United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
National Risk Management
Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Research and Development
EPA/600/SR-96/094    September 1996
Project Summary
Life  Cycle Assessment  for PC
Blend  2  Aircraft  Radome
Depainter
R. Thomas and W. E. Franklin
  This project was sponsored by the
Department of Defense Strategic Envi-
ronmental  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 environ-
mental solutions that improve mission
readiness for federal activities, this re-
port was developed to  determine the
potential environmental  and  economic
impacts of using an alternative chemi-
cal depainter for B-52 and KC-135 air-
craft radomes at the U.S. Air Force Okla-
homa City Air Logistics Center. A life
cycle assessment (LCA) was conducted
to identify the performance,  cost, and
environmental impacts of propylene car-
bonate Blend 2 (PC2), a blend of three
low volatile chemicals used to depaint
the radomes. The variables analyzed in
this study were the volume of PC2 re-
quired to depaint a radome, the number
of radomes depainted per batch of PC2,
the time required to depaint a radome,
and the time required to recycle spent
PC2. An estimate of volume, number of
radomes, and time was provided by the
Air  Logistics Center as the  baseline
case. Increases and decreases to the
baseline case were analyzed to deter-
mine changes in environmental and cost
impacts.
  This Project Summary was developed
by EPA's  National Risk Management
Research 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
   A Life  Cycle Assessment (LCA) was
 performed on a potential replacement sol-
 vent blend for aircraft radome depainting
 at the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center
 at Tinker Air Force Base. An LCA is  a
 three-step process, (1) a life cycle inven-
 tory, (2) a life cycle impact assessment,
 and (3) a life cycle improvement analysis.
   Tinker  Air  Force Base currently uses
 the highly volatile methyl  ethyl ketone
 (MEK) to depaint  B-52 and KC-135 air-
 craft radomes. Significant evaporation oc-
 curs during each  depainting, and  MEK
 has been targeted for elimination by EPA's
 33/50 Voluntary Reduction Program. EPA
 and Tinker Air Force Base are evaluating
 several solvent blends containing propy-
 lene carbonate (PC) as a nonvolatile, less
 toxic  substitute. This  study focuses on
 one of these blends, known as PC Blend
 2 (PC2),  which is composed  of 50% n-
 methyl-pyrrolidone (NMP),  25% dibasic
 ester (DBE), and 25% propylene carbon-
 ate.
   PC2 is not  currently in  use at Tinker
 Air Force Base, therefore, several as-
 sumptions were made based on limited
 knowledge of how PC2 would  perform
 and may not fully characterize actual per-
 formance. These assumptions comprise
 the baseline PC2 use scenario presented
 in the LCA. To balance the lack of experi-
 ence  in  PC2 performance  a  number of
 alternative PC2 use and waste manage-
 ment scenarios were also evaluated.

-------
Procedure
  The  study used  a  comprehensive ap-
proach which  encompassed energy  re-
quirements,  solid  wastes,  atmospheric
emissions, and waterborne wastes asso-
ciated with and resulting from the produc-
tion,  use,  and  disposal of  the  PC2
depainting solvent.  Each  key processing
step, from the  extraction  of raw material
to final disposition  of the spent solvent,
was included in the assessment. The par-
tial impact assessment used a  classifica-
tion system to categorize the atmospheric
and waterborne  emissions  into relevant
potential impact categories of ecosystem
and human health.  A mass loading  char-
acterization model was then used to com-
pare baseline impact results to a variety
of improvement alternatives. The improve-
ment assessment used the results of the
Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) and impact as-
sessments in tandem with a cost analysis
to evaluate the improvement alternatives.
  To enhance the utility of the report and
its results, the study  considered:  (1) the
amount of PC2  required to depaint  10
KC-135 aircraft radomes (estimated at 110
gallons); (2) the amount  of PC2 required
to depaint 10 B-52 radomes (estimated at
180 gallons); and (3) annual PC2  usage
at Tinker Air Force Base, based on past
MEK depaint usage (estimated at 1,820
gallons of PC2).

Baseline Results and
Discussion

Energy
  The energy contributions of each major
component included in the LCI are briefly
discussed below. The  total energy  for
depainting 10 KC-135 radomes is approxi-
mately 43 million British thermal units (Btu).
Raw materials acquisition and  chemical
processing associated with the production
of NMP, DBE,  and  PC account for  56%,
23%, and 16% of the total energy require-
ments, respectively. Blending, usage, and
disposal of PC2 account for the  remaining
5% of the total energy requirements.
  Energy  categories  in an LCI  consist of
process,  transportation,   and energy  of
material resource. Process energy is used
to manufacture the  PC2 and uses 44% of
the total energy required  for production of
the solvent. Transportation energy, requir-
ing only 3% of the total energy,  is used to
transport the chemicals and materials to
the  next  step in  the  manufacturing pro-
cess.  The energy of material resource is
the inherent energy of petroleum, natural
gas, and  coal when used as a raw mate-
rial feedstock. It accounts for 53% of the
total energy requirements.
  Energy  requirements  are  categorized
into five basic sources: natural gas, petro-
leum, coal, nuclear, and other (i.e., geo-
thermal, solar, hydropower, etc.). The ma-
jority of the energy is derived from natu-
ral gas and petroleum, which account for
69% and  23%  of the total respectively.
These values include the energy of mate-
rial resource attributed to natural gas and
petroleum when  used as raw material feed-
stock. The remaining  8%  of the energy
requirements for the production  and use
of PC2 are met by nuclear, coal,  and
other sources.

Solid Waste
  Over the entire life cycle about  80
pounds  of industrial solid  waste is  pro-
duced  for every 10  KC-135 radomes
depainted. The  production  of NMP, DBE,
and  PC contribute  29%, 18%, and 11%,
respectively. The blending  operation con-
tributes about 11% of the total solid waste.
The  PC2  use component  includes solid
waste from electricity  for the depainting
operation  and represents 32%. The PC2
disposal component contributes less than
1% to the  total  industrial solid waste pro-
duced.
  Fuel-related solid waste  resulting from
the combustion  of fuels make the greatest
contribution representing 94% of the total
industrial solid wastes produced. Process
solid wastes comprise the  remaining 6%
of total process  waste.

Atmospheric and Waterborne
Emissions
  Both process- and fuel-related  catego-
ries  of emissions contribute  significantly
to the total emissions.  Portions  of these
emission categories may also be attrib-
uted  to process emissions. Table 1 sum-
marizes the atmospheric and waterborne
emissions  and their sources.

Results  and  Discussion of LCI
Sensitivity Analysis
  The results of the LCI Sensitivity Analy-
ses include all energy use  and emissions
associated with  raw material acquisition,
chemical  processes  for  producing the
chemical components of PC2 (DBE, NMP,
PC),  PC2  blending, and  PC2 use  and
disposal for depainting radomes at Tinker
Air Force Base.  For the baseline, disposal
of spent PC2 is  accomplished by incinera-
tion.  For the recycled  system,  it is as-
sumed that  a  recovery  rate of approxi-
mately 85% can be achieved. The 15%
lost during the recycling process could be
attributed  to adherence of the  PC2 to
waste paint chips, absorption of the PC2
in the  cloth filter,  or  some  step in the
distillation process.  The amount lost  is
assumed to  be ultimately incinerated as
hazardous waste. Virgin PC,  DBE,  and
NMP must be used to replenish the 15%
lost each time the PC2 is  recycled, as
well as the 0.5% evaporative loss assumed
to occur during PC2 use. The recycling
system  results also  include  the energy
requirements and emissions produced dur-
ing transport of the spent PC2 to a theo-
retical recycling facility  in Texas, distilla-
tion of the solvent blend, re-blending  of
the PC2 components, and transportation
of the  recycled PC2 back to Tinker Air
Force Base.

Energy
  By recycling the spent PC2, the total
energy requirements  are reduced by ap-
proximately 70%. The majority of this re-
duction  comes from  decreased process
and energy of material  resource require-
ments in the  back-end  steps in the  pro-
duction of the DBE, PC and NMP compo-
nents of PC2. The energy necessary  to
produce PC2 is spent to make  up for the
15% recycling loss, the 0.5% evaporative
emissions, and the PC2 blending process.
The energy required for disposal of waste
is also drastically reduced to about 15%
of the baseline amount. The energy re-
quired for distillation and transport of the
spent PC2 is about 25% of the total en-
ergy for the recycling  system.
  The energy results  are also very sensi-
tive to  any changes  in the volume  and
yield assumptions. An increase or de-
crease in the volume required  causes  a
proportional increase or decrease in the
energy required to produce the PC2. Simi-
larly, an increase  or decrease in  yield
affects  the volume  required  per radome.
Again, the increase/decrease in total en-
ergy requirements  is approximately  pro-
portional to the volume change.
  Changes  in  the  time  required for
depainting do not have  as great an effect
on the  energy results.  This  is  because
varying the time affects only the PC2 use
component, which is estimated to be about
3% of the total energy in the baseline.

Solid Waste
  Total  solid waste generation is  de-
creased  by about 50% for  the recycled
system compared to the baseline system.
The reduction of fuel- and process-related
solid waste associated with the produc-
tion of the PC2  components is primarily
responsible for this  reduction. However, a
small increase in fuel-related solid waste
results  from the recycling process  and
transportation to  and from the recycling
facility.

-------
Table 1. Summary of Sources of Atmospheric and Waterborne Emissions

             Source
                                                                             Emission
Fuel acquisition and combustion



Incineration of spent PC2

Petroleum refining operation

Manufacture of ammonia as an intermediate
material and the operation to produce carbon
dioxide

Formaldehyde production and the operation to
produce adipic acid

Natural gas and crude oil production and
processing

Production ofpropylene oxide

Natural gas processing

Fuel acquisition and combustion
Process to make benzene (an intermediate for
DBE)

Manufacture of ammonia, hydrogen, carbon
dioxide, petroleum refinery operations

Production of ammonia, methanol, and nitric
acid intermediates for DBE

Petroleum refinery operations

Production of ammonia

Refined petroleum products and production of
sodium hydroxide (used in the manufacture of
DBE)

Sodium hydroxide production

Refining of petroleum products

Crude oil and natural gas production and
refining of petroleum products

Benzene  and sodium hydroxide production

Processes to make ammonia and methanol, and
refinery operations
atmospheric aldehydes, ammonia, carbon monoxide, fossil carbon dioxide,
hydrocarbons, hydrogen chloride, kerosene, lead, methane, nitrogen oxides, other
organics, particulate emissions, sulfur oxides

carbon dioxide and nitrogen dioxide

process aldehyde

ammonia
carbon monoxide


hydrocarbon


process isobutane and propylene oxide

sulfur oxide

waterborne acid, ammonia, biochemical oxygen demand, chromium, chemical
oxygen demand, dissolved solids, iron, lead, metal ion, phenol, sulfuricacid, suspended
solids, zinc

process acid


process ammonia


process biochemical oxygen demand


chromium, phenol, zinc, chemical oxygen demand

chemical oxygen demand

dissolved solids
mercury, zinc, nickel

process metal ion

process oil


sulfide process

suspended solids

-------
  As  with the  energy  results, the total
solid waste is quite sensitive to assump-
tions made regarding the volume of PC2
required to depaint each radome. Because
over 60% of the solid waste is due to the
production and  blending  of the PC2 com-
ponents,  any change in the  amount  of
PC2 required to depaint each radome has
a marked  effect on the solid waste  re-
sults. Changes in the volume required and
the yield  result in  fairly proportionate
changes in the PC2 production,  distilla-
tion, and disposal components.
  The process energy used at Tinker Air
Force Base  is  electricity; therefore, any
changes in the  processing time (and cor-
responding electricity requirements)  result
in substantial changes in  electricity-related
fuel pollutants.  The  dramatic changes  in
solid waste  resulting from  variations  in
process time are due in large part to solid
waste from  electricity generating plants
(e.g., ash from coal).

Atmospheric and Waterborne
Emissions
  All but four emission categories show a
dramatic reduction in emission levels for
the recycled system.  The exceptions are
the atmospheric emissions: DBE,  NMP,
and PC (the PC Blend 2  chemical  compo-
nents), and other organics. The PC2 com-
ponents are the  assumed atmospheric
emission contributors during the PC2 use
step,  and  are  estimated to  remain un-
changed with the use of recycled  PC2.
The other  organic emissions  increase for
the recycled  system  because they are so
closely related to the additional transpor-
tation  fuel pollutants produced to trans-
port PC2 to Texas for recovery and back
to Tinker Air Force Base.
  Increasing the yield (less PC2 required)
of  PC2 required for the depainting opera-
tion  resulted  in  decreased  emissions
across the board, while decreasing the
yield (more PC2 required) resulted  in in-
creased emissions.  Again,  most of the
changes observed are fairly proportionate
to  the change  in PC2 required, although
some  categories are less sensitive to the
PC2 requirements.
  A baseline depainting time of two  hours
was assumed.  For the analyses included
in  this study,  the  depainting time was
halved and doubled. The  comparison dem-
onstrated that decreasing the time to one
hour resulted in decreased emissions  in
almost every category,  while increasing
the time resulted in increased emissions.
The differences seen are fairly small for
most emission categories; however,  sulfur
oxides,  particulates,  sulfuric  acid,  iron,
kerosene,  and  airborne lead emissions
change to a greater degree.  This seems
to be  a  reflection of their close tie to
electricity consumption at Tinker Air Force
Base.

Partial Impact Results and
Discussion
  The  partial impact assessment results
for the  atmospheric and waterborne emis-
sions from the use of PC2 aircraft radome
depainting solvent are discussed briefly
below.  In the discussion, it is important to
note that  "less  potential  impact" means
that, for a particular impact category, the
alternative system had no emissions that
were considered higher than the baseline
system, while at least one emission was
higher  for the other system.

  •  When the  100% closed  loop  recy-
    cling of PC2 system results were com-
    pared to the baseline system, 20 im-
    pact categories had less potential im-
    pact, and 3 categories had inconclu-
    sive results.

  •  A 20% increase in the volume of PC2
    resulted in no significant potential im-
    pact.
  •  A  20%  decrease in  the  volume of
    PC2 resulted in  23 impact categories
    with less potential impact.
  •  A decrease in the yield to five aircraft
    radomes depainted  per 110 gallons
    of  PC2  resulted  in no significant po-
    tential impact.
  •  An increase in the yield to 20 aircraft
    radomes depainted  per 110 gallons
    of  PC2 resulted in 23 impact catego-
    ries with less potential impact.
  •  An increase in depaint time to 4 hours
    per radome resulted in no significant
    potential impact.
  •  A decrease in depaint time to 1 hour
    per radome resulted in 23 impact cat-
    egories  with less potential impact.

Improvement Analysis
  The improvement alternatives have been
compared  by their energy requirements,
produced  emissions, and relative poten-
tial impact. An economic evaluation is also
provided to  estimate the cost to supply
the  new solvent (PC2),  and the cost of
disposal or recovery of the used solvent
for each of the  improvement alternatives.
This analysis is  not a life cycle cost analy-
sis;  instead,  it analyzes the cost to Tinker
Air  Force  Base for various improvement
alternatives. The analysis assumes no new
capital  equipment  requirements  for the
change-over from MEKto PC2 (no capital
expenditures will be required). Also,  for
the  3 year and 5 year recycling scenarios,
the cost estimates are on a constant ba-
sis, and do not include any factor for es-
calation of material and disposal  costs
over time.  The cost estimates for the vari-
ous  PC2  use/disposal  alternatives are
summarized in Table 2.
  In the baseline scenario, it is assumed
that  new PC2 would be purchased each
year, and the spent solvent would be dis-
posed of at the Coffeyville, KS hazardous
waste  incinerator. The total supply and
disposal cost is estimated at $38,841 per
year.
  The first recycling scenario assumes a
3 year PC2 usage and recycling program,
which would be followed by incineration  of
used solvent. For this scenario, new PC2
must be purchased the first year of opera-
tion. In subsequent years, 85% of the new
supply  would  be  composed of  recycled
PC2, and 15% would be new PC2 makeup.
The  average 3 year cost is estimated  at
$36,225,  which is approximately $2,800
per year less than the baseline scenario.
  The  second recycling  scenario is simi-
lar to the first, except  it  is based on a 5
year PC2  usage and recycling program.
For this scenario, the average annual cost
is  estimated  at $35,952 or $3,359 per
year less than the baseline scenario.
  The relative increases/decreases in the
usage constraints are fairly proportionate
to their resulting change in costs. Increas-
ing/decreasing the volume required by 20%
results  in an increased/decreased cost  of
approximately 20%.  Halving and  doubling
the yield of PC2  has  the effect of dou-
bling/halving the total costs, respectively.

Conclusions
  The following represents a summary  of
the conclusions reached for the life cycle
inventory,  partial impact assessment, and
improvement analysis of the PC2 radome
depainting solvent. All changes are stated
as results  of each alternative scenario as
compared to the baseline scenario.

For the Recycling Scenario:
  • Total  energy requirements decrease
     by about 70%.
  • Total  solid waste  is reduced by ap-
     proximately 50%.
  • Total  atmospheric  and waterborne
     emissions show an average  reduc-
    tion of about 65%.  However, the other
     organic atmospheric  emissions  in-
     crease by 28%.
  •  Recycling PC2 results in less  poten-
    tial impact, except for the ecosystem
     potential impact category of  ozone
     depletion, and the human  health cat-
     egories  of  irritant/corrosive and
     allergenicity.

-------
Table 2. Sensitivity of PC Blend 2 Costs to Demand
                                         New PC2
               Disposal1
                                                                Dollars/year1
                                                                         Recovery/
                                                                         Distillation
All costs are in constant dollars. Escalation of costs is not included in these estimates.
"Disposal by incineration.
cRepresents a one-time disposal of PC Blend 2 averaged over three years.
"Represents a one-time disposal of PC Blend 2 averaged over five years.
                                                                                             Total
Baseline (1,815 gallons/year)
Baseline w/recycling (3-year usage)
Baseline w/recycling (5-year usage)
Baseline w/+20% volume
Baseline w/-20% volume
Baseline w/+100% volume
Baseline w/-50% volume
31,218
13,528
9,990
37,462
24,974
62,436
15,609
7,623
2,724C
1,635"
9,148
6,098
15,246
3,812
.
19,973
23,968
-
-
-
-
38,841
36,225
35,592
46,609
31,073
77,682
19,421
  • Total  costs for the 3  year  recycling
    program  show an average  of a  7%
    reduction in costs.
  • Total  costs for the 5  year  recycling
    program  show an average  of a  9%
    reduction in costs.
  By increasing the PC2 volume required
per radome by 20%:
  • Total  energy requirements  increase
    about 19%.
  • Total  solid waste increases about
    14%.
  • Total  atmospheric and waterborne
    emissions show an average increase
    of about 19%.
  • The overall potential  impact on eco-
    system quality and human  health is
    increased.
  • Total costs show an increase of 20%.
  By decreasing the PC2 volume required
per radome by 20%:
  • Total  energy  requirements are  re-
    duced by about 19%.
  • Total  solid waste decreases about
    14%.
  • Total  atmospheric and waterborne
    emissions show an average decrease
    of about 19%.
  • The overall potential  impact on eco-
    system quality and human  health is
    decreased.

  • Total costs show a decrease of 20%
  By  halving the yield from 10 to  5  ra-
    domes per 110 gallons:
  •  Total  energy requirements  are  re-
    duced by only 2%.
  •  Total solid waste is reduced by 16%.
  •  Atmospheric and waterborne  emis-
    sions are reduced an average of 3%.
  •  The overall potential impact  on eco-
    system quality and  human health is
    decreased.
  •  Total costs were not calculated  for
    this scenario due to relatively small
    differences.
  By  doubling the yield from  10 to  20
radomes per 110 gallons:
  •  Total  energy requirements  are  re-
    duced by 48%.
  •  Total solid waste is reduced by 34%.
  •  Total  atmospheric  and  waterborne
    emissions are  reduced by an aver-
    age of 47%.
  •  The overall potential impact  on eco-
    system quality and  human health is
    decreased.
  •  Total costs are reduced by 50%.
  By  halving  the   time required  for
depainting from two to one hour per ra-
dome:
  •  Total  energy requirements  are  re-
    duced by only 2%.
  •  Total solid waste is reduced by 16%.
  •  Atmospheric and waterborne  emis-
    sions are reduced an average of 3%.
  •  The overall potential impact  on eco-
    system quality and  human health is
    decreased.
  • Total  costs were not calculated for
    this scenario  due to relatively small
    differences.
  By  doubling the  time  required  for
depainting from two to four hours  per ra-
dome:
  • Total  energy  requirements show an
    increase of 4%.
  • Total  solid waste shows an increase
    of 32%.
  • Total  atmospheric  and waterborne
    emissions increase by an average of
    5%.
  • The overall potential impact on eco-
    system quality and  human health is
    increased.
  • Total  costs were not calculated for
    this scenario  due to relatively small
    differences.
  Based on an estimate of air emissions
with  a process screening  model,  direct
emission  of  PC2  solvent  vapors from
Tinker Air Force Base does not result in
significant known health  problems to indi-
viduals outside the immediate working area
as defined within the scope  of this  study.
  The full report was submitted in fulfill-
ment of Contract No.  68-C4-0020,  WA 1-
07, to Lockheed Environmental Systems
and Technologies  Company through Pur-
chase Order No. 07PPG8 from Lockheed
to Franklin Associates,  Ltd., under spon-
sorship of the U.S.  Environmental Protec-
tion Agency.

-------
   R. Thomas is with Lockheed-Martin Environmental, Las Vegas, NV 89119.
   W. E. Franklin is with Franklin Associates,  Prarie Village, KS 66208.
   Kenneth R. Stone and Johnny Springer, Jr., are the EPA Project Officers (see
     below).
   The complete report,  entitled "Life Cycle Assessment for PC Blend 2 Aircraft
     Radome Depainter," (Order No. PB96-207386 Cost: $38.00, 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 Officers can be contacted at:
           National Risk Management Research Laboratory
           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
           Cincinnati, OH 45268
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Center for Environmental Research Information
Cincinnati, OH 45268

Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
     BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
         EPA
   PERMIT NO. G-35
EPA/600/SR-96/094

-------