United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
National Risk Management
Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Research and Development
EPA/600/SR-967104 September 1996
Project Summary
Life Cycle Assessment for
Chemical Agent Resistant
Coating
Robin Thomas and Duane Tolle
This project was sponsored by the
Department of Defense's Strategic En-
vironmental Research and Development
Program (SERDP) and conducted by
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's National Risk Management
Research Laboratory (NRMRL). In sup-
port 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 vari-
ous combinations of CARC materials
and equipment. The variables for this
study were the primer, thinner, CARC
topcoat, and spray application equip-
ment. Combinations of the variables
were grouped to develop five alterna-
tives. The recommended alternative
would change the existing primer and
application equipment, but retain the
existing thinner and topcoat. This al-
ternative would maintain required per-
formance characteristics, achieve cost
objectives, and result in low environ-
mental impacts in relation to the other
alternatives.
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 a separate report of the same title
(see Project Report ordering informa-
tion at back).
Introduction
A life cycle inventory (LCI) of chemical
agent resistant coating (CARC) operations
was conducted at the U.S. Army's Trans-
portation Center at Fort Eustis, VA. The
LCI provided a baseline of environmental
and utility data for the production, use,
and disposal of spent CARC and blast
media. These data included the raw ma-
terials used, water and energy require-
ments, atmospheric emissions, liquid
waste, and solid waste streams. The re-
sults of this LCI provide the basis for a life
cycle environmental evaluation of CARC
operations at Fort Eustis. The data were
originally presented in units per 1,000 gal-
lons of CARC used, which is slightly less
than the CARC produced and purchased
due to spills, overspray, and discarded
paint. The data were converted to units
per 1,000 ft2 for the life cycle impact as-
sessment (LCIA) and the life cycle im-
provement assessment (LCImA) to ac-
count for the additional CARC required
due to overspray, spills, and discards.
Therefore, the quantities of materials re-
quired for the process, and the emissions
released from any process in the CARC
cycle, are expressed relative to a func-
tional unit of 1,000 ft2 of painted surface.
The scope of the LCIA was limited to
one topcoat (MIL-C-53039A, Hentzen
08605GUZ), one primer (M1L-P-53022B;
Part A, Niles N-1088A and Part B, Niles
N-1088BM), one thinner (MIL-T-81772B,
Chemical Specialists and Development,
Thinner Aircraft Coating), one painting
technique (high volume, low pressure
[HVLP] spray painting), and one depainting
blasting media (aluminum oxide). All of
these, except the thinner, were used at
Fort Eustis (Fort Eustis adds two quarts of
A-A-857B to every five gallons of CARC).
An LCImA was then undertaken, using
the results of the LCIA, to define improve-
ment strategies taking into account such
factors as cost, performance, and envi-
ronmental considerations.
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Life Cycle Inventory
In developing the LCI, all of the princi-
pal ingredients used to produce the final
products were identified. The specific
chemicals were identified using Material
Safety Data Sheets provided by the manu-
facturers. 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).
Each process was reviewed to determine
the process inputs and the outputs. Pro-
cess inputs include raw materials, water,
and energy (i.e., electrical, natural gas [as
fuel], oil, and coal). Outputs include the
end product atmospheric emissions, water-
boms waste and solid waste.
Data were obtained through telephone
surveys to manufacturers, published
chemical industry information, and chemi-
cal process handbooks. Searches for re-
ports, articles, or other sources of infor-
mation 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.
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 could
be revised to fill in missing data or to
provide more recent data on the manufac-
turing 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 chemi-
cals included butyl acetate, butyl alcohol,
and methyl isoamyl ketone. Additional
chemicals derived closely from the crude
olt and natural gas refining processes were
not included in this ranked system, be-
cause 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 the electrical production,
crude oil refining, and natural gas produc-
tion were taken from Battelle LCI data-
bases. The electrical production model
calculates pollutant loadings for the na-
tional electrical grid based on the frac-
tions of power created from coal, hydro-
carbons, nuclear, hydropower, wind, and
other energy sources. The crude oil and
natural gas models included data on many
of the primary refinery chemicals. Emis-
sion data from 1993 were cross-referenced
with the 1993 Directory of Chemical Pro-
ducers to determine the manufacturers of
the chemicals of interest. The directory
also provided production tables, which al-
lowed direct calculation of the emission
rates per pound of product produced for
several chemicals of interest involved in
the process.
Life Cycle Impact Assessment
The LCIA is divided into three phases:
classification, characterization, and valua-
tion. The classification step involved link-
ing or assigning data from the LCI to indi-
vidual stressor categories within the three
primary stressor categories, which are hu-
man health, ecological health, and re-
source depletion. Stressor/impact chains
were developed by considering the en-
ergy, water, and raw material input, along
with the air, water, and solid waste emis-
sion output from each life cycle stage,
which were then compared against lists of
potential impacts.
The characterization step involved an
evaluation of the magnitude of potential
impacts caused by individual stressors on
a site-independent basis. An estimation of
the magnitude of impacts for each stres-
sor category was achieved by multiplying
equivalency factors by the quantity of re-
source or pollutant associated with a func-
tional unit of the CARC process.
The valuation step involved an evalua-
tion of the magnitude of resource deple-
tion impacts associated with the CARC
life cycle. The resources included in the
analysis were water, minerals, gas, oil,
coal, and land. The impacts were evalu-
ated from a time-metric standpoint, which
considers the time to exhaustion of the
resource.
Economic Assessment,
The annual cost to paint and depaint
Army vehicles was estimated using a fac-
tored estimated approach. Fort Eustis was
selected as the baseline site, because it
typified depainting and painting operations
at a majority of Army bases; therefore, its
plant capacity, staffing, and paint-, primer-,
and abrasive media-usage rates were used
to estimate typical costs.
Capital costs were estimated for
depainting, marking and equipment prepa-
ration, and CARC application operations
for a new facility that would be of similar
size and capacity as Fort Eustis. Each
major item was identified, sized, and costs
were determined (using cost files, stan-
dard texts, vendor quotes, and recent pro-
curement information) to estimate the to-
tal delivered equipment costs.
Operating costs are composed of the
annual costs to operate the depainting
and painting operations, including raw
materials, utilities, labor, supplies, mainte-
nance, plant overhead, waste disposal,
insurance, and regulatory compliance
charges. These costs were estimated
based on the costs incurred at Fort Eustis.
Appropriate factors were applied to con-
vert the usage figures to annual costs
(i.e., 3,096 gallons of CARC multiplied by
the CARC purchase price). Other charges,
such as those incurred to maintain the
facility, plant overhead, etc., were also
estimated using a factoring approach.
Annualized costs equal the annual op-
erating cost plus amortization of the capi-
tal investment. The annualized cost is then
divided by the annual quantity of CARC
painted surface to compute costs on a $/
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 5.0 gal/1,000 ft2 (200 ft2/
gal).
Life Cycle Improvement
Assessment
Inventory Analysis
Five alternatives were evaluated against
the baseline CARC system (Table 1): (1)
alternative primer with the baseline CARC
topcoat and thinner; (2) substitution of the
turbine HVLP gun against the standard
HVLP gun; (3) alternative primer with the
alternative gun; (4) alternative thinner along
with the baseline topcoat; and (5) alterna-
tive thinner and alternative primer with the
baseline gun.
The importance of each individual re-
source or chemical within each impact
category was determined by multiplying
the equivalency factor times the inventory
value in pounds per functional unit. The
potential environmental impacts associated
with each of the alternatives can be evalu-
ated by comparing the normalized, fac-
tored, impact scores for each of the nine
major impact categories.
Economic assessment was made by tak-
ing the baseline (Fort Eustis) categories
of fixed capital investment, the annual op-
erating cost, and the annualized cost and
comparing those estimates against the five
alternatives.
A performance evaluation was con-
ducted for the impact assessment, which
included application equipment, primers,
and thinners. Scoring ranks were assigned
for each performance evaluation param-
eter.
A valuation process was conducted in a
step-wise fashion, beginning with the con-
struction of a hierarchy tree and continu-
-------
Table 1. CARC Systems for Evaluation In LCImA
CARC
Systems
Evaluated
1 (Baseline)
2
3
4
5
6
CARC
Topcoat*
BC
BC
BC
BC
BC
BC
Prime?
BP
AP
BP
AP
BP
AP
Thinner0
BT
BT
BT
BT
AT
AT
Topcoat
Spray Gun"
BG
BG
AG
AG
BG
BG
*BC = Baseline CARC Topcoat, MIL-C-53039A, Hentzen 08605GUZ-GD,
1-part urethane.
"BP = Baseline Primer, MIL-P-53022, Niles 2-part epoxy, solvent thinned;
AP = Alternative Primer, MIL-P-53030, Deft 2-part epoxy, water
thinned.
CBT= Baseline Thinner, MIL-T-81772B, CSD; AT = Alternative Thinner,
Fed. Std. A-A-857B (used by Fort Eustis, but not evaluated by LCI.
dBG = 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.
ing with the environmental, cost, and per-
formance weighting, respectively.
Results and Discussion
Results of the impact characterization
and valuation process showed that the
impacts of greatest concern are ozone
depletion (weight = 0.362), acid deposi-
tion (weight = 0.219),, and global warming
(weight = 0.126). Of secondary concern
(with a combined normalized, weighted,
factored score) were all forms of toxicity,
including human, terrestrial, and aquatic.
Results for the five alternatives evalu-
ated against the baseline CARC system
are summarized in Table 2.
Environmental Impact/Hazard
Characterization
The CARC system with the most (7 out
of 9) low scores (i.e., fewest potential im-
pacts) in each impact category was alter-
native 3, the alternative primer and alter-
native spray gun option. Use of the alter-
native gun decreased the use rates of
topcoat, primer, and thinner, which results
in a reduction of potential environmental
impact in ail nine of the impact categories
compared to the baseline. Alternative 3
was also the most attractive option in the
areas of global scale impact categories
(ozone depletion, global warming, and
natural resource use), and regional scale
impact categories (acid deposition and
smog creation). Although alternative 3 was
the most viable option for two (human
health and terrestrial wildlife) of the three
toxicity impact categories (the third being
aquatic toxicity), use of this option was
worse on aquatic toxicity than the baseline
system. Alternatives 2 and 3 rated the
most favorably with regard to local scale
impact of land use.
Economic Assessment
Estimated fixed capital investments,
annual operating costs, and annualized
costs for each of the five alternative sys-
tems as compared to the baseline are
provided in Table 3.
Performance Evaluation
The alternative spray gun (the Can-am
system) had a transfer efficiency of 90%,
which represents an increase in transfer
efficiency of approximately 38% over the
baseline system.
The performance of the two primers
(Baseline: MIL-P-53022, Niies; Alternative:
MIL-P-53030, Deft) were similar, except
that some users have reported poor ad-
hesion using the alternative primer. Since
the alternative primer is water thinnable,
poor adhesion in isolated cases may be
due to environmental factors, such as hu-
midity.
Performance of the two thinners
(Baseline: MIL-T-81772B; Alternative: Fed-
eral Standard A-A-857B) varied from user
to user. Environmental effects are sus-
pected to be the reason for the differ-
ences between the two. However, the ef-
fect of the alternative thinner on the ap-
pearance and performance of the topcoat
was noticeable. If the alternative thinner is
found to be unacceptable for use with the
topcoat, it should be considered for use in
the cleaning of process guns and hoses.
Valuation Process
The results of the weighting exercise in
the three major dimensions assigned 65%
of the value to the environmental dimen-
sion, 24% to the performance aspects,
and 11% to cost. Since the scoping pro-
cess assumed that the threshold criteria
would result in alternatives that perform
adequately and do not differ markedly in
cost, the results should be reviewed con-
sidering those assumptions. Further trac-
ing the weighting process into the three
major branches indicates that global envi-
ronmental issues were assigned 32% of
weight, or about half of the overall envi-
ronmental contribution. Regional and lo-
cal issues received 20% and 13%, re-
spectively. In the cost branch, O&M costs
were considered approximately three times
as important as capital costs. In the per-
formance branch, the primer was consid-
ered the most important factor, with the
thinner and the spray gun receiving about
equal consideration.
Overall Improvement
Assessment Results
The score summaries (lower being pref-
erable) for the assessment results 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)
The results indicate that use of the al-
ternative gun makes the largest potential
improvement for an alternative that
changes only a single factor, and in com-
bination with the alternative primer, re-
sults in the best CARC option.
Conclusions
Of the five alternatives considered, two
(Alternative 2, the alternative gun; and
Alternative 3, alternative primer used with
the alternative gun) demonstrate the great-
est potential for environmental improve-
ment; the remaining three alternatives ex-
hibit slight improvements that are not sig-
nificant, considering the scope of the study.
When cost and performance are con-
sidered along with environmental factors,
Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 emerge as
the preferred alternatives for implementa-
tion, but the degree of differentiation rela-
tive to the baseline is minor. Alternative 3
is the recommended implementation
choice followed by Alternative 2.
-------
The full report was submitted in fulfill-
ment of Contract No. 68-C4-0020, work
assignment 2-11, to Lockheed Environmen-
tal Systems & Technologies Company
through Purchase Order Number 07PPG7
from Lockheed to Battelle, under the spon-
sorship of the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency
Tabla 2. Results of Alternatives Against Baseline System from the LCImA Inventory Analysis
Results
Alternative
Increase
Decrease
1 Alternative primer used with the
baseline CARC topcoat and thinner.
2* Substitution of the turbine HVLP gun
against the standard (baseline) HVLP
gun.
3* Alternative primer with alternative gun.
4 Alternative thinner with baseline
topcoat.
5 Alternative thinner and alternative
primer with baseline gun.
Small increases for fuel, sodium chloride,
chlorine, and the ilmenite and rumenite
from production of TIO2- Slight increases
in chlorine and methane. Water discharges
for titanium dioxide, chlorine, and heavy
metals (cadmium, lead, and chromium).
Addition of new chemicals from the
production of nitroethane (acetaldehyde,
methanol, 2-nitropropane, acetone,
acetonitrile, nitric acid, ammonia).
None.
Mixed (both increases and decreases) in
emissions from baseline.
Slight increase in SOX in air emissions.
Increases in fuel, sodium chloride, chlorine,
rumenite, ilmenite (from TiO2 production).
Slight Increases in minor organic chemical
releases. Increases in heavy metal content
for water usage and emissions. Increases
in solid wastes from nitroethane
production processes.
Small decrease In resource consumption
(electricity, natural gas, steam, water,
crude oil, refinery gases, oxygen, and
minor components). Elimination of
phosphate and zinc ores. Decreases in air
emissions of COz, volatile organic
compounds, PM, NO* hydrocarbons, and
CO. Decreases in OOP, water usage and
discharges, including reductions in mobile
ions, sodium, chloride, oil and grease, and
boron. Slight reduction in hazardous solid
waste.
Decreases noted in resource consumption,
energy usage, and emissions.
Even larger decreases in energy and
resource consumption than alternatives
1 and 2. Mixed emissions, but for
those emissions common to the baseline,
overall amounts decreased.
Decreases in resource and energy demands
for electricity, steam, water, crude oil,
bauxite, air, residual and distillate fuel oils.
Reduced CO& and hydrocarbons in air
emissions. Decreases in water usage and
discharge rates. Decreases in mobile ions,
chloride, oil, grease, and minor
constituents. Slight decrease in solid
waste.
Decreases in resource and energy
consumption In the areas of electricity,
natural gas, steam, water, crude oil, air,
and refinery gases. Decreases in major air
emissions in CO2, VOCs, PM, NOX,
hydrocarbons, and CO. Decreases in water
usage and overall emissions. Decreases in
OOP, solid wastes (except those from the
nitroethane production processes).
•Preferred alternatives.
Tabla 3. Summary of Economic Assessment for Each of the Five Alternatives Compared to the Baseline CARC System
Cost Category
Fixed Capital
Investment •
Annual Operating
Cost
Annuatlzed Cost
Baseline
516
1,797-
2,903 "
1,845-
2,981 "
Alternative 1
516
1,788'
2,888 "
1,837"
2,966"
Alternative 2
548
1,574 "
2,542 "
1,625"
2,625"
Alternative 3
548
1,565"
2,928 b
1,616*
2,611"
Alternative 4
516
1,797-
2,901"
1,845 '
2,979 "
Alternative 5
516
1,787"
2,885"
1,835 •
2,963"
•Numbers are In thousands of dollars.
"Reported as $/lOOO fp.
-------
Robin Thomas is with Lockheed-Martin Environmental, Las Vegas, NV89119 and
Duane Tolle is with Battelle Columbus, Columbus, OH 43201.
Kenneth R, Stone and Johnny Springer, Jr., are the EPA Project Officers (see
below).
The complete report, entitled "Life Cycle Assessment for Chemical Agent Resistant
Coating," (Order No. PB96-207378; Cost: $47.00, 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
National Risk Management Research Laboratory (G-72)
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT NO. G-35
EPA/600/SR-96/104
-------
------- |