United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
National Risk Management
Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Research and Development
EPA/600/SR-95/127 August 1995
&EPA Project Summary
Pollution Prevention Alternatives,
Naval Station Mayport, Florida
The two reports summarized here
present the results of an investigation
examining pollution prevention alterna-
tives at Naval Station Mayport, located
near Jacksonville Beach, FL. The waste
streams considered were: (1) non-aque-
ous liquid wastes generated by the Pub-
lic Works Center - Transportation
(PWC-T) and (2) hazardous and non-
hazardous waste rags generated base-
wide.
The first report, "Pollution Preven-
tion Alternatives for Public Works Cen-
ter (Transportation) Waste Fluids at
Naval Station Mayport" describes the
different non-aqueous liquids, includ-
ing solvent for parts cleaning; the pol-
lution prevention alternatives that could
be utilized to reduce the generation of
non-aqueous liquid wastes and the
technical and economic benefits and
problems created by implementation of
each alternative. The second report, "In-
vestigation of Waste Rag Genera-
tion at Naval Station Mayport"
recommends five specific pollution pre-
vention alternatives that should be con-
sidered for implementation to reduce
or prevent the generation of waste rags.
This Project Summary was developed
by EPA's National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH,
to announce key findings of the re-
search project that is fully documented
in two separate reports (see Project
Report ordering information at back).
Introduction
Since 1988, EPA's Waste Reduction
Evaluations at Federal Sites (WREAFS)
Program has identified and promoted pol-
lution prevention opportunities at Federal
facilities, including the Department of De-
fense (DOD) facilities. The Naval Station
Mayport project was one of a series of
pollution prevention studies conducted un-
der WREAFS. The project was funded by
the DOD Strategic Environmental Re-
search and Development Program
(SERDP).
The purposes of this project were to:
(1) develop a Pollution Prevention Oppor-
tunity Assesment (PPOA) for non-aque-
ous liquid wastes generated by the Public
Works Center - Transportation (PWC-T)
at Naval Station Mayport; and (2) investi-
gate base-wide rag usage at the Naval
Station to reduce the volume and toxicity
of waste rags generated. The results of
the PPOA for the non-aqueous liquid
wastes are presented in the report en-
titled "Pollution Prevention Alternatives for
Public Works Center (Transportation)
Waste Fluids at Naval Station Mayport."
The results of the waste rag investigation
are reported in a separate report, entitled
"Investigation of Waste Rag Generation at
Naval Station Mayport." The findings are
summarized here.
Results and Discussion
The mission of Naval Station Mayport is
to provide support services for U.S. Navy
ships and helicopters that operate from
the Mayport, FL Naval facility. The station's
Public Works Division currently services
671 different pieces of equipment to sup-
port approximately 12 ships. This is ex-
pected to increase significantly in the future
due to base consolidations. Support equip-
-------
ment includes automobile and truck fleets,
road and light construction equipment, air-
craft ground support equipment, and ma-
rine support equipment.
Waste Fluids
The non-aqueous liquid wastes that are
generated at the PWC-T are primarily the
result of scheduled and unscheduled main-
tenance activities. These wastes include
used motor oil, hydraulic fluid, transmis-
sion fluid, antifreeze, and waste solvent
from the washing of parts.
While amounts vary according to
workload, purchase records indicate that
2,838 gal of motor oil, 564 gal of hydraulic
fluid, 206 gal of transmission fluid, and
441 gal of antifreeze and approximately
2,640 gal of PD-680 (a petroleum-based,
non-chlorinated solvent) were purchased
by PWC-T in 1993, indicating the approxi-
mate amount of waste liquids generated
at the PWC-T. Some small amount may
be lost due to spills.
It is recommended that an oil sampling
and by-pass filtration pilot study be initi-
ated on two large pieces of equipment,
such as a bulldozer and a road grader.
The pilot study is recommended to con-
firm that the number of motor oil changes,
and hence motor oil usage, can be re-
duced significantly through implementa-
tion of an oil sampling program and
installation of by-pass filtration units on
each piece of equipment. The report also
recommends that an antifreeze recycling
unit be obtained by the PWC-T to evalu-
ate the merits of recycling the spent radia-
tor fluid and reducing waste generation.
Finally, the report recommends that an
automatic parts washer be obtained for
testing by the PWC-T to replace the four
parts washing stations used to manually
clean parts with the PD-680 solvent.
These alternatives are recommended
because of their potential to reduce pollu-
tion as well as the economic advantages
and cost savings they generate. Table 1
presents each of the pollution prevention
alternatives identified for waste fluids.
In the report, the base case and associ-
ated assumptions with current operations
are compared to each pollution preven-
tion alternative. As an example, the report
presents the costs and benefits of each of
Table 1. Summary of pollution prevention altern-
atives for waste fluids at the naval sta-
tion May port PWC-T
Source of
Waste Stream
Alternatives
Identified
Motor Oil
Hydraulic
Fluid
Transmission
Fluid
Antifreeze
Parts
Washing
Oil Sampling
By-pass Filtration
Synthetic Oils
By-pass Filtration
Batch Recycling
By-pass Filtration
Batch Recycling
Recycling
Automatic Parts
Washer
the by-pass filtration systems identified for
motor oil for a bulldozer, which represents
one of the largest motor oil capacities (48
qt) of any piece of equipment serviced by
the PWC-T. Table 2 presents the alter-
nate case assumptions and resultant
payback associated with installing by-pass
filtration for the bulldozer analysis. The
information is listed alphabetically by ven-
dor.
Waste Rags
Approximately 86,440 Ib of non-recycled
hazardous and non-hazardous waste rags
are generated annually as a result of main-
tenance and repair operations at various
shorecommands and on board ships which
frequent the Naval Station. Five specific
pollution prevention alternatives that should
be considered for implementation by the
Naval Station to reduce or prevent the
generation of waste rags:
1. Better operating practices;
2. Installation of equipment cleaning
stations to remove contaminants
normally removed with rags;
3. Replacement of SERV MART (base
supply store) rags with disposable
wipers;
4. Use of recyclable rags for oil and
grease removal; and
5. Confirmation that used rags are fully
contaminated prior to disposal.
Alternatives 1 and 5 require no addi-
tional capital investment, but generate a
reduction in waste. Alternatives 3 and 4
Table 2. Motor Oil By-Pass Filtration Cost/Benefit Analysis: Bulldozer Alternate Case Assumptions
Annual Costs
Total Costs
Costs less
revenue)
Vendor
Enviro
Filtration
Fil-max
Gulf Coast
TF Purifiner
Filtration
Unit
Cosf
$226
463
675
845
Other
Coste*
$118.62
118.62
118.62
118.62
Sampling
+ New
Filters0
$116
69
22
56
Revenue^
(from
used oil)
$2.64
2.64
2.64
2.64
First
Year3
$457.98
647.98
812.98
1,016.98
Subsequent
Annual
Costs
$231.98
184.98
137.98
171.98
Payback
(yr)
1.0
1.7
2.1
2.9
a Cost of by-pass filtration unit (including a by-pass filter) plus installation.
b Includes costs for new oil (capacity of 48 qt, one oil change/yr, and new oil cost of$0.69/qt); filter disposal (2 by-pass and one full flow filter/yr at a cost of
$0.50/filter); full flow filter (one new full flow filter/yr at a cost of$20/filter); downtime (for oil change, one oil change/yr, and a downtime cost of$50/hr); and
Labor (1 hr of labor to change the oil, one oil change/yr, and a labor cost of$14/hr)
c Includes vendor-specific costs for replacement filters and $14/yr for sampling oil based on 2 samples/yr at $7/sample.
d Based on 48 qt of used oil/yr sold at $0.055/qt.
e Includes filtration unit cost.
-------
were estimated to generate a net cost
savings in addition to reducing waste. Use
of disposable wipers is somewhat more
attractive from a cost perspective than
recycling of non-hazardous waste rags,
and because of increased absorbency, the
ratio of contaminate per unit volume is
increased, thus reducing overall genera-
tion of rag waste. Alternative 2 is recom-
mended only for high-volume rag use
areas. Note that each alternative is a
proven technology that has already been
implemented by at least one command at
the Naval Station.
The five alternatives identified are rec-
ommended for implementation because of
their potential to reduce pollution as well
as the cost savings that they generate.
Table 3 presents the pollution prevention
alternatives identified and the type of rag
that is best suited for implementation.
Table 4 presents a summary of the base
case and alternatives in terms of (1) the
amount (Ibs) of waste rags generated, (2)
the capital costs, if any, associated with
implementing the alternatives, and (3) the
annual costs associated with the base case
and each alternative.
Conclusions
Several potential areas for pollution pre-
vention and waste reduction exist at Na-
val Station Mayport. In the case of waste
fluids (motor oil, hydraulic fluid, transmis-
sion fluid, antifreeze, and parts washing
liquids), several alternatives are offered,
but further investigation by on-site per-
sonnel is needed to determine which al-
ternative is most appropriate for the Naval
Station. Rag generation could be curtailed
by several methods including: improved
operating practices; installation of equip-
ment cleaning stations to remove con-
taminants normally removed with rags;
replacement of SERV MART rags with
disposable wipers; use of recyclable rags
for oil and grease removal; and confirma-
tion that used rags are fully contaminated
prior to disposal.
The full reports were submitted in fulfill-
ment of Contract No. 68-D2-00062, Work
Assignment No. 1-32 by Southern Re-
search Institute and Pacific Environmental
Services, Inc. under the sponsorship of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Table 3. Summary of Pollution Prevention Alternatives for Waste Rag Generation.
Alternative Identified
Recommended Rag
Type
Notes
Implement better
operating practices
Use disposable
wipers*
Use recyclable
rags
Dispose of only
fully contaminated
rags
Install equipment
cleaning stations
Both hazardous
and non-hazardous
Hazardous
Non-hazardous
only
Non-hazardous
only
Non-hazardous
only
Could also be use
for non-hazardous
Not recommended
for hazardous rags
Limit to high volume
rag use areas
Table 4. Summary of Base Case and Alternatives on Waste Rag Generation, Capital Costs, and Annual Costs
Type of Rag
Hazardous
Scenario
Base Case
Wash Station
Disposable Wipers
Recyclable Rags
Amount of Waste
Generated (Ib/yr)
42,750
NA
4,840 to 7,753
NA
Capital Costs
NA
NA
NA
NA
Total Annual
Costs
$116,844
NA
20,701 to 34,079
NA
Non-Hazardous
Total (Hazardous
plus non-
hazardous)
Base Case
Base Case
Wash Station
Disposable Wipers
Recyclable Rags
43,690
86,440
81,364
9,786 to 15,697
42,829
NA
NA
21,000
NA
NA
119,414
Wash Station
Disposable Wipers
Recyclable Rags
38,614
4,946 to 7,944
79
21,000
NA
NA
111,259
21,156 to 34,828
48,596
236,258
228,103
41,857 to 68,907
165,440
-------
Southern Research Institute, Birmingham, AL 35205-5305, and Pacific Environ-
mental Services, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2077 authored the
reports.
N. Theresa T. Hoagland is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
The complete reports, entitled: "Pollution Prevention Alternatives for Public
Works Center (Transportation) Waste Fluids at Naval Station Mayport, FL,"
(Order No. PB95-260386; Cost: $19.50, subject to change); and "Investi-
gation of Waste Rag Generation at Naval Station Mayport," (Order No.
PB95-260394; Cost: $17.50, 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:
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Technology Transfer and Support Division (CERI)
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35
EPA/600/SR-95/127
------- |