United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Research and Development
Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
EPA/600/S2-91/030 Sep. 1991
«rEPA Project Summary
Waste Minimization
Opportunity Assessment:
Naval Undersea Warfare
Engineering Station
Keyport, Washington
The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has developed a systematic ap-
proach to Identify, select and imple-
ment options to reduce or eliminate
hazardous waste. The approach Is pre-
sented in a report entitled, "Waste Mini-
mization Opportunity Assessment
Manual" (EPA/625/7-88/003). To encour-
age use of this manual, EPA is con-
ducting a series of assessment
projects. This report describes the ap-
plication of the waste minimization as-
sessment procedures to a torpedo
maintenance facility at the Naval Un-
dersea Warfare Engineering Station in
Keyport, WA (NUWES Keyport). This
facility volunteered to participate in the
project and provided technical support
during the study.
This Project Summary was developed
by EPA's Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH, to announce
key findings of the research project
that Is fully documented In a separate
report of the same title (see Project
Report ordering Information at back).
Introduction
The purpose of this project was to dem-
onstrate the application of EPA's Waste
Minimization Opportunity Assessment
Manual to a federal facility. This manual
provides a systematic, planned procedure
lor identifying ways to reduce or eliminate
waste.
This project was conducted in coopera-
tion with the Naval Energy and Environ-
mental Support Activity (NEESA) of Port
Hueneme, California and the Environmen-
tal Division of the NUWES Keyport Civil
Engineering Department.
NUWES Keyport is located within the
central Puget Sound area of northwestern
Washington State. The functions of the
Station include various undersea warfare
weapons and systems engineering and
development activities.
The principal activities currently con-
ducted at NUWES Keyport are the design
and testing of torpedoes, including tor-
pedo handling as well as other ordinance
handling and related activities. Specific
activities on the Station generate a variety
of potentially hazardous wastes, including
waste fuel, oil, hydraulic fluid, and grease;
various metal and plating bath liquid
wastes; waste paint and thinner; Freon™*,
alcohol, mineral spirits, and other solvent
wastes; waste resin; acid and caustic
wastes; chromate and cyanide salts; pes-
ticide rinsate; wastewater treatment sludge;
waste dye; waste detergent; and other
miscellaneous solid wastes
A major component of waste manage-
ment at NUWES Keyport involves a tor-
pedo propellant, known as Otto Fuel II
(Otto Fuel*). Otto Fuel is largely com-
posed of propylene glycol dinitrate, with
lesser amounts of 2-nitrodiphenylamine
and di-n-butylsebacate. Otto Fuel is a
monopropellant, meaning that it burns with-
out oxygen. The Navy currently treats Otto
Fuel-contaminated waste as an explosive,
reactive waste.
Procedure
Waste minimization (WM) is a policy
specifically mandated by the U.S. Con-
* Mention of trade names or commercial products does
not constitute endorsement or recommendation for
use.
/~X^y
^AA) Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
gress in the 1984 Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments to the Resource Con-
servation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The
WM assessment procedure used during
this project is an acceptable approach for
meeting one part of the WM required by
the law for hazardous waste generators.
The WM assessment procedure is a
systematic framework that can be used
by a facility's own employees to identify
WM opportunities. As a structured pro-
gram, it provides intermediate milestones
and a step-by-step procedure to (1) un-
derstand the facility's processes and
wastes, (2) identify options for reducing
waste, and (3) determine if the options
are technically and economically feasible
to justify implementation.
These procedures consist of four major
steps: 1) Planning and Organization - or-
ganization and goal setting; 2) Assess-
ment - careful review of a facility's opera-
tions and wastestreams and the identifi-
cation and screening of potential options
to minimize waste; 3) Feasibility Analysis
- evaluation of the technical and economic
feasibility of the options selected and sub-
sequent ranking of options; and 4) Imple-
mentation - procurement, installation,
implementation, and evaluation. The WM
opportunity assessment manual contains
a set of 19 worksheets which are de-
signed to facilitate the WM assessment
procedure.
The project completed the first three
steps of the procedures for two torpedo
maintenance processes at NUWES
Keyport. The fourth step, implementation,
is at the discretion of the host facility.
NEESA personnel are conducting WM as-
sessments for all other industrial units at
the Station.
Building 514, the Mark 48 torpedo shop;
and Building 489, the Mark 46 torpedo
shop, were selected for evaluation. The
Mark 48 shop handles about 20 to 22
torpedoes per month. These are disas-
sembled into large sections and sent to
appropriate depots on base, where they
are disassembled to components, updated,
cleaned, repainted, parts replaced, and
sections reassembled. The hydraulic fluid
and fuel tanks are drained and refilled in
Building 514. The fuel tanks and other
major sections from depots on base are
then reassembled in Building 514. Wastes
generated in Building 514 during these
processes include cyanide-containing liq-
uid wastes and sludges (formed as a
byproduct of combustion of Otto Fuel; con-
taminated solvents and oils (generated
during cleaning of parts); wastewaters;
solids (primarily clothing and rags); used
oil; and hydraulic fluid.
The major activities in the Mark 46 Shop
consist of defueling, disassembling, clean-
ing, reassembling, and refueling Mark 26
torpedoes. About 2800 unproofed torpe-
does and 500 proofed torpedoes were
processed through the Mark 46 Shop dur-
ing 1989.
Proofed torpedoes are first rinsed to
remove salt water. The remaining fuel in
proofed torpedoes is emptied into a 1500-
gal, epoxy-lined, concrete sump located
outside Building 489. Other Otto Fuel-con-
taminated wastewaters (e.g., mop wa-
ter) also are placed in the sump.
Diethylene glycol (DEG) is used to clean
the fuel tanks after draining, each fuel
tank is rinsed twice, and the second rinse
is reused as the first rinse for the next
tank. About 9 pounds of DEG is used per
rinse. Torpedo parts are cleaned in six dip
tanks containing a mixture of mineral spir-
its and lanolin called Agitene. Plans are
underway to replace three of the six
Agitene dip tanks with an automated parts
washer unit. The proposed washer is ex-
pected to reduce the quantity of Otto Fuel-
contaminated solid waste.
Results and Discussion
The technical feasibility evaluation ini-
tially determines the nature for the WM
option - whether it is equipment-related,
personnel/procedure-related, or materials-
related. For each of the three types of
WM options, specific information and data
are required. For equipment-related op-
tions, the information requirements relate
to the state of the technology, availability
of equipment, performance specifications,
testing, space and utilities, production ef-
fects, and training. For personnel/proce-
dure-related options, the required infor-
mation relates to training and operating
instructions changes. Materials-related
options require information on production
impacts, storage and handling, training and
testing. The WM options evaluated during
this project were equipment-related and
personnel procedure-related.
The technical and economic results of
the feasibility analysis phase are summa-
rized in Table 1. This table indicates the
total capital investment, the net operating
cost savings, and the payback period (to-
tal capital investment/net operating cost
savings) for each option. Five options were
identified that were considered to be po-
tentially applicable to the Station.
Option 1. Volume Reduction of
Otto Fuel-Contaminated
Clothing
Option 1 involves the increased segre-
gation of discarded clothing to minimize
the volume of Otto Fuel-contaminated solid
wastes to be disposed. By removing con-
taminated portions of protective clothing
such as sleeves and leg cuffs, only those
portions of clothing that are truly contami-
nated will require disposal as a hazardous
waste. This option requires a minimal capi-
tal outlay; however, the magnitude of po-
tential waste reduction is difficult to quan-
tify.
Option 2. Automated Cleaning
of Parts
Some automated cleaning of parts and
fuel tanks planned at Keyport will result in
more efficient and faster cleaning, smaller
amounts of hazardous waste liquids, and
smaller amounts of contaminated cloth-
ing. Future plans at the Mark 46 Shop
include replacement of three of the six
Agitene dip tanks with automatic parts
washers using biodegradable cleaning liq-
uids. This automation will involve a clean-
ing media of water/detergent in an agita-
tor or washer system or an ultrasonic
cleaner. More extensive (or complete) au-
tomation of cleaning operations within the
two shops will aid in reducing waste
Agitene, waste mineral spirits, and con-
taminated cbthing. Initial capital cost for
automatic equipment will have a relatively
short payback period because of de-
creased costs for labor and hazardous
waste disposal, and reduction in the pur-
chase of cleaning solvents. The decreased
demand on manpower should result in
staff available in other areas at NUWES
Keyport where WM may require additional
human resources.
Option 3. Automated Fuel Tank
Draining
At the time of this survey, automated
torpedo fuel tank disassembly by robotics
had been used at the Mark 46 Shop for
about 4 years; the result has been more
efficient and faster operations, smaller
amounts of waste liquids, and smaller
-------
amounts of contaminated clothing. Be-
cause fueling and defueling are handled
in one self-contained closed unit, there is
no need for frequent cleaning or decon-
tamination and there is less incidence of
spills. Future plans at the Mark 46 Shop
include a robot that will rinse the fuel
tanks and eliminate the need for the 9
pounds of DEG per tank.
A similar fueling/defueling system could
be installed in the Mark 48 Shop. This
form of automatic equipment will have a
short payback period because of de-
creased costs of labor and reduced con-
taminated clothing disposal and spill
cleanup. Staff made available can be uti-
lized in other areas at the Station where
waste minimization may require additional
human resources.
Option 4. Modify the Deep Sink
Draining Schedule
Deep sinks, used for parts cleaning in
both buildings, are currently drained on a
weekly basis. The deep sinks in the Mark
48 Shop usually contain mineral spirits
and oils; those in the Mark 46 shop con-
tain Agrtene. These sinks are emptied from
a standpipe on the outside of each build-
ing; the weekly schedule is maintained
whether or not the cleaning liquids require
changing.
A more efficient use of the liquid clean-
ing agents involves a revised schedule for
draining the sinks. The personnel in the
cleaning room can determine when the
cleaning agents are actually spent so that
draining would be conducted on an as-
needed basis. Because one week is cur-
rently the minimum time for solvent re-
plenishment, the minimum interval on an
as-needed basis will be no shorter than 1
week, and probably up to twice this pe-
riod. Incorporation of this option will re-
duce costs because less solvent would be
purchased, less hazardous waste disposed
of, and fewer man-hours expended.
Option 5. Recycling of Mineral
Spirits
Mineral spirits (used to clean parts) is
currently handled as a RCRA hazardous
waste, combined with other liquid
wastestreams, and sent to an offsite treat-
ment storage disposal facility (TSDF) for
incineration. Option 5 proposes recycling
of the mineral spirits used in the Mark 48
Shop (Building 514) to recover the spent
mineral spirits. This operation would be
conducted on a batch basis. Because the
unit has a cycle time of approximately 9
hours, batch operation could begin late in
the week and continue during weekend
hours, corresponding to the reduced de-
mand for mineral spirits in the shop during
that time.
The proposed process involves heating
the mineral spirits to destroy the Otto Fuel
present. Hydrogen cyanide in the vent
gases would be passed through a carbon
absorption unit and the remaining liquid
redistilled. The entire unit can be con-
structed to eliminate any potential explo-
sion hazard from the equipment.
Conclusions and
Recommendations
The results of the study indicate that
the fastest paybacks would be from Op-
tion 4 and Option 1. Option 4 involves a
very simple process of modifying the
schedule for deep sink draining at both
Buildings 514 and 489. Under this option,
the shops would notify Civil Engineering
when the sinks required draining (i.e. the
cleaners are spent) rather than having the
sinks being drained on a weekly basis. No
capital outlay is needed for this option.
Option 1, the reduction of Otto Fuel-
contaminated clothing, also requires a
minimal capital outlay. The cost analysis
was conducted assuming that a 20% re-
duction in solid Otto Fuel-contaminated
wastes could be realized with this method;
however, this estimate maybe significantly
high or low.
Although Option 2 requires a capital
outlay for the purchase of a parts cleaning
unit that uses biodegradable detergents, it
would allows NUWES Keyport to mini-
mize the amount of cleaning solutions dis-
posed of and greatly reduce the amount
of raw materials that must be purchased.
The payback period for this option is esti-
mated to be only 0.4 year.
Option 5, the recycling of mineral spir-
its, also has a short payback period. Again,
it involves a moderate to high capital out-
lay, but the savings realized both in the
decrease in disposal cost for contaminated
mineral spirits and in the purchase of min-
eral spirits make this an appealing option.
The payback period for Option 3, the
automated rinsing of parts, could not be
determined because the capital equipment
costs could not be verified.
The full report was submitted in fulfill-
ment of Contract No. 68-C8-0061, WA 2-
05 by Science Applications International
Corporation under the sponsorship of the
U.S Environmental Protection Agency.
&U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1991 • MH-02V/40072
-------
This Project Summary was prepared by the staff of Science Applications International
Corporation, Bothell, WA 98011 and Olympia, WA 98501.
James. S. Bridges is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
The complete report, entitled "Waste Minimization Opportunity Assessment: Naval
Undersea Warfare Engineering Station, Key port, Washington," (Order No. PB91-
216457/AS; Cost: $23.00, subject to change) will be available only from:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
Telephone: 703-487-4650
The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Center for Environmental
Research Information
Cincinnati, OH 45268
BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
EPA/600/S2-91/030
------- |