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 ------- |