaaaaai
0860SGU2-GD
HSNTZEN COATINGS. INC.
MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET
'••aaaaaaaaaaaaa* *-* *
Page
3S3 GREEN ZZNTHANZ. MIL-C-S3039A
aaaaaaxaaaaaxxxxxxxaxxxaxaxaaxxxxxaaaxxxxxxxxzxxaxaxxxxxaxasixxsaaassatxxxx
*«*>»«a«aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa»aaaxa a'a aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaas
SECTION VIII -- CONTROL MEASURES
RS5PIRATORT PROTECTION: Tha Surgeon General requires airline respirators
to be used unless air sampling shows exposure to be below OSRA limits.
Than, either chemical cartridge respirators or airline respirators are
required. The same precautions should ba used during mining or any opera-
tions where paint fumes would be present.
VENTILATION: Provide general dilution 'or local exhaust ventilation in
volume and pattern to keep the air contaminant concentration below current
applicable OSHA safety and health requirements ia the miring, application
and curing areas; and to remove decomposition products during welding and
flame cuzting on surfaces coated with this product.
PROTECTIVE GLOVES: Chamical resistant gloves.
EZS PROTECTION: Usa safety eyewear with splash guards and side shields.
OTHER PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT: Wear protective clothing to keep skin contact
at a minimum.
HTGIENIC PRACTICES: Wash hands and any e=?osed skin thoroughly before
eating or smoking. Smoke in designated areas only.
rxxxxaxxxxxxxxxi
SECTION IX -- TRANSPORTATION
AFPLICA3LE REGULATION: 49 CFR 171 SHIPPING
ID #l UN12S3 REPORTA3LS QUAWTITT: 100 Ibs .
LA3SL: FLAMMABLE LIQUID UNIT CONTAINER: C»
DOT SPECIFICATION CONTAINER: 24 Gaga Steel
DOT EXEMPTION: NONE
LIMITED QUANTIT?: TES
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE: Will not handle
NET EXPLOSIVE WEIGHT: Not Applicable
AEROSOL PROPELLANTS: Not Applicable
PAINT
HAZARD CLASS
ive Gallons)
DISPOSAL INFORMATION:
EPA HAZARDOUS WASTE NUMBER/CODS:
HAZARDOUS WASTE CHARACTERISTICS:
DISPOSAL METHODS: Incineration
D001
Igcitable
a«>«xxxxxx»xxxax»xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
t*x«xxx*x
SECTION X- -- SECTION 313 TOZIC CHEMICALS
XXXXXXX.XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXKXXXXXXX:
t X X X X X X
This product contains the following tosic ch.emic3.Is subject to the
reporting -requirements o£ Saction 313 of the Emergency Planning and
Coaaunit? Right-To-Know Act of 1386 and of 40 CFH 372:
Chemical
TRIVALENT CHROME
XTLSHE SOLVENT
CAS Number
7440-47-3
1330-.2X3-7
»«x«xxxxxxaaxxxaxxxaxxxxxxx«xx:
Weight %
6.86S
2.040
:xxxx»axxxaxxxxxxxxxxaaaaaxxxxx>
B-6
-------
HENTZZS COATINGS. INC.
08SOSGUZ-CD MATERIAL SAFETT DATA SHEET
383 GREEH ZENTHANE, MIL-C-53039A
Page
xxxxxxxxxxxxzxxaaxaxxxxxzxxaxaxxxxxazxxxxxxxxixzxxxaxazxaxxxxxaaaaaxa:
FROM OUR RAW MATERIAL SUPPLIERS AND OTHER SOURCES AND
IS BELIEVED TO BE RELIABLE. THIS DATA 15 HOT TO BE TAKEN
AS A WARRANT! OR REPRESENTATION FOR WnlCH HENTZEN COATINGS.
INC. ASSUMES LEGAL RESPONSIBILITT.
axxxxaaaxzaaxxxaaaaaaaxaaaaxaxaaaaa:
t * * x a x x x
B-7
-------
DOD Hazardous Materials information System
DoD 6050.5-L
AS OF April 1995
FSC: 8010
NIJN: OOD002882
Manufacturer's CAGE: 02388
Part No. Indicator: A
Part Number/Trade Name: N-1088A WHITE EPOXY PRIMER
?r \Vv\er feMT*f~
i »:=:==:=:= =======: i
General Information
item Name: WHITE EPOXY PRIMER
Manufacturer's Name: NILES CHEMICAL PAINT CO.
Manufacturer's Street: 225 FORT STREET
Manufacturer's P. O. Box: 307
Manufacturer's City: NILES
Manufacturer's State: MI
Manufacturer's Country: us
Manufacturer's Zip Code: 49120
Manufacturer's Eraerg Ph #: 800-627-1948, 219-23S-5856
Manufacturer's Info Ph #: 616-683-3377
Distributor/Vendor # 1:
Distributor/Vendor # 1 Cage:
Distributor/Vendor # 2;
Distributor/Vendor # 2 Cage:
Distributor/Vendor # 3:
Distributor/Vendor # 3 Cage:
Distributor/Vendor # 4:
Distributor/Vendor # 4 Cage:
Safety Data Action Code:
Safety Focal Point: G
Record No. For Safety Entry: 001
Tot Safety Entries This Stk#: 001
Status: SE
Date MSDS Prepared: 23AOG92
Safety Data Review Date: 290CT92
Supply Item Manager: GSA
MSDS Preparer's Name: MIKE LICHATOWICH
Preparer's Company.
Preparer's St Or P. 0. Boxi
Preparer's City:
Preparer's State:
Preparer's Zip Code:
Other MSDS Number:
MSDS Serial Number: BPCGR
Specification Number: MIL-P-53022B
Spec Type, Grade, Class:
Hazard Characteristic Code: F3
Unit Of Issue: EA
Unit Of Issue Container Qty: UNKNOWN
Type Of Container: UNKNOWN
Net Unit Weight: UNKNOWN
B-8
-------
Report for NUN: OOD002882
NRC/State License Number: N/R
•Wet Explosive Weight:
Net Propellant Weight-Ammo: N/R
Coast Guard Ammunition Code:
•»«» ^ ^^^ ^^«s assi__^_ w^^^ « *»SB 9^**v^B^ sea 3S™»«55 wS a
Ingredients/Identity Information
Proprietary: NO
Ingredient: N-BUTYL ACETATE (SARA III)
Ingredient Sequence Number: 01
Percent: 26
Ingredient Action Code:
Ingredient Focal Point: G
NIOSH (RTECS) Number: AF7350000
CAS Number: 123-86-4
OSHA PEL: 150 PPM/200 STEL
ACGIH TLV: 150 PPM/200STEL;9192
Other Recommended Limit: NONE SPECIFIED
Proprietary: NO
Ingredient: EPOXY RESIN
Ingredient Sequence Number: 02
Percent: 22
Ingredient Action Code:
Ingredient Focal Point: G
NIOSH (RTECS) Number: 1000131ER
CRS Number: 25036-25-3
OSHA PEL: NOT ESTABLISHED
ACGIH TLV: NOT ESTABLISHED
Other Recommended Limit: 5 MG/M3 TLV
Proprietary: NO
ingredient: N-BUTYL ALCOHOL (SARA in)
Ingredient Sequence Number: 03
Percent: 8
Ingredient Action Code:
Ingredient Focal Point: G
NIOSH (RTECS) Number: EO1400000
CAS Number: 71-36-3
OSHA PEL: 100 PPM
ACGIH TLV: S, C 50 PPM; 9293
Other Recommended Limit: NONE SPECIFIED
Proprietary: NO
Ingredient: ZINC PHOSPHATE
Ingredient Sequence Number: 04
Percent: 4
Ingredient Action Code:
Ingredient Focal Point: G
NIOSH (RTECS) Number: 1001478ZP
CAS Number: UNKNOWN
OSHA PEL: NOT ESTABLISHED
3IH TLV: NOT ESTABLISHED
B-9
-------
Report for NIIN: OOD002882
Other Recommended Limit: NONE SPECIFIED
Proprietary: NO
Ingredient: METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE (SARA in)
Ingredient Sequence Number: 05
Percent: 2
Ingredient Action Code:
Ingredient Focal Point: G
NIOSH (RTECS) Number: SA9275000
CAS Number: 108-10-1
OSHA PEL: 100 PPM/75 STEL
ACGIH TLV: 50 PPM/75 STEL; 9293
Other Recommended Limit: NONE SPECIFIED
Proprietary: NO
Ingredient: PROPRIETARY INGREDIENTS
Ingredient Secjuence Number: 06
Percent: BALANCE
Ingredient Action Code:
Ingredient Focal Point: G
NIOSH (RTECS) Number: 1004255PI
CAS Number: UNKNOWN
OSHA PEL: NOT ESTABLISHED
ACGIH TLV: NOT ESTABLISHED
Other Recommended Limit: NONE SPECIFIED
Physical/Chemical Characteristics
Appearance And Odor: LIQUID, ODOR OF SOLVENTS.
Boiling Point: 242F,ii7C
Melting Point: UNKNOWN
Vapor Pressure (MM Hg/70 F): UNKNOWN
Vapor Density (Air=l) : > AIR
Specific Gravity: 1.347
Decomposition Temperature: UNKNOWN
Evaporation Rate And Ref: SLOWER THAN ETHER
Solubility In Water: SLIGHT
Percent volatiles By volume: 59.63
Viscosity:
pH: N/K
Radioactivity:
Form (Radioactive Matl) :
Magnetism (Milligauss) :
Corrosion Rate (IPY): MINIMAL
Autoignition Temperature:
Fire and Explosion Hazard Data
Flash Point: 72.OF,22.2C
Flash Point Method: TCC
Lower Explosive Limit: 1.4
Uooer Explosive Limit: 11 • 0
tinguishing Media: DRY CHEMICAL, FOAM, CARBON DIOXIDE.
B-10
-------
Report for NUN: OOD002882
Special Fire Fighting Proc: WEAR SCBA WITH FULL FACEPIECE IN POSITIVE
D^ESS MODE/FULL PROTECT CLOTHES. USE H20 TO COOL CLOSED CONTAINERS TO
PREVENT PRESS BUILDUP, AUTOIGNITION, EXPLOSION.
Unusual Fire And Expl Hazrds: VAPORS ARE HEAVIER THAN AIR AND MAY TRAVEL
ALONG GROUND TO IGNITION SOURCE. CLOSED CONTAINERS MAY EXPLODE WHEN EXPOSED
Ix? EXTREME HEAT *
Reactivity Data
Stability: YSS ~~
S2no^T° Avoid (Stability): MATERIAL IS STABLE UNDER REASONABLE CONDITIONS
OF STORAGE AND USE. AVOID HIGH TEMPERATURES AND SHOCK FROM DROPPING
Materials To Avoid: NITRATES, STRONG OXIZIDERS, ALKALIS, ACIDS
Hazardous Decomp Products: CAN PRODUCE CARBON MONOXIDE AND/OR CARBON
DIOXIDE•
Hazardous Poly Occur: NO
Conditions To Avoid (Poly) : WILL NOT OCCUR.
Health Hazard Data
YES
LD50-LC50 Mixture:
Route Of Entry - Inhalation:
Route Of Entry - Skin: YES
Route Of Entry - Ingestion: YES
ov^thTTH«!L£5Ute And ^ronic: EYES: SEVERE IRRITATION, BLURRED VISION
SKIN: HARMFUL!. IF ABSORBED THROUGH SKIN. CAN BE ABSORBED IN TOXIC AMOUNTS
F^OM PROLONGED EXPOSURES. INHALATION: NASAL AND RESPRIRATORY IRRITATION
?^T2E^SSI°N' NAUSEA< UNCONSCIOUSNESS, ASPHYXIATION. ^NGESTION: GI
IRRITATION, ABDOMINAL PAIN, NAUSEA, VOMITING, DIARRHEA
Carcinogenicity - NTP: NO
Carcinogenicity - IARC : NO
Carcinogenicity - OSHA: NO
Explanation Carcinogenicity: NOT LISTED BY NTP, IARC, OSHA.
Signs/Symptoms Of Overexp: EYES: SEVERE ' IRRITATION . TEARING, REDNESS,
BLURRED VISION. INHALATION: NASAL AND RESPIRATORY IRRITATION CNS
DEPRESSION, DIZZINESS, DROWSINESS, WEAKNESS, FATIGUE CONFUSION NAUSEA
l^A^;J^TI*«> u* WAI UK.
Precautions for Safe Handling and Use
Steps If Matl Released/Spill: ELIMINATE ALL IGNIT SOURCEST~ABSORB~WITH ='
INERT MATERIAL SUCH AS CLAY, SOIL OR A COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE ABSORBENT
SHOVEL RECLAIMED LIQUID/ABSORBENT INTO RECOVERY/SALVAGE DRUM OR TANK TRUCK
FOR DISPOSAL. DIKE LARGE SPILLS TO PREVENT RUNOFF.
Neutralizing Agent: NONE SPECIFIED BY MANUFACTURER.
Waste Disposal Method: DISPOSE OF WASTE IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE
B-ll
-------
Report for NUN: OOD002882
LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL REGUATIONS. ,„,««, ,«
?*ecautions-Handling/Storing: AVOID STORAGE IN HIGH TEMPERATURE AREAS OR
NEAR FIRE OR OPEN FLAME. KEEP CONTAINERS CLOSED. AVOID ROUGH HANDLING AND
PROTECT FROM PHYSICAL DAMAGE.
Other Precautions: CONTAINERS OF THIS MATERIAL MAY BE HAZARDOUS WHEN
EMPTY. DO NOT WELD OR FLAME CUT ON EMPTY DRUMS.
Control Measures
S3SMS«»»-«»e«««sB======ss====s=cs=*»«»e=»========*»«s**msM==:;
Respiratory Protection: WEAR APPROPRIATE PROPERLY FITTED HALI
FACEPIECE RESPIRATOR DURING AND AFTER APPLICATION UNLESS AIR
DEMONSTRATES VAPOR/MIST LEVELS ARE BELOW APPLICABLE LIMITS .FOLLOW
RESPIRATOR MANUFACTURES DIRECTIONS FOR USE. mnmi^^vl B«T/w
Ventilation: SUFFICIENT VENTILATION TO KEEP AIR CONCENTRATION BELOW
PERMISSIBLE EXPOSURE LIMITS. VENT VAPOS WHEN BAKING FINISHES.
Protective Gloves: NITRILE OR VITON GLOVES
Eye Protection: CHEM GOGGLES, SAFETY GLASSES, FACESHIELD. mmma-
Other Protective Equipment: NITRILE OR VITON CLOTHING AS NEEDED TO PREVENT
SKIN CONTACT
Work Hyqienic Practices: WASH AFTER HANDLING AND BEFORE EATING, DRINKING,
SMOKING? OR USING RESTROOM. LAUNDER CONTAMINATED CLOTHING BEFORE REUSE.
Suppl. Safety & Health Data: CONTACT LENSES SHOULD NOT BE WORN WHEN
WORKING WITH THIS MATERIAL.
B-12
-------
DOD Hazardous Materials Information System
DoD 6050. 5-L .
AS OF April 1995
8010.
OOD002883
Manufacturer's CAGE: 02388
?art No. Indicator: A
?art Number /Trade Name: N-1088BM 4:1 BLEND
,-SC:
4-
I
General Information
Item Name: ENAMEL,EPOXY,YELLOW
Manufacturer's Name: NILES CHEMICAL PAINT CO.
Manufacturer's Street: 225 PORT STREET
Manufacturer's P. O. Box: 307
Manufacturer's City: NILES
Manufacturer's State: MI
Manufacturer's Country: US
Manufacturer's Zip Code: 49120
Manufacturer's Emerg Pfa #: 800-627-1948, 219-236-5656
Manufacturer's Info Ph #-. 616-683-3377
Distributor/Vendor # 1:
Distributor/Vendor # 1 Cage:
Distributor/Vendor #2:
Distributor/Vendor # 2 Cage:
Distributor/Vendor # 3:
Distributor/Vendor # 3 Cage:
Distributor/Vendor #4:
Distributor/Vendor # 4 Cage:
Safety Data Action Code:
Safety Focal Point: G
Record No. For Safety Entry: 001
Tot Safety Entries This Stk#: 001
Status: SB
Date MSDS Prepared: 23SEP92
Safety Data Review Date: 280CT92
Supply Item Manager: GSA
MSDS Preparer's Name: MIKE LICHA.TOWICH
Preparer's Company:
Preparer's St Or P. 0. Box:
Preparer's City:
Preparer's State:
Preparer's Zip Code:
Other MSDS Number:
MSDS Serial Number: BPCGS
Specification Number: MIL-P-53022B
Spec Type, Grade, Class:
Hazard Characteristic Code: F4
Unit Of Issue: EA
Unit Of issue Container Qty: UNKNOWN
Type Of Container: UNKNOWN
Net Unit Weight: UNKNOWN
B-13
-------
Report for NUN: OOD002883
NRC/State License Number: N/R
Net Explosive Weight:
Net Propellant Weight-Ammo: N/R
Coast Guard Ammunition Code:
Ingredients/Identity Information
Proprietary: NO
Ingredient: METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE (SARA III)
Ingredient Sequence Number: 01
Percent: 28
Ingredient Action Code:
Ingredient Focal Point: G
NIOSH (RTECS) Number: SA9275000
CAS Number: 108-10-1
OSHA PEL: 100 PPM/75 STEL
ACGIH TLV: SO PPM/75 STEL; 9293
Other Recommended Limit: NONE SPECIFIED
Proprietary: NO
Ingredient: EPOXY RESIN
Ingredient Sequence Number: 02
Percent: 23
Ingredient Action Code:
Ingredient Focal Point: G
NIOSH (RTECS) Number: 1000131ER
CAS Number: UNKNOWN
OSHA PEL: NOT ESTABLISHED
ACGIH TLV: NOT ESTABLISHED
Other Recommended Limit: NONE SPECIFIED
Proprietary: NO
Ingredient: N-BUTYL ALCOHOL (SARA III)
Ingredient Sequence Number: 03
Percent; 17
Ingredient Action Code:
Ingredient Focal Point: G
NIOSH (RTECS) Number: E01400000
CAS Number: 71-36-3
OSHA PEL: 100 PPM
ACGIH TLV: S, C 50 PPM; 9293
Other Recommended Limit: NONE SPECIFIED
Proprietary: NO
Ingredient: 2-ETHOXYETHANOL (EGEE)
Ingredient Sequence Number: 04
Percent: 11
Ingredient Action Code:
Ingredient Focal Point: G
NIOSH (RTECS) Number: KK8050000
CAS Number: 110-80-5
OSHA PEL: S,200 PPM
GIH TLV: S, 5 PPM; 9192
(SARA III)
B-14
-------
Report for NUN: OOD002883
Other Recommended Limit: NONE SPECIFIED
Proprietary: NO
Ingredient: XYLENES (0-,M-,P- ISOMERS) (SARA ill)
Ingredient Sequence Number: 05
Percent: 11
Ingredient Action Code:
Ingredient Focal Point: G
NIOSH (RTECS) Number: ZE2100000
CAS Number: 1330-20-7
OSHA PEL: 100 PPM/150 STEL
ACGIH TLV: 100 PPM/150STEL;9192
Other Recommended Limit: NONE SPECIFIED
Proprietary: NO
Ingredient: DIETHYLENE TRIAMINE
Ingredient Sequence Number: 06
Percent: 8
Ingredient Action Code:
ingredient Focal Point: G
NIOSH (RTECS) Number: IE1225000
CAS Number: 111-40-0
OSHA PEL: 1 PPM
ACGIH TLV: S, 1 PPM; 9192
Other Recommended Limit: NONE SPECIFIED
"Proprietary: NO
Ingredient: PROPRIETARY INGREDIENTS
Ingredient Sequence Number: 07
Percent: BALANCE
Ingredient Action Code:
Ingredient Focal Point: G
NIOSH (RTECS) Number: 1004255PI
CAS Number: UNKNOWN
OSHA PEL: NOT ESTABLISHED
ACGIH TLV: NOT ESTABLISHED
Other Recommended Limit: NONE SPECIFIED
Physical/Chemical Characteristics
Appearance And Odor: LIQUID, ODOR OF SOLVENTS
Boiling Point: 242F,117C
Melting Point: UNKNOWN
Vapor Pressure (MM Hg/70 F): UNKNOWN
Vapor Density (Air=l): > AIR
Specific Gravity: 0.905
Decomposition Temperature: UNKNOWN
Evaporation Rate And Ref: SLOWER THAN ETHER
Solubility In Water: SLIGHT
Percent Volatiles By Volume: 74.70
Viscosity:
p*: N/K
Radioactivity:
B-15
-------
Report for NUN: OOD002883
Form (Radioactive Matl):
Magnetism (Milligauss) :
Corrosion Rate (IPY): MINIMAL
Autoignition Temperature:
Fire and Explosion Hazard Data
M«W«.-«S== = 33S»»-»«3ES = = = SSS3»«* ==== = = =»»«»« = = = = = = *B»*S = == = = "*~"!* = = = = *'>
Flash Point: 73.OF,22.8C
Flash Point Method: TCC
Lower Explosive Limit: 1.0
Upper Explosive Limit: 14
Specita^Fire^Fighting Proc: WEAR SCBA WITH FULL FACEPIECE IN POS PRESS
MODE/FULL PROTECT CLOTHES.USE H20 TO COOL CLOSED CONTAINERS TO PREVENT
PRESS BUILDUP AND AUTOIGNITION OR EXPLOSION. •
Unusual Fire And Expl Hazrds: VAPORS ARE HEAVIER THAN AIR AND MAY TRAVEL
ALONG GROUND TO IGNITION SOURCE. ISOLATE FROM HEAT, IGNITION SOURCES.
APPLICATION TO HOT SURFACES NEED SPECIAL CARE.
Reactivity Data
Cond To^Avoid (Stability): HIGH TEMPERATURES, IGNITION SOURCES, SHOCK FROM
DROPPING.
Materials To Avoid: STRONG OXIDIZERS
Hazardous Decomp Products: CAN PRODUCE CARBON MONOXIDE AND/OR CARBON
BUOXIDE.
Hazardous Poly Occur: NO
Conditions To Avoid (Poly): WILL NOT OCCUR.
S3SS3*s»«»«»«ssss::======:=s3sssje5e=2se======s««ss=«»es=====I
Health Hazard Data
l»"t"lm =====
LD50-LC50 Mixture: UNKNOWN
Route Of Entry - Inhalation: YES
Route Of Entry - Skin: YES
Route Of Entry - Ingest ion: YES
Health Haz Acute And Chronic: EYES: SEVERE IRRITATION, BLURRED VISION.
SKIN- HARMFULL IF ABSORBED THROUGH SKIN. CAN BE ABSORBED IN TOXIC AMOUNTS
FROM PROLONGED EXPOSURES. INHALATION: NASAL AND RESPIRATORY IRRITATION, CNS
DEPRESSION, NAUSEA, UNCONSCIOUSNESS, ASPHYXIATION. INGESTION: GI
IRRITATION, ABDOMINAL PAIN, NAUSEA, VOMITING, DIARRHEA.
Carcinogenicity - NTP: NO
Carcinogenicity - IARC: NO
Carcinogenicity - OSHA: NO
Explanation Carcinogenicity: NOT LISTED BY NTP, IARC. OR OSHA.
Signs/Symptoms Of Overexp: EYES: SEVERE IRRITATION. TEARING, REDNESS,
BLURRED VISION. INHALATION: NASAL AND RESPIRATORY IRRITATION, CNS
DEPRESSION, DIZZINESS, DROWSINESS, WEAKNESS, FATIGUE, CONFUSION, NAUSEA,
HEADACHE, VERTIGO. POSSIBLE UNCONSCIOUSNESS, EVEN ASPHYXIATION. INGESTION:
GI IRRITATION, ABDOMINAL PAIN, NAUSEA, VOMITING, DIARRHEA.
Med Cond Aggravated By Exp: NONE KNOWN.
Emergency/First Aid Proc: EYES: FLUSH WITH LARGE AMOUNTS OF WATER. GET
ATTENTION. SKIN: REMOVE CONTAMINATED CLOTHING. FLUSH AREA WITH
B-16
-------
deport for NUN: OOD002883
AMOUNTS OP WATER. INHALATION: MOVE TO FRESH AIR. IF NOT BREATHING
CPR. GET MEDICAL ATTENTION. INGESTION: DRINK 1 OR 2 GLASSES OF WATER.
DO NOT INDUCE VOMITING. GET MEDICAL ATTENTION.
Precautions for Safe Handling and Use
Steps If Matl Released/Spill: ELIMINATE ALL IGNITION SOURCES. ABSORB WITH
INERT MATERIAL SUCH AS CLAY, SOIL OR A COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE ABSORBENT.
SHOVEL RECLAIMED LIQUID/ABSORBENT INTO RECOVERY/SALVAGE DRUM OR TANK TRUCK
FOR DISPOSAL. DIKE LARGE SPILLS TO PREVENT RUNOFF.
Neutralizing Agent: NONE SPECIFIED BY MANUFACTURER.
Waste Disposal Method: DISPOSE OF WASTE IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE
LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL REGUATIONS.
Precautions-Handling/Storing: AVOID STORAGE IN HIGH TEMPERATURE AREAS OR
NEAR FIRE OR OPEN FLAME. KEEP CONTAINERS CLOSED. AVOID ROUGH HANDLING AND
PROTECT FROM PHYSICAL DAMAGE.
Other Precautions: CONTAINERS OF THIS MATERIAL MAY BE HAZARDOUS WHEN
EMPTY. DO NOT WELD OR FLAME CUT ON EMPTY DRUMS.
Control Measures
=J«««»M: = 1312
Respiratory Protection-. WEAR APPROPRIATE PROPERLY FITTED HALF-MASK/FULL
FACEPIECE RESPIRATOR DURING AND AFTER APPLICATION UNLESS AIR MONITORING
DEMONSTRATES VAPOR/MIST LEVELS ARE BELOW APPLICABLE LIMITS. FOLLOW
RESPIRATOR MANUFACTURES DIRECTIONS FOR USE.
Ventilation: SUFFICIENT VENTILATION TO KEEP AIR CONCENTRATION BELOW
•PERMISSIBLE EXPOSURE LIMITS. VENT VAPORS WHEN BAKING FINISHES.
Protective Gloves: NITRILE OR VITON GLOVES.
Eye Protection: CHEM GOGGLES, SAFETY GLASSES,FACESHIELD.
Other Protective Equipment: NITRILE OR VITON CLOTHING AS NEEDED TO PREVENT
SKIN CONTACT.
Work Hygienic Practices: WASH AFTER HANDLING AND BEFORE EATING, DRINKING,
SMOKING, OR USING RESTROOM. LAUNDER CONTAMINATED CLOTHING BEFORE REUSE.
Suppl. Safety & Health Data: CONTACT LENSES SHOULD NOT BE WORN WHEN
WORKING WITH THIS MATERIAL.
B-17
-------
DOD Hazardous Materials Information System
DoD 6050.5-L
AS OF April 1995
FSC: 8010
NIIN: 001818079
Manufacturer's CAGE: 5W216
Part No. Indicator: B
Part Number/Trade Name: THINNER AIRCRAFT COATING
General Information
Item Name: THINNER, AIRCRAFT COATING, POLYURETHANE *
Manufacturer's Name: CHEMICAL SPECIALISTS & DEVELOPMENT *
Manufacturer's Street: #5 HACKBERRY LANE *
Manufacturer's P. O. Box: N/K *
Manufacturer's City: CUT & SHOOT *
Manufacturer's State: TX *
Manufacturer's Country: US *
Manufacturer's Zip Code: 77303 *
Manufacturer's Emerg Ph #: 800-424-9300 *
Manufacturer's Info Ph #: 409-756-1065 *
Distributor/Vendor #1:
Distributor/Vendor # 1 Cage:
Distributor/Vendor # 2:
Distributor/Vendor # 2 Cage:
Distributor/Vendor # 3:
Distributor/Vendor # 3 Cage:
Distributor/Vendor # 4:
Distributor/Vendor # 4 Cage:
Safety Data Action Code: C
Safety Focal Point: G
•Record No. For Safety Entry: 008
Tot Safety Entries This -Stk#: 010
Status: FM *
pate MSDS Prepared: 01SEP90 *
Safety Data Review Date: 03FEB94 *
Supply Item Manager: GSA *
MSDS Preparer's Name: DAVID SHIPP *
Preparer's Company: CHEMICAL SPECIALISTS & DEVELOPMENT *
Preparer's St Or P. O. Box: #5 HACKBERRY LANE *
Preparer's City: CUT & SHOOT *
preparer's State: TX *
Preparer's Zip Code: 77303 *
Other MSDS Number:
MSDS Serial Number: BJZSK
Specification Number: MIL-T-81772B *
Spec Type, Grade, Class: TYPE I *
Hazard Characteristic Code: F3 *
Unit Of Issue: CN
VJnit Of Issue Container Qty: 5 GAL CAN
Type Of Container: METAL
tfet Unit Weight: N/K
B-18
-------
fteport for NUN: 001818079
;TRC/State License Number: N/K
CJet Explosive Weight: N/K
Wet Propellant Weight-Ammo: N/K
Coast Guard Ammunition Code: N/K
:===========
Ingredients/Identity Information
Proprietary: NO
Ingredient: METHYL ETHYL KETONE (2-BUTANONE) (MEK) (SARA III)
Ingredient Sequence Number: 01
Percent: 30.5
Ingredient Action Code:
Ingredient Focal Point: G
^IOSH (RTECS) Number: EL6475000
CAS Number: 78-93-3
OSHA PEL: 200 PPM/300 STEL
ACGIH TLV: 200 PPM/300STEL 9192
Other Recommended Limit: NONE SPECIFIED
Proprietary: NO
Ingredient: HEXYL ACETATE MIXED ISOMERS
Ingredient Sequence Number: 02
Percent: 41.0
Ingredient Action Code:
Ingredient Focal Point: G
NIOSH (RTECS) Number: 1004009HA
CAS Number: 88230-35-7
QSHA PEL: N/K
ACGIH TLV: N/K
Other Recommended Limit: 50 PPM 8 HOUR TWA
"Proprietary: NO
Ingredient: TOLUENE (SARA III)
Ingredient Sequence Number: 03
"Percent: 10 .5
Ingredient Action Code:
Ingredient Focal Point: G
NIOSH (RTECS) Number: XS5250000
CAS Number: 108-88-3
OSHA PEL: 200 PPM/150 STEL
ACGIH TLV: 50 PPM; 9293
Other Recommended Limit: NONE SPECIFIED
•proprietary: NO
Ingredient: N-BUTYL ACETATE (SARA III)
Ingredient Sequence Number: 04
percent -.11.0
Ingredient Action Code:
Ingredient Focal Point: G
KIOSH (RTECS) Number: AF7350000
CAS Number: 123-86-4
OSHA PEL: 150 PPM/200 STEL
ACGIH TLV: 150 PPM/200STEL;9192
B-19
-------
Report for NUN: 001818079
Ocher Recommended Limit: NONE SPECIFIED
Proprietary: NO
Cngredient: XYLENES (0-,M-,P- ISOMERS) (SARA III)
Cngredient Sequence Number: 05
Percent: 7.0
Engredient Action Code:
Engredient Focal Point: G
NIOSH (RTECS) Number: ZE2100000
CAS Number: 1330-20-7
OSHA PEL: 100 PPM/150 STEL
ACGIH TLV: 100 PPM/150STEL/9192
Other Recommended Limit: NOT SPECIFIED
sssssssssssissstsssssssrsssssssssssssrsssssssss—ssssESSssssssssssrsssssssssrss
Physical/Chemical Characteristics
:=========
Appearance And Odor: CLEAR, LITTLE IF ANY COLOR; CHARACTERISTIC ODOR *
Boiling Point: 179F,82C *
Melting Point: -20F,-29C *
Vapor Pressure (MM Hg/70 F): 35.1 MMHG *
Vapor Density (Air=l) : 3.4 *
Specific Gravity: 0.850 *
Decomposition Temperature: N/K *
Evaporation Rate And Ref: SLOWER THAN ETHER *
Solubility In Water: MODERATE *
?ercent Volatiles By Volume: 100 *
Viscosity: N/K
pH: N/K *
Radioactivity: N/K
Form (Radioactive Matl): N/K
Magnetism (Milligauss): N/K
Corrosion Rate (IPY): NONE *
/Vutoignition Temperature: N/K
sss3:s==:===:=ss:ss:ss=:s=:s==rs== = = =: ======== = = = = := === = = = = = = === = = = = = = = ==== = = =
Fire and Explosion Hazard Data
Flash Point: 20 F/-6.7 C *
Flash Point Method: N/K *
Uower Explosive Limit: 1.0*
Upper Explosive Limit: N/K *
Extinguishing Media: REGULAR FOAM OR CARBON DIOXIDE OR DRY CHEMICAL *
Special Fire Fighting Proc: WEAR SELF CONTAINED BREATHING APPARATUS w/
FULL FACEPIECE OPERATED IN POSITIVE PRESS DEMAND MODE. VAPOR MAY TRAVEL TO
XGNITE SOURCES DISTANT FROM HANDLING POINT *
Unusual Fire And Expl HazrdS: NEVER WELD, USE CUTTING TORCH ON OR NEAR
PRUM(EVEN EMPTY) CAN IGNITE EXPLOSIVELY. ALL 5 GAL PAIL & LARGE METAL
CONTAINERS GROUND/BOND WHEN TRANSFERING MATERIAL. *
Reactivity Data
Stability: YES *
Cond To Avoid (Stability): N/K *
Materials To Avoid: AVOID CONTACT WITH STRONG OXIDIZING AGENTS *
B-20
-------
Report for NUN: 001818079
hazardous Decomp Products: MAY FORM TOXIC -MATERIALS. CARBON DIOXIDE &
CARBON MONOXIDE, VARIOUS HYDROCARBONS, ETC. *
Hazardous Poly Occur: NO *
Conditions To Avoid (Poly): N/K *
= = = = = = =: = = = === = = = = = = = = = === = = = = = = = = =
Health Hazard Data
:=============
T.O50-LC50 Mixture: N/K *
L^ioute Of Entry - Inhalation: YES *
K.oute Of Entry - Skin: YES *
«oute Of Entry - Ingestion: NO *
Health Haz Acute And Chronic: OVEREXPOSURE MAY CAUSE CARDIAC ABNORMALITY &
uIVER ABNORMALITY. ASPIRATION OF MATERIAL INTO THE LUNGS DUE TO VOMITING
5.JAN CAUSE CHEMICAL PNEUMONITIS WHICH CAN BE FATAL. *
Carcinogenicity - NTP: N/K *
Carcinogenicity - IARC: N/K *
Carcinogenicity - OSHA: N/K *
Explanation Carcinogenicity: N/K *
Signs /Symptoms Of Overexp: EYES:IRRIT, REDNESS, TEARING. SKIN:
PROLONGED/REPEATED CONTACT CAN CAUSE MODERATE IRRIT, DEFATT, DERMATITIS.
EXCESSIVE INHALE-.NASAL & RESPIRATORY IRRIT, CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM,
DIZZINESS, WEAKNESS, FATIGUE, NAUSEA, HEADACHE & POSSIBLE UNCONSCIOUSNESS &
BVEN DEATH. SWALLOW GASTROINTESTINAL IRRIT, NAUSEA, VOMIT & DIARRHE *
Med Cond Aggravated By Exp: N/K *
Emergency/First Aid Proc: SKIN:THOROUGHLY WASH AREA W/SOAP & WATER. REMOVE
CONTAM CLOTHES. LAUNDER CONTAM CLOTHES BEFORE REUSE. EYES:FLUSH WITH LARGE
AMOUNTS OF WATER, LIFTING UPPER & LOWER LIDS, GET MED ATTN. SWALLOWED:DO
pJOT INDUCE VOMITING, KEEP PERSON WARM, QUIET & GET MEDICAL ATTENTION.
BREATH-.REMOVE PERSON TO FRESH AIR. IF BREATH IS DIFF ADMIN OXYGEN. BREATH
flAS STOPPED GIVE CPR. KEEP PERSON WARM, QUIET, GET MED ATTN *
Precautions for Safe Handling and Use
Steps If Matl Released/Spill: SM:ABSORB LIQ ON PAPER, VERMICULITE, FLOOR
ABSORBENT. LG:ELIM ALL IGNITE SOURCES. NO PERSONS W/OUT WEARING PROTECTIVE
EQUIP. STOP AT SOURCE. DIKE AREA TO PREVENT SPREAD, PUMP LIQ TO SALVAGE
TANK. TAKE UP REST W/SAND, CLAY, ETC. SHOVEL INTO CONTAINERS. *
Neutralizing Agent: N/K *
Waste Disposal Method: DISPOSE OF IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL LOCAL, STATE AND
FEDERAL REGULATIONS. PREVENT RUN-OFF TO SEWERS, STREAMS OR OTHER BODIES OF
VfATER. IF RUN-OFF OCCURS, NOTIFY PROPER AUTHORITIES AS REQUIRED, THAT A
SPILL HAS OCCURRED. *
•Precautions-Handling/Storing-. CONTAINERS MAY BE HAZARDOUS WHEN EMPTIED.
SINCE EMPTIES RETAIN PRODUCT RESIDUES (VAPOR, LIQUID, SOLID) ALL HAZARD
•PRECAUTIONS GIVEN MUST BE OBSERVED. *
Other Precautions: N/K *
Control Measures
__ —— = = = = = = = ss = = ss = sss5 = = = = ssss=: = = =:=s = = = = ss = ss = = :=s= = ss = = = = = = = = = = = :
Respiratory Protection: NIOSH/MSHA APPROVED AIR SUPPLIED RESPIRATOR IS
XDVISED IN ABSENCE OF PROPER ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL. OSHA REGS ALSO PERMIT
OTHER NIOSH/MSHA RESPIRATORS (NEGATIVE PRESSURE TYPE) UNDER SPECIFIED
CONDITIONS. SEE YOUR SAFETY EQUIPMENT SUPPLIER. *
B-21
-------
Report for NUN: 001818079
Ventilation: PROVIDE SUFFICIENT MECHANICAL (GENERAL &/OR LOCAL EXHAUST)
VENTILATION *
Protective Gloves: WEAR RESISTANT GLOVES: POLYETHYLENE *
Eye Protection: CHEM SPLASH GOGGLES OR SAFETY GLASSES *
Other Protective Equipment: TO PREVENT REPEATED OR PROLONGED SKIN CONTACT,
WEAR IMPERVIOUS CLOTHING & BOOTS *
Work Hygienic Practices: REMOVE CONTAMINATED CLOTHING. LAUNDER
CONTAMINATED CLOTHING BEFORE RE-USE. *
Suppl. Safety & Health Data: N/K *
B-22
-------
DEFT PRIMER PART A
Product Code = 44-W-7 Base
Product Description =
MEL-P-53030
Epoxy Polyamid Water
Reducable Primer
In order to dispose of this material properly according to state and federal regulations, the
following information is submitted.
Raw Material Used
1. Resin (Solids)
2. Additives (Solids)
3. Pigments
a) Titanium Dioxide
b) Extenders
4. Solvents
a) Butanol
b) Aeromatic
hydrocarbon
Total
Percent of Formula
by Weight
16.03
0.10
33.96
27/85
10.80
11.26
100.0
B-23
-------
DEFT PRIMER PART B
Product Code = 44-W-7 Catalyst
Product Description = MIL-P-53030
Epoxy Polyamid
Catalyst Component
In order to dispose of this material properly according to state and federal regulations, the
following information is submitted.
Raw Material Used
1. Resin (Solids)
2. Additives (Solids)
3. Solvents
a)Nhroethane
b) Aeromatic
hydrocarbon
Total
Percent of Formula
by Weight
71.17
0.06
24.64
4.13
100.0
B-24
-------
DOD Hazardous Materials Information System
DoD 6050.5-L
AS OF April 1995
?SC: 8010
NUN: 001605788
Manufacturer's CAGE: 5W216
Part No. Indicator: C
Part Number/Trade Name: THINNER DOPE & LACQUER CELLULOSE NITRATE
General Information
Item Name: THINNER, DOPE & LACQUER, CELLULOSE NITRATE
Manufacturer's Name: CHEMICAL SPECIALISTS & DEVELOPMENT
Manufacturer's Street: #5 HACKBERRY LANE
Manufacturer's P. O. Box: N/K
Manufacturer's City: CUT & SHOOT
Manufacturer's State: TX
Manufacturer's Country: US
Manufacturer's Zip Code: 77303
Manufacturer's Emerg Ph #: 800-424-9300
Manufacturer's Info Ph #: 409-756-1065
Distributor/Vendor # l:
Distributor/Vendor # l Cage:
Distributor/Vendor #2:
Distributor/Vendor # 2 Cage:
Distributor/Vendor #3:
Distributor/Vendor # 3 Cage:
Distributor/Vendor #4:
Distributor/Vendor # 4 Cage:
Safety Data Action Code:
Safety Focal Point: G
Record No. For Safety Entry: 008
Tot Safety Entries This Stk#: 017
Status: FE
Date MSDS Prepared: 01SEP90
Safety Data Review Date: 12MAR91
Supply Item Manager: GSA
MSDS Preparer's Name: DAVID SHIPP
Preparer's Company: CHEMICAL SPECIALISTS & DEVELOPMENT
Preparer's St Or P. O. Box: #5 HACKBERRY LANE
Preparer's City: CUT & SHOOT
Preparer's State: TX
Preparer's Zip Code: 77303
Other MSDS Number: .
MSDS Serial Number: BJZRZ . . ._. £- J «c
Specification Number: &-A-857B U.S£tL J>« r/; CM.*77•*
Spec Type, Grade, Class: N/K-J
Hazard Characteristic Code: N/
Unit Of Issue: CN
Unit Of Issue Container Qty: 5 GAL CAN
Type Of Container: METAL
Net Unit Weight: N/K
B-25
-------
Report for NUN: 001605788
NRG/State License Number: N/K
Net Explosive Weight: N/K
Net Propellant Weight-Ammo: N/K
Coast Guard Ammunition Code: N/K
Ingredients/Identity Information
Proprietary: NO
Ingredient: ISOPROPYL ALCOHOL (SARA III)
Ingredient Sequence Number: 01
Percent: 18
Ingredient Action Code:
Ingredient Focal Point: G
NIOSH (RTECS) Number: NTS050000
CAS Number: 67-63-0
OSHA PEL: 400 PPM/500 STEL
ACGIH TLV: 400 PPM/500STEL/9192
Other Recommended Limit: NONE SPECIFIED
Proprietary: NO
Ingredient: ISOBDTYL ACETATE (SARA III)
Ingredient Sequence Number: 02
Percent: 31
Ingredient Action Code:
Ingredient Focal Point: G
NIOSH (RTECS) Number: AI4025000
CAS Number: 110-19-0
OSHA PEL: 150 PPM
ACGIH TLV: 150 PPM; 9192
Other Recommended Limit: NONE SPECIFIED
Proprietary: NQ_
Ingredient :<^JPHATIC-JETROLEUM DISTILLATES /(NIOSH 350 MG/CUM-8 HOUR TIME
WEIGHT AVERAGE, 1800 MG/CUM BY 15 MINUTES~3AMPLE)
Ingredient Sequence Number: 03
Percent: 16
Ingredient Action Code:
Ingredient Focal Point: G
NIOSH (RTECS) Number: DE3030000
CAS Number: 64742-89-8
OSHA PEL: 300 PPM
ACGIH TLV: 300 PPM
Other Recommended Limit: NONE SPECIFIED
Proprietary: NO
Ingredient: METHYL ETHYL KETONE (2-BUTANONE)
Ingredient Sequence Number: 04
Percent: 12
Ingredient Action Code:
Ingredient Focal Point: G
NIOSH (RTECS) Number: EL6475000
CAS Number: 78-93-3
OSHA PEL: 200 PPM/300 STEL
(MEK) (SARA III)
B-26
-------
deport for NIIN: 001605788
ACGIH TLV: 200 PPM/300STEL 9192
Other Recommended Limit: NONE SPECIFIED
proprietary: NO
Ingredient: TOLUENE (SARA III)
tngredient Sequence Number: 05
Percent: 12
Ingredient Action Code:
tngredient Focal Point: G
ZIIOSH (RTECS) Number: XS5250000
CAS Number: 108-88-3
OSHA PEL: 200 PPM/150 STEL
ACGIH TLV: 50 PPM; 9293
Other Recommended Limit: NONE SPECIFIED
"•"•""•""•""•••••••••••••••••••«I™«,1»«|»»«,«— — -w —»
Proprietary: NO
Ingredient: N-BUTYL ALCOHOL (SARA III)
Ingredient Sequence Number: 06
Percent: 11
Ingredient Action Code:
Ingredient Focal Point: G
NIOSH (RTECS) Number: E01400000
CAS Number: 71-36-3
OSHA PEL: 100 PPM
ACGIH TLV: S, C 50 PPM; 9293
Other Recommended Limit: NONE SPECIFIED
Physical/Chemical Characteristics
Appearance And Odor: CLEAR, LITTLE IF ANY COLOR; CHARACTERISTIC ODOR
Boiling Point: 175F,79C
Melting Point: -20F,-29C
Vapor Pressure (MM Hg/70 F): 70 MMHG
Vapor Density (Air=l): 3.0
Specific Gravity: 0.824
Decomposition Temperature: N/K
Evaporation Rate And Ref: SLOWER THAN ETHER
Solubility In Water: MODERATE
Percent Volatiles By Volume: 100
Viscosity: N/K
pH: N/K
Radioactivity: N/K
Form (Radioactive Matl): N/K
Magnetism (Milligauss): N/K
Corrosion Rate (IPY): NONE
Autoignition Temperature: N/K
:==============================:
Fire and Explosion Hazard Data
Flash Point: 10 F/-12.2 C
Flash Point Method: N/K
Lower Explosive Limit: 1.2
Upper Explosive Limit: N/K
B-27
-------
Report for NUN: 001605788
Extinguishing Media: REGULAR FOAM OR CARBON DIOXIDE OR DRY CHEMICAL
Special Fire Fighting Proc: WEAR SELF CONTAINED BREATHING APPARATUS W/
FULL FACEPIECE OPERATED IN POSITIVE PRESS DEMAND MODE. VAPOR MAY TRAVEL TO
IGNITE SOURCES DISTANT FROM HANDLING POINT
Unusual Fire And Expl HazrdS: NEVER WELD, USE CUTTING TORCH ON OR NEAR
DRUM (EVEN EMPTY) CAN IGNITE EXPLOSIVELY. ALL 5 GAL PAIL & LARGE METAL
CONTAINERS GROUND/BOND WHEN TRANSFERRING MATERIAL
Reactivity Data
ss_ss__sss__=-ss=s==s===s=====s========= = = = = = = s=s== === === = = === = === = = = = = = = = = = =
Stability: YES
Cond To Avoid (Stability): N/K
Materials To Avoid: AVOID CONTACT WITH STRONG OXIDIZING AGENTS.
Hazardous Decomp Products: MAY FORM TOXIC MATERIALS. CARBON DIOXIDE &
CARBON MONOXIDE, VARIOUS HYDROCARBONS, ETC.
Hazardous Poly Occur: NO
Conditions To Avoid (Poly): N/K
Health Hazard Data
LD50-LC50 Mixture: N/K
Route Of Entry - Inhalation: YES
Route Of Entry - Skin: YES
Route Of Entry - Ingestion: NO
Health Haz Acute And Chronic: OVEREXPOSURE LIVER ABNORMALITIES &/OR EYE
DAMAGE. ASPIRATION OF MATERIAL INTO THE LUNGS DUE TO VOMITING CAN CAUSE
CHEMICAL PNEUMONITIS WHICH CAN BE FATAL.
Carcinogenicity - NTP: N/K
Carcinogenicity - IARC: N/K
Carcinogenicity - OSHA-. N/K
Explanation Carcinogenicity: N/K
Signs/Symptoms Of Overexp: EYES:IRRIT, REDNESS, TEARING. SKIN:
PROLONGED/REPEATED CONTACT CAN CAUSE MODERATE IRRIT, DEFATT, DERMATITIS.
EXCESSIVE INHALE:NASAL & RESPIRATORY IRRIT, CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM,
DIZZINESS, WEAKNESS, FATIGUE, NAUSEA, HEADACHE & POSSIBLE UNCONSCIOUSNESS &
EVEN DEATH. SWALLOW:GASTROINTESTINAL IRRIT, NAUSEA, VOMIT & DIARRHEA
Med Cond Aggravated By Exp: N/K
Emergency/First Aid Proc: SKIN:THOROUGHLY WASH AREA W/SOAP & WATER. REMOVE
CONTAM CLOTHES. LAUNDER CONTAM CLOTHES BEFORE REUSE. EYES:FLUSH WITH LARGE
AMOUNTS OF WATER, LIFTING UPPER & LOWER LIDS, GET MED ATTN. SWALLOWED:DO
NOT INDUCE VOMITING, KEEP PERSON WARM, QUIET & GET MEDICAL ATTENTION.
BREATH:REMOVE PERSON TO FRESH AIR. IF BREATH IS DIFF ADMIN OXYGEN. BREATH
HAS STOPPED GIVE CPR. KEEP PERSON WARM, QUIET, GET MED ATTN
Precautions for Safe Handling and Use
Steps If Matl Released/Spill: SM:ABSORB LIQ ON PAPER,VERMICULITE,FLOOR
ABSORBENT LG:ELIM ALL IGNITE SOURCES. NO PERSONS W/OUT WEARING PROTECTIVE
EQUIP STOP AT SOURCE. DIKE AREA TO PREVENT SPREAD, PUMP LIQ TO SALVAGE
TANK. TAKE UP REST W/SAND,CLAY,ETC. SHOVEL INTO CONTAINERS.*
Neutralizing Agent: N/K
Waste Disposal Method: DISPOSE OF IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL LOCAL, STATE AND
FEDERAL REGULATIONS. * PREVENT RUN-OFF TO SEWERS, STREAMS OR OTHER BODIES
B-28
-------
P.eport for NUN: 001605788
UF WATER. IF RUN-OFF OCCURS, NOTIFY PROPER AUTHORITIES AS REQUIRED, THAT A
fiPILL HAS OCCURRED.
Precautions-Handling/Storing: CONTAINERS MAY BE HAZARDOUS WHEN EMPTIED.
UINCE EMPTIES DETAIN PRODUCT RESIDUES(VAPOR,LIQUID,SOLID)ALL HAZARD
PRECAUTIONS GIVEN MUST BE OBSERVED.
Other Precautions: N/K
Control Measures
;: = = ==== = = ss:s== = ss:s=s: === = s= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = :
Respiratory Protection: NIOSH/MSHA APPROVED AIR SUPPLIED RESPIRATOR IS
ADVISED IN ABSENCE OF PROPER ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL. OSHA REGS ALSO PERMIT
OTHER NIOSH/MSHA RESPIRATORS {NEGATIVE PRESSURE TYPE) UNDER SPECIFIED
CONDITIONS. SEE YOUR SAFETY EQUIPMENT SUPPLIER.
Ventilation: PROVIDE SUFFICIENT MECHANICAL (GENERAL &/OR LOCAL EXHAUST)
VENTILATION
Protective Gloves: NITRILE RUBBER, POLYETHYLENE
Eye Protection: CHEM SPLASH GOGGLES OR SAFETY GLASSES
Other Protective Equipment: TO PREVENT REPEATED OR PROLONGED SKIN CONTACT,
WEAR IMPERVIOUS CLOTHING & BOOTS
Work Hygienic Practices: REMOVE CONTAMINATED CLOTHING. LAUNDER
CONTAMINATED CLOTHING BEFORE RE-USE.
Suppl. Safety & Health Data: N/K
B-29
-------
-------
o
'•EL
E
3
IS)
c
o
" re
«-s
TO "O
i§
11
u. 0>
o c
r, to
f5 O)
U)
>> •S
w =
o i
a: a
<
o
CO
"53 w
w ••=;
re c
m D
APPENDIX C
DETAILED INVENTORY TABLES
s«s
oo 3 m
T- r^ i-
i-OtNTTOtOOO
o CM tj- •<»•
i- O> CM
OO h- T-
_ o •«- CM
T- CM O> Ol
0 CO ™ P
T- O CM
U- LL LL
CM
a.U.U.U.ULU-U-
0.0.0.11.11.0.11.11.11.11.0.
to
*^
(0
Si
re
3
(0
5
0> o
II
M tt)
E?
to 73
w .E
o w
.E 2
^ to
O J3
c E
O 3
TJ C
(/) s
c E
to 0)
8^
0
c
£ o>
m
z- >>
W -53 .£
O £ H
o'to -
II
£ c
2 P
O
a> in o> 10 •* co m
moo T-OO
en GO
O »—
O co
r-.' Q
00
co
CM
m
CO
o o r^ r^ co
•«- o> to
co ^-
« ^
o CM
£8
oo II
oo ^
m
r«- f-
co to
t>- o>
m CM
CO CO
•* o> •* i«-
T- CM O
a> t*- o
m to co
o> m o>
CM o o
T-^j-i>~inintDoofOO>^-tDCM'^-eo
T- T- to
co o T-
o o o o o o o
CM
0)
'
e Si £
|
o
u
O)
(/)
s
o o>
w
u
I
0)
"S
(0
CO
a
£ 5
~ -o
TO
-c
re ^ ^ o> as re c
w o o Q. c to 3
D > > CO ~) D U.
i
||l
CL
£a£^cxa>o£;=o
ll
£
o
£
~m
CL
8
o
m
a.
CD
o
m
C-l
-------
§
jfj CN *-; p O O O T- O CO Q O pi ini p CO O •«• 'cr co ep T-
•«• in o in 04 co CM
in CD o h- o oo CN
o t*- co CD T- T- _:
oo o o co ^- o 2
p CM cq p p p J5
o' o CM c> o o T-
• o
o .'. o o
o UJ o o
o *- o o
P CN"
o
o o
8 m
co
i— Oi CD OO ,,•, 00
O CO CO O> U-l O
t*- co co co *•"
«- CN TJ- r- rr
O> ^
coin
p p p p p p
00*0000
m
o
CO
o
s
o
CD CO
CD CO
co o
8§
o d
eo CN m
CD CD OO
o *» o
in oo o
O CM O
o o o
o o o
T- O O
0^0
o' o'
cooooooo
C4 p O p O p O p i-; p
o" o o' o' o" o* o o o o o' o
ooo
i-
cp
oo
O O
do
8
p
o'
JO JQ
"3 S
.O .Q
B B B
BB
I
O
m
m
a.
m
o
m
-------
ll
o o o
p' eo o P' P" p' p P' o p
2»;;j;'a-eMO>OT-coo>-TUJcM»-CMr--p^-o
2 £S £i r: £J "*: OOOOPOO
p p co p p ^: p p p p o- p o-
P p co o p' o o o o ci
o o o o o o o
u. u. u. u. u.
CAPP^tPOPP
in eo
in p
CM ' O
P O
p p
p p'
O p O P P O
~ -; o o o
in
eo
co
CO
OOOOOOOOO
p
o
8
o
oomoo
p p
O P O
p p
p' O O O O O O
CO i- CO
P O O O i-
_ O P O O P
o p p p p p p
O p" p' p' ci P P
ocM
o
o o o o o o o
o> co co •*• eo p CM
in CM CD CD •<*• eo p
o o o •*- o o o
o o o o o o o
p p p p p p p
d o P o o o o
s
o
o
p
o
p p p p p
o o o o
PPPPOCDCOT-CMCOvn
so CM r— r»
SO> CD CO
CO O O _ _
O OO O O Q O
0- o> p p p o
. CO CM T
o> CD eo in *- p
~ ~ ~ o o o
TJ-
o
CM O O O O" O~ C3 (Dm
_ ooino>o^~cMo)cM
oo-^-t^-inocMr^-t-o
CMOOOOOCOOO
oooooocooo
oppp^ppp0-
POP
P P co eo CM t-
o> co ^ co
T- •* •* CM
O O O i-
•«- o o o
p p p p
o o p' p
o p p
ocococor~incoo>T-
co os CM co ^j* in o> ^
COpT-POOPCOOPPo
CMOOOOOOOOOOO
in p p p p p p p ^ p p p p p p
coppppppp o o o o o o o
p p
§h- O CM CO
P O P O>
g
o
.a
CD
u
8
CD
0>
~ •= o»
CO
S
*:
i «
°- «
co £
CO CO
-=r S
m
c =
'CM g -g.
O X X
0)
05 CO
c c
£.£
2 2
CD CD
Q. Q.
O O
o o
0)
J5
0)
0)
CO
^ _ ^^ r» Z3 *v
t3 ^T *? 5 ® £ c:
O O O 0. S ILI Q.
o>
0) f
C* QJ
CO ^b
Q."3 03
0>
in
I W
•e oj
p
'o
o
CO
CD
OJ
CO
I ^
Sp|o|2»2
o5to1f»o£co<1)
O^»>PT=.CC: "sc.
||||||||||fl
ooEuJH^xeoaWcM^c
CO
CD
I C
O CD
11
TJ P
u
o o
E E
S S
m m
O
m
CO
o.
m
o
m
C-3
-------
o o o o -or o o
CM
CO
o
co 5 ^ co' p" 2 2 **
co v- r«- CM o o T-
•<-: TT rt. °. °.
T- CO O" P" P
*- i- i- tO
•* •*• O> CM
o o m o
o o o o
o d P P'
o o o p ^*- p o
r^
in
o
8
o*
T- O O
g
i
o
to o *-. O o -* o> o o
_• r- c\j TT o T- CD
q q 01 q q q 10 eo
ooooooq
eo
(O
CM
o
o
q
o
S
o o o
c^
CMCOO
•e CD CD
in •* co
f— CD h- co co
o o o o o
— : q r«; CM
co*-oo
r--' q ^ "^ ^ °. CM CM
ooooo
O O O
to t- r*- o>
co CD o m
CM CO «D t-
to
o
CM T- r^ co
OO CM CO O
T- CO •* TT
co ?-
*n o> t~- •r- -a Tn
co co in co m_ CD
^jooqcMfoco'-'. '*~I'*~I"*r.
co •»- o o dddd
S§
s
r- oo oo
ooo
i i i
UU III 111 UJ
Co c^ (D (O co
o' CM' CM to «o"
— — —
I
CD
m
Q.
CD
O
CO
C-4
-------
i>- »n
o to
ujSj
,j p
o'
o o
ooooooooo
tl »^
^OUJUJUJUJIIIUJUJLULLILU
T- CO O t*; CNj O)I •* (D UTIf-; •* «D
c>j o rJ «o c»i t>^ wi co" ^ eo t-^ oi
CD 00
ID D
«
co
§
o
o
co •*
is
in o
in p
o o
oooooooooo
in «o
UJ
o> o
«n ,_;
(O
in
i*.
^1
o °.
O
CD
QD
D.
CQ
O
m
C-5
-------
i.
_J
H
I
COCOCMCOCMO>Oi-C0O
" ^— ^* o ^i* co m ^P*
OJ o> o
{ *r Q
co
CD CO CO O>
ss^"
m
- £ «•» S S
in CM >•• *"I •
CO CO CM O O
O CM
s§s
O O C3
in q p
odd
i
o
o
m m
o o
?1
U
S
§
iui2&£
CO ±S P _
CS|8
&i
o ^
15
«i
of
51
1111
^ co o -e
g£
S: o5 o jc= 5 * « 5
oorooo>£S5w
5S^
Q.-C t_
j|~
O. CO
8«g
I'S.'g
?,eE
I 0.0
•5 §
o
OQ
C-6
-------
OCOO»^«-OO 10 CM 03 O T-
r- co ^ o
o o ^-
in CM
i- m r>- v CM CD
m oo „•
o d W o o* e>
5gS5fc§S838 S000 5
*• CM *- CO
*- o o &
CM W O
SO O O O O 6 O
o* p o p o o p
o o o oo'dddd
m
o o
«q o o o
o
co
co
O2(>'<>1
838
odd
^ co o j-
CO O O
o S 8
g§ o
o o
= =
O O
"5 » 5
"I .
linn
Sl-K-S S E
«! f
S 55 <-s TK 2
NDDQTX
Ia5
§
Ul
s
c <
"5
o
•§.
a>
S
"5 a
S a> -5 o
fill
SSSES iosooi-if s f, 5jgS6sSsosa-§8i§g
owwu-eowljm ffi»-ujxoo.xzoL
-------
o o
OOOOOOv-t-
o o
•^ O O O O O O *•*•
CM O O O O* O* O* O
8 p o p
o o' o o'
p p
o o
OOOOI^OOgg^gg
uigguitii
o o o c>i to
t^ P P oi eo
s
i
3333333
3 3
333
ooo-oooooo
OOOtAOOOOOO
Q 0> p ppp
T^OO'O'OOOOOO oooo
ooooooooo
t^ O> CD f"* CO
O CM O O O
Ul o UJ UJ UJ
OOOOOOOOOOCpOj-
CMOOOOOOOOOO opo
ggggg
_
coo'oooooo o o" o o o o o
o o
.o .a .a .a .a .a .0
oa
O
e
o
CO
C-8
-------
^ O> CO $0 CM SO
O T- •* O i- f co o
CM T- O> IO CO O O O O T— Q
«D CM •*' CO' CO' CD CD' CO' T^ P P P O CM O
o o o o o o
33333
3333333
33333
O CM O
CM T-
^00 O O O O O
ST-OO^COCpCDOOBCO^'CM^COflO T-
1O O> CD p O ^f O> CM O CO ^ CO O O ^
g
o
ft !
-------
§g
C4 to fc-
SCDUJUJLUUJUJUJUJUJUJUICOOO - — _ _
5Jh o> oj p CNJ o> co CN •* co x o *- o o o o to o cp to
T^o»'-»oc>it^'*cO'*cOT-cjppcjpc;pcoPP CD
to r-
00 O O 00
m o
o o o o o o
I
52$
•o co
CO
I
sffll
3Q.O.U. €>!«
<
CD
c-io
-------
3
co
I
i
£ n
JD
73
c^
I
1 i
&
ii
O
O
.
~ •» co CM ^- »o o a> o o co o W
€
3DO3333333O33DD3D3
»- CM CM
o> in o» !••• ^ o>
CO £ £ S ° 8 °
S 8 a 8 5 § 5
s
co
§
3
i
O
h- h- so
g> eg j;
co o o
o o
IO
CO
CO CM O O
ooooooo
e -o
tig
o: of
lit
I
>,
ff
°c
co
U
I
u
w -o -5
?1 g
co 23 was co c
2 P P Q-S J5 3
£
o
liilllil
(0
JC 3 3
0. (0 W
^ JrJs
5.SS
XOL U
S
o
i
I
OS
1
O
fe
a.
m
o
CD
C-ll
-------
eo
111 III
o"
in
, to.
CO CO
CO
O *-<* *A O t
D
P???I??22???????
CO CO CO
eo co in
o- o ^
CM *- O O
q p
o o
. . . -
^-'oooooooo
£££
DDD3D33D33D3 13 D D 3 3 D D
ittttyrttittit^^^t^^^tt
o r» o o o c» o
SCO CO CM CNI Cb
CO CD ^* C3 *V
is*
T- CO O 2-
co o o
5 SS§ § § S 5 § S
ociooeaooooooooo
§8
o o
S S S S S
8
To
1
0.
m
o
m
C-12
-------
r: 2t P. *~ •o
:rOT-CMT-T- CM ooooooo
p ~ p o- p p Q p CM p p p p p ^r p p fj ; p p p p p p p
o CM o o o o o o o o o o oi o d o" o d o o' d o'
Hi
3 3
££
3333
3 D 3 O 3
333333333
Hiiiikik
l°°i
§ I
P s
o d
A o O O
^r^^N-coo
eo to •«• eo o CM
in CM o CD •$• co o
o o ^— o o o
o o o o
^00 o o o ^— o o
O
°8§S§S8§ §§§§§§§
o o o o o ooooooo 00*0*000*0
O O O O O CO
-------
o o o o a> o o
o
o
'vf CO (O ^™
*" O> 'T if
ooooooooio
co r-I *": R e °. •»~c3o''^l*no<=»
CM ^ m *- o' o' """ eo° CM o o
ujoioioioioiotoioioioioioioooocno
) CD 4O ^tt ^" CO ^M ^^ ^W ^O ^^ OJ ^*^ (5 C3 ^f C3 C3
D33D D3 3
§&&&&&§
3DDDDD3DDDDDDD3
o o o o •* o o
O)
CO CM T- P
P O O O O O
•o o o
CM
CM T- O O
«
01 01 01
10 ^r >e
CM m v-
s$g
0 0 p CM O. p 0
O O* O O' O O* O
ooo
S
o>
^oi^cMco'r^p^^copcscMiriiri
io^-oo ooooo
O P P
Soog
01 Ol UJ 111
o
^ oj «q CM to* eo" e. ^ *t •*. o' CM CM* «o"
co«-oo OOOP
ja xj
if
J3 A J_
SSI
S
a.
m
o
m
C-14
-------
in c5
eo o.
JJ-C4gOOOO»CN|'^'r- tD CO h- O O>
1O CO *" *~ *~ '*"" '
o o
CO
oooooooooo
I
|I|i
I§If
i
I gi
llll
^ 'O «B i>
to co x u.
£ M
* 1
o
CO
£ls«
«1 111
O. g o
iiitiiil
OWWN33
(OU.DDDO.CL
7 Q o Q o
CM < < < LL
C-15
§
-«
g5l
c TS S
« *0
i^-8
® « as
szz
I
I
m
O
m
-------
CMCO^-OCOOCBCMO
cQCDT-r-cococor^T-cMcoincocMcoj-wcoocBCM
x3£S8888E8,o>20-S8&S5 55
S coSaScooS co 8 op to <5 « ^-S T- to in o
1
g
o> «. co *-. co o> *. «*.
CM V- o> 3r o oo
:lj
coo
f°-
5 5 o
oo »-
to CM h- m eo eo
ESS
*^ * CO 00
r"» • ?>j
°s
in
in
I
in
r^
5
CO
m
O f-
g r:
8
CO
^SiiiS
r- to co «o
»-• 2 « •».
-
co n r- o»
eo ^ « CM
in
«g
CO CO CM
$a
^ f CO ±=
sSSlSrs
o
o
Ul
•o
S g
efl"
0£ Ul Z
s
gi^
O
CO
§1
co ffi F
s
o
£
o
€
C-16
-------
o o>
8
in
UJ UJ UJ
CO CO CM O CO ^
CM Ol CO* CJ !>; ^
O CM
CO O
co co
o; CM. co q
CO «- O O
CM CO
O CM*
•»- eg
«n
Ss s
O) (ooo'~m
O CM S 5 CO ^ — '
*r j* co co o O
§S-pf
o'o'o'o'ooooo
8
8
o o
CO O»
CM CO
o o
*" W I** ^"" W CD
IA CD CO O) CO •kB*
CM CO CO 5 O S
CO O T- CO CO CD T- h-
'" » « fc.
oooooooooooooo
55_
o> o>
II. IL
mi
sill
NDOQ:
s
s.
x =
i £i
3 is O O
0£
-------
O O CO f- O
I*- W
04 «P
T" O
m ir-
p o
o o
T-o
co
T- T- O) I--
ooooeooor-oi--
o> o co *-
S S S 8 8 8 S o S S S 5 ? 5 5 °-
O O O O O O O O O O O 01 O O
O
o o o tf> o
m* P p ,J Q}
o o
PPPPPPPPPPPPPP
£ —
ooor»-oooooo 5 5 5 5 2 R P R o o o S. °. °. *- °. «o •* W
o" too'oo'oooo ooo o
oooo>oooooocscooi«nt»-e|oj«-eoinrjeog523!|C S
fit GO C^ C^ T** ^5 C3 ^™* CO ^^ ^^ ^? 11?i ^3 ^^ ^3 ^3 ^j
O T^OOOOOOOOO O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O g CO £ g « « Oj S g h; g « CO » g «
e»geoini-O'««-eog^gogrjjgg
OJoSSoooooppQpppQ
oi o o o o o o o o o o ooo
o o co o o o o o o o co co co t^ *n co o> ^ h*« co oo m ^f~ v* 01 in o o
$2 f*r—ocpT-O'ircooeor^oo4eoojoi
o oioooooooooooocooo
_: ioooopoppo'ppppppp
coooo'o'oo'o oo'o o o o o
.0 JQ
in m
Oi
I
0«
fft **
il
il
•o
o
O T3
ol^g_
^llll^ll^l-gtl
isellll'^ >.|i ||
^.». «? •= 5 5 :c £ 1.3 S cy
3S
W Mi* _<^ ^ h« ~ ^ |
I- > I W O. -^ 04
o.
t§
m
C-18
-------
in •* •* tp eo to
O> v" CD O ^4* T"*
o v .', h. o
O O O "J ^- CM
o o o o £ o
°. °. °. •* °. °.
odd o o
m CM CD N-
«5 3 ^ ?-
<- CD CD «O
CX •«- ^ •»-
^- in
** m
c\i •* eo
to
d d ** co to «ri -•* W co c CM" at P P p p ^ p
ooooo
DD3DD
DDDD
S «M
P co oi P m. V «' P T **": "t P co co r^ K
o S oo ooooo
SO C3 CD ^
in u
O in «
T- CMCOCOuu O
o ^o'o'o o 0*0*000 ^~ " o
O O O ******£
S" CD
Woo ooooo
cocoinao|ncDo^co^oo>cpcc>co
*PP*icocoP"T*T*^o*^"oicocD
COv-OO OOOO
•q ^ ^t; o o
r«^ oi CM' o P
§
CD
g
o
1
Ipl
iflfll
*Szzmz<
o
•§
(0
1
.o
E E"°
1 w I E
8 S
I
Q.
C-19
-------
. ,
R 1- *0
O
«) T-;
cvi o»
«n h-
r p in in r^ o o o o o
to" eo c«i « oi co ^ P fj p p p
o o o o o o o
S o »
. p p **
333333333
ii
g
^^ ^f dO Oft ^* v CO ^* CO
V-^Scp^-ui
i*. r p co
Si§
o « e>i «.
P p v p o *•
o o o
CO
M g J5
fill
l
^
2 2
w
£
-------
I
1
•^
i
!
•s.
i
8*
2. «
w -o
*£
w|
0 §
£O
o>
"5 M
CO t-
eo 5 in in CM .T-
OD o •«- CM
•«- CM O> O>
?:«« ^- »- co «- ^t i- o CM <<«• o CD o o ^- o CM'
3DD
<~ liil
c CD com S
m
o> eo co h» "
CM CM S * o
in o> or
in
co
co
d
eo in
S S
O CO
og
«0
oo ^
o o N- f^ co
^P" O> CO
Sg?:
CO O O
in in „ _
eo r» m «- *? T
• «» CM T- O O
^§11113°°
o o o in
§S8
o o o o o o o
i
o
m
-------
«
CM
co •»- co
to
<«fSDC>inoiOCdO'>>-COIo2ZOCMlOO>
*? co co *r R m. °. co °. o °. o 'M *°. *l co
to o CM co r- »- o co o CM •* eo
CMCMcoo^CMeoin^-CMWi^CMCDioco. eoinococpcMO
— --' — — -•— — — — ">mcor»cocMino> CM o o f—
O IO
----
O CM O> O O>
8
T-" 10 CM *• O O* O O O
'. «3> O "
o o to' o o d o o o , o o
iiiiii
o
§
5 10 o 3 CM co CM
IO CD O !>- O CO CM
CO O O CO *r~ O 5
O CM CO, O O O J5
O O CM O O O t-
Sin CM CD in in
CM CO CD CM CO
j- «n K fe r *
s§
o o o o o o o
8£
r- o
i o
^ LUo
o <» o
in
is
o
2
co r»
in o
gill
CO
°. CM d d
eo o> o 10 r*- CM CM
co CM •» 10 eo •«- co
in o co 10 to h- o
S.2SS.SS. §
S
i 11S i I i
o o o o o o o
%•* Ti— ^^ ^^ *^ ^«
O O O «D O O
*- O O co O O
o o o o o o o
4? .0
ja A A A .o
~ § 2 § ~
1
iiiii
lil^iiiilll
<0
lit
_ _ v~o •£
to i- uj
|
E— ^ :
- 0) •£ 0)
2 o.
iDXollIlll
O
1
m
C-22
-------
«O CM
o o
o oooo
.
oooo ooooo CM o o oddoddd
3DDI33DDDDD33DODO3D3333^333333333333^33^2
°" ° w> d 0*0*0*0 d d d d d d d d d d d d d d
I
S p ^SSSSSSSoggggggg §
® p dddddddddddddd d
O O O O CD O O O O O) v* CO CM CO *O f*» CO CO ID CM CO CO CO ^ CM CO
o o- co p p p p o o o c5c5o5<=:oe;§
o ^-oooooooooo'ooo'
oocococMv-oooocococor»iAcoa»i-i>*cocou>*-f-cMin COCM
^OOO CMOOOOOOOOOOOOCOO^ COn
poop in p p p p p p p 2 13 p o o o o o • o
dodo* mddddddd d d d d d d d *~ d
CD
m
I || | |
ifilflfsl
s £ s < ffi z £ 2 ffi
S.2.
CD
?,
— OO m _ flj C ®
«_T5T^CD«_»®«5
l I-g
| O
11
M
11
«i
8
_ e e
< m m
O
I
CD
O
m
C-23
-------
CM
3
8
01
to
m
«- O CM
2 CT- o o. q p *2
^ to CM o o o
o> to
tM O
IO
iii
,J CO p Oi
co o o* d
ao r- o
eo
tOCOoOOOtOO
CO W O S. °. °- *^ *?
o o o o o
33333
33333333
o o o o ^r o o
? o» eo
•
~ T •«
X » 2
£ CM •*-o oooooo
CM
J
•o
E
oolrao
O
m
m
o
m
C-24
-------
™ to o °- 2 °- gNj:*-'-*-oooooooooo
^^ ^^ •'•' '• ' ' ' * ' ' '
»*oeoVcOT-'eM
(D CO
333
3 3
UJ
OOOOOOOOOO
m
in
o' o
sg
^^ ^*
8§
I
8
i ^
e I |«*
I|H Hi
S O < I o2OCMOICM33j2t=OOOO®W«E>,
U.mWUL333Q.Q.EcM<<
-------
I €
I
II
I
s
i
O> •»-
s §
.
*- to *- ^r T-OCM<«-OCOOO »- o
DDDDDDDDD3DDD33DD
»££&$£££££&££&£
co
o> r>- co co
-
«n _«: co co eo
T= S 0 S 5
CB ^* CO ^^ SM *X
"° ¥2Jo « S S
co «> ^- •»- eo ^f
52SS§S
^: ^ co o> eo •*
r^ o> 10 to '•t J3
CN eo o co 10 ^
^ co eo co ^ o
8
CO
S
g
3
co co eo ^r CM eo to
w r>- *r i- at w t*.
»- • co te> t+~ j
S to 10 eo i- 2 ®
o eo r»- u> T- *•? T
eo •* CM t- oo
o P: $ S « ^ -.
*- »- co ^r co o T-
CO O) ^ CO CM
O v- O> CM 0>
t- r- •* CD 04
.. ^ CO V O CM
So «• o o m
o o to o o
ja r» ja
co co
(EK
g>
lll
o
1
m
C-26
-------
CO CO ^
OinCMvOOOOOOOinOO'o
o o
o o
DZ>
££
II
D3
22
3 D D
m
I
II
D D D
im
II
D D
2fc
3 D
HH
III
in co o •»- S co
co * S cp 5? o
v~ CO CO O O O
o* d ^r o* o' o'
„
So 10 •* r*.
f •*- in
S § §£
3 § 83
O O 00
S^NoooSoo •*-
.ppppppp o
oo*oo'o'o*oooo o*
5 £
N- O O O T-
!•* co
m
g
§o
o
o
00
CO O O O
CD
r*. co »- o» oj 01
•o o> o in h> rj
co r4 ^ m co v
in o co in in »-
000950
P o" o P P P
o o o o
SCO C
co c
s ^s
s ll
p 00
O 00*
o o
•«- CO O •»-
^oc,ggg§§g828g^g§
o~ooooo*ooo'oo'o'o'o o'o
.a .a .a .a .a
illllfLiliillll LsssiJl
ND D o: I = a: < o w w u. w m K. i2
8
s;
CO
_
>?oEiia
t§i^
:ujxo
s
So,
i» c
S o
5^
c »
11^
-------
O CO CM CM CB O
o> 5
8 S 8 g
o* o o* o
co •*• o eo
t^mmi—eo^^-o>ooooooh-co ooopooCMco
- — ° — — — « • o o o t*: o o cti co
p co p p «o
OOO O O O O OCMOO
O O O O
OD3ODD3DD3333
gggl^gg^imi
DDDDDDDDDDDDDO3DD3D3
^^^^l^^ll^m^^^^^l^
OOOJ-OOOO
CO CO O> Oft If) **T ^" CM f*» V^» CO CO Cd CO O> 40
cocococMr^vocAcor^m^ri^vhon
COCACMCOT-OCPCACPOCOQCOOCMCO
^r o* c> o o o o o* o o o o o o o d
o o o o o o
9 cMcS o eS
Ul ollJ IUUJ
in o »- r~- co
oootnoooo
IS
i
T-OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
g
co « CM co ^r
^. t>- O CD g
v-r^cocoin^vCMin
•*-ioa>ocow)coco
COOCOr^OCMCOCM
ooooooo ooooooo
lil
-------
CM O» CO CO CM O>
O •»- •* O i- CD
iii^S"
o o O tX o
CMO>CMCOincOCOtnr»-CI>CMCOCn
lOt-T-i-rs|QCOeO-<«-COeDI/>eO
cococor-cocoooooocococococo^in
pppppp^-'Y'r-T^'rj-pT-CpeOeOCOO
CO O O>
o o o
; co o
»-» _ wr . . . »•, °. CD " *•!
^-
8
UJ UJ
co co e» CM ^f ^ O O O
K CM CM P °. P
o o o
S83S8
^SSujuj
000
S^-
CO
in o o co
o>r-^=UJUJ5
co in co «> CD cp
°i *°. ^ co co P
«p «p co
«M «D CD
V*
co -a
g e E J
I'llcllillll'i-g
liliflllill"!--
o
G-29
-------
^"" ^F"" CD ^^
o CM o o
*— O *"• *~
to r-
*~ o o oo 01
u> T^ r«^ W uj ui
pjr*-.»n
°. co CM
I
in
-
T-T-oomT-
£ a £ s i
§OOOO
0000
5
O'*QO'*
o o o o
GO CO
CO
S T>
1. S *>5
E S" €^ «
fill |i|
0
-------
APPENDIX D
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EQUIVALENCY VALUE
CALCULATIONS AND DECISIONS TREES
Experimental
Data
Yes
Yes
Flag data missing,
setHV = 0
select most
sensitive rodent
test results
estimate
LD50
Figure D-1. Decision Tree for Oral LD50 Data Selection (fri
EPA, 1994
om
D-l
-------
Log LDso>3.7
(5,000 mg/kg)
Log LD50£0.7
(5mg/kg)
Yes
HV = 0
Yes
HV = 5
HV = (6.2- 1.7* log LD50)
Figure D-2. Decision Tree for Oral LD50 Hazard Value (from
EPA, 1994)
D-2
-------
Experimental
Data
Yes
No
Flag data missing,
setHV = 0
select test with
duration closest to
4 hrs, and not
exceeding 8 hrs.
LC50(X hrs)
estimate
Figure D-3. Decision Tree for Inhalation LC50 Data Selection
(from EPA, 1994)
D-3
-------
Yes
|_|V / f\
Yes
HV = 5
HV = (8.0 - 2.0* log LQ0 )
Figure D-4.
Decision Tree for Inhalation LC50 Hazard Values
(from EPA, 1994)
D-4
-------
Use Fish LCM
af Byproduct
Row-through x Y
96-hr
Fathead
Minnow
Construct SMILES
(organic* onM
How-through
96-hr
Freshwater
fish'
Select Tojocity
Type
Standard
Toxieity
Type
Static
Fathead
Minnow
Select Nonpolar
Narcotw Toxieity
Type
Calculate QSAR LCM
Static
Freshwater
Fwh*
Certain
Functional
Group k
QSAR log LCn-1
-QSARIogLCjo
* excluding trout
* includes good electrophiles. good aucleophiles, strong acids, chemicals with an aromatic ring, and certain
reactive groups
Figure D-5, Decision Tree for Fish LC50 Data Selection (from
EPA, 1994)
D-5
-------
Yes
Yes
log 1.0,0*3 \
{1000rng/l) /
Yes
HV - 0
logLQo< 0 x Yes
(1 mg/l)
HV - -1.67* log LC.O+ 5.0
Experimental
L.CEO data?
HV - 5
Figure D-6. Decision Tree for Aquatic LC50 Hazard Value
(from EPA, 1994)
-------
Yes
Yes
HV = 1
HV = 2.5
HV = 0.311 In BOD Half-life + 0.568
Figure D-7. Decision Tree for BOD Half-Life Hazard Value
(from EPA, 1994)
D-7
-------
Hydrolysis Half-life
4 days
Hydrolysis Half-life
> 500 days
Yes
HV = 1
Yes
HV = 2.5
HV = 0.311 In Hyrolysis Half-life + 0.568
Figure D-8. Decision Tree for Hydrolysis Half-Life Hazard
Value (from EPA, 1994)
D-8
-------
Yes
HV = 1
Yes
HV = 2.5
HV = 0.5 fog BCF + 0.5
Figure D-9. Decision Tree for BCF Hazard Value (from EPA,
1994)
D-9
-------
BASELINE SYSTEM
D-10
-------
(O
z
g
K-
3
3
u
o
1
<
H-
u
Q.
UJ
•1
U
u
K
_J
IB
^ o
CO 0
(o co
.m
•o
0)
(N Q)
1s
t *•
ft "*
z "^
g
0 0
1 «
Sfl
a>
5*
^^ ,
•O
01 73
= 1 2
if 8
E « co
j" re *»*
O U.
z
O)
0. *» O
S _c *•*
^^ *!* W
^^ «2^ CQ
c
> C
1 U
> 0
5 CO
a r»-
4 CM
t: %
A
>•" ""\ ,
moo
t^- -«3- o
o •«- o
d d d
• . •
CO ^~
O> T-
* *
co r*~ CM
S88
co co T-
0 t- 0
odd
ACIDDEP
SMOG
WTRUSE
j
I s
g 3
\
»>
r»- o
CO - co h-
T- h- CM m
r\i ff^ *" »••
in CM CM h-
m in in o
«- o o in
CD CM CM CM
O O O O
o* d d d
a:
^•iuO
ill
I UJ UJ
>- UJ
f- CO
i I
R !
o
m
£
a.
CD
D-ll
-------
CHEMICAL NAME
Total OOP Score
Normalizing Factor
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
TRICHLOROETHANE (METHYL CHLOROFORM
OOP
Equiv.
Factor
1.080
1.000
0.120
Inventory
Value
Ib/FU
0.003
0.000
0.002
Factored
Score
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.000
0.000
Factored .
Score
1.090
1.000
0.000
0.090
BCBPBTBG.WK4
D-12
-------
GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL IMPACT CALCULATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
GWP
Equiv.
Factor
Inventory
Value
Ib/FU
Factored
Score
Total GWP Score
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
1300
C02
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
TRICHLOROETHANE
1
7100
100
0.003
300.337
0.000
0.002
304.229
300.337
3.663
300.337
0.000
0.229
Normalized
Factored
Score
1.013
0.012
1.000
0.000
0.001
BCBPBTBG.WK4
D-13
-------
RESOURCE DEPLETION IMPACT CALCULATIONS
RESOURCE
DEPLETION Inventory
Equiv. Value
CHEMICAL NAME Factor Ib/FU
Total Resource Depetibn Score
Normalizing Score
BAUXITE
CHROME OXIDE
COAL
COBALT OXIDE
IRON ORE
LIMESTONE _.
MAGNESIUM ORE
NATURAL GAS
PET ROLEUM*(CRUDE OIL)
PHOSPHATE ROCK
SALT (SODIUM CHLORIDE)
SILICA
SODA ASH
THALLIUM"
TITANIUM
URANIUM (235, 236, 238)
WATER INPUT
ZINC __
4
2
3
3
3
" 1
1
4
4
3
1
1
1
4
3
3
NA
4
83.964
4.553
0.292
1.003
1.282
4.653
2.249
602.895
2,752.657
2.092
43.084
13.657
2.624
8.412
0.000
43,695.190
8.347
Normalized
Factored Factored
Score Score
13,906.073 1.263
11,010.628
335.857 0.031
9.107 0.001
0.875 0.000
3.010 0.000
3.845 0.000
4.653 0.000
2.249 0.000
2,411.581 0.219
11,010.628 1.000
6.276 0.001
43.084 0.004
13.657 0.001
2.624 0.000
0.000 0.000
25.235 0.002
0.000 0.000
o.ooo d.ooo
33.390 0.003
NA - Not Available
BCBPBTBG.WK4
D-14
-------
ACIDIFICATION POTENTIAL IMPACT CALCULATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
Acid. Pot.
Equiv.
Factor
Inventory
Value
Ib/FU
Factored
Score
Normalized
Factored
AMMONIA
HYDROCHLORIC
NOX
SOX~"
Total Acid. Pot. Score
Normalizing Score
ACID
1.880
0.880
0.700
1.000
0.000
0.001
6.099
21.584
25.855
21.584
~~" 0.000
0.001
4.270
21.584
1.198
0.000
0.000
0.198
1.000
BCBPBTBG.WK4
D-15
-------
PHOTOCHEMICAL OXIDANT POTENTIAL IMPACT CALCULATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
Total POCP Score
Normalizing Factor
ACETALDEHYDE "
ACETONE
ALDEHYDES
AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (C8-C10)
BENZENE
BUTANE £n-)
BUTANEJteO:)
BUTYL* ACETATE (ri-)
BUTYL ALCOHOL
CHLOROFORM
ETHANE
ETHYL BENZENE
ETHYLENE
HEPTANE (n-)
HEXANE (n-)
METHANE
METHANOL
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
METHYL ISOAMYL KETONE
METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE
METHYL PROPYL KETONE
OCTANE (n-)
PENTANE (n-)
PROPANE
PROPYL ACETATE
PROPYLENE '
TOLUENE
TRICHLOROETHANE
VOC
XYLENE
POCP
Equiv.
Factor
0.527
07178
0.443
0.761
0^189
0.410
0.315
0.323
0.196
0.021
0.082
0.593
1.000
0.529
0.421
0.007
0.123
0.473
0.326
0.326
0.326
0.493
0.408
0.420
0.218
1.030
0.563
0.021
0.397
0.849
Inventory
Value
Ib/FU
0.089
0.008
0.019
0.023
0.203
0.059
0.003
0.150
0.034
0.001
0.047
0.002
0.003
0.086
0.067
0.276
0.000
0.059
0.524
0.023
0.000
0.057
0.042
0.074
0.000
0.000
0.130
0.002
15.011
0.056
Factored
Score
6.639
5.959
0.047
0.001
0.009
0.017
0.038
0.024
0.001
0.048
0.007
0.000
0.004
0.001
0.003
0.045
0.028
0.002
0.000
0.028
0.171
0.008
0.000
0.028
0.017
0.031
0.000
0.000
0.073
0.000
5.959
0.048
Normalized
Factored
Score
1.114
0.008
0.000
0.001
0.003
0.006
0.004
0.000
0.008
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.008
0.005
0.000
0.000
0.005
0.029
0.001
0.000
0.005
0.003
0.005
0.000
0.000
0.012
0.000
1.000
0.008
BCBPBTBG.WK4
D-16
-------
HUMAN HEALTH INHALATION TOXICITY
IMPACT CALCULATIONS
HH INHALATION
TOXICITY Inventory
Equiv. Value
CHEMICAL NAME Factor Ib/FU
Total HH Inn. Tox. Factored Score
Normalizing Score
ACETALDEHYDE
ACETONE
ACETONITRILE
AMMONIA
ALDEHYDES
ALUMINUM,
AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (C8^C10)
BENZENE
BUTANE ( n-)
BUTANE (iso-)
BUTYL ACETATE (n-)
BUTANOL
BUfYL CELLOSOLVE"
BUtYLENE OXIDE, T,2-
CADMIUM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLORINE
CHLOROFORM
CO
CO2
CUMENE
CYCLOPARAFFINS. C-7
CYCLdPARAFFiNS, C-8 ~
DICHLORODIFLUOROMEf HANE (CFC "
ETHANE "
ETHYL BENZENE "
ETHYLENE
ETHYLENE CHLORIDE
ETHYLENE DICHLORIDE
FLUORINE
FORMALDEHYDE
HEAVY AROMATIC
HEPTANE (n-)
HEXYL ACETATE
HEXAMETHYLENE DIISOCYANTE
HEXANE (n-)
HYDROCHLORIC ACID
HYDROGEN CYANIDE
ISOBUTYRALDEHYDE
ISOPROPYL ALCOHOL
LEAD
METHANE
METHANOL
7.44
0
0
5.7
NA
15.6
NA
NA
17.5
NA
8.49
0.95
12.29
NA
2.25
7.06
22.05
2.57
4.47
NA
1.35
NA
NA
0
NA
3.19
0
0
7.32
14.64
15.6
NA
0
NA
10
0
14.82
30
1.86
0
NA
NA
0
0.089
0.008
0.000
0.000
0.019
0.003
0.023
0.203
0.059
0.003
0.150
0.034
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.577
0.001
1.386
300.337
0.027
0.012
0.004
0.000
0.047
0.002
0.003.
0.003
0.008
0.028
0.021
0.197
0.086
0.056
0.067
0.001
0.007
0.328
0.000
0.001
0.276
0.000
Factored
Score
27.336
12.715
0.659
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.046
0.000
0.000
1.033
0.000
1.270
0.033
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.020
12.715
0.003
6.195
0.000
0.036
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.007
0.000
0.000
0.057
0.410
0.327
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.020
0.202
0.610
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Normalized
Factored
Score
2.150
0.052
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.004
0.000
0.000
0.081
0.000
0.100
0.003
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.002
1.000
0.000
0.487
* 0.000
0.003
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001 "
0.000
0.000
0.004
0.032
0.026
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.016
0.048
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000"
BCBPBTBG.WK4
D-17
-------
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
METHYL ISOAMYL KETONE
METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE
METHYLPRPYL KETONE
NAPHTHALENE
NOX
NITRIC ACID
NITROETHANE
NiTROPROPANE
OCTANE (n-) _
ORGANIC ACIDS
PENtANE(n-)
PHENOL
PHOSGENE
PHOSPHORIC ACID
PM _
PM-10
PROPANE .
PROPYL ACETATE
TOLUENE
TRICHLOROEHTANE (METHYL CHLO
VINYL CHLORIDE
VOC
XYLENE
1.4
4
2.33
NA
NA
26.45
__NA.
26.4
"NA"
"14.4
"0
NA
13.34
22.33
12.5
30
NA
NA
NA"
NA
2.04
5.6
18.52
NA
2.1
0.059
0.524
0.023
0.000
0.066
6.099
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.057
0.025
0.042
0.022
6.007
0.310
0.074
o'doo
0.130
0.002
0.001
15.011
0.056
0.082
2.098
0.054
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.554
0.483
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.poq
q.qpp
o.ooo
0.264
0.013
0.026
0.000
0.118
0.006
0.165
0.004
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.044
0.038
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
appp
o.ooo
0.021
0.001
0.002
0.000
0.009
NA* Not Available
BCBPBTBG.WK4
D-18
-------
TERRESTRIAL TOXICITY IMPACT CALCULATIONS
TERRESTRIAL
CHEMICAL NAME
Total Terr. Tox. Factored Score
Normalizing Score
ACETALDEHYDE
ACETONE
ACETONITRILE
ALUMINUM
AMMONIA " "
ARSENIC
BENZENE
BUTYL ACETATE (n-)
BUTYL ALCOHOL
BUTYL CELLOSOLVE
BUTYLENE OXIDE, 1,2-
CADMIUM"
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLORINE
CHLOROFORM "
CHROMIUM, TRIVALENT
COBALT COMPOUNDS
COPPER COMPOUNDS
CUMENE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
DIETHYLAMINETRIAMINE
ETHYL BENZENE
ETHYLENE " "
ETHYLENE DICHLORIDE
FGD SOLIDS
FLY ASH
FORMALDEHYDE
HEPTANE (n-)
HEXANE (n-)
HEXYL ACETATE
HEXAMETYHYLENE DIISOCYANTE
HYDROCHLORIC ACID
HYDROGEN CYANIDE
IRON
ISOBUTYRALDEHYDE
ISOPROPYL ALCOHOL
KEROSENE
LEAD
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
METHYL ISOAMYL KETONE
METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE
TOXICITY
Equiv.
Factor
3.255
1.860
0.610
0.000
9.030
31.730
0.000
0.000
6.180
7.590
1.610
21.030
' 1.710
0.000
6.160
19.290
20.960
12.000
2.710
1.330
5.270
0.000
0.000
4.890
0.000
0.000
12.600
9.500
0.000
0.000
2.640
5.740
30.000
0.000
1.860
0.950
0.000
5.750
1.860
2.050
2.790
Inventory
Value
Ib/FU
0.089
0.008
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.204
0.150
0.034
0.000
0.000
0.005
0.003
0.616
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.027
0.000
0.002
0.003
0.000
0.000
0.021
0.086
0.067
0.056
0.001
0.007
0.000
0.328
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.059
0.524
0.023
Factored
Score
4.084
1.075
0.288
0.016
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.212
0.000
0.000
0.105
0.005
0.000
0.008
0.011
0.000
0.000
0.073
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.264
0.814
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.008
0.202
0.000
0.610
0.000
0.000
0.015
0.109
1.075
0.065
Normalized
Factored
Score
3.799
0.268
0.014
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.197
0.000
0.000
0.097
0.004
0.000
0.008
0.010
0.000
0.000
0.068
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.245
0.757
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.007
0.188
0.000
0.567
0.000
0.000
0.014
0.102
1.000
0.060
BCBPBTBG.WK4
D-19
-------
METHYUPROPYL KETONE
NAPHTHALENE
NffRICACID
NITROPRpPANE, 2-
PHENOL*""
PHOSPHORIC ACID
PROPYL_ACETATE
PLUTONIUM" (FISSILE &NONFISSILE)
SLAG " _ _____
TOLUENE
TRICHLOROETHANE (METHYL CHLOR
URANIUiyr(235, 236^ 238)
VINYL CHLORIDE
XYLENE
ZINC
4.570
3.170
10.200
8.400
7.600
5.400
0.870
0.000
"0.000
_3.600
0.000
0.000"
NA
7.870
0.520
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.022
0.000
b.ooo
0.000
0.000
0.130
0.002
0.000
0.001
0.056
0.000
0.000
0:000
0.000
0.000
0.164
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.029
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.153
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.010
0.027
0.000
NA = Not Available
BCBPBTBG.WK4
D-20
-------
AQUAT\C TOX1C1TY IMPACT CALCULATIONS
>
1
CHEMICAL NAME
Total Aquatic Tox. Factored Score
Normalizing Score
ACETONITRILE
AMMONIA
ALUMINUM
ARSENIC
BENZENE
BORON "
BUTYL ALCOHOL
BUTYLENE OXIDE; f,2-
CADMIUM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLORIDE
CHLORINE
CHLOROFORM"
CHROMIUM, TRIVALENT
COBALT COMPOUNDS
COPPER COMPOUNDS
DlCHLORODiFLUbROMETHANE (CFC-1
HYDROCHLORIC ACID
IRON
LEAD
MERCURY
METHYL ISOAMYL KETONE
NAPHTHALENE ~" " " "
NITRIC ACID ------
NITROPROPANE, 2-
OIL& GREASE
ORGANIC ACIDS
PETROLEUM (CRUDE OIL)
PHENOL
PHOSPHORIC ACID
SODIUM
SULFIDE
SULFURIC ACID
XYLENE
ZINC" " """
\QUAT1C
roxiciTY
Equiv.
Factor
0.000
21.850
0.000
18.750
14.070
0.000
0.000
NA
36.250
1.200
NA
22.500
9.750
16.630
31.750
30.000
NA
13.860
25.000
25.000
37.500
10.200
19.570
15.600
23.400
NA
NA
NA
11.400
11.400
NA
NA
15.000
16.240
20.300 "
Inventory
Value
Ib/FU
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.015
0.034
0.005
11.375
0.039
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.355
0.000
0.000
14.408
0.000
0.000
o.ooo"
Factored
Score
1.128
0.881
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.010
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.180
0.000
0.000
0.881
0.000
0.009
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.044
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
Normalized
Factored
Score
1.280
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.011
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.204
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.010
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.050
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
NA = Not Available
BCBPBTBG.WK4
D-21
-------
LAND USE IMPACT CALCULATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
Total Land Use Score
Normalizing Score
BOTTOM ASH
FGD SOLIDS
FLY ASH
HAZARDOUS WASTE
PLUTONIUM (FISSILE & NONFISSILE)
SLAG
SOLID WASTE
URANIUM (235. 236, 238)
LAND
USE
Equiv.
Factor
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
NA
2.000
1.500
NA
Inventory
Value
Ib/FU
0.000
0.000
0.000
80.808
0.000
0.000
62.140
0.000
Factored
Score
254.826
161.615
0.000
0.000
0.000
161.615
0.000
0.000
93.210
0.000
Normalized
Factored
Score
1.577
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.577
0.000
NA = Not Available
BCBPBTBG.WK4
D-22
-------
ALTERNATIVE PRIMER
D-23
-------
e m
£ 2
to O
en u
s
CB
O
0) -O
£2
522
c >_
a. s: o
0 U.
(O
CO
s
CO
o
CM
(O
(O
CM
—V
co o>
r»- CM
p T-
d o
CO
§*W CO
IO f^-
o o
|O O O
Is* h- *— CO CO
CD CM CM N- O)
CO O> T- T— OJ
o d T^ T-' o'
(O
co co in
co CM in
O) CO CO
t^ T- CM
o o" o'
co r^ CM
m o o
CM o o
CO CO T-
p •«- o
o' o' o'
CM if> r-
^— CO CO CO
co co in ~
•«-" CM co «-
m CM CM
m m m _
•«- o o m
co CM CM CM
poop
o o o o
tr
O
O
..
X UJ UJ
O
§
CO
UJ
u.
UJ
UJ ^
CO t
Z) O
UJ
CO
OO
OS
< CO
o
9
5
UI
LL
CD j CD
"Si O
CO!
!0
to
IQ:
.<
JO
o
UJ
D-24
O
m
CD
o
m
-------
OZONE DEPLETION POTENTIAL IMPACT CALCULATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
OOP
Equiv.
Factor
Inventory
Value
Ib/FU
Total OOP Score
NormaK^ng_Factpr
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE " "' 1.080
biCHLORODiFLUOROMEtHANE' 1.000
TRICHLOROETHANE (METHYL CHLOROFORM 0.120
0.000
0.001
0.000
Factored
Score
0.001
0.003
0.000
0.001 ,
0.000
Normalized
Factored
Score
0.367
0.000
0.367
0.000
BCAPBTBG.WK4
D-25
-------
GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL IMPACT CALCULATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
GWP
Equiv.
Factor
Inventory
Value
Ib/FU
Total GWP Score
_ Normalizing Score
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
C02
DICHLORODIFLUbROMETHANE
fRiCHLOROEfHANE
1300
1
7100
100
0.000
270.734
0.001
0.000
Factored
Score
278.555
300.337
0.000
270.734
7.821
0.000
Normalized
Factored
Score
0~.927~
0.000
0.901
0.026
0.000
BCAPBTBG.WK4
D-26
-------
RESOURCE DEPLETION IMPACT CALCULATIONS
RESOURCE
DEPLETION Inventory
Equiv. Value
CHEMICAL NAME Factor Ib/FU
Total Resource Depetion Score
Normalizing Score
9AUXITE
CHROME OXIDE
COAL
COBALT OXIDE
IRON ORE
LIMESTONE
MAGNESIUM ORE
NATURAL GAS"
PETROLEUM (CRUDE OIL)
PHOSPHATE ROCK
SALT (SODIUM CHLORIDE)
SILICA
SODA ASH
THALLIUM
TITANIUM
URANIUM (235, 236; 238)
WAtER'iNPuf ~"
ZINC
4
2
3
3
3
1
1
4
4
3
1
1
1
4
3
3
NA
4
83.964
4.553
0.000
1.003
1.341
4.653
2.249
534.932
2,436.041
0.000
43.469
13.377
2.624
13.782
0.000
40,210.766
0.000
Normalized
Factored Factored
Score Score
12,343.607
11,010.628
335.857
9.107
0.000
3.010
4.023
4.653
2.249
2,139.727
9,744.165
0.000
43.469
13.377
2.624
0.000
41.345
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.121
0.031
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.194
0.885
0.000
0.004
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.004
0.000
0.000
0.000
NA = Not Available
BCAPBTBG.WK4
D-27
-------
ACIDIFICATION POTENTIAL IMPACT CALCULATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
Acid. Pot.
Equiv.
Factor
Inventory
Value
Ib/FU
Factored
Score
Normalized
Factored
Score
AMMONIA
Total Acid. Pot. Score
Normalizing Score
HYDROCHLORIC ACID
NOX
SOX
1.880
0.880
0.700
1.000
0.001
0.002
5.877
21.206
25.324
21.584
0.002
0.002
4.114
21.206
1.173
0.000
0.000
0.191
0.982
BCAPBTBG.WK4
D-28
-------
PHOTOCHEMICAL OX1DANT POTENTIAL IMPACT CALCULATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
Total POCP Score
Normalizing Factor
ACETALDEHYDE
ACETONE
ALDEHYDES
AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (C8-C10)
BENZENE
BUTANE ( n-)
BUTANE Jisoj
BUTYL ACETATE (n-) "
BUTYL ALCOHOL
CHLOROFORM
ETHANE
ETHYL BENZENE
ETHYLENE
HEPTANE (n-)
HEXANE (n-)
METHANE
METHANOL
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
METHYL ISOAMYL KETONE
METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE
METHYL PROPYL KETONE
OCTANE (n-)
PENTANE (n-)
PROPANE
PROPYL ACETATE
PROPYLENE
TOLUENE
TRICHLOROETHANE
VOC
XYLENE
POCP I
Equiv.
Factor
0.527
0.178
0.443
0.761
0.189
0.410
0.315
0.323 ~
0.196
0.021
0.082
0.593
1.000
0.529
0.421
0.007
0.123
0.473
0.326
0.326
0.326
0.493
0.408
0.420
0.218
1.030
0.563
0.021
0.397
0.849
Inventory
Value
Ib/FU
0.040
0.007
0.017
0.038
0.201
0.052
0.003
0.000
0.042
0.000
0.042
0.004
0.001
0.076
0.059
0.244
0.000
0.020
0.071
0.000
0.000
0.051
0.037
0.066
0.000
0.000
0.114
0.000
13.894
0.043
Factored
Score
5.918
5.959
0.021
0.001
0.008
0.029
0.038
0.021
0.001
~ 0.000
0.008
0.000
0.003
0.003
0.001
0.040
0.025
0.002
0.000
0.010
0.023
0.000
0.000
0.025
0.015
0.028
0.000
0.000
0.064
0.000
5.516
0.036
Normalized
Factored
Score
0.993
0.004
0.000
0.001
0.005
0.006
0.004
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.007
0.004
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.004
0.000
0.000
0.004
0.003
0.005
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.000
0.926
0.006
D-29
-------
HUMAN HEALTH INHALATION TOXICITY IMPACT CALCULATIONS
HH
CHEMICAL NAME
Total HH Inh. Tox. Factored Score
Normalizing Score
ACEf ALDEHYDE""
ACETONE
ACETONITRILE
AMMONIA ""
ALDEHYDES
ALUMINUM
AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (C8-C10)
BENZENE
BUTANE ( i>)
BUTANE (iso-)
BUTYL ACETATE (n-j
BUTANOL
BUTYL CE'ilbSOLVE
BUTYLENE OXIDE, 1,2-
CADMIUM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLORINE
CHLOROFORM
CO
CO2
CUMENE
CYCLOPARAFFINS. C-7
CYCLOPARAFFINS, C-8
DiCHLORODIFLUORMETHANE (CFC-
Ef H'ANE
ETHYL BENZENE
ETHYLENE
ETHYLENE CHLORIDE
ETHYLENE DICHLORIDE
FLUORINE
FORMALDEHYDE
HEAVY AROMATIC
HEPTANE (n-)
HEXYL ACETATE
HEXAMETHYLENE DIISOCYANTE
HEXANE (n-)
HYDROCHLORIC ACID
HYDROGEN CYANIDE
ISOBUTYRALDEHYDE
ISOPROPYL ALCOHOL
LEAD
METHANE
METHANOL
INHALATION
TOXICITY
Equiv.
Factor
7.44
0
0
5.7
NA
15.6
NA
NA
17.5
NA
8.49
0.95
12.29
NA
2.25
7.06
22.05
2.57
4.47
NA
1.35
NA
NA
0
NA
3.19
0
0
7.32
14.64
15.6
NA
0
NA
10
0
14.82
30
1.86
0
NA
NA
0
Inventory
Value
Ib/FU
0.040
0.007
0.000
0.001
0.017
0.000
0.038
0.201
0.052
0.003
0.000
0.042
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.586
0.000
0.792
270.734
0.023 -
0.011
0.004
0.001
0.042
0.004
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.019
0.197
0.076
0.000
0.059
0.002
0.007
0.328
0.000
0.000
0.244
0.000
Factored
Score
20.499
12,715
0.301
0.000
0.000
0.005
0.000
0.006
0.000
0.000
0.914
0.000
0.000
0.040
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
12.914
0.000
3.542
0.000
0.030
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.014
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.295
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.029
0.204
0.610
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Normalized
Factored
Score
1.612
0.024
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.072
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.016
0.000
0.279
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.023
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.016
0.048
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
BCAPBTBG.WK4
D-30
-------
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
METHYL ISOAMYL KETONE
METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE
METHYL PROPYL KETONE
.NAPTHA,_NM&P
NAPHTHALENE "_ _
NQX ______ _ " "
NITRIC ACID
NITROETHANE _
NITROPROPANE
OCTANE (n-) J_ '" ""
ORGANIC ACIDS
PENTANE(n-)
PHENOL
PHOSGENE
___
PM-i(T
PROPANE
PROPYL ACETATE
TOLUENE ' " ' " "
TRlCHLOROEHTANE (METHYL CHLO
VINYL CHLORIDE
VOC
XYLENE
1.4
4
'2.33
NA
NA
26.45
NA
26.4
NA
14.4
0
NA
13.34
22.33
12.5
30
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.04
5.6
18;?52
NA
2.1
0.020
0.071
0.000
0.000
0.000
5.877
0.000
0.004
0.001
0.051
0.022
0.037
0.021
5.958
0.310
0.066
0.000
0.114
0.000
0.000
13.894
0.043
0.029
0.284
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.009
0.000
0.000
0.491
0.461
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.232
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.090
0.002
0022
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.039
0.036
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.018
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.007
NA = Not Available
BCAPBTBG.WK4
D-31
-------
TERRESTRIAL TOXICITY IMPACT CALCULATIONS
TERRESTRIAL
CHEMICAL NAME
Total Terr. Tox. Factored Score
Normalizing Score
ACETAlbEHYDE" ""
ACETONE
ACETONITRILE
ALUMINUM
AMMONIA
ARSENIC"
BENZENE
BUTYL ACETATE (n-)
BUTYL ALCOHOL
BUTYL CELLOSOLVE
BUTYLENE OXIDE, 1,2-
CADMIUM
CARBONTETRACHLORIDE
CHLORINE
CHLOROFORM
CHROMIUM, TRIVALENT
COBALT COMPOUNDS
COPPER COMPOUNDS
CUMENE
DICHLORODIFLUORMETHANE
DIETHYLAMINETRIAMINE
ETHYL BENZENE
ETHYLENE
ETHYLENE DICHLORIDE
FGD SOLIDS
FLY ASH
FORMALDEHYDE
HEPTANE (n-)
HEXANE (n-)
HEXYL ACETATE
HEXAMETYHYLENE DIISOCYANTE
HYDROCHLORIC ACID
HYDROGEN CYANIDE
IRON
ISOBUTYRALDEHYDE
ISOPROPYL ALCOHOL
KEROSENE
LEAD
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
METHYL ISOAMYL KETONE
METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE
TOXICITY
Equiv.
Factor
3.255
1.860
0.610
0.000
9.030
31.730
0.000
0.000
6.180
7.590
1.610
21.030
1.710
0.000
6.160
19.290
20.960
12.000
2.710
1.330
5.270
0.000
0.000
4.890
0.000
0.000
12.600
9.500
0.000
0.000
2.640
5.740
30.000
0.000
1.860
0.950
0.000
5.750
1.860
2.050
2.790
Inventory
Value
Ib/FU
0.040
0.007
0.005
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.202
0.000
0.042
0.000
0.000
0.008
0.000
0.707
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.023
0.001
0.004
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.019
0.076
0.059
0.000
0.002
0.007
0.000
0.328
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.020
0.071
0.000
Factored
Score
2.832
1.075
0.132
0.014
0.003
0.000
0.008
0.001
0.000.
0.000
0.258
0.000
0.000
0.167
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.017
0.000
0.001
0.061
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.238
0.721
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.204
0.000
0.610
0.000
0.000
0.017
0.038
0.146
0.000
Normalized
Factored
Score
2.635
0.123
0.013
0.003
0.000
0.007
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.240
0.000
0.000
0.156
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.016
0.000
0.001
0.057
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.221
0.670
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.010
0.189
0.000
0.567
0.000
0.000
0.016
0.035
0.135
0.000
BCAPBTBG.WK4
D-32
-------
METHYL PROPYL KETONE
NAPHTHALENE .....
NITRIC ACID_
NITRbPROPANE, 2-
PHENOL
PUPSPHQRIC ACID
PROPYL ACETATE
&
SLAG
SULFURICACID
TOLUENE _ _~ ' " " 7
TRICHLOROETHANE (METHYL CHLQR
URANIUM (235, 236, 238)
VINYL CHLORIDE
XYLENE
ZINC
4.570
3.170
10.200
8.400
7.600
5.400
0.870
0.000
0.000
3".600
0.000
0.000
NA
7.870
0.520
0.000
0,000
0.001
0.021
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.114
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.043
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.007
0.000
0.157
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.022
0.000
0,000
0.000
0.006
0.000
0.146
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.021
0.000
NA = Not Available
BCAPBTBG.WK4
D-33
-------
AQUATIC TOXICITY IMPACT CALCULATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
Total Aquatic Tox. Factored Score
Normalizing Score
ACETONITRILE
AMMONIA
ALUMINUM
ARSENIC
BENZENE
BORON
BUTYLALCOHOL
BUTYLENE OXIDE, 1,2-
CADMIUM""
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLORIDE
CHLORINE
CHLOROFORM
CHROMIUM; TRIVALENT
COBALT COMPOUNDS'
COPPER COMPOUNDS
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE (CFC-1
HYDROCHLORIC ACID
IRON
LEAD
MERCURY
METHYL ISOAMYL KETONE
NAPHTHALENE"
NITRIC AClD
NITROPROPANE, 2-
OIL & GREASE
ORGANIC ACIDS
PETROLEUM (CRUDE OIL)
PHENOL
PHOSPHORIC ACID
SODIUM
SULFIDE
SULFURIC ACID
XYLENE
ZINC
AQUATIC
TOXICITY
Equiv.
Factor
0.000
21.850
0.000
18.750
14.070
0.000
0.000
NA
36.250
1.200
NA
22.500
9.750
16.630
31.750
30.000
NA
13.860
25.000
25.000
37.500
10.200
19.570
15.600
23.400
NA
NA
NA
11.400
11.400
NA
NA
15.000
16.240
20.300
Inventory
Value
Ib/FU
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.013
0.042
0.008
10.067
0.121
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.000
0.314
0.000
0.000
12.751
0.000
0.000
0.000
Factored
Score
3.116
0.881
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.009
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.289
0.000
0.000
2.727
0.000
0.015
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.073
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
Normalized
Factored
Score
3.537
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.010
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.328
0.000
0.000
3.095
0.000
0.017
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.082
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.002
NA * Not Available
BCAPBTBG.WK4
D-34
-------
LAND USE IMPACT CALCULATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
Total Land Use Score
Normalizing Score
BOTTOM ASH
FGD SOLIDS
FLY ASH
HAZARDOUS WASTE
PLUTONIUM (FISSILE & NONFISSILE)
SLAG
SOLID WASTE
URANIUM (235, 236, 238)
LAND
USE
Equiv.
Factor
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
NA
2.000
1.500
NA
Inventory
Value
Ib/FU
0.000
0.000
0.000
79.465
0.000
0.000
61.968
0.000
Factored
Score
251.882
161.615
0.000
0.000
.0.000
158.930
0.000
0.000
92.951
0.000
Normalized
Factored
Score
T.585
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.585
0.000
NA = Not Available
BCAPBTBG.WK4
D-35
-------
ALTERNATIVE GUN
D-36
-------
(A
Z
O
Jj
— J
I>
u
u
^
VALUATIOI
§
CL
*E
UJ
o
u
UJ
CL
3
O>
£ £
"o> o
M U
o
CO
CD
n COlo
ffl
k.
t ^
•o
0>
£ £
c °
c w
o
7 ^D
^ Q)
Is
jC j;}
SiZ
0)
2
•D
0» TJ
£££
if 8
t. (g (/)
ou.
O)
0.= 0
rf ^ co
w u.
\
T TT CM '
in r^ c
> .
CM T- CM !
to' c
^
\ ..I— ~
' .'
T™ f^> f^i ^i ^«» <|^
b b b • b b b
\ ; v
Ol O) CO CO O
CO CO CM •«- O
f^ r^ co ^oo
bob T-' b
co oo in co r*- CM
oo CM m moo
CD CO 00 CM O O
r«~ T- CM CD co *-
i- T- O O •«- O
bob bob
i
A
S : 2 co
! rv—1 Q- LU
g a?2 ggg
W: Q _1 co O 2 t
J2, OOu. < co^
_J
to
c^ Q ^
^
•
in r^
CO CO
*- o
b b
\
•
/ "
'co co O) •
!o> in i- \
o o o
.b b b
o m in co
T- CD CM O)
m in o> -*r
*- CM b *-
in CM CM t^
m in in o
T- o o in
CO CM CM CM
o o o o
b b b b
OC
_ Q;
^ uj O
S > >
X UJ UJ
^_ ^u
t «
1 i
1- _J
J
r
000
« ^ m O
(Oi O (£ _
:CL
:O
O
a:
^£
0
j
V*.
D-37
CD
Q.
m
o
CD
-------
OZONE DEPLETION POTENTIAL IMPACT CALCULATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
OOP
Equiv.
Factor
Inventory
Value
Ib/FU
Factored
Score
Normalized
Factored
Score
Total OOP Score
Normalizing Factor
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE 1.080 0.002
DlCHLORODIFlUORbMETHANE 1.000 0.000
TRICHLOROETHANE (METHYL CHLOROFORM 0.120 0.002
0.002
0.003
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.799
0.732
0.000
0.066
BCBPBTAG.WK4
D-38
-------
GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL IMPACT CALCULATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
GWP
Equiv.
Factor
Inventory
Value
Ib/FU
Total GWP Score
Normalizing Score
QARBONTETRACHLORIE
^ _
pICHLOROplFLUbROMETHANE
TRICHLOROETHANE
1300
1
7100
100
0.002
218.992
0.000
0002
Factored
Score
221.802
300.337
2.645
218.992
0.000
0.165
Normalized
Factored
Score
•" 0.739
0.009
0.729
0.000
0.001
BCBPBTAG.WK4
D-39
-------
RESOURCE DEPLETION IMPACT CALCULATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
RESOURCE
DEPLETION
Equiv.
Factor
NATURAL GAS
PETROLEUM"(CRUDE OIL)
PHOSPHATE ROCK
SALT (SODIUM CHLORIDE)
SILICA
SODA ASH
THALLIUM
TITANIUM
URANIUM (235, 236, 238)
WATER INPUT
ZINC
Inventory
Value
Ib/FU
Total Resource Depetion Score
Normalizing Score
BAUXITE
CHROME OXIDE
COAL
COBALT OXIDE
IRON ORE"
LIMESTONE^"
MAGNESIUM ORE
4
2
3
3
3
1
1
4
4
3
1
1
1
4
3
3
NA
4
83.964
3.288
0.211
0.724
0.925
4.653
1.624
439.669
2,007.554
1.511
31.106
9.861
2.624
6.073
0.000
31,785.094
6.027
Factored
Score
"10,233.632
11,010.628
335.857
6.575
0.632
2.173
2.776
4.653
1.624
1,758.676
8,030.216
4.532
31.106
9.861
2.624
0.000
18.220
0.000
0.000
24.108
Normalized
Factored
Score
0.929"
0.031
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.160
0.729
0.000
0.003
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.002
NA = Not Available
BCBPBTAG.WK4
D-40
-------
ACIDIFICATION POTENTIAL IMPACT CALCULATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
Acid. Pot.
Equiv.
Factor
Total Acid. Pot. Score
Score
AMMONIA
HYDROCHLORIC ACID
NOX
SOX
1.880
0.880
0.700
1.000
Inventory
Value
Ib/FU
0.000
0.001
4.418
20.986
Factored
_ Score
24.080
21.584
0.000
0.001
3.093
20.986
Normalized
Factored
Score
o.ooo
0.000
0.143
0.972
BCBPBTAG.WK4
D-41
-------
PHOTOCHEMICAL OXIDANT POTENTIAL IMPACT CALCULATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
Total POCP Score
Normalizing Factor
ACETALDEHYDE
ACETONE
ALDEHYDES
AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (C8-C10)
BENZENE
BUTANEJn-)
BUTANE (iso-)" ""
BUTYL ACETATE (nj
BUTYL ALCOHOL
CHLOROFORM
ETHANE
EtHYL BENZENE
ETHYLENE
HEPTANE (n-)
HEXANE (n-)
METHANE
METHANOL
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
METHYL ISOAMYL KETONE
METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE
METHYL PROPYL KETONE
OCTANE (n-)
PENTANE (n-)
PROPANE
PROPYL ACETATE
PROPYLENE
TOLUENE
TRICHLOROETHANE
VOC
XYLENE
POCP
Equiv.
Factor
0.527
0.178
0.443
0.761
0.189
0.410
0.315
0.323
0.196
0.021
0.082
0.593
1.000
0.529
0.421
0.007
0.123
0.473
0.326
0.326
0.326
0.493
0.408
0.420
0.218
1.030
0.563
0.021
0.397
0.849
Inventory
Value
Ib/FU
6.066
0.006
0.014
0.012
0.153
0.043
0.002
0.079
0.018
0.001
0.035
0.002
0002
0.063
0.049
0.201
0.000
0.040
0.288
0.014
0.000
0.042
0.030
0.054
0.000
0.000
0.098
0.002
10.892
0.032
Factored
Score
4.768
5.959
0.035
0.001
0.006
0.009
0.029
0.018
0.001
0.026
0.003
0.000
0.003
0.001
0.002
0.033
0.020
0.001
0.000
0.019
0.094
0.005
0.000
0.021
0.012
0.023
0.000
0.000
0.055
0.000
4.324
0.027
Normalized
Factored
Score
0.800
0.006
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.005
0.003
0.000
0.004
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0000
0.006
0.003
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.016
0.001
0.000
0.003
0.002
0.004
0.000
0.000
0.009
0.000
0.726
0.005
BCBPBTAG.WK4
D-42
-------
HUMAN HEALTH INHALATION TOXICITY
HH
IMPACT
INHALAT
CALCULATIONS
ION
TOXICITY Inventory
CHEMICAL NAME
Total HH Inh. Tox. Factored Score
Normalizing Score
ACETALDEHYDE
ACETONE
ACETONiTRILE
AMMONIA
ALDEHYDES
ALUMINUM
AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (C8-C10)
BENZENE
BUTANE (n-)
BUTANE {iso-j
BUTYL ACETATE (n-)
BUTANOL
BUTYL CELLOSOLVE
BUTYLENE OXIDE, 1.2-
CADMIUM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLORINE
CHLOROFORM
CO
CO2
CUMENE
CYCLOPARAFFINS. C-7
CYCLOPARAFFINS, C-8
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE (CFC
ETHANE
ETHYL BENZENE
ETHYLENE
ETHYLENE CHLORIDE
ETHYLENE DICHLORIDE
FLUORINE
FORMALDEHYDE
HEAVY AROMATIC
HEPTANE (n-)
HEXYL ACETATE
HEXAMETHYLENE DIISOCYANTE
HEXANE (n-)
HYDROCHLORIC ACID
HYDROGEN CYANIDE
ISOBUTYRALDEHYDE
ISOPROPYL ALCOHOL
LEAD
METHANE
METHANOL
Equiv.
Factor
7.44
0
0
5.7
NA
15.6
NA
NA
17.5
NA
8.49
0.95
12.29
NA
2.25
7.06
22.05
2.57
4.47
NA
1.35
NA
NA
0
NA
3.19
0
0
7.32
14.64
15.6
NA
0
NA
10
0
14.82
30
1.86
0
NA
NA
0 '
Value
Ib/FU
0.066
0.006
0.000
0.000
0.014
0.002
0.012
0.153
0.043
0.002
0.079
0.018
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.416
0.001
1.007
218.992
0.019
0.009
0.003
0.000
0.035
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.006
0.020
0.015
0.142
0.063
0.035
0.049
0.001
0.005
0.257
0.000
0.001
0.201
0.000
Factored
Score
19.203
12.715
0.493
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.033
0.000
0.000
0.753
0.000
0.674
0.017
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.014
9.180
0.002
4.502
0.000
0.026
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.005
0.000
0.000
0.041
0.296
0.238
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.014
0.146
0.478
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Normalized
Factored
Score
1.510
0.039
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.000
0.000
0.059
0.000
0.053
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.722
0.000
0.354
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.023
0.019
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.011
0.038
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
BCBPBTAG.WK4
D-43
-------
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
METHYL ISOAMYL KETONE
METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE
METHYL PROPYL KETONE
NAPTHA, NM&P
NAPHTHALENE
NOX
NITRIC ACID""
NITROETHANE
KiJTROPROPANE"
OCTANE (n-)
ORGANIC'ACIDS
PENTANE (n-)
PHENOL
PHOSGENE
PHOSPHORIC ACID
PM
PM-10
PROPANE
PROPYL A'CETATE
TOLUENE
TRICHLOROEHTANE (METHYL CHLO
VINYL CHLORIDE
VOC
XYLENE
1.4
4
2,33
NA
NA
26.45
NA
26.4
NA
14.4
0
NA
13.34
22.33
12.5
30
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.04
5.6
18.52
NA
2.1
0,040
0.288
0.014
0.000
0.034
4.418
0.000
0.000
0,000
0.042
0.018
0.030
0.016
4.425
0.292
0.054
0.000
0.098
0.002
0.001
10.892
0.032
0.055 ..
1.151
0.033
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.404
0.349
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.201
0.009
0.019
0.000
0.067
0.004
0.090
0.003
0.000
0,000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0:000
0.000
0.032
0.027
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.016
0.001
0.002
0.000
0.005
NA = Not Available
BCBPBTAG.WK4
D-44
-------
TERRESTRIAL TOXICITY IMPACT CALCULATIONS
T
CHEMICAL NAME
Total Terr. Tox. Factored Score
Normalizing Score
ACETALDEHYDE
ACETONE
ACETONITRILE
ALUMINUM
AMMONIA
ARSENIC
BENZENE
BUTYL ACETATE (n-)
BUTYL" ALCOHOL
BUTYL CELLOSOLVE
BUTYLENE OXIDE, 1,2-
CADMIUM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLORINE
CHLOROFORM
CHROMIUM, TRIVALENT
COBALT COMPOUNDS
COPPER COMPOUNDS
CUMENE
DJCHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
DiEtHYLAMINETRIAMINE
ETHYL' BENZENE
ETHYLENE
EfHYLENEbiCHLORIDE
FGD SOLIDS
FLY ASH
FORMALDEHYDE
HEPTANE (n-)
HEXANE (n-)
HEXYL ACETATE
HEXAMETYHYLENE DIISOCYANTE
HYDROCHLORIC ACID
HYDROGEN CYANIDE
IRON
ISOBUTYRALDEHYDE
ISOPROPYL ALCOHOL
KEROSENE
LEAD
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
METHYL ISOAMYL KETONE
METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE
ERRESTRIAL
TOXICITY
Equiv.
Factor
3.255
1.860
0.610
0.000
9.030
31.730
• o.ooo
0.000
6.180
7.590
1.610
21.030
1.710
0.000
6.160
19.290
20.960
12.000
2.710
1.330
5.270
0.000
0.000
4.890
0.000
0.000
12.600
9.500
0.000
0.000
2.640
5.740
30.000
0.000
1.860
0.950
0.000
5.750
1.860
2.050
2.790
Inventory
Value
Ib/FU
0.066
0.006
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.154
0.079
0.018
0.000
0.000
0.004
0.002
0.445
0.001
0,000
0.000
0.019
0.000
0.002
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.015
0.063
0.049
0.035
0.001
0.005
0.000
0.257
0.000
0.000
0.002
0,040
0.288
0.014
Factored
Score
2.757
1.075
0.216
0.011
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.110
0.000
0.000
0.076
0.003
0.000
0.006
0.008
0.000
0.000
0.052
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.192
0.594
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.005
0.146
0.000
0.478
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.074
0.590
0.040
Normalized
Factored
Score
2.565
0.200
0.011
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.103
0.000
0.000
0.070
0.003
0.000
0.006
0.007
0.000
0.000
0.049
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.179
0.552
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.005
0.136
0.000
0.445
0.000
0.000
0.010
0.069
0.549
0.037
BCBPBTAG.WK4
D-45
-------
METHYL PROPYL KETONE 4.570
NAPHTHALENE 3.170
NITRIC ACID 10.200
NITROPROPANE, 2- 8.400
PHENOL 7.600
PHOSPHORIC ACID ' 5.400
PROPYL ACETATE 0.870
PLUTONIUM .(FISSILE & NONFISSILE) 0.000
SLAG " " "••'• 0.000
SULFURICACID " 3.600
TOLUENE 0.000
TRICHLOROETHANE (METHYL CHLOR 0.000
URANIUM (235, 236, 238) NA
VINYL CHLORIDE 7.870
XYLENE 0.520
ZINC 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.016
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.098
0.002
0.000
0.001
0.032
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.119
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.008
0.017
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.110
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.008
0.016
0.000
NA = Not Available
BCBPBTAG.WK4
D-46
-------
AQUATIC TOX1C1TY IMPACT CALCULATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
Total Aquatic Tox. Factored Score
Normalizing Score
ACETONITRILE
AMMONIA
ALUMINUM
ARSENIC
BENZENE"'
BORON "
BUTYL ALCOHOL
BUTYLENE OXIDE, 1,2-
CADMIUM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLORIDE
CHLORINE
CHLOROFORM
CHROMIUM, TRIVALENT
COBALT COMPOUNDS
COPPER COMPOUNDS
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE (CFC-1
HYDROCHLORIC ACID
IRON
LEAD
MERCURY
METHYL ISOAMYL KETONE
NAPHTHALENE
NITRIC ACID
NITROPROPANE, 2-
OIL & GREASE
ORGANIC ACIDS
PETROLEUM (CRUDE OIL)
PHENOL
PHOSPHORIC ACID
SODIUM
SULFIDE
SULFURIC ACID
XYLENE
ZINC
AQUATIC
TOXICITY
Equiv.
Factor
0.000
21.850
0.000
18.750
14.070
0.000
0.000
NA
36.250
1.200
NA
22.500
9.750
16.630
31.750
30.000
NA
13.860
25.000
25.000
37.500
10.200
19.570
15.600
23.400
NA
NA
NA
11.400
11.400
NA
NA
15.000
16.240
20.300
Inventory
Value
Ib/FU
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.011
0.018
0.004 .
8.296
0.028
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.259
0.000
0.000
10.508
0.000
0.000
0.000
Factored
Score
0.815
0.881
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.007
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.130
0.000
0.000
0.636
0.000
0.007
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.032
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
Normalized
Factored
Score
0.925
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.008
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.148
0.000
0.000
0.722
0.000
0.008
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.036
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
NA = Not Available
BCBPBTAG.WK4
D-47
-------
LAND USE IMPACT CALCULATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
Total Land Use Score
Normalizing Score
BOTTOM ASH
FGD SOLIDS
FLY ASH
HAZARDOUS WASTE
PLUTONIUM (FISSILE & NONFISSILE)
SLAG
SOLID WASTE
URANIUM (235. 236. 238)
LAND
USE
Equiv.
Factor
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
NA
2.000
1.500
NA
Inventory
Value
Ib/FU
0.000
0.000
0.000
80.163
0.000
0.000
52.646
0.000
Factored
Score
239.296
161.615
0000
0.000
0.000
160.327
0.000
0.000
78.970
0.000
Normalized
Factored
Score
1.493
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.493
0.000
NA = Not Available
BCBPBTAG.WK4
D-48
-------
ALTERNATIVE PRIMER AND GUN
D-49
-------
z
0
p
CALCULA
z
O
H
<
=3
«J
<
*-
0
0.
S
Ul
1
Md
U
?"
vJ
Ul
U.
Zi
0)
en
re
m
•a
G>
.N
"re
0
TJ
S
O>
*S
3
jjy *C3
.N Q)
§*<
to
o u.
Z
2
a. g
< 5?
i
Si
(0!
W
£
"3
1™
o
UJ
2
re
•
A
1
j
09
0)
3
to
M
1
O
a?
T-
5
o
\
(CD
-
^
A-
-
is
r
in
CM
o
CO
oo
Oi
r*1**
o
!
I
I UL
-
O
1
>i
• o
sol
:o
:o
ion
:O
CM - \
(0 0
o ei)
.. \ \
N. -v ! ! o ^s- o •. IT
t"^ {S| j ' fQ O) CD ' 'CO
o o : o o o T-
O O i j O O O j lO
-~ •
\
.•
!CM O)
ll>- CO
0 O
\d o
h- r«- co •t- CM to
r*. CM en CM t«» o
o o" •«-" o ^ ^
co in co f*. CM in CM
CM in m o o m in
CO CO CM O O T- O
^g g?5 8S
o' o o' o o o o
a:
-, a:
p
is
s i3 o. ui >
8^ ~ -^ o
JS bs
__ ~ X
_J j/j (_) 5 C O
O U. ^ CO 5 h-
^
i i
O 0
UJ o
cr -j
CM
in
o
o
S
m
CM
CM
§
d
ENVAQ
co
8
0
;
t
• '
a>
^
T-
g
g
o
Ul
CO
i
Q
2
^
— J
1
I
1
D-50
-------
OZONE DEPLETION POTENTIAL IMPACT CALCULATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
OOP
Equiv.
Factor
Inventory
Value
Ib/FU
Total OOP Score
Normalizing Factor
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE 1.080 0.000
DiCHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE 1.000 0.001
TRICHLOROETHANE (METHYL CHLOROFORM 0.120 0.000
Factored
Score _
' 0.001"
0.003
0.000
0.001
0.000
Normalized
Factored
Score
0.265
0.000
0.265
0.000
BCAPBTAG.WK4
D-51
-------
GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL IMPACT CALCULATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
GWP
Equiv.
Factor
Inventory
Value
Ib/FU
Factored
Score
Normalized
Factored
Score
Total GWP Score 203.264 0.677
Normalizing Score 300.337
CARBON. JETRACHLORIDE 1300 0.000 0.000 0.000
CO2"""'"""" 1 197.618 197.618 0.658
DiCHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE 7100 0.001 5.646 0.019
TRICHLOROETHANE 100 0.000 0.000 0.000
D-52
BCAPBTAG.WK4
-------
RESOURCE DEPLETION IMPACT CALCULATIONS
RESOURCE
DEPLETION
Inventory
Normalized
CHEMICAL NAME
Total Resource Depetibn Score
Normalizing Score
BAUXITE
CHROMEOXiDE
COAL
COBALT OXIDE
IRON ORE "
LIMESTONE
MAGNESIUM ORE
NATURAL GAS
PETROLEUM (CRUDE OIL)
PHOSPHATE ROCK
SALT (SODIUM CHLORIDE)
SILICA
SODA ASH
THALLIUM
tlTANiUM
URANIUM (235, 236, 238)
WATER INPUT
ZINC
Equiv.
Factor
4
2
3
3
3
1
1
4
4
3
1
1
1
4
3
3
NA
4
Value
Ib/FU
83.964
3.288
0.000
0.724
0.968
4.653
1.624
390.599
1,778.953
0.000
31.384
9.658
2.624
9.950
0.000
29,269.170
0.000
Factored
Score
9,105.511
11,010.628
335.857
6.575
0.000
2.173
2.905
4.653
1.624
1,562.395
7,115.812
0.000
31.384
9.658
2.624
0.000
29.851
0.000
0.000
0.000
Factored
Score
0.827
0.031
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.142
0.646
0.000
0.003
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.000
0.000
0.000
NA = Not Available
BCAPBTAG.WK4
D-53
-------
ACIDIFICATION POTENTIAL IMPACT CALCULATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
AMMONIA
HYDROCHLORIC
NOX
SOX
4
Total Acid. Pot. Score
Normalizing Score
ACID
Acid. Pot.
Equiv.
Factor
1.880
0.880
0.700
1.000
Inventory
Value
Ib/FU
0.001
0.001
4.258
20.713
Factored
Score
23.696
21.584
0.001
0.001
2.981
20.713
Normalized
Factored
Score
1.098
0.000
0.000
0.138
0.960
BCAPBTAG.WK4
D-54
-------
PHOTOCHEMICAL OXIDANT POTENTIAL IMPACT CALCULATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
Total POCP Score
Normalizing Factor
ACETALDEHYDE
ACETONE
ALDEHYDES
AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (C8-C10)
BENZENE
BUTANE (n-)
BUfANEiiso-J
BUTYL ACETATE (n-)
BUTYL ALCOHOL
CHLOROFORM
ETHANE
ETHYL BENZENE
ETHYLENE
HEPTANE (n-)
HEXANE (n-)
METHANE
METHANOL
METHYLETHYL KETONE
METHYL ISOAMYL KETONE
METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE
METHYL PROPYL KETONE
OCTANE (n-)
PENTANE (n-)
PROPANE
PROPYL ACETATE
PROPYLENE
TOLUENE
TRICHLORbETHANE
VOC
XYLENE
POCP
Equiv.
Factor
0.527
0.178
0.443
0.761
0.189
0.410
0.315
0.323
0.196
0.021
0.082
0.593
1.000
0.529
0.421
0.007
0.123
0.473
0.326
0.326
0.326
0.493
0.408
0.420
0.218
1.030
0.563
0.021
0.397
0.849
Inventory
Value
Ib/FU
0.031
0.005
0.012
0.020
0.151
0.038
0.002
0.000
0.022
0.000
0.031
0.003
0.000
0.055
0.043
0.178
0.000
0.016
0.051
0.000
0.000
0.037
0.027
0.048
0.000
0.000
0.088
0.000
10.085
0.031
Factored
Score
4.294
5.959
0.017
0.001
0.006
0.015
0.029
0.016
0.001
0.000
0.004
0.000
0.003
0.002
0.000
0.029
0.018
0.001
0.000
0.008
0.017
0.000
0.000
0.018
0.011
0.020
0.000
0.000
0.050
0.000
4.004
0.026
Normalized
Factored
Score
0.721
0.003
0.000
0.001
0.003
0.005
0.003
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.005
0.003
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.003
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.002
0.003
0.000
0.000
0.008
0.000
0.672
0.004
BCAPBTAG.WK4
D-55
-------
HUMAN HEALTH INHALATION TOXICITY
HH
CHEMICAL NAME
Total HH Inh. Tox. Factored Score
Normalizing Score
ACETALDEHYDE
ACETONE
ACETONITRILE
AMMONIA
ALDEHYDES
ALUMINUM
AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (C8-C10)
BENZENE""" """ "
BUTANE (JQ£>
BUTANE (iso-j
BUTYL ACETATE (n-)
BUfANOL
BUTYL CELLOSOLVE
BUTYLENE OXIDE, 1,2-
CADMIUM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLORINE
CHLOROFORM
CO
v«/ w
CO2
CUMENE
CYCLOPARAFFINS, C-7
CYCLOPARAFFINS, C-8
DICHLORODIFLUORMETHANE (CFC-
ETHANE
ETHYL BENZENE
ETHYLENE
ETHYLENE CHLORIDE
ETHYLENE DICHLORIDE
FLUORINE
FORMALDEHYDE
HEAVY AROMATIC
HEPTANE (n-)
HEXYL ACETATE
HEXAMETHYLENE DIISOCYANTE
HEXANE (n-)
HYDROCHLORIC ACID
HYDROGEN CYANIDE
ISOBUTYRALDEHYDE
ISOPROPYL ALCOHOL
LEAD
METHANE
METHANOL
IMPACT CAL
INHALATION
TOXICITY
Equiv.
Factor
7.44
0
0
5.7
NA
15.6
NA
NA
17.5
NA
8.49
0.95
12.29
NA
2.25
7.06
22.05
2.57
4.47
NA
1.35
NA
NA
0
NA
3.19
0
0
7.32
14.64
15.6
NA
0
NA
10
0
14.82
30
1.86
0
NA
NA
0
.CULATIONS
Inventory
Value
Ib/FU
0.031
0.005
0.000
0.001
0.012
0.000
0.020
0.151
0.038
0.002
0.000
0.022
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.423
0.000
0.579
197.618
0.016
0.008
0.003
0.001
0.031
0.003
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.014
0.142
0.055
0.000
0.043
0.001
0.005
0.257
0.000
0.000
0.178
0.000
Factored
Score
14.900
12.715
OM^S A
.234
0.000
0.000
0.004
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.667
0.000
0.000
0.021
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
9.324
0.000
2.586
0.000
0.022
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.010
0.000
0.000 ,-
0.000
0.000
0.215
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.021
0.147
0.478
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Normalized
Factored
Score
1.172
O/"M D
.UlO
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.052
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.733
0.000
0.203
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.017
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.012
0.038
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
BCAPBTAG.WK4
D-56
-------
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
METHYL ISOAMYL KETONE
METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE
METHYL PROPYL KETONE
NAPTHA, NM&P
NAPHTHALENE "
NOX
NITRIC ACID"
NITROETHANE
NITROPROPANE
OCTANE (n-)
ORGANIC ACIDS
PENTANEJn-)
PHENOL
PHOSGENE
PHOSPHORIC ACID
PM
PM-10"
PROPANE
PROPYL ACETATE
TOLUENE
TRICHLOROEHTANE (METHYL CHLO
VINYL CHLORIDE
voc
XYLENE
1.4
4
2.33
NA
NA
26.45
NA
26.4
NA
14.4
0
NA
13.34
22.33
12.5
30
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.04
5.6
18.52
NA
2.1
0.016
0.051
0.000
0.000
0.000
4.258
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.037
0.016
0.027
0.015
4.390
0.292
0.048
0.000
0.088
0.000
0.000
10.085
0.031
0.022
0.205
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o'.ooo
0.006
0.000
0.000
0.358
0.333
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.180
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.065
0.002
0.016
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.028
0.026
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.014
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.005
NA = Not Available
BCAPBTAG.WK4
D-57
-------
TERRESTRIAL TOXICITY IMPACT CALCULATIONS
TERRESTRIAL
TOXICITY
Equiv.
CHEMICAL NAME Factor
Total Terr. Tox. Factored Score
Normalizing Score
ACETALDEHYDE
ACETONE""
ACETONITRILE
ALUMINUM
AMMONIA
ARSENIC
BENZENE
BUTYL ACETATE (n-)
BUTYL ALCOHOL"
BUTYL CELLOSOLVE
BUTYLENE OXIDE, 1,2-
CADMIUM™"
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLORINE
CHLOROFORM
CHROMIUM, TRIVALENT
COBALT COMPOUNDS
COPPER COMPOUNDS
CUMENE
DICHLORODIFLUORMETHANE
DIETHYLAMfNETRIAMINE
ETHYL BENZENE "
ETHYLENE
ETHYLENE DICHLORIDE
FGD SOLIDS
FLY ASH
FORMALDEHYDE
HEPTANE (n-)
HEXANE (n-)
HEXYL ACETATE
HEXAMETYHYLENE DIISOCYANTE
HYDROCHLORIC ACID
HYDROGEN CYANIDE
IRON
ISOBUTYRALDEHYDE
ISOPROPYL ALCOHOL
KEROSENE
LEAD
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
METHYL ISOAMYL KETONE
METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE
3.255
1.860
0.610
0.000
9.030
31.730
0.000
0.000
6.180
7.590
1.610
21.030
1.710
0.000
6.160
19.290
20.960
12.000
2.710
1.330
5.270
0.000
0.000
4.890
0.000
0.000
12.600
9.500
0.000
0.000
2.640
5.740
30.000
0.000
1.860
0.950
0.000
5.750
1.860
2.050
2.790
Inventory
Value
Ib/FU
0.031
0.005
0.003
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.152
0.000
0.022
0.000
0.000
0.006
0.000
0.510
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.016
0.001
0.003
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.014
0.055
0.043
0.000
0.001
0.005
0.000
0.257
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.016
0.051
0.000
Factored
Score
2.049 "
1.075
0.103
0.010
0.002
0.000
0.006
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.134
0.000
0.000
0.121
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.012
0.000
0.001
0.044
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.174
0.526
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.008
0.147
0.000
0.478
0.000
0.000
0.012
0.030
0.105
0.000
Normalized
Factored
Score
1.906
0.095
0.009
0.002
0.000
0.005
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.125
0.000
0.000
0.112
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.012
0.000
0.001
0.041
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.162
0.490
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.007
0.137
0.000
0.445
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.028
0.098
0.000
BCAPBTAG.WK4
D-58
-------
"METHYL PROPYL KETONE 4.570
NAPHTHALENE 3.170
NITRIC ACID 10.200
NITROPROPANE, 2- 8.400
PHENOL 7.600
PHOSPHORIC ACID ' 5.400
PROPYL ACETATE" 0.870
PLUTONiyM"(F|SSILE & NONFISSILE) 0.000
SLAG _"""' ""_ 0.000
SULFURIC ACID ' 3.600
TOLUENE " 0.000
TRICHLOROETHANE (METHYL CHLOR 0.000
URANIUM (235, 236, 238) NA
VINYL CHLORIDE 7.870
XYLENE - 0.520
ZINC 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.015
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.088
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.031
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.005
0.000
0.113
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.016
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.004
0.000
0.105
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.015
0.000
NA = Not Available
BCAPBTAG.WK4
D-59
-------
AQUATIC TOXICITY IMPACT CALCULATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
Total Aquatic Tox. Factored Score
Normalizing Score
ACETONITRILE
AMMONIA
ALUMINUM
ARSENIC
BENZENE
BORON
BUTYL ALCOHOL
BUTYLENE OXIDE, 1,2-
CADMiUM""
CARBON TETRACKLORIDE
CHLORIDE
CHLORINE
CHLOROFORM "
CHROMIUM, TRIVALENT
COBALT COMPOUNDS
COPPER COMPOUNDS
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE (CFC-1
HYDROCHLORIC ACID
IRON
LEAD
MERCURY"" ""
METHYL ISOAMYL KETONE
NAPHTHALENE
NITRIC ACID
NITROPROPANE, 2-
OIL & GREASE
ORGANIC ACIDS
PETROLEUM '(CRUDE OIL)
PHENOL
PHOSPHORIC ACID
SODIUM
SULFIDE
SULFURIC ACID
XYLENE
ZINC
AQUATIC
TOXICITY
Equiv.
Factor
0.000
21.850
0.000
18.750
14.070
0.000
0.000
NA
36.250
1.200
NA
22.500
9.750
16.630
31.750
30.000
NA
13.860
25.000
25.000
37.500
10.200
19.570
15.600
23.400
NA
NA
NA
11.400
11.400
NA
NA
15.000
16.240
20.300
Inventory
Value
Ib/FU
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.010
0.022
0.006
7.351
0.087
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.230
0.000
0.000
9.312
0.000
0.000
0.000
Factored
Score
2.250
0.881
0.000
6.000
0.000
0.000
0.006
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.208
0.000
d.ooo
1.969
0.000
0.011
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.052
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
Normalized
Factored
Score
2.554
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.007
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.237
0.000
0.000
2.235
0.000
0.012
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.060
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
NA = Not Available
BCAPBTAG.WK4
D-60
-------
LAND USE IMPACT CALCULATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
Total Land Use Score
Normalizing Score
BOTTOM ASH
FGD SOLIDS
FLY ASH
HAZARDOUS WASTE
PLUTONIUM (FISSILE & NONFISSILE)
SLAG
SOLID WASTE
URANIUM (235. 236. 238)
LAND
USE
Equiv.
Factor
2,000
2.000
2.000
2.000
NA
2.000
1.500
NA
Inventory
Value
Ib/FU
0.000
0.000
0.000
79.194
0.000
0.000
52.521
0.000
Factored
Score
237.170
161.615
0.000
0.000
0.000
158.388
0.000
0.000
78.782
0.000
Normalized
Factored
Score
"1.497
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.497
0.000
NA = Not Available
BCAPBTAG.WK4
D-61
-------
ALTERNATIVE THINNER
D-62
-------
CO
5
2
5
1
U
z
o
<
t_
o
<
0.
s
u
0
UJ
u.
3
0)
Ji 2
0) O
OT 0
m co
m
•o
o
£i o>
« 5
E o
z"2
•0 g
"i
*3
^
^^
•o
01 V
N 0) «
41 U.
5
A
(0
M
75
O
CO
T_
o>
P**
d
\
[.-.
CO
«
1
»
> "
O5 CO
o> o
d d
\
||
^™ ^D
CO 00
CO CN
O> CO
T- T—
d d
^
„!
OO
i _j
i ^
2
: e>
i£
!O
O
cc
o
--• --•• - • . .
en o>
O T !
CN CN |
d d ,'
^
" \ > " "" \ ,' "
• ' i
co i**
CO 00 CO O)
T-_ T- • O O>
T"* ^— ^^ T[—
in moo in
CO CN O O *-
CN CO CO r- CD
O O r- O O
d odd d
<
2
I
(O
_J Q. UJ >
UJ UJ CO *~
^ Q CD ID O
*$ 9 0 * x
u?^^wi R
<
^y
0 ^
O 0
£ 2
0
o
d
o co
CD CN ,
0 0
d d
o> CN m
CN •«-' T-'
m m o
CN CN CN
o o o
odd
GC
uj O
11
UJ UJ
LU
CO
Z)
^
m
D-«3
-------
OZONE DEPLETION POTENTIAL IMPACT CALCULATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
OOP
Equiv.
Factor
Inventory
Value
Ib/FU
Factored
Score
Normalized
Factored
Score
Total OOP Score
Normalizing Factor
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE 1-080
blCHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE 1.000
TRICHLOROETHANE (METHYL CHLOROFORM 0.120
0.003
0.000
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.000
0.000
1.090
1.000
0.000
0.090
BCBPATBG.WK4
D-64
-------
GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL IMPACT CALCULATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
GWP
Equiv.
Factor
Total GWP Score
Normalizing Score
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CO2"
pICHLpRpDIFLUOROMETHANE
TRiCHLOROEf HANE
1300
1
7100
100
Inventory
Value
Ib/FU
0.003
267.997
0.000
0.002
Factored
Score
271.890
300.337
3.663
267.997
0.000
0.229
Normalized
Factored
Score
"0.905
0.012
0.892
0.000
0.001
BCBPATBG.WK4
D-65
-------
RESOURCE DEPLETION IMPACT CALCULATIONS
RESOURCE
DEPLETION
Inventory
Normalized
CHEMICAL NAME
Total Resource Depetidn Score
Normalizing Score
BAUXITE
CHROME OXIDE
COAL
COBALT OXIDE '
IRON "ORE """
LIMESTONE
MAGNESIUM ORE
NATURAL GAS
PETROLEUM (CRUDE OIL)
PHOSPHATE ROCK
SALT (SODIUM CHLORIDE)
SILICA
SODA ASH
THALLIUM
TITANIUM
URANIUM (235, 236, 238)
WATER INPUT
ZINC
Equiv.
Factor
4
2
3
3
3
1
1
4
. 4
3
1
1
1
4
3
3
NA
4
Value
Ib/FU
83.964
4.553
0.292
1.003
1.282
4.653
2.249
549.204
2,449.640
2.092
43.084
13.657
2.624
8.412
0.000
40,071.312
8.347
Factored
Score
12.479.242
11,010.628
335.857
9.107
0.875
3.010
3.845
4.653
2.249
2,196.817
9,798.561
6.276
43.084
13.657
2.624
0.000
25.235
0.000
0.000
33.390
Factored
Score
1.133-
0.031
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.200
0.890
0.001
0.004
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.003
NA = Not Available
BCBPATBG.WK4
D-66
-------
ACIDIFICATION POTENTIAL IMPACT CALCULATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
Acid. Pot.
Equiv.
Factor
Total Acid. Pot. Score
Normalizing Score
AMMpNJA_
HYDROCHLORIC ACID
NOX
SOX
1.880
0.880
0.700
1.000
Inventory
Value
Ib/FU
0.000
0.001
5.879
21.498
Factored
Score
25.615
21.584
0.000
0.001
4.115
21.498
Normalized
Factored
Score
1.187
0.000
0.000
0.191
0.996
BCBPATBG.WK4
D-67
-------
PHOTOCHEMICAL OXIDANT POTENTIAL IMPACT CALCULATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
Total POCP Score
Normalizing Factor
ACETALDEHYDE
ACETONE
ALDEHYDES
AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (C8-C10)
BENZENE
BUTANE (n-)
BUTANE~(jso-"j
BUfYL~ACEtATE (n-)
BUTYL ALCOHOL
CHLOROFORM
ETHANE"^" '
ETHYL BENZENE
ETHYLENE
HEPTANE (n-)
HEXANE (n-)
METHANE
METHANOL
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
METHYL ISOAMYL KETONE
METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE
METHYL PROPYL KETONE
OCTANE (n-)
PENTANE (n-)
PROPANE
PROPYL ACETATE
PROPYLENE
TOLUENE
TRICHLOROETHANE
VOC
XYLENE
POCP
Equiv.
Factor
0.527
0.178
0.443
0.761
0.189
0.410
0.315
0.323
0.196
0.021
0.082
0.593
1.000
0.529
0.421
0.007
0.123
0.473
0.326
0.326
0.326
0.493
0.408
0.420
0.218
1.030
0.563
0.021
0.397
0.849
Inventory
Value
Ib/FU
0.054
0.007
0.017
0.023
0.110
0.053
0.003
0.139
0.036
0.001
0.042
0.002
0.003
0.076
0.059
0.246
0.000
0.002
0.524
0.023
0.000
0.051
0.037
0.066
0.000
0.001
0.024
0.002
14.210
0.047
Factored
Score
6.168
5.959
0.029
0.001
0.008
0.017
0.021
0.022
0.001
0.045
0.007
0.000
0.003
0.001
0.003
0.040
0.025
0.002
0.000
0.001
0.171
0.008
0.000
0.025
0.015
0.028
0.000
0.001
0.014
0.000
5.641
0.040
Normalized
Factored
Score
1.035 "
0.005
0.000
0.001
0.003
0.003
0.004
0.000
0.008
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.007
0.004
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.029
0.001
0.000
0.004
0.003
0.005
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.947
0.007
BCBPATBG.WK4
D-68
-------
HUMAN HEALTH INHALATION TOXICITY IMPACT CALCULATIONS
HH
CHEMICAL NAME
Total HH Inh. Tox. Factored Score
Normalizing Score
ACETALDEHYDE
ACETONE
ACET "ONlt RILE
AMMONIA
ALDEHYDES
ALUMINUM
AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (C8-C10)
BENZENE
BUTANE ( h-)
BUTANE (iso-)
BUTYL ACETATE (n-)
BUTANOL
BUTYL CELLOSOLVE
BUTYLENE OXIDE, 1,2-
CADMIUM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLORINE
CHLOROFORM
CO
CO2
CUMENE ""
CYCLbPARAFFINS, C-7
CYCLOPARAFFINS, C-8
biCHLORODiFLUOROMETHANE (CFC
ETHANE
ETHYL BENZENE
ETHYLENE
ETHYLENE CHLORIDE
ETHYLENE DICHLORIDE
FLUORINE
FORMALDEHYDE
HEAVY AROMATIC
HEPTANE (n-)
HEXYL ACETATE
HEXAMETHYLENE DIISOCYANTE
HEXANE (n-)
HYDROCHLORIC ACID
HYDROGEN CYANIDE
ISOBUTYRALDEHYDE
ISOPROPYL ALCOHOL
LEAD
METHANE
METHANOL
INHALATION
TOXICITY
Equiv.
Factor
7.44
0
0
5.7
NA
15.6
NA
NA
17.5
NA
8.49
0.95
12.29
NA
2.25
7.06
22.05
2.57
4.47
NA
1.35
NA
NA
0
NA
3.19
0
0
7.32
14.64
15.6
NA
0
NA
10
0
14.82
30
1.86
0
NA
NA
0
Inventory
Value
Ib/FU
0.054
0.007
0.000
0.000
0.017
0.003
0.023
0.110
0.053
0.003
0.139
0.036
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.577
0.001
1.289
267.997
0.027
0.011
0.004
0.000
0.042
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.008
0.028
0.019
0.197
0.076
0.000
0.059
0.001
0.007
0.000
0.002
0.001
0.246
0.000
Factored
Score
25.416
12.715
0.404
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.041
0.000
0.000
0.919
0.000
1.177
0.034
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.020
12.715
0.003
5.763
0.000
0.036
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.007
0.000
0.000
0.057
0.410
0.291
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.020
0.202
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Normalized
Factored
Score
1.999
0.032
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.000
0.000
0.072
0.000
0.093
0.003
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.002
1.000
0.000
0.453
0.000
0.003
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.004
0.032
0.023
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.016
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
BCBPATBG.WK4
D-69
-------
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
METHYL ISOAMYL KETONE
METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE
METHYL PROPYL KETONE
NAPTHA, NM&P
NAPHTHALENE
NOX
NITRIC ACID
NITROEfHANE
NlTRbPROPANE
OCTANE J£-)
ORGANIC ACIDS
PENTANE (n-)
PHENOL
PHOSGENE
PHOSPHORIC ACID
PM
PM-10
PROPANE
PROPYL' ACETATE
TOLUENE
TRICHLOROEHTANE (METHYL CHLO
VINYL CHLORIDE
VOC
XYLENE
1.4
4
2.33
NA
NA
26.45
NA
26.4
NA
14.4
0
NA
13.34
22.33
12.5
30
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.04
5.6
18.52
NA
2.1
0.002
0.524
0.023
0.000
0.066
5.879
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.051
0.022
0.037
0.022
5.948
0.310
0.066
0.000
0.024
0.002
0.001
' 14.210
0.047
0.003
2.098
0.054
0.000
, 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.493
0.483
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.049
0.013
0.026
0.000
0.098
0.000
0165
0.004
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.039
0.038
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.004
0.001
0.002
0.000
0.008
NA= Not Available
BCBPATBG.WK4
D-70
-------
TERRESTRIAL TOXICITY IMPACT CALCULATIONS
TERRESTRIAL
CHEMICAL NAME
Total Terr. Tox. Factored Score
Normalizing Score
ACETALDEHYDE
ACETONE
ACETONITRILE
ALUMINUM
AMMONIA
ARSENIC
BENZENE
BUTYL ACETATE (n-)
BUTYL ALCOHOL
BUTYL CELLOSOLVE
BUTYLENE OXIDE, 1,2-
CADMIUM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLORINE
CHLOROFORM
CHROMIUM, TRIVALENT
COBALT COMPOUNDS
COPPER COMPOUNDS
CUMENE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
DIETHYLAMINETRIAMINE
ETHYL BENZENE
ETHYLENE
ETHYLENE DICHLORIDE
FGD SOLIDS
FLY ASH
FORMALDEHYDE
HEPTANE (n-)
HEXANE (n-)
HEXYL ACETATE
HEXAMETYHYLENE DIISOCYANTE
HYDROCHLORIC ACID
HYDROGEN CYANIDE
IRON
ISOBUTYRALDEHYDE
ISOPROPYL ALCOHOL
KEROSENE
LEAD
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
METHYL ISOAMYL KETONE
METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE
TOXICITY
Equiv.
Factor
3.255
1.860
0.610
0.000
9.030
31.730
0.000
0.000
6.180
7.590
1.610
21.030
1.710
0.000
6.160
19.290
20.960
12.000
2.710
1.330
5.270
0.000
0.000
4.890
0.000
0.000
12.600
9.500
0.000
0.000
2.640
5.740
30.000
0.000
1.860
0.950
0.000
5.750
1.860
2.050
2.790
Inventory
Value
Ib/FU
0.054
0.007
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.111
0.139
0.036
0.000
0.000
0.005
0.003
0.616
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.027
0.000
0.002
0.003
0.000
0.000
0.019
0.076
0.059
0.000
0.001
0.007
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.003
0.002
0.524
0.023
Factored
Score
3.142
1.075
0.177
0.014
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.220
0.000
0.000
0.104
0.005
0.000
0.008
0.011
0.000
0.000
0.073
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.235
0.725
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.008
0.202
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.015
0.004
1.075
0.065
Normalized
Factored
Score
2.923
0.164
0.013
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.205
0.000
0.000
0.097
0.004
0.000
0.008
0.010
0.000
0.000
0.068
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.218
0.674
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.007
0.188
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.014
0.004
1.000
0.060
BCBPATBG.WK4
D-71
-------
METHYL PROPYL KETONE 4.570
NAPHTHALENE 3.170
NITRIC ACID 10.200
NITROPROPANE, 2- 8.400
PHENOL 7.600
PHOSPHORIC ACID 5.400
PR'OPYLACETATE o.87o
PLUf ONIUM (FISSILE & NONFISSILE) 0.000
SLAG__ _____ _"" " "" 0.000
SyLFURTCACIp" " 3.600
TOLUENE """"." 0.000
TRICHLOROETHANE (METHYL CHLOR 0.000
URANIUM (235, 236, 238) NA
VINYL CHLORIDE 7.870
XYLENE 0.520
ZINC 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.022
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.024
0.002
0.000
0.001
0.047
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.164
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.024
0.000
0,000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.153
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.010
0.023
0.000
NA = Not Available
BCBPATBG.WK4
D-72
-------
AQUATIC TOX1CITY IMPACT CALCULATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
Total Aquatic Tox. Factored Score
Normalizing Score
ACETONITRILE
AMMONIA ~
ALUMINUM
ARSENIC
BENZENE
BORON
BUTYL ALCOHOL
BUTYLENE OXIDE, 1,2-
CADMIUM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLORIDE
CHLORINE
CHLOROFORM
CHROMIUM, TRIVALENT
COBALT COMPOUNDS
COPPER COMPOUNDS
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE (CFC-1"
HYDROCHLORIC ACID
IRON
LEAD
MERCURY
METHYL ISOAMYL KETONE
NAPHTHALENE
NlTRiCACID
NITROPROPANE, 2-
OIL& GREASE
ORGANIC ACIDS
PETROLEUM (CRUDE OIL)
PHENOL
PHOSPHORIC ACID
SODIUM
SULFIDE
SULFURICACID
XYLENE
ZINC
AQUATIC
TOXICITY
Equiv.
Factor
0.000
21.850
0.000
18.750
14.070
0.000
0.000
NA
36.250
1.200
NA
22.500
9.750
16.630
31.750
30.000
NA
13.860
25.000
25.000
37.500
10.200
19.570
15.600
23.400
NA
NA
NA
11.400
11.400
NA
NA
15.000
16.240
20.300
Inventory
Value
Ib/FU
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.013
0.036
0.005
10.123
0.039
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.316
0.000
0.000
12.822
0.000
0.000
0.000
Factored
Score
1.127
0.881
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.009
0.000
. 0.000
0.000
0.179
0.000
0.000
0.881
0.000
0.009
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.044
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.001
Normalized
Factored
Score
1.279"
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.010
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.203
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.010
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.050
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.001
NA = Not Available
BCBPATBG.WK4
D-73
-------
LAND USE IMPACT CALCULATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
~ Total Land Use Score
Normalizing Score
BOTTOM ASH
FGD SOLIDS
FLY ASH
HAZARDOUS WASTE
PLUTONIUM (FISSILE & NONFISSILE)
SLAG
SOLID WASTE
URANIUM (235. 236. 238)
LAND
USE
Equiv.
Factor
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
NA
2.000
1.500
NA
Inventory
Value
Ib/FU
0.000
0.000
0.000
80.808
0.000
0.000
62.132
0.000
Factored
Score
254.813
161.615
0.000
0.000
0.000
161.615
0.000
0.000
93.198
0.000
Normalized
Factored
Score
1.577
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.577
0.000
NA - Not Available
_
BCBPATBG.WK4
D-74
-------
ALTERNATIVE PRIMER AND THINNER
-------
o
O
LU
O
LU
U.
i 2!
03
(/} U '\3J
ra CO to'
m ! k
O)
ill
< JSP «
.0) U.
ro co in
OD CM in
o> co oo
r^ T- CM
T- •*— C>
o o o
in o
CM o
CM
8
co t-
o o o
CM CO i-
m CM CM r~-
m in in o
i- o o m
CO C\J CM OJ
o o o p
o o o o
ill
^>-z.-z.
x at LU
LU
LU
LU
CO
O
CD
O
OO u. < co
t 3
w.
-------
OZONE DEPLETION POTENTIAL IMPACT CALCULATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
OOP
Equiv.
Factor
Total OOP Score
Normalizing Factor
.^HLOR^FLyOROMETHANE
TRICHLOROETHANE (METHYL CHLOROFORM
1.080
1.000
0.120
Inventory
Value
Ib/FU
0.000
0.001
0.000
Factored
Score
0.001
0.003
0.000
0.001
0.000
Normalized
Factored
Score
0.367 "
0.000
0.367
0.000
BCBPATBG.WK4
D-77
-------
GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL IMPACT CALCULATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
total GWP'Score
Normalizing Score
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CO2"
DTCHLORObTFLUOROMETHANE
TRICHLOROETHANE
GWP
Equiv.
Factor
1300
1
7100
100
Inventory
Value
Ib/FU
0.000
287.647
0.001
0.000
Factored
Score
295.468
300.337
0.000
287.647
7.821
0.000
Normalized
Factored
Score
0.984
0.000
0.958
0.026
0.000
BCBPATBG.WK4
D-78
-------
RESOURCE DEPLETION IMPACT CALCULATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
Total Resource Depetion Score
Normalizing Score
BAUXITE
CHROME OXIDE
COAL"
COBALT OXIDE
IRON ORE"
LIMESTONE
MAGNESIUM ORE
NATURAL GAS
PETROLEUM (CRUDE OIL)
PHOSPHATE ROCK
SALT (SODIUM CHLORIDE)
SILICA
SODA ASH
THALLIUM
TITANIUM
URANIUM (235, 236, 238)
WATER INPUT
ZINC
RESOURCE
DEPLETION
Equiv.
Factor
4
2
3
3
3
1
1
4
4
3
1
1
1
4
3
3
NA
4
Inventory .
Value
Ib/FU
83.964
4.553
0.000
1.003
1.341
4.653
2.249
537.339
2,594.511
0.000
43.470
13.377
2,624
13.782
0.000
40,765.310
0.000
Factored
Score
12,987.118
11,010.628
335.857
9.107
0.000
3.010
4.023
4.653
2.249
2,149.357
10,378.045
0.000
43.470
13.377
2.624
0.000
41.345
0.000
0.000
0.000
Normalized
Factored
Score
.1.180
0.031
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.195
0.943
0.000
0.004
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.004
0.000
0.000
0.000
NA = Not Available
BCAPATBG.WK4
D-79
-------
ACIDIFICATION POTENTIAL IMPACT CALCULATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
Acid. Pot.
Equiv.
Factor
Total Acid. Pot. Score
Normalizing Score
AMMONIA""'" ~ i.sso
HYDROCHLORIC ACID 0.880
NOX "~~ """" 0.700
SOX " " 1.000
Inventory
Value
Ib/FU
0.001
0.002
5.993
21.172
Factored
Score
25.370
21.584
0.002
0.002
4.195
21.172
Normalized
Factored
Score
"1.175
0.000
0.000
0.194
0.981
BCBPATBG.WK4
D-80
-------
PHOTOCHEMICAL OXIDANT POTENTIAL IMPACT CALCIH AT^NS
CHEMICAL NAME
Total POCP Score
. Normalizing Factor
ACETALDEHYDE
ACETONE
ALDEHYDES
AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (C8-C10)
BENZENE
BUTANE ( n-)
BUTANE (iso-)
BUTYL ACETATE (n-)
BUTYL ALCOHOL
CHLOROFORM
ETHANE "
ETHYLBEN2ENE
ETHYLENE
HEPTANE (n-)
HEXANE (n-)
METHANE
METHANOL
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
METHYL ISOAMYL KETONE
METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE
METHYL PROPYL KETONE
OCTANE (n-)
PENTANE (n-)
PROPANE
PROPYL ACETATE
PROPYLENE
TOLUENE
""RICHLOROETHANE
voc
XYLENE
POCP
Equiv.
Factor
0.527
0.178
0.443
0.761
0.189
0.410
0.315
0.323
0.196
0.021
0.082
0.593
1.000
0.529
0.421
0.007
0.123
0.473
0.326
0.326
0.326
0.493
0.408
0.420
0.218
1.030
0563
0.021
0.397
0.849
Inventory
Value
Ib/FU
0.006
0.008
0.018
0.061
0.275
0.056
0.003
0.024
0.042
0.000
0.045
0.002
0.000
0.081
0.063
0.260
0.000
0.004
0.524
0.000
0.000
0.054
0.039
0.070
0.000
0.001
0.189
0.000
13.327
0.047
Factored
Score
5.910
5.959
0.003
0.001
0.008
0.046
0.052
0.023
0.001
0.008
0.008
0.000
0.004
0.001
0.000
0.043
0.026
0.002
0.000
0.002
0.171
0.000
0.000
0.027
0.016
0.029
0.000
0.001
0.106
0.000
5.291
0.040
Normalized
Factored
Score
0.992
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.008
0.009
0.004
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.007
0.004
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.029
0.000
0.000
0.004
0.003
0.005
0.000
0.000
0.018
0.000
0.888
0.007
BCBPATBG.WK4
D-81
-------
HUMAN HEALTH INHALATION TOXICITY
HH
IMPACT
INHAUVT
CALCULATIONS
ION
TOXICITY Inventory
CHEMICAL NAME
Total HH Inh. Tox. Factored Score
Normalizing Score
ACETALDEHYDE
ACETONE ""
ACETONIITRTLE
AMMONIA
ALDEHYDES
ALUMINUM
AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (C8-C10)
BENZENE
BUTANE ( n-)
BUTANE (Iso-)
BUTYL ACETATE (n-)
BUTANOL
BUTYL CELLOSOLVE
BUTYLE'NE OXIDE, 1,2-
CADMIUM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLORINE
CHLOROFORM
CO
CO2
CUMENE
CYCLOPARAFFINS, C-7
CYCLOPARAFFINS, C-8
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE (CFC
ETHANE
ETHYL BENZENE
ETHYLENE
ETHYLENE CHLORIDE
ETHYLENE DICHLORIDE
FLUORINE
FORMALDEHYDE
HEAVY AROMATIC
HEPTANE (n-)
HEXYL ACETATE
HEXAMETHYLENE DIISOCYANTE
HEXANE (n-)
HYDROCHLORIC ACID
HYDROGEN CYANIDE
ISOBUTYRALDEHYDE
ISOPROPYL ALCOHOL
LEAD
METHANE
METHANOL
Equiv.
Factor
7.44
0
0
5.7
NA
15.6
NA
NA
17.5
NA
8.49
0.95
12.29
NA
2.25
7.06
22.05
2.57
4.47
NA
1.35
NA
NA
0
NA
3.19
0
0
7.32
14.64
15.6
NA
0
NA
10
0
14.82
30
1.86
0
NA
NA
0
Value
Ib/FU
0.006
0.008
0.000
0.001
0.018
0.003
0.061
0.275
0.056
0.003
0.024
0.042
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.586
0.000
0.832
287.647
0.023
0.011
0.004
0.001
0.045
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.020
0.197
0.081
0.005
0.063
0.002
0.007
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.260
0.000
Factored
Score
22.109
12.715
0.046
0.000
0.000
0.005
0.000
0.043
0.000
0.000
0.973
0.000
0.205
0.040
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
12.915
0.000
3.719
0.000
0.030
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.006
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.314
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.029
0.204
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Normalized
Factored
Score
1.739
0.004
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.000
0.000
0.077
0.000
0.016
0.003
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.016
0.000
0.293
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.025
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.016
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
BCBPATBG.WK4
D-82
-------
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
METHYL 1SOAMYL KETONE
METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE
METHYL PROPYL KETONE
f JAPTHA. NM&P
NAPHTHALENE
NOX
NITRIC ACID"
NITROETHANE
:JITROPROPANE
OCTANE (nT~~
ORGANIC ACIDS
^ENTANE (n-)
"HENOL"
PHOSGENE
PHOSPHORIC ACID
?M
PM-10
PROPANE
PROPYL ACETATE
TOLUENE
TRICHLOROEHTANE (METHYL CHLO
VINYL CHLORIDE
VOC
XYLENE
1.4
4
2.33
NA
NA
26.45
NA •
26.4
NA
14.4
0
NA
13.34
22.33
12.5
30
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.04
5.6
18.52
NA
2.1
0.004
0.524
0.000
0.000
0.066
5.993
0.000
0.004
0.001
0.054
0.023
0.039
0.021
5.956
0.310
0.070
0.000
0.189
0.000
0.000
13.327
0.047
0.006
2.098
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.009
0.000
0.000
0.523
0.461
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.385
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.099
0.000
0.165
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.041
0.036
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.030
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.008
MA = Not Available
BCBPATBG.WK4
D-83
-------
TERRESTRIAL TOXICITY IMPACT CALCULATIONS
T
CHEMICAL NAME
Total Terr. Tox. Factored Score
Normalizing Score
ACETALDEHYDE
ACETONE
ACETONITRILE
ALUMINUM"
AMMONfA "
ARSENIC
BENZENE
BUTYL ACETATE (n-)
BUTYL ALCOHOL
BUTYL'CELLOSOLVE
BUTYLENE OXIDE, 1,2-
CADMIUM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLORINE
CHLOROFORM
CHROMIUM, TRIVALENT
COBALT COMPOUNDS
COPPER COMPOUNDS
CUMENE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE
DIETHYLAMINETRIAMINE
ETHYL BENZENE
ETHYLENE
ETHYLENE DICHLORIDE
FGD SOLIDS
FLY ASH
FORMALDEHYDE
HEPTANE (n-)
HEXANE (n-)
HEXYL ACETATE
HEXAMETYHYLENE DIISOCYANTE
HYDROCHLORIC ACID
HYDROGEN CYANIDE
IRON
ISOBUTYRALDEHYDE
ISOPROPYL ALCOHOL
KEROSENE
LEAD
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
METHYL ISOAMYL KETONE
METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE
ERRESTRIAL
TOXICITY
Equiv.
Factor
3.255
1.860
0.610
-o.ooo
9.030
31.730
0.000
0.000
6.180
7.590
1.610
21.030
1.710
0.000
6.160
19.290
20.960
12.000
2.710
1.330
5.270
0.000
0.000
4.890
0.000
0.000
12.600
9.500
0.000
0.000
2.640
5.740
30.000
0.000
1.860
0.950
0.000
5.750
1.860
2.050
2.790
Inventory
Value
Ib/FU
0.006
0.008
0.005
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.275
0.024
0.042
0.000
0.000
0.008
0.000
0.707
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.023
0.001
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.020
0.081
0.063
0.005
0.002
0.007
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.004
0.524
0.000
Factored
Score
3/"*™7*7
.077
1.075
0.020
0.015
0.003
0.000
0.008
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.258
0.000
0.000
0.168
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.017
0.000
0.001
0.061
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.253
0.767
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.204
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.017
0.008
1.075
0.000
Normalized
Factored
Score
2OCO
.862
0.019
0.014
0.003
0.000
0.007
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.240
0.000
0.000
0.156
,0.000
0.000
0.000
0.016
0.000
0.001
0.057
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.236
0.714
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.010
0.189
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.016
0.008
1.000
0.000
BCBPATBG.WK4
D-84
-------
METHYL PROPYL KETONE
NAPHTHALENE
NITRIC AC'lD
'sJITROPROPANE, 2-
?HENOL
PHOSPHORIC ACID
PROPYL ACETATE ,
°UJTONiyM {FISSILE & NONFISSILE)
SLAG""
SULFURiCACI
_ _
TRICHLOROETHANE (METHYL CHLOR
URANTyiyi (235, 236, 238)
VINYrCHLORIDE
XYLENE
ZINC
4.570
3.170
10.200
8.400
7.600
5.400
0.870
0.000
0.000
3.600
0.000
o.ooo
NA
7.870
0.520
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.021
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.189
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.047
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.007
0.000
0.157
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.025
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.006
0.000
0.146
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.023
0.000
NA = Not Available
BCBPATBG.WK4
D-85
-------
AQUATIC TOXICITY IMPACT CALCULATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
Total Aquatic fox. Factored Score
Normalizing Score
ACETONITRILE
AMMONIA "
ALUMINUM
ARSENIC"
BENZENE"
BORON
BUTYL ALCOHOL
BUTYLENE OXIDE, 1,2-
CADMIUM
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
CHLORIDE
CHLORINE
CHLOROFORM
CHROMIUM, TRIVALENT
COBALT COMPOUNDS
COPPER COMPOUNDS
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE (CFC-1
HYDROCHLORIC ACID
IRON
LEAD
MERCURY
METHYL ISOAMYL KETONE
NAPHTHALENE
NITRIC ACID
NITROPROPANE, 2-
OIL & GREASE
ORGANIC ACIDS
PETROLEUM (CRUDE OIL)
PHENOL
PHOSPHORIC ACID
SODIUM
SULFIDE
SULFURIC ACID
XYLENE
ZINC
AQUATIC
TOXICITY
Equiv.
Factor
0.000
21.850
0.000
18.750
14.070
0.000
0.000
NA
36.250
1.200
NA
22.500
9.750
16.630
31.750
30.000
NA
13.860
25.000
25.000
37.500
10.200
19.570
15.600
23.400
NA
NA
NA
1 1 .400
11.400
NA
NA
15.000
16.240
20.300
Inventory
Value
Ib/FU
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.014
0.042
0.008
10.721.
0.121
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.000
0.335
0.000
0.000
13.580
0.000
0.000
0.000
Factored
Score
3.119
0.881
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.009
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.289
0.000
0.000
2.727
0.000
0.015
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.073
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
•0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.001
Normalized
Factored
Score
3.540
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.011
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.328
0.000
0.000
3.096
0.000
0.017
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.082
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.002
NA = Not Available
BCBPATBG.WK4
D-86
-------
LAND USE IMPACT CALCULATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
Total Land Use Score
Normalizing Score
BOTTOM ASH
FGD SOLIDS
FLY ASH
HAZARDOUS WASTE
PLUTONIUM (FISSILE & NONFISSILE)
SLAG
SOLID WASTE
URANIUM (235, 236, 238)
LAND
USE
Equiv.
Factor
2.000
2.000
2.000
2.000
NA
2.000
1.500
NA
Inventory
Value
Ib/FU
0.000
0.000
0.000
79.465
0.000
0.000
61.961
0.000
Factored
Score
251.871
161.615
0.000
0.000
0.000
158.930
0.000
0.000
92.941
0.000
Normalized
Factored
Score
1.585
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.585
0.000
NA = Not Available
BCAPATBG.WK4
D-87
-------
-------
APPENDIX E
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
0)
O)
(O
£
o
§
(O *-
T- O)
oo co
G>
in
CN CN
in co
03
co
oo
in
o
cb
I I
»- CO
CO <°
CO CO CO (O 5>
1*
•§ in in in in in in
uu
*l
l-o
(O
co o ,_• *- m
o S § co
o »-
o> co in o> i
,-. o —, T
CO ° CO " CD
CO
o
f^
o
oo
o
CO
1^-
01
(O CO CO CD CO CO
CM CM CN CN CM CN
(D
r>i
S
^gcof°cN^CN2!T^^r>i|CcNg
M-OCN^O>OO»-«-
55 »-' o o »- »-
i CM O>
i oo co
X « •
122
X
__
o *^ CO ^T ^ «0 ^ CM
CO T- O> CO CN
i^ W o d ^
i co o o rai 0111*, i^; cp cp en o> o>
'
CO C3
OO Irt G) O5 Is* f^" ^" *™ '
mr>j«-«-«-^-'"«-1
eg.
i?
Is
§• I
uj :
32
o>
O3
ocooococooicricocboococp
OO) ^.'^JCOCOf^N-CNCN^^CO
o'^ d d d d d d oo
« « 31
•i Q-
,18
CD
O
1"
50
s^
c o>
c E
It
CO
o
CO
a>
a.
a
o
o> o «- o o> m '
.x co • CM ,-; co
Q. m T- ^ m ° o
cj 0- co m
O
§
^ O) O CO O>
S - S o
P »-'
8 II
'•S
S
S
CO CD CQ
E
•o
_ tt> TO
£fi'8«i
^ ^ rt .S ii
I
.
•o fc j£ TO i
C O CL. u. Tl a)
i s 1 § % S .|
Q. §> 2 >. >. O £
§Bli"»t?
O>X Q
1°
TO
.- '
O>
in
o>
1&10
as
S c
C 0)
2 E
||
UJ O •§ <
8
^
!o
as
ro
0)
X
E-l
-------
CM(Oh~CO(OO)(OOOOO>
co O) *— co in o> r*~ o
in »- o> T to CM co ..'i
<«r o) o o f- co oo UJ
tr
.
fO O
o *- o
ooooooooooo
rOCN(D(O ^
oooo^r«-Poo
0) O O O
cc
oooooooooo
T>
CO
oooooooo
00
o
§•
CO
f
cof-.inincocMOOOoo
CM tO in 'J' «- T
^T O) ^* ^" **** *""
•r- in co CM in T
T- CM O O O 5
^r CM o o> T-
«- in eo r>4 CM
CO »- O O f
•«- O O O tN
O O O O CM
O O O O O
O O O
en in ID oo r— r^
IT in co co ID co
o co «- co
- • r- O T- T- CO
S; cs »-
T- in oo CN CM
CO T- O O »-
»- O O O CM
O O O O CM
o o o o ci
o o o o o o
ooooo »- oooooooooo
•i
CO
i
w
Q.
i
*- ooooooooooo
o
•c
ro
Q>
(O
§1
CO O
Q)
8
co
13
oooooooooo
o
o
tn
c
o
1
LU
I
o
co o>
28
-
O 0>
in m
O) O
CM CM
OP
O O
O CM
p
co
o co
0) OOOOOOOOOOO
o
u
CO
la-
so
co r»- o to r^ocooor»-ooooo
89*: ^ S 5
«. oo LU LU -D to CO
?;, eo oo co SQ.'T CM
o_ ^ to co > O in °.
o co a> O *~ o
OL O.
oooooooooo
ti Q.
'"ro O
EO
^
CJJ
in
S
CM
|5
a> O
or a.
T-or-oocooooo
CM T™ -
in CM
•r- T~
O fM
O CM
O O
21=
|i
li
O Q.
II.
LU O *
fc^fc^t_t_1_t_^
•o
8t!f££M3J| 18
>x a-g.-s j i
a) S t- oo 5. =' S
^ ^/ w* b. i "• •** -^* JT ^^ ^. -•— ^>
O>X I < O O
i(0 O' «
I^E ETS1
u>
c
o
XI
(0
u
l«l
1'i^
5.y£
o £ 2
t§>&
165
I
o
V) V>
.11
I"!
xi in
o tn
2 O
-------
<•>
^
r
o
*—
"^
UJ
O)
o
o
o
o
o
o
«
1
5
I
Ol
.0
CO
c
(
s
0
U
CO
1
Current Facto
1
V
^
!
UJ
o;
•o
c
CD
(0
3
**
1.
S
o
i-
X
X
0.
o
Q_
^
0.
o
CO
in
£L«
O
2
1
CO
Q.
O *-
o<
Compound
VOC
o o o o o
0
s
o
h.fe.k.wk.'w^.^^CO
<<se>«>
£ f! 0- 0. -S CO •"= £ -0
CO -B S 0 S 0 0 .S $
rl S.S-8'1 *•»•§•••
|| « "-5 8,-g.S § •§
X< 0 0 X'O^S Q 5
CM
.2
to
c
0>
u
V)
10
to
rv'
U-
£
o
Current Emiss
IS CD
11
II
UJ U
Compound
to o>
o o>
TT CM
o> c-
00 O>
CO *~.
T- O
< <
voc
Heavy aromatics
m to N- o>
in co o f-
O CD O CO
GO O CO CO
CO v- O O>
O O O ^
o o ci
< « <
to
o
Aromatic hydroca
C7 cycloparaffins
C8 cycloparaffins
Hydrocarbons
0.021765
<
U)
•o
"o
CD
U
'c
CO
O)
6
O CO
!•«-
00
0
CO
To
<§
"
c.
o
A
s
u
o
Is
.y e
0) <»
fl
<2
&?
UJ UJ
co in
to co
ai cu
15 TO
§§
Dissolved solids
Metals
^TtOCM^-OOtOtOOOOO)
CM0>CMTTCMT-O O
CO «- CM f>~ CO in h- ,'
r^oincMinmoo UJ
Sin ^ o °. ° ^ o »-
mo o o •«-
CC
ooooooooooo
•o
c
CO
OOOOOOOOO5CDCO
CO O O
in UJ UJ
co ^ T-
CMi^tO'a-eoinooooo
in to o> *» CM f^
§O) TT tO CM CO
in C35 1 O> CM
SC3
fc^
5 T- CM O ' Q < Q CO
0)o>mm-w»-ooooo
r^ in in ^ co co
O) in in to co c^
"sr oo co CM o ^
I co in T-' o °
X
ooooooooooo
Q.
CD
CM OOOOOOOOOOO
.9
CO
c
0)
0 ^
, ^
2 ooooooooooo
o
u
CO
s o
o
CD ooor^oorrooooo
u. co o> in
_ O T- o>
" T- O5 CO
$ 0- CO CO CN
-2 o ^ q o
a) O «- o co
fy n
Be
11
| | HI
UlO << '3. '<'<'<<'< ^ ^ ^
in OT
1 1
I i 1 1 „ 1 *
C O *- Q. D.-9 CO ^ C TJ
g co ~ 2 2 o o o
CC
o o o
c
CO
o o o
to
tN co m
r^ ^ co
m «- m
in co CM
CM «- O
._ t» o o
55 o o o
CM co in
i*» ^r co
m ** m
in co CM
. CM »- O
t en o o
X o o o
(M 000
CO
C Q.
O >
OT CD
^ 0 0 O
o
u
U)
T>
0) Q.
o<
"§ o o o
ll
•g
y 0,
"m Q
Revised Normi
POCP Ol
0925572
0
0 002535
11
11
|S
! i ^ .. ^
C O .fe .JE .ir
UJ O < < <
<0
O
Compound
VOC
Heavy aromatics
Aromatic hydrocar
E-3
-------
UJ UJ
O> *7
CO* T^
o o
o o
CN CO
v* CN
fSfc tP
O O
R o
0
28
N» O
O f-%
0°
o o
00
0 0
o o
3$
11
CO (O O O O CO
co O *~
^™ UJ lit
<3 CD CO
CD
o o o o o o
O O O CO CD T-
t^. O ij-
§ til UJ
co co t>»
0*
«- o o o o o
g
CO
T—
o
v- O O O O O
£:
in
CO
o"
o o o o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o o
i- o o o o o
i
o
fl) Q) CO
**g ?n 7s
Cfl
1
i *
'§S|>-2 «
S
oe
i
co
cr
fc-
CO
1-
o
,_
3J
x
o.
C3
CO
o
1
V
CJ Q_
w%
CO
g
u
U)
•0 0-
|8
1 s
ir
OCL
21=
c §
El
C CO
0 Q.
•5 g
C O ,fe
UJ O <
Compound
VOC
o
5
Heavy aromatics
o
o>
o
o
o'
5
co
c
o
Aromatic hydroca
00 0
CD CU Q)
^ »« ^ ^ h~ CO CO CO
in
^
o
-S
CO CO CD
c c o to
ee co „ g s
co co c -6 -J5 -5
co co 2 '3 >> co co
Q. O.-S co •= = -o
ttlllll^
£2imii
OOXO<2QS
CO
.S
CO
§
1
S
•s
cr
10
c
o
"to
m in^-OOCNf-IcO CDO*-
UJ «- CM CN 00 CO 00 O5 O .;. ..',
*; o> ^ *~ oo o *• r*" ^r "* *•*
« co T~ o o o CN ^ ^ o r^
S: ooo'°o'*'0 irim'cN
3 v- O CN O CN
O
3^
c «
II
C CO
eg. 5 co s
'> c ^S 75 ^3
i5o55555555§§§
S g
0 0
1 lilllliilji
IBsi^cSfl'Iil^
0>X c
iSo
Compound
CN CO CN
T— O) T—
CO (O CO
co m i^-
un o o
CO C>
o o o
o o o
m t*- 03
co oo r~-
co T in
CN 0 T-
N! Is* *"
CO r^ T
»- O
T- CO 1
co o en
o oo «-
_ r^ oo
8*5
CO C>
O O 0
00 O
o o o
11.21828
0
0.012391
<55
(0
c
o
JQ
VOC
Heavy aromatics
Aromatic hydroca
00
CN
CN
CO
o
o
o
oo
§
0
*r"
o
in
o>
CN
CO
CN
o
o
o
0
o
<
C7 cycloparaffins
oo TT oo o
00 00 ^X
CM TT r-
o to r^
o> o
o o o o
o o o o
CN h- O O
r-. in
in in
0 •*-
IT in
* o
O CO
o> o> o o
ss
in in
CO O
0 IT
O CO
o o o o
0 O O O
0 O O O
O r-- o o
CN
in
o>
oi
< <<<
c
o
JD
C8 cycloparaffins
Hydrocarbons
Organic acids
Aliphatic hydroca
0 0
o o
^T CD
00 O
DO li
in ^
in
o o
0 O
0 0
0 0
O 0
o o
(U CU
•jjg "jg
§ §
Mobile ions
Dissolved solids
E-4
-------
9
UJ
i O O O
UJ
OO
O 0 ••» CN CN O «
01°. P T CO •«- o
$00
Q:
ooooooooooo
cr
ID OO CO
CO O> T
O) tO CO
co m o>
S
cc
T O
o o o
TJ
(D
UJ
O
ooooooooinco^-
qj in in
CN O CO
in oo o oo r- co
in ^- co in tN co
u> o> o o o «-
CM O O O O CO
,_ h-. p q|p p v-
Ju o' o o" o o o
«ro>»-N-incoooooo
in oo o oo T- co
in •<»• oo in (N co
m o> o o o »-
. (N o o o o tt>
H N. p p p p T-
X C3 O O O Ci C>
I
ooooooooooo
O)
I
co
•
0) >
o S
CO O
I
u
CO
TJ
ooooooooooo
ooooooooooo
T3
CD
CD
co
iQ.
; Q
E O
O Tfr O T- O O
Z in o
IT in oo co
T-> in o »-
I&R--8 5?
CD O O O O'
cr Q.
C 0)
II
O Q.
15555
g
o
OOOOO
in
c
S
I § 11«, § fi
HiLssi-o-o '"§
E2tS(oQ-n>.8>
o55b;
o o o
(D
I
o>
o o o o o
o.
CD
o
•c
CD
11
!«
£8
! o o
32
c o>
E
(D
§
C/}
w.
CD
to
cr
10
c
o
•jo
UJ
Sin f^ ^f co CN ^^
^ co o m G> c^
T CN co co co o co
oo i o r— CN co in
o «- «- o o —
m
I
O) 1^ tf>
JO 00 T
O *» O)
i^ O) O)
co o>
O 00
OO CO
CN
in
co o
o o o
Q.
I
T O O O
O
•c
CD
• CO CO
3
O
o O
0>
83
^ r*. «u ^» ^. 1= **
i X
E-5
-------
(OCMCOCOOOOO
is^§|s
oooro
S m MI
CO *~ OS CO O
O o in o CM
o* o* co o'
oooooooo
ooooogtpg
S tL tij
s ^ ^
*r
cococoooooo
§8°:
O CM
CDCMCOOOOOO
*~ to *••
§u> 5
8- Is-
«S °. CO
o o K
oooooooo
oooooooo
oooooooo
ootnooooo
£
0
co §3 to
To To To
m
c
5
« w co
>S iS " 45
CO CO C 4? 45 "^
CX O.-9 C8 -C g T>
{^ § ill til til 8 ill ui
OOfMCOOiOCO CO
£ o' o'
o:
ooooooooooo
•o
§
-1
OOOOOOOOt>-0)T-
(D O wj-
S til UJ
^ ^r in
2 CM
o~ o
incAi-cMomooooo
^- co CM m »- to
CO ^tT CO O O Cn
»- at 1- o o CM
f- O O O O •V
. CD 0 O o 0- *-
g o o o o
l_
^M QQ (\| ||^ ^_ (Q
»- O «- O O CM
. f^ 0 0 O 0 TT
t co o o 0- 0- »-
X O O O O
X
^r ooooooooooo
CX
-^
u &
t»c3
Q OOOOOOOOOOO
0
s
13
i*
0 OOOOOOOOOOO
u.
w
CL N! o 9
.§ O o o" o' o'
o: a.
5 c
81 Jj"
E-e
C CO ^_
S °- £ CD £
*5 t- To To To
S g
0 o
-S |
sill, i 4j
CO ^3 CO CO C *D *n ~n
T3 ES'COCtlg'oS"'00'
c o-^exci-Hco-CETj
3 S » — — ra o .° -2 a>
i-.. 5-cl s.^pll^-1-i
S
IT
^
CO
_l
CO
f
t
I—
1
o o o o o o
t
X
x
Q.
§
CD
.§
g
0)
«<
1
1
0}
•OD.
tt) Q
£ O
£ i 5
Is1" d
= 0
U GL
5 "e
c §
V c
E t
C CD
> ^
in
c
o
A
u
OT
To
cc
u>
UJ
o
O) CN O> N- O) CM CO (O CO ,;.
or-CNOroin«-T-*»UJ
CMOfMi-OinCMOO1*5
^vOOOCAOO^to
T-odoooicicico
§1
II
-S
CO CO P
Q. Q.-S
u>
c
o
.a
to
S
T3
>>
t^as.?
OOXO
(J>XX
O O X O < 5 Q
E-6
-------
0
*—
UJ
m
CO
S
5
§
2
a:
•o
1
fc
.2
X
o
in
o
•c
CD
C
Q)
in CL
t ^
£
8
0)
2 Q
(Z
T3
S °-
Q) O
eta.
2 •£
C (D
||
O ^L
C O
UJO
T>
3
O
CQ tO f**« ^f *i*i fs» OO 00 *™* ^^ o)
oo oo ^j ^r »~ oo oo o ^
So' o' o £ o' ° *~
ooooooooooo
oooooooococpco
§99
co
in to in in o o in
SO> oo co in co co
in oo T- a> ft T-
f»S8dS£j g
*- CM O O' CO O'
CNOltOCMCMGOOCOOOO
*» in co co CM *- co
in in co CM G) to oo
00 OO CD V CO tO ^
10 «~ O OO O T- ^•
" CN tO CM •«- jo O
co in o o o f- o
ooooooooooo
ooooooooooo
ooooooooooo
OlOCOOOCAOCOOOO
CM T- CO CO
co to ^ oo
CO CO O O
CD CM CO g
T- O O
OJ >«o co
ro g 2 o S S .9 -2 I;
5>f g.g,o=to»^J2
oli^«ts'f:i^
>X CL
c3<
tS o
co *•*
LL
TJ
a>
.y a
ra O
EO
0 CO
I-!
•5 O o>
a) O o*
tr CL
"55 •£
C V
a> g
0 Q.
•— p
> c.
UJ O <
Compound
voc
!§ 11
o ~
P 00
o
o a
o o
^- tN
T- IT
58
o o
T- in
CO T-
08
0 0
0 0
O 0
0 0
O f--
fM
o
o
o
^ ^
< <
Tf Q
co' «-' c
o
o o o
o o o
*"• CO CO
h- CM 00
o o ex
0 0.000716 0.
0 0.000262 0.
0 0.196867 0.
o o o
o o o
O O f-
S
i
0
< «
C7 cycloparaffins
C8 cycloparaffins
Hydrocarbons
g
ci
00
c
o
o
o
o
o
<
Organic acids
!UJ UJ
CM CO
to f-
o o o o
O CO 00 i-
'*' 9 T
o
o
o
T-
i
o
o
o o o o
o o o o
•
o o o o
T O O O
0
o
o
o
o
^. k. h.
Q> Q) Q>
75 13 75
< § 5 $
S
|
CD
U «
< 502
cc
•o
ro
_j
ro
f
1
o o o o o o
t
X
CL
' 0
CO
_o
CO
c
0>
(O ^
2
o
u
C *± *g *g
ujo^5?^^^^^5§§
c »
1 1
lill« 1 *
w-Sroroc-g-o 'o
1 s« ||| '8* §5
£O gE ^0*2 ro^s^'S
oO o> 2i^oo>.21^-o toai
O>I
E
0
•>
UJ
C
1
E
o
O
Compound
SO) CM
o> oo
CD CM in
CM N- O
CO Ol CO
T- O O
^^^
10
1
voc
Heavy aromatics
Aromatic hydrocar
E-7
-------
tO CO
o>
9
ui
(O TT O O O
co cn CM CN ^r oo CN
r- r- to in -
o a> CM in CD «~ CM
co co ^ *r *• in o>
« eo" •*-. oi o o. pj o. ,-
Smoooot-o
Of
ooooooooooo
T-CNCMCOCOf-COOOOrO
^ f~ CN O O CO O *-
CO O O
O O CO
trodUJUi^liJ ill
§o o T m. o ^ co
p p O Tf T- P CO i-'
O O O C>
OOOOOOOOOOO
• T3
ro
OOOOOOOOr-COOO
co p p
2 uj 01
Jl; 00 CO
OOOOOOOOOOCOr-
•^ o »-
CO »- »-'
d
C3) CD CO O CM in
^ O> CO ^T ^ f^«
co in co co CM co
.^ co co T in ^
CD t ^ ^ P CO
i T- CN O O O CO
_
t: in
X ro
OJ •"»•
in CD
in co
co CM
CN §
in T-'
N-comooooo
CM, in in
£§E5
o »- r~
«. r CM
O O 00
ooooooooooo
COCOCDOOh-t^-OOOOO
o> ^- co in r^ o
t^. i- o h- CM in
r^ CO TT O O CO
oo «- o o o o
,_ CO p O O O CM
5000000
co ^ co in t-^ o
i^ •«- o t«~ CM in
t»- co TJ- o o co
. co »- o o o o
t CO P O O O (N
X o o o" o o o
X
OOOOOOOOOOO
.2
ooooooooooo
oooooooooo
r-ocnoocoooooo
r- o> CD
co co co
CN CO
CO CM
_ O CM
_ O ^ o co
KCL
ooooooooooo
o
u
U)
Q.
<
OOOOOOOOOOO
N Q_
^ Q
§0
O fOOlDOOh-OO
Z o> m o
_ i^ o in
^ i.^ «• CO
CU OL £ O O
.ffi tj oq p CM
(D O CO O O
o: Q.
to
c
T3
1°
(3 >
(0 C/) (A
*" O c C
•S 2 e S to at g
ro -o co ro c -g -D
§l-S«£u^
*
£
o
S
" * "^ S
to o .9 ~
Ii111I!i
o
in
•o
5
II
CO 0)
IDS
To -5 ^ »
I
CD
U CO
X
------- |