United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
An Organizational Guide to
Pollution Prevention
-------
Naval Facilities Engineering
Service Center
SP-2Q2G-ENV
Service
Pollution
Prevention
p^ ^
Handbook
Dfelri bulion aulhorized lo Ihe Department of Defense and U.S. DOD contractors only;
A.dministrative/Operatona1 Use: March 1997. Other requests shall be referred lo Ihe
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center.
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY HANDBOOK
* DISCLAIMER*
This document is intended to be used as a reference. All decisions to order or use any of the items contained within
should be authorized through your official chain of command.
* HEALTH & SAFETY CONCERNS *
It is important to understand that some of the alternate chemicals or processes listed herein may be more
"environmentally friendly" than the current method being used, but may pose health risks. These risks may involve
additional personal protective equipment (PPE), added ventilation, etc. It is imperative that you contact your local
industrial health specialist, your local health and safety personnel, and consult the appropriate MSDS prior to
implementing any of these technologies.
This sentiment is further emphasized in OPNAVINST 5100.23D Section 0802.3 which states that: "Any changes
in the workplace which could affect exposures should prompt reevaluation. The cognizant industrial hygienist
shall establish procedures to ensure he/she is notified of any changes which could affect worker exposure to
potential hazards."
* NOTE *
If you or someone at your activity has information which could be incorporated into this document, please send
your comments to:
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
Pollution Prevention Opportunities Comments
Code 423 1100 23rd Avenue Bldg. 1500
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4370
or send us an e-mail at: HillLGl^nfesc.navy.mil
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY HANDBOOK
Registration Form
Please complete this registration form if you wish to receive future copies of the Joint Service
Pollution Prevention Technical Library.
Name:
Branch of Service: Air Force Ixl Army Ixl Marine Corps [x] Navy [xl DLA [)c|
Coast Guard [xl Other:
Command:
Rank/Title: Code: UIC:
Address:
Phone number:
Commercial:
DSN:
E-mail:
What topics do you feel need to be added to future updates?
How can the data sheets be improved?
Is there any other information you'd like to see included?
Please fax your replies to:
(805) 982-4832 or DSN 551-4832
Or mail your replies to:
COMMANDING OFFICER
NFESC CODE 423
1100 23rd Avenue, Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4370
in
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY HANDBOOK
Feedback Form
We would appreciate your opinions to help us improve the P2 Opportunity Handbook. Please
take a minute to fill out this electronic questionnaire.
1. Are the Handbook data sheets clear and concise? (check one) Not Clear! K| K| xl K\ X Clear
2. How can they be improved?
3. Does the Handbook cover current topics? Yes
4. What topics do you feel need to be added?
5. Is the software easy to use? Yes
No
6. How many alternatives have you found in the Library? 0-10 |>c| 10 -20
20-30[)rl 30-40 fxl 40-50[x:1 over 50
7. How much would you say they saved your installation in the last year?
$
8. How many hours would you say that the Library has saved you?
hours
9. Have you found the system to be easy to access and easy to use? Yes Ixl No JKl
10. If not, why not? What changes would you make?
11. What do you like most about the Handbook/software?
12. Is there anything you dislike about the Handbook/software?
13. What is your overall satisfaction with the handbook? (check one) High[>c[x[>C[x[X Low
Please fax your replies to: (805) 982-4832 or DSN 551-4832
Or mail your replies to:
COMMANDING OFFICER
NFESC CODE 423
1100 23rd Avenue, Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4370
IV
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY HANDBOOK
FOREWORD
In an effort to improve efficiency within DOD, the Army Environmental Center (AEC), the Air
Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE), Head Quarters Marine Corps, the Defense
Logistic Agency (DLA), and the Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center (NFESC) have
combined resources to coordinate projects of mutual interest. One such project has been the
development of a comprehensive information source of pollution prevention (P2) technologies
used within DOD and private industry. The product of this effort is the Joint Service Pollution
Prevention Opportunity Handbook.
The handbook is a joint service tool for sharing pollution prevention information throughout
DOD. The purpose is to inform each service on P2 efforts that are being investigated and
adopted, and to minimize duplicated efforts by sharing lessons learned.
The Pollution Prevention Opportunity Handbook is representative of the DOD trend toward
partnership, and the goal to use increasingly scarce DOD dollars as efficiently as possible. With
this vision in mind, the services have joined efforts to produce this valuable P2 reference
document that will benefit each of the services equally.
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY HANDBOOK
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the Joint Service Pollution Prevention Opportunity Handbook is to identify available
"off-the-shelf " pollution prevention (P2) technologies, management practices, and process changes
that will reduce the amount of hazardous waste and solid waste being generated at Joint Service
industrial facilities. The handbook was prepared by the Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
(NFESC), under the direction of the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO-N45) and the
Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC), the Air Force Center for Environmental
Excellence (AFCEE), the Army Environmental Center (AEC), Head Quarters Marine Corps,
the Defense Logistic Agency (DLA), and the Coast Guard.
The P2 techniques included in the handbook are presented in the form of technical data sheets. The
data sheets are organized into the following categories:
Electroplating and Metal Finishing Solid Waste Management
Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants Solvent Substitution
Ozone Depleting Substances Wastewater Management
Painting Storm Water Management
Paint Removal Pre-production Technologies
Hazardous Material/Hazardous Waste Air Pollution Issues
Minimization
Each data sheet presents information that includes:
Service process codes Disadvantages
Usage list Economic analysis
Technology overview Active Economic Analysis spreadsheets
Materials compatibility NSN Section (includes MSDSs)
Safety and Health Approval authority
Benefits Points of contact
Applicable EPCRA targeted chemical(s) with CAS numbers
Vendor listing (information provided here is not intended as an endorsement for any
particular vendor's services, products, hardware, or proprietary process)
Sources (where the information came from)
The handbook will be updated semi-annually as NFESC, AFCEE, AEC, HQMC, DLA, CG, and
others continue to investigate and develop new hazardous waste and solid waste
management technologies. The handbook should be considered a preliminary source of
information for identifying potential P2 techniques and providing contacts for gathering
additional information.
P2 information can also be obtained from the Joint Service P2 Technical Library on both the
Defense Environmental Network and Information Exchange (DENIX) and the EPA's
Enviro$en$e's World Wide Web sites.
The Library can also be found on the Army's MIDI CD-ROM, NAVFAC's El program,
and the Navy's Lessons Learned.
VI
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY HANDBOOK
Table of Contents
Section 1: Electroplating and Metal Finishing
Data Sheet Number Data Sheet Title
1-1 Electrodialysis for Anodizing Bath Solutions
1 -2 Electroless Nickel Bath Life Extension
1 -3 High Velocity OXY-Fuel Thermal Spray - Photo
1 -4 Non-Cyanide Nickel Strippers
1-5 Surface Coating by Physical Vapor Deposition
1-6 Sulfuric /Boric Acid Anodizing
1-7 Electrolytic Recovery Technology for Metal Cyanide Recycling
- Photo
Section 2: Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Management
Data Sheet Number Data Sheet Title
I. General Information
A. Procurement and Policy Management
2-I/A-l Hazardous Material Shelf Life Management
2-I/A-2 Hazardous Materials Shelf Life Optimization
2-I/A-3 Centralized Hazardous Material/Hazardous Waste Management
2-I/A-4 Software to Evaluate the Profitability of Pollution Prevention
Investments Using the Method of "Total Cost Assessment"
B. Hazardous Waste Planning, Storage, and Transportation
2-I/B -1 Waste Analysis Plan
2-I/B-2 Hazardous Waste Container Labeling, Storage, and Transportation
II. Recycling, Recovery, and Reduction
2-II-1 Recycling Photo/X-Ray Processing and Printing Wastes
2-II-2 X-Ray Developer, Tabletop - Photo
2-II-3 Portable Vacuum Sanding System - Photo - EQI Fact Sheet
2-II-4 Seeman Composite Resin Infusion Molding Process (SCRIMP)
Technology - Photo
vii
new data sheet
Data sheets listed in bold are currently being developed
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY HANDBOOK
Table of Contents
Data Sheet Number Data Sheet Title
2-II-5 Precision Micro Sand Blasting for Cleaning Circuit Boards - Photo
2-II-6 Recycling Fluorescent Light Tubes and High Intensity Discharge
Lamps - Photo - EQI Fact Sheet
2-11-7 Recycling Lead Acid Batteries
2-II-8 Printed Circuit Board Recycling
in. Low Emission Alternatives
2-III-1 Super Flight Line Electrical Distribution System (SFLEDS)
- EQI Fact Sheet
2-III-2 Low Emission Diesel Power Supply
- Photo 1 - Photo 2 - Photo 3 - Photo 4
IV. Spill Prevention and Cleanup
2-IV-1 Spill Prevention Techniques
2-IV-2 Bioremediation Of Contaminated Soil: Biopiles
Section 3: Ozone Depleting Substances
Data Sheet Number Data Sheet Title
I. General Information
3-1-1 Numbering System for CFCs, HCFCs, and Halons
3 -1-2 U.S. EPA's Significant New Alternatives Program (SNAP)
3 -1-3 Affirmative Procurement Policies/Procedures for Ozone Depleting
Substances
H. Refrigerant and Air Conditioning Applications
A. Policy
3 -II/A-1 Purchase Restrictions on CFC-containing Appliances
3-II/A-2 Refrigerant Tracking Software
3 -II/A-3 Restrictions on the use of Hydrofluorocarbons
3-II/A-4 R-500 series Refrigerants - Overview
viii
new data sheet
Data sheets listed in bold are currently being developed
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY HANDBOOK
Table of Contents
Data Sheet Number Data Sheet Title
B. Alternatives
3 -II/B -1 R-502 Alternative
3-II/B-2 Non-CFC Alternatives for Air Conditioning and Refrigeration
C. Recycling and Recovery
3-II/C-l Recovery/Recycling of CFC-12 and CFC-134a -Photo
3-II/C-2 Refrigerant Recovery/Recycling/Reclamation -Photo
3 -II/C-3 ODS-free Drinking Fountains
III. Fire Suppression (Halons)
3 -III-1 Halon 1211 Replacements
3-III-2 Halon 1301 Replacements
3-III-3 Halon Redistribution/Recovery/Recycling/Reclaiming -Photo
3-III-4 Halon 1301 Recycler - Photo - EQI Fact Sheet
3-III-5 ODS-free Portable Hand-Held Fire Extinguishers
IV. Electronic Applications
3 -IV-1 Electronic Component Cooling Alternative to CFC-12
3-IV-2 Aerosol Cooling Spray Substitutes for CFC-12 and HCFC-22
3 -IV-3 ODS-free Cooling/Freezing Product
V. Specialized Applications
A. Leak Detection
3-V/A-1 ODS-free Leak Detector for Fuel Cells
3 -V/A-2 Alternatives to CFC-12 Tracer Gas for Leak Detection
B. Cleaning
3-V/B-l ODS-free Aircraft Components Cleaning - Overview
3-V/B-2 ODS-free Computer Keyboard Duster Products
3-V/B-3 ODS-free Substitute for Ink Cleaner
3 - V/B -4 Navy Oxygen Cleaner
ix
new data sheet
Data sheets listed in bold are currently being developed
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY HANDBOOK
Table of Contents
Data Sheet Number Data Sheet Title
C. Adhesives, Lubricants, and Corrosion Inhibitors
3 -V/C-1 ODS-free Product Substitute for Adhesive EA 9446
3 -V/C-2 ODS-free Non-flammable Contact Cement
3 -V/C-3 ODS-free Substitute for General Purpose Aerosol Lubricant
3-V/C-4 ODS-free Corrosion Inhibitors/Moisture Displacers
VI. Automotive Applications
3 -VI-1 ODS-free Liquid Carburetor Cleaner
3 - VI-2 ODS-free Tubeless Tire Repair Kit
3-VI-3 ODS-free Lubricant/Anti-seizing Compound
3-VI-4 ODS-free Degreasing/Cleaning
3-VI-5 Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Conversions - CFC-12 to HFC-134a
3 -VI-6 Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning Refrigerant Alternatives
VII. Medical Applications
3-VII-l ODS-free Sterilization
3-VII-2 Ethylene Oxide Sterilizer Alarm Systems
3-VII-3 ODS-free Skin Refrigerant
VOL Construction Applications
3-VIII-1 ODS-free Substitute for Insulating Foam
3-VIII-2 Fire Stop Setting Compounds
Section 4: Painting
Data Sheet Number Data Sheet Title
4-1 Dry Filter Paint Booth Conversion -Photo - EQI Fact Sheet
4-2 Electrostatic Paint Spray System - Photo
4-3 Ffigh Volume Low Pressure Paint Spray Systems - Photo
- EQI Fact Sheet
4-4 Plural Component Proportioning System for Epoxy Paints
- Photo 1 - Photo 2 - EQI Fact Sheet
x
"-iP Indicates new data sheet
Data sheets listed in bold are currently being developed
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY HANDBOOK
Table of Contents
Data Sheet Number Data Sheet Title
4-5 Powder Coating Painting System
- Photo 1 - Photo 2 - Photo 3 - Photo 4 - EQI Fact Sheet
4-6 Unicoat Paint Technology
- EQI Fact Sheet
4-7 Waterborne Paint
- EQI Fact Sheet
4-8 Bulk Paint Storage
4-9 Automatic Paint Gun Washer -Photo - EQI Fact Sheet
Section 5: Paint Removal Processes
Data Sheet Number Data Sheet Title
5-1 Paint Stripping using Sodium Bicarbonate Medium
- Photo 1 - Photo 2 - EQI Fact Sheet
5-2 Carbon Dioxide Blasting Operations - Photo
5-3 Fluidized Bed Paint Stripper
5 -4 High and Medium Pressure Water Paint Stripping Processes
- Photo 1 - Photo 2 - Photo 3 - EQI Fact Sheet
5 - 5 Plastic Media Blasting (PMB) Paint Stripping - Photo
- EQI Fact Sheet for Glove Box
- EQI Fact Sheet for Blast Booth
5-6 Degreasing and Paint Stripping using Sponge Blasting
5-7 Paint Stripping using Wheat Starch Blasting - Photo
5-8 Vacuum Sanding System Paint Stripping Process - Photo
5-9 Benzyl Alcohol Paint Stripping
5-10 N-Methyl Pyrrolidone
XI
new data sheet
Data sheets listed in bold are currently being developed
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY HANDBOOK
Table of Contents
Section 6: Petroleum, Oils, and Lubricants
Data Sheet Number Data Sheet Title
I. Recycling
6-1-1 Used Oil Segregation and Storage
6-1-2 On-Site Recycling of Used Oil - Photo
6-1-3 Off-Site Recycling of Petroleum Based Hydraulic Fluid
6-1-4 Off-Site Refining of Waste Oil
6-1-5 Off-Site Heat Recovery of Waste POL
6-1-6 Antifreeze Recycling (On-site and Off-site)
- Photo 1 - Photo 2 - Photo 3 - EQI Fact Sheet
6-1-7 Substitution and Recycling of Aircraft Deicing Products
6-1-8 Cutting Fluid Recycler
6-1-9 JP-5 Aviation Fuel Recycler - Photo 1 - Photo 2
- EQI Fact Sheet
6-1-10 Pneumatic Spill Vacuum - Photo 1 - Photo 2 - EQI Fact Sheet
6-1-11 Oil Filter Crushing -Photo - EQI Fact Sheet
II. Increasing the Useful Life of POLs
6-II-1 Bypass Filter for Vehicle Motor Oil
6-II-2 Reusable Filter for Vehicle Motor Oil
6-II-3 Lubricant Analysis Programs
6-II-4 Substituting Synthetic Oil for Conventional Oil
6-II-5 Extension of Metal Working Fluid Service Life
III. Alternatives
6-III-1 Substitute Lubricants (Non-Lead, Non-ODS Substances)
6-III-2 Particle Counter for Determining Purity of Hydraulic Fluid
- Photo 1 - Photo 2 - EQI Fact Sheet
6-III-3 Semi-synthetic and Synthetic Coolant Substitution
xii
new data sheet
Data sheets listed in bold are currently being developed
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY HANDBOOK
Table of Contents
Section 7: Solid Waste Management
Data Sheet Number Data Sheet Title
I. Recycling and Reuse
A. Recycling
7-I/A-l Corrugated Cardboard Recycling
7-I/A-2 Aluminum Cans Recycling
7-I/A-3 Steel Cans Recycling
7-I/A-4 Glass Recycling and Reuse
7-I/A-5 Wood Recycling - Photo 1 - Photo 2 - Photo 3
7-I/A-6 Appliance Recyclers
7-I/A-7 Plastic Recycling
7-I/A-8 Construction and Demolition Material Recycling
7-I/A-9 Paper Recycling
7-I/A-10 Recycling Of Scrap Tires - Photo
7-I/A-11 Recycled Plastic Lumber
B. Reuse
7-I/B-1 Reuse and Recycling of Metal and Plastic Drums
7-I/B-2 Reuse and Recycling of Clothing and Household Items
7-I/B-3 Cloth Diaper Service
II. Composting and Food Reuse
A. Large Scale
7 -III A-1 Vermicomposting
7-II/A-2 Windrow Composting
7-II/A-3 Organic Material In-Vessel Composting - Photo - EQI Fact Sheet
7-II/A-4 Waste Separation Using Trommel Screens
7-II/A-5 Food Waste Composting or Reuse
7-II/A-6 Raw Material Mixing Using Compost Mixers
7-II/A-7 Compostable Material Transportation Using Front-end Loader
xiii
new data sheet
Data sheets listed in bold are currently being developed
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY HANDBOOK
Table of Contents
Data Sheet Number Data Sheet Title
7-II/A-8 Compost Turning and Aeration Using Windrow Turners
B. Small Scale
7-II/B-l Backyard and Small Scale Composting
7-II/B-2 Aerated Static Pile Composting
HI. Equipment
7-III-1 Recycling Trailers -Photo
7-III-2 Balers - Photo
7-III-3 Aerosol Can Puncturing, Crushing, and Recycling - Photo
- EQI Fact Sheet
7-III-4 Glass Pulverizers
7-III-5 Metal Drum Crushers - Photo 1 - Photo 2
7-III-6 Concrete/Asphalt Crushers
7-III-7 Paper Shredders - Photo
7-III-8 Recycling Sorting Lines - Photo
7-III-9 Waste Pulper Recycler
7-III-10 Drum Washer/Recyclers - Photo 1 - Photo 2 - EQI Fact Sheet
7-III-11 Solid Waste Sorting Line - Photo
7 -III-12 Use of Collection Containers for Recycling
7-III-13 Wood Tub Grinders - Photo 1 - Photo 2 - Photo 3
Section 8: Solvent Alternatives
Data Sheet Number Data Sheet Title
I. General Alternatives
8-1-1 Chemical Cleaning as a Solvent Alternative
8-1-2 Immersion Cleaning
8-1-3 EPA's Solvent Alternatives Guide - SAGE
8-1-4 Solvent Distillation - EQI Fact Sheet
xiv
new data sheet
Data sheets listed in bold are currently being developed
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY HANDBOOK
Table of Contents
Data Sheet Number Data Sheet Title
8-1-5 The Clean-In-Place (CIP) Method to Reduce Hazardous Waste
8-1-6 Steam Cleaning as a Solvent Alternative
8-1-7 Mechanical Cleaning Processes as a Solvent Alternative
8-1-8 Hand Wipe Cleaning Alternative
8-1-9 Hand Pump Spray Bottle Applicators
8-1-10 Ultrasonic Cleaning Processes As Solvent Alternatives
8-1-11 Portable Steam Cleaning System (Mini-Max) - EQI Fact Sheet
8-1-12 Wire Rope Lubrication System
II. Specific Alternatives
A. Cleaning and Degreasing
8-II/A-l Parts Washer, Aqueous Jet
- Photo 1 - Photo 2 - Photo 3 - Photo 4 - EQI Fact Sheet
8-II/A-2 Cleaning and Degreasing
8-II/A-3 General Metal Cleaning
8-II/A-4 Emulsifier for Cleaning Bilges
8-II/A-5 Electronic and Electrical Equipment Cleaning
8-II/A-6 Flight Deck Cleaner
8-II/A-7 Engine Degreasing
8-II/A-8 Automotive - General Applications
8-II/A-9 Aircraft - Skydrol Removal
8 -II/A-10 General Aircraft Cleaning
B. Surface Preparation
8-II/B-l General Surface Preparation
8-II/B-2 Surface Preparation - Welding and Painting
8-II/B-3 Surface Preparation Prior to Painting/Bonding/Adhesive
8-II/B-4 Fiberglass Surface Preparation and Epoxy Resin Cleaning
vii
new data sheet
Data sheets listed in bold are currently being developed
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY HANDBOOK
Table of Contents
Data Sheet Number Data Sheet Title
8-II/B-5 Cleaning Prior to Sealing
8-II/B-6 Corrosion Inhibitors
C. Paint Removal
8-II/C-1 Paint Stripper, Hot Tank
8-II/C-2 Paint Removal
8-II/C-3 Paint Removal and Painting Cleanup
D. Removal of Other Materials
8-II/D-l Rust, Corrosion, and Heat Scale Removal
8-II/D-2 Carbon and Carbonaceous Deposit Removal
8-II/D-3 Rust Stain Removal
8-II/D-4 Corrosion Removal - Potable and Non-Potable Systems
8-II/D-5 Ink Removal
Section 9: Wastewater
Data Sheet Number Data Sheet Title
I. Chemical Treatment
9-1-1 Secondary Use of Acids and Alkalis for Wastewater Treatment
9-1-2 Sodium Nitrite Wastewater Treatment System
9-1-3 Ferrous Sulfate /Sodium Sulfide Wastewater Treatment Process
- Photo
II. Physical Treatment
9-II-1 Recycling Wash Water Using Closed Loop Wash Racks for Vehicles
- Photo 1 - Photo 2 - Photo 3 - EQI Fact Sheet
9-II-2 Hydroblasting Wastewater Recycling System - Photo
9-II-3 Laser Reduction of Toxic Organic Compounds in Wastewater
9-II-4 Recycling Activated Carbon
9-II-5 Membrane Processes for Wastewater Treatment
9-II-6 Oil/Water Separator for Pierside Applications
viii
new data sheet
Data sheets listed in bold are currently being developed
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY HANDBOOK
Table of Contents
Data Sheet Number Data Sheet Title
9-II-7 Evaporator for Aqueous Waste Reduction
III. Biological Treatment
9-III-1 Biological Aqueous Wastewater Treatment System -Photo
IV. Combination Treatment
9-1V-1 Bilge and Oily Wastewater Treatment System (BOWTS) - Photo
9-IV-2 Peroxide Advanced Oxidation Wastewater Treatment
9-IV-3 Precipitation and Microfiltration Wastewater Treatment Systems
- Photo
9-IV-4 Powdered Activated Carbon Wastewater Treatment
9-IV-5 Wet Air Oxidation for Wastewater Treatment
On-site Lead and Copper Analysis
Treatment of Wastewater from a Printed Wiring Board Shop
Gray Water Reuse
Section 10: Storm Water
Data Sheet Number Data Sheet Title
10-1 Sand Filters for Treating Storm Water Runoff
10-2 Vortex Solids Separators for Treating Storm Water Runoff
10-3 Water Quality Inlets to Control Storm Water Runoff
10-4 Wet Detention Ponds to Treat Storm Water Runoff
Section 11: Preproduction Technologies
Data Sheet Number Data Sheet Title
11-1 Cryogenic Condensation and Recovery of VOCs Using Liquid
Nitrogen
11-2 ]sjo Foam Kit - Aircraft Rescue Fire Fighting (ARFF) Vehicle
11-3 Closed Loop Washrack Recycling System for Aircraft
vii
p-iTlndicates new data sheet
Data sheets listed in bold are currently being developed
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY HANDBOOK
Table of Contents
Data Sheet Number Data Sheet Title
11-4 Supercritical Fluid Cleaning as a Solvent Alternative
11-5 Vitrification of Hazardous Waste Streams using Natural Gas as an
Energy Source
11-6 Molten Metal Processing of Hazardous Waste
11 "7 Cleaning of Live Front Electrical Switch Gear Using Carbon Dioxide Pellets
11-8 True Zero-Discharge Pollution Control Systems -Photo
11 '9 Compensating Ballast Water
Section 12: Air Pollution Issues
Data Sheet Number Data Sheet Title
12-1 Disintegrators for the Destruction of Classified Materials
12-2 Reduction Of Fugitive Air Emissions For Conventional Dry Cleaning
Facilities
12-3 Low-Temperature Oxidative Sterilization Methods For The
Sterilization Of Medical Devices
12-4 Aircraft Bearing Cleaning using an IPA Vapor Degreaser
- Photo 1 - Photo 2 - EQI Fact Sheet
12-5 Surface Coating Technology Air Emissions - Overview
12-6 Low NOx Burners For Reduction Of NOx Emissions In Industrial
Boilers
12-7 Flue Gas Recirculation For Reduction Of NOx Emissions In Industrial
Boilers
vui
w
p-iTlndicates new data sheet
Data sheets listed in bold are currently being developed
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
ELECTRODIALYSIS TECHNOLOGY FOR ANODIZING BATH SOLUTIONS
Revision:
Process Code:
Usage List:
Alternative For:
Compliance Areas:
5/99
Navy and Marine Corps: ID-04-99; Air Force: MMT03; Army: ELE, MTF
Navy: Low; Marine Corps: Low; Army: Low; Air Force: Low
Hazardous waste generation and the associated disposal costs
Medium
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Sulfuric Acid (CAS: 7664-93-9), Aluminum
(CAS: 7429-90-5)
Overview:
Electrodialysis is a process that will efficiently maintain a low metal ion concentration in
the anodizing bath solution by transporting metal ions (for example aluminum) from the
bath solution through a selective membrane into a capture media using an electrical
current to induce flow.
Compliance
Benefit:
When anodizing aluminum, for example, the bath solution is required to be
changed out and disposed of when the aluminum concentration reaches 80-100
grams/liter. The spent solution contains high levels of sulfuric acid and
aluminum, requiring neutralization and metals removal for a typically large
volume prior to disposal.
Electrodialysis does not affect the anodizing process. It is simply a process that
can indefinitely extend the useful life of the bath solution by maintaining a low
concentration of metal ions. The capture media, catholyte, removes the metal
ions and forms a concentrated sludge. The sludge must be removed from the
unit and the catholyte changed out on a regular basis to ensure effective metals
removal from the anodizing bath solution. The recovered sludge is a hazardous
waste containing high concentrations of metal that can be reclaimed by an
outside company.
The addition of an electrodialysis unit to an anodizing bath system can extend
the useful life of the bath solutions and thereby significantly reduce the volume of
hazardous waste generated. The reduction of hazardous waste helps facilities
meet the requirements of waste reduction under RCRA, 40 CFR 262,
Appendix, and may also help facilities reduce their generator status and lessen
the amount of regulations (e.g. recordkeeping, reporting, inspections,
transportation, accumulation time, emergency prevention and preparedness,
emergency response) they are required to comply with under RCRA, 40 CFR
262. In addition, because the useful life of the bath solution is extended (i.e.,
less sulfuric acid is required at a facility) there is less of a chance that the facility
would meet any of the reporting thresholds for hazardous substances/chemicals
1-01-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
under SARA Title m (40 CFR 300, 355, 370, and 372; and EO 12856).
Other compliance issues include Energy Efficiency and Water Conservation at
Federal Facilities - EO 12902, and that additional electricity will be consumed
with this technology.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
N/A
Spent sulfuric acid waste can be extremely corrosive to skin tissue. Contact
with the body can result in severe burns. Proper personal protective equipment
should be used.
Benefits:
Consult your local Industrial Health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these
technologies.
Reduction of hazardous waste volume and the associated disposal costs.
Metals reclamation and reduction of liability if sludge is recovered by an
outside company.
Indefinite extension of anodizing bath solutions useful life.
Lower annual cost for chemical makeup & replacement.
Improved production quality and consistent reproducibility of manufactured
parts due to control of the metal ion concentration in the anodizing bath
solution.
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
Moderately high capital cost.
Increase in the number of possible exposures with regard to the handling of
hazardous waste.
Must be able to locate company that will recover and reclaim metals from
the sludge.
The addition of an electrodialysis unit to an anodizing bath system can
significantly reduce the volume of hazardous waste generated and the associated
disposal costs. Variables affecting the capital cost, operation & maintenance
costs, and the hazardous waste disposal costs with regard to the addition of an
electrodialysis unit include:
1-01-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
- The frequency of pre-change bath solution replacement
- Cost to heat the bath solution after replacement
- The metal ion loading rate for the bath solution
- The metal ion removal rate of the electrodialysis unit
- Ability to locate an outside company to recover the generated sludge.
The cost elements for installing an electrodialysis unit to an anodizing bath at a
site is provided below:
Assumptions:
Estimated equipment cost: $25,000
Estimated hours required for installation: 100 hours
Labor rate: $40/hr.
Installation cost: $4,000
Volume of anodizing bath solution, 5000 gal.
Volume of electrodialysis unit, 55 gal.
Electricity: $0.07/kw-hr.
Annual energy costs for the electrodialysis unit: ($0.07/KW hr)[(400
amp)(12 volt)K/1000](8hr/day)(250 day/yr)
Anodized bath solution replaced once a year
Anodized bath solution requires 10% vol. sulfuric acid, $200, and 10
oz./gal. chromic acid, $1500, per changeout
Anodized bath make-up solution volumes and costs are negligible
Electrodialysis solution, catholyte, is $50 per 55 gal. make-up
Catholyte replacement during the first six months of operation shall be
weekly, thereafter, on a bi-weekly basis
Hazardous waste volume generated for an Anodizing Bath System using the
current technology = 5000 gal
Hazardous waste volume generated for an Anodizing Bath System using an
Electrodialysis Unit = 2145 gal for the first year, 1430 gal/year thereafter
Hazardous waste disposal costs: $l/gal for anodizing bath solution;
$0.28/gal for catholyte and sludge
1-01-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for an Anodizing Bath System using
an Electrodialysis Unit vs. using the Current Technology
Electrodialysis Current
Unit1 Technology2
Operational Costs:
Anodizing Bath Solution $0 $1700
Replacement/Make-Up:
Catholyte Solution Make-Up $1300 $0
Hazardous Waste Disposal $400 $5000
Cost
Total Operational Costs: $2372 $6700
Total Recovered Income: $0 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$2372 -$6700
1 57% Hazardous Waste Volume Reduction, 88% Reduction of Hazardous
Waste Disposal Costs
2 71% Hazardous Waste Volume Reduction, 92% Reduction of Hazardous
Waste Disposal Costs
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for Systems using Electrodialysis Units: $4,328
* Capital Cost for Systems using Electrodialysis Units: $25,000
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: 6.9 years
Note: A smaller payback period and larger annual savings can be realized if the
anodizing bath solution is changed-out at a higher rate than stated above prior to
implementing the new technology.
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values. To
return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost
Electrolysis Membrane 6640-00-884-3321 ea. $30.50
Electrolysis Membrane 6640-01-023-7852 ea. $70.00
Approving
Authority: Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
1-01-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
Navy:
Mr. Michael Viggiano, Code 423
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
1100 23rd Avenue
PortHueneme, CA 93043-4370
(805) 982-4895, DSN: 551-4895
The following is a list of electrodialysis system manufacturers. This is not meant
to be a complete list, as there may be other manufacturers of this type of
equipment.
IONSEP Corporation, Inc.
P.O. Box 258
Rockland,DE 19732
(302) 798-7402
Technic, Inc.
55 Maryland Ave.
Pawtucket, RI 02860
(401)728-7081
Eco Tec
925 Brock Road South
Pickering (Toronto) Ontario, Canada L1W2X9
(905)831-3400
1-01-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
ELECTROLESS NICKEL BATH LIFE EXTENSION
Revision:
Process Code:
Usage List:
Alternative For:
Compliance Areas:
5/99
Navy and Marine Corps: ID-04-02; Air Force: MT05; Army: ELE, MTF
Navy: High; Marine Corps: High; Army: Medium; Air Force: High
Hazardous waste generation and the associated disposal costs.
Medium
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Nickel (CAS: 7440-02-0)
Overview:
Compliance
Benefit:
Utilizing the Electroless Nickel (EN) bath life extension technology to augment
current EN operations can increase the life of the plating bath at a typical naval
facility up to ten-fold, reduce the volume of hazardous waste generated by up to
90 percent and the associated disposal costs. The EN bath life extension
technology accomplishes this by performing two functions: 1) it removes the
chemical by-products formed during the plating process, and 2) maintains the
overall chemical balance of the EN plating bath (nickel concentration, pH,
phosphite) through the addition of bath chemicals (reducing agents, complexing
agents, hypophosphite, and bath stabilizers). EN plating consists of a chemical
process in which a reaction occurs to reduce nickel ions to metal, which deposit
onto the part. Current practice is to changeout the plating bath solution as it
becomes contaminated with by-products of the chemical reactions that interfere
with the plating process and dispose of it as hazardous waste. Typical EN
wastestreams include: orthophosphite, sulfate, nickel metal, and sodium ions.
The electroless nickel bath life extension system can significantly extend the
useful life of the bath solutions and thereby reduce the volume of hazardous
waste generated. The reduction of hazardous waste helps facilities meet the
requirements of waste reduction under RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix, and
may also help facilities reduce their generator status and lessen the amount of
regulations (i.e., recordkeeping, reporting, inspections, transportation,
accumulation time, emergency prevention and preparedness, emergency
response) they are required to comply with under RCRA, 40 CFR 262. In
addition, because the useful life of the bath solutions are extended (e.g. less
chemicals are required at a facility) there is less of a chance that the facility
would meet any of the reporting thresholds for hazardous substances/chemicals
under SARA Title m (40 CFR 300, 355, 370, and 372; and EO 12856).
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
1-02-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
N/A
Nickel compounds can be irritating to the skin. Proper personal protective
equipment should be used.
Consult your local Industrial Health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these
technologies.
Decrease the volume of hazardous waste generated by up to 90% and the
associated disposal costs
EN bath life can be increased up to ten-fold
EN bath will require minimal chemical additions (versus six to twelve annual
bath change-outs accomplished using current processes)
Improved production quality due to stability of plating bath parameters and
quick removal of bath impurities that can cause poor plating quality
Reduction of rework required due to poor plating quality
Moderately high capital costs
Increased risk of exposure to workers during the handling and addition of
plating bath chemicals
Variables affecting capital cost, operation & maintenance costs, and the
hazardous waste disposal costs with regard to the addition of an EN bath life
extension system include:
- Capacity and size of the plating bath
- Quantity of work to be processed
- Ability to stabilize bath characteristics and remove impurities.
The cost elements for installing an Electroless Nickel with bath life extension
technology at a site is provided below.
* Assumptions:
Estimated equipment cost: $35,000
Volume of EN plating bath solution, 500 gal
ENFINITY EN bath life extension technology will be
implemented (Implementation requires the use of the vendor's EN
system in conjunction with the bath life extension technology)
1-02-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Cost of EN chemical bath make-up is $ 1950/500 gal
Cost of hazardous waste disposal is $2000/500 gal
Number of EN chemical bath change-outs required using the
current technology =10
Number of EN chemical bath change-outs required using the bath
life extension technology = 2
Chemical replenishing costs based on plating thickness per square
footage of work processed. The ENFINITY vendor (Stapleton
Company) estimates a process cost of $1.97 per mil-ft2 (1 mil =
0.001 inches)
No additional labor costs, savings associated with fewer bath
change-outs will be offset by need to add chemicals, clean and
recondition EN plating tank
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for Electroless Nickel Plating Systems using
Bath Life Extension Technology vs. the Current Technology
EN Plating System using EN Plating System
Bath Life Extension using Current
Technology Technology
Operational Costs:
EN Chemical Bath
Change Outs Costs: $39Q() $l^5QQ
Hazardous Waste $4000 $20,000
Disposal Costs:
Total Operational Costs: $7900 $39,500
Total Recovered Income: $0 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$7900 -$39,500
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for EN Plating Systems with Bath Life
Extension Technology: $31,600
* Capital Cost for Systems with Bath Life Extension
Technology: $35,000
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: 1.1 years
1-02-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
Electroless Ni Plating Solution
Electroless Ni Plating Test Kit
NSN
6850-01-315-1659
4940-01-051-3833
Unit Size
5 gal Can
Cost
$159.09
MSDS*
Click me
*There are multiple MSDSsfor most NSNs. The MSDS shown here is only meant to serve as an
example. To return from the MSDS, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar
Approval
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Mr. Michael Viggiano, Code 423
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
110023rd Avenue
PortHueneme, CA 93043-4370
(805) 982-4895, DSN: 551-4895
The following is a list of Electroless Nickel plating system suppliers. This is not
meant to be a complete list, as there may be other suppliers of this type of
equipment.
Stapleton Company
13 SOW. 12th Street
Long Beach, CA 90813
(310)437-0541
LeaRonal Inc.
272 Buffalo Ave.
Freeport,NY11520
(516)868-8800
1-02-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
HIGH VELOCITY OXY-FUEL THERMAL SPRAY
Revision:
Process Code:
Usage List:
Alternative For:
5/99
Navy and Marine Corps: ID-06-99; Air Force: MT03; Army: MTF
Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Low; Army: Low; Air Force: Low
Hard Chrome Plating
Compliance Areas: High
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituent: Chromic Acid (CAS: 7738-94-5), Sulfuric Acid (CAS:
7664-93-9), Lead (CAS: 7439-92-1), Chromium (CAS: 7440-47-3), Nickel (CAS: 7440-02-0), and
Copper (CAS: 7440-50-8)
Overview:
Compliance
Benefit:
High Velocity Oxy-Fuel (HVOF) thermal spray technology is a dry process that
produces a dense metallic coating whose desired physical properties are equal
to or surpass those of hard chrome plating (HCP). These properties include
wear resistance, corrosion resistance, low oxide content, low stress, low
porosity, and high bonding strength to the base metal.
HVOF thermal spray uses a fuel (i.e., propylene, hydrogen, propane,
kerosene)/oxygen mixture in a combustion chamber. This combustion process
melts a metal powder that is continually fed into a gun using a carrier gas (argon)
and propels it at high speeds (3,000 - 4,000 ft/sec) towards the surface of the
part to be coated. The high speed of the spray produces a coating upon impact
that can be used as an alternative to the HCP process. The metal powder is
available in many compositions, including: nickel, nichrome, inconel, chrome
carbide, and tungsten carbide. Uniform coating thickness of up to 0.250 inches
can be achieved.
The only waste stream produced by HVOF is from the capture of the
overspray. Current systems use a dry cartridge filter system with an optional
high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter. Since the overspray contains only
the pure metal or alloy, it is feasible to recycle or reclaim this waste stream.
This process melts a metal powder and produces a dense metallic coating
whose desired physical properties are equal to or surpass those of hard chrome
plating. The only waste stream produced by HVOF is from the capture of the
overspray. Since the overspray contains only the pure metal or alloy, it is
feasible to recycle or reclaim this waste stream. Traditional plating operations
generate a large volume of hazardous waste from contaminated plating bath
solutions and rinse waters.
The reduction of hazardous waste helps facilities meet the requirements of waste
reduction under RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix, and may also help facilities
1-03-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
reduce their generator status and lessen the amount of regulations (i.e.,
recordkeeping, reporting, inspections, transportation, accumulation time,
emergency prevention and preparedness, emergency response) they are
required to comply with under RCRA, 40 CFR 262. In addition, since bath
solutions are eliminated (i.e., less sulfuric acid and chromic acid) there is less of
a chance that the facility would meet any of the reporting thresholds for
hazardous substances/chemicals under SARA Title m (40 CFR 300, 355,
370, and 372; and EO 12856). The elimination of hard and decorative
chromium electroplating from a facility may also decrease the need for meeting
NESHAP requirements under 40 CFR 63.340 - 63.347 and for an air permit
under 40 CFR 70 and 40 CFR 71. It should be noted that a new air emission
may result from the use of this new technology. Additionally, this technology
uses considerably less water than the traditional electroplating operations and as
required under EO 12902, Energy Efficiency and Water Conservation at
Federal Facilities.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
No materials compatibility issues were identified.
When working with fine particulate matter that consists of various compositions
of different metals, inhalation is a primary concern. Proper personal protective
equipment should be used.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
Surface coating physical properties are at least equal to those of HCP, and
often exceed HCP in corrosion protection, abrasive wear resistance, and
adhesive wear resistance
Multiple choice of coating materials
Large volume reduction of hazardous waste and the associated disposal
costs
Toxic air emissions from HCP bath containers reduced
Disadvantages:
Line-of-sight process, can only coat the external surface of a part, not the
inner diameters
High capital cost
1-03-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Process must be housed in a full enclosure of sufficient size to process parts
that normally utilize HCP
Economic
Analysis: The cost for implementing HVOF (in lieu of continuing to use HCP to apply a
surface coating to production parts) depends on many variables, in particular
the following:
- Quantity of work to be transferred from HCP
- Whether a robotic or manual system is used
- Type of capture system used
- Availability of space at the facility to house the HVOF enclosure
The following cost comparison uses figures from Norfolk Naval Shipyard, in
Portsmouth, VA.
Assumptions:
Capital cost plus installation of HVOF equipment, including sound-proof
room, diamond-jet system, powder, HEPA filter exhaust system, air
compressor, fuel and oxygen gases, and grit blast preparation system is
approximately $250,000
Metal powder for coating is tungsten or chromium carbide costing $40-65
per pound
Current disposal treatment for HCP waste streams is pretreatment at the
Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant (IWTP) costing $50/1000 gallons
Chrome plating bath can be reused several times if anodes are replenished.
Chrome plating bath is 1,000 gallons
Bath solution is replaced once a year
No disposal costs for overspray during thermal spray procedure; recovered
metals are sold to a local refiner
Finished product cost is dependent on the number of parts processed and
the computed cost for consumables and labor per mil-ft2 of coating (1 mil =
0.001 inches)
Labor includes preparation for thermal spray and spray time (approximately
1.75 hours per part); for hard chrome plating, labor includes time to dip
part in chrome bath (approximately 3 hours per part)
Labor is approximately $17/hour
Plating costs, including cleaning, etching, and rinsing, are $250/part
The following comparison is based on coating a part 4 inches in diameter
and 36 inches long (3.14 sq. ft.) with 8 mil coating
Approximately 1,500 parts are coated annually
Cost of hazardous waste treatment is $l/gallon
System generates 10,000 gallons of rinsewater treated through an IWTP
1-03-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Cost Comparison for HVOF vs. HCP Technologies
HVOF Hard Chrome Plating
Capital and Installation $250,000 $0
Operational Costs:
Powder/Plating $60,000 $375,000
Gas $21,600 $0
Labor $45,000 $76,500
Rinsewater treatment $0 $500
Disposal $0 $1,000
Annual Total (w/o capital) $126,600 $453,000
Economic Analysis Summary:
Annual Savings for HVOF: $326,400
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $250,000
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: 9 months
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost
HVOF Spray Gun Outfit 4940-01-438-0966 ea.
Approval
Authority: Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Points
of Contact: Air Force:
Mr. Leonard Hayes
OCALC/LPPE
3001 Staff Drive, 2B93 Room 20
Tinker Air Force Base, OK 73145-3034
(405) 736-2289, DSN: 336-2289
1-03-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Navy:
Mr. Randy Wykle
Code 248
Norfolk Naval Shipyard
Portsmouth, VA 23709
Phone: (757) 396-5473
Mr. Michael Viggiano, Code 423
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
110023rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4370
(805) 982-4895, DSN: 551-4895
Vendors: The following is a list of HVOF equipment manufacturers. This is not meant to
be a complete list, as there may be other manufacturers of this type of
equipment.
TAP A, Inc.
146 Pembroke Road
Concord, NH 03301
(603) 224-9585
Sulzer Metco (US) Inc.
1101 Prospect Ave.
Westbury,NY11590
334-1300
Fax (516)338-2414
1-03-5
-------
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
NON-CYANIDE NICKEL STRIPPERS
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-04-99; Air Force: MT03, Army: ELE, MTF
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Low; Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
Alternative For: Cyanide Based Nickel Stripping Processes
Compliance Areas: Medium
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Nickel (CAS: 7440-02-0), Cyanides, and Chlorine
(CAS: 7782-50-5)
Overview: Non-cyanide based metal stripping removes metal-based coatings from
production parts by dipping the parts in a bath solution, and rinsing. Using a
non-cyanide based metal stripping process reduces the volume of hazardous
waste generated and the associated disposal costs, and exposure of personnel to
hazardous materials and wastes.
Until recently, the majority of stripping of metal coatings from production parts
has been accomplished using cyanide-based processes. Parts that require
rework often need to remove previously applied metal coatings. Cyanide based
processes are capable of removing many different metal coatings such as nickel
(Ni), silver (Ag), copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), gold (Au), and other precious metals
without damaging the surface of the part itself. The disadvantages of cyanide-
based stripping are that cyanides are hazardous to personnel, frequent bath
solution change-outs are required due to a limited bath life, and that the rinse
streams generated from this process contain high concentrations of metals and
cyanides. The rinse water generated requires pre-treatment to remove the
cyanides and metals at the Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant (IWTP)
before the water can be released to the Public Owned Treatment Works
(POTW). The treatment process at the IWTP requires the use of toxic
chemicals such as sulfuric acid, caustic, chlorine, and other hazardous materials.
There are a number of commercially available non-cyanide metal stripping
processes that can be implemented to replace cyanide-based metal stripping
processes. These alternative metal strippers use amines, aromatic nitro
compounds, protein based and/or other oxidizing chemicals. The following
process parameters must be examined for any alternative before implementation
can occur: stripping rate, corrosion potential of the base metal, reaction with
maskants, bath stability, and treatibility of rinse waters or spent process bath
material.
1-04-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Compliance
Benefit:
Non-cyanide based metal stripping removes metal-based coatings from
production parts by dipping the parts in a bath solution, and rinsing. Using a
non-cyanide based metal stripping process, instead of a more traditional
cyanide based bath, reduces the volume of hazardous waste (since non-cyanide
based baths can be used longer) and decreases the amount of cyanide at the
facility. The reduction of hazardous waste helps facilities meet the requirements
of waste reduction under RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix, and may also help
facilities reduce their generator status and lessen the amount of regulations (e.g.
recordkeeping, reporting, inspections, transportation, accumulation time,
emergency prevention and preparedness, emergency response) they are
required to comply with under RCRA, 40 CFR 262. In addition, this
technology allows facilities to eliminate cyanide bath solutions (cyanide has an
RQ) so there is less of a chance that the facility would meet any of the reporting
thresholds for cyanide under SARA Title m (40 CFR 300, 355, 370, and
372; and EO 12856). Both processes may require an industrial wastewater
discharge permit (local issue).
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Due to the variability of non-cyanide based bath solutions, it is highly
recommended that the activity reference the vendors data for specific
incompatibilities between bath solution and other materials/chemicals.
Many components of a non-cyanide metal stripper are biodegradable and
present minimal safety risks. However; several components do present splash,
heat and vapor hazards. Bath solution temperatures range from room
temperature to 180 ฐF, appropriate precautions shall be observed. Nickel
compounds can be skin irritants. Proper personnel protective equipment should
be used.
Benefits:
Consult your local Industrial Health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these
technologies.
Elimination of a maj or source of cyanides
Reduction of costs and materials required for cyanide treatment of rinse
waters at IWTP
1-04-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Non-cyanide baths are also more stable and require less frequent change-
out
The removal of cyanides may enable the reclamation of metals from the bath
solution and rinse water
The same process equipment (tanks, heaters or coolant coils) that is
currently used can be used in the non-cyanide based process
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
Due to the variability of bath solutions available, it is possible that new
waste streams may be created
Non-cyanide nickel strippers can be implemented using existing tanks, heaters,
and ventilation systems. The only cost variable will be for the initial make up for
the process bath, but that will be offset by the fact that non-cyanide baths have
a much higher bath life than cyanide baths (2 to 3 times). Also, eliminating the
cost (chemicals and labor) for the treatment of cyanide contaminated rinse
waters will yield greater savings.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
B-9 Plus Nickel Stripper
B-9
B-929
B-9 Ni-Fe
B-913
NSN
6850-00-N02-3499
6850-00-N02-3500
6850-00-N02-3501
6850-00-N02-3502
6850-00-N02-3503
Unit Size
lib.
lib.
lib.
lib.
lib.
Cost
$2.35
$2.35
$2.35
$2.35
$2.35
MSDS*
Click me
Click me
Click me
Click me
Click me
*There are multiple MSDSsfor most NSNs. The MSDS shown here is only meant to serve as an
example. To return from the MSDS, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar
Approval
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Mr. Michael Viggiano, Code 423
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
1100 23rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4370
(805) 982-4895, DSN 551-4895
1-04-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Vendors: The following is a list of non-cyanide nickel stripper system suppliers. This is
not meant to be a complete list, as there may be other suppliers of this type of
equipment
B-9 Nickel Stripper
Metalx, Inc.
Route 10, Box 683
Lenoir,NC 28645
(704)758-4997
Patstrip Ni-E
Patclin Chemical Co.
66 Alexander St.
Yonkers,NY 10701-2714
(914)476-7000
Nickel-Sol
Technic, Inc.
55 Maryland Ave.
Pawtucket, RI 02860
(401)728-7081
1-04-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
SURFACE COATING BY PHYSICAL VAPOR DEPOSITION
Revision 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: N/A; Air Force: MT03; Army: ELE, MTF
Usage List: Navy: High; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Low; Air Force: High
Alternative For: Certain electroplating processes like cadmium plating
Compliance Areas: Medium
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: N/A
Overview: Physical Vapor Deposition (PVD) comprises a group of surface coating
technologies used for decorative coating, tool coating, and other equipment
coating applications. It is fundamentally a vaporization coating process in
which the basic mechanism is an atom by atom transfer of material from the
solid phase to the vapor phase and back to the solid phase, gradually building a
film on the surface to be coated. In the case of reactive deposition, the
depositing material reacts with a gaseous environment of co-deposited material
to form a film of compound material, such as a nitride, oxide, carbide or
carbonitride.
There are three basic process categories considered as PVD technologies: ion
plating, evaporation, and sputtering. All of these utilize the same three
fundamental steps to develop a coating. Each of the PVD technologies
generate and deposit material in a somewhat different manner, requiring
equipment unique to each process. The three fundamental steps include:
1. Vapor phase generation from coating material stock by -
Evaporation
Sputtering
Arc Vaporization
Chemical vapors and gases
2. The transfer of the vapor phase from source to substrate by -
Line-of-sight
Molecular flow
Vapor ionization by creating a plasma
3. Deposition and film growth on the substrate
These steps can be independent or superimposed on each other depending on
the desired coating characteristics. The final result of the coating/substrate
composite is a function of each materials individual properties, the interaction of
the materials and any process constraints that may exist.
The selection criteria for determining the best method of PVD is dependent on
several factors;
1. Material to be deposited
2. Rate of deposition
1-05-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
3. Limitations imposed by the substrate, such as, the maximum deposition
temperature, size and shape
4. Adhesion of the deposition to the substrate
5. Throwing power (rate and thickness distribution of the deposition process,
i.e., the higher the throwing power, the better the process ability to coat
irregularly-shaped objects with uniform thickness)
6. Purity of coating materials
7. Equipment requirements and their availability
8. Cost
9. Ecological considerations
10. Abundance of deposition material
PVD is a desirable alternative to electroplating and possibly some painting
applications. PVD can be applied using a wide variety of materials to coat an
equally diverse number of substrates using any of the three basic PVD
technologies to deposit a number of desired finishes of variable thickness with
specific characteristics.
The application of PVD surface coating technologies at large scale, high volume
operations will result in the reduction of hazardous waste generated when
compared to electroplating and other metal finishing processes that use large
quantities of toxic and hazardous materials.
Compliance
Benefit: Physical vapor deposition is an evaporative coating process in which the basic
mechanism is an atom by atom transfer of material from the solid phase to the
vapor phase and back to the solid phase, gradually building a film on the surface
to be coated. PVD is a desirable alternative to electroplating and possibly some
painting applications because it generates less hazardous waste and uses less
hazardous materials (i.e., no plating baths).
The reduction of hazardous waste helps facilities meet the requirements of waste
reduction under RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix, and may also help facilities
reduce their generator status and lessen the amount of regulations (i.e.,
recordkeeping, reporting, inspections, transportation, accumulation time,
emergency prevention and preparedness, emergency response) they are
required to comply with under RCRA, 40 CFR 262. In addition, since bath
solutions are eliminated (i.e., less hazardous chemicals are used at the facility)
there is less of a chance that the facility would meet any of the reporting
thresholds for hazardous substances/chemicals under SARA Title in (40 CFR
300, 355, 370, and 372; and EO 12856). This technology also uses
considerably less water than the traditional electroplating operations and as
required under EO 12902, Energy Efficiency and Water Conservation at
Federal Facilities. In addition, this type of system may require an air permit.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
1-05-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
PVD coating processes are compatible with most metals and some plastics
either as coatings or as substrates. However, temperature constraints may limit
the degree to which dense coatings can be deposited on some plastics. Finally,
PVD processes do not normally produce the kind of coatings that work well
where lubrication is required. Thus, PVD coatings are not usually good choices
for parts such as fasteners.
The safety and health issues must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Consult your local Industrial Health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these
technologies.
The coatings are sometimes harder and more corrosion resistant than
coatings applied by the electroplating process. Most coatings have high
temperature and good impact strength, excellent abrasion resistance and are
so durable that protective topcoats are almost never necessary.
Ability to utilize virtually any type of inorganic and some organic coating
materials on an equally diverse group of substrates and surfaces using a
wide variety of finishes.
More environmentally friendly than traditional coating processes such as
electroplating and painting.
More than one technique can be used to deposit a given film.
Specific technologies can impose constraints; for example, line-of-sight
transfer makes coating annular shapes practically impossible.
Some PVD technologies typically operate at very high temperatures and
vacuums, requiring special attention by operating personnel.
Requires a cooling water system to dissipate large heat loads.
Selection of the best PVD technology may require some experience and/or
experimentation.
High capital costs
Economic considerations are probably the primary hindrance to conversion of
more plating operations to any of the vapor deposition processes. A rough
estimate of the capital cost for a new vapor deposition installation is several
hundred thousand dollars. Operating costs are, however, roughly equal to
electroplating, although plating can be slightly less labor intensive.
1-05-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
Approving
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
Vendors:
Source:
Navy: Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after
engineering approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not
required.
Mr. Donald M. Mattox
Technical Director of the Society of Vacuum Coaters
Albuquerque, NM
Phone: (505) 856-7188, Fax (505) 856-6716
For ion plating expertise
A list of physical vapor deposition system suppliers can be obtained from the
Society of Vacuum Coaters. A PVD Product and Services Directory can be
obtained free of charge by calling (505) 856-7188. This is not meant to be a
complete list, as there may be other suppliers of this type of equipment.
ASM Handbook, Vol.5. Surface Engineering, ASM International, 1994.
1-05-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
SULFURIC/BORIC ACID ANODIZING
Revision:
Process Code:
Usage List:
Alternative For:
Compliance Areas:
5/99
Navy and Marine Corps: ID-04-99; Air Force: MT03; Army: ELE, MTF
Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Low; Army: Low; Air Force: Low
Chromic Acid Aluminum Anodizing Process
Medium
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Chromic Acid (CAS: 7738-94-5), Chromium (CAS:
7440-47-3)
Overview:
Compliance
Benefit:
The Sulfuric/Boric Acid Anodizing (SBAA) process is a direct replacement for
the Chromic Acid Anodizing (CAA) process used on aluminum production
pieces. The SBAA process consists of a sulfuric/boric acid anodizing bath and
a chromate sealer bath. SBAA is a commercially available and tested process
that provides a protective coating meeting all military and industrial
specifications applicable to the CAA process.
The CAA process is currently used by all Naval Aviation Depots (NADEPs),
Naval Shipyards, and other activities to apply a protective coating to aluminum
parts used by many naval aircraft and ships. CAA generates chrome containing
waste streams from the rinsing of parts and ventilation system washdowns. The
resulting CCA rinse water requires the removal of metals at the Industrial
Wastewater Treatment Plant (IWTP) prior to release to a Public Owned
Treatment Works (POTW). The SBAA process has no chrome except for a
small amount in a separate sealer tank (70 ppm compared to 74.9xl03 ppm in
CAA) that the parts need to be dipped into after the SBAA process; therefore,
no chrome containing waste streams are generated from the rinsing of the parts
and the ventilation system. The rinse waters still contain metals and acids that
must be treated at the IWTP prior to release to a POTW.
The SBAA process was tested by the Naval Air Systems Command
(NAVAIRSYSCOM) at NADEP North Island and has been approved by
NAVAIRSYSCOM as an alternative to the CAA process. The SBAA
process has since been implemented at NADEP North Island and NADEP
Cherry Point. M1-C-8625C (the Mil-Spec that governs all anodized coatings)
is being revised to include the SBAA process as an additional option for
aluminum anodizing.
The SBAA process has no chrome except for a small amount in a separate
sealer tank (70 ppm compared to 74.9x103 ppm in CAA) that the parts need
to be dipped into after the SBAA process; therefore, no chrome containing
1-06-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
waste streams are generated from the rinsing of the parts and the ventilation
system. The rinse waters still contain metals and acids that must be treated at
the IWTP prior to release to a POTW. The elimination of hard and decorative
chromium electroplating from a facility may decrease the need for meeting
NESHAP requirements under 40 CFR 63.340 - 63.347 and for an air permit
under, 40 CFR 70 and 40 CFR 71. It should be noted that a new air emission
may result from the use of this new technology.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
No materials compatibility issues identified.
Sulfuric acid can be extremely corrosive to skin tissue. Contact with the body
can result in severe burns. Boric acid can be a dermal and mucous membrane
irritant. It is also a suspected teratogen and mutagen. Chromic acid can irritate
the respiratory tract and mucous membranes, and is a known mutagen. Proper
personal protective equipment should be used.
Consult your local Industrial Health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these
technologies.
Replace a maj or source of chromic acid in the Navy
Significant reduction in the treatment of chromic acid at the IWTP
Reduction of toxic air emissions from the chromic acid process
Still generates a hazardous waste stream requiring pre-treatment
Cost savings will depend largely on the volume of chromic acid contaminated
rinse water generated, rinse water treatment costs, and the hazardous waste
disposal costs for the heavy-metals-contaminated sludge. The cost to
implement the SBAA process is minimal at a facility that currently utilizes CAA.
Additional equipment requirements include:
- Sealer tank
- Immersion heater or steam line for the sealer tank
- Cooling coils for the SBAA to keep bath temperature below 80 ฐF
1-06-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
The cost elements for installing an SBAA process at a site is provided below.
* Assumptions:
Estimated equipment cost: $6370
CAA, SBAA and sealer bath capacities: 2,800 gal each
Sulfuric/Boric Acid bath : 30-50 g of sulfuric acid per liter of bath
fluid, 5-1 1 g of boric acid /I of bath fluid, 76-84 ฐF
Sealer bath: 26g of chromic acid per 100 gal of bath fluid, 190-200
ฐF
No differential in labor, permitting, training, etc. Personnel
operating the CAA process can be trained to operate the SBAA
equipment
Operating costs are equivalent for both processes with the
exception of bath make-up costs
Treatment costs from IWTP are $0.70/gal
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for SBAA and CAA Processes
Operational Costs:
Chemical Make Up for
SBAA & Sealer
Tanks:
Chemical Additions for
CAA Process:
Treatment Costs:
Total Operational Costs:
Total Recovered Income:
Net Annual Cost/Benefit:
SBAA Process
$6800
$0
CAA Process
$0
$2200
$21,000
$27,800
$0
$27,800
$70,000
$72,200
$0
-$72,200
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for Implementing an SBAA Process: $44,400
* Capital Cost for Implementing an SBAA Process: $6370
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: <1 year
1-06-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
Approving
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
Navy: Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after
engineering approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not
required.
Navy:
Mr. Michael Viggiano, Code 423
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
1100 23rd Avenue
PortHueneme, CA 93043-4370
(805) 982-4895, DSN: 551-4895
Mr. Steve Spadefora
Naval Air Warfare Center
Aircraft Division
Patuxent River, Maryland
(301) 342-8007, DSN: 342-8007
The following is a list of Sulfuric/Boric Acid Anodizing system manufacturers.
This is not meant to be a complete list, as there may be other manufacturers of
this type of equipment. A more complete list of Sulfuric/Boric Acid Anodizing
system manufacturers may be obtained by consulting the Thomas Register of
American Manufacturers.
The Boeing Company
Boeing Associated Products
P.O. Box 3707
MS 7W21
Seattle, WA 98124-2207
Mr. Robert Ames
(425)865-6950
1-06-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
ELECTROLYTIC RECOVERY TECHNOLOGY FOR METAL CYANIDE RECYCLING
Revision: 9/98
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-15-99, ID-04-99; Air Force: MT05, FA09;
Army: ELE
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Low: Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
Alternative For: Wastewater disposal, Conventional end-of-pipe treatment
Compliance Areas: Medium
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Silver (CAS: 7440-22-4); Cadmium (CAS: 7440-43-
9); Cyanide (CAS: 57-12-5)
Overview: Electrolytic recovery technology uses an electrical current to plate out the metals
and oxidize the cyanides in the rinse waters from electroplating. The metal is
recovered from the electrolytic recovery unit (ERU) as a foil that can be
returned to the cyanide plating bath as an anode source. The purity of the
recovered metal should meet the specifications for anode purity as long as the
water from the rinse tank is used to rinse parts that are only plated in the
cyanide tank. The ERU is plumbed to a stagnant rinse tank (the first rinse tank
that the plated parts would see) in a closed loop fashion. The cyanides are
partially oxidized to cyanates in the ERU. Electrolytic recovery technology can
remove more than 90 percent of the metal in the rinse stream and oxidize up to
50 percent of the cyanides.
Wastewater generated from the rinsing of metal cyanide plated parts contains
metals (primarily cadmium, copper, and silver) and cyanide containing
compounds (cyanides). Many metals and cyanides are toxic hazardous
materials. The waste stream requires pretreatment to reduce these toxic
materials prior to discharge. This treatment requires the use of hazardous
chemicals including acids, alkalis, and chlorine-containing chemicals.
The primary ERU components consist of an electrolytic chamber, power supply
(with rectifier) and pumps necessary for the intake, circulation and output of
electroplating rinsewater. The electrolytic chamber contains the anodes and
cathodes, which are connected to the rectifier in parallel.
Recent innovations in design of electrowinning equipment extend the operating
range of the process to include wastewaters that are more dilute (<500 mg/L) in
terms of metal and cyanide concentrations. Advanced ERU design features
may be selected to optimize electrolytic recovery for specific rinsewater
applications.
1-07-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
The selection of commercial ERUs should include the following minimum design
features:
1) A minimum ERU circulation rate of 5 gpm using a sealed magnetic drive
pump.
2) Corrosion-resistant anodes.
3) An open electrolytic cell for easy access for removal of individual metal
loaded cathodes and for replacement by new cathodes without interrupting
the recovery process.
4) Materials of ERU construction in contact with the plating solution that are
highly corrosive resistant, such as polypropylene, ceramic, and viton.
5) A DC power supply (rectifier) that provides for the proper combination of
voltage and amperage for the size of the electrolytic cell.
Compliance
Benefit:
Electrolytic recovery technology uses an electrical current to plate out the metals
(which can be recovered) and oxidize the cyanides in rinse waters from plating
operations. Electrolytic recovery technology can remove more than 90 percent
of the metal in the rinse stream and oxidize up to 50 percent of the cyanides thus
reducing the use of hazardous chemicals including acids, alkalis and chlorine-
containing chemicals to treat rinse waters. Additionally, since the metal is
recovered the volume of metal-containing hazardous sludge at the wastewater
treatment plant is reduced.
The reduction of hazardous waste helps facilities meet the requirements of waste
reduction under RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix, and may also help facilities
reduce their generator status and lessen the amount of regulations (i.e.,
recordkeeping, reporting, inspections, transportation, accumulation time,
emergency prevention and preparedness, emergency response) they are
required to comply with under RCRA, 40 CFR 262. In addition, this
technology generates a less contaminated rinse water and thereby reduces the
amount of treatment chemicals used be a treatment facility. Because less
chemicals are used the possibility that a treatment facility would meet any of the
reporting thresholds of SARA Title m (40 CFR 300, 355, 370, and 372) and
EO 12856 is decreased.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
No materials compatibility issues identified.
1-07-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Silver is known to be a mild skin irritant. It is also an equivocal tumorgenic
agent. Cyanide compounds are very poisonous in nature, and prolonged
exposure to high concentrations can be detrimental to human beings as it can be
absorbed through skin and through inhalation. Proper personal protective
equipment should be used.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
Reduction in the use of treatment chemicals for cyanides and heavy metals
in the wastewater treatment plant
The recovery and reuse of heavy metals, which reduces the costs for
anodes or chemicals
Reduction in the volume of metal-containing hazardous sludge at the
wastewater treatment plant
This technology is applicable to other plating baths, such as nickel, zinc, and
lead.
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
The initial cost of purchasing the equipment may be prohibitive.
The metal recovered from the still rinse can only be recycled if it is of
sufficient purity.
The ERU is not used for treatment of general discharges of wastewater, as
the ERU cannot differentiate among various types of metals for selective
recovery. Thus, the electrolytic process is most applicable to a single metal
rinsewater to permit recycling or selling to a reclaimer.
The cost to implement an ERU assumes that the rinse system for the metal
cyanide plating line is a dedicated rinse (only used to rinse metal cyanide plated
parts) and that the rinse system consists of a two-tank rinse system (a stagnant
rinse followed by a final rinse connected to a wastewater treatment plant). The
following economic analysis based on operations occurring at the Norfolk
Naval Shipyard:
Assumptions:
Capital costs are based on an 800-gallon silver cyanide plating bath:
Electrolytic Recovery Unit - $ 15,000
Labor and Installation Costs - $3,000
Facility generates 300,000 gallons of silver cyanide rinse waters a year
1-07-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Labor = $45/hour
Labor requirements for operating and maintaining ERU system are
approximately 30 hours per year
Electricity cost = $0.07/kWh
ERU uses 192 watts of energy
Pump uses 112 watts of energy
Unit on 365 days per year 24 hours per day
Waste treatment costs including chemical, labor, and energy costs is $0.05
per gallon
Cost Comparison for
Electrolytic Unit vs. Treatment in IWTP
ERU IWTP
Capital and Installation Costs $18,000 $0
Operational Costs:
Operation and Maintenance $1,350 $0
Costs
Waste Treatment and Disposal $0 $ 15,000
Costs
Utility Costs (electricity) $186 $0
Lab Analysis Costs $2,000 $0
Total Costs (not including capital and
installation costs) $3,536 $15,000
Total Income: $0 $0
Annual Benefit: -$3,536 -15,000
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for ERU: $ 11,464
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $ 18,000
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: 19 months
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost
None Identified
Approval
1-07-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Authority:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Points of
Contact:
Vendors:
Navy:
Mr. Joseph Taylor
Building 195
Norfolk Naval Shipyard
Portsmouth, VA 23709-5000
(757) 396-5204, Fax (757) 396-1603
Mr. Scott Mauro
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
1100 23rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-4889, DSN: 551-4889
Fax: (805)982-4832
For implementation information
This is not meant to be a complete list, as there are ether manufacturers and
vendors of ERUs.
ECO-Tec Limited
1145 Squires Beach Road
Pickering, Ontario Canada L1W3T9
(905) 427-0077
1-07-5
-------
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
HAZARDOUS MATERIAL SHELF-LIFE MANAGEMENT
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-11-99; Air Force: MA01; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: High; Marine Corps: High; Army: High; Air Force: High
Alternative For: Disposal of Expired Materials
Compliance Areas: Medium
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Various
Overview: One of the most effective waste minimization programs that can be established
is the active life-cycle management of hazardous materials before they become
hazardous waste.
The active life-cycle management program provides procedures that allows
hazardous material users the option to extend the life of certain hazardous
materials after their shelf life term has expired. These procedures include
defining the following for each individual material stored:
Shelf Life Item
Shelf Life Code
Acceptable Quality Level
Condition Code
Shelf-life Action Code (SLAC)
Sampling and Inspection Tests
Shelf-life Item. Item or material possessing deteriorative or unstable
characteristics to the degree that a storage time period must be assigned to
assure that item will perform satisfactorily in services. Shelf-life items are
categorized into two types:
(1) Type I. An item of supply which is determined through an evaluation of
technical test data and/or actual experience to be an item with a definite
non-extendible period of shelf-life. The single digit shelf-life code
designating Type I material is a letter (A-S).
(2) Type U. An item of supply having an assigned shelf-life time period that may
be extended after completion of an inspection, test, or restorative action.
The single digit shelf-life code designating Type U material is a number (1-
9).
2-I/A-l-l
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Shelf-life Code. A code assigned to a shelf-life item to indicate its storage time
period. Shelf-life codes are standard within the Department of Defense (DOD)
and are published regularly. For example, items used by the Navy which have
an assigned shelf-life code are listed monthly in NAVSUP PUB 4105 (List of
Items Requiring Special Handling [LIRSH]).
Acceptable Quality Level. The maximum percent defective (or the maximum
number of defects per hundred units) that, for purposes of sampling inspection,
can be considered satisfactory as a process average.
Condition Code. A code assigned to classify material in terms of its readiness
for issue and use, or to identify action underway to change the status of material.
The condition codes used by stocking activities in shelf-life procedures are listed
below. "Users" of the material normally do not downgrade condition codes in
this manner. They leave the material in "A" condition until the shelf-life has
expired.
Shelf-life Action Code (SLAC). A code assigned to a shelf-life item to specify
the type of inspection, test, or restorative action to be taken when the item has
reached the end of its designated shelf-life. It also specifies the allowed
extension period for the item after the inspection, test, or restorative action has
been completed. NAVSUP PUB 4105 promulgates the Shelf-life Action Code
(SLAC) for items used by the Navy that have assigned shelf-life codes.
Sampling and Inspection Tests. On-site tests conducted on Type II materials to
extend the material's shelf life. In most cases, shelf-life extension tests are not
complicated, do not require a laboratory, and can be done on the spot by
anyone with a minimum amount of training. In many cases they consist of visual
checks for damage or deterioration.
An effective shelf-life extension program is a critical part of life-cycle
management. A significant portion of hazardous materials turned in for disposal
are in their original packaging and meet the performance requirements as
defined in the military specification. Unfortunately, the material is declared
unusable solely because it has reached the end of its designated shelf-life term.
The shelf life code of a given hazardous materials is dependent upon many
parameters including storage conditions, packaging, the chemistry of the
material, and it's critical use.
Shelf-life extension programs are the single most neglected aspect of shelf-life
management. Organizations (users as well as suppliers) generally do not
conduct in-house inspections of tests to extend the shelf-life of their material.
2-I/A-1-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
They either don't extend shelf-life at all or rely on the monthly DOD Quality
Status Listing (QSL) to tell them what shelf-life material can be extended and
for how long. When the QSL is used, extension efforts often consist solely of
re-marking material with the new expiration dates published in the QSL. There
is nothing wrong with that, and it needs to be done, but the QSL primarily lists
only DLA-managed items that require laboratory testing. Items that require only
visual checks are not listed; neither are GSA-managed items. There is a DOD
initiative underway to extend the QSL into a DOD listing that will include
material managed by DLA and all military services. Unfortunately, it will be
some time before it becomes fully integrated and it will never list items that
require only visual checks to do extensions.
In-house inspections and tests are adequate for most material. It is, however,
often difficult for personnel to find descriptions of the specific inspections or
tests required to extend the shelf-life of particular items. There is no single
source of test information. GSA and all military services except the Navy have
developed separate storage standards with extension criteria for the material
they manage. Each DLA Inventory Control Point (ICP) has developed storage
standards for material managed by the particular ICP. Every command should
have a collection of those standards. Together, they represent the existing
universe of shelf-life extension test and inspection guidelines. Individual product
specifications are the only other source of inspection and test information.
Storage Standard Points of Contact are listed in DOD 4140.27-M (Shelf-Life
Item Management Manual).
The Navy has not yet developed storage standards for shelf-life extension
inspections and tests on Navy-managed material. In the absence of specific
guidelines, use common sense. For most Type U material, shelf-life extension
tests are not complicated, do not require a laboratory, and can be done on the
spot by anyone with a minimum amount of training. They are usually nothing
more than visual checks for damage or deterioration.
Navy Item Managers refer callers to Fed-Std-793 (Depot Storage Standards)
when asked what tests need to be conducted to extend the life of particular
products.
Another highly effective hazardous material shelf-life management technique is
the comprehensive study of a specific hazardous material to determine the
material's true shelf-life term. In many cases the shelf-life term of hazardous
materials are too conservative. In many cases, hazardous material users depend
upon conservative manufacturer recommendations in defining shelf-life terms. It
is also noteworthy that in recent years, the chemical stability and packaging of
hazardous materials has improved significantly. As a result, shelf-life terms that
2-I/A-1-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
were defined prior to these improvements are likely to be too conservative.
The Naval Supply Systems Command (NAVSUP) has conducted several
studies to determine the true shelf-life term of hazardous materials that are
commonly procured by the Navy. Only hazardous materials that are purchased
in large volumes and historically have been disposed as a hazardous waste due
to expired shelf-life terms were considered for study. These studies have
indicated that the shelf-life term of approximately 50% of hazardous materials
procured by the Navy are too conservative.
The primary classes of hazardous materials undertaken for study by NAVSUP
were: (1) Chemicals, (2) Paints, Sealants, and Adhesives, and (3) Petroleum,
Oils and Lubricants (POLs). The table presented below summarizes the results
of the study:
Material Class
Chemicals
Paints, Sealants and
Adhesives
Petroleum, Oils, and
Lubricants
Federal Stock Code
5610,5970,6135,
6750, 6810, 6840,
6850
7510,7930,8010,
8030, 8040
9150
Current Shelf-life
Term
6-48 months
Average = 24 months
6-36 months
Average =16 months
24-36 months
Average = 28 months
Recommended
Increase in Shelf-life
Term
0-12 months
0-12 months
0-24 months
Compliance
Benefit:
The table indicates that for many materials an increase in the shelf-life term is
appropriate. However, prior to implementing an increase in shelf-life term for a
specific material, the materials degradation mode, packaging and anticipated
storage conditions must be studied to determine if a shelf-life term increase is
appropriate.
It is recommended that the reader contact the Points of Contact listed at the end
of this datasheet for information regarding specific hazardous materials that they
are storing.
The active life-cycle management program provides procedures that allows
hazardous material users the option to extend the life of certain hazardous
materials after their shelf life term has expired. These procedures allow facilities
2-I/A-1-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
a way to decrease their hazardous waste generated from chemicals that have
exceeded their shelf life date. In addition, shelf life extensions may allow
facilities to purchase less hazardous chemicals since the chemicals in stock are
still usable.
The reduction of hazardous waste helps facilities meet the requirements of waste
reduction under RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix, and may also help facilities
reduce their generator status and lessen the amount of regulations (i.e.,
recordkeeping, reporting, inspections, transportation, accumulation time,
emergency prevention and preparedness, emergency response) they are
required to comply with under RCRA, 40 CFR 262. In addition, a shelf life
management program will decrease the amount of hazardous materials
purchased and stored on site therefore decrease the possibility that the facility
would meet any of the reporting thresholds of SARA Title m (40 CFR 300,
355, 370, and 372; and EO 12856)
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
N/A
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
Reduces disposal of expired hazardous materials
Reduces reordering of additional hazardous materials to replace expired
hazardous materials
Disadvantages:
Shelf-life term lengthening process requires that changes be made at the
military specification level, which can be time consuming
Approving
Authority:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
2-I/A-1-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Economic
Analysis: The savings incurred through reduced disposal costs and reduced reordering of
materials varies widely depending on the quantity of material purchased annually
and the purchase and disposal costs. The example presented below is of a
common detergent with a shelf-life term of 36 months. A study of this
detergent's degradation mode, packaging and storage conditions revealed that
48 months is a more appropriate shelf-life term. The economic benefit from the
lengthening of this material's shelf-life term is presented below:
* Assumptions:
35,000 gallons of detergent (NSN 7930-00-282-9699) is
purchased annually
Purchase cost: $12/gallon
1,800 gallons disposed annually as a hazardous waste due to
expired shelf-life term.
Disposal cost: $21.10/gallon
Current shelf-life term of detergent: 36 months
Recommended shelf-life term: 48 months
Increasing the shelf-life term by 33% (36 to 48 months) will result in
a 33% savings in new purchase and disposal costs
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for Lengthening the
Shelf-Life Term of a Detergent from 36 Months to 48 Months
36 Month Shelf-life 48 Month Shelf-life
Term Term
Operational Costs:
Labor: $0 $0
Material $420,000 $280,000
Waste Disposal $38,000 $25,300
Total Operational Costs: $458,000 $305,300
Total Recovered Income: $0 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$458,000 -$305,300
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for Shelf-life Term Lengthening: $ 152,700
2-I/A-1-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
* Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: N/A
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: Immediate
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values. To
return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
Points
of Contact:
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
Vendors:
Source:
Navy:
Ms. Lynn M. Torres
Naval Facilities Engineering Services Center, ESC32
1100 23rd Avenue
PortHueneme, CA 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-1388 Fax: (805) 982-1458
N/A
Shelf-life Management Chart from Hazardous Material Control & Management/HMIS
CD-ROM System.
Shelf-life Specifications for Hazardous Materials, Final Report, NFESC, Pollution
Prevention Division,
PortHueneme, CA 93043-4328
2-I/A-1-7
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SHELF LIFE OPTIMIZATION
Revision: 10/98
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-11-99; Air Force: MA01; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: High; Marine Corps: High; Army: High; Air Force: High
Alternative For: Disposal of out of date materials
Compliance Areas: Medium
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: All
Overview: Management of hazardous materials is dependent on several conditions, one of
the most important being the material's expected usable life or "shelf life." The
effective management of hazardous materials prevents pollution. Additionally, it
is a national policy to prefer pollution prevention over recycling, treatment in an
environmentally safe manner, and ultimate disposal. Effective management of
hazardous materiel has become an economic, as well as an environmental
necessity, because once a hazardous material's shelf life is exceeded, it is no
longer usable for its intended purpose. At that point in time, the hazardous
material becomes a hazardous waste. Proper disposal is not only difficult and
expensive, but may cause some long-term environmental impact. Moreover,
new material needs to be procured to replace that lost by expiration of the shelf
life.
One of the goals of a hazardous materials management program should be to
manage the shelf-life materiel more effectively. This data sheet provides
information on the basic aspects of a shelf life optimization program.
The policies for optimizing shelf-life materiel are contained in DoD 4140.27-M,
Shelf-Life Management Manual, as authorized by DoD Directive 4140.1,
Materiel Management Policy. This policy provides for the supply chain (life-
cycle management) of standard and hazardous shelf-life items contained in the
federal supply system. Shelf life is the total period of time beginning with the
date of manufacture, cure, assembly, or pack (subsistence only), that an item
may remain in the combined wholesale (including manufacturer's) and retail
storage systems, and still remain usable for issue and/or consumption by the end
user. Each item that meets the shelf-life criteria is assigned a National Stock
Number (NSN) and a specific shelf-life code. Typical shelf-life items include
food, medicines, batteries, paints, sealants, adhesives, film, tires, chemicals,
packaged petroleum products, hoses^elts, mission-critical o-rings, and
Nuclear/Biological/Chemical equipment and clothing. The shelf life code
identifies the shelf-life time period by which an item must be used, or subjected
to inspection/test/restoration or disposal action. These codes are identified in
Appendix A of the DoD 4140.27-M, and consist of two types, Type I and
Type U. Type I is an individual item of supply which is determined through an
evaluation of technical test data and/or actual experience, to be an item with a
2-I/A-2-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
definite nonextendible period of shelf life, and ends with the expiration date.
Type U is an individual item of supply having an assigned shelf-life time period
that may be extended after completion of inspection, test, or restorative action,
and is identified by an inspection/test/date. Points of Contact (POC), Shelf-Life
Extension System (SLES) information (QSL and MQCSS), training schedules
and information, subcommittee updates, dates of future meetings, minutes of
past meetings are included in the DoD Shelf-Life Program web site,
http ://www. shelflife.hq.dla.mil.
Measures that will improve management of hazardous materials shelf-life
include:
Procurement of materials in smaller quantities and units of issue so that all
the material can be used by the expiration date
Reduce inventory of material
Just-in-time procurement of material
Improve storage conditions for hazardous materials
Use of the Shelf-Life Extension System
Disposing of expired material promptly
Receiving shelf-life training
Communicating regularly with your shelf-life POCs and with Subcommittee
chairs.
Compliance
Benefit: Implementation of measures addressed above that will optimize the shelf life of
hazardous materials (i.e., procurement of smaller at one time, improved storage
conditions, etc.) will decrease the amount of hazardous materials purchased and
reduce the amount of hazardous waste generated.
The reduction of hazardous waste helps facilities meet the requirements of waste
reduction under RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix, and may also help facilities
reduce their generator status and lessen the amount of regulations (i.e.,
recordkeeping, reporting, inspections, transportation, accumulation time,
emergency prevention and preparedness, emergency response) they are
required to comply with under RCRA, 40 CFR 262. In addition, a shelf life
optimization program will decrease the amount of hazardous materials
purchased and stored on site thereby decrease the possibility that the facility
would meet any of the reporting thresholds of SARA Title m (40 CFR 300,
355, 370, and 372; and EO 12856). A shelf life optimization program may
also decrease the amount of oil stored on site below threshold amounts for the
requirement to develop and implement a Spill, Prevention, Control and
Countermeasure Plan under 40 CFR 112.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
2-I/A-2-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
Materials compatibility considerations are a key part of the analysis of each
individual hazardous product. This should include not only storage container
compatibility, but also storage conditions such as temperature, humidity,
atmosphere, light exposure, and mutual compatibility of chemical constituents of
products.
Safety and health are important benefits of maintaining an effective shelf life
program.
Materials that are used in critical applications within the DoD, especially those
operations where use of aged material could jeopardize the safety or health of
DoD personnel, may be assigned more conservative shelf life codes.
Consult your local health and safety personnel, and the appropriate MSDS for
specific precautions.
An effective shelf life management program will:
Reduce the total amount of hazardous materials purchased including
repurchase due to reordering of hazardous materiel
Reduce generation of hazardous waste
Require less procuring, handling, shipping, and storage of materials and
wastes because of decreased need for new materials and reduced
generation of waste materials
None identified.
The savings incurred through shelf-life management of hazardous materials
depend on how the program is organized at each activity. Reduced material
purchases and waste disposed must be determined on an individual basis to
assess the economic benefit of a shelf-life program.
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
2-I/A-2-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Approving
Authority:
The following directives describe appropriate shelf life management procedures
and policy.
DoD Directive 4140.2
DoD 4140.27-M
DLAR 4155.37/AR702-18/NAVSUPINST 4410.56/AFJMAN 23-
223/MCO4450.13
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
Source (s):
Mr. Mike Pipan
Headquarters, Defense Logistics Agency
Fort Belvoir, VA
(703) 767-1585, DSN 427-1585, Fax (703)767-2628
e-mail: michael_pipan@hq.dla.mil
Ms. Debbie Trautman
Navy Shelf-Life Pollution Prevention Program
Mechanicsburg, PA
(717) 605-1506, DSN 430-1506, Fax (717) 605-3480
e-mail: debbie_s_trautman@icpmech.navy.mil
None identified
Mr. Mike Pipan, DoD, 9/98.
2-I/A-2-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
CENTRALIZED HAZARDOUS MATERIAL/HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-11-99, ID-25-99; Air Force: MA01, HW01;
Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: High; Marine Corps: High; Army: High; Air Force: High
Alternative For: Traditional Non-Centralized Hazardous Material/Waste Management
Approaches
Compliance Areas: Medium
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Numerous
Overview: The Consolidated Hazardous Material Reutilization and Inventory Management
Program (CHRIMP) or Hazardous Material Pharmacy is a logistical
management system responsible for control of hazardous material inventories
from requisition to disposal. The Navy initiated the CHRIMP to significantly
reduce hazardous waste generation and disposal. The Air Force modified the
centralized hazardous materials management system and renamed it a
Pharmacy. The CHRIMP or Pharmacy manages authorization, procurement,
receipt, storage, issue, use, reuse/recycling and eventual disposal of hazardous
materials and their containers. This approach, including a centralized system
responsible for procurement, management and tracking of hazardous material
inventories, has helped DoD face the challenge of achieving control over the
acquisition and management of hazardous materials and disposal of hazardous
wastes.
Historically, military organizations utilize multiple, independent procurement
vehicles. Lack of acquisition, inventory, and management controls results in the
generation and disposal of significant quantities of excess, expired and
unserviceable hazardous materials. In response to an increasingly stringent
regulatory framework, DoD organizations applied pollution prevention concepts
to hazardous waste management.
A CHRIMP or Pharmacy is operated by multi-disciplinary teams representing a
variety of organizations including supply, contracting, procurement, safety,
industrial hygiene, environmental and public affairs. Successful facilities operate
on a just-in-time delivery basis, eliminating the tendency to overpurchase and
stockpile materials. The use of hazardous materials is restricted, based strictly
on need. CHRIMP/Pharmacy staff endeavor to issue materials in the smallest
container that meets mission requirements. Customers return unused materials
to the pharmacy for reissue.
2-I/A-3-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Establishing a CHRIMP/Pharmacy requires cooperation among all operations.
Quantities of materials already on site must be inventoried and each operation's
need for hazardous materials evaluated. A facility must be constructed or
modified and equipment purchased and installed. CHRIMP/Pharmacy
operating procedures must be defined. Staff require training in hazardous
material and hazardous waste management and transportation. In addition, the
CHRIMP/Pharmacy requires computer equipment and software to establish a
tracking system.
The tracking function facilitates compliance with reporting requirements. Data
from the tracking system can provide accurate accounting for EPCRA reporting
as well as an historic record of reductions in the use of specific hazardous
materials. The tracking begins when a material is ordered and follows the
material and its container through receipt, issue, use, return, reissue, recycling
and disposal.
The Naval Air Weapons Station (NAWS) at Point Mugu, California
implemented a Hazardous Material Minimization Center (HAZMINCEN). as
an integral part of a base-wide plan for hazardous material management, the
Consolidated Hazardous Material Reutilization and Inventory Management
Program (CHREVIP). Staff established a system of credits and billings to
control inventory and purchase of all hazardous materials and established a
delivery system to respond to work order requests and to pick up any unused
materials. Efficient inventory management techniques reduced local purchases
of hazardous materials. Pi. Mugu utilizes the Hazardous Inventory Control
System (HICS). Using HICS, staff can create a unique bar-code for each
container issued, process material requisitions and track receipts and issues.
HICS also provides on-line inventory accounting and automatic data collection.
In 1994, the Navy issued a CHREVIP manual including HICS software and a
User's Guide that outlines the methodology for implementing a HICS-based,
centralized hazardous material management program
A number of Air Force bases have committed to the Hazmat Pharmacy
concept. At Andrews AFB in Maryland, the pharmacy provides a single point
of control and accountability for hazardous materials for a joint services team
including the Navy, Air National Guard, Army and Marines. The Andrews
AFB pharmacy has virtually eliminated redundancy in procurement of hazardous
materials. The pharmacy at Nellis AFB in Nevada uses decentralized ordering
and centralized delivery systems. Each request to purchase hazardous material
must be approved by Bioenvironmental Engineering to ensure that personnel are
trained and equipped to use the material properly. The Air Force Center for
Environmental Excellence (AFCEE) developed the Commander's Guide to
The Implementation of the Hazardous Material Pharmacy, which provides
2-I/A-3-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Compliance
Benefit:
guidance in planning and implementing a pharmacy. USAF Hazmat Pharmacies
utilize the Air Force Environmental Management Information System (AF-
EMIS), an automated data processing program.
Implementation of a centralized hazardous materials program allows facilities to
control their acquisition and inventory which results in the generation and
disposal of less quantities of excess, expired and unserviceable hazardous
materials.
The reduction of less quantities of excess, expired and unserviceable hazardous
materials means less hazardous waste. This benefit helps facilities meet the
requirements of waste reduction under RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix, and
may also help facilities reduce their generator status and lessen the amount of
regulations (i.e., recordkeeping, reporting, inspections, transportation,
accumulation time, emergency prevention and preparedness, emergency
response) they are required to comply with under RCRA, 40 CFR 262. In
addition, a centralized hazardous materials program will decrease the amount of
hazardous materials purchased and stored on site (since the facility will know
inventory is on hand) therefore decrease the possibility that the facility would
meet any of the reporting thresholds of SARA Title m (40 CFR 300, 355,
370, and 372; and EO 12856). A centralized hazardous materials program
may also decrease the amount of oil stored on site below threshold amounts for
the requirement to develop and implement a Spill, Prevention, Control and
Countermeasure Plan under 40 CFR 112.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
No materials compatibility issues were identified.
Reduction in quantity of hazardous material on-site reduces worker exposure
and potential for spills and accidents. Materials are managed only by trained
staff utilizing proper personal protection equipment.
Ease of compliance with regulatory reporting requirements
Improper management and storage of incompatible materials is eliminated.
2-I/A-3-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Disadvantages:
Substantial reductions in the costs associated with acquisition, storage,
management and disposal of hazardous materials. For example, at Pi.
Mugu, total cost avoidance benefits exceeded $1 million
Improved quality and availability of materials for all operations
Elimination of excess, expired and unusable materials
Improved worker health and safety
Increased awareness of and emphasis on pollution prevention and
substitution of less or non-hazardous products and processes
Resistance to change among facility staff
Substantial initial investment in site, equipment, staff training and labor to
identify, authorize and move hazardous materials to central pharmacy
location.
Economic
Analysis:
NSN/MSDS:
The costs and benefits of a properly established pharmacy program to manage
hazardous materials and hazardous waste vary depending on the size and
mission of each facility and should be evaluated on a facility by facility basis.
Over time, with the proper management strategies in place, cost savings may be
quite substantial.
Product
None Identified
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
Approving
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Mr. John Hannum, Program Manager
Hazardous Material Control & Mgmt./CHRIMP
DSN 332-6844, (703) 602-6844
Air Force:
Ms. Beth Davis, AF-EMIS Program Manager
Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE)
DSN 240-4220, (210) 536-4220
2-I/A-3-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
HAZMAT Pharmacy at Nellis AFB
Beverly Fussell
Chief, Pollution Prevention
DSN 682-4352, (702) 652-4352, Fax (702) 652-6098
Sources: Conversations with Lt. Jim Morales, Point Mugu Naval Air Weapons Station, 3/97
Conversations withMsgt. Edwards HAZMAT Pharmacy at Andrews AFB, 3/97
Conversations with Beverly Fussell HAZMAT Pharmacy at Nellis AFB, 3/97
2-I/A-3-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
SOFTWARE TO EVALUATE THE PROFITABILITY OF POLLUTION PREVENTION
INVESTMENTS USING METHOD OF "TOTAL COST ASSESSMENT"
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: N/A; Air Force: N/A; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
Alternative For: Conventional Financial Analysis
Compliance Areas: Medium
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: N/A
Overview: "Total cost assessment (TCA)" is a method to eliminate unjustified and
misleading financial barriers in consideration of pollution prevention processes
and projects. The TCA method's focus is on the "true" profitability of
proposed projects and differs from conventional financial analysis in four ways:
Cost, savings, and revenue summaries include indirect items like
compliance, training, testing, liability, and affect on product and corporate
image, all typically neglected from project analysis.
Costs and savings are directly allocated to specific process and product
accounts rather than to overhead accounts.
Time horizons for calculating returns on investment are extended to capture
longer-term benefits.
Other profitability measures include the time value of money for evaluating
long-term costs and savings.
Using the TCA method, the Tellus Institute has completed several major studies
including: 1) a study for the EPA Division of Pollution Prevention entitled, "Total
Cost Assessment: Accelerating Industrial Pollution Prevention through
Innovative Project Financial Analysis," and 2) a study for the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection and Energy entitled, "Alternative
Approaches to the Financial Evaluation of Industrial Pollution Prevention
Investments." Furthermore, Tellus has incorporated the TCA method into its
software, "P2/FINANCE"
P2/FINANCE is spreadsheet software designed to guide companies in data
collection and rigorous financial evaluation of potential pollution prevention
projects. As a starting point or a complement to a company's existing project
evaluation procedure, P2/FINANCE assures that pollution prevention projects
have accurate financial representation and receive due consideration when
capital budgeting is done. In addition, the program can compare the costs of
current practices to various alternatives based on a number of criteria: liability,
cost, debt, interest and tax rates, inflation, and depreciation.
2-I/A-4-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
The program is available in either Microsoft Excel 5.0 or Lotus 1-2-3 for MS-
DOS 3.1 (or higher) formats, and comes complete with a User's Manual and
user support, if desired. A mouse and color screen are optional, but they do
simplify operation of the program. For larger groups and organizations, one day
training on TCA and P2/FINANCE is available.
Compliance
Benefit:
"Total cost assessment (TCA)" may demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of
various pollution prevention projects to funding personnel. This demonstration
may help facility comply with all environmental regulations.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility: N/A
Safety
and Health: N/A
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
NSN/MSDS:
TCA focuses on true profitability of proposed proj ects
TCA method is more detailed than conventional financial analysis for
pollution prevention projects.
Users may need to set aside time to educate themselves on the TCA
method so that they will understand how to plan an analysis (plug in the
appropriate variables) for accurate results
The software is available free of charge for all U.S. government agencies. For
those without a licensing agreement, a demo diskette and user's manual can be
purchased for $35.
Product
None Identified
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
Approving
Authority:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
2-I/A-4-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
Source:
Tellus Institute for Resource and Environmental Strategies
11 Arlington Street
Boston, MA 02116-3411
(617) 266-5400, Fax (617) 266-8303
Ms. Deb Savage
Tellus Institute's "P2/FINANCE" software is licensed by the U.S. EPA. It is
available free of charge to all U.S. government agencies by calling the EPA's
Pollution Prevention Information (P2I) Clearinghouse at (202) 260-1023. The
P2I Clearinghouse will mail a diskette of the desired version (Lotus 3.4a and
Excel 5.0) upon request. For those without a licensing agreement, a demo
diskette and user's manual are available from Tellus for $35. Details about the
complete licensing agreements for individuals and organizations, which may
include training and follow-up support, are also available from Tellus.
See Points of Contact.
The Tellus Institute 's P2/FINANCE documentation.
2-I/A-4-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
WASTE ANALYSIS PLAN
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-25-99; Air Force: HW01; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: High; Marine Corps: High; Army: High; Air Force: High
Alternative For: Non-centralized, non-standard means of determining the characteristics of
wastes in order to determine proper disposal
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Various
Overview: A waste analysis plan serves to standardize and optimize the required testing of
wastes so that all wastes at a site are properly characterized prior to disposal in
a simple and efficient manner. A waste analysis plan establishes the
characterization frequency and analytical requirements to be satisfied for every
identified waste at the installation and provides guidance for handling new
wastes.
1. Responsibilities for Characterization Prior to Disposal: The personnel
that make decisions regarding waste characterization and disposal must be
trained in the regulatory requirements of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), and must know who establishes and enforces those
regulations in the generator's location. The applicable hazardous waste
regulatory program could be operated by a regional office of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) or by an EPA-approved state agency. In this data
sheet, only references to federal regulations are provided. However, additional
or alternative state regulations may apply. All state programs have the same
basic regulatory requirements as the federal program, but may also have
additional requirements. It is critical that state-specific regulations be reviewed
before waste management plans are developed.
Waste management personnel must understand the details of the
characterization requirements described below so that any required testing and
analysis can be integrated into the waste analysis plan. In addition to determining
if a waste is covered by the RCRA hazardous waste regulations, a waste's
characterization must also be sufficient to determine what waste disposal
options (neutralization or other treatment, landfilling, incineration) are available
for that waste.
For any waste that requires sampling and testing to determine its characteristics,
the following information must be developed:
the required parameters for sufficient characterization,
the tools required for sampling,
2-I/B-l-l
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
the method used for sampling,
the holding time of the sample,
the laboratory analytical method to be used,
the degree of detail in the reporting data and quality control, and
the maximum allowable concentration of the parameters of interest for the
desired means of disposal.
2. Characterization by Generator Knowledge of a Listed Hazardous
Waste: The circumstances associated with the generation of each waste
determine what means of characterization is required. First, the waste must fit
the definition of solid waste stated in 40 CFR 261.2 and not fit the definition of
any exclusions listed in 40 CFR 261.4. Excluded wastes may be covered by
other regulatory programs, or may be allowable in the municipal solid waste
stream if not prohibited by the local solid waste ordinance. Also, Appendix I of
CFR 260 includes diagrams for generators to use as a basic reference to
determine whether their operation is subject to control under RCRA Subtitle C
rules. It is designed to help generators define with which of the regulations, if
any, they should comply.
If a waste is a solid waste (by RCRA definition), it may be a "listed hazardous
waste," as specifically defined in 40 CFR 261 Subpart D (Parts 261.30 through
261.35). If the waste meets the definition of a "listed waste," based on the
circumstances of the generation of the waste, then documented generator
knowledge may be enough for a sufficient characterization to satisfy all disposal
requirements. This also applies to a mix of a "listed waste" and another type of
waste (per 40 CFR 261.3 [a] [2]), and also to a waste that is derived from a
"listed waste" (per 40 CFR 261.3 [c] [2]). An example of a derived waste is
the ash that remains from a listed hazardous waste that burned.
Each individual listed hazardous waste is assigned one or more waste type
designations, based on the criteria of being ignitable (I), corrosive (C), reactive
(R), toxicity characteristic (E), acutely hazardous (FT), or toxic (T). Based on
these characteristics, EPA specifies four hazardous waste lists, described
below.
List Name
Non-specific Source Wastes
Specific Source Wastes
Discarded Commercial Chemical
Products - Acutely Hazardous
Discarded Commercial Products -
Hazardous
Designation
FList
KList
PList
UList
40 CFR Citation
261.31
261.32
261.33(e)
261.33(f)
2-I/B-1-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
In order to determine if a specific waste is included in one of these lists, the lists
provided in 40 CFR Part 261 must be referenced. Acute hazardous waste
includes not only the "P List" waste chemicals, but selected "F List" waste types
marked in the regulation with an (H). (Note that rules for accumulating waste
often have specific requirements to address acutely hazardous waste.)
The waste analysis plan should include an updated description of each specific
source of listed hazardous wastes generated at the installation.
3 Characterization by Sampling and Analysis of a Characteristic
Hazardous Waste: If a waste is a solid waste (by RCRA definition), but does
not meet the definition of any of the "listed hazardous wastes," it may still be
considered a hazardous waste if the material exhibits any of the characteristics
as defined in 40 CFR 261 Subpart C (Parts 261.20 through 24). Sampling and
testing are required to determine the following hazardous characteristics:
Ignitability (RCRA code DOO1)
Corrosivity (RCRA code D002)
Reactivity (RCRA code D003)
Toxicity (RCRA codes D004 through D0043)
The suggested sampling procedures to create a representative sample of
different specific waste forms (such as drummed liquid, saturated soil, etc.) are
provided in an EPA guidance manual titled Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Wastes, EPA document SW846. The specific analytical laboratory testing
methods for each hazardous characteristic are specified in 40 CFR 261 Subpart
C by specific references to SW846.
To develop a waste analysis plan, a standard method of sampling and
laboratory analysis for each waste should be selected based on the guidance
provided in SW846 (or other applicable EPA guidance manuals) and the
background knowledge of the generator. Every analysis does not have to be
performed for every waste if the generator can provide documented support
that certain compounds are unlikely to be present.
4.Determining the Frequency of Characterization: Per 40 CFR 264.13
(a)(3), "Waste analysis must be repeated as often as necessary to ensure that it
is accurate and up to date." This means that an analysis of a waste is necessary
whenever any of the following circumstances occur:
the generator is aware of a change in the process that produces the waste,
the generator is aware that a waste was tainted by inadvertent mixing with
another waste,
the receiving TSD facility determined through analysis that the waste no
longer matches the expected characteristics, or
2-I/B-1-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
there is a change to the hazardous waste regulations that apply to that
waste.
Compliance
Benefit:
A waste analysis plan serves to standardize and optimize the required testing of
wastes so that all wastes at a site are properly characterized prior to disposal in
a simple and efficient manner. Therefore, the plan helps facilities comply with the
requirements under RCRA 40 CFR 262.11, which requires persons who
generate solid waste to determine if their waste is hazardous. In addition, the
plan helps to ensure that non-hazardous waste is classified as non-hazardous
and not hazardous. This may allow facilities to reduce their generator status and
lessen the amount of regulations (i.e., recordkeeping, reporting, inspections,
transportation, accumulation time, emergency prevention and preparedness,
emergency response) they are required to comply with under RCRA, 40 CFR
262.34.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility: N/A
Safety
and Health: N/A
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
The development and correct use of a waste analysis plan can:
Help to avoid the unnecessary expense of disposing of non-hazardous
wastes using hazardous waste disposal methods or contractors
Help to avoid regulatory violations that can result in large fines and negative
public exposure for the mismanagement or improper disposal of hazardous
waste
Minimize the time and money required for sufficient characterization of
wastes and selection of proper disposal methods
Personnel must be specially trained to make decisions regarding waste
characterization and disposal and to develop these decisions into a plan
Savings incurred through the use of a waste analysis plan are dependent upon
site specific details.
2-I/B-1-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
Approving
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Vendors:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
The Hazardous Technical Information Services (HTIS) helpline (phone [800]
848-4847), the RCRA hotline (phone [800] 424-9346), agencies associated
with environmental compliance within each branch of the U.S. military, and
environmental compliance specialists at each U.S. military installation can
provide technical assistance necessary to develop an installation-specific waste
analysis plan.
A guide for developing a formalized, installation-specific waste analysis plan is
available through the National Technical Information Service (phone [703] 487-
4660) or the U.S. Government Printing Office (phone [202] 512-1800).
Request the EPA Guidance Manual: Waste Analysis At Facilities That
Generate, Treat, Store, and Dispose of Hazardous Wastes, document
number PB94-963903, April 1994.
The EPA guidance manual titled Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes,
EPA document SW846, is available through the U.S. Government Printing
Office (phone (202) 512-1800).
2-I/B-1-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTAINER LABELING, STORAGE, AND TRANSPORTATION
Revision: 9/98
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-25-99; Air Force: HW01; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: High; Marine Corps: High; Army: High; Air Force: High
Alternative For: Unsafe or Sub-Standard Handling Of Hazardous Wastes at the Generating
Location
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Target Constituents: Various
Overview: The proper handling techniques for containers of hazardous wastes are defined
within the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations.
Containers that are properly selected, labeled, and handled will minimize the
risk of spills that might lead to personal injury or pollution to the environment.
Specific handling requirements depend on the available facilities, the volume of
waste generated a month and the desired mode of hazardous waste handling
and transportation.
The personnel that make decisions regarding hazardous waste containers,
labeling, storage, and transportation must be trained in the regulatory
requirements of RCRA, and must know who establishes and enforces those
regulations in the generator's location. The applicable hazardous waste
regulatory program could be operated by a regional office of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) or by an EPA-approved state agency. In this data
sheet, only references to federal regulations are provided. However, additional
or alternative state regulations may apply. All state programs have the same
basic regulatory requirements as the federal program but should be consulted
prior to establishing any procedures.
This data sheet addresses the generator's requirements for container type,
marking, and labeling. For the purpose of this data sheet, an installation may
have more than one waste-generating site. Proper preparation of hazardous
wastes for off-site transport must be performed by trained personnel in
accordance with the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act regulations
provided in 49 CFR Subchapter C (Parts 171 through 177). Often times, the
hazardous waste transporter will be responsible for providing compliance with
49 CFR 171-177.
1. Container Storage
In general, hazardous waste may be stored in accordance with one of five
sets of regulatory requirements. The requirements for an "initial accumulation
area" (also called a "satellite accumulation area"); the requirements of a "
90-day storage area;" the requirements of a "180-day storage area," the
requirements of a conditionally exempt small quantity generator, or the
2-I/B-2-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
requirements for a permitted treatment, storage, or disposal (TSD) facility
must be satisfied for each location where hazardous waste is stored.
Fulfilling the requirements for a TSD facility is a complicated and demanding
task that is far beyond the requirements for storing wastes from a single
waste-generating process at an installation with multiple waste-generating
sites. By comparison, the requirements for an "initial accumulation area" or
a "180- or 90-day storage area" area much less complex and still provide
an area that is suitable for many waste-generating situations.
The regulatory limit for accumulating hazardous waste at an "initial
accumulation area" is volume-based (no more than 55 gallons allowed, in
most cases), while the limit for accumulating hazardous waste at a "180- or
90-day storage area" is time-based (no longer than 180 days or 90 days of
storage allowed, in most cases) but also relates to volume. Generators who
generate greater than 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste a month may
only store waste on-site for 90 days or less. Generators who generate
between 100 to 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste a month may store
waste on-site for up to 180 days. Generators who generate 100 kilograms
of hazardous waste or less a month, in most cases ("conditionally exempt
small quantity generators") do not have to meet any time limit on the storage
of their hazardous wastes, container selection and labeling requirements.
When the corresponding limit is reached at any type of storage area, the
waste must then be transferred. Hazardous waste from an "initial
accumulation area" can be moved to an on-site "90-day or 180-day
storage area" or a permitted TSD facility. Hazardous waste from a "180-
day or 90-day storage area" can only be moved to a permitted TSD
facility.
An "initial accumulation area" must be located at or near the waste-
generating activity and be under the direct supervision of the operator of the
activity. In accordance with 40 CFR 262.34 (c):
No more than 55 gallons of hazardous waste or 1 quart of acutely
hazardous waste may be accumulated at an "initial accumulation area."
There is no time limit on how long it takes for waste to be accumulated
up to the volume limit.
A container holding hazardous waste must always be kept closed during
storage except when it is necessary to add or remove waste.
If the container holding the waste leaks, the waste must be transferred
to a new container.
Once the volume limit is exceeded, the generator must mark the
hazardous waste container with that date, and transfer that waste out of
the area within 3 days.
2-I/B-2-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
A " 90-day storage area" must be located on site at the installation and be
managed in accordance with the following requirements from 40 CFR
262.34 (a).
Any volume of hazardous waste can be collected and stored in
acceptable containers, tanks, or containment buildings (or drip pads, in
the case of equipment that contains hazardous waste), providing no
accumulated hazardous waste remains in storage for more than 90 days.
A container holding hazardous waste must always be kept closed during
storage except when it is necessary to add or remove waste.
The container must not be handled in a manner that will cause it to leak.
If the container holding the waste leaks or is not in good condition, the
waste must be transferred to a new container.
The containers must be inspected at least weekly for leaks and signs of
corrosion.
Containers holding ignitable or reactive waste must be located at least
50 feet from the installation property line.
Containers of incompatible waste must be separated by means of a
dike, berm, wall, or other structure.
A "90-day storage area" must have preparedness and prevention
equipment (i.e., communication, alarm, and fire-fighting systems in
accordance with 40 CFR Part 265 Subpart C (265.30 through 37)).
This subpart also covers requirements for aisle space between
containers, arrangements with local authorities, access to equipment,
and testing and maintenance of equipment.
A "90-day storage area" must have a contingency plan with established
emergency procedures in accordance with 40 CFR Part 265 Subpart D
(265.50 through 56).
Facilities with a "90-day storage area" must ensure personnel receive
training in accordance with 40 CFR Part 265.16.
Facilities with" 90-day storage areas" must comply with land disposal
restrictions in accordance with 40 CFR Part 268.7(a)(4).
If a container of hazardous waste is kept at a "180- or 90-day storage area"
for the purpose of collecting small quantities of waste over time, the time
limit for that container begins with the original addition of waste. If a filled
container of hazardous waste from an "initial accumulation area" arrives at a
"180- or 90-day storage area," the time limit for that container began when
the volume limit of 55 gallons (or 1 quart of acute hazardous waste) was
first exceeded at the "initial accumulation area."
A " 180-day storage area" must be located on site at the installation and be
managed in accordance with the following requirements from 40 CFR
262.34 (d).
2-I/B-2-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
The quantity of waste accumulated on-site never exceeds 6,000
kilograms.
A " 180-day storage area" must comply with specific emergency
response and preparedness requirements.
Any quantity stored in tanks must meet the requirements of 40 CFR
265.201.
Meets the container storage requirements under the "90-day storage
area" requirements listed above that are marked with an asterisk.
2 Container Selection
A container used to collect hazardous waste at an "initial accumulation area"
or a "180- or 90-day storage area" must meet the following requirements
(per 40 CFR 262.34).
The waste being placed in the container must be compatible with the
container. (The operator of the "initial accumulation area" can confirm
the compatibility of a stored material and a container material by
referencing any of a variety of handbooks or manuals on the subject,
such as Table 23-3 of the Chemical Engineering Handbook by Perry
and Chilton. The MSDS may also be helpful in identifying suitable
storage conditions. Under many circumstances, the only commonly
handled wastes not compatible with a steel container are highly
corrosive wastes, such as waste acids, which must be stored in a plastic
or plastic-lined container.)
Incompatible wastes must not be placed in the same container unless it
does not produce a hazard listed in 40 CFR 265.17(b). Similarly, a
waste can not be stored in a container that has previously stored a
different waste with which it is incompatible.
3 Container Labeling
For an "initial accumulation area" (per 40 CFR 262.34 [c]):
Containers must be marked with the words "Hazardous Waste" or with
other words that identify the contents of the container.
For a "180- or 90-day storage area" (per 40 CFR 262.34 [a] and [d]):
The storage container must be labeled with the words "Hazardous
Waste".
Containers that accumulate waste while being stored must be clearly
marked with the date when the container began accumulating waste and
the date must be visible for inspection on each container.
Containers that arrive from an "initial accumulation area" must be clearly
marked with the date when the container became full.
2-I/B-2-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
4. On-Site Movement of Containers
As stated in 40 CFR 263.10 (b), "These regulations [for permitted
transportation of hazardous waste via air, water, or public highway] do not
apply to on-site transportation of hazardous waste by generators or by
owners or operators of permitted hazardous waste management facilities."
However, it is recommended that standard safety guidelines for the handling
of hazardous waste be implemented for on-site transportation activities.
Typical standard operating procedures are as follows.
Prior to transport, the hazardous waste container must be completely
closed and sealed. Bungs must be tightened, and lids must be in place
with bolt rings tightened.
Prior to transport, the container must be inspected to ensure that it can
be safely transported without risk of spills or leaks. If a container is
damaged, corroded, or otherwise structurally inadequate, the waste
must be transferred to a new container or placed in an approved
overpack drum prior to moving.
The transfer of a container between an area and a vehicle must be
accomplished using appropriate equipment in a way as to minimize the
possibility of an accident or spill.
Other installation-specific documentation may be required at the time of
transfer.
Compliance
Benefit:
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Proper hazardous waste containers, labeling, storage and transportation are
required under RCRA, 40 CFR 262.34. Additionally, the proper management
of containers minimizes the risk of spills and therefore decreases the possibility
the facility will need to meet the emergency response requirements under 40
CFR262.34 (a)(4) and 262.34(d)(5)(iv)
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
See section on "container selection" above.
Consult your local safety and health personnel for specific precautions.
Containers that are properly selected, labeled, and handled will minimize the
risk of releasing hazardous waste that might lead to facility damage,
personal injury, or pollution of the environment.
2-I/B-2-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
Personnel may require "re-training" to learn to modify their regular work
habits.
The savings obtained through the use of proper handling techniques of
containers of hazardous waste depends on the size of the facility and the
activities conducted at the facility. Improper handling can lead to spills and
injuries which may be costly for a facility. In addition, most of the requirements
in this fact sheet are required to be followed under federal regulations and can
carry high civil and criminal penalties if they are not followed.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
Pallet, material handling
Storage container, dual drum
Pallet, spill containment
NSN
3990-01-376-5935
8145-01-387-0024
4235-01-443-6342
Unit Size
Ea.
Ea.
Ea.
Cost
$227.68
$539.21
$300.42
Approving
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Vendors:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
The Hazardous Technical Information Services (HTIS) helpline (phone [800]
848-4847), RCRA hotline ([800] 424-9346), State environmental agencies,
agencies associated with environmental compliance within each branch of the
U.S. military, and environmental compliance specialists at each U.S. military
installation can provide assistance in determining the proper container, labeling,
storage, and transport requirements for a hazardous waste with known
characteristics.
Lireben Associates Engineered Products, Inc.
Reginald Woody
P.O. Box 110
Mansfield, MA 02048-0110
508-339-9677
(flammable liquid storage lockers, drums, overpacks)
Lab Safety Supply
P.O. Box 1368
Janesville, Wisconsin 53547
1-800-356-0783
(drums, containers, labels)
2-I/B-2-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
RECYCLING PHOTO/X-RAY PROCESSING AND PRINTING WASTES
Revision: 9/98
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-25-99; Air Force: HW01; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
Alternative For: Disposal of Spent Photographic And X-Ray Processing And Printing Solutions
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Heavy/Toxic Metals Including Cadmium (CAS: 7440-
43-9), Hexavalent Chromium, Cyanide, Lead (CAS: 7439-92-1), Mercury (CAS: 7439-97-6), and
Silver (CAS: 7440-22-4), Organics
Overview: Disposal of spent photographic and X-ray processing and printing solutions is
expensive and difficult. The wastes generated by these processes typically
contain elevated concentrations of heavy metals, organic compounds, and other
toxic constituents unacceptable for direct discharge to a sewer system. In
addition, as a result of the specialized characteristics of these solutions, they
generally have very little, if any, value other than for their intended application.
There are, however, various technologies that can be applied to treat certain
solutions prior to disposal and/or to recover constituents of the waste streams
that have value (e.g. silver recovery from specific photographic process
wastes).
Silver may cause a material to be classified as a RCRA hazardous waste by the
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) (40 CFR 261.24).
However, for a material to be a RCRA-hazardous waste, it must first fit the
definition of a solid waste under RCRA (40 CFR 261).
Per a July 16, 1990, letter from Sylvia Lowrance (EPA) to Ralph Eschborn, the
EPA considers spent photographic solutions as "spent materials," which is a
subcategory of solid wastes (40 CFR 261.2 [c], Table 1). Further
interpretation is provided by a February 28, 1994, letter from Michael Shapiro
(EPA) to Scott Donovan:
"Provided that economically significant quantities of silver are reclaimed from the
[spent] solution, [then] the generation, transport, and storage prior to
reclamation of the solutions is not subject to the general RCRA Subtitle C
requirements for recyclable materials... but rather a different set of regulatory
requirements specified at 40 CFR Part 266 Subpart F [40 CFR 266.70]." In
addition, "Under RCRA Subtitle C regulation [and 40 CFR 261.2 (c), Table
1.], characteristic sludges being reclaimed are not within the definition of solid
waste."
In summary, 40 CFR 266.70 states that persons who generate, transport, or
store recyclable materials that are reclaimed to recover economically significant
2-II-1-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
amounts of gold, silver, platinum, or any combination of these must apply for an
EPA or EPA-approved state generator identification number, and must also use
the EPA or EPA-approved state manifest system to document all off-site
transportation of solutions destined for reclamation of precious metals.
However, once reclaimed, the silver is exempt from all hazardous waste
regulations. Also, if the resulting treated liquid does not exceed the RCRA
toxicity characteristic limits for silver (5 mg/L) or any other TCLP compound,
than it is considered to be a non-hazardous material.
The DoD's Precious Metal Recovery Program (PMRP) (DoD 4160.21-M) is
a program which promotes the economic recovery of precious metals from
excess and surplus precious metal-bearing materials, and also the realization of
recovered fine precious metal for authorized internal purposes. The PRMP sets
responsibilities, turn in and processing requirements, precious metal recovery
equipment requirements, transportation requirements, security requirements and
reutilization requirements. Under the PRMP, recovered silver is refined and
placed in a depository account until its use is required for other DoD purposes.
There are various technologies for recovering/recycling materials from spent
photographic and X-ray processing and printing waste solutions. The most
concentrated silver-containing waste in film and image processing is spent or
excess fixer bath solution. In a typical film developing operation, fixer solution is
continuously added to maintain solution strength. As a result, there is generally
an overflow of fixer from the bath. The concentration of silver in the overflow
may vary greatly depending on the type and amount of film processed,
frequently exceeding 5 grams per liter. Because of this high silver concentration,
silver recovery from the fixer solution is cost effective.
When the film is moved from the fixer to the rinse, it carries a small amount of
silver which is removed by the rinse water. Rinse waters contain low
concentrations of silver, ranging from less than 1 milligram per liter (mg/1) to
greater than 5 mg/1. Although there is little economic benefit to recovering silver
from rinse water, environmental regulations prohibit discharge of untreated rinse
water if the silver concentration exceeds regulatory limits. Nearly all the silver in
photographic wastes is bound up in silver thiosulfate complexes, which are
highly stable. However, federal, state, and local regulations governing silver-
containing wastes do not distinguish between different forms of silver.
There are several technology categories that are used for silver recovery,
including precipitation, ion exchange, reductive exchange, electrolytic recovery,
reverse osmosis, and electrodialysis. The specific technology to be applied for
a particular waste stream will be based on the waste characteristics, volume,
and treatment objectives. For example, if reduction of silver concentrations to
meet wastewater effluent limitations is the primary treatment objective, then a
technology which achieves extremely high silver recovery from the waste stream
2-11-1-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
is probably not a cost-effective application. On the other hand, in cases where
silver recovery is of primary importance, then application of a highly efficient
system, such as reverse osmosis or ion exchange, makes sense. The following
paragraphs provide brief descriptions of various technologies used for treating
silver-laden waste streams. Although this discussion centers on the application
of these technologies for silver treatment and/or recovery, these technologies
are also effective in addressing additional waste constituents, as described
herein.
1. Waste Stream Heavy Metal Precipitation: Hydroxide precipitation of
metal-laden wastewater is a common technology that has been proven
effective for several decades. The concept of this technology includes
adjustment of the waste stream pH to a level at which the targeted metal is
least soluble and will readily precipitate from solution. Precipitated solids
are agglomerated, allowed to settle out, and then withdrawn from the
treatment unit as a metal hydroxide sludge. Since the optimal treatment pH
for various targeted metal species ranges from about pH 7 to over pH 12,
most hydroxide precipitation systems are only effective in co-precipitating
two, or perhaps three, different metals. As a result, most metal wastewater
treatment systems which deal with multiple metal species include some
means to segregate the waste stream flow trains, to more effectively address
specific metals. Hydroxide precipitation of silver is effective, although it is
not widely utilized, due to unfavorable economics and lower recovery
efficiencies than competitive technologies.
Silver is frequently precipitated from metal wastewater as silver chloride,
which is extremely insoluble. Thus, silver can be selectively removed from a
mixed metal wastestream without prior segregation or co-precipitation
interference. Should alkaline conditions exist in the silver treatment
wastestream, resulting in co-precipitation of additional metal species, the
precipitated metal sludges can be acid washed to leave the insoluble silver
chloride compound. Alternative silver precipitation processes, such as the
patented process developed by Eastman Kodak, are available. These
processes rely on the use of magnesium sulfate and lime. The silver then
precipitates as a mixed sulfate-oxide and is recovered from the settled
sludge.
Sulfide is also widely used and is one of the oldest technologies for silver
recovery in the photographic film processing industry. Hydrosulfite
precipitation results in formation of both free silver and sulfide, with a more
compact precipitate with favorable settling qualities. Disadvantages of this
method include relatively high chemical costs and the need for supplemental
heat input.
2-II-1-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Precipitation is not commonly used to recover silver from film processing
operations, nor is it commonly used to process liquid wastes to meet
discharge limits.
2. Ion Exchange: Ion exchange is commonly used for silver recovery from
liquid waste streams. One patented process exists which involves silver
recovery from dilute photographic processing wash water by passage
through a mixture of basic ion exchange resins. Silver retained on the resin
is recovered through either elution of silver salts from the resin bed or by
direct resin incineration and pure silver recovery. An ion exchange system
for silver cyanide rinsewaters has also been developed, which consists of a
five-column unit. In the first column, a cation exchange resin converts the
silver cyanide to a silver hydrogen cyanide complex. The second column
contains an anion exchange resin, which removes the silver cyanide. The
effluent from the second column is then treated with sodium or potassium
cyanide to recover the silver as either sodium or potassium silver cyanide.
The additional three columns are used to achieve additional cyanide
removal.
Another application of ion exchange technology for silver recovery utilizes a
Type I, strong base gel anion resin to selectively remove silver from waste
rinses. The dissolved silver is present as a negatively charged thiosulfate
anionic complex which exchanges with sulfate ions on the anion resin. The
resin bed is then rinsed with 2 percent sulfuric acid to precipitate the silver
collected on the resin. The effluent from this rinse is then collected,
neutralized, and discharged. This system is capable of reducing silver
concentrations in the treated effluent to between 0.1 and 2.0 mg/1. After a
sufficient number of cycles through the resin bed, the ion exchange capacity
of the resin bed to remove silver will be exhausted. At this time, the resin is
sent to a silver refiner for incineration and silver recovery.
Automated ion exchange columns units generally cost several thousand
dollars and are practical only for large processing facilities. An ion
exchange column is not suitable for high concentrations of silver, but may
work well for recovering silver from fixer bath overflows that are diluted
with rinse waters.
3. Metallic Replacement: This method utilizes iron metal (typically steel
wool) to react with silver thiosulfate solution in photo processing fixer
solutions and rinse waters. The iron replaces the silver in solution, while the
silver settles out as a solid, for subsequent removal. The silver-laden waste
solution is passed through a container filled with steel wool as a means of
contacting the silver with the iron. The typical system consists of two
chemical cartridges installed in series. The silver concentration in the treated
effluent is generally below 5 mg/1. There are three disadvantages of this
2-II-1-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
system: silver is recovered as a sludge, which is more difficult and expensive
to process than alternative technologies; chemical recovery cartridges can
not be reused and, thus, must be replaced when exhausted; and the
cartridge effluent wastestream contains high iron concentrations. The
advantage to this technology is that it is low cost, readily available, and
requires no energy or special plumbing connections.
4. Electrolytic Silver Recovery: In this method, silver-laden solutions are
passed through a system containing an anode-cathode array, which applies
a controlled current. As the solution flows through the system, silver in
virtually pure form is plated on the cathode. Once a sufficient quantity of
silver has been accumulated on the cathode, the silver is recovered. Two
disadvantages of the electrolytic recovery method are the relatively high
capital costs and the lower treatment efficiency (typical silver effluent
concentrations are in the range of 100 to 200 ppm). In common practice,
electrolytic and metallic replacement systems are used in series, whereby
the electrolytic unit will remove up to 90 percent of the silver in the influent,
with the metallic replacement system removing most of the remaining silver
in solution. However, even when these two technologies are used in
combination, they still are not capable of achieving silver effluent
concentrations to well below 5 ppm. Ion exchange or other alternative
technologies must be implemented if extremely low effluent silver
concentrations are consistently required.
Electrolytic recovery systems can also be used "in-line" for silver recovery in
fixer solutions. Since much of the silver is recovered during the in-line
process, often the only final treatment required is a metallic replacement
cartridge system. Another benefit of in-line silver recovery is that less silver
is carried into the wash water, since the concentration in the fixer bath is
maintained at a lower concentration.
5. Reverse Osmosis: This method uses high pressure to force a liquid
solution through a semi-permeable membrane, which will separate larger
molecule substances, such as salts and organic compounds, from smaller
molecular substances, such as water. Reverse osmosis (RO) is capable of
removing up to 90 percent of silver thiosulfate complexes (the most
common silver compound present in most photo processing solutions) from
wash water. Along with silver, RO is effective in removing almost all other
chemicals in solution. On this basis, RO is used to recover such photo
processing chemicals as color couplers and ferrocyanide. An additional
benefit of RO treatment is that, due to its high removal efficiencies, treated
wash water may be suitable for reuse in final rinses. Once silver has been
removed from the wash water, it can be recovered using such means as
chemical precipitation, metallic replacement, or electrolytic recovery. The
primary disadvantage of RO compared to alternative silver recovery
2-II-1-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
technologies is the high capital investment required. As a result, its principal
application is for treating wash water solutions to reduce silver
concentrations to acceptable levels for discharge.
Compliance
Benefit:
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Recycling spent solutions allows generators to decrease the amount of
hazardous waste regulations they must comply under 40 CFR 262. According
to 40 CFR 266.70, persons who generate, transport, or store recyclable
materials that are reclaimed to recover economically significant amounts of gold,
silver, platinum, or any combination of these (which includes spent solutions) are
only subject to the following requirements: apply for an EPA or EPA-approved
state generator identification number, and use the EPA or EPA-approved state
manifest system to document all off-site transportation of solutions destined for
reclamation of precious metals (40 CFR 262, Subpart B).
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
There were no material compatibility issues identified.
These materials must be handled with caution. Skin absorption is the main
health concern. Chemicals like lead are experimental teratogens and
carcinogens. Proper personal protective equipment is highly recommended.
Consult your local health and safety personnel prior to implementing any of
these technologies.
Reduce the volume of hazardous waste generated from these processes
Reduce or eliminate hazardous waste handling/treatment/disposal costs
Allows reuse of silver for other purposes.
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
These processes can be costly if not selected in conjunction with specific
treatment plan or goal.
Economics depends on site-specific information including system characteristics,
waste volumes and treatment objectives. In general, the higher volume and the
higher concentration of the process solution being handled, the more cost-
effective implementation of a reuse/recovery system becomes. For low volume
operations, installation of a metallic replacement system is typically a cost
2-II-1-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
effective alternative. Installation of an electrolytic recovery unit becomes
economical for higher processing volumes, since the capital installation cost will
be more than offset by the savings incurred from fewer changeouts of metallic
replacement cartridges. In-line electrolytic recovery units will reduce silver
refining costs since the collected silver is in a form that is more readily
recoverable. In cases where low effluent silver concentrations are required,
installation of an ion exchange system may be necessary. However, the capital
investment and chemical handling costs associated with this method are higher
than for alternative technologies.
Wright-Patterson AFB indicated that they received their electrolytic silver
recovery system and their replacement cartridges at no cost through their
DRMS in Columbus, Ohio.
Using estimated costs provided by Peoria, Illinois Air National Guard base the
following analysis can be calculated.
Assumptions:
30 gallons of spent fixer generated annually (5 gallons every 2 months)
Metallic replacement system $465.89
Cartridges replaced twice a year - $86.00 each
Hazardous waste disposal cost (ranges from $.12 - $1.56, average $.96
per pound)
After silver recovery spent fixer can be discharged to the POTW
Labor equivalent for both options
2-II-1-7
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for Recycling and Disposal of X-Ray
Processing Wastes
Recycling Disposal
Operational Costs:
Recycling Fee: $172 $0
Waste Disposal $0 $230.40
Total Operational Costs: $172 $230.40
Total Recovered Income: $0 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$172 -$23040
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for Diversion: $58
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $466
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: 8 years
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost
Ion Exchange Column (Ag) 6525-01-428-1527 ea. $244.58
Ion Exchange Column (Ag) 6525-01-428-1533 ea. $141.30
Reverse. Osmosis Module 4620-01-285-8123 ea. $1,180.00
Approving
Authority: Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Points of
Contact: TSgt. Jeff Hanna
109AW/NDI/LGMFN
1 Air National Guard Road
Scotia, New York 12302
(518)344-2346, DSN 974-9346
e-mail: jhanna@nysch.ang.af.mil
2-II-1-8
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Mr. Don Tarn
74th MDSS/SGSLA
4881 Sugar Maple Drive
Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio 45433-5529
(937)257-8935, DSN787-8935
e-mail: tamd@medcenoa.wpafb. af.mil
Mr. Eric Haukdal
USACHPPM
Hazardous and Medical Waste Program
ATTN: MCHB-TS-EHM
BldgE-1677
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5422
(410)436-8555
Your installation can obtain silver recovery units from the Defense Reutilization
and Marketing Office. To obtain information on their services, contact Ms.
LaVona E. Remakel, DSN 246-6655.
Vendors: There are many companies that offer products and/or services which deal with
the technologies described in this data sheet. A list of representative contacts is
presented below. This is not intended to be a complete listing.
Eastman Kodak Company
Kodak Environmental Service
1100 Ridgeway Ave.
Rochester, NY 14652-6255
(716)477-3194
Ion Exchange Treatment
Resin Tech, Inc.
615 Deer Road
Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
(609) 354-1152, Fax: (609) 354-6165
Osmonics, Inc.
5951 Clearwater Drive
Minnetonka, MN 55343-8990
(612)933-2277
Environmental Solutions, Inc.
P.O. Drawer 1064
Yazoo City, MS 39194
(601) 746-7470, Fax: (601) 746-7474
2-II-1-9
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Silver Recovery Equipment
AWS Industries
2825 W. 31st. St.
Chicago, IL 60623
(888)297-7470
Silver Refiners & Scrap Purchasers
Specialty Metals Refining Co.
10 Bay Street, Dept. 10712
Westport, CT 06880
(203) 372-0481, (800) 426-2344
MRP Co., Inc.
10107 Marble Court
Cockeysville, MD 21030
(410) 666-2775, Fax: (410) 666-2777
Eastern Smelting & Refining Corp.
37-39 Bubier St.
Lynn, Massachusetts
(781)599-9000
Source: JeffHanna, New York Air National Guard, 9/98
Don Tarn, Wright-Patterson AFB, 9/98
Terry Christie, DRMO, 9/98.
2-n-i-io
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
X-RAY DEVELOPER, TABLETOP
Revision:
Process Code:
Usage List:
Alternative For:
9/98
Navy and Marine Corps: ID-14-06; Air Force: TS-05; Army: LOP
Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
X-Ray developer, floor unit
Compliance Areas: Medium
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Heavy/Toxic Metals, Organics; Specific constituents
include cadmium (CAS: 7440-43-9), hexavalent chromium, cyanide, lead (CAS: 7439-92-1), mercury
(CAS: 7439-97-6), and silver (CAS: 7440-22-4).
Overview:
Compliance
Benefit:
Current x-ray developers are large and used infrequently. Smaller tabletop
developers are now available to handle limited volumes based on an hourly
output per type or size of film. Older and larger floor models have larger tanks
for developer and fixer. Since processing solutions have to be replaced on a
regular basis due to shelf life expiration, tabletop units with smaller solution
tanks consume less chemicals and generate less waste.
The chemistry for x-ray film development is proportional to the volume of film to
be processed. It takes a specific amount of developer and fixer to process the
film, depending on the concentration of the critical element in either solution.
Fixer solution usage is controlled by the concentration of silver. However, the
developer solution has a short shelf life and will oxidize when expired.
The Agfa Model NDT M tabletop x-ray developer can develop film with a
minimum length of 4 inches and a maximum width of 17 inches. The unit
includes developer, fixer, and wash tanks with a capacity of 1.7 gallons each.
Replenisher tanks for the fixer and developer have capacities of 8 gallons. The
unit also includes a water filtration system with a cartridge filter and a drain
collection system for collecting spent fixer, spent developer and rinse water. At
a given frequency or based on the volume of film processed, the fixer is drained
for silver recovery or disposal. The unit can process a maximum of 160 5"x7"
films or a minimum of 30 14"xl7" films per hour. This is the model that is
currently in use at AIMD Willow Grove, PA.
Tabletop developers have smaller solution tanks and therefore, consume less
chemicals and generate less waste then the older and larger floor models. The
smaller solution tanks means less hazardous waste is generated during a change
out of the solution, and if the x-ray developer is used infrequently, the smaller
tanks means less hazardous waste is generated overall. Use of this technology
2-11-2-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
helps facilities meet the requirements of waste reduction under RCRA, 40
CFR 262, Appendix, and may also help facilities reduce their generator status
and lessen the amount of regulations (i.e., recordkeeping, reporting, inspections,
transportation, accumulation time, emergency prevention and preparedness,
emergency response) they are required to comply with under RCRA, 40 CFR
262. In addition, since less hazardous materials are required to be purchased
and stored on site (since the tanks are smaller) the possibility that the facility
would meet any of the reporting thresholds of SARA Title m (40 CFR 300,
355,370, and 372; and EO 12856) is decreased. This model also uses less
energy then the larger models and facilitates compliance with EO 12902,
Energy Efficiency and Water Conservation at Federal Facilities
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
There were no material compatibility issues identified.
Handle developer, fixer and processing wastes with caution. The use of proper
personal protective equipment, including gloves and eye protection is
recommended. Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health
and safety personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this
technology.
Reduced capital cost
Reduced energy and maintenance costs
Reduced space requirements
Reduced chemical consumption
Reduced hazardous waste generation
Limited processing capacity
Economic
Analysis:
This analysis compares a tabletop x-ray developer versus a floor model (high
volume) x-ray developer.
These assumptions were taken from the Medical Directorate - Cataloguing at the
Defense Personnel Supply Center, Philadelphia, PA. The figures were
2-II-2-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
confirmed by Sgt. Barriball at the NDI Laboratory, Willow Grove, PA as being
similar with those of the Agfa Model NDT currently being used by his division.
Assumptions:
Same amount of film processed per year (72 sheets/year)
Chemical replacement every 3 months
Chemical volume 1.7 gallons each for tabletop model
8 gallons each for floor model
Chemical cost: fixer: $1.10/gal; developer: $3/gal
Disposal cost: $2.25/gal
Tabletop unit cost: $9,600
Floor unit cost: $28,000
Labor requirements are identical
Annual energy and maintenance costs estimated at 10% of equipment
costs
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Tabletop X-Ray Developer and Floor Unit X-Ray Developer
Tabletop Floor Unit
Operational Costs:
Material: $30 $130
Energy and $960 $2,800
Maintenance
Waste Disposal: $30 $150
Total Operational Costs: $1,020 $3,080
Total Recovered Income: $0 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$1,020 -$3,080
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for Tabletop X-Ray Developer: $2,060
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $9,600
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: < 4.7 years
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values. To
return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
2-11-2-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
NSN/MSDS:
Product
Tabletop X-Ray
Tabletop X-Ray
Tabletop X-Ray
Tabletop X-Ray
Approving
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
Sources:
Unit Size
ea.
ea.
ea.
ea.
Cost
$6,208.06
$6,188.00
$4,850.00
$5,050.80
NSN
6525-01-111-1018
6525-01-320-1721
6525-01-345-6088
6525-01-345-6089
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Sgt. Barriball
NDI Laboratory
NAS JRB Willow Grove
Willow Grove, PA
Phone: (215) 443-6142, DSN 991-6142
Fax:(215)443-6913
The following is a list of tabletop x-ray developer vendors. This is not meant to
be a complete list, as there may be other manufacturers of this type of
equipment. Tabletop x-ray developers (NSN 6525-01-111-1018, 6525-01-
320-1721, 6525-01-345-6088, 6525-01-345-6089) are available from the
Medical Directorate of the Defense Personnel Support Center in Philadelphia
(Phone:(215)737-2111).
Agfa Corporation
Matrix Division - NDT & Scientific Systems
100 Challenger Road
Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
Phone:(201) 440-2500
Fax:(201)440-8401
Eastman Kodak Company
Health Imaging Division
1187 Ridge Road West
Rochester, NY 14650
Phone: 1-800-828-6203 (military sales)
Sgt. Barriball, AMD 500Division Willow Grove, Pa. August 1998
Agfa Corporation Sales Representative August 1998
Eastman Kodak Military Sales Division August 1998
Mr. John Saicic. Medical Directorate - Cataloguing, Defense Personnel Supply Center
Philadelphia, PA. (215)737-9100. June 1996
2-11-2-4
-------
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
PORTABLE VACUUM SANDING SYSTEM
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-10-99, ID-03-99; Air Force: ST01; Army: DPT
Usage List: Navy: High; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
Alternative for: Chemical stripping; Hand and mechanical sanding to remove paint from composite
structures.
Compliance Areas: Medium
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Lead (CAS: 7439-92-1), Chromium (CAS: 7440-47-
3), Zinc (CAS: 7440-66-6), Toluene (CAS: 108-88-3), Xylenes (CAS: 1330-20-7), Methyl Ethyl
Ketone (CAS: 78-93-3), Acetone (CAS: 67-64-1), n-Butyl Alcohol (CAS: 71-36-3), Phenols (CAS:
108-95-2), Chloroacetic Acids (CAS: 79-11-8), Methylene Chloride (CAS: 75-09-2)
Overview: A portable vacuum sanding system will effectively capture sanding residue and
be mobile/light enough to be operated by one person. The unit can be used to
sand composite structures such as radomes. The system integrates a vacuum
cleaner with vacuum assist sanders for eliminating airborne toxins (including
lead, chromium, and dust) while removing paint from both metallic and
nonmetallic aircraft structures. The system incorporates three-stage filtration
composed of a filter bag, prefilter, and HEPA filter.
The effect this technology has on pollution prevention is that the portable
vacuum sander removes coatings and corrosion from composite or metal
structures while capturing the solid waste. Vacuum sanding eliminates airborne
particulate matter and potential lead dust exposure hazard. When compared to
chemical paint stripping, this technology eliminates the generation of waste
solvent.
OSHA 1910.1025 requires that sanding and grinding operations take place
without exceeding the lead permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 50 g/m3. The
vacuum sander helps meet this requirement. OSHA Standard 1910.1025
states: "Where vacuuming methods are selected, the vacuums shall be used and
emptied in a manner which minimizes the reentry of lead dust into the
workplace." Therefore workers should exercise care when using and emptying
vacuum units.
An example of one system is the Clayton cleaner/sanding system Model 660-
DM-1000. This system incorporates one vacuum cleaner, two vacuum assist
sanders, two vacuum assist grinders one package of 6 mil polyliners, one Y
adapter, one package of filter bags, two packages of prefilters, and one tool
caddy. All accessories are compatible with each other.
2-II-3-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
In 1994, the Navy procured approximately 124 units for use on both shore-
based and shipboard activities. In addition, several Air Force bases use the
units. Currently, several vacuum sanding units are being used on composite
radomes at Naval Station Mayport in Florida, but evaluation of the system is
not complete.
Compliance
Benefit:
The portable vacuum sanding system eliminates the generation of waste
solvent when compared to chemical stripping. This benefit helps
facilities meet the requirements of waste reduction under RCRA, 40
CFR 262, Appendix, and may also help facilities reduce their
generator status and lessen the amount of regulations (i.e.,
recordkeeping, reporting, inspections, transportation, accumulation
time, emergency prevention and preparedness, emergency response)
they are required to comply with under RCRA, 40 CFR 262. In
addition, less hazardous materials (i.e., solvent) are required to be
purchased and stored on site and therefore, the possibility that the
facility would meet any of the reporting thresholds of SARA Title HJ
(40 CFR 300, 355, 370, and 372; and EO 12856) is decreased It
should be noted that the portable vacuum sanding system generates
slightly more hazardous waste when compared to traditional hand
sanding but this factor may be counterbalanced by employee exposure
benefits.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a
general guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual
compliance benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the
amount of workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
The system can be used in most applications where chemical stripping,
hand sanding, and mechanical sanding methods are used. No materials
compatibility issues were identified.
Airborne dust, which is a major safety and health concern with any sanding
operations, is essentially eliminated using the vacuum sanding system. However,
eye protection and hearing protection are recommended. The system is
designed to be in compliance with OSHA Standard 1910.1025 for use during
sanding and grinding operations. Consult your local industrial health specialist,
your local health and safety personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to
implementing this technology.
2-11-3-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
Reduces airborne pollution from current power sanding operations.
Improves efficiency of operations.
Improves personnel safety by collecting and containing paint dust particles.
Provides a cost-effective means to remove paint from composite structures
that cannot be removed from a ship.
Reduces labor hours for manual sanding operations.
Portable unit.
Capital equipment investment is required.
Operator training is necessary.
Operator time, maintenance requirements, handling, and disposal of
waste varies with the material to be stripped.
Quality of stripping is dependent on skill and experience level of the
operator. Composite substrate can be damaged.
Processing radomes and equivalent composite structures using the vacuum
sanding system has shown some decrease in process time for a radome
assembly. However the largest benefit is personnel safety. The vacuum and
filtration process eliminate airborne toxins (including lead, chromium, and dust)
generated when preparing coated surfaces for refinishing. The vacuum sanding
system interfaces well with site operations, minimizes site clean-up, and
provides a safer, healthier work environment.
Assumptions:
Labor for sanding and grinding is the same for either system.
Number of sanding disks or wheels is the same for either system.
Filter bags are changed once per month taking 5 minutes.
Prefilters are changed once per year taking 5 minutes
HEPA filters are changed once every ten years taking 5 minutes
Filter bags cost $9; prefilters cost $18; HEPA filters cost $369
Labor rate = $40/hr
Setup/Cleanup for conventional sanding/grinding operation takes 80 hrs/yr.
Setup/Cleanup for vacuum sanding takes 40 hrs/yr.
Waste disposal quantities are slightly higher for vacuum sanding because of
the disposal of filters.
Waste disposal costs $l,200/ton or $0.60/lb.
500 Ibs. of waste material from sanding operations are generated/year.
25 Ibs. of filters are generated/year.
2-II-3-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Portable Vacuum Sanding and Conventional Sanding
Conventional Sanding Portable Vacuum
Sanding
Equipment Cost: $0 $4,955
Operational Costs:
Setup/Cleanup Labor: $3,200 $1,600
Maintenance Labor $0 $43
(changing filters):
Filter purchases: $0 $163
Disposal: $300 $315
Total Operational Costs: $3,500 $2,121
Economic Summary
Annual Savings for Vacuum Sanding: $1,379
Capital Cost for Equipment/Process: $4,955
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: 3.6 years
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values. To
return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost
Vacuum Sander 5130-00-596-9714 ea. $222.75
Vacuum Sander 5130-00-889-8986 ea. $215.20
Approving
Authority: Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Points of
Contact: Navy:
Mr. Chris Mahendra, 4.8.2.5
Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division
Lakehurst, NJ
Phone:(732)323-7131
Fax(732)323-1661
2-II-3-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Vendors:
Sources:
Mr. Al Pelcak
SEMCOR POC
Phone: (609) 234-6600
Fax (609) 778-1639
The following list is not meant to be complete, as there are other manufacturers
of this product.
Clayton Associates, Inc
Dustmaster System Model 660-DM-1000
Farmingdale, NJ 07727
(800) 248-8650
Nilfisk of America, Inc.
300 Technology Dr
Malvern, PA 19355
(800) 645-3474
Personal communication with Jim Clayton, Clayton
Associates, Inc., March 1997
Personal communication with Chris Mahendra, Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft
Division, March 1997.
2-II-3-5
-------
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
SEEMAN COMPOSITE RESIN INFUSION MOLDING PROCESS (SCRIMP) TECHNOLOGIES
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-15-03, ID-16-99; Air Force: IN09; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Low; Army: Low; Air Force: Low
Alternative For: Traditional resin composite manufacturing techniques
Compliance Areas: Medium
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Styrene (CAS: 100-42-5), Acetone (CAS: 67-64-1),
Creosote (CAS: 8001-58-9), Copper (CAS: 7440-50-8), Chromium (CAS: 7440-47-3) Arsenic
(CAS: 7440-38-2)
Overview: The SCRIMP (Seeman Composites Resin Infusion Molding Process) is a new
vacuum-assisted resin transfer molding process producing parts excellent for
marine, aerospace, transportation, and infrastructure applications. The process
is a proven method of producing high quality composite parts made from a wide
range of fiber and resin combinations. All commercial fibers, core materials,
and any resin in the range of 50 centipoise to 1000 centipoise will "SCRIMP"
with outstanding results. The process can be run at room or elevated
temperatures. SCRIMP can produce large (2,000 sq. ft.) parts, using both
single skin and cored construction, and highly complex three dimensional
trussed parts weighing up to 3,000 Ibs. The resulting composite material
properties directly compare to properties that had only been achievable in highly
controlled expensive autoclave processes.
The SCRIMP process is inherently repeatable. Once equilibrium resin content
is achieved (55% to 60% fiber volume, depending on fabric architecture) the
process stops. Aerospace grade quality is ensured by first eliminating all air
voids before the resin is infused, enabling the fabric pre-form to act as an
effective breather layer. As the resin is infused, it travels in controlled waves
that work to completely wet out the reinforcing fibers and eliminate any voids
that could be created by the VOCs emitted by the resin during the cure cycle.
The process has been used to infuse laminates up to 6 inches thick with the
same high quality results as a simple 1/8-inch laminate. The Navy has
extensively tested SCRIMP laminates and has concluded that the void content
can not be detected with standard ASTM methods. With or without a gel coat,
composites produced using SCRIMP exhibit pinhole free surfaces.
The Navy has developed prototypes of varying structures, such as ship's masts,
Navy Seal submarines, and sensor systems. The SCRIMP process also is
being used to make sailboats, railcar bodies, intermodal shipping containers,
bridge decks, windmill blades, and pilings, among other applications.
2-II-4-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
One example of the application of the SCRIMP process is the Hardshaft
manufacturing process. The process is used to manufacture marine construction
products, such as fiberglass tubular pilings and marine fender panels. The
process has extreme versatility and can produce pilings of any size up to 300
feet long and six feet in diameter. Benefits specific to the Hardshaft application
are:
Does not rot or corrode as some conventional materials do.
Does not leach chemicals into water bodies.
Custom engineered for each job; manufactured in any length,
diameter, or thickness.
Impervious to marine borers.
Installed using conventional equipment.
Compliance
Benefit:
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
The SCRIMP closed system may decrease the need for an air permit
under 40 CFR 70 and 40 CFR 71. In addition, less hazardous
materials (i.e., solvent) are required for the SCRIMP system therefore,
the possibility that the facility would meet any of the reporting thresholds
of SARA Title m (40 CFR 300, 355, 370, and 372; and EO 12856)
is decreased.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a
general guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual
compliance benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the
amount of workload involved.
No materials compatibility issues were identified.
The SCRIMP process increases worker safety by reducing VOC emissions.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
Closed system traps VOC emissions.
Minimal need for solvents reduces VOC emissions by as much as
90% over open molding processes.
Styrene levels are decreased, eliminating the need for the exchange
of heated air.
Reduces the need for masks, gloves, and protective clothing.
Improved product quality.
Reduced labor and materials needs.
2-11-4-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
The SCRIMP process is patented and expensive to license.
Licensees must pay a royalty on all products manufactured using the
SCRIMP process.
The SCRIMP process is a patented system licensed for $25,000. Hand layup,
the conventional method of marine construction, is a labor-intensive process
resulting in a product with relatively high porosity and low fiber content that
reduces strength and stiffness. The unit cost per pound of labor and materials
for a generalized structural configuration, based on an assumption of $40/hour
shipyard labor, is less than $10/lb.
The SCRIMP process may decline in price in the future, as it is currently being
used for producing prototypes in many applications. The SCRIMP process,
currently at a comparable cost, produces a higher quality product while emitting
fewer VOCs, which can endanger workers. Currently, the cost of using the
SCRIMP process is less than $10/lb.
Based on the construction of four, one-half scale midship sections of a medium-
sized 280-ft, 1200-ton naval combatant, the SCRIMP process produced a hull
section weighing slightly under 23,000 pounds, including 13,000 pounds of
glass and 7,000 pounds of resin. The production time for fabricating the hull
section was 3,154 labor hours.
Another example of an application that has been used more widely is pilings.
The following assumptions were used to compare the cost of Hardcore pilings
using the SCRIMP process to conventional CCA pilings:
* Assumptions:
Cost of a Copper/Chromium/Arsenate (CCA) piling is $4/ft.
Cost of a Hardcore Fiberglass Tubular Piling is $ 15/ft.
Lifespan of a CCA piling is 10 years
Lifespan of a Hardcore piling is 30 years
Cost to install a piling is $50/hr.
Time required to install a 40 foot piling is 8 hours
2-II-4-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
CCA Pilings Hardcore Pilings
Capital Costs for a 40 ft. piling
Installation Costs over 30 years
Total Costs
$160
$1200
$1360
$600
$400
$1,000
Although the Hardcore pilings cost more initially than conventional pilings, the
costs involved in replacing the shorter-lifespan, conventional pilings increase the
overall costs of conventional pilings significantly. In the long-term, Hardcore
pilings are more cost effective.
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values. To
return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
Approving
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
Vendors:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Dr. Milton O. Critchfield, 655
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division
West Bethesda, MD 20817-5700
Phone(301)227-1769
Fax (301)227-1020
The following list represents the licensers and licensees of SCRIMP technology.
The following list is not meant to be complete, as there are other manufacturers
using the SCRIMP process.
SCRIMP Systems, L.L.C.
Jono Billings, Managing Director
6 Blue Ribbon Rd.
Carolina, RI 02812
Phone(401)539-2100
Fax (401)539-8336
2-11-4-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Three licensed fabricators using the SCRIMP process are listed below:
Hardcore DuPont Composites, Ltd.
19 Lukens Drive
New Castle, DEI 9720
Phone (302) 427-9250
Fax (302) 427-9252
Seeman Composites, Inc.
P.O. Box 3449
Gulfport, MS 39505
Phone (601) 868-7341
Fax (601)868-7372
TPI Composites, Inc.
P.O. Box 328
Warren, RI 02885
Phone (401) 245-1200
Fax (401)247-2669
Sources: Research Release "Low Cost, High Quality Composite Ship Structures Technology
Demonstrated, "Headquarters, David Taylor Model Basin, Naval Surface Warfare
Center, Carderock Division, Bethesda, MD, May 1993
Nguyen, Loc D., Thomas Juska, andJ. StevenMayes, "Evaluation of Low Cost
Manufacturing Technologies for Large Scale Composite Ship Structures, "Naval
Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division, West Bethesda, MD, Presented to 38th
Structures, Structural
Dynamics, andMaterials Conference and Exhibit, AIAA/ASME/AHS Adaptive Structures
Forum, Kissimmee, FL, April 7-10, 1997
2-II-4-5
-------
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
PRECISION MICRO-ABRASIVE SAND BLASTING FOR CLEANING CIRCUIT BOARDS
Revision: 10/98
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-06-99, ID-05-99; Air Force: ST01; Army: DPT
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
Alternative For: Chemical removal; Mechanical abrasion with abrasive burr or wheel; Heat sources,
such as lasers or soldering irons.
Compliance Areas: High
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (CAS: 71-55-6), Acetone (CAS: 67-
74-1), n-Butyl alcohol (CAS: 71-36-3), Phenols (CAS: 108-95-2), CFCs, HCFCs
Overview: Micro-abrasive sand blasting is accomplished by propelling a finely graded
abrasive powder into a stream of compressed air, through an abrasive-resistant
hose and out a miniature nozzle manually or automatically positioned at the
workpiece. The process is used to remove a variety of conformal coatings,
including epoxy, acrylic, urethane, silicone, parylene, and ultraviolet-cured
materials, from printed circuit boards for rework and repair. It replaces
chemical, mechanical, and thermal methods of coating removal. Some micro-
abrasive units also can be used for other functions, such as deburring, texturing,
drilling, and cutting.
There are five functions in micro-abrasive blasting that control the process: 1)
air pressure, 2) nozzle diameter, 3) distance of the nozzle from the workpiece,
4) powder flow rate, and 5) type of abrasive powder used. A variety of
different abrasives can be used depending on the application. These may
include aluminum oxide, silicon carbide, glass beads, sodium bicarbonate,
walnut shell, or plastic media. Each is used in a microscopic form usually
between 10 and 150 microns. Several of these media may not be appropriate
for conformal coating removal, so it is important to check the specifications and
suggested uses for each before using them.
Units range from compact, manually operated benchtop units to fully automated
programmable equipment. In either system, clean, dry air is mixed with a
precise quantity of abrasive material and propelled at 75 to 100 psi through an
extremely small nozzle at the end of a pencil-shaped stylus. The abrasive
material is directed at a target area to accomplish a specific task. Spent
material is continuously drawn out of the work chamber via a vacuum and then
sent through a filtration area to a dust collection system. Some systems collect
spent media for reuse, thus reducing overall operating costs of the system.
2-II-5-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Compliance
Benefit:
Micro-abrasive sand blasting operations generate less hazardous waste than
chemical stripping since solvents are not used. The decrease in hazardous
waste helps facilities meet the requirements of waste reduction under RCRA,
40 CFR 262, Appendix, and may also help facilities reduce their generator
status and lessen the amount of regulations (i.e., recordkeeping, reporting,
inspections, transportation, accumulation time, emergency prevention and
preparedness, emergency response) they are required to comply with under
RCRA, 40 CFR 262. In addition, the decrease in the amount of solvents on
site decreases the possibility that a facility meets any of the reporting thresholds
of SARA Title UI for solvents (40 CFR 300, 355, 370, and 372; and EO
12856).
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Abrasive materials must be matched to the job to avoid inadequate
results or damage to the components. For example, aluminum oxide
and silicon carbide will blast through a board in only a few seconds.
Sodium bicarbonate and walnut shells have high electrostatic discharge
readings, which will destroy good components on a board.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
Reduces use of chemicals in process.
Improves efficiency of operations, saving on labor, materials,
handling and disposal of hazardous waste.
Improves personnel health and safety in the work environment.
Reduces labor hours for coating removal.
Possible circuitry degradation may occur when the abrasive stream
hits the coating and generates electrostatic charges.
Excess removal of plating from traces and leads can expose the
base metal to possible corrosion.
Removal of solder mask off the printed circuit board (PCB) may
cause possible changes to the insulation value of the PCB.
Incorrect choice of abrasive can lead to damage of workpiece or
wasted abrasive medium and labor.
2-II-5-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Nonuniform particle size can result in clogging the nozzle.
If the system is not clean and dry, clumping can result, thus clogging
the nozzle.
Economic
Analysis: According to Mr. Carroll Claterbuctz of NASA, capital costs for all micro-
abrasive blast equipment (blaster unit, dust collector, work chamber, air filter,
point ionizer) is approximately $5,000 to $13,500, depending on options and
levels of electrostatic discharge protection necessary for the job. Check with
the manufacturers listed below for their specifications.
Polyurethane coating is the most common coating currently in use. Chemical
and micro-abrasive methods of coating removal are the most appropriate
methods for this type of coating. This cost analysis compares the use of
chemical and micro-abrasive methods of coating removal.
Assumptions:
Labor costs = $45/hour
Cost of blasting material = $120/15 Ibs. ($8/lb.)
Cost of solvent/chemical = $10/gallon
Time to remove polyurethane coating from one l"xl" component using
blast system = 2 minutes
Time to remove polyurethane coating from one l"xl" component using
chemical method = 2 hours
Blast equipment uses up to 50 grams of blast medium/minute
Solvent use = 0.125 gallons per j ob
Hazardous waste/solvent disposal = $2/lb.
One gallon of hazardous waste/solvent = 8 Ibs.
Spent blasting media is assumed to be disposed as hazardous
1,500 components are cleaned annually
2-II-5-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Removal of Polyurethane Coating from Printed Circuit Boards Traditional
Chemical Removal vs. Micro-Abrasive Blast System
Traditional Chemical Micro-Abrasive
Removal Blast System
Capital Costs: $0 $8,500
Material Costs: $l,875/yr (solvent) $2,670/yr (blast
material)
Labor Costs
Removal $135,000 $2,247.75
Handling $1,124.55 $1,124.55
Cleaning $3,373.65 $562.27
Waste Disposal $12,000 $661
TOTAL: $153,373.20 $7,265.57
Economic Analysis Summary:
Most of this savings is realized in reduced labor costs and reduced hazardous
waste disposal costs. These figures do not factor in worker safety
improvements associated with micro-abrasive blast systems. In addition, the
material costs for micro-abrasive systems would be less if the spent blast
material were reused. Also, the plastic media that is most often reused does not
leave a residue on a printed circuit board, and therefore, eliminates the need for
and the cost of cleaning. All of these factors would decrease the overall cost of
a micro-abrasive blasting system.
Annual Savings for Using Micro Blast System: $146,108
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $8,500
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment: Less than one month
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost
None Identified
Approval
Authority: Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted.
2-II-5-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Points of
Contact:
Vendors:
Sources:
Air Force:
Mr. Carroll Clatterbuctz
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Goddard Space Flight Center
Materials Branch
Greenbelt, MD 20771
(301)286-6794
Fax (301)286-1645
The following is a list of suppliers. This is not meant to be a complete list, as
there may be other suppliers of this type of material.
Conformal Coating Removal Co.
1954Placentia Ave., Suite 107
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
Phone: (800) 443-2726 or (949)-574-1360
Fax (949) 574-1368
Comco, Inc.
215 IN. Lincoln St.
Burbank, CA91504
Phone: (800) 796-6626 or (818) 841-5500
Fax:(818)955-8365
Crystal Mark, Inc.
613 Justin Ave.
Glendale, CA 91201-2396
Phone: (800) 659-7926 or (818) 240-7520
Fax:(818)247-3574
Texas Airsonics, Inc.
Attn: Larry Pildman
1737 N. Lexington Blvd.
Corpus Christi, TX 78409
Phone:(512)289-1145
Fax:(512)289-5554
Mr. HalHorrocks, Conformal Coating Removal Techniques, President of CCRCo.,
presentation for NEPCON West '97.
Personal communication with Mr. Don Larson, McClellan Air Force Base, CA, April
1997.
Personal communication with Mr. Carroll Clatterbuctz, National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, Goddard Space Flight Center, MD, August 1998.
2-II-5-5
-------
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
RECYCLING FLUORESCENT LIGHT TUBES AND HIGH INTENSITY DISCHARGE
LAMPS
Revision: 9/98
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-04-99; Air Force: PM06; Army: ELM
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
Alternative For: Disposal of used fluorescent light tubes and HID lamps
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituent: Mercury (CAS: 7439-97-6), Lead (CAS: 7439-92-1),
Cadmium (CAS: 7440-43-9)
Overview: The recycling of fluorescent lights and high intensity discharge (HID) lamps is a
proven technology capable of reliably recovering greater than 99% of the
mercury in the spent lights. This is done by separating the components by a
method such as the crush-and-sieve method. In this process, the spent tubes
are first crushed and then sieved to separate the large particles from the
mercury-containing phosphor powder. The phosphor powder is collected and
processed under intense heat and pressure. The mercury is volatilized and then
distilled to the required purity. The glass particles are segregated and recycled
into fiberglass. Aluminum components are also segregated and recycled
separately.
All of the components of the used lights are recycled into reusable/saleable raw
materials [except for any polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contained in some
ballasts, which is incinerated].
Fluorescent lights and HID lamps have one important drawback: relatively high
environmental costs associated with their use, specifically, the disposal costs.
Fluorescent light tubes and HID lamps may be considered hazardous waste.
This is due to mercury and trace amounts of lead and other metals contained in
the tubes, regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). Even small quantities of these metals may be potentially harmful to
human health and the environment, especially when mass quantities of used
tubes are landfilled. Used fluorescent light tube disposal in municipal landfills is,
in fact, considered the second largest source of mercury pollution entering the
environment. These pollutants can often migrate into groundwater supplies or
even become airborne (due to mercury's relatively high volatility), at which time
they pose an even greater environmental threat. Thus, proper disposal and,
preferably, recycling of these tubes would help reduce and prevent heavy metal
pollution.
2-II-6-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Proper handling and disposal of used fluorescent light tubes and HID lamps is
becoming an increasingly expensive and problematic chore for big users of these
lights. The metal content of used lights usually exceeds the threshold levels
qualifying them as a hazardous waste. Unfortunately, manufacturers'
information on the heavy metal content of their fluorescent light products has too
great an uncertainty to rely upon its accuracy for determination, so RCRA
requires testing of representative samples. Testing of some representative
samples can be done, but it is usually prohibitively expensive. It is almost
always cheaper to consider all used fluorescent lights as hazardous waste than
to test even representative samples.
Facilities that wish to crush fluorescent tubes on-site prior to recycling should
consult their local regulatory agency first. Crushing maybe considered treatment
of a hazardous waste.
Wright-Patterson AFB recycled approximately 62,000 lamps during 1998.
The base currently pays an average of $.06/foot, $.85/HID and $300/load
(non-hazardous waste). In addition, Peoria, Illinois Air National Guard base
has started a fluorescent light tube and high intensity discharge lamp recycling
program this year. The base has averaged 78 4-foot bulbs/month, 5 8-foot
bulbs/month and 40 assorted other bulbs/month. The base pays an average of
$.19/foot and $3.45 each for mercury vapor, high-pressure sodium and metal
halide bulb.
Alto lamps have recently come on the market which are produced with low
levels of mercury. These lamps have passed the EPA's Toxic Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (TCLP), and are considered non-hazardous waste.
Compliance
Benefit: Recycling fluorescent light tubes and high intensity discharge lamps ensures that
a facility properly disposes of their waste. Certain used fluorescent light tubes
and high intensity discharge lamps have a high enough mercury content to cause
them to be hazardous waste. Hazardous waste must be sent to a facility which
is permitted to handle these waste (40 CFR 262.20) (many times not the local
municipal landfill). Having a fluorescent light tube recycling program will help
ensure that facility personnel do not throw used tubes into the municipal solid
waste which may not be permitted to handle these waste.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
2-11-6-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Storage and handling of used lights pose no compatibility problems;
nevertheless, storage and shipment of the glass tubes is best done keeping the
glass tubes intact. This prevents any mercury or mercury-containing materials
from leaking and entering the environment, which could result in contamination
of storage areas, packaging, soil, etc.
Fluorescent light tubes must be handled with care because of the mercury, lead,
and cadmium. Mercury and lead are cumulative poisons, are experimental
teratogens, and carcinogens. Cadmium dust (pre-1987 lamps) can be
poisonous if inhaled. Proper personal protective equipment is highly
recommended.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
Saves landfill space
Reduces raw materials production needs
Keeps the potentially toxic material out of landfills
Disadvantages:
May require hazardous waste storage or treatment permits
Economic
Analysis:
Actual disposal costs of used lights vary greatly, depending on the quantity,
proximity, and disposal facility, and also on any state and local fees. The cost
to recycle a used fluorescent light is usually calculated per linear foot, or per
bulb for HID lamps. Shipping of the used lights may or may not be provided,
depending on the company. Using estimated costs provided by Wright-
Patterson AFB the following analysis can be calculated.
Assumptions:
$.21 to recycle a 4-foot fluorescent light tube
Transportation for recycling $.06/bulb (12 loads/year at $300/load for
60,000 bulbs/year)
$0.25 to $0.50 per four-foot fluorescent tube for disposal in a hazardous
waste landfill (average cost: $0.38)
Costs based on 30,000 four-foot long fluorescent light tubes
Collection and storage costs equivalent for both options
2-II-6-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for Recycling and Disposal of Fluorescent
Light Tubes and High Intensity Discharge Lamps
Operational Costs:
Recycling Fee:
Waste Disposal
Total Operational Costs:
Total Recovered Income:
Net Annual Cost/Benefit:
Recycling
$8,100
$0
$8,100
$0
-$8,100
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for Diversion:
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process:
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process:
Disposal
$0
$11,400
$11,400
$0
-$11,400
$3,300
$0
Immediate
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
Approving
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Mr. Raymond Baker
Wright-Patterson AFB
Office of Environmental Management
88 ABW/EM
5490 Pearson Road
Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio 45433
(937)257-7152, x266
Fax (937)656-1534
2-11-6-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Captain Roxanne L. Lastoria
Environmental Coordinator
182 AW/EM
2416 S. Falcon Blvd.
Peoria, Illinois 61607-5023
(309)633-5277, DSN 724-5277
e-mail: rllastoria@ilpia.ang.af.mil
Vendors:
Source:
The following is a list of companies providing recovery/recycle services for
fluorescent light tubes. This is not meant to be a complete list, as there may be
other companies, which provide this service
Lighting Resources, Inc.
805 E. Francis St.
Ontario, CA 91761
Phone: (909) 923-7252, Fax: (909) 923-7510
Recyclights
401 West 86th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55420-2707
Phone: (612) 948-0626, Fax: (612) 948-0627, (800) 831-2852
website: www.recyclights.com, e-mail: enviro(q)jecvcli ghts.com
Customer Service
Bethlehem Apparatus Company, Inc.
890 Front St., P.O. Box Y
Hellerton, PA 18055
Phone: (610) 838-7034, Fax: (610) 838-6333
Lighting Resources, Inc., Frank Carlen, May 1996
Mercury Recovery Services, Bill Niver, May 1996
RCRA Hotline, Fax On Demand #11906, 7/98
Recyclights, Joe Bester, 8/98
Raymond Baker, Wright-Patterson, AFB, 9/98
Roxanne Lastoria, Illinois ANG, 9/98.
2-II-6-5
-------
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
RECYCLING LEAD ACID BATTERIES
Revision:
Process Code:
Usage List:
Alternative For:
9/98
Navy and Marine Corps: SR-02-02; Air Force: AD07; Army: VHM
Navy: High; Marine Corps: High; Army: High; Air Force: High
Hazardous Waste Disposal
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Lead (CAS: 743992-1), Sulfuric Acid (CAS: 7664-
93-9)
Overview:
Compliance
Benefit:
Lead-acid battery recyclers purchase used batteries from generators for a
nominal price. In this way, some money is recouped from recycling. When
lead-acid batteries are sent to a hazardous waste disposal company, the
batteries are still recycled, but the batteries are not purchased from the
generator.
The various parts of the lead-acid batteries are recycled. The sulfuric acid is
purified and recycled. The lead plates are melted, refined, and recycled. The
plastic case is shredded and recycled.
Wet cell lead-acid batteries are routinely collected for recycling at military
installations, since most states currently ban the disposal of wet cell lead-acid
batteries in landfills. Many vendors provide a "one-for-one" exchange program
in which they exchange a used battery with a new battery. POCs contacted
indicated that they are receiving from $.01 per pound to $1.00 a battery for
recycling. Nellis DRMO estimates they received approximately $600 for
recycling their lead-acid batteries in 1997. Nellis Air Force Base turns in their
lead-acid batteries for recycling to their DRMO.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that approximately 80
percent of all lead-acid car batteries are currently recycled. Most battery
recycling facilities will accept lead-acid batteries.
According to discussions with the RCRA Hotline, lead acid batteries that are
going to be recycled do not have to be included in a facilities monthly totals of
hazardous waste generated (40 CFR 261.5). Therefore recycling may help
facilities reduce their generator status and lessen the amount of regulations (i.e.,
recordkeeping, reporting, inspections, transportation, accumulation time,
emergency prevention and preparedness, emergency response) they are
required to comply with under RCRA, 40 CFR 262.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
2-11-7-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
There were no material compatibility issues identified.
Handling lead-acid batteries can be dangerous in terms of possible explosions
and exposure to sulfuric acid. In addition, the batteries themselves can be fairly
heavy and hard to lift, such as out of the engine bay. Therefore, safe work
practices and proper personal protective equipment is recommended.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
Potential monetary compensation from purchase of lead-acid batteries by
recycler
Meet state requirements regarding the ban of disposing lead-acid batteries
in landfills
None
The following cost elements for Recycling and Disposal are compared using
estimated costs provided by DRMO, Nellis.
Assumptions:
Weight of lead-acid batteries collected per year: 60,000 Ibs
Recycler purchase price for spent lead-acid battery: $0.01/pound
Yearly labor associated with collecting lead-acid batteries for recycling: 2
hr/month or 24 hrs/year
Lead-acid battery disposal fee (range of $0.12/lb - $0.46/lb the average is
$0.29/lb): $17,400
Yearly labor associated with collecting lead-acid batteries for disposal: 2
hr/month or 24 hrs/year
Labor rate: $30/hr
2-11-7-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Recycling and Hazardous Waste Disposal
Operational Costs:
Labor:
Waste Disposal:
Total Operational Costs:
Total Recovered Income:
Net Annual Cost/Benefit:
Recycling
$720
$0
$720
$600
-$120
Disposal for
Recycling
$720
$17,400
$18,120
$0
-$18,120
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for Recycling:
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process:
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process:
$18,000
$0
NA
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
Approving
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
Approval is controlled locally. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Mr. Henry Anner
Hazardous Waste Specialist
NAS Jacksonville
FD Department
Building 27, Box 5, Code 184
Jacksonville, Florida 32212
Phone: (904)542-2717x138, DSN: 905422717
Fax: (904)542-3858
2-II-7-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Vendors:
Sources:
Air Force:
Mr. Kenny Alexander
Environmental Protection Specialist
99th Air Base Wing
Environmental Management Office
4349 Duffer Drive, Suite 1601
Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada 89191-7007
Phone: (702)652-5313
Fax: (702)652-2722
MajorBeretta
Rhode Island Air National Guard
143 AW/EM, HQ Rhode Island Air National Guard Building
1 Minuteman Way
North Kingstown, Rhode Island 02852
Phone: (401) 886-1357, DSN: 4763357
Fax: (401)886-1299
The following is a list of lead-acid battery recyclers. This is not meant to be a
complete list, as there may be other lead-acid battery recyclers.
Kinsbury Brothers Inc.
Paul Schneder
1314 N. Lemon Street
Anaheim, CA 92801
Phone: (800)548-8797
Fax: (714)441-0857
Selco Battery Company
Victor Ruiz
2220 E. Foothill Blvd.
Pasadena, CA 91107
Phone: (626)577-6713 Fax: (626)577-6714
Sunn Battery Company
Ed Corbit
1313 W.Adam Street
Jacksonville, FL 32204
Phone: (800)226-4508 Fax:
(904)358-7753
Ellen Adintori, DRMO, Nellis, August 1998
MajorBeretta, RIANG, August 1998
Betty Ruiz, Selco Battery, August 1998
Mike Downs, NAS Jacksonville, September 1998.
2-II-7-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
PRINTED CIRCUIT BOARD RECYCLING
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-25-99; Air Force: HW01; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
Alternative For: Disposal Of Waste Printed Circuit Boards As Hazardous Waste
Compliance Areas: None
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Copper (CAS: 7440-50-8), Gold
(CAS: 7440-57-5), Lead (CAS: 7439-92-1), Mercury (CAS: 7439-97-6), Platinum (CAS: 7440-
06-4), Silver (CAS: 7440-22-4)
Overview: Printed circuit boards are a common component of many electronic systems
built for both military and commercial applications. Printed circuit boards are
typically manufactured by laminating dry film on clean copper foil, which is
supported on a fiberglass plate matrix. The film is exposed with a film negative
of the circuit board design, and an etcher is used to remove unmasked copper
foil from the plate. Solder is then applied over the unetched copper on the
board. Depending upon the use and design of the particular printed circuit
board, various other metals may be used in the manufacturing process, including
lead, silver, gold, platinum, and mercury. Printed circuit boards are potentially a
difficult waste material to process, since they generally have no usefulness once
they are removed from the electrical component in which they were installed,
and they typically consist of materials that classify them as a hazardous or
"special" waste stream. They must be segregated and handled separately from
other non-hazardous solid waste streams. Printed circuit boards that are
handled as waste materials must be processed using any one of several available
disposal options. Not only are these options expensive, they require a significant
amount of effort and handling by the generator. Furthermore, since some of
these disposal options do not include destruction of the waste circuit boards, the
generator also retains much of the liability associated with improper handling or
disposal.
As an alternative to off-site disposal, printed circuit boards can be handled and
processed to recover the value of the raw materials that are used to produce the
boards. There are several companies that offer recycling services as an
alternative to off-site disposal of obsolete printed circuit boards. These services
will generally process the boards by systematically removing raw materials of
value from the board matrix. This includes metals such as silver, lead, copper,
and gold. Depending upon the volume and characteristics of the printed circuit
boards processed through a particular vendor, the raw materials can be
recovered and the salvage value potentially returned to the generator.
2-II-8-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Compliance
Benefit:
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
Typically, the vendor will provide a waste material profile form, which will be
used by the generator to describe the nature, quantity, and additional
characteristics of the circuit boards to be processed. Once the vendor approves
of the processing arrangement, the generator will prepare the circuit boards for
shipment. The handling and transportation methods used will depend on the
volume of material, distance to be shipped, and vendor requirements.
None noted
This should generally not be a consideration, since virtually all of the
components of printed circuit boards are stable, solid materials when handled
under normal circumstances. There may be some concern associated with
printed circuit boards that contain unstable and/or toxic components such as
mercury, certain forms of lead, and some electronic components that are
attached to the boards. The waste recycling vendor should be contacted if there
are any potential concerns regarding material compatibility which may be
encountered during shipment or processing of the circuit boards.
There are minimal safety and health concerns regarding circuit board recycling.
For specific precautions consult your local health and safety personnel.
Recycling printed circuit boards has various benefits including:
Recovered value of raw materials, particularly precious metals, reclaimed
from processing the circuit boards
Savings resulting from the elimination of a potential hazardous waste for
"special" waste stream
Reduction of potential generator liability associated with improper waste
handling and/or disposal procedures
Generators can increase public awareness by publicizing efforts made to
bolster recycling initiatives at their facilities
Market value of the reclaimed metals can fluctuate abruptly
Boards containing inherently toxic or hazardous materials such as mercury
may have little or no recyclable value
The economics of printed circuit board recycling will be determined by many
factors, including the characteristics of the boards to be recycled, market value
of the reclaimed components/raw materials, volume of boards being recycled,
and conditions of the hazardous waste/solid waste market. Boards containing
2-II-8-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
valuable metals, such as gold or silver, which can be readily reclaimed will be
the easiest and most economically beneficial to recycle. Boards which contain
inherently toxic or hazardous materials (e.g., mercury) may have little or no
recyclable value and be precluded from consideration in a recycling program.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
Approving
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Vendors:
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
DLA:
Mr. Ken Devito
Headquarters, Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)
8725 John J. Kingman Road, Suite 2533
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6221
(703) 767-1533, DSN: 427-1533
Navy:
Mr. Wallace Eakes
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
110023rdAve.
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4370
(805) 982-4882, DSN: 551-4882, Fax (805) 982-4832
The following is a list of companies that provide recycling services for printed
circuit boards. This is not meant to be a complete list, as there may be other
providers of this service.
Clean Harbors, Inc.
Customer Services Representative
Central Customer Service
Quincy, Massachusetts
(800)533-5900
2-II-8-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Chemical Waste Management
Customer Service Representative
Central Customer Service
3003 Butter-field Road
Oakbrook, IL 60521
(800)843-3604
BFI Industrial Waste Services
Customer Service Representative
Central Customer Service
(800)289-4310
Uni-Tech Recycling, Inc.
Mr. Christopher Beyus
ISOBogueRoad
Harwinton, CT 06791
(860) 689-8032
2-II-8-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
SUPER FLIGHT LINE ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (SFLEDS)
Revision:
Process Code:
Usage List:
Alternative For:
9/98
Navy and Marine Corps: ML-02-99; Air Force: AC02, FA05; Army ELM
Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: High
Fuel-fired Mobile Electric Power Plants (MEPP)
Compliance Areas: Medium
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents:
None
Overview:
The Super Flight Line Electrical Distribution System (SFLEDS) reduces
emissions created by diesel engine-driven support equipment (SE) by replacing
the existing engine-driven power supplies with host facility power and
redistributing the conditioned power along the flight line. SFLEDS converts and
conditions 480V, 60 Hz, 3 phase host facility grid power to 120V, 60 Hz,
single phase output for low voltage equipment and 115V, 400 Hz, 3 phase for
aircraft while still allowing outputs of 480V, 60 Hz, 3 phase for heavy duty
equipment. Implementation of this system requires the routing of 480V, 60 Hz
power cable from the host facility grid to the SFLEDS site. SFLEDS
configuration includes frequency converters, transformers, and electrical
controls.
The Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Lakehurst, New Jersey is
currently in the process of procuring a SFLEDS prototype for installation at the
Naval Air Station North Island (NASNI), San Diego, California. Installation is
scheduled for October 1998.
Compliance
Benefit:
If the Super Flight Line Electrical Distribution System (SFLEDS) is used in
place of diesel engine-driven SE the facility will decrease exhaust emissions. It
may also decrease the need for a facility to obtain an air permit under 40 CFR
70 and 40 CFR 71. In addition, less hazardous materials are used on site (i.e.,
diesel) so the possibility that the facility would meet any of the reporting
thresholds of SARA Title m (40 CFR 300, 355, 370, and 372; and EO
12856) is decreased. The decrease in the amount of oil stored on site may also
drop the facility below threshold amounts for the requirement to develop and
implement a Spill, Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan under 40
CFR 112. Other compliance issues associated with this technology include
Energy Efficiency and Water Conservation at Federal Facilities - EO 12902:
Additional electricity will be consumed with this technology.
2-III-1-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
There were no material compatibility issues identified.
Proper design, operation, and maintenance of the equipment is required for its
safe use. Only trained personnel must perform installation of electrical systems.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, and your local health and safety
personnel prior to implementing this technology.
Eliminates hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions
Reduces handling and use of hazardous and flammable materials on the
flight line
Can have high capital costs
Requires operator training
The cost elements for installing a SFLEDS at a site are provided below.
An updated cost analysis will be determined next year from the data collected
during the SFLEDS prototype testing period of November 1998 to March
1999.
Note: Associated costs used are very conservative estimates based on the
installation of a SFLEDS prototype. Actual costs for SFLEDS operation may
be lower and will vary based on the equipment application.
Assumptions:
Estimated SFLEDS equipment cost: $300,000
Estimated hours required for installation: 120 hours
Labor rate: $30/hr
Installation cost: $5,400
Diesel fuel cost: $0.97/gal
Electricity: $0.08/kw-hr
2-III-1-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Hours for handling diesel: 5 hr/week or 260 hr/yr
No. of Mobile Electric Power Plants (MEPP) units in operation: 30 @ 12
hr/week
MEPP total hours of operation: 18,720 hr/yr
MEPP equipment rating: 118 hp or 88 kw
Estimated diesel usage for MEPP: 155,000 gal/yr
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for SFLEDS and MEPP
SFLEDS MEPP
Operational Costs:
Labor: $0 $7,800
Diesel: $0 $150,400
Energy: $131,800 $0
Total Operational Costs: $131,800 $158,200
Total Recovered Income: $0 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$131,800 -$158,200
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for SFLEDS: $26,400
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $305,400
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: 11.6 yrs
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost
None Identified
Approving
Authority: Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
2-III-1-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
Navy:
Mr. Kevin Silverstein
Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division
Lakehurst, New Jersey 08733
Phone:(732)323-2151
Mr. Anthony Vendetti
Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division
Lakehurst, New Jersey 08733
Phone: (732) 323-2959
Mr. Ed Bonnes
Staff Civil Engineer, Code 18E
NAS North Island
San Diego, CA 92135-7040
Phone: (619) 545-3426
The following is a list of vendors that carry or manufacture frequency
converters, transformers, and electrical controls. This is not meant to be a
complete list, as there may be other suppliers of these types of equipment.
Frequency Converters:
Unitron, Inc.
10925 Miller Rd.
Dallas, TX 75238
Phone: (800) 527-1279, Fax: (214) 341-2099
Transformers:
Sola! Hevi-Duty Electric
EGS Electric Group
199 Scottswamp Rd.
Farmington, CT 06034
Phone: (203) 699-3227, Fax: (203) 538-6545
Controls:
Square D Company
15850 Crabbs Branch Way Suite 210
Rockville,MD 20855-2622
Attn: Chuck Hastings
Phone: (301) 921-2064, Fax: (301) 921-1977
2-III-1-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Sources: Mr. Anthony Vendetti, Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Lakehurst, NJ,
September 1998.
Phone conversation with Unitronlnc. Representative, August 1998
Phone conversation with EGSElectric Group Representative, August 1998
Phone conversation with Chuck Hastings, Square D Co., August 1998
2-III-1-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
LOW EMISSION DIESEL POWER SUPPLY
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-04-02; Air Force: FA03; Army: ELM
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
Alternative For: Detroit Diesel Engine Model 6V-71
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide (CAS: 630-
08-0), and other diesel combustion byproducts
Overview:
The use of low emission diesel engines as a power supply for mobile air
conditioners will reduce emissions at activities in addition to meeting 1996
federal and state standards for emissions from off-road industrial diesel engines.
State standards vary from state to state. However, meeting the most stringent
standards of California will result in meeting other states' emission standards.
Existing mobile air conditioners will require retrofitting as they are all currently
powered by a Detroit Diesel Model 6V-71.
A study conducted for the Navy evaluated several engines on the basis of
meeting emission standards, performance specifications for the air conditioner,
use of jet fuel, and the ability to fit the present engine space envelope. The John
Deere 6081A engine met all requirements. Two other engines manufactured by
Cummins and Caterpillar could be considered with some modifications in engine
design.
The mobile air conditioners will require some modifications to accept the new
engines. The radiator and oil cooler of the air conditioner will need to be
extended slightly outward. Because these engines are longer than the 6V-71
engine, relocation of the engine mounts and a suitable connecting structure to
distribute the load within the base frame will also be required.
Compliance
Benefit:
The use of low emission diesel engines as a power supply for mobile air
conditioners will reduce emissions and therefore, may decrease the need for a
facility to obtain an air permit under 40 CFR 70 and 40 CFR 71.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
2-III-2-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
N/A
Consult your local industrial health specialist and your local health and safety
personnel prior to implementing this technology.
Reduction in engine exhaust emissions
Compliance with federal and state emission standards
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
None Identified
Labor, material, system maintenance, and energy requirements will remain the
same with the new low emission diesel power supply engine for the mobile air
conditioner because the new engine is required to provide the same
performance (horsepower and torque range) as the existing Detroit diesel
engine.
The mobile air conditioner is considered as a stationary source of air emissions.
With the engine retrofit, there is a reduction in air emissions and therefore a
reduction in emission fees if there is a significant number of these units at an
activity. On a per unit basis, the reduction in emission fees is insignificant. The
cost savings in emission fees when compared to the cost of the retrofit engine at
approximately $40,000 will not result in a favorable payback period.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
Approving
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Mr. Jim Ambrosino
Naval Air Warfare Center
Lakehurst, NJ
Phone: (732)323-7904
2-111-2-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Vendors:
Sources:
The following is a list of low emission diesel power supply vendors. This is not
meant to be a complete list, as there may be other manufacturers of this type of
equipment.
Deere Power Systems
P.O. Box 5100
Waterloo, IA 50704
Phone: (319)292-6060
Fax: (319)292-5075
Cummins Engine Company
Box 3005
Columbus, IN 47201-6258
Phone: (812)377-5000
Fax: (812)377-3334
Mr. Al Telcak. SEMCOR, Inc. (609) 234-6600. May 30, 1996.
Mr. Phil Norton. Keco Industries. (606)525-2102. June 14, 1996.
San Diego County Air Pollution Control District Rules and Regulations. Rule 69.4 -
Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines.
2-III-2-3
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
SPILL PREVENTION TECHNIQUES
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: N/A; Air Force: N/A; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: High; Marine Corps: High; Army: High; Air Force: High
Alternative for: N/A
Compliance Areas: Medium
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: N/A
Overview: A key component of an integrated approach to pollution prevention is to
minimize accidental and incidental releases of toxic and hazardous materials to
the atmosphere. These releases usually result in not only a waste of material,
but also in the generation of contaminated soil, absorbent material, and
contaminated product that has to be treated and disposed. A structured plan is
absolutely necessary to assure control of systems and to verify that the goal of
zero spills can be achieved.
Spills are caused by a number of common factors, but the most likely causes
are:
Mechanical failure
Personnel error
Fires and explosions
Power failures, and
Natural disasters such as tornadoes, earthquakes, and hurricanes
Since the great majority of spills result from the first two factors, which, to a
large extent, also control the third factor, proper design and prevention
measures can greatly reduce the incidence of spills. The following suggested
measures go a long way toward laying the foundation for a system that will
minimize occurrence of accidental spills:
Good design
Explicit and detailed operating and maintenance procedures
Thorough training of all personnel
Conscientious and timely maintenance of equipment and facilities
Strict job responsibility and accountability
Redundant process control and alarm monitoring systems
Other proactive and reactive processes should be implemented to minimize the
occurrence, reoccurrence, and severity of spills that do occur. This includes
investigating all spills to determine root cause; performing process hazard
analyses to look at factors such as chemical interactions, maximum material
2-IV-l-l
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
inventories, materials compatibility, and failure scenarios; and developing spill
action plans to be followed in the event of a spill. In addition, physical barriers
should be used to contain spills and minimize environmental damage
(contamination of soil, groundwater, or leakage into sewers or surface waters)
in the event of a release. Such physical barriers include neutralizing agents and
containment devices (booms) strategically located to be quickly deployed in the
event of a spill.
Monitoring Systems
Knowledge and decision making are critical to taking appropriate action when
an unusual circumstance presents itself. Instrumentation is the key to obtaining
fast and accurate knowledge of the status of the process. Furthermore,
redundancy of instrumentation is a vital component of any good spill prevention
system. All critical instruments, such as drum or tank level sensors, should be
duplicated, preferably with an instrument using a different means of sensing to
avoid a double failure.
Control and accuracy of inventory by material balance may also indicate a spill
is occurring. Alarm setpoints should be chosen to minimize false alarms while
maintaining adequate response for true failures.
Piping Systems
Pipelines are often the site of major spills, typically because of equipment failure.
Guidelines for designing, maintaining, and operating pipelines are as follows:
A standard identification system should be developed for all pipelines to
assure proper and accurate indication of the product flowing within each
and every line. All lines should be marked and their markings maintained.
Any product fill line entering a tank below the liquid level should have a
check valve and isolation valve combination located close to the receiving
tank in order to prevent massive backflow or siphoning of the material out
of the tank. The isolation valve permits easy maintenance of the check valve
as well as tight shutoff in the event of a transfer shutoff
Underground pipelines should be avoided. If lines must be underground,
they should have protective coatings and wrappings, as well as cathodic
protection to minimize corrosion. In addition, a section of the underground
line should be exposed and inspected annually until the entire length of the
line has been inspected over a period of years. Then the process should be
continued from the original starting point.
If a pipeline is taken out of service for an extended period of time, it should
be marked, blind flanged, and isolated at both ends.
Pipelines supported just off the ground, especially those using wood or
makeshift shoes, should be avoided. Pipelines should be routed in
designated pipe racks with standard pipe shoes at each support point.
2-IV-1-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Stress analysis should be done for all piping subject to thermal cycling to
avoid overstress and rupture during a cycle.
Designers should minimize the number of inaccessible valves and flanges. All
connects should undergo at least a regular quarterly visual inspection, at
which time an assessment can be made of the general condition of the line,
its support structure, and other components.
Elevated pipe bridges should be used for road crossings and designed for
the tallest regular vehicle traffic. Exceptional vehicular traffic should be
notified of the crossing heights in order to allow time to make alternative
arrangements.
Pumping systems should be located in close proximity to storage tanks.
Baffles, hard coatings, high alloys, long bends, or other means of abrasion
resistant designs should be used for abrasive or erosive liquids.
Bulk Storage
Underground tank use should be avoided unless adequate measures have
been taken to assure integrity of the vessel by a combination of careful
design, quality construction, conscientious maintenance, continuous
monitoring, and periodic inspection.
Material storage should only be done in vessels designed and constructed to
meet the requirements of the stored material. Additionally, all vessels should
be subjected to integrity testing by the most appropriate non-destructive
means, e.g., x-ray, dye penetrant, etc. All tanks should also undergo
hydrostatic testing as a new tank and following maintenance work.
Thickness testing should be done periodically and compared to the vessel's
original thickness to track reduction due to corrosion.
Tank farms for large volume storage should have a spill containment volume
(e.g., pits, dikes, or curbs) equal to 110% of the volume of the largest tank.
Drainage of rainwater from containment areas should be restricted to in-
plant treatment, unless assurances such as locked valves, careful analysis of
water, and monitoring of pumpouts are carried out.
Fail-safe engineering designs should be used on all tanks: high and low
audible alarms with redundancy directed to a constantly manned control
station and high level pump cut-offs or valve shutoffs to stop flow at a
predetermined liquid level to prevent overfilling of tanks.
Visible product seeps or leaks from seams, cracks, or gaskets should be
followed by immediate corrective action.
Analytic devices (e.g., pH sensors) should be installed in wastewater sumps
or other collection point for early warning of spilled material.
Compliance
Benefit: Implementation of spill prevention can result in a decrease in the generation of
contaminated soil, absorbent material, and contaminated product that has to be
2-1V-1-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
treated and disposed. This benefit helps facilities meet the requirements of waste
reduction under RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix, and may also help facilities
reduce their generator status and lessen the amount of regulations (i.e.,
recordkeeping, reporting, inspections, transportation, accumulation time,
emergency prevention and preparedness, emergency response) they are
required to comply with under RCRA, 40 CFR 262. Additionally,
implementation of spill prevention techniques can decrease the need for
reporting spills under 40 CFR 300.405.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
Compatibility of materials should always be checked before putting a pipeline,
vessel, or piece of mechanical equipment into service. This includes not only the
bulk materials of each item, but also the gaskets, o-rings, coatings, liners, and
seals. Consider cleanout conditions, especially high temperature conditions,
which may cause two materials compatible at a lower temperature to be
incompatible at an elevated temperature.
Consult your local health and safety personnel for assistance in developing a
spill prevention plan where needed.
The benefits of spill prevention are:
Raw materials and finished products are not wasted, lost or disposed
Damage to the environment is avoided if product losses are minimized
Treatment and disposal costs are minimized while salable and useable
product is maximized
N/A
Spill prevention systems have definite costs; unfortunately, spill avoidance and
the major costs and hazards that never manifest themselves are difficult, if not
impossible, to quantify when trying to justify a spill prevention project on its
economic merits. Sometimes historical cost data from past spills can be used in
cost avoidance arguments. In any event, the costs and benefits of spill
prevention systems must be weighed for each individual case.
2-IV-1-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost
Deck, Spill, Module 4235-01-443-6347 ea. $317.18
Pallet Spill Contain. 4235-01-443-6342 ea. $300.42
Env. Monitor System 6695-01-215-1647 ea.
Haz. Spill Containment Sys. 4235-01-448-8265 ea. $4,729.76
Haz. Spill Containment Sys. 7930-01-440-7603 ea. $2,525.60
Approving
Authority: Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Points of
Contact: Navy:
Mr. Brian Quil, Code 422
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
1100 23rd Avenue
PortHueneme, CA 93043-4370
(805) 982-1887, DSN 551-1887, Fax (805) 982-4832
Vendors: N/A
Source: Oil Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Planning Manual (NEESA 7-030),
June 1988. This document is currently being updated; a revised manual is scheduled
to be available in mid-1997.
2-IV-1-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
BIOREMEDIATION OF CONTAMINATED SOIL: BIOPILES
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-99-99; Air Force: MI02; Army: OTG
Usage List: Navy: Low; Air Force: Low; Army: Low; Marine Corps: Low
Alternative for: Excavation of Contaminated Soil and Disposal as Hazardous Waste
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: trichloroethylene (CAS: 79-01-6), tetrachloroethene
(CAS: 127-18-4), benzene (CAS: 71-43-2), toluene (CAS: 108-88-3), ethylbenzene (CAS: 100-41-4),
xylene (CAS: 1330-20-7)
Overview: Biopiles are used to reduce the concentration of petroleum constituents in
excavated soils through the use of biodegradation. This technology can be
performed on-site and involves heaping contaminated soils into piles and
stimulating aerobic microbial activity within the soils through the addition of
oxygen, minerals, nutrients, and moisture. The enhanced microbial activity results
in the breakdown of the petroleum constituents in the soil. The biopile technology
requires the use of pumps to force air throughout the pile. In order to prevent the
leaching of contaminants into underlying soil or groundwater, biopiles should be
constructed in impermeable containers.
Many DOD installations contaminate soil through petroleum spills during the
maintenance and servicing of vehicles and aircrafts. Typically, the contaminated
soil is excavated and disposed as hazardous waste. An alternative to this form of
waste management implements a cleanup technology that would reduce or
eliminate the amount of petroleum in the excavated soil, thereby making it suitable
for reuse.
Selection of the proper cleanup technology should be based on the primary
objectives of stopping the release of contaminants, recovering any free product,
and preventing additional spills. The selection of the appropriate cleanup
technology is a site-specific decision that will be fully protective of human health
and the environment and meet site remediation objectives.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) suggests that biopiles is a proven
technology effective in reducing nearly all of the concentrations of petroleum
product constituents typically found in underground storage tank (UST) sites.
Higher molecular weight petroleum constituents (e.g., heating and lubricating oils)
require a longer degradation period. The effectiveness of a biopile system
depends on the soil characteristics, petroleum constituent characteristics and
climate conditions. A comprehensive site assessment must be performed before
implementing any cleanup technology.
2-IV-2-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
No materials compatibility issues were identified.
Care must be taken when handling contaminated soils. Proper personal protective
equipment is recommended. Consult your local industrial health specialist, your
local health and safety personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to
implementing this technology.
Relatively simple to design and implement;
Short treatment times: usually 6 months to 2 years under optimal conditions;
Cost competitive;
Effective on organic constituents with slow biodegradation rates; and
Controlled vapor emissions when designed as a closed system.
Reduction of constituent concentration of greater than 95 percent and 0.1
parts per million (ppm) is difficult to achieve;
May not be very effective for high constituent concentrations of greater than
50,000 ppm of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH);
Presence of significant heavy metal concentrations, greater than 2,500 ppm,
may inhibit microbial growth; and
May require a liner if leaching from the biopile is a concern.
The following cost elements compare the off-site treatment of contaminated soil
with implementation of the biopile system.
Assumptions:
95,000 pounds of contaminated soil generated per year.
A 10 cubic yard (yd3) (1 ft3 of soil is 125 pounds) soil bin is used as the
enclosed biopile system or used to haul away the contaminated soil to an off-
site facility for treatment.
For off-site treatment: Cost of each 10 yd3 load is $500 for hauling, $265 for
disposal, $130 for two TPH tests, and $550 for fish bioassay test (required if
TPH is over 1,000 ppm).
For biopile system: Cost of each 10 yd3 load is $130 for 2 TPH tests, and
$550 for fish bioassay test (required if TPH is over 1,000 ppm).
Equipment will include 10 yd3 soil bin and air pump.
There will be a recurring cost for PVC pipes and fertilizer.
2-IV-2-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Cost Comparison for
Off-Site Treatment vs. Biopile System
Capital and Installation Cost:
Operational Costs:
Hauling Fee
Disposal Fee
2 TPH Tests
Fish Bioassay Test
Recurring Supply Cost
Total Costs: (not including
capital and installation costs)
Total Income:
Annual Benefit
Economic Analysis Summary
Off-Site
Treatment
$0
$1,407
$746
$366
$1,548
$0
$4,607
$0
- $4,607
Annual Savings for Biopile System:
Capital Cost for Equipment/Process:
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process:
Biopile System
$3000
$0
$0
$366
$1,548
$1,000
$1,914
$1,000
- $2,914
$1,693
$3,000
2 year
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values. To
return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
Approving
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
POC
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Mr. Robert Kratzke
NFESC
1100 23rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, CA 9630432
(805) 982-4853
2-IV-2-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Vendors:
Sources:
Marine Corps:
Mr. Ken Yagas
Attn: Environmental Office
Marine Warfare Training Center
P.O. Box 5002
Bridgeport, CA 93517
Phone: (760) 932-7761 extension 332
This is not meant to be a complete list, as there may be other suppliers of this type
of equipment.
Clayton Group Services
7901 Stoneridge Drive
Suite 123
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Phone:(510)426-2600
BioActive, Inc.
40 High Street
Mt. Holly, NJ 08060
Phone: (800) 328-2613
Growing International Markets and Opportunities in Bioremediation: Part 1, Glass,
David J.; Raphael, Thomas; Valor, Risto; Van Eyk, Jack, Genetic Engineering News,
October 15, 1995.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Underground Storage Tanks
Homepage.
2-IV-2-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
NUMBERING SYSTEM FOR CFCS, HCFCS, AND HALONS
Revision: 9/98
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: N/A; Air Force: N/A; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: High; Marine Corps: High; Army: High; Air Force: High
Alternative For: Not applicable
Compliance Areas: None
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Not applicable
Overview: The common names for Class I and Class U ODSs are derived from each
compound's chemical formula. Because the common names can be relatively
long, numbering systems were devised to more simply describe each
compound.
A numbering system describing chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which are Class I
ODSs, and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), which are Class II ODSs, has
been developed to simply and systematically name each compound. The
numbering system for both classes of compounds is the same (except for a
slightly different numbering system used to describe the Halons and also the
prefix before each number, which is simply CFC- or HCFC-, depending on the
class to which that particular compound belongs). For CFCs and HCFCs, the
ones digit (last) indicates the number of fluorine atoms in each molecule, the tens
digit represents the number of hydrogen atoms in each molecule plus one, and
the hundreds digit represents the number of carbon atoms in each molecule
minus one. For example, trichlorotrifluoroethane is a CFC that has three
fluorine atoms, no hydrogen atoms, and two carbon atoms in each molecule;
hence, the designation CFC-113. Since there are two carbon atoms and thus
six sites available for halogens (chlorine or fluorine only, no bromine) and
hydrogens, the number of chlorine atoms is determined by the difference
between the total number of sites available and the sum of the hydrogen and
fluorine atoms. In this case, 6 - (0+3) = 3, or the number of chlorine atoms.
The Halon numbering system uses four digits. It is similar, but also a bit simpler,
since the Halons, like the CFCs, are totally halogenated, lacking any hydrogen
atoms. The numbering system uses a simple count of the number of atoms of
each element in the molecule from the ones digit to the thousands digit: bromine
(Br), chlorine (Cl), fluorine (F), and carbon (C), respectively. For example, the
bromochlorodifluoromethane molecule has one bromine atom, one chlorine
atom, two fluorine atoms, and one carbon atom; hence, the designation Halon
1211 orCF2C!Br.
5-1-1-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
It is possible to derive the common name or chemical formula of most of these
compounds. The numbered names have a lower case letter following the ones
digit. This letter indicates a particular isomer or arrangement of the molecule,
but no other specific information to further establish the compound's exact
identity.
For refrigerants, a more complete discussion of the numbering system can be
found in ASHRAE/ANSI Standard 34 (Number Designation and Safety
Classification of Refrigerants). To obtain a copy of ASHRAE/ANSI 34
contact:
American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.
(ASHRAE)
179 ITullie Circle, NE
Atlanta, GA 30329
Phone: 800-527-4723 or (404) 636-8400
Fax:(404) 321-5478
E-mail: ashrae@,ashrae.org
URL: http://www. ashrae.ore/
Compliance
Benefit:
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
None noted
No materials compatibility issues were identified.
No safety and health issues were identified
None identified
None identified
Not applicable
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
3-1-1-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Approval
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Vendors:
Sources:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Stratospheric Ozone Protection Hotline (800) 296-1996
(international: 301-614-3396)
Monday - Friday, 10:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. (Eastern)
The following list is not meant to be complete, as there are other manufacturers
of this product.
Du Pont Fluorochemical Products Information
Halon Division
1006 Market St.
Wilmington, DE 19898
Phone: 800-235-7882
Personal conversation with RevaRubensteinfrom United States Environmental
Protection Agency, August 1998
www. epa.gov/spdpublic/geninfo/numbers. html
> T i ^
5-1-1-;
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
U.S. EPA's SIGNIFICANT NEW ALTERNATIVES POLICY (SNAP) PROGRAM
Revision:
Process Code:
Usage List:
Alternative For:
9/98
Navy and Marine Corps: SR-04-02; Air Force: FH03, SV09; Army: N/A
Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
Class I and Class U ozone-depleting substances
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Class I and Class U ozone-depleting substances
Overview:
Compliance
Benefit:
Section 612 of the Clean Air Act stipulates that the EPA create a list of
acceptable chemical and process alternatives to Class I and Class U ozone-
depleting substances. The list, created in March of 1994, includes substitutes
for major industry applications such as aerosols, adhesives, coatings, inks, foam
blowing, fire suppression, refrigeration, solvents, sterilants, and tobacco
expansion. As a result of the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) list,
the Clean Air Act makes it illegal to replace any Class I or Class U substance
with an alternative that has been identified as hazardous to human or
environmental health if acceptable alternatives are available. Any person can
petition the EPA for inclusion of certain alternatives on future revised lists of
approved substitutes and permission will be granted or denied within 90 days.
The producer of a substitute for a Class 1 substance must notify the EPA at
least 90 days before the new or existing alternatives are introduced. The
framework of the SNAP program is included in Subpart G of 40 CFR Part 82.
The original SNAP listing separates alternatives by industry application.
Revisions from August 1994, September 1994, January 1995, June 1995, July
1995, February 1996, September 1996, October 1996, March 1997, May
1997, June 1997, February 1998, and May 1998 are included as revisions at
the end of the original SNAP listings. The latest updated list is available from
the Stratospheric Protection Hotline (800) 296-1996 relating generic names to
trade names. SNAP Federal Register Notices can be ordered from the
Government Printing Office Order Desk at (202) 783-3238. Complete
information about the SNAP Program is also available at:
www.epa. gov/ozone/title6/snap/.
The SNAP creates a list of acceptable chemical and process alternatives to
Class I and Class U ozone-depleting substances. This helps facilities meet the
requirements under 40 CFR 82, Subpart D and Executive Order 12843
requiring federal agencies to maximize the use of safe alternatives to Class I and
Class U ozone depleting substances, to the maximum extent practicable.
3-1-2-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Material
Compatibility:
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
Materials compatibility is based on the alternative procedure or chemical
implemented. Considerations include the possibility of corrosion, swelling,
deformation, and damage to coatings and adhesives. Testing will reveal
particular types of damage to parts: stress, embrittlement, and total immersion
corrosion.
Consult your local Industrial Health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDSs prior to implementing any of these
recovery, recycling, or reclaiming processes.
Facilitates compliance with the Clean Air Act.
Reduces the amount of ozone-depleting substances and EPCRA-targeted
chemicals going into the environment.
Reduces worker exposure to constituents that have adverse effects to
human health.
Potential substitutes not listed on the SNAP list may or may not actually be
acceptable. Check with the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Hotline for the
latest information from the EPA, especially for recent decisions or where a
decision about a particular potential substitute is pending.
Time is required to identify acceptable substitutes.
Any SNAP-listed substitute process or chemical needs to be evaluated for a
given application in order to determine the economic impact of the specific
substitution. Regardless of any substitute's cost, taxes on CFCs will continue to
rise.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
R-134a
R-123
R-124
R-401A
R-401B
NSN
6830-01-390-9622
6830-01-391-3111
6830-01-391-3107
6830-01-391-3101
6830-01-391-3109
Unit Size
301b CY
2001b CY
301b CY
301b CY
301b CY
Cost
104.96
1291.25
373.97
180.63
169.79
3-1-2-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
R-402A
R-402B
R-404A
R-404B
6830-01-391-3105
6830-01-391-3103
6830-01-392-0960
6830-01-391-3104
271b CY
131b CY
331b CY
241b CY
279.53
162.82
563.95
247.90
Approval
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
For more information about the SNAP list and its latest revisions, SNAP
notification forms, and SNAP notification guidance manual contact the
Stratospheric Ozone Protection Hotline (800) 296-1996 (international: 301-
614-3396)
Monday - Friday, 10:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. (Eastern)
or Jack Johns SNAP Document Coordinator at (202) 564-9870
Copies of SNAP Federal Register notices available from:
Government Printing Office Order Desk
(202) 783-3238
http://www.epa. gov/ozone/title6/snap/snap.html#rules
International Cooperative for Environmental Leadership
11430 Balls Ford Rd
Suite 102
Manassas, VA 20109
phone: 703-335-6300
fax: 703-335-2585
Vendors:
Source:
The International Cooperative for Environmental Leadership (ICELP) is a non-
profit organization made up of technical associations, corporations, and
governmental agencies exchanging information on ozone layer protection,
ODSs, and alternative technologies. ICELP has developed seven different
guidance manuals on ODS replacement products, each including case studies
and extensive vendor lists which can be down loaded from their web-site:
www.icel.org
Not applicable
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation
Stratospheric Protection Division SNAP program, August, 1998
www. epa. gov/ozone/title6/snap
International Cooperative for Environmental Leadership, August, 1998
3-1-2-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
AFFIRMATIVE PROCUREMENT POLICIES/PROCEDURES FOR OZONE DEPLETING
SUBSTANCES
Revision: 4/98
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-11-99; Air Force: MA01; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: High; Marine Corps: High; Army: High; Air Force: High
Alternative For: Procurement of Ozone Depleting Substances
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Class I Substances: Chlorofluorocarbons, halons,
carbon tetrachloride (CAS: 56-23-5), methyl chloroform (CAS: 71-55-6), methyl bromide (CAS: 74-
83-9) Class II Substances: Hydrochlorofluorocarbons and any other substances so designated by the
EPA by any subsequent regulations
Overview: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) has developed
an "affirmative procurement" policy to encourage reduced purchase and use of
ozone-depleting substances (ODS) and substitution of alternative products that
offer lower overall risks to human health and the environment. Under section
612 of the Clean Air Act, US EPA established the Significant New Alternatives
Policy (SNAP) Program. The SNAP mandates identifying and publishing lists
of acceptable and unacceptable alternatives to ozone-depleting substances for
major industry applications including: aerosols, adhesives, coatings, inks, foam
blowing, fire suppression, refrigeration, solvents, and sterilants. The Clean Air
Act makes it illegal to replace any Class I or Class U Substance with an
alternative that has been identified as hazardous to human or environmental
health, when acceptable alternatives are available.
President Clinton issued Executive Order 12843, "Procurement Requirements
and Policies for Federal Agencies for Ozone-Depleting Substances," on April
21, 1993 to reduce the Federal government's procurement and use of
substances that cause stratospheric ozone depletion. In accordance with the
Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, to which the
United States is a signatory, the Executive Order instructs Federal agencies to
comply with Title VI of the Clean Air Act Amendments dealing with
stratospheric ozone protection. This includes to maximizing the use of safe
alternatives to ozone-depleting substances and to modifying procurement
practices and specifications to eliminate requirements for ozone depleting
substances. A copy of the Executive Order 12843 is available on the Internet
at: http ://es. epa.gov/program/exec/12843 .html
Federal agencies (including all military departments) shall, to the extent
practicable, give preference to the procurement of alternative chemicals,
products and manufacturing processes that reduce overall risks to human health
O T O 1
3-1-3-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
and the environment. The objective of this policy is to utilize the procurement
process to reduce significantly the use of ODSs so that the Federal government
can become a leader in the worldwide phaseout of these substances.
Federal agencies are encouraged to cease the purchase of nonessential
products containing or manufactured with ozone-depleting substances and to
revise procurement practices. Federal agencies can implement cost-effective
programs to modify specifications and contracts that require ozone depleting
substances and to substitute non-ozone depleting substances. To the extent
practicable agencies may need to:
1. Alter existing equipment and/or procedures to make use of safe alternatives;
2. Specify the use of safe alternatives and of goods and services that do not
require the use of Class I substances and that limit the use of Class U
substances in new procurements; and
3. Amend existing contracts to be consistent with the phaseout schedule for
Class I substances.
Compliance
Benefit:
This fact sheet summarizes the requirements of Executive Order 12843
requiring Federal agencies to maximize the use of safe alternatives to Class I
and Class U ozone depleting substances, to the maximum extent practicable.
Compliance with these requirements also allows facilities to comply with 40
CFR82,SubpartD
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety and
Health:
Materials compatibility is based on the specific alternative procedure or
product. In substituting for ODS, consider the potential impacts of the safe
alternative on equipment and procedures. Evaluate the compatibility of the safe
alternative with other materials or substances used in the process.
The stratospheric ozone layer protects the earth from dangerous
Ultraviolet-B (UV-B) radiation. Depletion of stratospheric ozone allows
more UV-B radiation to penetrate to the earth's surface. Increased
radiation, in turn, has been linked to higher incidence of certain skin
cancers and cataracts, suppression of the human immune system, damage to
crops and aquatic organisms, and increased formation of ground-level ozone.
In substituting for ODS, consider potential health and safety impacts of
T O O
-l-j-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
alternative products and procedures. Consult your local Industrial Health
specialist, your local health and safety personnel, and the appropriate MSDSs
prior to implementing any product substitution.
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Approval
Authority:
Economic
Analysis:
Compliance with Executive Order 12843
Significant reduction in the purchase and use of ODS by Federal agencies
Reduction in releases of ODS to the atmosphere from Federal facilities
Potential economic benefit from purchase of less costly alternative products
Labor to identify acceptable substitutes for each application and process
affected.
Potential substitute products or processes not included on the SNAP list
may not be acceptable.
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Rigorous economic analysis of the benefits of these affirmative procurement
policies requires site-specific information regarding the target process, current
material usage, existing procurement practices and the specific substitution
proposed.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
Points of
Contact:
US EPA
Stratospheric Ozone Protection Hotline
296-1996 or international 301-614-3396
Monday-Friday, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. EST
Navy:
Mr. Peter Mullenhard
Navy Shipboard Environmental Information Clearinghouse
Suite 910
Arlington, VA 22202
Phone: (703) 416-1023 ext.109
? T O ^
5-1-3-:
-------
Vendors:
Sources:
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
LCDR Ranch
CNO N45F
2000 Navy Pentagon
Washington, DC 20350-2000
Phone: (703) 602-8794, DSN 332-8794
Fax: (703) 602-5364
Marine Corps:
Mr. George Barchuk
Commandant of the Marine Corps
Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps
ATTN: LPP-2
2 Navy Annex
Washington, DC 20380-1775
Phone: (703) 695-8926/8934/8939/8946/8947 DSN: 225-
Fax: (703) 695-8905 DSN: 225-
e-mail: gbarchuk@,notes.hqi.usmc.mil
Army:
Mr. Dave Koehler
4811-B Eisenhower Avenue
Alexandra, VA 22304
Phone: (703) 212-9006
Air Force:
LTCOL Sherman Forbes
SAF/AQRE
1060 Air Force Pentagon
Washington DC 20330-1060
Phone: (703) 588-7839
Fax:(703)588-0066
Contact the Navy Shipboard Environmental Information Clearinghouse at (703)
416-1132 or by fax at (703) 416-1178 for appropriate vendors. In addition,
each Point of Contact can provide guidance in identifying vendors of specific
safe alternative products and processes. See also Pollution Prevention
Opportunity Data Sheets on specific Ozone Depleting Substances (e.g., Halon
1301, Halon 1211).
Mr. PeterMullenhard, September, 1998
T O A
-1-3-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
PURCHASE RESTRICTIONS ON CFC-CONTAINING APPLIANCES
Revision:
Process Code:
10/98
Navy and Marine Corps: SR-14-99, SR-04-02; Air Force: FA03, SV07;
Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: High
Alternative For: Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)-Containing Residential Appliances
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: CFC-12 (dichlorodifluoromethane) (CAS: 75-71-8)
Overview:
Compliance
Benefit:
The Department of Defense's (DOD) policy is to avoid purchase of new
equipment containing CFCs except for mission critical applications. Due to the
phase-out of Class I chlorofuorocarbons (CFCs), any purchases of new
appliances must contain CFC-free refrigerants.
As of January 1, 1996, all refrigerator manufacturers were required to begin
using HFC-134a. Currently, refrigerators using HFC-134a are on the market.
However, portable room air conditioners currently use predominantly R-22, an
HCFC and Class IIODS with a lower ozone depleting potential than CFC.
These units are scheduled for phase-out beginning in 2015 and are not yet being
replaced with units using an HFC substitute.
Purchases should be directed toward those new non-ODS products if possible.
If this is not possible, then purchase a refrigerator using an HCFC. An approval
from a Senior Acquisition Official (SAO) at the flag/general officer or SES level
is required for purchase of any item containing a CFC. Procurement of
portable room air conditioners containing HCFC-22 does not require an SAO
approval and will most likely be allowed until the year 2000 or later.
To determine if a refrigerator unit contains HFC-134a, check the serial number.
Units with serial numbers beginning with "LA" or "BA" should have a 6 or a 7
following those first two digits if they use HFC-134a.
DOD's policy to avoid purchase of new equipment containing CFCs helps
facilities meet the requirements under 40 CFR 82, Subpart D and Executive
Order 12843 requiring Federal agencies to maximize the use of safe
alternatives to Class I and Class U ozone depleting substances, to the maximum
extent practicable.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
3-II/A-l-l
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
No materials compatibility issues were identified.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these
technologies.
Reduces the amount of ODSs going into the environment.
Conforms with DOD policy
May be more costly to purchase HFCs in the short term.
Some products may not be available with HFCs.
Energy efficient refrigerators offered for purchase through the General Services
Administration (GSA) range in price from $200 to $450. A $200 unit is a 5.6
cubic foot capacity refrigerator, while a $450 unit is a 20.6 cubic foot capacity
refrigerator/freezer. All refrigerators and freezers have order numbers beginning
with 4110-00 or 4110-01. The following are some examples of product
numbers:
4110-01-015-7929
4110-01-186-9864
4110-01-316-5730
16.5-cu.ft. capacity refrigerator/freezer
18.5-cu.ft. capacity refrigerator/freezer
20.5-cu.ft. capacity refrigerator/freezer
The cost of air conditioners range from $250 to $500 and have order numbers
beginning with 4120-00 or 4120-01. The following are some examples of
product numbers:
4120-00-905-4313 5000 to 6399 BTU cooling capacity air conditioner
4120-00-211-5922 10,000 to 12,499 BTU cooling capacity air cond.
4120-00-905-4238 15,500 to 18,999 BTU cooling capacity air cond.
4120-00-905-4315 23,000 to 27,499 BTU cooling capacity air cond.
All units sold through GSA are do not contain Rl 12 (a CFC). They all use
R134a.
3-II/A-1-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
NSN/MSDS:
Product
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Refrigerator
Air Conditioner
Air Conditioner
Air Conditioner
Air Conditioner
Approval
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
NSN
4110-01-015-7929
4110-01-186-9864
4110-01-316-5730
4120-00-905-4313
4120-00-211-5922
4120-00-905-4238
4120-00-905-4315
Unit Size
ea.
ea.
ea.
ea.
ea.
ea.
ea.
Cost
$402.80
$428.27
$463.19
$266.35
$400.83
$424.30
$497.30
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
General Services Administration
Federal Supply Service
Office of Acquisition
P.O. Box 6477
Fort Worth, TX 76115
Centralized Mailing Service (817) 334-5215
General Products Center (817) 978-4545
Ms. Janna Kirkpatrick
GSA, FSS, TAC, TAD
6 FESP-B6
1500 East Bannister Road
Kansas City, MO 64131
(816)926-1299
Fax: (816) 926-3678
Ms. Pat Widmier
Du Pont Fluoroproducts,
101 Columbia Turnpike
Morristown, NJ 07962-1053
(800)631-8138
Fax:(973) 455-6395
3-II/A-1-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Vendors: The following list is not meant to be complete, as there are other manufacturers
of this product.
HFC-134a household refrigerators are available from:
Whirlpool (800) 253-1301
General Electric (800) 626-2000
Amana (800) 843-0304
Frigidaire/Westinghouse (800) 451-7007, (614) 792-2153
Note: All of the above listed vendors supply appliances that are completely free
ofCFCs
3-II/A-1-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
REFRIGERANT TRACKING SOFTWARE
Revision: 9/98
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR04-02; Air Force: FA03; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
Alternative For: Manual tracking
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11) (CAS: 75-69-4),
dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12) (CAS: 75-71-8), l,l,2-trichloro-l,2,2-trifluoroethane (CFC-113)
(CAS: 76-13-1), dichlorotetrafluoroethane (CFC-114) (CAS: 76-14-2)
Overview: Section 114A of The Clean Air Act requires owners and operators of
equipment that contain CFC and HCFC refrigerants record refrigerant usage
and service. Software has been developed to track ozone-depleting substance
(ODS) inventories, servicing dates, quantities, refrigerant types, system
capacities, leak frequencies and component failures. There are several
programs available.
Northern Division of Naval Facilities Engineering Command has developed the
ODS Inventory Tracking and Management System (ODS-ITMS). The
software tracking system helps the Navy comply with policies and the
requirements of 40 CFR Part 82 (Subparts B and F). It is an easy to use
Windows-based refrigerant management software. This software allows users
to enter equipment inventories, refrigerant transactions, maintenance/service
procedures and equipment retrofit/replacement scheduling. The software is
based on the Microsoft Access 2.0 database, and contains a user-friendly
"front-end" to allow technicians/supervisors to easily maintain records and
calculate refrigerant leakage rates. ODS-ITMS is available upon request from
the Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center (NFESC) via the World Wide
Web at http://www.nfesc.naw.mil/enviro/ods-inv/.
The Army Corps of Engineers has developed a two-level program to manage
refrigerants; the Refrigerant Management System (RMS). RMS is designed to
track the addition and removal of refrigerants and refrigerant services performed
on each piece of Air Conditioning and Refrigeration (AC&R) equipment. The
Personal Computer (PC) based software consists of two modules, level 1 and
level 2. Level 1 is for AC&R technicians/operators to maintain records of
refrigerant services performed on AC&R equipment. Level 2 is a database of
refrigerant transactions (additions or subtractions) and serves as an inventory of
AC&R equipment and as a database of refrigerant services performed on
AC&R equipment. RMS prepares transaction reports summarizing refrigerant
services performed. The output is in ASCII text format. RMS is available on
3-II/A-2-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
floppy disks from the US Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory
(USACERL) in Champaign, Illinois.
In addition to these military-developed software programs, there are several
commercial software programs available that meet EPA guidelines. One
software package, known as the Refrigerant Compliance Manager Version
2.0, is available from Environmental Support Solutions, Inc. (ESS). In addition,
DuPont, Trane, McQuay, and several other manufacturers market versions of
the ESS software.
Compliance
Benefit:
Software has been developed to track ozone-depleting substance (ODS)
inventories, servicing dates, quantities, refrigerant types, system capacities, leak
frequencies, and component failures. The software may help facilities comply
with 40 CFR 82, Subpart F, which has specific record keeping requirements.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
No materials compatibility issues were identified.
Consult your local Industrial Health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these
technologies.
Assists personnel in monitoring equipment leaks and reduces refrigerant use
by providing a more complete maintenance history.
May reduce the number and frequency of major equipment failures and the
large losses of refrigerant associated with failures.
Allows forecasting of supply requirements ensuring that large scale, accurate
quantities of Class I ODSs can be procured from the Defense Logistics
Agency.
Assists in the coordination of reclamation and recycling routines with
maintenance needs so that DOD's policy to reduce ODS consumption
becomes a built-in function.
Facilitates compliance with EPA record keeping regulations.
Requires a computer system and the knowledge to use it.
Requires manpower to run and manage the system.
3-II/A-2-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Economic
Analysis:
The following economic analysis information was provided from Mr. Jim Mill of
NORTHDIV:
The economic analysis depends on site specific information including inventory
levels and waste/loss due to leakage and shrinkage. Assuming a computer is
already in place, the capital cost of the software ranges from $0 to $600. Start
up labor costs may be high if refrigerant usage is high at the facility and large
quantities of data need to be entered in the program. Once the system is set up
it can be maintained as part of normal daily operating maintenance procedures.
Occasional maintenance may be required to update the system. In addition, the
lack of experience with the software and the ability to follow procedures
mandated by the software designer may impact costs. Tracking systems
software will save time by recording and inventorying refrigerants and provide
quick access to valuable information that will help minimize refrigerant loss due
to leaks and shrinkage.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
Approval
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Mr. Felix Mestey of NAVFACENGCOM HQ,
(703) 325-8539, DSN 221-8539
e-mail: mestev@Jia.navfac.naw.mil
Ms. Pam Latimer
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
1100 23rd Avenue
PortHueneme, California 93043-4370
(805) 982-4290 DSN 551-4290
e-mail: platime@iifesc.navv.mil
Mr. Jim Mill - NORTHDIV
(610) 595-0567 ext!36
3-II/A-2-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Army:
Dr. Chang Sohn
US Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratories
PO Box 9005
Champaign, IL 61826-9005
(217)-398-5424
Vendors:
Source:
The following list is not meant to be complete, as there are other manufacturers
of this product.
The ODS Inventory Tracking and Management System
http: //home. navi soft. com/navy ozone/itmsdis. htm
or contact Mike Nace, NFESC
(805) 982-3550, DSN 551-3550
The Refrigerant Compliance Manager 2.0
Environmental Support Solutions, Inc.
210 N. Center, Suite 101, Mesa, AZ 85201
(602) 964-5043
Fax (602) 834-4319
e-mail: info@environ.com
Internet address: www.environ.com
PA Technical Inquiry 2151; http://www.environ.com/ref_man.htm;
http://home, navisoft. com/navyozone/itmsdis. htm,
Mr Jim Mills of NORTHDIVFebruary 1998,
Personal conversation with Ms. Pam Latimer of NFESC August 1998,
Personal conversation with Dr. Chang Sohn ofUSACERL September 1998.
3-II/A-2-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF HYDROFLUOROCARBONS
Revision: 9/98
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-04-99; Air Force: FA03; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
Alternative For: Chlorofluorocarbon (CFCs) and Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs)
Compliance Areas: None
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12) (CAS: 75-71-8),
Chlorotrifluoromethane (CFC-13) (CAS: 75-72-9), Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (CFC-114) (CAS: 76-
14-2), and Chloropentafluoroethane (CFC-115) (CAS: 76-15-3)
Overview: Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are being developed to replace
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) for use
primarily in refrigeration and air conditioning equipment. HFCs are the next
generation of refrigerants. They will substantially replace all the CFCs and
HCFCs, since they do not have ozone depletion potential.
Under section 608 of the Clean Air Act, it has been illegal since November 15,
1995, to knowingly vent substitutes for CFC and HCFC refrigerants during the
maintenance, service, repair and disposal of air-conditioning and refrigeration
equipment. On June 11, 1998, EPA proposed a regulation to fully implement
this statutory venting prohibition.
In brief, the proposed regulations would:
Exempt certain substitute refrigerants from the venting prohibition;
Extend to HFC and PFC refrigerants the requirements currently in place
for CFC and HCFC refrigerants, including required practices,
certification programs for recovery/recycling equipment, reclaimers, and
technicians, a prohibition on the sale of refrigerant to anyone but
certified technicians, leak repair requirements, and safe disposal
requirements;
Make minor changes to the required practices, recovery equipment
standards, and refrigerant purity standards for CFCs and HCFCs to
accommodate the addition of the HFC and PFC refrigerants; and lower
the maximum allowable leak rates for comfort cooling chillers,
commercial refrigeration, and industrial process refrigeration. The new
maximum allowable leak rates would apply to equipment containing
CFCs, HCFCs, HFCs, and PFCs.
Section 608 directly prohibits the venting of substitute refrigerants during the
maintenance, service, repair, and disposal of air-conditioning and refrigeration
equipment unless EPA determines that the release of the substitute does not
pose a threat to the environment. EPA is considering a number of factors in
3-II/A-3-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
making this determination, including the substitute's toxicity, flammability, long-
term environmental impact (such as global warming potential), and regulation
under other authorities (such as OSHA or other EPA requirements). Based on
these considerations, the following refrigerants are subject to the venting
prohibition, and EPA is proposing to cover them under the regulations:
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
EPA is proposing to exempt the following refrigerants from the venting
prohibition:
ammonia that is used in absorption systems or in commercial or
industrial process refrigeration systems
hydrocarbons that are used in industrial process refrigeration systems
for processing hydrocarbons
chlorine that is used in industrial process refrigeration systems for
processing chlorine or chlorine compounds
CO2, nitrogen, and water
This proposed exemption applies only to applications of these refrigerants that
have been approved under EPA's Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP)
Program. The applicability of recycling requirements to these substitutes in
other applications (e.g., hydrocarbons in household refrigerators) will be
considered when the substitutes in those applications are submitted for SNAP
review.
It may be dangerous to use CFC and HCFC recovery equipment to recover
ammonia, hydrocarbons, or chlorine. However, users of hydrocarbon, ammonia,
and pure chlorine refrigerants must continue to comply with all other applicable
federal, state, and local restrictions on emissions of these substances.
As is the case for CFC and HCFC refrigerants, only four types of releases of HFCs
and PFCs are permitted under the prohibition:
1. "De minimis" quantities of refrigerant released in the course of making good
faith attempts to recapture and recycle or safely dispose of refrigerant.
2. Refrigerants emitted in the course of normal operation of air-conditioning and
refrigeration equipment such as from mechanical purging and leaks.
3. Releases of HFCs and PFCs that are not used as refrigerants (note that heat
transfer fluids are considered refrigerants).
4. Small releases of refrigerant that result from purging hoses or from connecting
or disconnecting hoses to charge or service appliances.
More information on permitted releases may be found in the "Final Rule Summary:
Complying with the Section 608 Refrigerant Recycling Rule," which can obtained
from the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Hotline at 1-800-296-1996.
Compliance
Benefit: None noted.
3-II/A-3-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
Materials compatibility is based on the alternative procedure or
chemical implemented. Considerations include the possibility of
corrosion, swelling, deformation, and damage to coatings and
adhesives. Testing will reveal particular types of damage to parts:
stress, embrittlement, and total immersion corrosion.
Consult your local Industrial Health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these
technologies.
Facilitates compliance with the Clean Air Act.
Reduce the amount of ozone-depleting substances and EPCRA-targeted
chemicals going into the environment.
Reduce the exposure to constituents that have adverse effects to human
health.
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
Expensive capital costs during replacement phase may be
encountered.
Requires specialized training in handling HFC refrigerants.
Any replacements need to be evaluated for a given application in order to
determine the economic impact. Regardless of any substitute's cost, taxes on
CFCs will continue to rise.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
NSN
Unit Size Cost
Approval
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Shipboard Environmental Information Clearinghouse
Mr. Pete Mullenhard (GEO-CENTERS, Inc.)
1755 Jeff Davis Highway, Suite 910
Arlington, VA 22202
3-II/A-3-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Phone: (703) 416-1132, Fax: (703) 416-1178
www.navyseic.com
For more information concerning current EPA regulations for FIFCs point your
web browser to http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/subvent.html
or contact the EPA Stratospheric Ozone Protection Hotline at 1-800-296-
1996, Monday-Friday 10am-4pm (Eastern).
Vendors: Not applicable
Sources http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/subvent.html
http ://www. epa. gov/spdpublc/title6/608/608fact.html
http://www.epa.gov/spdpublc/title6/608/subrecpr.html
Peter Mullenhard September 1998.
3-II/A-3-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
R-500 SERIES REFRIGERANTS: OVERVIEW
Revision: 9/98
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-04-02; Air Force: FA01, FA03; Army: OTG
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Low
Alternative For: R-500 Series Refrigerants
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12) (CAS: 75-71-8),
Chlorotrifluoromethane (CFC-13) (CAS: 75-72-9), Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (CFC-114) (CAS: 76-
14-2), and Chloropentafluoroethane (CFC-115) (CAS: 76-15-3)
Overview: Mixtures of refrigerants are used in special applications where a specific
physical property of the refrigerant mixture is more desirable or is not available
by using one of the pure compounds. Often, these refrigerant mixtures or
blends contain an ozone-depleting substance (ODS). This is the case for most
of the R-500 blends because they are formulated using one chlorofluorocarbon
(CFC) and either a hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) or a hydrofluorocarbon
(HFC). Given the production ban and the scheduled use phaseout of CFCs,
alternatives have to be substituted.
R-500 series refrigerants are refrigerant blends that have been developed and
used for many applications. The 500 series refrigerants are all refrigerant
mixtures made up of two components, a CFC and an FIFC or an HCFC
(except for the new generation of the series R-507, which is a mixture of two
HFCs). The mixtures are as follows:
R-500, azeotropic mixture of 73.8% CFC-12 and 26.2% HFC-152a
(1,1 -difluoroethane)
R-501, mixture of CFC-12 and HCFC-22 (chlorodifluoromethane)
R-502, azeotropic mixture of 51.2 % CFC-115 and 48.8% HCFC-22
R-503, azeotropic mixture of 59.9% CFC-13 and 40.1% HFC-23
(trifluoromethane)
R-504, mixture of CFC-115 and HCFC-132 (dichlorodifluoroethane)
R-505, mixture of CFC-12 and HCFC-31 (chlorofluoromethane)
R-506, mixture of CFC-114 and HCFC-31
R-507, azeotropic mixture of 50% HFC-125 (pentafluoroethane) and 50%
HFC-143a trifluoroethane), is a new ODS-free replacement for R-502
Replacements for the R-500 series refrigerants depend on the application, but
there are numerous EPA Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program-
approved substitutes, both products and processes, for most applications now
using R-500, R-502, and R-503. For a list of the approved alternatives to
these three blends, see the Pollution Prevention Opportunity Data Sheet, US
3-H/A-4-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
EPA 's Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program. The EPA
SNAP list is from Table 1 of 59 FR 13146, and also Appendix A to Subpart G
of 40 CFR 82. Also see the individual blends' Pollution Prevention
Opportunity Data for more detailed information about applications and
substitutes.
Compliance
Benefit:
Using an R-500 series refrigerant which is not an ODS will help facilities meet
the requirements under 40 CFR 82, Subpart D and Executive Order 12843
requiring Federal agencies to maximize the use of safe alternatives to Class I
and Class U ozone depleting substances, to the maximum extent practicable.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety and
Health:
Although refrigerant development has focused on relatively inert and non-toxic
compounds, some products are not compatible with certain lubricants, plastics,
and elastomers, while others exhibit a moderate degree of toxicity. Always
check with the original equipment manufacturer to verify material compatibility.
Overexposure to refrigerant vapors by inhalation may cause temporary nervous
system depression with anesthetic effects such as dizziness, headache,
confusion, loss of coordination, and loss of consciousness. Higher exposure to
the vapors may cause temporary alteration of the heart's electrical activity with
irregular pulse, palpitations, or inadequate circulation; or fatality from gross
overexposure.
Potential hazards such as room ventilation issues, eye irritation, skin freezing or
burning when exposed to escaping refrigerant gas, exposed flame and residual
flux issues associated with brazing operations need to be considered.
Refrigerants are heavier than air and will displace air in a confined space leading
to possible oxygen starvation (asphyxiation) for any technician working in the
space. Oxygen starvation is the leading cause of death in accidents involving a
refrigerant. Refrigerants tend to be relatively non-toxic; however, see the
individual Pollution Prevention Opportunity Data Sheets for more specific
information about the acceptable alternatives and their material compatibility
concerns. Also, consult your local Industrial Health specialist, your local health
and safety personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of
these technologies.
3-H/A-4-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
NSN/MSDS:
Reduces the amount of ozone-depleting substances going into the
environment.
Can provide more efficient cooling processes if the alterations are well
researched and planned.
Retrofits can be expensive.
Requires specialized training in handling these refrigerants.
This data sheet is an overview of R-500 series replacements refer to the
appropriate R-500 replacement data sheet for the economic analysis
Product
R-123
R-123
R-123
R-406A
NSN
6830-01-391-3106
6830-01-391-3111
6830-01-391-3108
6830-01-433-7032
Unit Size
lOOlb CY
2001b CY
6251b CY
251b CY
Cost
542.64
1291.25
3983.70
367.28
MSDS*
Click me
Click me
Click me
Click me
*There are multiple MSDSsfor most NSNs. The MSDS shown here is only meant to serve as an
example. To return from the MSDS, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar
Approval
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Shipboard Environmental Information Clearinghouse
Mr. Pete Mullenhard (GEO-CENTERS, Inc.)
1755 Jeff Davis Highway, Suite 910
Arlington, VA 22202
Phone: (703) 416-1132, Fax: (703) 416-1178
US EPA Stratospheric Ozone Hotline
(800)296-1996 (international: 301-614-3396)
Mr. Jeffrey Levy
Refrigerant Specialist
Office of Stratospheric Ozone Protection, US EPA
(202) 564-9727
3-H/A-4-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Vendors:
Source (s):
In addition, the EPA publishes a complete listing of all refrigerants that are
authorized as substitutes for CFC and HCFC refrigerants. A copy of this listing
is available on the World Wide Web at:
www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/snap/lists/reflist.pdf
(requires use of an Adobe Acrobat PDF viewer)
The following list is not meant to be complete, as there are other manufacturers
of this product.
Allied-Signal, Inc.
101 Columbia Turnpike
Morristown, NJ 07962-1053
(800) 631-8138, FAX (973) 455-6395
Manufacturer of R-500 series refrigerant replacements
DuPont Fluorochemicals
Ms. Pat Widmier
Government Accounts
(800)441-9561
Manufacturer of R-500 series refrigerant replacements which can be purchased
through the Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia
Alison Chirkis, TinkerAFB, January, 1998
Mr. Pete Mullenhard, Shipboard Environmental Information Clearinghouse, September,
1998
Allied-Signal fluorocarbon product information
DuPont Flourochemicals, August, 1998
3-H/A-4-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
R-502 ALTERNATIVE
Revision: 9/98
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-04-02; Air Force: FA03; Army: OTG
Usage List: Navy: High; Marine Corps: High; Army: Medium; Air Force: High
Alternative For: Air Conditioning and Refrigeration using Refrigerant R-502
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC-22) (CAS: 75-45-6)
and Chloropentafluoroethane (CFC-115) (CAS: 76-15-3)
Overview: R-404A is an EPA Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP, Subpart G of
40 CFR Part 82) program approved substitute for R-502. R-502 is a mixture
of HCFC-22 and CFC-115 used primarily in large commercial and industrial
refrigeration applications, such as cold storage warehouses, commercial ice
machines, industrial process refrigeration units and refrigerated transports.
R-404A is a near azeotropic mixture of the following refrigerants: HFC-125
(44%), HFC-143a (52%), and HFC-134a (4%). These refrigerants are all
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and thus are not on either the Class I or the Class
U lists of ozone depleting substances (ODSs). R-404A was developed as a
long-term replacement for refrigeration equipment currently using primarily R-
502. R-404A provides similar energy efficiencies and capacities, but with a
lower discharge temperature and slightly higher discharge pressure. It is
acceptable for both new equipment and retrofit equipment; however, triple
flushing is sometimes necessary for retrofit equipment so that most (>95% by
weight) of the mineral oil lubricant is removed (allowable residual mineral oil is
highly dependent on system configuration and operating conditions). Flushing
can usually be accomplished after removing and recovering the existing
refrigerant by simply draining the existing mineral oil either from an oil drain plug
or by removing the compressor and draining from the suction line. In most small
systems, 90-95% of the lubricant can be removed from the system in this
manner. Larger systems may require multiple drainage points, particularly if
there are low spots around the evaporator. In systems with an oil separator,
any lubricant in the separator should also be drained. In all cases, measure the
volume of lubricant removed and compare to the compressor/system
specifications to assure that >95% of the lubricant has been removed. If >95%
of the mineral oil lubricant has not been removed, flushing will be required (if the
system shows poor heat transfer, the mineral oil residual is typically still too
high). Equipment using R-404A requires polyol ester lubricating oil, so flushing
consists of selecting a polyol ester lubricant with a viscosity similar to the
existing lubricant and charging an amount of polyol ester oil equal to the amount
of mineral oil removed. Recharge the system with the recovered R-502 in
3-II/B-l-l
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
order to achieve thorough mixing of the two lubricants (48 to 72 hours of
operation may be required). Repeat this procedure twice more, but on the last
charge of fresh polyol ester oil, recharge the system with R-404A instead of the
recovered R-502.
Note: Special care should be taken when handling polyol ester lubricants
due to their tendency to absorb water; minimize contact with air and keep
them in a sealed container.
The following precautions regarding R-404A use should also be noted:
1) Because R-404A is a blend, any leaks in the system may allow
components of the blend to bleed off at different rates, leaving behind
an altered blend that may mask system problems during troubleshooting
and failures. Leak detection and prevention should be maintenance
priorities, especially when running systems with refrigerant mixtures.
2) Service ports and valves on retrofit systems should be well marked and
identified to assure the refrigerant types is known by all service and
maintenance personnel.
3) The chemical compatibility of plastics and elastomers should be
considered before retrofitting. Gaskets, shaft seals, and o-ring materials
should be reviewed with the equipment manufacturer before retrofitting.
4) Use of HFCs is subject to the no-venting prohibition under the Clean
Air Act Amendments, Section 608 (c) (2).
For most retrofit systems, the optimum charge of R-404A will be 85-90% of
the weight of the equipment manufacturers recommended R-502 charge.
Other HFC blends that are available as R-502 substitutes include:
R-407A (HFC-32=10%, HFC-125=70%, and HFC-134a=20%)
R-407B (HFC-32=20%, HFC-125=40% and HFC-134a=40%)
R-507 (HFC-143a=50% and HFC-125=50%, Also note that this is an
azeotropic blend.)
Compliance
Benefit: Use of R-404a which is not an ozone-depleting substance will help facilities
meet the requirements under 40 CFR 82, Subpart D and Executive Order
12843 requiring Federal agencies to maximize the use of safe alternatives to
Class I and Class U ozone depleting substances, to the maximum extent
practicable.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
3-II/B-1-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Material
Compatibility:
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
Although refrigerant development has focused on relatively inert and non-toxic
compounds, some products are not compatible with certain lubricants, plastics,
and elastomers, while others exhibit a moderate degree of toxicity. The
chemical compatibility of plastics and elastomers should be considered before
retrofitting. Gaskets, shaft seals, and o-ring materials should be reviewed with
the equipment manufacturer. Always check with the original equipment
manufacturer to verify material compatibility.
Overexposure to refrigerant vapors by inhalation may cause temporary nervous
system depression with anesthetic effects such as dizziness, headache,
confusion, loss of coordination, and loss of consciousness. Higher exposure to
the vapors may cause temporary alteration of the heart's electrical activity with
irregular pulse, palpitations, or inadequate circulation; or fatality from gross
overexposure.
Potential hazards such as room ventilation issues, eye irritation, skin freezing or
burning when exposed to escaping refrigerant gas, exposed flame and residual
flux issues associated with brazing operations need to be considered.
Refrigerants are heavier than air and will displace air in a confined space leading
to possible oxygen starvation (asphyxiation) for any technician working in the
space. Oxygen starvation is the leading cause of death in accidents involving a
refrigerant. Refrigerants tend to be relatively non-toxic; however, see the
individual Pollution Prevention Opportunity Data Sheets for more specific
information about the acceptable alternatives and their material compatibility
concerns. Also, consult your local Industrial Health specialist, your local health
and safety personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of
these technologies.
Reduce the amount of Class 1 and Class II ODSs being released.
Can provide more efficient cooling processes if the alterations are well
researched and planned.
Retrofits are expensive.
Requires specialized training in handling these refrigerants.
According to Mr. Peter Mullenhard form the Shipboard Environmental
Information Clearinghouse, retrofit costs for refrigeration equipment can vary
3-II/B-1-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
widely depending on system designs. Cost can range from several hundred
dollars to several thousand dollars. However, in general, the majority of the
cost associated with the retrofit to an HFC refrigerant such as R-404A can be
attributed to the labor hours required conducting multiple lubricant flushes
required for use of POE lubricant
NSN/MSDS:
Product
SUVAฎ HP-62: R-404A
SUVAฎ HP-62: R-404A
SUVAฎ HP-62: R-404A
NSN
6830-01-392-0960
6830-01-392-0959
6830-01-391-3104
Unit Size
33 Ib cyl.
981b cyl.
241b cyl.
Cost
$563.95
$1153.03
$47.90
MSDS*
Click me
Click me
Click me
*There are multiple MSDSsfor most NSNs. The MSDS shown here is only meant to serve as an
example. To return from the MSDS, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar
Approval
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Vendors:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Shipboard Environmental Information Clearinghouse
Mr. Pete Mullenhard (GEO-CENTERS, Inc.)
1755 Jeff Davis Highway, Suite 910
Arlington, VA 22202
Phone: (703) 416-1132, Fax: (703) 416-1178
Air Force:
Ms. Alison Chirkis
OC-ALC/LIPEB
3001 Staff Drive, STE2W69
Tinker AFB, OK 73145-3030
Phone: (405) 736-7246 FAX: (405) 736-3927
The following list is not meant to be complete, as there are other manufacturers
of this product.
ICI Chemical and Polymers Ltd.
ICIKLEA Applications
Customer Assistance
(800)275-5532
www.dircon.co.uk/klea/refrig.html
3-II/B-1-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Allied-Signal, Inc.
Fluorocarbons
101 Columbia Turnpike
Morristown, NJ 07962-1053
(800) 631-8138, FAX (973) 455-6395
www.genetron.com/prod/az50pb.html
Note: R-407A andR-407B are both manufactured by ICI Chemical and
Polymer Ltd. under the tradenames KLEA 407A andKLEA 407B,
formerly KLEA 60 andKLEA 61 respectively. R-507 is manufactured by
Allied-Signal under the tradename AZ-50.
Ms. Pat Widmier
Du Pont Fluorochemicals
(302) 999-5539
www.dupont.com/suva/na/usa/sa/products/hp62.html
Note: Du Pont tradename for R-404A is SUVAฎ HP-62.
Source(s): Ms. Alison Chirkis, TinkerAFB, January, 1998
Mr. Pete Mullenhard, Shipboard Environmental Information Clearinghouse, September,
1998 http://home.navisoft.com/navyozone/altpage.htm January. 1998
Du Pont Fluorochemicals, vendor communications, August, 1998
PA Technical Inquiries: 2065, 2984, and 3136.
Allied-Signalfluorocarbon product information.
3-II/B-1-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
NON-CHLOROFLUOROCARBON ALTERNATIVES FOR AIR CONDITIONING AND
REFRIGERATION
Revision: 10/98
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-04-02; Air Force: FA03; Army: OTG
Usage List: Navy: High; Marine Corps: High; Army: High; Air Force: High
Alternative For: Air Conditioning and Refrigeration using chlorofluorocarbons
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11) (CAS: 75-69-4),
Dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12) (CAS: 75-71-8), Trichlorotrifluoroethane (CFC-113) (CAS: 76-
13-1), and Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (CFC-114) (CAS: 76-14-2).
Overview: Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) have
been used as refrigerants since the 1930s. Because of their ozone depleting
effect and the phaseout of the production of these chemicals (production of
Class I ODSs was banned as of January 1, 1996), development of alternative
refrigerants and refrigeration and air conditioning processes are becoming
increasingly important.
Air conditioning and refrigeration use the principle of vapor compression to
achieve a cooling effect. This process has long relied on CFCs and HCFCs as
the refrigerant materials of choice for use in the vapor compression process.
The discovery of their probable effect on the ozone layer has resulted in the
development of alternative processes, as well as development of new
refrigerants.
The first substitute refrigerants for CFCs and HCFCs have been developed and
are known as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), since they do not contain any
chlorine atoms, HFCs are already beginning to be used. Due to the concern for
future regulation of HFCs for global warming, other processes are being looked
at to replace them in the long-term.
Applications for:
Vapor compression using hydrocarbons, ammonia, carbon dioxide, or
water:
Ammonia - refrigerated warehouses and industrial processes;
Hydrocarbons - industrial applications and more recently small
appliances;
Water - above 0ฐ C applications only, such as air conditioning;
Carbon dioxide - stationary air conditioning and potentially
automobile air conditioning in the future; Being used in small
appliances in many parts of the world, but not in the U.S.
3-II/B-2-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Compliance
Benefit:
Evaporative cooling (direct and indirect):
Residential and industrial air conditioning systems
Gas expansion:
Transport of perishable substances
Absorption: Industrial processes with excess waste heat but also needing
refrigeration, gas fired systems are often used in remote areas where
electrical costs are high or the supply of electricity will not meet demand,
often used in conjunction with electrically powered vapor compression
systems to reduce peak load power demands.
Stirling Cycle: Practical only for small applications
Air (Joule) Cycle: Not practical in many applications due to high power
requirements
Thermoelectric Cooling: Small applications, not economically viable in
most larger applications due to its low efficiency, often used in specialty
applications where low noise or high reliability is desirable e.g. on
submarines
Magnetic Cooling: Without cost considerations and very low
temperature requirements
Use of non-ozone depleting air conditioning and refrigeration techniques such as
vapor compression using hydrocarbons, ammonia, carbon dioxide or water;
evaporative cooling; gas expansion; or absorption will help facilities meet the
requirements under 40 CFR 82, Subpart D and Executive Order 12843
requiring Federal agencies to maximize the use of safe alternatives to Class I
and Class U ozone depleting substances, to the maximum extent practicable.
The use of chemicals such as ammonia and hydrocarbons may cause the facility
to comply with other SARA Title HJ reporting issues.
Use of non-ozone depleting air conditioning and refrigeration techniques such
as: vapor compression using hydrocarbons, ammonia, carbon dioxide or water;
evaporative cooling; gas expansion; or absorption will help facilities meet the
requirements under 40 CFR 82, Subpart D and Executive Order 12843
requiring federal agencies to maximize the use of safe alternatives to class I and
class U ozone depleting substances, to the maximum extent practicable.
Materials
Compatibility:
The chemical compatibility of plastics and elastomers should be considered
before retrofitting. Gaskets, shaft seals, and o-ring materials should be
reviewed with the equipment manufacturer before retrofitting. Check with the
appropriate authority prior to using a new process
3-II/B-2-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Consult your local Industrial Health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these
technologies.
Vapor compression using hydrocarbons, ammonia, carbon dioxide, or
water - zero ozone depletion potential (ODP), zero global warming
potential (GWP) (except negligible for carbon dioxide and hydrocarbons),
widely available, and good thermal properties.
Evaporative cooling (direct and indirect) - zero ODP and GWP, high
efficiency in dry climates, provides humidity, improves indoor air quality,
high air flow rates, commercially available, life cycle is cost effective,
adaptable to various energy sources
Gas expansion - zero ODP and GWP, simple mechanical design, and low
capital costs
Absorption - zero ODP and GWP, can use waste heat, reliable (few
moving parts), commercially available, most economically viable when
waste heat is available
Adsorption - zero ODP and GWP, energy efficient, can use waste heat
Stirling Cycle - zero GWP, can be used over wide temperature range,
theoretically high efficiency
Air (Joule) Cycle - zero ODP and GWP, non-toxic, non-flammable, low
installation and maintenance costs
Thermoelectric Cooling - zero GWP, immediately available, high
reliability, small, no moving parts, wide cooling range (-100 to +125ฐC)
Magnetic Cooling - zero ODP and GWP
Thermoacoustic Cooling - zero ODP and GWP, no moving parts
Vapor compression using hydrocarbons, ammonia, carbon dioxide, or
water - Ammonia and hydrocarbons are flammable, ammonia is toxic, and
water and carbon dioxide systems are generally bigger and more expensive.
Evaporative cooling (direct and indirect) - high equipment costs and
service requirements; usually works poorly in high humidity climates, new
techniques such as indirect evaporative cooling and use of desiccants are
expanding evaporative cooling into more humid climates; retrofits difficult
for existing vapor compression systems
Gas expansion - low efficiency, high refrigerant costs, limited applications
Absorption - less efficient than vapor compression, Lithium Bromide (Li
Br) can be toxic
Adsorption -low cooling efficiency, large equipment, high cost, not
available in short term
Stirling Cycle - low demonstrated efficiency, significant materials
development required
3-II/B-2-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Air (Joule) Cycle - low efficiency, high power requirements
Thermoelectric Cooling - low efficiency, not efficient enough for large
applications
Magnetic Cooling - very high costs, low efficiency, superconducting
materials required, high magnetic fields require shielding
Thermoacoustic Cooling - low efficiency, still requires long term
development
Economic
Analysis:
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
The costs incurred will vary significantly depending upon the alternative being
used and the system being installed or retrofitted. The economics of each
alternative must be looked at in a case by case basis.
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
MSDS
Review the specific alternative pollution prevention data sheet for applicable NSNs.
Approval
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Shipboard Environmental Information Clearinghouse
Mr. Pete Mullenhard (GEO-CENTERS, Inc.)
1755 Jeff Davis Highway, Suite 910
Arlington, VA 22202
Phone:(703)416-1132
Fax:(703)416-1178
Air Force:
Ms. Alison Chirkis
OC-ALC/EMV
7701 Arnold St., Suite 205
Tinker AFB, OK 73145-9100
Phone: (405) 734-7071
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-2008
(423) 574-0576, FAX (423) 574-9338
3-II/B-2-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
In addition, the EPA publishes a complete listing of all refrigerants, which are
authorized as substitutes for CFC, and HCFC refrigerants. A copy of this
listing is available on the World Wide Web at:
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/titie6/snap/reflist.pdf
(requires use of an Adobe Acrobat PDF viewer)
Vendors: The following list is not meant to be complete, as there are other manufacturers
of this product.
Evaporative Cooling:
Norsaire Systems, Inc.
1314 West Evans Avenue
Denver, CO 80223
(303) 937-9595
Fax:(303) 937-0774
GoettiAir Conditioning, Inc.
3830 East Wier Avenue
P.O. Box 52029
Phoenix, AZ 85072-2029
(602)275-1515
Fax: (602) 470-4275
Absorption Cooling:
York International Corporation
631 South Richland Avenue
P.O. Box 1592
York, PA 17405
(717)771-7890
Fax:(717)771-7381
McQuay International
13600 Industrial Park Blvd.
Minneapolis, MN 55441
(612)553-5330
Fax:(612) 553-5008
3-II/B-2-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Desiccant Cooling:
Advanced Thermal Technologies
12900 Automobile Boulevard
Clearwater, FL 33762
(800)817-0996
Source(s): Ms. Alison Chirkis, TinkerAFB, January, 1998
Mr. Pete Mullenhard, Shipboard Environmental Information Clearinghouse, September,
1998
http://www.nawseic.com January, 1998
3-II/B-2-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
RECOVERY/RECYCLING OF CFC-12 AND HFC-134a
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-04-02; Air Force: FA03 ; Army: Not available
Usage List: Navy: High; Marine Corps: High; Army: High; Air Force: High
Alternative For: Refrigerant venting
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: CFC-12 (CAS: 75-71-8)
Overview: Numerous refrigerant recovery systems are now on the market to enable
recovery of refrigerants and thus avoid the former common practice of
refrigerant venting during routine servicing. In fact, CFC-12 recovery is
required by law, and HFC-134a recovery is mandatory.
Stationary Equipment
Refrigerant recovery/recycling equipment for use on stationary refrigeration
equipment (non-motor vehicle equipment) must be certified to meet EPA
standards as specified in 40 CFR 82F. Under the certification program, EPA
requires that equipment manufactured on or after November 15, 1993, be
tested by an EPA-approved testing organization to ensure that it meets EPA
requirements. Recycling and recovery equipment intended for use with air-
conditioning and refrigeration equipment besides small appliances must be
tested under the ARI 740-1993 test protocol, which is included in 40 CFR 82F
as Appendix B. Recovery equipment intended for use with small appliances
must be tested under either the ARI 740-1993 protocol or Appendix C of 40
CFR 82F.
EPA has approved both the Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI)
and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) to certify recycling and recovery
equipment. Certified equipment can be identified by a label reading: "This
equipment has been certified by ARIAJL to meet EPA's minimum requirements
for recycling and/ or recovery equipment intended for use with [appropriate
category of appliance-e.g., small appliances, HCFC appliances containing less
than 200 pounds of refrigerant, all high-pressure appliances, etc.]." Lists of
certified equipment may be obtained by contacting ARI at 703-524-8800 and
UL at 708-272-8800 ext. 42371.
Motor Vehicle A/C
Technicians repairing or servicing motor vehicle air conditioners must use either
refrigerant recover/recycle or recover-only equipment approved by the EPA.
Recover/recycle equipment both recovers the refrigerant from the motor vehicle
and processes it through an oil separator, a filter, and a dryer. Approved
3-II/C-l-l
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
recover/recycle machines meet the technical specifications of S AE Standard J-
1990 and must have the capacity to purify used refrigerant to SAE Standard J-
1991 for safe and direct return to the air conditioner following repairs.
Recover-only equipment removes the refrigerant from the AC unit as specified
by SAE Standard J-2209 and transfers it into a holding tank. Technicians are
then required by law either to recycle the used refrigerant on site or send it to an
off-site reclamation facility to be purified to ARI Standard 700 before it can be
used to recharge A/C equipment.
A number of different companies manufacture refrigerant recovery systems for
CFC-12 and HFC-134a (also known as R-12 and R-134a). Models vary in
cost, capability, ease of use, and efficiency. In every case, each model is
certified for the recovery of a specific refrigerant. Mixing of refrigerants affects
their chemical properties, affecting not only their potential reuse but also the
capacity and ability of the equipment recovering them. Therefore, every
recovery system should be dedicated to reclamation of the refrigerant it was
designed to recover.
R-134a can be ordered by the following NSNs:
6830-01-370-6207 45 Ib. container
6830-01-370-6208 45 Ib. container
6830-01-370-6209 132 Ib. container
6830-01-370-8756 132 Ib. container
6830-01-380-4960 30 Ib. disposable container
Compliance
Benefit:
Recovery of class I and class U ozone-depleting substances (i.e., CFC-12),
used as refrigerants, is required by persons maintaining, servicing, repairing or
disposing of refrigeration appliances under 40 CFR 82, Subpart F.
Additionally, recovery of substitutes of class I and class U substances (i.e.,
HFC-134a) are also required as of November 1995 under Section 608 of the
CAA. Refrigerant recovery/recycling equipment must be certified to meet EPA
standards as specified in 40 CFR 82, Subpart B and F.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
No materials compatibility issues were identified
3-II/C-1-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Safety and
Health: Consult your local Industrial Health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these
technologies.
Benefits: Reduce the amount of ODSs like R-12 and global warming gases like
R-134a going into the environment.
Disadvantages: None identified
Economic
Analysis: N/A
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost
R-12/R-134aRecovery/Recy. 4330-01-387-1546 ea. $3,170.34
R-12/R-134aRecovery/Recy. 4330-01-387-1566 ea. $873.97
R-12 Recovery/Recycle Unit 4330-01-387-1335 ea. $1,917.30
R-134aRecovery/Recy.Unit 4330-01-387-1343 ea. $2,045.12
Approval
Authority: Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only
after engineering approval has been granted. Major claimant approval
is not required.
Points of
Contact: A list of approved equipment is available from the EPA Stratospheric Ozone
Hotline at (800) 296-1996. A WordPerfect 6.1 version of the list is also
available online by pointing your web browser to
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/609/appequip.wp. Most certified equipment
will be labeled as "design-certified to SAE standards."
USAF Management and Equipment Evaluation Program (MEEP) for
Transportation and Civil Engineering (APR 77-5), "Consolidated Status
Report," prepared by 615 SMSQ/LGTV, 16 Dec 92 - 15 Jun 93.
DLA:
Mr. Clifford Myers
Chemist
Defense Supply Center Richmond
Phone: (804) 279-3995 DSN 695-4257
3-II/C-1-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Vendors: The following list is not meant to be complete, as there are other manufacturers
of this product.
GSA Miscellaneous Reclamation, Recovery and Recycling Equipment
GSA Publication CAMP-F002
General Services Administration
Centralized Mailing List Service (7CPNL)
P.O. Box 6477
Fort Worth, TX 76115
(817)334-5215
FAX: (817) 334-5227
Internet address: CMLS.gsa@gsa.gov
Online Internet ordering: http://pub.fss.gsa.gov
Van Steenburgh Engineering Laboratories Inc.
1825 N. Lake Ave., Estes Park, CO 80517
(970) 580-8412
Jameskamm Technologies
(800) 676-3013
Refrigerant Recovery Systems, Inc.
(800) 327-9142
Refrigerant Technologies, Inc.
(800)468-2321
3-H/C-1-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
REFRIGERANT RECOVERY/RECYCLING/RECLAIMATION
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: N/A; Air Force: N/A; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: High; Marine Corps: High; Army: Medium; Air Force: High
Alternative For: N/A
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: R-ll (CAS: 75-69-4), R-12 (CAS: 75-71-8), R-
113 (CAS: 76-13-1), R-l 14 (CAS: 76-14-2), and R-l 15 (CAS: 76-15-3)
Overview: Refrigerants can be conserved in several ways including recovery, recycling,
and reclaiming. Each process requires specialized equipment certified by the
EPA. As CFCs are phased out of production, recovery, recycling, and
reclaiming will become the primary source of CFCs for use in existing systems.
Stationary Equipment
Refrigerant recovery/recycling equipment for use on stationary refrigeration
equipment (non-motor vehicle equipment) must be certified to meet EPA
standards as specified in 40 CFR 82F. Under the certification program, EPA
requires that equipment manufactured on or after November 15, 1993, be
tested by an EPA-approved testing organization to ensure that it meets EPA
requirements. Recycling and recovery equipment intended for use with air-
conditioning and refrigeration equipment besides small appliances must be
tested under the ARI 740-1993 test protocol, which is included in 40 CFR 82F
as Appendix B. Recovery equipment intended for use with small appliances
must be tested under either the ARI 740-1993 protocol or Appendix C of 40
CFR 82F.
EPA has approved both the Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI)
and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) to certify recycling and recovery
equipment. Certified equipment can be identified by a label reading: "This
equipment has been certified by ARIAJL to meet EPA's minimum requirements
for recycling and/ or recovery equipment intended for use with [appropriate
category of appliance-e.g., small appliances, HCFC appliances containing less
than 200 pounds of refrigerant, all high-pressure appliances, etc.]." Lists of
certified equipment may be obtained by contacting ARI at 703-524-8800 and
UL at 708-272-8800 ext. 42371.
Motor Vehicle A/C
Technicians repairing or servicing motor vehicle air conditioners must use either
refrigerant recover/recycle or recover-only equipment approved by EPA.
Recovery/recycling equipment both recovers the refrigerant from the motor
3-II/C-2-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
vehicle and processes it through an oil separator, a filter, and a dryer.
Approved recover/recycle machines meet the technical specifications of SAE
Standard J-1990 and must have the capacity to purify used refrigerant to SAE
Standard J-1991 for safe and direct return to the air conditioner following
repairs.
Recovery-only equipment removes the refrigerant from the A/C unit as specified
by SAE Standard J-2209 and transfers it into a holding tank. Technicians are
then required by law either to recycle the used refrigerant on site or send it to an
off-site reclamation facility to be purified to ARI Standard 700 before it can be
used to recharge A/C equipment.
A list of approved equipment is available from the EPA Stratospheric Ozone
Hotline at (800) 296-1996. A WordPerfect 6.1 version of the list is also
available online by pointing your web browser to
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/609/appequip.wp. Most certified equipment
will be labeled as "design-certified to SAE standards."
Recovery and Reuse: Recovery is the process of removing a refrigerant from
the system, storing it in a cylinder, and returning it to the system after all repairs
have been made. While cleaning the refrigerant may be a good idea, the
refrigerant can often be returned to the system without being tested or
processed in any way. If the refrigerant is removed from the job site, it must
meet the criteria of the Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI)
Standard 700-93, a system of monitoring the maximum contaminant levels and
physical properties of the refrigerant.
Refrigerant should always be placed in a properly-marked cylinder that has
been evacuated to reduce contamination (primarily air and moisture). The
quality of the refrigerant can be tested using any number of refrigerant test kits
on the market. By using recovered refrigerant, several assumptions are made:
1) The refrigerant is in good condition, 2) The refrigerant meets all EPA
standards, 3) Minimal refrigerant has been lost, and 4) The recovered
refrigerant will meet the requirements of the original equipment manufacturer.
Recycling: Recycling is the process of cleaning the refrigerant by oil separation
and filtration before it is returned to the system. Recycling is best suited for
small amounts of refrigerants like those contained in most motor vehicle air-
conditioning and home air-conditioning systems. The refrigerant is returned to
the system in better condition than a simple recovery or re-use operation.
Off-Site Reclaiming: Used in case of extreme contamination, off-site reclamation
is the process of refining a refrigerant so that it meets or exceeds specifications.
3-II/C-2-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
The refrigerant must meet ARI 700-93 standards. Many reclaiming facilities will
provide clients with the equipment necessary for recovering and transporting the
refrigerant. Advantages are many: the facility takes full responsibility for the
refrigerant quality, no taxes apply to reclaimed refrigerants, and the refrigerant is
available for use in the future in a "like new" condition.
Recovery/Reclamation Specifications
The EPA has approved equipment to capture and recycle refrigerants from air
conditioning systems during repair or decommissioning. Section 609 of the
Clean Air Act Amendments, "Approved Refrigerant Recycling Equipment,"
23Aug94, lists approved systems and manufacturers of refrigerant recycling
equipment. Also, the Underwriters Laboratories has a directory of certified
equipment, "Certified Commercial Refrigerant Recovery/Recycling Equipment
Directory," 21Mar93.
Recovery Methods: To expedite the process, recover the refrigerant liquid first,
then recover the vapor. Some equipment is vulnerable to compressor damage
as a result of improper removal of the refrigerant. Check with the original
equipment manufacturer for proper evacuation procedures. For large systems
such as chillers and industrial units, a liquid refrigeration pump is used for
removing the refrigerant. All recovery and recycling equipment must meet ARI
Standard 740.
Most refrigerant recovery equipment has epoxy-lined steel ASME-rated tanks
and electrically powered vacuum pumps, compressors, and fan-cooled
condensers. Many recovery units are capable of processing a number of the
most commonly used refrigerants without changes in equipment settings or
operational procedures between batches (Note: refrigerants cannot be mixed).
The machine should be cleaned between batches if dirty, but no other special
changes are necessary. The units achieve recovery by high vacuum (-27 in.
Hg vacuum), recycling by filtration, and reclamation by distillation at processing
capacities of 4 to 7 Ib./min. Trailers are available for transporting the machines.
Recycling Methods: If the quality of the refrigerant is in question, recycle the
recovered refrigerant so that it meets ARI Standard 700-93 with respect to
moisture, acids, boiling-point residues, and other contaminants. Follow the listed
steps to recharge the system after recycling the refrigerant:
1. Install new liquid line filter-dryers and required suction line filter-dryers.
2. Leak test the system using a gas such as dry nitrogen by pressurizing the
system with the gas and measuring the pressure and time required for the
test pressure to decrease (without makeup).
3-II/C-2-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Compliance
Benefit:
3. Recharge the system with the necessary amount of refrigerant.
Recovery of class I and class U ozone-depleting substances, used as
refrigerants, is required by persons maintaining, servicing, repairing or disposing
of refrigeration appliances under 40 CFR 82, Subpart F. Additionally,
recovery of substitutes of class I and class II substances are also required as of
November 1995 under Section 608 of the CAA. Refrigerant
recovery/recycling equipment must be certified to meet EPA standards as
specified in 40 CFR 82, Subpart B and F.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
Chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants are generally very inert chemicals with good
materials compatibility. However, if introducing a new material to an existing
system or a different refrigerant to an existing system, always check with the
original equipment manufacturer to verify compatibility.
Refrigerants should not be mixed. Not only are they very difficult to separate,
but mixing results in radically different properties compared to the individual
gases and may result in equipment damage.
High pressure gases should always be handled with great care. Most
refrigerants are inert and have very low toxicity. Nonetheless, some are quite
toxic, and some of the hydrocarbon refrigerants are flammable. Be aware of
the refrigerants being recovered, their hazards, their safe handling procedures,
and their permissible exposure limits. Monitors may be considered for use with
some refrigerants (e.g., HCFC-123), especially when working in a confined
space, clean room or other space with limited ventilation. Consult your local
Industrial Health specialist, your local health and safety personnel, and the
appropriate MSDSs prior to implementing any of these recovery, recycling, or
reclaiming processes.
Recovering, recycling, and reclamation of CFC refrigerants can extend the
useful life of existing CFC-containing equipment by avoiding retrofits and by
delaying the purchase of new ODS-free equipment due to a CFC
refrigerant scarcity. A secondary benefit results from minimizing costs and
3-II/C-2-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
maximizing efficiencies compared to retrofitting. Finally, re-use of existing
refrigerant will prolong the time period over which the existing ozone-
depleting and/or global-warming gases are emitted into the atmosphere, and
so should therefore reduce the environmental impact of these refrigerants.
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
It is important to have properly trained technicians, to insure that the
process is performed in accordance with the proper guidelines. This will
require initial and follow-up training.
The cost of a typical recovery/recycle system is approximately $4,000. High-
pressure recovery reclamation systems are approximately $17,000, and the
low-pressure recovery/reclamation systems range in price from about $28,000
to $32,000.
Recovery charge for refrigerant sent to a manufacturer's facility is on the order
of $0.35/lb. Reclamation charges range from $1.25 to $1.75/lb, depending on
the type of refrigerant. Combining recovery and reclamation adds
approximately $0.25/lb of refrigerant in addition to the reclamation charge. For
small quantities (of less than 1,000 Ib.) there is often a $50/hr charge with a 6-
hour minimum. The following refrigerants can be usually be processed: CFC-
11, CFC-12, HCFC-22, CFC-113, CFC-114, HCFC-123, HFC-134a,
HCFC-141, HCFC-141b, R-500, and R-502.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
Refrigerant Reclaimer
Refrigerant Reclaimer
Refrigerant Recycler
Refrigerant Recycler
Approval
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Unit Size
ea.
ea.
ea.
ea.
Cost
$1,681.59
$5,606.00
$684.91
$337.96
NSN
4250-01-338-2707
4250-01-359-0390
4330-01-387-1540
4330-01-387-1594
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
U.S. EPA Stratospheric Ozone Hotline
(800)296-1996
3-II/C-2-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Vendors:
Underwriters Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
(919)549-1855
Points of Contact at Chicago Office:
Mr. Larry Ketwich
Phone: (847) 272-8800, ext. 42484
Mr. Glenn Woo
Phone: (847) 272-8800, ext. 42016
The following list is not meant to be complete, as there are other manufacturers
of this product.
Source (s):
For Recycling and Reclamation Equipment:
Refrigerant Reclamation
GSA Contract Number GS-10F-8215A
Contracting Officer: (206) 931-7887
National Refrigerants, Inc.
11401 Roosevelt Blvd.
Philadelphia, PA 19154
(800)262-0012
Jameskamm Technologies
4730 W. Bancroft
Toledo, OH 43615
(800) 676-3013, Fax (215)638-9270
National Refrigeration Products, Inc.
458 Imperial Ct.
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020
(800) 352-6951, Fax: (215) 638-9270
Mr. Brian Peckjian
For refrigerant container information:
Worthington Cylinder Corporation
Subsidiary of Worthington Industries
P.O. Box 391
1085 Dearborn Drive
Columbus, OH 43085
438-3013, FAX (614) 438-3083
Refrigerant Management: The Recovery, Recycling, and Reclaiming of CFCs, Billy C.
Langley, Delmar Publishers Inc., 1994.
3-II/C-2-6
-------
Model GS1 UL
Refrigerant
Recovery Unit
MATIOflALREFRIGERATIOIJPRODUCR
UC3HH1 ^^ซ*-^
GlobeSaver
tf NAHONALREFRIGERAT10N PRODUCTS
VS
GlobeSaver
Model GST
Refrigerant
Recovery Unit
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
ODS-FREE DRINKING FOUNTAINS
Revision:
Process Code:
Usage List:
Alternative For:
9/98
Navy and Marine Corps: SR-04-99; Air Force: FA02; Army: N/A
Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
CFC containing drinking fountains
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: CFC-12 (dichlorodifluoromethane)
(CAS: 75-71-8)
Overview:
Compliance
Benefit:
The refrigerants used in drinking fountains to chill the water are typically
chlorofluorocarbons (CFC). However, there are several companies that have
developed CFC-free refrigeration units for their drinking fountains. At least two
companies offer CFC-free refrigeration units as part of their drinking fountain
products. Both use a non-ozone-depleting chemical called HFC-134a (also
known as R-134a), which is a hydrofluorocarbon. While R-134a is a non-
ozone-depleting refrigerant, it is a greenhouse gas and has a global warming
potential. Thus, these units must be serviced by certified refrigeration
technicians and are subject to the "non-venting rule" for Class I and Class U
ODS replacements per the Clean Air Act Amendments as stated in 58 FR 92,
Section 608(c)(2) page 28,664, that took effect as of 15 Nov 95. For more
details about the venting of refrigerants view the Internet address:
www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/608/subvent.html
Use of non-ozone depleting chemicals as refrigerants in drinking fountains (such
as HFC-134a) will help facilities meet the requirements under 40 CFR 82,
Subpart D and Executive Order 12843 requiring federal agencies to
maximize the use of safe alternatives to Class I and Class U ozone depleting
substances, to the maximum extent practicable. It should be noted that while R-
134a is a non-ozone depleting refrigerant, these units are subject to the "non-
venting rule" for Class I and Class U ODS replacements per Section 608 of the
Clean Air Act Amendments.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
No materials compatibility issues identified.
3-II/C-3-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
Consult your local Industrial Health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these
technologies.
Facilitates compliance with the Clean Air Act.
Reduce the amount of ozone-depleting substances and EPCRA-targeted
chemicals going into the environment.
Reduce the exposure to constituents that have adverse effects to human
health.
None identified
Water fountains are typically only replaced on an "as needed" basis. The
installation costs for both CFC-12 and ODS-free fountains are the same.
Water fountains do not typically require special periodic maintenance. Any
service would require personnel trained in the handling of R-134a. ODS free
water fountains range in price from $250 to $350 from GSA depending on size.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
Water Cooler
Water Cooler
Water Cooler
Water Cooler
Approval
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Vendors:
NSN
4110-01-280-0178
4110-00-203-2706
4110-00-255-8760
4110-00-782-5125
Unit Size Cost
19x36x20in $319.65
251/2x25i/2x44in. $350.93
12xl2x4h/2in $255.97
19xl9x33in $336.42
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
US EPA Stratospheric Ozone Protection Hotline
(800) 296-1996, Monday -Friday 10am-4pm (Eastern)
The following list is not meant to be complete, as there are other manufacturers
of this product.
3-II/C-3-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Ms. Kris Arnold
Haws Company
1435 Fourth St.
Berkeley, CA. 94710
(510)525-5801
Fax:(510)528-2812
Oasis Corporation
265 N. Hamilton Road
Columbus, OH 43213
(800) 950-3226 ext7231 or (614) 861-1350,
Fax:(614)861-0831
3-II/C-3-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
HALON 1211 REPLACEMENTS
Revision: 9/98
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-06-99; Air Force: SV09; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: High; Army: Negligible; Air Force: High
Alternative For: Hal on 1211
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Bromochlorodifluoromethane (CAS: 353-59-3)
Overview: Alternative fire suppression agents for Hal on 1211 have been identified and are
being used in the services for some military applications. Halon 1211 is a
widely used fire suppression and explosion protection agent applied as a
streaming agent and has been the fire extinguishing agent of choice for portable
fire extinguishers in many aircraft, including the C-130. However, there are still
applications which do not have suitable Halon substitutes. These operations are
currently supported through the DoD Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS)
Reserve.
Halon has one of the higher ozone depletion potentials of any compound, and
thus its production and use are being curtailed and eventually eliminated. The
Montreal Protocol (1987 and subsequent) and the Clean Air Act Amendments
(1990) identify Halon 1211 as a Class I ODS and established a ban on it's
domestic production effective 31 Dec 1993. Currently, halon use is restricted
to recycled halon. It is estimated that recycled halon will be available until the
end of Fiscal Year 2003.
In order for a substitute to be approved, it must pass certain requirements.
These requirements are specific for each branch of the service. The
requirements for the Army are: 1) SNAP approval and 2) Toxicology
clearance from the Army Surgeon General. Both of these requirements must be
approved for both the specific application as well as the specific alternative
agent.
For the Air Force, the specific application and alternative agent must comply
with AFI-32-7086 "Hazardous Materials Management", and must not impose
a greater environmental or safety risk than Halon 1211. If the application is
questionable, it must undergo an Environmental Safety and Occupational Health
evaluation.
The Navy's requirements are: 1) SNAP approval and 2) An ozone depleting
potential (OOP) for the alternative of 0.05 or less (OPNAVINST 5090. IB,
Environmental and Natural Resources Program Manual" 1 Nov 94).
3-III-1-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
In addition to these requirements, the applicable program office (for a weapon
system) or fire chief (for an installation) will have regulations and directives that
must be satisfied before substitutions are made. Ultimately, it is up to the
program office or fire chief to make the substitution, not the user.
There are several Halon 1211 substitutes approved by the EPA's Significant
New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. Although none is an ideal
replacement for Halon 1211, they may be considered candidates for
substitution, subject to specific use conditions as cited in 40 CFR 82 Appendix
A to Subpart G, "Substitutes Subject to Use Restrictions and Unacceptable
Substitutes." The following substitutes are listed:
HCFC-123, (banned in residential applications)
HCFC-124 (FE-241), (banned in residential applications)
HCFC Blend B (Halotron 1), (banned in residential applications)
HCFC Blend C (NAF P-IU), (banned in residential applications)
HCFC Blend D (Blitz HI), (for use in large outdoor application, banned in
residential applications)
Gelled Halocarbon/Dry Chemical Suspension (formerly Powdered Aerosol
B)
Surfactant Blend A
Water Mist using potable water or natural sea water,
Carbon Dioxide,
Dry Chemical
Water
Foam.
The following are acceptable subject to Narrowed Use Limits
CF3I (banned in residential applications)
HBFC-22B1 (due to high ozone-depletion potential this substitute has
already been phased out of production),
C6Fi4 (PFC-614 or CEA-614), (acceptable for nonresidential uses when
other alternatives are not technically feasible)
HFC-227ea (proposed acceptable in nonresidential uses only)
In addition, HFC-236fa (FE-36), HFC-227ea and water mist with additives
are pending a decision from EPA
The majority of Halon 1211 portable fire extinguishers found inside buildings
can be replaced with dry chemical extinguishers and/or carbon dioxide
3-III-1-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
extinguishers. However, research and implementation is still ongoing to identify
replacements for Halon 1211 extinguishers used in weapon system/specialty
applications (fire and rescue vehicles on flight-lines and carrier decks, portable
(wheeled) flight-line fire extinguishers, etc.)
A substitute compound may not be as effective in extinguishing a fire, and so a
higher concentration or greater quantity of the extinguishing may be required.
The alternative for any application should be carefully reviewed for applicability
to the use conditions.
There are several steps that must be taken in order to provide a suitable
substitute for Halon 1211:
1) The first step is to identify a need for fire suppression. Since the ban, many
5 Ib. Halon 1211 fire extinguishers were pulled without replacements
because of a lack of need.
2) The next step is to identify fire suppression requirements. The first
requirement is to determine what types of fires are most prominent in the
area (A, B, and/or C). The second is to identify where and how often these
fires occur. The third requirement is to determine what kind of response is
needed (manual or automatic). Once these requirements have been met,
then a suitable substitute may be identified.
3) The third step is to find the cheapest and easiest solution. Most of these
agents are already stock-listed. There are also commercial products which
are acceptable, as long as they are a SNAP-approved agent and a FM/UL
delivery system
Halon 1211 for use in mission critical applications is supplied by DLA from the
Defense ODS Reserve. Procurement of Halon 1211 for any other uses
requires a certification by an authorized technical representative (ATR) and
approval by a senior acquisition official (SAO) at the flag/general officer or
civilian SES level in accordance with the specific Service guidance implementing
this law, Section 326 of the FY-93 Defense Authorization Act which is also
identified as Public Law 102-484. Furthermore, excess Halon 1211 removed
from non-mission-critical applications should be returned to the Defense ODS
Reserve in accordance with Service procedures. Further information on return
procedures can be obtained from Defense Supply Center, Richmond at (804)
279-4525/5203.
Compliance
Benefit: Switching from Halon 1211 (a class I ozone-depleting chemical) to an
approved non-ozone depleting alternative will help facilities meet the
requirements under 40 CFR 82, Subpart D and Executive Order 12843
3-III-1-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
requiring federal agencies to maximize the use of safe alternatives to Class I and
Class U ozone depleting substances, to the maximum extent practicable. In
addition, the elimination of halon at the facility decreases the possibility that the
facility would meet any of the reporting thresholds under 40 CFR 370 and EO
12856. Chemicals used as substitutions should be reviewed for SARA
reporting issues.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
Prior to replacing any halon system, the impact on the hardware should be
evaluated. An impact could be caused by the alternative chemical agent, the
hardware associated with the use of that agent, or by-products of the pyrolysis.
An engineer who is experienced in fire protection system design should be
consulted.
Consult your local Industrial Health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these
technologies.
Switching from Halon 1211 to an approved alternative will reduce the
potential for an ozone depleting chemical going into the environment. The
switch may also provide a non-global warming agent or one with a lower
global warming potential. Careful consideration of the choices is necessary
in order to select the optimal alternative.
With the increasing cost of halon, many of the alternative systems present a
cheaper operating cost
High initial retrofit cost for alternative systems.
If unit or weapon system is listed as mission-critical, and is identified in the
Service's Authorized Users for Halon 1211, The Defense Supply Center
Richmond will provide Halon 1211 free of charge. This availability
provides a disincentive for substitution with an alternative system.
Use of pollution prevention funds for replacement of Halon fire extinguishing
systems with non-Hal on based systems is not authorized if the reason for
conversion is that the existing system has reached the end of its life expectancy.
The economic feasibility of each substitute is highly dependent on the
3-III-1-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
application. The following provides some examples of alternative fire fighting
equipment available from GSA and other sources.
CO2
IAW CID A-A-52471-1-S
2.5 Ibs., carbon dioxide, hand operated, squeeze grip, includes vehicle bracket.
Approved replacement for NSN 4210-00-555-8837 (2.75 Ib. Halon fire
extinguisher). NSN: 4210-01-364-1623, $114.13
IAW MIL-E-24269, class 1
For shipboard application, 15 Ibs., carbon dioxide, hand operated, squeeze
grip. 10B:C UL minimum fire fighting ability, no bracket provided. NSN:
4210-00-203-0217, $166.54
IAW CID A-A-1106
50 Ibs., carbon dioxide, wheeled, squeeze-grip. 20B:C UL minimum fire fighting
ability. NSN: 4210-00-134-0341, $740.39
Ansul Inc.
15 Ibs., carbon dioxide, hand operated, squeeze-grip. 10B:C UL minimum fire
fighting ability. USCG approved, size: 26.5" H x 10.875" W x 6.25" D, includes
bracket. NSN: 4210-00-134-8958, $203.93
Dry Chemical
Amerex ABC Dry Chemical
2.5 Ib. 1A:10B:C $35.70
51b.2A:10B:C$47.60
10 Ib. 4A66B:C $52.45
NSN/MSDS:
Product
CO2 Fire
CO2 Fire
CO2 Fire
CO2 Fire
CO2 Fire
CO2 Fire
Extinguisher
Extinguisher
Extinguisher
Extinguisher
Extinguisher
Extinguisher
Approval
Authority:
NSN
4210-01-364-1623
4210-00-203-0217
4210-00-148-8551
4210-00-202-7858
4210-01-374-8128
4210-00-134-8958
Unit Size
ea. 2.5 Ib.
ea. 151b.
ea. 3.5 Ib.
ea. 151b.
ea. 272 Ib.
ea. 151b.
Cost
$89.32
$186.27
$898.38
$218.27
$825.07
$200.09
Approval is controlled locally for non-mission critical applications and major
claimant approval is not required. Mission-critical applications are under the
3-III-1-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Points of
Contact:
Vendors:
cognizance of the appropriate system command and should be implemented
only after the system command grants engineering approval.
Navy:
Mr. Joseph Gott (Naval facilities applications)
NAVFACENGCOM Code 150
DSN 221-0521, (202) 685-9177
Email: gotti e(g),hq.navfac.navy.mil
Mr. Doug Barylski (Ships and LCAC applications)
NAVSEASYSCOM 03G2
DSN 332-5084 x216, (703) 602-5084 x216
Marine Corps:
Mr. George Barchuk
Hdqtrs. U.S. Marine Corps
Attn: LPP-2
2 Navy Annex
Washington DC 20380-1775
(703) 696-1052
DSN 426-1052, 1061, 1062
Army:
Mr. Dave Koehler
Ocean City Research Corp.
4811 B Eisenhower Ave.
Alexandria, VA 22304
Phone: (703) 212-9006 Fax: (703)212-9019
Email: dakoehlerfSlaerols.com
The following list is not meant to be complete, as there are other manufacturers
of this product. Other sources can be found at EPA's Ozone Depletion World
Wide Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/docs/ozone/index.html
Ansul Fire Protection
Mr. Jim Engman
1 Stanton St.
Marinette, WI 54143
Phone:715-735-7411
3-III-1-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Amerex Corporation
Fred Goodnight
7595 Gaddston Highway
Trussville, Alabama 35173-0081
Phone: 205-655-3271
Fax: 205-655-3279
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co.
110 Kings Rd.
Kings Ml, NC 28086
Phone: 704-739-7415
Fax: 704-739-7418
Pern All Fire Extinguisher Corp.
Tom Moskaluk
39 Myrtle St.
Cranford,NJ07016
Phone:908-276-0211
Fax: 908-276-8074
Sources: Dave Koehler, Ocean City Research Corp., August 1998
Bell, Bruce and Felix Mestey, P.E. and Joseph Gott, P.E., "Shore Facilities Ozone
Depleting Substance Conversion Guide for Heating, Ventilation, Air
Conditioning/Refrigeration and Fire Protection Systems, Naval Facilities Engineering
Command, December 1997.
EPA 's Ozone Depletion World Wide Web Site: http://www.epa. gov/docs/ozone/index.html
NavyShipboard Environmental Information Clearinghouse : http://www.navyseic.com
3-III-1-7
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
HALON 1301 REPLACEMENTS
Revision: 9/98
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-06-99; Air Force: SV09; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: High; Marine Corps: High; Army: High; Air Force: High
Alternative For: Hal on 1301
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: trifluorobromomethane (CAS: 75-63-8)
Overview: Alternate fire suppression agents for use as a substitute for Hal on 1301 have
been identified and are being used in the services for some military applications.
Halon 1301 is a widely used fire suppression and explosion protection agent
applied in the total flooding manner. For Navy and Air Force aircraft, there are
still applications that do not have suitable halon substitutes. These operations
are currently supported through the DoD Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS)
Reserve.
Halon has one of the higher ozone depletion potentials of any compound, and
thus its production and use are being curtailed and eventually eliminated. The
Montreal Protocol (1987 and subsequent) and the Clean Air Act Amendments
(1990) identify Halon 1301 as a Class I ODS and established a ban on it's
domestic production effective 31 Dec 1993. Currently, halon use is restricted
to recycled halon which is estimated to be available until the end of Fiscal Year
2003.
In order for a substitute to be approved, it must pass certain requirements that
are specific for each branch of the service. The requirements for the Army are:
1) SNAP approval and 2) Toxicology clearance from the Army Surgeon
General. Both of these requirements must be approved for both the specific
application as well as the specific alternative agent.
For the Air Force, the specific application and alternative agent must comply
with AFI-32-7086 "Hazardous Materials Management", and must not impose
a greater environmental or safety risk than Halon 1211. If the application is
questionable, it must undergo an Environmental Safety and Occupational Health
evaluation.
The Navy's requirements are: 1) SNAP approval and 2) An ozone depleting
potential (OOP) for the alternative of 0.05 or less (OPNAVINST 5090. IB,
Environmental and Natural Resources Program Manual" 1 Nov 94).
3-III-2-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
In addition to these requirements, the applicable program office (for a weapon
system) or fire chief (for an installation) will have regulations and directives that
must be satisfied before substitutions are made. Ultimately, it is up to the
program office or fire chief to make the substitution, not the user.
There are several substitutes approved by the EPA's Significant New
Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program, that may be considered as potential
candidates for specific use conditions as cited in 40 CFR 82 Appendix A to
Subpart G, Substitutes Subject to Use Restrictions and Unacceptable
Substitutes. It should be noted that the following substitutions are merely
comments on usage and not conditions. For example, the Army has considered
the use of FIFC-125 in the crew compartments of its ground combat vehicles.
Also, the Army has installed IG-541 in normally occupied areas. The following
substitutes are listed:
Total Flooding Agents Acceptable Substitutes
Water Mist Systems using Potable or Natural Sea Water
[Foam] A (formerly identified as Water Mist Surfactant Blend A) This
agent is not a clean agent, but is a low-density, short duration foam.
Carbon Dioxide (Must meet NFPA 12 and OSHA 1910.162(b)5
requirements
Water Sprinklers
Total Flooding Agents Substitutes Acceptable Subject To Use Conditions
Normally Occupied Areas
C4F10 (PFC-410 or CEA-410)
C3F8 (PFC-218 or CEA-308)
HCFC Blend A (NAF S-III)
HFC-23 (FE 13)
HFC-227ea (FM 200)
IG-01 (Argon)
IG-55 (Aragonite)
HFC-125
HFC-134a
Normally Unoccupied Areas
Powdered Aerosol C
CF3I
HCFC-22
HCFC-124
HFC-125
3-III-2-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
HFC-134a
Gelled Halocarbon/Dry Chem. Suspension (PGA)
Inert Gas/Powdered Aerosol Blend (F S 0140)
IG-541 (Inergen)
Unacceptable Substitutes
HFC-32
Although there are a number of approved alternatives to Halon 1301, it is
critical that any alternative's applicability be verified, given the long list of
qualifications and use conditions to which each alternative is subject. This wide
variation in use conditions is mainly a result of physical property differences.
Some of these compounds are not as effective in extinguishing a fire, and so a
higher concentration of the gas is required. High gas concentrations also
increase the sensitivity of personnel to cardiotoxicity and reduce available
oxygen content. As a result, many of the use conditions require personnel
evacuation in 30 seconds or less, a critical and sometimes impossible
requirement to meet. Each alternative for any application should be carefully
reviewed for applicability to the Use Conditions. The following presents some
advantages and disadvantages of several alternatives:
FM-200 (HFC-227) can be used in occupied and unoccupied areas and
has the lowest global warming potential and zero ozone depleting potential.
FM 200 is the most commercially available agent. The cylinders must be
located in, or adjacent to a protected area and the design concentration in
occupied areas must be limited to 7% to 9%. This alternative cannot be
piped over long distances, and it's low boiling point means the agent must
be stored in a controlled environment.
FE-13 (HFC-23) Has no EPA restrictions, NOAEL of 30%, typical
design concentration of 16-20%, zero ozone depleting potential and is
gaining commercial availability. It requires use of high pressure storage
cylinders and piping.
INERGEN (IG-541) can be used in unoccupied areas, although there is no
prohibition against its use in occupied areas. It has little or no environmental
drawbacks because it uses normal atmospheric gases (N2, Ar and CO2).
Although it lowers oxygen levels under 16%, tests have indicated that
healthy individuals can function unimpaired at oxygen levels of 12%, and
CO2 is added to the mixture to facilitate hyperventilation. The system
requires high pressure cylinders and large volumes stored as a gas, not a
liquid.
SPRINKLERS are usually mandatory even with an alternate clean agent (i.e.,
gaseous extinguishing systems). Sprinklers are not recommended below
raised floors. Sprinklers are both the cheapest and simplest alternative.
3-III-2-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
They have already been implemented in computer facilities and should be
considered for housed electronics systems which have the ability to
deactivate power before sprinklers are engaged.
CO2 is a good inexpensive agent for use below computer room raised
floors. For use in unoccupied areas only.
Since none of the SNAP-approved alternatives for Hal on 1301 are direct
"drop-in" replacements for Hal on 1301 systems, especially those for normally
occupied areas, an engineer who is experienced in fire protection system design
should be consulted. Larger military bases may have one of these engineers on
the public works/civil engineering staff. Some bases, especially smaller bases,
may have to enlist the services of another military engineering
organization/engineering contractor. For Navy commands, the local Naval
Facilities Engineering Field Division, Engineering Field Activity, or Navy Public
Works Center can provide these services.
There are several steps that must be taken in order to provide a suitable
substitute for Halon 1301:
1) The first step is to identify a need for fire suppression.
2) The next step is to identify fire suppression requirements. The first
requirement is to determine what types of fires are most prominent in the
area (A, B, and/or C). The second is to identify where and how often these
fires occur. The third requirement is to determine what kind of response is
needed (manual or automatic). Once these requirements have been met,
then a suitable substitute may be identified.
3) The third step is to find the cheapest and easiest solution. This will vary
from application to application. However, approximately 90% of the
applications should be capable of converting to water sprinklers, which are
25-33%of the cost of alternative gaseous agents.
When conducting a risk assessment, a fire protection engineer will consult MIL-
HDBK-1008C Military Handbook On Fire Protection For Facilities
Engineering, Design, and Construction, appropriate National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) standards, and additional service specific
guidance. It is important to note that MIL-HDBK-1008C has no requirements
for the use of Halon 1301 in fire protection system design for facilities.
Army personnel may consult DA-Pamphlet 385-16 System Safety
Management Guidance, AR 385-16 System Safety Engineering and
Management and the AAPPSO Strategic Guidance and Planning for
Eliminating ODCsfrom U.S. Army Applications. The Army has successfully
Beta tested the Halon Alternatives Selection Tool (HAST). HAST is a
3-III-2-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
software tool that allows the user to input data about an existing halon
installation and it will provide recommended alternative system options with
estimated costs.
Navy personnel may consult the Naval Facilities Engineering Command
Shore Facilities Ozone Depleting Substances Conversion Guide.
Air Force personnel may consult HQAFCESA Engineering Technical Letter
(ETL) 95-1: Halon 1301 Management Planning Guidance, ETL 93-5: Fire
Protection Engineering Criteria - Electronic Equipment Installations, and
ETL 94-6: Fire Protection Engineering Criteria - Removal of Halogenated
Agent Fire Suppression Systems.
In the majority of facility applications where Halon 1301 is in use, automatic
water sprinklers are the preferred alternative for fire protection. In numerous
facilities, the spaces presently protected by total flooding Halon systems are
also protected by automatic sprinklers. In many of these areas, removal of the
Halon without replacement or removal and replacement with additional portable
fire extinguishers is adequate since the area is already protected by automatic
sprinklers in accordance with MIL-HDBK-1008C. If automatic sprinklers are
not already installed, then installation of automatic sprinklers will be the most
likely preferred alternative protection option. Some commercial facilities have
also installed additional smoke/fire detectors to provide early warning to
building occupants, thus allowing a quick local first response to a small fire with
portable extinguishers.
There are cases where automatic sprinklers are not the preferred alternative or
cannot be used, however these cases are the exception and not the rule. Some
of these cases are:
Computer room under floor spaces which require fire protection
because the data cable is not plenum rated and/or the power cable is
not in conduit. Automatic sprinklers are not appropriate for under floor
spaces because conventional nozzles cannot be placed for full coverage in
these cramped spaces. In under floor spaces, a carbon dioxide system or
other gaseous alternative agent (halocarbon or inert gas) should be used. It
is important to note that an under floor space is not considered an occupied
area, even if the space above the floor is normally occupied.
In areas where an adequate water supply is not available. This situation
often arises when the area is a remote building or the entire facility is in a
remote area such as the Pacific Islands or the Arctic. In these situations
3-III-2-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
carbon dioxide may be used for unoccupied areas or an alternative gaseous
agent may be used for normally occupied areas.
In areas which are determined by the local military commander to
contain equipment of such high value or strategic importance to the
military mission that damage or interruption of operations is
considered to be unacceptable. Examples of these areas might include
certain command and control centers, areas housing supercomputers used
for data processing of important information for combat systems targeting
and/or navigation, or facilities housing high value flight/combat simulators. In
these areas, the use of a gaseous Halon alternative agent (halocarbon or
inert gas) may be appropriate.
Halon 1301 for use in mission critical applications is supplied by DLA from the
Defense ODS Reserve. Procurement of Halon 1301 for any other uses
requires a certification by an authorized technical representative (ATR) and
approval by a senior acquisition official (SAO) at the flag/general officer or
civilian SES level in accordance with the specific Service guidance implementing
this law, Section 326 of the FY-93 Defense Authorization Act which is also
identified as Public Law 102-484. Furthermore, excess Hal on 1301 removed
from non-mission-critical applications should be returned to the Defense ODS
Reserve in accordance with Service procedures. Further information on return
procedures can be obtained from Defense Supply Center, Richmond at (804)
279-4525/5203.
Compliance
Benefit: Switching from Halon 1301 (a class I ozone-depleting chemical) to an
approved non-ozone depleting alternative will help facilities meet the
requirements under 40 CFR 82, Subpart D and Executive Order 12843
requiring federal agencies to maximize the use of safe alternatives to Class I and
Class U ozone depleting substances, to the maximum extent practicable. In
addition, the elimination of Halon 1301 at the facility decreases the possibility
that the facility would meet any of the reporting thresholds under 40 CFR 370
and EO 12856. Chemicals used as substitutions should be reviewed for
SARA reporting issues.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
3-III-2-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Materials
Compatibility:
Prior to replacing any halon system, the impact on the hardware should be
evaluated. An impact could be caused by the alternative chemical agent, the
hardware associated with the use of that agent, or by-products of the pyrolysis.
An engineer who is experienced in fire protection system design should be
consulted.
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
Consult your local Industrial Health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these
technologies.
Switching from Halon 1301 to an HCFC reduces the ozone depletion
potential of the extinguishing agent, but does not eliminate it.
Switching to an HFC (all chlorine sites on the carbon molecule are fluorine
substituted) or a perfluorocarbon (all available sites on the carbon molecule
are fluorine substituted) provides a non-ozone depleting substitute, but also
has some global warming potential, particularly the perfluorocarbons.
Careful consideration of the choices is necessary in order to select the
optimal alternative.
With the increasing cost of halon, many of the alternative systems present a
cheaper operating cost
High initial retrofit cost for alternative systems.
If unit or weapon system is listed as mission-critical, and is identified
in the Service's Authorized Users for Halon 1211, The Defense
Supply Center Richmond will provide Halon 1211 free of charge.
This availability provides a disincentive for substitution with an
alternative system.
Use of pollution prevention funds for replacement of Halon fire extinguishing
systems with non-Hal on based systems is not authorized if the reason for
conversion is that the existing system has reached the end of its life
expectancy.
There are no direct drop in substitutes for Halon 1311. Thus, the economic
feasibility for using a Halon 1311 substitute is highly dependent on the
application. Total flooding systems normally consist of a fixed supply of the
Agent connected to piping with nozzles to direct the agent into the hazard area.
There are many factors that can affect the cost of using Halon 1311 alternatives.
These include:
3-III-2-7
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
The volume of the space to be protected,
The type of equipment protected, and
The ability to use existing delivery, actuation and alarm systems.
The following is an example of a retrofit with a Halon 1301 replacement. The
Memphis Detachment of Carderock Division, Naval Surface Warfare
Center (CDNSWC) had an accidental Halon 1301 fire-suppression discharge
in the Data Acquisition Analysis System (DAAS) computer room. The room
size is 20 ft x 22 ft x 10 ft high (approx. 4400 ft3.). It was decided that instead
of refilling the Halon 1301 system, a conversion to a zero-ODP alternative
agent would be pursued. The facility selected an Inergen fire suppression
system as the long term most cost effective method to restore fire protection.
Inergen is a mixture of Nitrogen (52%), Argon (40%), and Carbon Dioxide
(8%). The components are mixed by local compressed gas cylinder companies
and supplied at a cost of approximately $0.257 ft3.
Replacement with Inergen required new pressurized gas cylinders, slight piping
modifications and a replacement of the fire suppression nozzles. The single 123
Ib. Halon cylinder was replaced with four 350 cubic ft cylinders. To prevent
future accidental releases, it was decided to replace the Heat/Smoke detectors
with ones which will not be affected by moisture. A contract for the system
changeout and detector modifications was awarded for $5,525.70.
In the event of future releases, refilling the Inergen cylinders should cost
$350.00 (350 ft3 cylinder x 4 = 1400 ft3 x $0.257 ft3) excluding labor and any
other miscellaneous materials verses $3,936.00 to refill with Halon 1301 (123
Ibs x $32.00/lb.) or less than 10% of the cost to refill with Halon 1301.
The following are some general cost analyses for various fire protection
scenarios.
Assumptions:
All examples assume that there is enough storage space for the large volume
cylinders required for implementation of Inergen (3-5 times the space
required for FE-13 or FM-200).
Examples are for a complete installation. If components such as detectors,
alarms, and other minor components from an existing halon system can be
reused, then costs may decrease by $2K-$5K or more.
These costs reflect initial cost only. When making decisions on selection of
agents, accidental discharges and other life cycle costs should be
considered. For example, if a system is estimated to discharge once over
the 20 year life of the system, then a more expensive Inergen system (initial
3-III-2-8
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
cost) will actually be cheaper over the life cycle than lower initial cost FM-
200 or FE-13 system.
Assumes that a water sprinkler system could not be used. In many cases
water sprinklers are the most appropriate alternatives. Water sprinkler
systems typically cost less than gaseous alternative agent systems (Both life
cycle and initial costs). A typical cost for a water sprinkler system in a
5000 ft3 space might range from $2K (wet pipe with standard detection) to
$10K (preaction with early detection).
The following presents some estimated costs for installing Halon 1301
alternative fire suppression systems:
Example 1: Computer/Telecommunications area (3,000 ft3)
Inergen: $11,900
FM-200: $10,700
FE-13 $10,500 (Not recommended due to high GWP of HFC-23)
Example 2: Computer/Telecommunications area (5,000 ft3)
Inergen: $16,000
FM-200: $14,300
FE-13: $13,600 (Not recommended due to high GWP of HFC-23)
Example 3: Computer/Telecommunications area (8,000 ft3)
Inergen: $22,000
FM-200: $19,600
FE-13: (Not recommended due to high GWP of HFC-23)
Example 4: Flammable Liquid Handling Area (5,000 ft3) - Cylinders located in
unprotected arctic temperatures (-40 degrees F)
Inergen: $18,600
FM-200: Not feasible
FE-13: $15,700
Example 5: Diesel Engine Equipment Area (10,000 ft3)
Inergen: $24,000
FM-200: $21,400
FE-13: $19,800
Facilities Halon 1301 total flooding fire suppression systems usually have no real
expected service lives. Their components are simplistic and durable enough to
last virtually forever.
3-III-2-9
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
Approval
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Vendors:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy
Mr. Joseph Gott (Naval facilities applications)
NAVFACENGCOM Code 150
DSN 221-0521, (202) 685-9177
Email: gottje@hq.navfac.navy.mil
Mr. Doug Barylski (Ships and LCAC applications)
NAVSEASYSCOM 03G2
DSN 332-5084 x216, (703) 602-5084 x216
Marine Corps:
Mr. George Barchuk
Hdqtrs. U.S. Marine Corps Attn: LPP-2
2 Navy Annex
Washington D.C. 20380-1775
(703) 696-1052 DSN 426-1052, 1061, 1062
Army:
Mr. Dave Koehler
Ocean City Research Corp.
4811 B Eisenhower Ave.
Alexandria, VA 22304
Phone: (703)212-9006 Fax: (703)212-9019
Email: dakoehler@aerols.com
The following list is not meant to be complete, as there are other manufacturers
of this product. Other sources can be found at EPA's Ozone Depletion World
Wide Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/docs/ozone/index.html
Ansul Fire Protection
Mr. David Pelton
1240 Iroquois Drive, Suite 102
Naperville, IL 60563-8537
Phone: (630) 305-5700 Fax: (630) 305-3360
3-III-2-10
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Fike Fire Suppression Systems
704 South 10th St. P.O. Box 610
Blue Springs, MO 64013
Phone: 816-229-3405 Fax: 816-229-4615
Chemetron Fire Systems
Mr. Steve Dimetrovich
4801 SouthwickDr.
3rd Floor
Matteson, IL 60443
Phone: (708)748-1503 Fax: (708)748-2847
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc.
Mr. Stan Slanski
400 Main St.
Ashland, MA 01721
Phone: 508-881-2000 ext. 2273 Fax: 508-881-8920
Sources: Mr. Dave Koehler, Ocean City Research Corp., August 1998
Bell, Bruce and Felix Mestey, P.E. and Joseph Gott, P.E., "Shore Facilities Ozone
Depleting Substance Conversion Guide for Heating, Ventilation, Air
Conditioning/Refrigeration and Fire Protection Systems, Naval Facilities Engineering
Command, December 1997.
EPA 's Ozone Depletion World Wide Web Site:
http://www. epa.gov/docs/ozone/index. html
Discussions with Pete Mullenhard, Navy Shipboard Environmental Information
Clearinghouse
Navy Shipboard Environmental Information Clearinghouse : http://www.navyseic.com
3-III-2-11
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
HALON REDISTRIBUTION/RECOVERY/RECYCLING/RECLAIMING
Revision: 9/98
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-06-99; Air Force: SV09; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: High
Alternative For: Virgin Halons
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Halon 1211 (Bromochlorodifluoromethane)
CAS: 353-59-3), Halon 1301 (Bromotrifluoromethane) (CAS: 75-63-8)
Overview: Halon redistribution, recovery, recycling and reclaiming are essential for
preserving the availability of halons for mission critical applications. There are
halon recycling services that are designed to bring halons back to Military
Specifications. Halon recycling equipment is also available for those facilities
that process large quantities of halon.
Halon 1211 and 1301 are widely used fire-suppression and explosion-
protection agents. Both Halon 1211 and Halon 1301 have extremely high
ozone-depletion potentials. As a result, production has been halted and use is
being curtailed until existing supplies are exhausted. Any excess Halon
recovered from existing non-mission-critical applications should be returned to
the Defense ODS Reserve in accordance with Service procedures. Additional
information on return procedures can be obtained from Defense Supply Center,
Richmond at (804) 279-4525/5203. Mission critical applications for Halon
1301 includes:
Shipboard fire protection
Aviation engine nacelle fire protection
Aviation fuel tank applications
Armored vehicle crew compartment explosion and fire protection
Aviation dry bay fire protection
Aircraft hand held fire protection applications
For Halon 1211 mission critical applications include:
Flight line fire protection
Aviation crash, fire, and rescue vehicles
Landcraft air cushion fire protection
Conservation of Halons is necessary to preserve existing supplies until
replacement products and systems can be implemented. Actual use should be
restricted to real incidents requiring fire suppression. Routine testing of systems
3-III-3-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
for proper operation with the Halon product is discouraged. Surplus Halon is
likely to be resold. Redistribution, recovery, recycling, and reclamation are all
methods of meeting future Halon demand.
Recycling is the process of removing contaminants (oils, nitrogen, particulates,
moisture) by refrigeration and filtration so that the Halon can again be used in a
fire suppression system. Reclaiming involves reprocessing the Halon to new
product specifications through filtration, distillation, refrigeration, and
vaporization. The military specification for Halon 1211 has been revised to
allow the use of recycled halon. Also, ASTM has developed ES 24-93, an
emergency specification for Halon 1301 for both commercial and military use.
Halon Recycling and Redistribution: Both E/M Corporation, a subsidiary of
Great Lakes Chemical Corporation, and Automatic Suppression Systems of
South Holland, Illinois, provide a recycling service to restore contaminated
Halon back to Mi-Spec quality. In addition, they serve as a market for Halon
1301 and Halon 1211 for resale to distributors. The steps required to recover
Halon include the following:
1) Verify that cylinders contain Halon 1301, Halon 1211, or other Halons.
2) Transfer Halon to blow-down tank for storage.
3) Recycle Halon through a recycling system to remove contaminants or
reclaim the Halon so that it meets all necessary specifications.
4) Verify that the reclaimed Halon meets the necessary specifications.
5) Return Halon to storage cylinders.
When shipping Halon 1301, either interstate or intrastate, DOT requirements
need to be followed. All shipping containers must be marked with the proper
warning label (green label for compressed gas non-flammable) and proper
safety plugs. Shipping caps must also be used.
Halon Recycling Equipment: Several manufacturers have developed recycling
equipment for both Halon 1301 and Halon 1211 that recovers almost 100% of
the halon and reclaims it to meet specifications.
In order to recycle Halon, certain components are required. The pumping
system must be able to quickly and efficiently (99 percent efficiency to prevent
the escape of Halon into the atmosphere) move the Halon liquid and vapor from
the storage tank to processing equipment. Operating pressures range from 360
to 600 psig for pressurized cylinders down to a vacuum of 10 to 20 inches of
mercury for cylinders which will be opened to the atmosphere. The recycling
system should include modules for 1) removing contaminants by filtration and 2)
removing nitrogen by condensing the Halon and venting the nitrogen. Filters
3-III-3-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
should be replaceable without the release of Halon. In general, the two
modules can run automatically and are not labor intensive.
For a more detailed analysis of Halon 1301 recycling equipment see the
Pollution Prevention Opportunity Data Sheet "Halon 1301 Recycler."
For more detailed information on Halon 1211 and 1301 alternatives, see the
Pollution Prevention Opportunity Data Sheets, "Halon 1211: Uses,
Restrictions and Replacements," and, "Halon 1301: Uses, Restrictions and
Replacements."
Halon 1301 and Halon 1211 are still approved for use, but only in mission-
critical applications such as flight-line fire fighting and ship- and shore-based
crash and rescue operations. Halon for use in mission critical applications is
supplied by DLA from the Defense ODS Reserve. The purchase of
new/reclaimed product is becoming more difficult and more costly.
Procurement of Halon for any other uses requires a certification by an
authorized technical representative (ATR) and approval by a senior acquisition
official (SAO) at the flag/general officer or civilian SES level in accordance with
Section 326 of the FY-93 Defense Authorization Act.
Compliance
Benefit:
Materials
Compatibility:
Substitutes for Halon 1301 and 1211 systems should be considered when
feasible Under 40 CFR 82, Subpart D and Executive Order 12843 federal
agencies are required to maximize the use of safe alternatives to Class I and
Class U ozone depleting substances, to the maximum extent practicable.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Halons are very inert and not deleterious to most elastomers, metals, or
electronic systems. Halons do decompose to a small degree during a fire
extinguishing event, releasing some hydrofluoric acid gases. However, the
concentrations are so small (several hundred to several thousand ppm) and the
gases so readily dispersed that material compatibility is not normally a concern,
even if materials left in the enclosed space are sensitive to the acid
gases/decomposition products of Halons. The smoke, ash, and soot of the fire
more often cause damage.
3-III-3-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Both dry chemical and perfluorocarbons have low order toxicities. However,
care should be taken when handling any of these chemicals. Proper personal
protective equipment is always recommended.
Consult your local Industrial Health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these
technologies.
Production of both Halon 1301 and Halon 1211 has been stopped, and any
existing material will most likely be used for its originally intended purpose.
Recycling, reclamation, and redistribution are good methods of meeting
future Halon demand.
Recycling provides a good alternative to disposal.
Careful use of the material for mission-critical applications will conserve
current supplies and prolong the time over which the material enters the
environment, thus lessening the immediate impact on the ozone layer.
Recycling and redistribution of halons are relatively short-term solutions and
should be performed to meet mission critical requirements. Alternative
substitutes for Halon 1301 and 1211 systems should be considered when
feasible.
Economic
Analysis:
Halon 1301 can be procured at no cost to mission-critical applications from
DLA Defense Supply Center located at Richmond, Virginia. Any excess Halon
recovered from existing non-mission-critical applications should be returned to
the Defense ODS Reserve in accordance with Service procedures.
Vendors have provided the following information on Halon recycling services
for bringing Halon back to Military specifications. For small amounts of Halon
(e.g.,<100 Ibs.), a recycling service will typically provide the recycling services
in exchange for the Halon. For larger quantities of Halon (e.g., >1,000 Ibs.)
recyclers will purchase the halon from the facility or bank the halon for the
facility for future use. The cost of these options depends on the needs of the
facility. Vendors can store the Halon in the existing cylinders or bank it in bulk
storage facilities. The following are typical costs for services:
Recycling and banking in your cylinders: $75/cyclinder per year
Recycling to Military Specifications: $2/lb
Recycling and storage in a bulk storage facility: $2/lb recycling fee plus
$100-$200 per year banking fee and approximately $100/cyclinder for
cylinder destruction
3-III-3-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Assumptions:
1000 Ibs. of Halon 1301/year recycled and from five halon 204 spheres
Labor Rate: $30/hr
Labor to remove and ship cylinders: 5 hours
Labor to perform on-site recycling: 24 hours per cylinder
Shipping costs $300 per cylinder
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Halon Recycling Service and Halon Recycling Equipment
Halon Recycling Halon Recycling
Service Equipment
Equipment Costs $0 $39,500
Operational Costs:
Labor $150 $3,600
Shipping: $1500 $0
Maintenance $0 $400
Recycling Service: $2000 $0
Total Operational Costs: $3,650 $4,000
Total Recovered Income: $0 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$3,650 -$4,000
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for Halon 1301 Recycling off-site: $350
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $39,500
NOTE: Recycling Services will be more cost effective unless very large
quantities of Halon are recycled on-site.
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost
Halon 1301 Reclaimer 4940-01-395-9470 ea. $6,000.00
Halon 1301 Recharging Unit 3655-01-446-9335 ea. $7,425.00
3-III-3-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Approval
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Mr. Joseph Gott (Naval facilities applications)
NAVFACENGCOM Code 150
DSN 221-0521, (202) 685-9177
FAX: (202)685-1577
Email: gottje@hq.navfac.navy.mil
Mr. Jim Homan (Naval Aviation applications)
NAVAIRSYSCOM 4.3.5
DSN 664-3400 x8687
Mr. Doug Barylski (Ships and LCAC applications)
NAVSEASYSCOM 03G2
DSN 332-5084 x216, (703) 602-5084 x216
Mr. Fred Walker
Fire Protection Engineer
HQ AFCESA/DFE
DSN 523-6315
Vendors:
Air Force
Mr. Kenneth Dormer
SAF/AQRE
1060 Air Force Pentagon
Washington D.C., 20330-1060
Phone: (703)696-8549
Fax: (703)696-9333
US EPA Stratospheric Ozone Information Hotline, (800) 296-1996
Halon Recycling Corporation, (800) 258-1283, (202) 223-6166
DoD Ozone Depleting Substances Reserve, (804) 279-4525
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), (800) 344-3555
National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors, (312) 923-8500
Fire Suppression Systems Association, (410) 931 -8100
Fire Equipment Manufacturers Association, (216)241 -73 3 3
The following list is not meant to be complete, as there are other manufacturers
of this product.
3-III-3-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Vendors of Halon Recycling Services
Automatic Suppression Systems
130 Armory Drive
South Holland, IL 60473
Phone: (708)333-4130
Fax: (708)333-9704
URL: www.automaticsuppression.com
Manufacturers of Halon Recycling Equipment
Walter Kidde Aerospace
4200 Airport Drive, NW
Wilson, NC 27896-9643
Phone: (252)237-7004
Fax: (252)237-9323
Getz Manufacturing
1525 SW Adams St
Peoria, IL 61602
(309) 674-1723
Source(s): Mr. Joseph Gott, NAVFACENGCOM, September, 1998.
Mr. Kenneth Dormer, SAF/AQRE, Washington, D.C. September, 1998.
Solomon, J., Halon Redistribution, 1994 International CFC and Halon Alternatives
Conference, p. 426-427, October 1994.
Krabbe, G., Halon Recovery and Reclaim Technology from the Viewpoint of the
Installers/Distributors. 1994 International CFC and Halon Alternatives Conference, p.
428-435, October 1994.
Huston, P., The Modular Concept of Halon 1301 Recoverv/Recvclins/Reclaiming. 1994
International CFC and Halon Alternatives Conference, p. 436-441, October 1994.
3-III-3-7
-------
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
HALON 1301 RECYCLER
Revision: 9/98
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-24-00; Air Force: HW01; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: High; Marine Corps: High; Army: High; Air Force: High
Alternative For: N/A
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Halon 1301 (Bromotrifluoromethane)
(CAS: 75-63-8)
Overview: Halon recycling units are available to help extend the life of Halon 1301
where it is used as a fire-suppression and explosion-protection agent.
Halon 1301 is still approved for use only in mission-critical applications.
Mission-critical applications include flight-line fire fighting, and ship- and
shore-based crash and rescue operations. Each application requires a
waiver for procurement of Halon 1301 replacement. Procurement must
come from the Defense Logistics Agency's (DLA) halon reserve
(Defense Supply Center, Richmond, Virginia), since production was
banned in January 1996. Conservation of halons is necessary to
preserve existing supplies until replacement products and systems can
be implemented.
Halon 1301 recycling systems remove contaminants by filtration and
condensation to meet required product specifications. These recycling
units transfer Halon 1301 from aircraft fire bottles into a storage vessel
to eliminate venting Halon 1301 to the atmosphere. This equipment is
required to safely transfer the halon so that it can be sent in bulk to a
reclamation site.
The basic recycling system includes a pumping system that efficiently
transfers the halon from the storage tank into the processing equipment,
and modules for filtration and condensation. The recycling process first
recovers halon at 99% efficiency with the use of the pump and filtration
units. The pump operates on 100-120 psi of compressed air at 13
cubic feet per minute, and has an average of 16 pounds per minute of
liquid transfer rate and 2 pounds per minute of vapor transfer rate. The
filtration unit operates at 120 volts, 4-amp circuit, and removes
contaminants accumulated during transfer or fill operation, or when a
cylinder or storage vessel rusts and degrades. Molecular sieve filters
are used in the unit to remove particulate matter, moisture, oil, water,
wax, and sludge. The filtration unit also has a salt crystal indicator that
shows the presence of moisture. The condensing unit requires the use
3-III-4-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
of liquid nitrogen and operates at 120 volts and 4 amps. Nitrogen in the
halon is separated via condensation, and is then vented to the
atmosphere. The recycling rate for this technology is 99%. Consult the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard, ASTM
D5631-94, to determine proper procedures for handling,
transportation, and storage of Halon 1301.
Compliance
Benefit:
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Substitutes for Halon 1301 systems should be considered when
feasible Under 40 CFR 82, Subpart D and Executive Order
12843 federal agencies are required to maximize the use of safe
alternatives to Class I and Class U ozone depleting substances, to the
maximum extent practicable.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a
general guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual
compliance benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the
amount of workload involved.
Halons are very inert and are not harmful to most elastomers, metals, or
electronic systems. Halon decomposition during a fire-extinguishing
event can result in the release of hydrofluoric acid gas, but the
concentrations are small and readily disperse.
Halon 1301 is a nonflammable, non-corrosive gas and is normally
stored and shipped as a liquefied compressed gas. Precautions when
handling, storing, and transporting of storage cylinders must be
observed. Only trained and authorized personnel should handle the
halon storage tanks and recycling system.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and
safety personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this
technology.
Extends the useful life of the Halon 1301 supply
Reduces activity down time associated with the Halon 1301
replacement procurement process
Transfers halon more efficiently (99%) and effectively
Provides the ability to filter halon independently while continuing to
pump out cylinders
3-III-4-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Provides the fleet with a system capable of future growth to provide
an organic reclamation capability
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
Requires operator training
Halon 1301 can be procured at no cost to mission-critical applications
from DLA Defense Supply Center located at Richmond, Virginia.
However, Halon 1301 recycling systems can be used to extend the
useful life of existing Halon 1301 supply at a minimal cost. Naval Air
Station, North Island is currently operating a Halon 1301 recycling
system. This system is comprised of pumping, filtration, and nitrogen
separation units that remove contaminants and recycle the halon to
ASTM and Mi-Spec levels. The cost elements for operating a Halon
1301 recycling system are provided below. According to the Pollution
Prevention Equipment Program Book, the capital cost for a Halon 1301
recycling system is approximately $8,333. The following economic
analysis is based on information provided by Mike Zitaglio at the Naval
Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division in Lakehurst, NJ.
Assumptions:
Estimated equipment cost for pump unit: $5,000
Estimated equipment cost for filtration unit: $5,000
Labor rate: $30/hr
Electricity: negligible
Utility air cost: negligible
Multiple types of bottles processed ranging from 2.5 Ib. to 25 Ib.
Number of bottles processed: 33/month or 400/year
Average pumping rate: lOmin/botdeor
5.5 hr/month or 66 hr./year
Average filtration rate: 10 min/bottle or
5.5 hr/month or 66 hr./year
Total recycling system labor hours: 2 hrs./bottle or 800 hrs./year
Labor hours required to process and turn in used halon bottles
(disposal): 24 hr/month or 288 hr/yr
Shipping costs to replace halon bottles with new ones: $50/month
3-III-4-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Halon 1301 Recycler and Disposal of Used Halon Bottles
Halon Recycler Disposal of Used
Halon Bottles
Operational Costs:
Labor: $24,000 $8,640
Shipping $0 $600
Total Operational Costs: $24,000 $9,240
Total Recovered Income: $0 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$24,000 -$9,240
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for Halon 1301 Recycler: -$ 14,760
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $ 10,000
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: N/A
Note: Cost savings for operating a Halon 1301 recycling system
increase when it is used to process bulk quantities ofhalon.
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own
Values. To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool
Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost
Halon 1301 Reclaimer 4940-01-395-9470 ea. Local Purchase
Note: NSN 4940-01-395-9470 was developed specifically for the
Air Force for use on the F-16. The navy uses: P/N 58940 Air
Powered Pump Unit and P/N/ 59058 Independent Filtration
System.
Approving
Authority: Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after
engineering approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not
required.
3-III-4-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
Sources:
Navy:
Mr. Mike Zitaglio
Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, 4.8.1.6
Phone: (732) 323-4284
Fax:(732)323-1551
Mr. Frank Kaparic or Bruce Pastor
NADEP, NAS North Island, Code 93205
P.O. Box 3570458
San Diego, CA 92135-7058
Phone: (619) 545-3486 or 545-6994, DSN: 735-3486
Mr. Floyd Stanley or Glen Patterson
NADEP, Code 94104,
PSC Box 8021, Building 137,
MCAS, Cherry Point NC 28553-0021
Phone: (919)464-7949 DSN: 582-7949
The following is a list of manufacturers of halon recycling equipment.
This is not meant to be a complete list, as there may be other
manufacturers of this type of equipment.
Getz Manufacturing
1525 SW Adams Street
Peoria, IL 61602
Phone: (309) 674-1723, Fax: (800) 473-6088
Manufactures Halon 1301 recovery/recycle systems.
Mr. Mike Zitaglio, Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Lake hurst, NJ,
August 1998.
Mr. FrankKaparic and Bruce Pastor, NADEP, NAS North Island, San Diego,
CA, August, 1998.
Vendor Communication, Kevin Rednour, Design Engineer, GetzMfg, June
1996.
Getz Manufacturing, Peoria, IL, Vendor Literature, May 1996.
3-III-4-5
-------
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
ODS-FREE PORTABLE HAND-HELD FIRE EXTINGUISHERS
Revision: 9/98
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-06-99; Air Force: SV09; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: High; Marine Corps: High; Army: High; Air Force: High
Alternative For: Halon fire extinguishers
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Bromochlorodifluoromethane (Halon 1211) (CAS:
353-59-3) and Bromotrifluoromethane (Halon 1301) (CAS: 75-63-8)
Overview: Portable hand-held Halon fire extinguishers have been one of the standard types
of fire extinguishers in common use. An ODS-free substitute must be found to
replace Halon units. On December 31, 1993, Halon production was eliminated
in the US because of its contributions to ozone depletion. Halon 1211 and
1301 are still approved for use, but only in mission-critical applications.
Since January 1993, joint service personnel have been banned from purchasing
Halons, but not the use of existing Halon systems. Non-mission-critical Halon
applications require the use of a substitute and then conversion from the Halon-
based system. For example, Halon 1301 is used in aircraft simulators, but
those non-mission-critical systems must eventually be modified to use an
alternate fire extinguishing agent in accordance with current joint service policy.
In order to purchase new halon equipment, senior acquisition official approval
must be granted. Furthermore, many automatically activated Halon
extinguishing systems have been deactivated and can now only be triggered
manually. In the event of a discharge, the systems are not to be recharged with
Halon. The onboard systems will be replaced when an acceptable substitute is
available. Some alternate fire suppression agents for use as a substitute for
Halon 1301 have been identified and are being used in the services. Halon
1301 is a widely used fire suppression and explosion protection agent applied in
the total flooding manner.
The majority of Halon 1211 portable fire extinguishers found inside buildings
can be replaced with dry chemical extinguishers and/or carbon dioxide
extinguishers. However, research and implementation is still ongoing to identify
replacements for Halon 1211 extinguishers used in many weapon
system/specialty applications (aviation, air-cushion vehicles, command and
control spaces, etc.). In some cases, Halon 1211 in these other applications is
being replaced by dry chemical blends such as Cold Fire , and/or carbon
dioxide extinguishers. In other applications, alternative halocarbon agents such
as HFC-227ea and HFC-236fa are being evaluated as alternatives.
3-III-5-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Halon 1211 and 1301 for use in mission critical applications is supplied by DLA
from the Defense ODS Reserve. Procurements of Halon 1211 and 1301 for
any other uses requires a certification by an authorized technical representative
(ATR) and approval by a senior acquisition official (SAO) at the flag/general
officer or civilian SES level in accordance with Section 326 of the FY-93
Defense Authorization Act. Furthermore, excess Halon 1211 and 1301
removed from non-mission-critical applications should be returned to the
Defense ODS Reserve in accordance with Service procedures. Further
information on return procedures can be obtained from Defense Supply Center,
Richmond at (804) 279-4525/5203.
Compliance
Benefit:
Use of ODS-free hand-held fire extinguishers such as carbon dioxide units,
HFC-227ea units or those with surfactant blends such as Cold Fire TM will
help facilities meet the requirements under 40 CFR 82, Subpart D and
Executive Order 12843 requiring federal agencies to maximize the use of safe
alternatives to Class I and Class U ozone depleting substances, to the maximum
extent practicable. In addition, the elimination of ODS fire extinguishers at the
facility decreases the possibility that the facility would meet any of the reporting
thresholds for ODSs under 40 CFR 370 and EO 12856. Chemicals used as
substitutions should be reviewed for SARA reporting issues.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Prior to replacing any Halon system, the impact on the hardware should be
evaluated. An engineer who is experienced in fire protection system design
should be consulted.
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these
technologies.
Reduces the amount of ozone depleting substances going into the
environment.
Alternatives can provide a non-global warming agent or lower global
warming potential.
Many alternatives are non-toxic and non-corrosive, as well as
biodegradable
3-III-5-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
Careful consideration of the choices is necessary in order to select the
optimal alternative.
Higher concentration or greater quantity of the extinguishing may be
required because some substitutes may not be as effective.
The Cold Fire aerosol version is intended primarily for use on small,
startup fires. The surfactant is propelled by compressed air. It is approved
for Class A and B fires only. It contains water and is, therefore, not suitable
for use on Class C (electrical fires).
Use of pollution prevention funds for replacement of Halon fire extinguishing
systems with non-Halon based systems is not authorized if the reason for
conversion is that the existing system has reached the end of its life expectancy.
The economic feasibility of each substitute is highly dependent on the
application. The following economic analysis is based on manufacturer data
from Fire Freeze and information provided by the Defense Supply Center
Richmond.
Assumptions:
Cost of 5 gal. pail of Cold Fire: $60.02
Cost of 15 Ibs. Halon 1211 fire extinguisher (NSN 6830-01-092-3263):
$82.26
Both fire suppression agents are used in equivalent amounts
Shipping cost for used Halon fire extinguisher is dependent upon size and
origin of shipment. If the transportation cost exceeds $250, the Defense
Supply Center Richmond will pay the cost
Cost Comparison for
Cold Fire vs. Halon 1211 Fire Extinguisher
Capital and Installation Costs
Operational Costs:
Shipping:
Total Costs (not including capital and
installation costs)
Total Income:
Annual Benefit:
Cold Fire
Extinguisher
$60.02
$0
$0
$0
$0
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for Cold Fire:
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process:
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process:
Halon 1211
Extinguisher
$82.26
$250
$250
$250
-$250
$250
$60.02
0.2 years
3-III-5-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values. To
return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
Dry Chem. Fire Ex.
Cold Fire/Fire Supp.
Cold Fire/Fire Supp.
CO2 Fire Extinguisher
CO2 Fire Extinguisher
Approval
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
NSN
4210-00-965-1115
4210-01-429-0703
4210-01-429-0443
4210-01-364-1623
4210-00-148-8551
Unit Size
ea.
12/12 oz
5 gal. ea.
2.5 Ib. ea.
3.51b. ea.
Cost
$32.51
$61.43
$60.02
$89.32
$898.38
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Air Force:
Mr. Hugh Pike
Fire Protection Directorate
Headquarters Air Force Civil Engineering Support Agency (HQ AFCESA/DF)
DSN 523-6214, (850)283-6214
Fax: (850)283-6390
Regarding shipment and disposal of portable fire extinguishers.
DLA
Mr. Steve Minus
Defense Supply Center Richmond
Attn: DSCR-RP (Steve Minus)
8000 Jefferson Davis Highway
Richmond, VA 23297
Phone: (804) 279-5203 DSN: 695-5203
Fax: (804)279-4970
Shipping Address:
Defense Depot Richmond
Attn: Cylinder Operations
8000 Jefferson Davis Highway
Richmond, VA 23297
3-III-5-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Vendors:
Sources:
The following list is not meant to be complete, as there are other manufacturers
of this product.
Manufacturers of Cold Fire
FireFreeze Worldwide,Inc.
270 Route 46
East Rockaway, N. J. 07866
Phone: (973)627-0722
Fax: (973)627-2982
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/snap
3-III-5-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
ELECTRONIC COMPONENT COOLING ALTERNATIVE TO CFC-12
Revision: 9/98
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-22-00; Air Force: PM04; Army: ELM
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
Alternative For: CFC-12
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Dichlorofluoromethane (CAS 75-71-8)
Overview:
Compliance
Benefit:
Carbon dioxide can be used as a replacement coolant for Freon R-12 sprays.
Freon R-12 (CFC-12) is used in aerosol containers to cool electronic
components during isolation and repair. Many manufacturers are phasing out
these sprays and are introducing alternatives that protect the ozone layer. The
COMP-CO2LD or CC-1 component cooler, manufactured by Va-Tran
Systems, is a viable alternative to Freon CFC sprays used in electronic
component cooling applications. This CO2 spray tool was originally designed
and manufactured to remove submicron particle contamination in the
semiconductor and hybrid circuit industry. Allied-Signal demonstrated that the
CC-1 component cooler performs better than CFC-12. The CC-1 component
cooler requires a shorter blast to cool the components to the required
temperature. This results in faster detection of weak or defective components.
The CC-1 component cooler consists of a CO2 cylinder, a cart to make it
portable, and a hand-held dispenser. The CO2 cylinders are typically procured
in 20-lb containers although other sizes are available. CO2 is stored as a liquid
under about 850 psig of pressure. As it vaporizes, its temperature can drop to
less than -100 degrees F allowing for the formation of tiny dry ice particles.
The CC-1 component cooler is not only "ozone-safe" but is also considered a
low-cost, effective option for electronic component cooling.
Use of carbon dioxide as a replacement coolant for Freon R-12 sprays will help
facilities meet the requirements under 40 CFR 82, Subpart D and Executive
Order 12843 requiring federal agencies to maximize the use of safe alternatives
to Class I and Class II ozone depleting substances, to the maximum extent
practicable. In addition, the elimination of CFC-12 at the facility decreases the
possibility that the facility would meet any of the reporting thresholds under 40
CFR 355,370 and EO 12856. Chemicals used as substitutions should be
reviewed for SARA reporting issues.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
3-IV-l-l
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Carbon dioxide is an inert gas with excellent material compatibility as a cooling
agent, especially since contact is typically of short duration. Use of carbon
dioxide can possibly cause material fracture in those applications requiring
prolonged contact or in temperature sensitive components.
Since carbon dioxide can be an asphyxiating gas, CO2 monitors should be
considered for use in any confined space, clean room, or other space with
limited ventilation.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
Use of the CC-1 component cooler as an alternative to CFC-12 will
reduce the amount of ozone-depleting chemicals entering the environment
Although not quite as convenient as freon CFC aerosol spray cans, the CO2
hand-held spray tool is relatively convenient to use and can be adapted for
a high degree of portability
CO2 is non-corrosive and leaves no residue
The CO2 spray tool speeds up the rate of defect detection. A shorter blast
of coolant is used to chill the components to the required temperature.
Using less coolant can result in cost savings
Cost savings are achieved from the lower cost associated with the CO2
cylinders when compared to the Freon R-12 cylinders.
The CO2 spray tool will require an initial hardware cost. However, this up-
front cost is minimal (less than $630 for a 20-lb cylinder system).
CO2 is a global warming gas. However, CO2 is considered to have
relatively low global warming potential (GWP)
The CC-1 component cooler is not as convenient as CFC-12 aerosol spray
cans. Aerosol cans can be used frequently by several individuals at any
given time. The CO2 spray tool is expected to be more limiting in terms of
users. Although the CO2 spray tool can be made portable, its use will not
be as flexible as the aerosol cans.
The CO2 canisters will require refilling. Refilling costs are expected to be
minimal (about $10 for each 20-lb. canister excluding any freight charges).
3-IV-1-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Freight charges can be higher than the refilling costs. A 20-lb. canister can
weigh up to 48 Ibs. once filled. Local welding distributors may be able to
refill the canister without requiring freight charges. Since only a small
amount of CO2 is needed to cool the component, the canister is expected to
last a long time before refilling is needed.
Economic
Analysis: The capital cost of the CO2 component cooler (COMP-CO2LD) system
includes the control unit, a 20-lb. cylinder, and a cart that is used to make the
system portable. The following economic analysis was obtained from a case
study on "Eliminating CFC-113 and Methyl Chloroform in Aircraft
Maintenance Procedures" for the government of Thailand by the U.S. EPA
Solvent Elimination Project.
Assumptions:
Number of CC-1 units needed to replace CFC-12: 50
Cost of CO2 system: $340.00
Labor requirements for both systems are approximately equal
Number of CFC-12 cylinders used/year: 300
Number of CO2 cylinders needed to replace CFC-12 cylinders are equal
Cost per CFC-12 cylinder: $105.00
Cost to refill CO2 cylinder: $6.00
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
CO2 and CFC-12 Component Cooling
CO2 CFC-12
Capital Cost: $17,000 $0
Operational Costs:
Material: $1,800 $31,500
Total Operational Costs: $1,800 $31,500
Total Recovered Income: $0 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$1,800 -$31,500
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for CO2 component cooler: $29,700
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $ 17,000
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: <7 month
3-IV-1-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
Approving
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Shipboard Environmental Information Clearinghouse
Mr. Pete Mullenhard (GEO-CENTERS, Inc.)
1755 Jeff Davis Highway, Suite 910
Arlington, VA 22202
Phone: (703) 416-1132 ext. 109, Fax: (703)416-1178
www.nawseic.com
The vendor of the CC-1 component cooler is listed below. This vendor is
believed to be the only manufacturer (sole source) of this type of equipment.
Va-Tran Systems, Inc.
677 Anita Street, Suite A
Chula Vista, CA 91911
Phone: (619) 423-4555 or (800) 379-4231
Fax:(619)423-4604
www.vatran.com
Sources:
Mr. Pete Mullenhard, GEO-CENTERS, Inc., August, 1998.
Mr. Jim Sloan, Va-Tran Systems, Inc., January,1998.
Mr. Jeff Sloan, Va-Tran Systems, Inc., May 1996.
3-IV-1-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
AEROSOL COOLING SPRAY SUBSTITUTES FOR CFC-12 AND HCFC-22
Revision: 10/98
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-22-99; Air Force: AD04; Army: ELM
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: High; Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
Alternative For: CFC-12 and HCFC-22
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12) (CAS: 75-71-8)
Overview: Halocarbon (halogenated carbon based molecules, primarily carbons with
bromine, chlorine, or fluorine atoms as part of their molecular structure) aerosol
cooling sprays have long been used for troubleshooting circuit boards where
thermally intermittent components were suspected. Typically they were tested
with CFC-12 or HCFC-22. EPA regulations have banned these materials from
this application because recovery of the spent gas has been too difficult. The
alternatives that are readily available and also environmentally innocuous are as
follows:
1) Compressed air-vortex cooling: This involves the use of a vortex tube
powered by compressed air. This typically small, hand-held device uses
shop air (8 to 15 SCFM @ 80-125 psig) passed through a vortex chamber
to produce a cooling effect. Outlet temperatures of approximately -40ฐ F
are produced. However, the supply air must be both clean and dry for
proper operation of the vortex tube.
2) Liquid nitrogen: Nitrogen dispensed from a flask can be used to spray at
the component; however, care must be taken when using the nitrogen gun,
as component temperatures can reach -270ฐ F. Cost is approximately
$500.
3) HFC-134a: HCFC-134a can also be used as a freeze spray in place of
CFC-12 and HCFC-22, if compressed air and nitrogen are unavailable.
However, HFC-134a sprays have been shown to produce higher levels of
electrostatic discharge than either CFC-12 or HCFC-22.
4) Sno Gun: The "Sno Gun" is another electrical component cleaner. "Sno
Guns" are used to clean and freeze electronic equipment with carbon
dioxide, which is not an ODS, but does contribute to global warming since
carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Although not yet specifically approved
for use by the Air Force, product testing and evaluation continues.
3-IV-2-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Compliance
Benefit:
Use of alternatives to CFC-12 and HCFC-22 for circuit board troubleshooting
such as vortex cooling, liquid nitrogen, HFC-134a, and carbon dioxide will help
facilities meet the requirements under 40 CFR 82, Subpart D and Executive
Order 12843 requiring federal agencies to maximize the use of safe alternatives
to Class I and Class II ozone depleting substances, to the maximum extent
practicable. In addition, the elimination of CFC-12 and HCFC-22 at the
facility decreases the possibility that the facility would meet any of the reporting
thresholds under 40 CFR 355, 370 and EO 12856. Chemicals used as
substitutions should be reviewed for SARA reporting issues.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Safety and
Health:
Materials
Compatibility
Benefits:
Potential hazards such as room ventilation issues, eye irritation, and skin freezing
or burning when exposed to escaping coolant gases need to be considered.
Consult your local Industrial Health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these
technologies.
Each of these alternatives use relatively inert and non-toxic compounds but
some products are not compatible with certain materials or components.
Check with the original equipment manufacturer to verify material compatibility.
Reduces the amount of ozone-depleting substances and EPCRA targeted
chemicals going into the environment
Reduces the exposure to constituents that have adverse effects to human
health.
Disadvantages:
CFC alternatives can be expensive
Electrostatic discharge exists with some alternatives
3-IV-2-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Economic
Analysis: The capital cost of the CO2 component cooler (COMP-CO2LD) system
includes the control unit, a 20-lb. cylinder, and a cart, which is used to make the
system portable. The following economic analysis was obtained from a case
study on "Eliminating CFC-113 and Methyl Chloroform in Aircraft
Maintenance Procedures" for the government of Thailand by the U.S. EPA
Solvent Elimination Project.
Assumptions:
Number of CC-1 units needed to replace CFC-12: 50
Cost of CO2 system: $340.00
Labor requirements for both systems are approximately equal
Number of CFC-12 cylinders used/year: 300
Number of CO2 cylinders needed to replace CFC-12 cylinders are equal
Cost per CFC-12 cylinder: $105.00
Cost to refill CO2 cylinder: $6.00
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
CO2 and CFC-12 Component Cooling
CO2 CFC-12
Capital Cost: $17,000 $0
Operational Costs:
Material: $1,800 $31,500
Total Operational Costs: $1,800 $31,500
Total Recovered Income: $0 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$1,800 -$31,500
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for CO2 component cooler: $29,700
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $ 17,000
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: <7 months
3-IV-2-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values. To
return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN
Envi-ro-tech Freezer 1672 aer. 6850-01-406-1356
E-series Freeze-It 6850-01-333-1841
Unit Size
12xlOoz
12xl4-15oz
Cost MSDS*
$9366 Click me
$7373 Click me
*There are multiple MSDSsfor most NSNs. The MSDS shown here is only meant to serve as an
example. To return from the MSDS, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar
Approval
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Vendors:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy
Ms. Terry Taylor, Commanding Officer
Mail Code: 4.3.4.4
Material Engineering Lab, Bldg. 793
NADEP, NAS Jacksonville, FL 32212
DSN: 942-4519, Phone: (904) 542-4519, ext: 125
Fax: (904)542-4523
Shipboard Environmental Information Clearinghouse
Mr. Pete Mullenhard (GEO-CENTERS, Inc.)
1755 Jeff Davis Highway, Suite 910
Arlington, VA 22202
Phone: (703) 416-1132, Fax: (703) 416-1178
http://www.nawseic.com
The following list is not meant to be complete, as there are other manufacturers
of this product.
Manufacturer of vortex tubes
ITW Vortec
10125 Carver Rd.
Cincinnati, Ohio 45242
(800) 441-7475 or (513) 891-7475
Fax (513) 891-4092
3-IV-2-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Manufacturer of Compressed-Air Vortex Cooler
Mr. Neal D. Raker, Application Engineer
Exair Corporation
1250 Century Circle North
Cincinnati, OH 45246-3309
Phone: (800) 903-9247, Fax: (513) 671-3363
http ://www. exair. com
Email: techelp@exair. com
Manufacturer of HFC-134a Freeze Spray NSN: 6850-01-406-1356
Ms. Cony Carter
Tech Spray, Inc.
P.O. Box 949
Amarillo, TX 79105-0949
(800) 858-4043
Manufacturer of the "Sno-Gun"
Va-Tran Systems, Inc.
677 Anita Street, Suite A
Chula Vista, CA 91911
(619) 423-4555, Fax: (619) 423-4604
http ://www. vatran. com
Sources: Ms. Terry Taylor, Material Engineering Lab, NADEP Jacksonville, January, 1998.
Mr. David Robinson, Unit Environmental Coordinator, OC-ALC/TIPE, Tinker AFB,
OK, January, 1998.
Mr. Pete Mullenhard, GEO-CENTERS, Inc., January, 1998.
Mr. Jim Sloan, Va-Tran Systems, Inc., January, 1998.
3-IV-2-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
ODS-FREE COOLING/FREEZING PRODUCT
Revision: 9/98
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-22-99; Air Force: AD04; Army: ELM, LOP
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: High; Air Force: High
Alternative For: ODS cooling products and freezing products containing chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs)
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Trichlorofluoromethane (CAS: 75-69-4),
Dichlorofluoromethane (CAS: 75-71-8), l,l,2-trichloro-l,2,2-trifluoroethane (CAS: 76-13-1), and
1,2-Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (CAS: 76-14-2)
Overview: Various ODS-free products have been developed by several manufacturers for
cooling applications, such as testing heat sensitive avionics, deicing equipment,
electrical, and computer components.
ODSs have seen use in many different applications, including that of cooling
agents. However, this direct application of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) does
not lend itself to CFC recovery, and given the production ban, alternatives need
to be substituted.
In compressed gas form, CFCs are effective cooling agents. For example, they
are effective for heat sensitive electronics or for testing anti-icing instruments like
the probe on F-16 aircraft engine intakes. When the pressurized CFC is
directed at the component or point of desired cooling and let down to
atmospheric pressure, a cooling effect takes place due to the isoenthalpic
expansion of the compressed gas. Recovery of the spent gas is difficult;
therefore, alternatives must increasingly be substituted. The alternatives that are
readily available and also environmentally innocuous are the following:
1. Compressed air-vortex cooling involves use of a vortex tube powered by
compressed air. This typically small, hand-held device uses shop air (8 to
15 SCFM @ 80-125 psig) passed through a vortex chamber to produce a
cooling effect. Outlet temperatures of approximately -40ฐ F are produced.
However, the supply air must be both clean and dry for proper operation of the
vortex tube.
2. Liquid nitrogen from a dispenser flask can be used to spray at the
component; however, care must be taken when using the nitrogen gun, as
component temperatures can reach -270ฐ F. Cost is approximately $500.
3-IV-3-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
3. The refrigerant, HFC-134a, can also be used as a freeze spray in place of
CFC-12 and HCFC-22, if compressed air and nitrogen are unavailable.
However, HFC-134a sprays have been shown to produce higher levels of
electrostatic discharge than either CFC-12 or HCFC-22. Be sure to check
with the manufacturer before using.
4. The CO2 component cooler consists of a CO2 cylinder, a cart to make it
portable, and a hand-held dispenser. The CO2 cylinders are typically procured
in 20-lb containers, although other sizes are available. CO2 is stored as a liquid
under about 850 psig of pressure. As it vaporizes, its temperature can drop to
less than -100ฐ F allowing for the formation of tiny dry ice particles. The CO2
component cooler is not only "ozone-safe" but is also considered a low-cost,
effective option for electronic component cooling.
Compliance
Benefit:
Use of alternatives to CFC cooling agents that contain non-ozone depleting
chemicals will help facilities meet the requirements under 40 CFR 82, Subpart
D and Executive Order 12843 requiring federal agencies to maximize the use
of safe alternatives to Class I and Class U ozone depleting substances, to the
maximum extent practicable. In addition, the elimination of CFCs at the facility
decreases the possibility that the facility would meet any of the reporting
thresholds for CFCs under 40 CFR 355, 370 and EO 12856. Chemicals
used as substitutions should be reviewed for SARA reporting issues.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a
general guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual
compliance benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the
amount of workload involved
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety and
Health:
Although each of these alternatives focus on using relatively inert and non-toxic
compounds, some products are not compatible with certain materials or
components. Always check with the original equipment manufacturer to verify
material compatibility.
Potential hazards such as room ventilation issues, eye irritation, and skin freezing
or burning when exposed to escaping coolant gases need to be considered.
See the individual Pollution Prevention Opportunity Data Sheets for more
specific information about the acceptable alternatives, safety and health, and
their material compatibility concerns. Also, consult your local Industrial Health
specialist, your local health and safety personnel, and the appropriate MSDSs
before converting to any of the alternative products or processes.
3-IV-3-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
Reduces the amount of ODSs going into the environment
Many alternatives are inexpensive, lower cost than the CFC
alternative
Some of the alternatives are slightly less efficient in cooling
An electrostatic discharge exists with some of the alternatives
Note: Each alternative has its own unique set of benefits and
disadvantages. See the individual Pollution Prevention Opportunity
Data Sheets for more specific information about each alternative.
The capital cost of the CO2 component cooler (COMP-CO2LD) system
includes the control unit, a 20-lb. cylinder, and a cart that is used to make the
system portable. The following economic analysis was obtained from a case
study on "Eliminating CFC-113 and Methyl Chloroform in Aircraft
Maintenance Procedures" for the government of Thailand by the U.S. EPA
Solvent Elimination Project.
Assumptions:
Number of CC-1 units needed to replace CFC-12: 50
Cost of CO2 system: $340.00
Labor requirements for both systems are approximately equal
Number of CFC-12 cylinders used/year: 300
Number of CO2 cylinders needed to replace CFC-12 cylinders are equal
Cost per CFC-12 cylinder: $105.00
Cost to refill CO2 cylinder: $6.00
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
CO2 and CFC-12 Component Cooling
Capital Cost:
Operational Costs:
Material:
Total Operational Costs:
Total Recovered Income:
CO2
$17,000
$1,800
$1,800
$0
CFC-12
$0
$31,500
$31,500
$0
3-IV-3-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$1,800 -$31,500
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for CO2 component cooler: $29,700
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $ 17,000
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: <7 month
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost MSDS*
Envi-ro-tech Freezer 1672 aerosol 6850-01-406-1356 12xlOoz $93.66 Click me
E-series Freeze-it (Chemtronics) aer. 6850-01-333-1841 12xl4-15oz. $73.73 Click me
*There are multiple MSDSsfor most NSNs. The MSDS shown here is only meant to serve as an
example. To return from the MSDS, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar
Approval
Authority: Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Points of
Contact: Navy:
Ms. Terry Taylor, Commanding Officer
Mail Code: 4.3.4.4
Material Engineering Lab, Bldg. 793
NADEP, NAS Jacksonville, FL 32212
DSN: 942-4519, Phone: (904) 542-4519, ext: 125
Familiar with the Exair vortex tubes and component coolers.
Shipboard Environmental Information Clearinghouse
Mr. Pete Mullenhard (GEO-CENTERS, Inc.)
1755 Jeff Davis Highway, Suite 910
Arlington, VA 22202
Phone: (703) 416-1132, Fax: (703) 416-1178
www.nawseic.com
3-IV-3-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Vendors:
Sources:
The following list is not meant to be complete, as there are other manufacturers
of this product.
Mr. Neal D. Raker, Application Engineer
Exair Corporation
1250 Century Circle North
Cincinnati, OH 45246-3309
Phone: (800) 903-9247, Fax: (513) 671-3363
www.exair.com
Email: techelp(g)exair.com
Manufacturer of industrial compressed air products, vortex tubes and
component coolers.
Ms. Cony Carter
Tech Spray, Inc.
P.O. Box 949
Amarillo, TX 79105-0949
858-4043
Manufacturer Envir-Ro-Tech Freezer, product number P1672-10S.
Ms. Tammie Stanley, Product Manager
GC Thorsen, Inc.
1801 Morgan Street, Rockford, IL 61102
(815) 968-9661, Fax: (815) 968-9029
Manufacturer of Series 2 Freeze Mist, part number 19-8410.
Va-Tran Systems, Inc.
677 Anita Street, Suite A
Chula Vista, CA 91911
Phone: (619) 423-4555, Fax: (619) 423-4604
www.vatran. com
Manufacturer of carbon dioxide freezing systems.
Ms. Terry Taylor, Material Engineering Lab, NADEP Jacksonville, August, 1998.
Mr. David Robinson, Unit Environmental Coordinator, OC-ALC/TIPE, Tinker AFB, OK,
January, 199 8.
Mr. Pete Mullenhard, GEO-CENTERS, Inc., August, 1998.
Mr. Jim Sloan, Va-Tran Systems, Inc., January, 1998.
Mr. Jeff Sloan, Va-Tran Systems, Inc., May 1996.
3-IV-3-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
ODS-FREE LEAK DETECTOR FOR FUEL CELLS
Revision: 9/98
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-14-99; Air Force: IN07; Army: ELM
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
Alternative For: Product listed under Technical Order T.O. 1-1-3 NSN 6850-00-909-3123
(powder form), NSN 6850-01-130-2451 (aerosol form)
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) including 1,1,1
trichloroethane
Overview: The products approved for leak detection in fuel cells contain
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and are no longer manufactured. New products
are undergoing performance testing, but no officially approved replacements
have yet been selected. Nevertheless, interim approval for the products in
testing may be requested from your command. Otherwise, fuel cell leak checks
will have to be done visually until the new products are officially approved.
Non-destructive testing products are often dyes formulated with solvents,
typically CFCs. The specific leak detecting products referenced above contain
CFCs. As Class I ODSs, these solvents were the subject of a production ban
on January 1, 1996. As a result, the manufacturers of these leak-detecting
products have already eliminated CFC use in their process. They did this by
stopping production of the leak test products altogether. In addition, the
manufacturer is unfortunately not developing any replacements. The Office of
Primary Responsibility (OPR) is performance-testing alternatives, but
formulation changes may be needed before any products are officially
approved. Any approved products will be added to the Qualified Products
List.
Several products have had favorable test results; however, none are officially
approved. Field units should request interim approval from their respective
commands until a substitute is officially approved. If interim approval for one of
the test products is not obtained, visual inspection will have to be relied upon to
monitor fuel cell integrity.
Keystone Aniline Corporation makes the most promising replacements being
tested:
Part Number
Keystone Oil Red OE Powder 60602650
Keystone Liquid Oil Red HF 60642950
3-V/A-l-l
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Keystone Oil Red OE Powder is in fact a powder, and Keystone Liquid Oil
Red HF is an oil formulation. These products should only be used if granted
interim approval, and then only in accordance with the manufacturer's product
instructions.
Compliance
Benefit:
Use of ODS-free leak detector products will help facilities meet the
requirements under 40 CFR 82, Subpart D and Executive Order 12843
requiring federal agencies to maximize the use of safe alternatives to Class I and
Class U ozone depleting substances, to the maximum extent practicable. In
addition, the elimination of CFCs at the facility decreases the possibility that the
facility would meet any of the reporting thresholds for CFCs under 40 CFR
355, 370 and EO 12856. Chemicals used as substitutions should be reviewed
for SARA reporting issues.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
No materials compatibility issues were identified.
Consult your local Industrial Health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these
technologies.
Reduce the amount of ODS s going into the environment
Reduces worker exposure to constituents that have adverse effects to
human health.
No disadvantages have been identified.
The economic analysis depends on the method chosen for leak detection. For
both the Keystone Oil Red OE Powder and the Keystone Liquid Oil Red HF,
the only cost associated with these alternatives is the initial cost. The Keystone
Oil Red OE Powder comes in a 100 Ib. drum at $11.66/lb. There is an
additional repacking price for purchases under lOOlb. The Keystone Liquid Oil
Red HF comes in three sizes: 40 Ibs. for $6.65/lb., 240 Ibs. for $5.49/lb., and
3-V/A-1-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
400 Ibs. for $5.46/lb. The cost for a 6-ounce methyl chloroform red dye
cartridge is $11.34, and $14.03 for a 14oz. aerosol can.
Assumptions:
Equivalent labor rates
Equivalent usage rate
Cost of aerosol methyl chloroform: $16.03/lb.
Cost of Keystone Oil Red OE Powder: $11.66/lb.
The figures in the table are based on a lOOlb. usage of leak detector dyes
Cost Comparison for
Keystone Oil Red OE Powder vs. Methyl Chloroform
Keystone Oil Red Methyl
OE Powder Chloroform
Operational Costs:
Labor Costs $0 $0
Materials $1,166 $1,603
Total Costs $1,166 $1,603
Total Income: $0 $0
Annual Benefit: -$1,166 -$1,603
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for Keystone Oil Red OE Powder: $437
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $1,166
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: >2.7 years
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost MSDS*
Keystone Oil Red OE 9150-00-F04-0064 N/A N/A Click me
*There are multiple MSDSsfor most NSNs. The MSDS shown here is only meant to serve as an
example. To return from the MSDS, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar
Approval
Authority: Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
3-V/A-1-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Points of
Contact:
Vendors:
Sources:
Air Force:
Mr. Gary Foy
WR-ALC/LEM
225 Ocmulge Court
Robins Air Force Base, GA 31098-1647
DSN 468-6630, (912) 926-2673
FAX: (912)926-3348
The following list is not meant to be complete, as there are other manufacturers
of this product.
CFC-free products:
Keystone Aniline Corp.
2501 W. Fulton St.
Chicago, IL, 60612
(800) 522-4393
Mr. Gary Foy, WR-ALC/LEM, Robins Air Force Base, GA, August, 1998.
Vendor Communication with Keystone Aniline Corp., August, 1998.
3-V/A-1-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
ALTERNATIVES TO CFC-12 AS A TRACER GAS FOR LEAK DETECTION
Revision: 9/98
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-14-99; Air Force: MN01; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Low
Alternative For: CFC-12 (Dichlorodifluoromethane)
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituent: CFC-12 (Dichlorodifluoromethane) (CAS: 75-71-8)
Overview: In order to detect leaks in pressure vessels, refrigeration systems, and various
other equipment, the equipment can either be pressurized or evacuated and
tested for leaks. Instruments sensitive to certain types of gas are then used to
pinpoint leaks in the vessel or system. The repair of small leaks can lead to
greater safety and lower product losses, which result in lower costs. Past
practice often has been to pressurize a piece of equipment with a refrigerant,
such as CFC-12, and then use one of a wide range of refrigerant leak detectors
to identify leaks. However, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are significant
contributors to ozone depletion, and are therefore being phased out of
production. Alternatives to CFCs for leak detection are available for testing the
integrity of high-pressure equipment and systems.
Several options are available to replace CFC-12 as a leak-detection agent.
Options include: a refrigerant and nitrogen/air mixture, a refrigerant alone, or
simply an inert gas. Some standard leak detection equipment can detect all
leak-detection agent alternatives. Equipment is available that will detect specific
concentrations; however, this equipment is very expensive and is not necessary
for locating system leaks. Replacement compounds are described briefly
below.
Replacement Compounds
Refrigerant Tracer: In order to use testing equipment, a refrigerant and air, or a
refrigerant and nitrogen mixture, is cycled through a system to check for leaks.
The reason for having refrigerant present in the leak-detection agent is that it is
the presence of a refrigerant makes a leak easily detected.
Inert Gases: The use of inert gases for leak detection can be similar to using a
refrigerant-based tracer. Inert gases like helium or argon can be used, although
special detectors are required. Nitrogen or compressed air can also be used.
3-V/A-2-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Others Methods
(Soap) Bubble Test: A simple leak test can be performed by applying a soap
solution to potential leak sources and observing for bubbles.
Dye: Dyes can be applied to suspect areas or mixed into other materials in
order to locate leaking areas.
Electronic Leak Detectors: Electronic leak detectors can identify the presence
of specific refrigerants or gases, and can give a reading on the relative size of the
leak. These detectors have movable probes that are effective in areas where a
soap bubble test would be difficult. An example of this method of detection is
the Refrigeration Leak Monitor (RLM). The RLM is an updated replacement
to the Halon monitoring unit that serves both as an automatic safety alarm and a
leak detector. This new system detects refrigerant leaks at low levels and
reports approximate locations. This monitor aids in the elimination of small
leaks while it is small and relatively inexpensive to replace the lost refrigerants.
Hydrostatic testing: Hydrostatic testing uses pressurized water as the leak
detection agent. This method has limited applicability for leak detection in
refrigeration systems and is used primarily for pressure vessels and piping
systems.
Manometer: Manometers can be used to measure minute changes in pressure
across evaporators or condenser coils. While a manometer cannot determine
exact locations of leaks, it can identify the section of equipment where
refrigerant is being lost.
Compliance
Benefit: Use of non-ozone depleting substances as tracers such as refrigerants, inert
gases, soap, dyes and water will help facilities meet the requirements under 40
CFR 82, Subpart D and Executive Order 12843 requiring federal agencies
to maximize the use of safe alternatives to Class I and Class U ozone depleting
substances, to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, the elimination of
CFC-12 at the facility decreases the possibility that the facility would meet any
of the reporting thresholds for CFC-12 under 40 CFR 355, 370 and EO
12856. Chemicals used as substitutions should be reviewed for SARA
reporting issues.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
3-V/A-2-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
Most refrigerants are very inert and have relatively low toxicity. However,
some are rather toxic, and others can degrade into toxic materials if they
decompose; for example, by exposure to flame. Therefore, leak testing should
never present gas concentrations above the compound's permissible exposure
limits unless proper personal protective equipment is used. In addition,
chemical compatibility with leak detection equipment should always be checked
with the original equipment manufacturer to safeguard components such as
gaskets, o-rings, and valve packing.
Cylinders which contain nitrogen or compressed air are pressurized to
extremely high levels (2,500 to 3,000 psig). Handle all high-pressure gas
cylinders with extreme care. Secure all gas cylinders prior to use by chaining or
tying to a column or other rigid support.
Consult your local Industrial Health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any leak detection
method or product.
Rapid determination and repair of leaks
Reduce the amount of ozone depleting substances and EPCRA targeted
chemicals in the environment
Reduce the exposure to constituents that have adverse effects to human
health
Improved safety for personnel
Allows the Navy to meet CNO requirements for refrigerant leakage (15%
for air conditioners and 35% for refrigerators)
Assists in monitoring the CFC stockpile
Time is required to adapt the current processes over to the new testing
procedure
The most widely used method to detect for refrigerant leaks is through portable
leak detectors. Twice a year inspections are made throughout the facility with
these detectors. Any leaks that are found are repaired and the refrigerants
replaced. The flaw in this system is the lengthy time gaps in between
inspections. During these time periods, leakage could occur, causing constant
loss of refrigerants until the next inspection.
3-V/A-2-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
The RLM system, when used in conjunction with portable leak detectors, can
locate and eliminate refrigerant leaks at low levels. The RLM, which monitors a
specific area constantly, records leaks when they are still relatively small. The
RLM then provides an approximate location that is then used by personnel with
portable leak detectors to locate the exact area of the leak and repair it. The
RLM is a prototype, and has only recently been installed on a few ships. The
following data has been obtained from refrigerant leak surveys based on ship
data. Mr. Jim Winward of the Naval Surface Warfare Center has provided the
RLM data.
Assumptions:
262,000 Ibs./year loss of refrigerants for the Navy fleet
Portable leak detectors are already in use on the fleet
$2.4 million in replacement of refrigerants for the fleet without the use of the
RLM
$300,000 in labor costs of replacing refrigerants for the fleet without the use
of the RLM
Estimated 50-75% decrease in replacement and labor costs with RLM
Estimated cost of one RLM: $5,000
Approximately four RLM installed per ship
Approximately 920 RLM installed for the fleet
Installation costs are dependent upon type of labor employed (contractor
vs. sailor). Estimated installation costs: $5,000 per four RLM
3-V/A-2-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for the
RLM and Portable Leak Detectors
Capital Costs:
Installation
Operational Costs:
Labor
Refrigerants
Total Operational Costs:
Total Recovered Income:
Net Annual Benefit/Cost:
RLM with Portable
Leak Detectors
$4,600,000
$1,150,000
$112,500
$900,000
$1,012,500
$0
-$1,012,500
Portable Leak
Detectors
$300,000
$2,400,000
$2,700,000
$0
-$2,700,000
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for Refrigerant Leak Monitor:
Capital Cost for Refrigerant Leak Monitor:
Payback Period for Refrigerant Leak Monitor:
$1,687,500
$5,750,000
3.4 years
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values. To
return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
Portable Leak Detector
Approval
Authority:
NSN
4940-01-436-4862
Unit Size
ea.
Cost
$886.00
Points of
Contact:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Mr. Jim Winward
Naval Surface Warfare Center
Carderock Division
Detachment Code 9213
3-V/A-2-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Philadelphia, PA 19112
Phone: (215) 897-8783
DSN 443-8783
Fax:(215)897-7457
EPA:
US EPA's Stratospheric Ozone Protection Hotline
(800)296-1996
International (301) 614-3396
M-F 10am-4pm (eastern)
Vendors: The following list is not meant to be complete, as there are other manufacturers
of this product.
Spectronics Corporation (UV-Fluorescent Dye Leak Detection)
956 Brush Hollow Road
P.O Box 483
Westbury,NY11590
(800) 274-8888 or (800) 491-6868
Fax:(516)333-4859
Spectronics UV-Fluorescent dye leak detection equipment and materials have
been tested and approved for Navy use by Naval Sea Systems Command.
Navy point of contact is Carderock Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center,
Philadelphia Detachment Code 9533 (Attn: Mr. Jim Winward), (215) 897-
8783, DSN 443-8783.
CEA Instruments, Inc. (Gas Leak Detectors)
16 Chestnut St.
Emerson, New Jersey 07630
(201) 967-5660, Fax: (201) 967-8450
E-mail: ceainstr@aol.com
Website: www.ceainstr.com
Omega Engineering Inc. (HHP-3200 Handheld Manometer)
1 Omega Drive
P.O. Box 4047
Stamford, CT 06907
(800) 848-4286
3-V/A-2-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Brymill Corporation (Liquid Nitrogen Cryogunฎ)
105 Windermere Avenue
Ellington, CT 06029
(860) 875-2460 or (800) 777-2796
Email: Brvmill@Brvmill.com
Source (s): Mr. Jim Wimvard, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division, Philadelphia, PA,
August 1998.
PA Technical Inquiry: 2210, Practical Air-Conditioning Equipment Repair, Anthony J.
Caristi, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1991; Fluorocarbon Refrigerants Handbook,
Ralph C. Downing, Prentice Hall Publishers, 1988; and PA files 2094, 2113, 2772, and
2864.
"Doing Inventory Control Right for Underground Storage Tanks, " EPA Publication,
Nov 93.
"Straight Talk on Tanks, " EPA Publication, Aug 90.
"Standard Test Procedures for Evaluating Leak Detection Methods: Non-volumetric
Tank Tightness Testing Methods, " EPA Publication, Mar 90.
"Standard Test Procedures for Evaluating Leak Detection Methods: Volumetric Tank
Tightness Testing Methods, " EPA Publication Mar 90.
"Leak Detection Methods, " 7th edition, EPA Publication Feb 94.
3-V/A-2-7
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
ODS-FREE AIRCRAFT COMPONENTS CLEANING - OVERVIEW
Revision: 4/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-01-00, ID-22-01, ID-23-99; Air Force: CL01;
Army: CLD
Usage List: Navy: High; Marine Corps: High; Army: Medium; Air Force: High
Alternative For: Methyl chloroform (MCF) and Trichlorotrifluoroethane (CFC-113)
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Methyl Chloroform (MCF), Also Known as 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane and Trichlorotrifluoroethane (CAS: 71-55-6)
Overview: Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) solvents, including MCF and CFC-113, are used
extensively for cleaning metal, electronic, and precision parts during aircraft
maintenance procedures. These solvents are also used in applications such as
coatings, adhesives, lubricant carriers, and mold release agent carriers.
However, CFC-113 and MCF are EPA Class I ozone-depleting substances
(ODSs) and have been banned from production as of January 1, 1996. DoD
policy is that CFCs and Halons can only be used for mission critical
applications. Fortunately, numerous ODS-free alternatives are now available to
replace CFC-113 and MCF. In many instances solvent use can even be
reduced or eliminated
Cleaning for aircraft maintenance can, for the most part, be divided into three
categories: metal, electronics, and precision cleaning. Metal cleaning refers to
the removal of oil or grease from metal parts during maintenance and repair
procedures. Landing gear and control surfaces fall under metal cleaning.
Electronics cleaning includes the removal of flux from soldered operations.
Encompassing both metal and electronics cleaning, the term "precision cleaning"
is not as much a function of the component being cleaned, as it is of the level of
cleanliness required. Components typically requiring precision cleaning are
those with close tolerances, complex geometries, or sensitive to contamination.
There are aircraft components that fall into all three categories.
The following suggestions are directed primarily at typical aircraft maintenance
functions.
Cleaning Applications
The first step in eliminating the use of CFCs in aircraft maintenance is to
characterize all cleaning steps. What parts need to be cleaned? What is the
substrate and contaminant being cleaned? How clean does the part need to be?
By identifying the cleaning needs, a proper alternative can be chosen. Certain
3-V/B-l-l
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
materials are subject to corrosion, swelling, deformation, and damage to
coatings and adhesives if the proper cleaning alternative is not chosen.
Complexity of the part dictates whether vapor degreasing or aqueous cleaning
should be used. Vapor degreasing works best for cleaning complex parts.
Some cleaning steps may be identified that can be reduced, consolidated, or
eliminated.
Most aircraft cleaning falls into two general cleaning processes: cold cleaning
and vapor degreasing. In cold cleaning processes, parts are cleaned by either
immersion and soaking, spraying, or wiping with ambient temperature solvents.
The vapor degreasing process uses a boiling solvent to effect cleaning. A
volatile solvent such as CFC-113 or MCF is heated in a reservoir below a
suspended part. Solvent vapors rise to the top of the cleaning vessel and are
condensed into droplets. The solvent droplets fall onto the part, dissolving
contaminants. As the droplets collect and fall, contaminants are carried off the
part and into the solvent reservoir. Since the contaminants are generally low or
non-volatile, solvent vapors remain essentially pure; effective cleaning is
maintained despite the increasing contamination of the solvent reservoir.
The following table lists cleaning operations and alternatives associated with
aircraft maintenance.
Cleaning Application
Current Cleaning method
w/ CFC-113 or MCF
Alternative Cleaning Method
Aircraft Exterior Surface
Landing Gear
Engine or Engine
Modules
Aerosol Spray or Hand
Wipe
In-Shop Overhaul: Vapor
Degreasing or Aerosol
Spray
On-the-Aircraft
Maintenance: Aerosol
Spray
Vapor Degreasing
Immersion
Vapor Degreasing
Vapor Degr. or Hand Wipe
Immersion
Vapor Degr. or Hand Wipe
Vapor Degreasing
Aqueous Cleaning - Alkaline Solution (Light Soil Removal)
Semi-Aqueous Cleaning - Aliphatic Naphtha/Alkaline
(Moderately Heavy Soil Removal)
Semi-Aqueous Cleaning - Aliphatic Naphtha/Alkaline
(Heavy Soil Removal)
Semi-Aqueous Cleaning - Terpene
Aliphatic Hydrocarbon Cleaning - Mineral Spirits
Aqueous Cleaning - Alkaline Solution
Semi-Aqueous Cleaning - Mineral Spirits
Aqueous Cleaning - Alkaline Solution
Aliphatic Hydrocarbon Cleaning - Mineral Spirit
Aqueous Cleaning - Heated Tank
Aliphatic Hydrocarbon Cleaning - Mineral Spirit
Aqueous Cleaning - Alkaline Solution, Heated Tank
Aqueous Cleaning - Alkaline Solution, Heated Tank
Aqueous Cleaning - One Step Heavy-Duty Alkaline
Solution
Aqueous Cleaning - Four Step Heavy-Duty Alkaline
Solution
Aqueous Cleaning - Alkaline Solution
Blasting - High Pressure Steam/Water
3-V/B-1-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Cleaning Application
Current Cleaning method
w/CFC-113orMCF
Alternative Cleaning Method
Engine or Engine Aerosol Spray or Hand
Modules: Assembled Wipe
and Partially Assembled
Parts
Flight Control Surfaces Aerosol Spray or Hand
Wipe
Electrical Equipment
Hydraulic Lines
Aircraft Seat Covers
and Curtains/Draperies
Prior to Coating:
Polyurethane
Prior to Coating:
Chromate Conversion
Prior to Coating:
Other
Prior to Adhesive
Bonding
Prior to Fluorescent
Penetrant Inspection
During Fluorescent
Penetrant Inspection
Prior to Reassembly
Prior to Welding
Prior to Painting
Aerosol Spray
Hand Wipe or Vapor Degr.
Dry Cleaning
Hand Wipe
Hand Wipe
Varied
Spray or Hand Wipe
Hand Wipe
Aerosol Spray or Hand
Wipe
Aerosol Spray or Hand
Wipe
Hand Wipe or Immersion
Aerosol Spray or Hand
Wipe
Chlorinated Solvent Cleaning - Trichloroethylene
Aqueous Cleaning - Alkaline Solution
Aqueous Cleaning - Alkaline Solution
Aliphatic Hydrocarbon Cleaning - Mineral Spirit
Organic Solvent Cleaning - Methyl Ethyl Ketone or
Acetone
Aqueous Cleaning - Alkaline Solution, Ultrasonic
Organic Solvent Cleaning - Isopropyl Alcohol
Aqueous Cleaning - Water Base Soap Solution
Chlorinated Solvent Cleaning - Perchloroethylene
Organic Solvent Cleaning - Methyl Ethyl Ketone or Blends
Organic Solvent Cleaning - Methyl Ethyl Ketone or Blends
Semi-Aqueous Cleaning - Aliphatic Naphtha/Alkaline
Organic Solvent Cleaning
Organic Solvent Cleaning - Isopropyl Alcohol
Semi-Aqueous Cleaning - Terpene
Chlorinated Solvent Cleaning - Trichloroethylene
Organic Solvent Cleaning - Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Organic Solvent Cleaning - Isopropyl Alcohol, Methyl
Ethyl Ketone, or Acetone
Hydrocarbon Cleaning
Organic Solvent Cleaning - Methyl Ethyl Ketone or
Acetone
Organic Solvent Cleaning - Methyl Ethyl Ketone and
Toluene
Compliance
Benefit:
DLA's Environmental Catalog lists several aircraft cleaning products that do not
contain chlorinated compounds, ODCs, HAPs and have low VOCs.
Use of ODS-free substances to clean aircraft components will help facilities
meet the requirements under 40 CFR 82, Subpart D and Executive Order
12843 requiring federal agencies to maximize the use of safe alternatives to
class I and class U ozone depleting substances, to the maximum extent
practicable. In addition, the elimination of substances such as methyl
chloroform and CFC-113 at the facility decreases the possibility that the facility
would meet any of the reporting thresholds for those chemicals under 40 CFR
3-V/B-1-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
370 and EO 12856. Chemicals used as substitutions should be reviewed for
SARA reporting issues.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
Materials compatibility depends on the alternative solvent/procedure
implemented. Considerations can include corrosion, damage to coatings and
adhesives, and swelling and deformation (especially for organic substitutes:
alcohols, ketones, ethers, chlorinated solvents, etc.). Testing will reveal damage.
Organic Solvents can be extremely flammable/combustible. Use only in areas
with good ventilation. Aliphatic hydrocarbons are also flammable and have low
occupational exposure limits. Consult the MSDS of particular solvents to
ensure that solvent is used properly and all necessary safety requirements (i.e.,
personal protective equipment, increased ventilation, fire fighting equipment) can
be met. In addition, consult your local Industrial Health specialist, local health
and safety personnel, and the SNAP comments prior to converting to any
replacement product.
Reduce the amount of ozone-depleting substances and EPCRA-targeted
chemicals going into the environment
Reduce worker exposure to toxic chemicals
Disadvantages:
"Down time" expected for adjustments to new system
Economic
Analysis:
NSN/MSDS:
Because cleaning circumstances are so variable, the economic feasibility of
substitute processes and chemicals needs to be evaluated for each application
prior to conversion.
Product
Hurrisafe 9050HID
PF-145HP
Bio-T Max
Mil-C-43616 Class IA
NSN
6850-01-373-5866
6850-01-378-0044
6850-01-381-3944
6850-00-005-5305
Unit Size
5 gal.
6/1 gal.
55 gal.
16 oz
Cost
$93.09
$89.02
$1,152.65
1.81
MSDS*
Click me
Click me
Click me
Click me
3-V/B-1-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Mil-C-87937
Mil-C-87937 TYI
Mil-C-87937 TY II
M11-C-87937TYIII
Mil-C-87937 TY IV
Mil-C-85570 TY II
M11-C-85570TYV
6850-01
6850-01
6850-01
6850-01
6850-01
6850-01
6850-01
-429-2371
-390-7808
-339-5227
-390-9453
-433--0873
-236-0128
-235-7458
55 gal
Igal
5 gal
55 gal
5 gal
55 gal
55 gal
$401.07
$47.65
$47.12
$292.15
$40.00
$225.37
$261.37
Click me
Click me
Click me
Click me
Click me
Click me
Click me
*There are multiple MSDSsfor most NSNs. The MSDS shown here is only meant to serve as an
example. To return from the MSDS, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar
Approval
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Vendors:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
EPA
Mr. William Monroe
Office of Stratospheric Ozone Protection - US EPA
(202) 564-9161
National Defense Center for Environmental Excellence
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
(800) 282-4392
The following list is not meant to be complete, as there are other manufacturers
of this product. See Pollution Prevention Opportunity Data Sheet,
"Alternative Cleaning Process and Product Vendor List" for an extensive
list of equipment and product vendors.
Aqueous:
Hurrisafe 9050 HID
PCI of America
7307MacarthurBlvd.
Bethseda, MD20816
(301)320-9100
Semi-Aqueous:
Bio-T Max
Golden Technology
14452 W. 44th Ave.
P.O. Box 437
3-V/B-1-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Golden, CO 80402
(800) 777-7870
Aliphatic Hydrocarbons:
PF-145HP Degreaser
P-T Technologies, Inc.
108 4th Avenue, South
Safety Harbor, FL 34695
(800)441-7874
(813)726-4644
Source(s): 1C OLP Manual, Eliminating CFC-113 and Methyl Chloroform in Aircraft Maintenance
Procedures, 1993.
Hume, Bob, "Ozone Depleting Substances, " NA VAIR 4th Annual Pollution Prevention
& Technology Exchange Conference, p. 415-446, May 26, 1994.
Clark, Ken, "Low Solvent Cleaners and Corrosion Preventive Compounds, " NA VAIR
4th Annual Pollution Prevention & Technology Exchange Conference, p. 589-592, May
26, 1994
3-V/B-1-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
ODS-FREE COMPUTER KEYBOARD DUSTER PRODUCTS
Revision:
Process Code:
Usage List:
Alternative For:
10/98
Navy and Marine Corps: ID-22-01, ID-23-99; Air Force: CL01; Army: CLD
Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
NSN 1430-01-205-6877 "Dust Off
Compliance Areas: Low
Overview:
Compliance
Benefit:
Products developed to clean dust off of computer keyboards and similar equipment
have been typically formulated using ODSs. Dust cleaners for electronic
equipment are now being formulated without ODSs. Most non-ODS products are
one of three types: compressed air, HFC-134a (tetrafluoroethane) or HFC-152a
(difluoroethane). While HFC-134a and HFC-152a are not ODSs, they are
greenhouse gases and have global warming potentials, although HFC-152a has a
very low GWP. Venting of products using HFCs should be avoided where
possible. Generally HFC-152a products are the lowest cost products
(approximately $4 for a 10 oz. can).
Use of ODS-free computer keyboard duster products will help facilities meet
the requirements under 40 CFR 82, Subpart D and Executive Order 12843
requiring federal agencies to maximize the use of safe alternatives to Class I and
Class U ozone depleting substances, to the maximum extent practicable. In
addition, the elimination of ODSs at the facility decreases the possibility that the
facility would meet any of the reporting thresholds for those chemicals under 40
CFR 355, 370 and EO 12856. Chemicals used as substitutions should be
reviewed for SARA reporting issues.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages
No materials compatibility issues were identified.
Consult your local Industrial Health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these
technologies.
Reduce the amount of ODSs going into the environment.
None identified
3-V/B-2-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Economic
Analysis: The only cost associated with implementing an ODS-free computer keyboard
duster is the procurement cost. The following economic analysis compares
costs associated with Dust Off XL (ODS-free) with Dust Off, an ODS cleaner:
Assumptions:
Capital cost of Dust Off (NSN 1430-01-205-6877): $11.13 for a 10 oz.
can
Capital cost of Dust Off XL (NSN 7930-01-389-2611): $8.99 for a 10
oz. can
Equal labor rate
Usage rate for either product is the same
The figures in the table are based on a usage rate of 10 cans per year of
computer keyboard dusters:
Cost Comparison for
Dust Off XL vs. Dust Off
Dust Off XL Dust Off
(non-ODS)
Operational Costs:
Materials $89.90 $111.30
Total Costs $89.90 $111.30
Total Income: $0 $0
Annual Benefit: -$89.90 -$111.30
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for Dust Off XL: $21.40
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $0
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: Not Applicable
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values. To
return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost MSDS*
Office Duster 3 6850-01-368-4797 10 oz $20.79
Dust Off XL 7930-01-389-2611 10 oz. $8.99 Click me
(Model #: DPSXL)
3-V/B-2-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
*There are multiple MSDSsfor most NSNs. The MSDS shown here is only meant to serve as an
example. To return from the MSDS, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar
Approval
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Vendors:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy
Mr. Phil Bevilacqua
Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, Patuxent River
4.3.4.1.0.0.A, MS-3
Bldg. 2188
Patuxent River, MD 20670-5340
Phone: (301)757-2325
Fax: (301)757-2327
E-mail: bevilacquap@navair.naw.mil
The following list is not meant to be complete, as there are other manufacturers
of this product.
Tech Spray, Inc.
P.O. Box 949
Amarillo, TX 79015-0949
Phone: (806) 858-4043 or (806) 372-8523
Fax: (806)372-8750
Mr. Jimmy Witcher
Sales Representative
Sells "Envi-Ro-Tech Duster," part number 1671-10S; designed for cleaning
electrical components, it is 100% HFC-134a.
Micro Care Corporation
34 Ronzo Road
Bristol, CT 06010-7792
Phone: (860)585-7912
Falcon Safety Products, Inc.
25 Chubb Way
Branchburg, NJ 08876
Phone: (908)707-4900
Fax: (908)707-8855
URL: http://www.falconsafety.com
3-V/B-2-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
ODS-FREE SUBSTITUTE FOR INK CLEANER
Revision:
Process Code:
5/99
Navy and Marine Corps: MS-99-99, ID-01-00, ID-22-01, ID-23-99; Air
Force: CL01; Army: CLD
Usage List: Navy: Low; Marine Corps: Low; Army: Low; Air Force: Low
Alternative For: A&M Multigraphics Co. Order Number 83-1 -77004
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: ODSs
Overview:
Compliance
Benefit:
Ink cleaners for printing presses often contain ODSs as part of the formulation.
ODS-free substitutes are now becoming available.
ODS-free substitutes for printing press ink cleaners are now available. They
are typically slower acting and also slower drying, but they are more
environmentally friendly. Before selecting a product, be ready to answer the
following questions so that the best choice of products is made:
What is the size of the printing press(es), in inches?
Are the presses web or sheet fed?
Are the presses offset lithographic or flexographic?
Is the ink used soy, water, or petroleum based?
Is the volatile organic content of the cleaner critical?
A&M Multigraphics ODS-free products:
Power Clean (1 gal. container of liquid), Order # 83-6-105452
Power Clean (5 gal. container of liquid), Order # 83-5-105453
International Specialty Products:
Printsolve Ink Remover, NSN 6850-01-383-2064
Use of ODS-free ink cleaners will help facilities meet the requirements under 40
CFR 82, Subpart D and Executive Order 12843 requiring federal agencies
to maximize the use of safe alternatives to class I and class U ozone depleting
substances, to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, the elimination of
ODSs at the facility decreases the possibility that the facility would meet any of
the reporting thresholds for those chemicals under 40 CFR 355, 370 and EO
12856. Chemicals used as substitutions should be reviewed for SARA
reporting issues.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
3-V/B-3-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
NSN/MSDS:
No materials compatibility issues were identified.
Consult your local Industrial Health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these
technologies.
Reduce the amount of ODSs going into the environment.
None identified
N/A
Product
Ink Cleaner
NSN
6850-01-383-2064
Unit Size
460 to-
Cost
$1,354.06
MSDS*
Click me
*There are multiple MSDSsfor most NSNs. The MSDS shown here is only meant to serve as an
example. To return from the MSDS, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar
Approval
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
EPA
Stratospheric Ozone Protection Hotline
U.S. EPA
Mail Code 6205J
401 M St., SW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (800)-296-1996 or (301)-614-3396
3-V/B-3-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Vendors: The following list is not meant to be complete, as there are other manufacturers
of this product.
Mr. Bill Murphy
Environmental Engineering Department
A&M Multigraphics
(847) 398-1900
Mr. Don Martel
West Pentone
74 Hudson Ave.
Penafly, N.J. 07670
(800)631-1652, Ext. 2214
Ms. Bianca Thayer
International Specialty Products
(800) 283-4823, Ext. 5466 or (505) 899-4350
3-V/B-3-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
NAVY OXYGEN CLEANER
Revision:
Process Code:
Usage List:
Alternative For:
Compliance Areas:
5/99
Navy and Marine Corps: M-02-05; Air Force: AC03; Army: N/A
Navy and Marine Corps: High; Army: Low; Air Force: Low
CFC-113
None
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Trichlorotrifluoroethane (CFC-113) (CAS: 76-13-1)
Overview:
Compliance
Benefit:
The removal of organic and particulate contamination from oxygen and oxygen
enriched life support equipment is absolutely necessary to prevent a fire hazard.
The ozone-depleting solvent trichlorotrifluoroethane (CFC-113) was the solvent
of choice for 25 years to clean naval oxygen systems. This solvent displayed
performance and safety characteristics that were uniquely suited for the cleaning
of oxygen systems. However, under the terms of the Montreal Protocol and the
Clean Air Act, the production of Class I ozone-depleting substances (ODSs)
has ceased. Replacement of CFC-113 was a difficult challenge for the Naval
Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) which was tasked to find a non-ozone
depleting cleaning agent that equals the excellent cleaning and safety
characteristics of CFC-113. Navy Oxygen Cleaner (NOC) is able to meet and
in some cases surpass the cleaning properties of CFC-113.
NOC is an aqueous inorganic alkaline solution used in a verifiable precision
cleaning process that is adaptable to various skill levels and production
throughputs. NOC removes particulate; hydrocarbon oils, greases and fats;
and fluorinated oils & greases from metallic surfaces, rubber surfaces and
plastic surfaces when applied at temperatures of 120 to 170ฐF with agitation.
Forms of agitation include use of ultrasonic tanks to clean small component,
pumps to flush pipe lines or spray impingement to clean large flasks or tanks.
The cleaner is non-foaming, non-flammable in liquid or gaseous oxygen,
contains no environmentally regulated material, has no ozone depleting potential
(ODP), has no greenhouse warming potential (GWP) and is not a volatile
organic compound (VOC). The NOC Aqueous Oxygen Cleaning Process is
detailed in MIL-STD-1330D. NOC is manufactured in accordance with MTL-
DTL-24800.
The use of the NOC cleaning process by the NAVSEA corporation and its
vendors for the cleaning of oxygen systems replaces approximately 64,000
gallons per year of CFC-113.
None noted
3-V/B-4-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
NOC has been tested for compatibility with 65 different metallic and non-
metallic materials. NOC is compatible with the majority of metals, plastics and
elastomers utilized in the construction of oxygen life support systems. See MIL-
STD-1330D, Appendix A for a complete listing of material compatibility.
NOC will lift paint, and therefore should not be used on painted surfaces.
NOC is safe for use in any life support system including multiple atmosphere
diving systems. Off-gas analysis of NOC at 180ฐF yielded constituent levels
below federal compressed air breathing standards. NOC tested in accordance
with ASTM G72 demonstrated compatibility with high pressure oxygen, and
NOC tested in accordance with ASTM D2512 demonstrated compatibility
with liquid oxygen.
Personnel involved with cleaning and testing oxygen systems should receive
formal training. They should be familiar with the applicable (such as MIL-STD-
1330D) safety precautions and procedures for cleaning and testing oxygen
systems or components, as well as methods for maintaining oxygen cleanliness if
performing maintenance or repairs.
The removal of organic and paniculate contamination from oxygen and oxygen
enriched systems is absolutely necessary to prevent a fire hazard. Failure to
thoroughly clean oxygen systems has resulted in catastrophic fires. Additionally,
failure to use, or properly use, approved cleaners has resulted in the
introduction of flammable and toxic contaminants causing equipment damage
and personnel injury. In the early 1980s, a number of shipyard personnel were
killed by asphyxiation when CFC-113 accidentally spilled into confined spaces
on board ships. In the early 1990's, a number of oxygen fires occurred in
equipment cleaned with alcohol. NOC, being an inorganic water-based
product, does not have these risks.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
NOC is free of toxic and environmentally hazardous (ODS or Global
Warming Potential) characteristics. The effluent toxicity of NOC, tested in
accordance with EPA-600-4-90-027, is greater than 5,000 ppm.
NOC is easily recycled (lasting up to 26 weeks in-use) using simple
filtration. Associated rinse water is easily recycled using simple
demineralization.
The NOC cleaning process is a cost-effective replacement for CFC-113.
3-V/B-4-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
NOC must be rinsed with water to obtain a residue free surface. Residue
remaining from product drying in-place will tightly adhere to the substrate
(no dusting will occur). However, residue is non-toxic, non-flammable and
non-corrosive.
NOC has a 12 to 18 month shelf life.
NOC is not usable for applications where process parameters cannot be
established such as dead-end gauges and instruments.
Implementation of the NOC cleaning process starts at about $20K for a small
component cleaning process consisting of a cleaning/rinsing/drying console,
recycling pumps and filters, and laboratory equipment used during process
verification. Most organizations using the NOC cleaning process have
recovered implementation costs within 18 months.
Other potential related costs include disposal of unusable cleaner, although
some facilities have received permits to discharge unusable cleaner to an
industrial wastewater treatment facility or municipal sewer. The following cost
comparison of CFC-113 and NOC was provided by NAVSEA.
Assumptions:
NOC Ultrasonic Cleaning Console (20 gallon tanks) with new overhead
crane to handle heavy components costs $100,000
NOC cost is $10/gallon (55 gal drum purchases)
CFC-113 cost is $175/gallon
80 gallons of NOC used annually
455 gallons of CFC-113 used annually
Approximately 8 cu. ft. of deionizer resin is used to recycle rinse water
annually at a cost of @ $50/cu. ft.
One batch of components cleaned and verified using CFC-113 (by
evaporative NVR) requires 2.25 hour of labor per batch
One batch of components cleaned and verified using NOC gravimetric
requires 1.25 hours of labor per batch
1,000 batches are cleaned annually
Labor rate = $75/hr
Exhausted NOC disposed of in municipal sewer
Exhausted CFC-113 disposed of as hazardous waste at $6/gallon
The analysis does not account for electrical usage. The difference between
NOC and CFC-113 should be negligible. CFC-113 vapor or ultrasonics
use refrigeration coils for emission controls while NOC uses an oven for
component drying.
3-V/B-4-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Cost Comparison for
NOC System vs. CFC-113 System
Capital and Installation Costs
Operational Costs:
Labor
Chemical Cost
Waste Treatment and Disposal Costs
Total Costs (not including capital and
installation costs)
Total Income:
Annual Benefit:
NOC
$100,000
$94,950
$0
- $94,950
CFC-113
$0
$93,750
$1,200
$0
$168,750
$79,625
$2,730
$251,105
$0
-$251,105
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for NOC: $156,155
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $ 100,000
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: < 8 months
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
Approval
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Vendors:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Mr. Neil Antin
NAVSEA 03L21
Naval Sea Systems Command
2531 Jefferson Davis Highway
Arlington, VA 22242-5160
(703) 602-6827 x555
antin_neil@hq.navsea.navy.mil
N/A
3-V/B-4-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Sources: Mr. Neil Antin, Naval Sea Systems Command, NAVSEA
NAVSEA Report On: Aqueous Oxygen Cleaning Products and Processes, 24 March
1994.
NAVSEA ReportOn: NOC Aqueous Oxygen Cleaning Process, 7 April 1995
MIL-STD-1330D, 20 September 1996 &MIL-DTL-24800, 30 September 1996
3-V/B-4-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
ODS-FREE PRODUCT SUBSTITUTE FOR ADHESIVE EA 9446
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: N/A; Air Force: N/A; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Low; Marine Corps: Low; Army: Low; Air Force: Low
Alternative For: NSN 8040-01-175-9193 per Technical Order 1F-16C-3-1, Lockheed
specification P6190-1, "Adhesive Acrylic Tough Peel, Fast Curing," indicates both Dexter Hysol
product EA 9446 (preferred) and Lord Corp. product Versilock 20I/Accelerator conform to these
specifications.
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Carbon Tetrachloride (CAS: 56-23-5)
Overview:
Compliance
Benefit:
Adhesive EA 9446 is used on F-16 aircraft; however, it contains ODSs. An
approved substitute is available, but while ODS-free, it does contain some
suspected carcinogens. Dexter Hysol is not planning any changes in product
formulation due to the small amount of carbon tetrachloride contaminating the
product.
The Lord Corporation product Versilock 201/Accelerator 4 is ODS-free, but
the accelerator contains two suspected carcinogens: trichloroethylene (15%)
and methylene chloride (70%). Given these components, this product must be
used under carefully controlled conditions.
EA 9446 is the preferred adhesive under Technical Order 1F-16C-3-1 for use
on F-16 aircraft. It does, however, contain trace amounts of carbon
tetrachloride, not an ingredient per se, but an impurity contaminating the process
during the formulation of the product.
Use of an ODS-free product substitute for Adhesive EA 9446 (contains trace
amounts of carbon tetrachloride) will help facilities meet the requirements under
40 CFR 82, Subpart D and Executive Order 12843 requiring federal
agencies to maximize the use of safe alternatives to class I and class U ozone
depleting substances, to the maximum extent practicable.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
No materials compatibility issues were identified.
3-V/C-l-l
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
NSN/MSDS:
Product
Versi201/Acc4
Consult your local Industrial Health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these
technologies.
Reduce the amount of ODSs going into the environment.
None identified
N/A
NSN
8040-01-181-2355
Unit Size
8 oz. Can
Cost
$24.41
MSDS*
Click me
*There are multiple MSDSsfor most NSNs. The MSDS shown here is only meant to serve as an
example. To return from the MSDS, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar
Approval
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Vendors:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Mr. Bob Wolf
Lockheed Martin
Materials/Processes Division
(817)777-2138
The following list is not meant to be complete, as there are other manufacturers
of this product.
Lord Corporation
2000 W. Grandview Blvd.
P.O. Box 10035
Erie, Pennsylvania 16514
Manufacturer of Versilock20I/Accelerator 4
Mr. John Misterovich
(814)868-3611
3-V/C-1-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
ODS-FREE NON-FLAMMABLE CONTACT CEMENT
Revision:
Process Code:
Usage List:
Alternative For:
5/99
Navy and Marine Corps: N/A; Air Force: N/A; Army: N/A
Navy: Low; Marine Corps: Low; Army: Low; Air Force: Low
ODS-containing contact cement and also flammable contact cement
formulations
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: ODSs, Toluene (CAS: 108-88-3)
Overview:
Contact cement has many uses for general construction and maintenance of
wooden housing fixtures. Many formulations are either flammable or contain
ODSs. Alternatives are available that are both ODS-free and non-flammable.
ODS-free and non-flammable formulations of contact cement are available to
replace the old formulations, although in most cases they are slower drying than
the ODS or flammable formulations. DAP, Inc. has developed an alternative
water-based product (UPC number 25202) available in 1 pint cans.
Following is a table generated from the EPA SNAP (Significant New
Alternatives Policy) Final Rule, March 18, 1994; 59 FR 13044, that lists
acceptable substitutes for adhesives, coatings, and inks which contain methyl
chloroform (class I ODS):
End Use
Methyl Chloroform
Adhesives,
Coatings, and Inks
Substitute
Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
Oxygenated
Solvents (Alcohols,
Ketones, Ethers,
and Esters)
Chlorinated
Solvents
(methylene
chloride,
trichloroethylene,
perchloroethylene)
Terpenes
Water-based
formulations
Decision
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Comments
OSHA standards exist
for many of these
chemicals. Formulators
should use chemicals
with lowest toxicity,
when possible.
OSHA standards exist
for many of these
chemicals. Formulators
should use chemicals
with lowest toxicity,
when possible.
High inherent toxicity.
Use only when
necessary. OSHA and
RCRA standards must
be met
3-V/C-2-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Compliance
Benefit:
High solid
formulations
Alternate
Technologies (e.g.
powder, hot melt,
thermoplastic
plasma spray,
radiation-cured,
moisture-cured,
chemical-cured, and
reactive liquid)
Acceptable
Acceptable
Use of an ODS-free contact cleaner will help facilities meet the requirements
under 40 CFR 82, Subpart D and Executive Order 12843 requiring federal
agencies to maximize the use of safe alternatives to class I and class U ozone
depleting substances, to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, the
elimination of ODSs and flammables (e.g., toluene) at the facility decreases the
possibility that the facility will meet any of the reporting thresholds for those
chemicals under 40 CFR 355, 370 and EO 12856. Chemicals used as
substitutions should be reviewed for SARA reporting issues.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
No materials compatibility issues were identified.
Consult your local Industrial Health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these
technologies.
Reduce the amount of ODSs going into the environment and improve
safety of shop or repair facilities by reducing presence of flammable
materials.
Disadvantages:
None identified
3-V/C-2-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Economic
Analysis: The following cost analysis is based on information provided by vendors of non-
flammable contact cement:
Assumptions:
Cost of one pint of non-flammable contact cement: $4.00
Cost of one pint of ODS-free non-flammable contact cement: $7.00
Usage and labor costs are equal
Usage rate: 12 pints per year
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Non-Flammable Contact Cement and ODS-Free Alternative
Non-Flammable ODS-Free
Contact Cement Alternative
Operational Costs:
Materials: $48.00 $84.00
Total Costs: $48.00 $84.00
Total Income: $0 $0
Annual Benefit: -$48.00 -$84.00
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings: $-36.00
Capital Cost for Equipment/Process: $84.00
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: N/A
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost MSDS*
Elmer's SAF-T 8040-00-F01-3310 Not identified Click me
*There are multiple MSDSsfor most NSNs. The MSDS shown here is only meant to serve as an
example. To return from the MSDS, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar
Approval
Authority: Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
3-V/C-2-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Points of
Contact:
Vendors:
EPA
Stratospheric Ozone Protection Hotline
U.S. EPA
Mail Code 6205J
401 M St., SW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (800)-296-1996 or (301)-614-3396
The following list is not meant to be complete, as there are other manufacturers
of this product.
DAP, Inc.
855 N. Third St.
Tipp City, OH 45371
Phone: (937) 667-4461
Fax:(937)667-3331
Borden Inc., Chemical Div.
180 East Broad St.
Columbus, OH 43215
Phone:(614)225-4000
3-V/C-2-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
ODS-FREE SUBSTITUTE FOR GENERAL PURPOSE AEROSOL LUBRICANT
Revision:
Process Code:
5/99
Navy and Marine Corps: ML-99-99; Air Force: FA01, MT08, AD07; Army:
CLD, PST, VHM
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
Alternative For: General Purpose Aerosol Lubricants containing ODSs (e.g., WD-40ฎ)
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: ODSs including carbon tetrachloride (CAS: 56-23-5),
chloroform (CAS: 67-66-3), dichloromethane (CAS: 75-09-2), tetrachloroethylene (CAS: 127-18-4),
methyl isobutyl ketone (CAS: 108-10-1), 1,1,1-trichloroethane (CAS: 71-55-6), trichloroethylene
(CAS: 25323-89-1)
Overview:
Several general purpose lubricants/penetrants lacking ozone depleting
substances in their formulations are available for all-purpose use. These
products effectively lubricate and protect metals by providing a long-lasting
lubricating film that reduces friction and wear. The products are available in
both aerosol and non-aerosol forms.
Compliance
Benefit:
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety and
Health:
Use of an ODS-free general purpose aerosol lubricant will help facilities meet
the requirements under 40 CFR 82, Subpart D and Executive Order 12843
requiring federal agencies to maximize the use of safe alternatives to Class I and
Class U ozone depleting substances, to the maximum extent practicable. In
addition, the elimination of ODSs at the facility decreases the possibility that the
facility will meet any of the reporting thresholds for those chemicals under 40
CFR 355, 370 and EO 12856. Chemicals used as substitutions should be
reviewed for SARA reporting issues.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
In general, when using any of these lubricants, avoid contact with strong
oxidizing agents. Always check with the manufacturer to verify material
compatibility.
Consult your local Industrial Health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these
technologies.
3-V/C-3-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
Contains no ozone-depleting solvents
Certain lubricants (e.g., PEN-T) are non-flammable
May also be used as a tapping and cutting fluid
Certain products have not yet been approved for aircraft maintenance
programs
May require time to cure to achieve maximum lubrication capability
May require reapplication at regular maintenance intervals
The following economic analysis was based on information provided by the
vendors for the listed products. The cost elements are used in comparing
BREAK-FREE CLP pump spray and WD-40ฎ aerosol cans for lubrication.
Assumptions:
WD-40ฎ, 16-ounce aerosol cans cost: $1.65 ea.
BREAK-FREE CLP, 16-ounce pump/trigger spray cost: $5.36 ea.
No significant difference in labor
No difference in disposal costs
Shop consumption for both is 16 ounces/week
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Refillable Spray Bottles and Aerosol Sprays
BREAK-FREE CLP WD-40ฎ Aerosol
Operational Costs:
Lubricant costs:
Total Operational Costs:
Total Recovered Income:
Net Annual Cost/Benefit:
Trigger/Spray
$278
$278
$0
-$278
Spray
$86
$86
$0
-$86
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Cost for 16 oz. BREAK-FREE CLP: $278
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $0
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: N/A
Note: Although ODC-free lubricants may be more expensive, they help reduce
the levels of ODCs in the atmosphere.
3-V/C-3-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN
PEN-T pump spray 9150-01-412-0034
PEN-T 9150-01-411-9286
Break Free-CLP Trigger Spray 9150-01-054-6453
Break Free-CLP 9150-01-053-6688
*There are multiple MSDSsfor most NSNs. The MSDS shown here is only meant to serve as an
example. To return from the MSDS, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar
Unit Size
12x22 oz.
1 Gal Can
16 oz
1 gal Can
Cost
$127.49
$35.03
$5.36
$22.67
MSDS*
Click me
Click me
Click me
Click me
Approval
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Mr. Dennis Harris, SAFR Program
AMCOM, Engineering Group
308 Crecy St., Bldg. 131
Corpus Christi, TX 97419
DSN: 939-2720, (512) 939-2720
Familiar with use of PEN-T
Vendors:
The following list is not meant to be complete, as there are other manufacturers
of this product.
Break-Free, Inc.
Mr. James Mercer, Head of Engineering
Mr. Donald Yoder, Military Sales and Service
1035 South Linwood Avenue
Santa Ana, CA
(714)953-1900
break-free@worldnet.att.net
Manufacturer of BREAK-FREE CLP, a ODS-free penetrant and lubricant,
available in aerosol and non-aerosol forms.
Ecolink, Inc.
Mr. Don Beck
Southern Regional Manager
1481 Rock Mountain Blvd.
3-V/C-3-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Stone Mountain, GA 30083
(800) 886-8240, Fax: (770) 621-8245
dbeck@ecolink.com
Manufacturer of PEN-T a ODS-free penetrant, anti-seize and moisture
displacer available in non-aerosol form.
Sources: Mr. Dennis Harris, SAFR Program, AMCOM, Engineering Group, January 1999
Mr. Don Beck, Ecolink, Inc., January 1998
http://www.ecolink.com/, January 1998
3-V/C-3-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
ODS-FREE CORROSION INHIBITORS/MOISTURE DISPLACERS
Revision:
Process Code:
Usage List:
Alternative For:
5/99
Navy and Marine Corps: ID-23-99; Air Force: FA01; Army: ELM
Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: High; Army: Medium; Air Force: High
MIL-C-85054 per Technical Order 1E-3 A-23 for use on E-3 A Aircraft and
MIL-C-81309 per Technical Order 21M-AIM9L-2, NSN 8030-00-938-
1947
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: CFC-113 (CAS: 76-13-1)
Overview:
Compliance
Benefit:
Both MIL-C-85054 and MIL-C-81309 Corrosion Preventive Compounds
(CPCs) have been reformulated to remove ODSs from their formulations.
Moisture displacement is one of the key factors in preventing and inhibiting
corrosion and have typically used ODS formulations in the past.
ODSs have long served in corrosion inhibitor product formulations functioning
not only to displace moisture, but also serving as the propellant for aerosol
products. Military activities can continue to use ODS formulations until all
existing stocks of these materials are exhausted. New procurements of CPCs
will not contain ODSs. Caution should be taken when using the new
formulations since many are flammable products.
Examples of other ODS-free, corrosion inhibitors are Dinitrol AV100D,
Starrett M. 1 Oil, and PEN-T. DinitrolAV100D is a heavy duty compound,
with extremely good water displacement, and corrosion resistance, even at
elevated temperatures. It leaves a tack-free, firm coat. Starrett M.I. Oil is an
all-purpose lubricant with very good corrosion preventative capabilities. It
leaves a protective wax coating as it dries. PEN-T is a hydrocarbon based
cleaner and lubricant, with excellent penetrant abilities.
Use of ODS-free corrosion inhibitors/moisture displacers will help facilities meet
the requirements under 40 CFR 82, Subpart D and Executive Order 12843
which requires federal agencies to maximize the use of safe alternatives to Class
I and Class U ozone depleting substances, to the maximum extent practicable.
In addition, the elimination of CFC-113 at the facility decreases the possibility
that the facility will meet any of the reporting thresholds for that chemical under
40 CFR 370 and EO 12856. Chemicals used as substitutions should be
reviewed for SARA reporting issues.
3-V/C-4-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
In general, when using any of these corrosion preventative compounds, avoid
contact with strong oxidizing agents. Always check with the manufacturer and
the MSDS to verify material compatibility.
Consult your local Industrial Health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these
technologies.
Contains no ozone-depleting solvents
Clear, tack-free coating permits corrosion inspections without having to
remove grease or other protective layer
Certain products (e.g., PEN-T) are non-flammable
May require time to cure to achieve maximum lubrication capability
May require reapplication at regular maintenance intervals
May require mineral spirits to remove protective coating
The following economic analysis was based on vendor information provided for
the listed products. Both corrosion inhibitors listed are ODS-free, and
environmentally friendly. The following cost elements are used in comparing
Dinitrol AV30 and MIL-C-81309:
Assumptions:
Dinitrol AV30 5 gal. can costs: $378.21 ea.
MIL-C-81309 5 gal. can costs: $81.44 ea.
No significant difference in labor
No difference in disposal costs
Shop consumption for both is 5 gallons/year
3-V/C-4-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
PEN-T and MIL-C-81309
MIL-C-81309 Dinitrol AV30
Operational Costs:
Lubricant costs: $81.44 $378.21
Total Operational Costs: $8144 $37821
Total Recovered Income: $0 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$8144 -$37821
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Cost for 5 gal. MIL-C-81309: $81.44
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $0
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: N/A
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost MSDS*
PEN-T pump spray 6850-01-412-0034 12x22oz. $127.49 Click me
PEN-T 9150-01-412-0035 6 gal pail $170.98 Click me
MIL-C-81309 8030-00-262-7358 5 gal $81.44 Clickme
StarrettM.I Oil aero 8030-00-938-1947 16 oz. $5.81 Clickme
Dinitrol AV30 6850-01-355-3387 5 gal can $378.21 Clickme
*There are multiple MSDSsfor most NSNs. The MSDS shown here is only meant to serve as an
example. To return from the MSDS, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar
Approval
Authority: Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
3-V/C-4-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Points of
Contact:
Army:
Mr. Dennis Harris, SAFR Program
AMCOM, Engineering Group
308 Crecy St., Bldg. 131
Corpus Christi, TX 97419
DSN: 939-2720, (512) 939-2720
Familiar with use of PEN-T
Vendors:
Navy:
Ms. Terry Taylor, Engineer
Material Engineering Lab, Bldg. 793
NADEP, NAS Jacksonville, FL
DSN: 942-4519, Phone: (904) 542-4519, ext: 125
Familiar with Dinitrol use, particularly in aviation applications.
The following list is not meant to be complete, as there are other manufacturers
of this product.
Ecolink, Inc.
Mr. Don Beck
Southern Regional Manager
1481 Rock Mountain Blvd.
Stone Mountain, GA 30083
(800) 886-8240, Fax: (770) 621-8245
dbeck@ecolink.com
Manufacturer of Pen-T a ODS-free penetrant, anti-seize and moisture displacer
available in non-aerosol form.
Webber Gage Division of The L.S. Starrett Co.
Mr. Dave Wicks
24500 Detroit Rd., Cleveland, Ohio 44145
(216)835-0001
Manufacturer of M-l, a corrosion inhibitor/moisture displacer available in
ODS-free aerosol form.
Alox Corporation
Niagara Falls, NY
(716)282-1295
Mr. Anthony Murty
Manufacturer of MIL-C-81309, non-aerosol ODS-free corrosion inhibitor, rust
preventative available in 5 or 55 gallon containers.
3-V/C-4-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Sources: Mr. Dennis Harris, SAFR Program, AMCOM, Engineering Group, January 1999
Mr. Don Beck, Ecolink, Inc., January 1998
http://www.ecolink.com/, January 1998
http://www. technobiz. com/corp/tuffi/t. html
Mr. Dave Wicks, The L.S. Starrett Company, January 1998
Mr. Anthony Murty, Alox Corporation, January 1998
Ms. Hoang Nguyen, E-3A Systems Engineer, OC-ALC/LAKRA, (405) 736-3343, January
1998
3-V/C-4-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
ODS-FREE LIQUID CARBURETOR CLEANER
Revision:
Process Code:
Usage List:
Alternative For:
5/99
Navy and Marine Corps: SR-02-99; Air Force: AD07; Army: VHM
Navy: Low; Marine Corps: Low; Army: Low; Air Force: Low
Clear R Carb Carburetor Cleaner
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: ODSs, Toluene (CAS: 108-88-3), Xylenes (CAS:
1330-20-7)
Overview:
Compliance
Benefit:
An ODS-free and EPA 17 chemical-free carburetor cleaner called 2005 Gum-
Solve Liquid Carburetor Cleaner is available as a substitute for Clear R Carb
cleaner, which contains ODSs as well as toluene and xylene. Carburetor
cleaners have typically been formulated using solvents that are effective in
dissolving gums and varnish that typically accumulates in carburetors after long
use. These solvents are either ODSs or EPA 17 listed, and as a result are no
longer considered acceptable for open use, such as in carburetor cleaning.
Several alternative cleaners are now available, including PENRAY's ODS-free
and EPA 17-free 2005 Gum-Solve Liquid Carburetor Cleaner.
Use of an ODS-free liquid carburetor cleaner will help facilities meet the
requirements under 40 CFR 82, Subpart D and Executive Order 12843
requiring federal agencies to maximize the use of safe alternatives to class I and
class U ozone depleting substances, to the maximum extent practicable. In
addition, using a cleaner which is ODS-free and EPA 17 chemical-free
decreases the possibility that the facility will meet any of the reporting thresholds
for those chemicals under 40 CFR 355, 370 and EO 12856. Chemicals used
as substitutions should be reviewed for SARA reporting issues.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety and
Health:
No materials compatibility issues were identified.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these
technologies.
3-VI-l-l
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
Reduces the amount of ODSs and EPA 17 chemicals entering the
environment.
None identified
The following economic analysis was based on information provided by the
vendors for the listed products. The cost elements are used in comparing two
carburetor cleaners which do not contain either methanol or methylene chloride
although one does contain toluene versus a toluene free carburetor cleaner:
Assumptions:
Can of carburetor cleaner that contains toluene: $0.78/13 oz. can, or
$0.06/oz.
Can of toluene-free carburetor cleaner: $3.00/12oz. can, or $0.25/oz.
No significant difference in labor
No difference in disposal costs
Shop consumption for both is 16 ounces/week
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Toluene Carburetor Cleaners and Toluene-free Carburetor Cleaners
Toluene-free
Toluene-Containing
Carburetor Cleaners Carburetor Cleaners
Operational Costs:
Material costs:
Total Operational Costs:
Total Recovered Income:
Net Annual Cost/Benefit:
$208
$208
$0
-$208
$50
$50
$0
-$50
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Cost for Toluene-Free Carburetor Cleaners:
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process:
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process:
$208
$0
N/A
Note: Although ODS-free lubricants may be more expensive, they help reduce
the levels of ODSs in the atmosphere.
3-VI-1-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
2005 Gum-Solve
NSN
6850-00-F02-1615
Unit Size
Cost
MSDS*
Click me
*There are multiple MSDSsfor most NSNs. The MSDS shown here is only meant to serve as an
example. To return from the MSDS, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar
Approval
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Vendors:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
EPA
Stratospheric Ozone Protection Hotline
U.S. EPA
Mail Code 6205J
401 M St., SW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (800)-296-1996 or (301)-614-3396
The following list is not meant to be complete, as there are other manufacturers
of this product.
Penray Companies Inc.
440 Denniston Ct.
Wheeling, IL 60090
Phone: (847) 459-5000 or (800) 322-2143
Fax: (847) 459-5043
3-VI-1-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
ODS-FREE TUBELESS TIRE REPAIR KIT
Revision:
Process Code:
Usage List:
Alternative For:
5/99
Navy and Marine Corps: SR-02-99; Air Force: AD07; Army: VHM
Navy: Low; Marine Corps: Low; Army: Low; Air Force: Low
NSN 2640-00-922-6921, which contains methyl chloroform
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Methyl chloroform (1,1,1 trichloroethane)
(CAS: 71-55-6)
Overview:
Tubeless tire repair kits typically have been formulated with ozone depleting
substances (ODS). The ODS is found in the adhesive compound within the tire
repair kit. The most prevalent of these ODSs is methyl chloroform. However,
alternatives have been developed which can be substituted for the ODS.
Following is a table generated from the EPA SNAP (Significant New
Alternatives Policy) Final Rule, March 18, 1994; 59 FR 13044, that lists
acceptable substitutes for adhesives, coatings, and inks which contain methyl
chloroform:
End Use
Methyl Chloroform
Adhesives,
Coatings, and Inks
Substitute
Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
Oxygenated
Solvents (Alcohols,
Ketones, Ethers,
and Esters)
Chlorinated
Solvents
(methylene
chloride,
trichloroethylene,
perchloroethylene)
Terpenes
Water-based
formulations
High solid
formulations
Alternate
Technologies (e.g.
powder, hot melt,
thermoplastic
Decision
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Comments
OSHA standards exist
for many of these
chemicals. Formulators
should use chemicals
with lowest toxicity,
when possible.
OSHA standards exist
for many of these
chemicals. Formulators
should use chemicals
with lowest toxicity,
when possible.
High inherent toxicity.
Use only when
necessary. OSHA and
RCRA standards must
be met
3-VI-2-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Compliance
Benefit:
plasma spray,
radiation-cured,
moisture-cured,
chemical-cured, and
reactive liquid)
Alternative tubeless tire repair kits have been developed which do not contain
methyl chloroform in the adhesive compound. Barnes/Adams PSP, Inc.
manufactures the PEMCO282, which does not contain any ODSs in their
product.
Use of ODS-free tubeless tire repair kits will help facilities meet the
requirements under 40 CFR 82, Subpart D and Executive Order 12843
requiring federal agencies to maximize the use of safe alternatives to class I and
class II ozone depleting substances, to the maximum extent practicable. In
addition, the elimination of methyl chloroform at the facility decreases the
possibility that the facility will meet any of the reporting thresholds for that
chemical under 40 CFR 370 and EO 12856. Chemicals used as substitutions
should be reviewed for SARA reporting issues.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
No materials compatibility issues were identified.
Consult your local Industrial Health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these
technologies.
Reduce the amount of ODSs going into the environment.
None identified
The following cost analysis is based on information provided by vendors of
tubeless tire repair kits:
3-VI-2-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Assumptions:
Cost of a typical ODS-free tubeless tire repair kit: $7.99
Cost of ODS-free tubeless tire repair kit: $25.00
Maintenance costs and labor costs are equal
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Tubeless Tire Repair Kit and ODS-Free Alternative
ODS-Free Alternative Tubeless Tire
Repair Kit
Operational Costs:
Materials: $25.00 $7.99
Total Costs: $25.00 $7.99
Total Income: $0 $0
Annual Benefit: -$2500 -$799
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings: $-17.01
Capital Cost for Equipment/Process: $25.00
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: N/A
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost
None Identified
Approval
Authority: Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
3-VI-2-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Points of
Contact:
Vendors:
Source:
EPA
Stratospheric Ozone Protection Hotline
U.S. EPA
Mail Code 6205J
401 M St., SW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (800)-296-1996 or (301)-614-3396
The following list is not meant to be complete, as there are other manufacturers
of this product.
Barnes/Adams PSP, Inc.
355UnionvilleRd.
P.O. Box 189
Butler, PA 16003-0189
Phone:(724)287-6711
Fax:(724)287-6711
Product: PEMCO 282
U.S. EPA Ozone Depletion Website, http://www.epa. sov/ozone
U.S. EPA "Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP); Final Rule; 59 FR 13044"
March 1994
3-VI-2-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
ODS-FREE LUBRICANT/ANTI-SEIZING COMPOUND
Revision:
Process Code:
5/99
Navy and Marine Corps: ML-99-99; Air Force: FA01, MT08, AD07; Army:
CLD, VHM
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Low; Army: Low; Air Force: Low
Alternative For: NSN 8030-00-111-6266 per Technical Order 1F116A-3-78JE-00-21
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Methyl ethyl ketone (CAS: 78-93-3), Toluene
(CAS: 108-88-3)
Overview:
Anti-seizing compounds are normally used on engine hardware (nuts and bolts)
to lubricate and prevent seizing of the components due to corrosion or dirt
buildup. An industry standard product made by FEL-PRO called C-300 was
renamed Moly Dry Film, and its formulation contains no ODSs.
FEL-PRO Moly Dry Film (formerly FEL-PRO C-300) is a combination
lubricant and anti-seizing compound used on PW-F100-220 jet engines for the
F-16 meeting PWA-36035 specifications. It is a multipurpose anti-seizing
compound containing molybdenum disulfide. The compound is intended to
prevent seizing of a component, due to heat, dirt buildup, or corrosion after
extended use. Before 1992, this product was formulated with an ODS and
listed under NSN 8030-00-111-6266. Since then, the product has been
reformulated and is now available without any ODSs in its formulation under the
NSN 9150-01-222-1995.
Compliance
Benefit:
Use of an ODS-free lubricant/anti-seizing compound will help facilities meet the
requirements under 40 CFR 82, Subpart D and Executive Order 12843
requiring federal agencies to maximize the use of safe alternatives to class I and
class U ozone depleting substances, to the maximum extent practicable. In
addition, the elimination of ODSs at the facility decreases the possibility that the
facility will meet any of the reporting thresholds for those chemicals under 40
CFR 355, 370 and EO 12856. Chemicals used as substitutions should be
reviewed for SARA reporting issues.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
3-VI-3-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
There are no identified compatibility issues with the reformulated product.
Always check with the original equipment manufacturer to verify material
compatibility.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these
technologies.
Reduce the amount of ODSs going into the environment
None identified
The following economic analysis was based on information provided by the
vendors for the listed products. The cost elements are used in comparing an
anti-seizing compound which contains class I ODS in their formulations, and an
anti-seizing compound which does not:
Assumptions:
Typical anti-seizing compound: $12.57/16 oz. can, or $0.78/oz,.
ODS-free anti-seizing compound: $13.95/llb. can, or $0.87/oz.
No significant difference in labor
No difference in disposal costs
Shop consumption for both is 16 ounces/week
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Anti-Seizing Compounds and ODS-Free Alternatives
Operational Costs:
Material costs:
Total Operational Costs:
Total Recovered Income:
Net Annual Cost/Benefit:
ODS-Free Alternatives
$723.84
$723.84
$0
-$723.84
Anti-Seizing
Compound
$648.96
$648.96
$0
-$648.96
3-VI-3-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Cost for libs. ODS-Free Anti-Seizing Compound: $723.84
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $0
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: N/A
Note: Although ODS-free anti-seizing products may be more expensive, they
help reduce the levels of ODSs in the atmosphere.
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values. To return from
the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.NSN/MSDS:
Product
Moly Dry
NSN
9150-01-222-1995
Unit Size
Cost
MSDS*
Click me
*There are multiple MSDSsfor most NSNs. The MSDS shown here is only meant to serve as an
example. To return from the MSDS, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar
Approval
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Vendors:
Source (s):
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
EPA
Stratospheric Ozone Protection Hotline
U.S. EPA
Mail Code 6205J
401 M St., SW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (800)-296-1996 or (301)-614-3396
The following list is not meant to be complete, as there are other manufacturers
of this product.
Loctite, Inc.
1001 Trout Brook Crossing
Rocky Hill, CT 06067
Phone: (800)-243-4874; or (SOO)-loctite (562-8483)
Fax: (800)-344-4503
Manufacture the FEL-PRO Moly Dry Lubricant
Pablo Montero, FEL-PRO Chemical Products, LP, January, 1998
3-VI-3-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
ODS-FREE DECREASING/CLEANING
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-02-09; Air Force: CL01, CL02, CL03, CL04;
Army: CLD
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
Alternative For: Vapor degreaser containing methyl chloroform, NSN 6810-00-551-1487, per
Technical Order 34B3-4-11
Compliance Areas: High
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Methyl chloroform (1,1,1-trichloroethane)
(CAS: 71-55-6)
Overview: For several years, ODS-containing solvents have been used by maintenance
organizations as degreasers for metal components. Due to current bans on
these hazardous substances, ODS-free alternatives have been developed for
cleaning/degreasing applications: 1) Aqueous, 2) Mechanical, 3) Semi-
Aqueous, and 4) Petroleum Distillates (Aliphatic Hydrocarbons).
The most environmentally sound ODS alternative is aqueous cleaning.
According to the Army Technical Bulletin on Environmentally Safe Substances
for Use with Communications-Electronic Equipment, these are water-based
systems that are used for soil removal. In this system, the designated area is
wiped clean with a mild solution of detergent and water. The weakest detergent
that will achieve the maximum results should be chosen. Following wiping, the
area must be thoroughly rinsed with water (if possible warm-hot). For
electronic equipment, a final rinse must be applied using distilled or de-ionized
water. Finally, the components must be completely dry before use. The
wastewater generated by this system, provided it meets the local discharge
requirements through toxicity tests, may be discharged into the local sewer
system. This cleaning application is used to remove both organic and inorganic
soils, as well as light oils and residues left by other cleaning processes.
The second ODS-free alternative available is mechanical cleaning. This system
utilizes equipment that uses a combination of hydroblasting and heat in order to
remove organic and inorganic soils. This equipment also requires a detergent
that may be recirculated throughout the system. For more information on this
type of system, please refer to Pollution Prevention data sheet 8-II/A-l.
The third alternative that is currently in use is semi-aqueous degreasers.
According to The Product Substitution Guide for the Oil Field Service
Industry., this process combines water with various ODS-free solvents for
heavy degreasing applications. This method, although not as environmentally
sensible as aqueous cleaning due to the use of solvents, is more effective than
3-VI-4-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
the previous system in the removal of heavy organic soils. The contaminates
resulting from this system must be removed and treated accordingly or a large
waste stream could result if not recycled.
The fourth and final process used to replace ODS containing solvents are
petroleum distillates (aliphatic hydrocarbons). These are non-chlorinated
solvents that can be used for immersion tank cleaning and wiping applications.
When this type of process is employed, the weakest strength solvent that will
achieve maximum results should be chosen. This method is most suitable where
rapid drying is required. Unfortunately, most of the alternative solvents dry at a
much slower rate than the chlorinated ones. In addition, unlike their chlorinated
counterparts these alternatives are not universal. Where one ODS containing
solvent was required to clean various types of equipment in numerous
applications, now a combination of replacement solvents must be employed in
order to achieve similar results. Of the four available alternatives, this is the
least beneficial to the environment. Although these solvents do not contain
ozone-depleting substances, some have high volatile organic compound (VOC)
content and may have a low flash point. The wastes generated from this system
are still considered hazardous wastes and should be disposed of in accordance
with local, state, and federal regulatory agencies.
Before choosing an ODS-free degreasing/cleaning system, users should review
The U.S. Army Solvent Substitution Program., as well as Public Law 104-
113 entitled National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995.
The Solvent Substitution Program may be found at the following website:
http://es.epa.gov/ssds/army/sspdftfn.htra or listed in the P2 Library Software under
Joint Service Documents.
Compliance
Benefit: Use of non-ODS solvents or mechanical cleaning methods for degreasing and
cleaning activities will help facilities meet the requirements under 40 CFR 82,
Subpart D and Executive Order 12843 requiring federal agencies to
maximize the use of safe alternatives to Class I and Class U ozone depleting
substances, to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, the elimination of
ODSs at the facility decreases the possibility that the facility will meet any of the
reporting thresholds for those chemicals under 40 CFR 355, 370 and EO
12856. Chemicals used as substitutions should be reviewed for SARA
reporting issues.
Using mechanical cleaning methods may also reduce the amount of hazardous
waste generated and therefore, helps facilities meet the requirements of waste
reduction under RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix. The reduction of hazardous
waste may also help facilities reduce their generator status and lessen the
3-VI-4-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
amount of regulations (i.e., recordkeeping, reporting, inspections,
transportation, accumulation time, emergency prevention and preparedness,
emergency response) they are required to comply with under RCRA, 40 CFR
262. Additionally, using mechanical cleaning methods in place of solvents may
decrease the need for a facility to obtain an air permit under 40 CFR 70 and
40 CFR 71 and meet NESHAPs requirements for halogenated solvent cleaning
under 40 CFR 63.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
According to the Energy Efficiency and Water Conservation at Federal
Facilities - EO 12902, additional water and electricity may be consumed using
mechanical cleaning methods.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
The aqueous cleaning system requires a long drying time, which can lead to rust
and corrosion problems. The semi-aqueous system has a lower corrosion
potential due to its reduced concentration of water. The petroleum distillate
system has no corrosion potential, since water is not involved. However, this
process may leave an oily residue on surfaces that can be removed with the use
of a dry, lint-free cloth. Both the semi-aqueous and petroleum distillate systems
can not be used in spray applications. The mechanical system does not work
well with small, intricate parts.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
Does not deplete ozone layer
For non-mechanical systems:
- Unused portions of product are biodegradable
- Relatively low operative and capital costs
For non-petroleum distillate systems:
- Low toxicity
For mechanical and aqueous systems:
- Eliminates Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
3-VI-4-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
- Not flammable or combustible
- Significant reduction in hazardous substances used
For semi-aqueous and petroleum distillate systems:
- Relatively low amounts of waste produced
The semi-aqueous system works well in low temperatures
Disadvantages:
For the aqueous systems:
- Possible costs increase in water and energy
- Possible increase in floor space
- Possible increase in drying time for components due to low VOC
content
For the mechanical systems:
- Time consuming
- Higher initial capital costs
For both the semi-aqueous and petroleum distillate systems:
- Relatively low flash points (Possible flammable or combustible)
- Possible high VOC content
For the semi-aqueous systems:
- Difficult recycling by distillation
- Possible rinsing and drying required
For the petroleum distillate systems:
- Slower drying time than TCE
- Possible exposure to benzene
- Possible oily residue
Economic
Analysis:
According to The Product Substitution Guide for the Oil Field Service Industry,
the costs for purchasing, treatment, cleanup and disposal of hazardous
chemicals would decrease using any of the alternatives. For example, since
1987 the costs for cleanups in Prudhoe Bay have been estimated at over $2.5
million. With the elimination of these hazardous materials, there would be no
costs for cleanups. Another cost that would be eliminated is transportation of
hazardous wastes. Using Prudhoe Bay as an example, the cost to transport one
3-VI-4-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
55 gallon drum of hazardous waste could range from $500 to $1000. With the
exception of petroleum distillates, the alternatives would greatly reduce this cost
if not eliminate it altogether. Following is an example of an economic analysis of
a mechanical system (aqueous jet parts washer) and a vapor degreaser (1,1,1
Trichloroethane).
Assumptions:
Aqueous detergent consumption: 200 Ibs.
Aqueous detergent cost: $2/lb
Annual filter changeouts: 12
Replacement filter cost: $10/filter
Labor required for inspection of parts for aqueous system: 600 hrs/year
Labor required for parts scrubbing, cleaning, and inspection using vapor
degreasing: 800 hrs/year
Maintenance labor equivalent for both systems
Labor rate: $30/hr
Aqueous system electricity consumption: 4,800 kwhr
Vapor system electricity consumption: 9,500 kwhr
Electricity rate: $0.08/kw-hr
Process water consumption: 5,500 gallons/year
Process water purchase rate: $0.002/gallon
Aqueous system sludge disposal cost: $700/year based on two 55-gallon
drums
Laboratory profile analysis of sludge: $l,000/yr
Sewer discharge cost: $8.24/1000 gallons
TCA solvent procurement cost: $3,500/yr based on 200 gallons/year
consumption of TCA
Solvent disposal: $l,700/year based on seven 55-gallon drums of spent
solvent and soiled rags
Solvent profile analysis: $2,500/year
3-VI-4-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Aqueous Jet Parts Washer and TCA Vapor Degreasing
Operational Costs:
Labor
Material:
Electricity:
Water:
Waste Disposal
(including any
profile analysis):
Total Operational Costs:
Total Recovered Income:
Net Annual Cost/Benefit:
Aqueous Jet Parts
Washer
$18,000
$520
$380
$10
$1,750
TCA Vapor
Degreasing
$24,000
$3,500
$760
$0
$4,200
$20,660
$0
$20,660
$32,460
$0
-$32,460
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for Aqueous Jet Parts Washer:
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process:
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process:
$11,800
$13,000
<2 years
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
Hurrisafe 9050HID
PF-145HP
Bio T Max
Part Washer Detergent
Aqueous Parts Washer
NSN
6850-01-373-5866
6850-01-378-0044
6850-01-381-3944
6850-01-431-9025
4940-01-445-9632
Unit Size
Cost
MSDS*
5 gal.
6/1 gal.
55 gal.
50 Ib.
$90.22
$86.28
$1,131.97
$136.10
$7,423.70
Click me
Click me
Click me
Click me
*There are multiple MSDSsfor most NSNs. The MSDS shown here is only meant to serve as an
example. To return from the MSDS, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar
3-VI-4-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Approval
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Army:
Mr. Chuck Gawenis
Corpus Christi Army Depot
Phone: (512)961-4170
Email: cgawenis@ccad.armv.mil
Vendors:
Mr. Kevin McGill
Prospective Technologies Inc.
Phone: (410) 381-5375 or (410) 468-0102
Email: kmcgill@erols.com
The following list is not meant to be complete, as there are other manufacturers
of this product.
Mechanical:
Better Engineering Manufacturing, Inc.
8361 Town Center Court
Baltimore, MD 21236-4964
Phone: (800) 229-3380
Fax:(410)931-0053
Manufacturers of detergent washers for degreasing and cleaning
Aqueous:
PCI of America
6610 Rockledge Drive, Suite 200
Bethesda, MD 20817
URL: www.hurrisafe.com
Product: Hurrisafe 9050 HID
Semi-Aqueous:
Biochem Systems
P.O. Box 47610
Wichita, KS 67201
(800) 777-7870
Product: Bio-T Max
3-VI-4-7
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Petroleum Distillate:
P-T Technologies, Inc.
108 4th Avenue, South
Safety Harbor, FL 34695
(800)441-7874
(813)726-4644
Product: PF-145HP Degreaser
Sources: "Product Substitution Guide for the Oil Field Service Industry "
http://es.epa.gov/program/regional/trade/prod-sub.html
"Army Technical Bulletin: Environmentally Safe Substances for Use with
Communications-Electronics Equipment"
http://es.epa.gov/program/p2dept/defense/armv/armvbltn.html
3-VI-4-8
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
MOTOR VEHICLE AIR CONDITIONING REFRIGERANT CONVERSIONS FROM CFC
12 TO HFC-134A
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-02-02; Air Force: RR07; Army: VHM
Usage List: Navy: High; Marine Corps: High; Army: High; Air Force: High
Alternative For: Dichlorodifluoromethane, CFC-12 (also known as Refrigerant R-12)
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: dichlorodifluoromethane (CAS: 75-71-8)
Overview: Hydrofluorocarbon-134a (HFC-134a) is the preferred replacement for
Chlorofluorocarbon-12 (CFC-12) in vehicle air conditioning systems. The
production of CFC-12 ended in December 1995 after CFC-12 was classified
as an ozone-depleting substance. Automakers have chosen HFC-134a as a
long-term replacement for vehicle air conditioning refrigerant. Vehicle
manufacturers have developed retrofit kits and guidelines designed to provide
the best level of performance with a new HFC-134a system. Retrofit kits are
available for vehicles manufactured in the late 1980's and early 1990's.
The process of retrofitting a vehicle for the least cost generally calls for the
following: removal of the old refrigerant; installation of new fittings; a new label;
and the addition of polyalkylene glycol (PAG) or polyol ester (POE or ester)
lubricant and the HFC-134a. Original equipment manufacturers (OEM) also
offer OEM-warranted retrofit (where available) at a greater cost to the vehicle
owner.
In selecting the retrofit that is best for the vehicle, the technician should consider
the cost of the retrofit, the climate in which the vehicle operates, and the
condition of the vehicle components. When considering cost, the owner should
consider the age and condition of the vehicle. Vehicles that operate in
extremely warm climates may not perform as well with a lower cost retrofit. In
this situation, consider the installation of a larger condenser or the addition of a
fan. If the vehicle components are well worn, they may not be capable of
withstanding the higher pressures of HFC-13 4a.
A universal retrofit procedure has not been developed and there are no simple
kits that provide all of the required parts, nor is there a guarantee of
performance on every vehicle make and model. The Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE) provides guidance in publication number J1661.
3-VI-5-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Section 612 of the Clean Air Act, which describes the Agency's Significant
New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program requires that when retrofitting a
CFC-12 vehicle for use with another refrigerant, the technician must ensure:
Proper removal of CFC-12 prior to filling the system with FIFC-134a.
Use of dedicated EPA-approved equipment to recover CFC-12 from the
system.
Installation of unique fittings in order to minimize the risk of cross-
contamination of the air conditioning system and/or the recycling equipment.
Identification if the new refrigerant by affixing a uniquely colored label to
identify the new refrigerant.
Installation of a high-pressure compressor shutoff switch to prevent the
compressor from increasing pressure until the refrigerant is vented, if the
system includes a pressure relief device
The quantity of HFC-134a required to charge a system should be
approximately 80-90 percent of the quantity of CFC-12 capacity in the system.
In addition, the mineral oil used with CFC-12 is not sufficiently transported
throughout the system by HFC-134a. Automobile manufacturers recommend
PAG lubricants in vehicles retrofitted with FIFC-134a. Flushing the system
does not appear to be critical to the retrofit although SAE's J1661 procedure
includes flushing.
In most retrofit cases, the CFC-12 system hoses will perform satisfactorily with
the FIFC-134a refrigerant. The oil that is used in air conditioning systems acts
as a natural barrier to permeation for the smaller FIFC-134a molecules.
Damaged hoses should always be replaced and unless a fitting is damaged
during the retrofit, replacement is not always necessary. Lubricating O-rings
during retrofit provides protection.
HFC-134a systems use either XH-7 or XH-9 desiccant and some
manufacturers recommend routine replacement of the accumulator or receiver-
drier. Other manufacturers recommend leaving the existing equipment in place.
There is general agreement that if the vehicle has more than 70,000 miles or is
five years old, replacement of the accumulator or receiver-drier is necessary.
As vehicles are retrofit, service technicians may want to consider how airflow
condenser design on a particular vehicle will affect the retrofit and the higher
vapor pressures associated with HFC-134a.
EPA regulations prohibit technicians from changing fittings on the same
unit. EPA regulations also specify that when equipment is converted for use
with a new refrigerant, the converted unit must be able to meet the applicable
equipment standard set forth in the regulations. CFC-12 equipment may be
3-VI-5-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
permanently converted for use with HFC-134a under certain conditions. EPA
intends to issue regulations placing certain restrictions on these retrofits in the
future. Those restrictions may include: requiring that the manufacturer's service
representative rather than the automotive service technician perform the retrofit;
that a unit may only be retrofitted if retrofit procedures have been certified by an
independent testing laboratory such as Underwriters Laboratories; and that an
appropriate label is affixed to the unit. In addition, the retrofitted unit must meet
the technical specifications of SAE standard J2210 and must have the capacity
to purify used refrigerant to SAE standard J2099 for safe and direct return to
the air conditioner following repairs. Currently, however, in the absence of any
EPA regulations, a service facility may perform such a retrofit, or may have the
equipment manufacturer's service representative perform the retrofit, as long as
the fittings are changed in accordance with EPA's Significant New Alternative
Policy (SNAP) program regulations. The Agency cautions technicians,
however, that even though recovering a given refrigerant using permanently
converted equipment is legal, it may not be technically desirable. The
equipment is designed to be compatible with specific refrigerants, and
incompatible materials may cause short circuits, damage to seals, and
compressor failure. Technicians should check with the recovery equipment
manufacturer for recommendations about the recovery of refrigerants other than
the refrigerant the equipment was originally intended to recover. Conversion of
recovery equipment for use with other refrigerants may also invalidate any
warranties offered by the equipment manufacturer.
Technicians who repair or service HFC-134a MVACs must be trained and
certified by an EPA-approved organization. If a technician is already trained
and certified to handle CFC-12, he does not need to be recertified to handle
HFC-134a.
Compliance
Benefit: Use of HFC-134a instead of CFC-12 will help facilities meet the requirements
under 40 CFR 82, Subpart D and Executive Order 12843 requiring federal
agencies to maximize the use of safe alternatives to class I (i.e. CFC-12) and
class U ozone depleting substances, to the maximum extent practicable. In
addition, the substitution of CFC-12 as a motor vehicle air conditioning
refrigerant decreases the possibility that the facility will meet reporting thresholds
for CFC-12 under 40 CFR 355, 370 and EO 12856. Chemicals used as
substitutions should be reviewed for SARA reporting issues.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
3-VI-5-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
Chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants are generally inert chemicals with good
materials compatibility. Refrigerants should not be mixed as they are difficult to
separate and mixing can confer on the materials radically different properties
compared to those of the individual gases and also may result in equipment
damage.
High pressure gases should always be handled with care. Most refrigerants are
inert and have low toxicity. Some hydrocarbon refrigerants are flammable.
When working in a confined space, consider the use of monitoring equipment.
Consult your local Industrial Health Specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these
technologies.
Reduces the amount of ODSs going into the environment.
Allows for alternative refrigerant use
Some vehicle owners report that the air conditioning system does not
perform as efficiently and effectively with HFC-134a
The cost of conversion from CFC-12 to HFC-134a can range from $100 to
$650 per vehicle depending on the vehicle type, mileage and condition of the
vehicle. A low cost retrofit may be applicable if the vehicle is new and no major
component changes are required. A conversion for a typical vehicle may
require the replacement of dryer, hoses, seals, and lubricant, costing
approximately $500 per vehicle.
The following economic analysis compares the costs associated with using CFC-12
versus HFC-134a. The analysis is based on information provided by a vehicle
service shop in the southeastern U.S.:
Assumptions:
Cost of 301bs. drum of HFC-134a: $75.00 or $2.50/lb.
Costof301bs. drum of CFC-12: $459.00 or $15.30/lb.
Cost of lubricating oil for CFC-12: $4.86/quart
Cost of lubricating oil for HFC-134a: $21.86/quart
Cost of recovery/recycling equipment is the same for both refrigerants
Equivalent usage rates for both refrigerants and lubricants
3-VI-5-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Approximately 21bs. of refrigerant is installed per car (on average)
Approximately 9oz. of lubricating oil (for the refrigerant) is installed per car
(on average)
Approximately 7,000 cars are serviced at a typical vehicle shop per year
Approximately 14,0001bs. of refrigerant is replaced each year
Approximately 2,000 quarts of refrigerant lubricant is used per year
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
CFC-12andHFC-134a
CFC-12 HFC-134a
Operational Costs:
Refrigerant: $214,200 $35,000
Lubricant: $9,720 $43,720
Total Operational Costs: $223,920 $78,720
Total Recovered Income: $0 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$223,920 -$78,720
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for using R-134a: -$ 145,200
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: N/A
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: N/A
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost MSDS*
R-134a 6830-01-390-9622 30 Ib. $81.38 Click me
R-134a 6830-01-412-6362 30 Ib. $82.21 Click me
*There are multiple MSDSsfor most NSNs. The MSDS shown here is only meant to serve as an
example. To return from the MSDS, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar
Approval
Authority: Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
3-VI-5-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Points of
Contact:
Air Force:
Mr. Michael Schleider
Chief, Systems Engineering Division
Support Equipment and Vehicle Management Directorate
WR-ALC/LER
225 Ocmulgee Ct.
Robins AFB, GA 31098-1647
DSN 468-6488 x 175, (912) 926-6488 x 175
FAX: DSN 468-7176, (912) 926-7176
Email: michael. schleider(5).robins. af.mil
Vendors:
HFC conversion kits can be procured from original equipment manufacturers or
automotive aftermarket vendors.
Sources:
Mr. Michael Schleider, Robins Air Force Base, January 1999.
McNamara, Ben. A/C Service Trends: New Refrigerants. Equipment and Rules.
AutoINC., March 1997, Page 22.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation Stratospheric
Protection, Keeping Your Customers Car Cool: Some Guidance on Retro fitting A/C
Systems to HFC-134a. July 1996
Other Sources on the WWW Include:
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/609/609.html
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/snap/macssubs.html
http: //www. ep a. go v/ozone/title6/snap/buv in g. html
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/609/wantknow.html
3-VI-5-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
MOTOR VEHICLE AIR-CONDITIONING REFRIGERANT ALTERNATIVES
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-02-99, Air Force: RR07; Army: VHM
Usage List: Navy: High; Marine Corps: High; Army: High; Air Force: High
Alternative For: Dichlorodifluoromethane, CFC-12
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Dichlorodifluoromethane (CAS: 75-71-8)
Overview: Alternative refrigerants for motor vehicle air conditioning systems have been
identified to replace Chlorofluorocarbon-12 (CFC-12). CFC-12 was widely
used in vehicle air conditioning systems for several decades, however it is an
ozone-depleting substance and production was banned in December 1995.
Ultimately, the CFC-12 production ban will force the conversion of all vehicle
air conditioning systems from CFC-12 to an alternative refrigerant. In the
interim, CFC-12 continues to be recycled to ensure that existing CFC-12 is
used rather than being released into the atmosphere. EPA has proposed
standards for the equipment that recovers and recycles CFC-12, as well as for
alternative refrigerants.
EPA's Significant New Alternative Policy (SNAP) program was established in
1994 to review alternative refrigerants developed to replace ozone-depleting
substances. Under authority of the Clean Air Act, EPA has determined that
several refrigerants are acceptable for use as CFC-12 replacements in motor
vehicles.
The final rule implements provisions set forth in Section 609 of the Clean Air
Act that require that automotive service technicians to recycle substitutes for
ozone-depleting refrigerants that are used in the servicing of motor vehicle air
conditioners (MVACs). This rule, the full text of which was published in the
Federal Register on December 30, 1997at 62 FR 68025, also clarifies how the
Act applies to some MVAC service practices.
Under EPA's SNAP rule, new refrigerants must be used in accordance with
specific conditions including: 1) using unique fittings to prevent the accidental
mixing of different refrigerants; 2) application of a detailed label giving specific
information about the alternative; 3) removal of the original CFC-12 prior to
charging the system with a new refrigerant; and 4) the installation of barrier
hoses when applicable.
The SNAP program does not determine whether the alternative will provide
adequate performance or if it will be compatible with the air conditioning system
3-VI-6-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
components. There are several alternative refrigerants that have been reviewed
by the SNAP program.
Automakers have selected HFC-134a as the preferred alternative in new
vehicles due to its performance and availability. HFC-134a has been tested
and performance data is available. The other alternative refrigerants, which are
blends, have not been widely tested. SNAP has reviewed a number of blends
and deemed them acceptable; subject to fittings, labeling and that the alternative
refrigerants are not used to "top off' existing refrigerant in a system. The
alternative refrigerants include:
Alternative
R-401C
FR-12
R-406A
HCFC Blend Xi
HCFC Blend Omicron
HCFC Blend Lambda
HCFC Blend Delta
Blend Zeta
Ingredients
33%HCFC-22, 15%
HCFC-152a, 52%
HCFC-1242
39%HCFC-124, 59%
HFC-134a, 2% butane
55%HCFC-22, 41%
HCFC-142b, 4%
isobutane
51%HCFC-22, 28.5%
HCFC-124, 16.5%
HCFC-142b, 4%
isobutane
50% HCFC-22, 39%
HCFC-124, 9.5%
HCFC-142b, 1.5%
isobutane
65% HCFC-22, 39%,
31%HCFC-142b, 4%
isobutane
19%HCFC-142b,
79%HFC-134a, 2%
lubricant
HCFC-152a
CF3I
Trade Names
SUVA MP-52
FRIGC
GHG, McCool
GHG-X4, Autofrost,
Chill-It
Hot Shot Kar Kool
GHG-HP
RB-276, Cool EZ
Ikon 12C
Currently, there are no substitutes that perform identically to CFC-12 or that
can be blended with CFC-12. According to EPA, there are no "drop in"
substitutes. In July of 1998, EPA proposed a new rule that would only allow
certified technicians to purchase HFC-134a. This new rule would eliminate
substitution mixing, which can severely damage equipment.
3-VI-6-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Both OZ-12 (Hydrocarbon Blend A) and HC-12a (Hydrocarbon Blend B)
were determined to be unacceptable substitute refrigerants because they lacked
adequate risk assessment information that characterizes flammability risk. R-
176 was determined to be unacceptable because it contained CFC-12. R-
405A was deemed unacceptable because it contained a perfluorocarbon that
exhibits extremely high global warming potential and a very long lifetime.
Selection of an alternative may be based on a number of factors including: the
type of vehicle, condition of the components, mileage, warranty, and even the
climate in which the vehicle is operated.
Conversion often requires air conditioning system flushing because refrigerant
blends do not appear to be compatible with lubricants found in CFC-12
systems. Flushing can usually be accomplished after removing and recovering
the existing refrigerant by simply draining the existing mineral oil, either from an
oil drain plug or by removing the compressor, and draining from the suction line.
In most automotive systems, 90 to 95 percent of the lubricant can be removed
from the system in this manner. Equipment using HFC-134a requires synthetic
oils such as polyalkylene glycol or polyol ester lubricating oils.
HCFCs have ozone-depleting potential, and both HCFCs and HFCs are
greenhouse gases that have global warming potential. EPA strongly
recommends the containment and reclamation of these substitutes through
closed-loop recovery systems to achieve the conservation of these refrigerants.
The "no venting" regulation of the Clean Air Act Amendments, 58 FR 92,
Section 608(c)(2), page 28,664 requires users to recover HFCs and other
alternative (to CFCs) refrigerants when servicing equipment, effective 15
November 1995.
Any motor vehicle air-conditioning system converted to an alternative, by law,
must be evacuated and have its CFC-12 removed, recovered, and reused for
servicing a vehicle not being converted.
Compliance
Benefit: Elimination of CFC-12 may help facilities meet the requirements under 40 CFR
82, Subpart D and Executive Order 12843 requiring federal agencies to
maximize the use of safe alternatives to class I (i.e., CFC-12) and class U ozone
depleting substances, to the maximum extent practicable. It should be noted
that some of the alternatives for CFC-12 are HCFCs which are also ODSs. In
addition, the substitution of CFC-12 at the facility decreases the possibility that
the facility will meet reporting thresholds for CFC-12 under 40 CFR 355, 370
and EO 12856. Chemicals used as substitutions should be reviewed for
SARA reporting issues.
3-VI-6-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
HFC-134a and refrigerant blends do not appear to be compatible with the type
of mineral oil lubricants found in existing CFC-12 refrigerant systems. For
conversions, manufacturers typically recommend triple-flushing the lubricant
from the system before charging with HFC-134a. Some blends may tolerate a
higher proportion of mineral oil, since they contain two, or more, HCFCs, so
triple flushing may not be necessary for some blend conversions.
The SNAP-approved refrigerants for motor vehicle applications have been
developed to minimize safety and health concerns. They are non-flammable
under all expected working conditions and have low toxicity. Personal
protective equipment is not mandatory, but when working with refrigerants, use
of safety glasses or chemical splash goggles is always recommended. For more
information on the safety and health aspects of these refrigerants, consult your
local Industrial Health specialist, your local health and safety personnel, and the
product MSDS prior to any refrigerant conversion.
Conversion and retrofits, along with recovery of the existing CFC
refrigerant charge, reduces the amount of ozone-depleting substances
(ODSs) released into the environment.
Systems using HFC-134a are readily available.
Dedicated servicing equipment is in place for new motor vehicle air-
conditioning systems, which now use HFC-134a.
The use of HCFC blends requires dedicated servicing equipment to comply
with EPA regulations.
Alternative refrigerants may not perform to the same cooling specifications
as CFC-12.
Economic
Analysis:
Service technicians should consider several tradeoffs when selecting the new
refrigerant. Consideration must be given to the condition of the vehicle's air
conditioning components, climate, quantity and type of testing of the HCFC
blends, and cost of the refrigerant.
3-VI-6-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Conversions of motor vehicle air conditioning systems now using CFC-12 to
HFC-134a may be expensive if a complete conversion is required including
replacement of the dryer, hoses, seals, refrigerant, and lubricant, and also
flushing of the old lubricant. Although HFC-134a costs approximately $2.00 to
$3.00 per pound, the cost of a complete HFC-134a conversion for a typical
automobile CFC-12 system is estimated between $350 and $800.
Some personnel claim that HCFC blends have less head pressure and require
fewer component changes and some blends provide better performance than
HFC-134a. As a result, the cost to retrofit using HCFC blends may cost as
little as $100 to $200 depending on the vehicle. The HCFC blends cost $8.00
to $10.00 per pound. However, service technicians may want to consider
other factors when deciding between HFC-134a and HCFC blends. These
factors include:
EPA regulations state HCFC blends can not be recycled locally and reused.
OEM's have not endorsed the use of HCFC blends.
HCFC blends require unique service fittings and separate set of manifold
gages and hoses, recovery equipment and recycling cylinders.
The following economic analysis compares the costs associated with using CFC-12
versus HFC-134a. The analysis is based on information provided by a vehicle
service shop in the southeastern U.S.:
Assumptions:
Cost of 301bs. drum of HFC-134a: $75.00 or $2.50/lb.
Costof301bs. drum of CFC-12: $459.00 or $15.30/lb.
Cost of lubricating oil for CFC-12: $4.86/quart
Cost of lubricating oil for HFC-134a: $21.86/quart
Cost of recovery/recycling equipment is the same for both refrigerants
Equivalent usage rates for both refrigerants and lubricants
Approximately 21bs. of refrigerant is installed per car (on average)
Approximately 9oz. of lubricating oil (for the refrigerant) is installed per car
(on average)
Approximately 7,000 cars are serviced at a typical vehicle shop per year
Approximately 14,0001bs. of refrigerant is replaced each year
Approximately 2,000 quarts of refrigerant lubricant is used per year
3-VI-6-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
CFC-12andHFC-134a
CFC-12 HFC-134a
Operational Costs:
Refrigerant: $214,200 $35,000
Lubricant: $9,720 $43,720
Total Operational Costs: $223,920 $78,720
Total Recovered Income: $0 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$223,920 -$78,720
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for using R-134a: -$ 145,200
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: N/A
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: N/A
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost MSDS*
R-134a 6830-01-390-9622 30 Ib. $81.38 Click me
R-134a 6830-01-412-6362 30 Ib. $82.21 Click me
R-406a 6830-01-433-7032 25 Ib. $340.33 Click me
FR-12 (FRIGC) 6830-01-433-7030 30 Ib $211.19 Click me
*There are multiple MSDSsfor most NSNs. The MSDS shown here is only meant to serve as an
example. To return from the MSDS, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar
Approval
Authority: Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Point of
Contact: Air Force:
Mr. Michael Schleider
Chief, Systems Engineering Division
Support Equipment and Vehicle Management Directorate
WR-ALC/LER
3-VI-6-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
225 Ocmulgee Ct.
Robins AFB, GA 31098-1647
DSN 468-6488 x 175, (912) 926-6488 x 175
FAX: DSN 468-7176, (912) 926-7176
Email: michael. schleider@jobins. af.mil
Vendors:
The following list is not meant to be complete, as there are other manufacturers
of this product.
Allied-Signal Inc.
Fluorocarbons
P.O. Box 1053
Morristown, NJ 07962-1053
Phone:(800)631-8138 FAX (201)455-6395
Manufacturer of HFC-134a
Elf Atochem N.A., Inc.,
Research and Applications Laboratory
900 First Ave., P.O. Box 1946
King of Prussia, PA 19406
Phone: (800) 245-5858
Manufacturer of HFC-134a
Source (s):
Intermagnetics General
Phone: (800) 555-1442
Manufacturer of FRIG (FR-12)
Refrigerant Gases
Phone: (888) 373-3066
Manufacturer of Free Zone (RB-276)
People's Welding
Phone: (800) 622-5008
Mr. Michael Schleider, Robins Air Force Base, January 1999.
McNamara, Ben. A/C Service Trends: New Refrigerants. Equipment and Rules.
AutoINC., March 1997, Page 22.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation Stratospheric
Protection, Keeping Your Customers Car Cool: Some Guidance on Retro fitting A/C
Systems to HFC-134a. July 1996
Other Sources on the WWW Include:
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/609/609.html
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/snap/macssubs.html
http: //www. ep a. go v/ozone/title6/snap/buv in g. html
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/609/wantknow.html
3-VI-6-7
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
ODS-FREE STERILIZATION
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: MD-01-01, MD-02-02; Air Force: MD01; Army:
N/A
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
Alternative For: Ethylene Oxide/CFC-12
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Ethylene Oxide (CAS: 75-21-8),
dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12) (CAS: 75-71-8)
Overview: Many low temperature sterilization techniques utilize an ethylene oxide/CFC
mixture. The best applications of these types of sterilizing agents are for heat
sensitive equipment on which steam autoclaving (sterilization with heat) can not
be performed. However, due to the ozone depleting nature of CFCs,
alternatives have been developed to eliminate these compounds: 1) 100%
Ethylene Oxide Sterilizers, 2) Plasma Sterilization, 3) Chlorine Dioxide Gas, and
4) Ozone Sterilization.
The most effective of the four alternate technologies is the 100% ethylene oxide
(EtO) sterilizer. EtO can be applied to many types of medical equipment, and is
effective at eliminating all microbial organisms. It is relatively inexpensive and
costs less than operating an EtO/CFC mixture. However, EtO is a potent
carcinogen that may cause cancer and reproductive failure if personnel are
exposed in large quantities. In order to prevent exposure, EtO must be aerated
and monitored cautiously while in use. In addition, the lack of CFC tends to
make the 100% EtO sterilizer less stable, which may lead to higher explosivity
and flammability of the EtO.
The second alternate technology is plasma sterilization. In this process, a gas
(e.g. hydrogen peroxide, peracetic acid) is ionized into its plasma phase. The
free radicals of the plasma disrupt all cellular activities within the
microorganisms, thereby destroying them. This system, though non-toxic and
environmentally sound, cannot be applied to many types of medical equipment.
Due to the plasma's corrosive nature, paper, cellulose, and linen cannot be
sterilized. It can not be applied to long-channel or lumen devices due to the low
penetrating ability of the plasma.
The third alternative is the use of chlorine dioxide gas (C1O2). In this
procedure, a processor converts a compound of dilute chlorine gas with sodium
chlorite to form C1O2 gas. This gas is then exposed to the equipment in a
sterilizing chamber. This system operates best in temperatures ranging from 25-
3-VII-l-l
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Compliance
Benefit:
30ฐC, while utilizing low concentrations of C1O2. However, this alternative
may corrode some materials and must be generated on-site. Prehumidification
of the C1O2 is also required.
The final alternative to CFC sterilization is the use of molecular ozone. In this
system, oxygen is converted to gaseous ozone with the use of an electrical
current. The ozone gas must then undergo a 70 to 90% humidification phase.
The resultant gas is then vented into a sterilization chamber where the microbes
are eliminated through oxidation. After this process is complete, the ozone is
converted back to oxygen. This system is both non-toxic and environmentally
sound. The disadvantages are limited penetrability, possible degradation of
some plastics and possible corrosion of metals. This alternative is still in
research and development and is not available at this time.
Use of ODS-free sterilization may help facilities meet the requirements under 40
CFR 82, Subpart D and Executive Order 12843 requiring federal agencies
to maximize the use of safe alternatives to class I (i.e., CFC-12) and class II
ozone depleting substances, to the maximum extent practicable. In addition,
using ODS-free sterilization at the facility decreases the possibility that the
facility will meet reporting thresholds for CFC-12 under 40 CFR 355, 370 and
EO 12856. Chemicals used as substitutions should be reviewed for SARA
reporting issues. Use of a sterilizer that is 100% ethylene oxide could increase
the need for an air permit under 40 CFR 63, Subpart O; 40 CFR 70 and 40
CFR 71
Materials
Compatibility:
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
The 100% ethylene oxide sterilizer is effective in penetrating packaging materials
and medical devices. Generally, the volume of these chambers is small and
several sterilizers must be purchased to process a large amount of equipment.
Porous materials absorb the EtO and must be thoroughly dried before use. Due
to its low penetrating ability and corrosive nature, plasma sterilization cannot be
used on many types of medical equipment. This equipment includes: angioplasty
catheters, paper, cellulose, linen, and glued devices. The C1O2 gas also has a
low penetrating ability and corrosive nature. For the ozone alternative, the
humidity within the sterilization chamber is high, a factor that may cause natural
gum products and some plastics to degrade. Most metals will corrode using
this technique.
3-VII-1-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
The 100% EtO sterilizer is a potent carcinogen, which has proven to cause
cancer, reproductive mutations, and chromosomal alterations. EtO detectors
must be installed near the sterilizer in accordance with health and safety
standards. The sterilizer must also be properly aerated after use. The plasma
technology requires the provision of emergency procedures in cooperation with
local fire departments in case of a major gas leak. The effects of exposure to
C1O2 are unknown. Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local
health and safety personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing
this technology.
100% Ethylene Oxide
- Relatively inexpensive
- Operation costs lower than EtO/CFC mixture
- Same sterilization techniques as EtO/CFC
Plasma Sterilization
- Non-toxic and environmentally sound
- No aeration required
- Requires small power supply for operation
- System is easy to learn
Ozone Sterilization
- Non-toxic and environmentally sound
100% Ethylene Oxide
- Potent carcinogen
- Absence of CFC causes an increase in explosivity/flammability
- Detector must be installed near sterilizer
- Small sterilizer volume chamber
- Existing sterilizers must be replaced
Plasma Sterilization
- Small sterilizer volume chamber
- Expensive
- Low penetrating ability
- Not effective with paper, cellulose, linen, and angioplasty catheters
3-VII-1-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
- Questionable effectiveness with flexible endoscopes
Chlorine Dioxide Sterilization
- Exposure effects are undetermined
- May corrode some materials
- Low penetrating ability
Ozone Sterilization
- Low penetrating ability
- Will corrode most metals
- Natural gum products and some plastics may degrade
Economic
Analysis:
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
The ban on CFC production and the phase out of the use of CFCs will force
medical facilities to replace existing equipment with ODS free sterilization units.
Manufacturers provided the following summaries of some typical costs.
EtO sterilizers range in price between $18,000 - $30,000, depending on the
capacity and size of the unit. According to vendors, a 6 cubic foot/169 liter
table top unit costs approximately $18,000, and a high capacity 33 cubic
foot/679 liter unit costs approximately $30,000. In addition, according to
environmental regulations, ethylene oxide detectors must be installed in close
proximity to the sterilizer. For more information on these alarm systems please
review data sheet 3 VTI-2 - Ethylene Oxide Sterilizer Alarm Systems.
A plasma sterilization unit costs considerably more than the EtO alternative.
Most plasma sterilization units include an automated on-line monitoring system,
a non-toxic and non-flammable gas mixture, and a peracetic acid solution.
According to vendor information, capital costs for these systems are
approximately $120,000. Operation and maintenance costs include
replacement gas tanks that cost $630, and the peracetic acid replacements that
cost $79.00/case containing four-8oz. bottles.
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
3-VII-1-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Approval
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Vendors:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
EPA
Dr. Nancy Pate
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: (919) 541-5347
Fax:(919) 541-0242
The following is a list of sterilizer equipment manufacturers. This is not meant to
be a complete list, as there may be other manufacturers of this type of
equipment.
H.W. Andersen Products, Inc.
Health Science Park
3202 Caroline Dr.
Haw River, NC 27258-8710
Phone: (910) 376-3000
Fax:(910)376-8153
URL: http://www.anpro.com
AbTox
104 Terrace Drive
Mundelein, IL 60060-3826
Phone: (847) 949-0552 or (800) 228-6950
Fax: (847) 949-0662
URL: http://www. abtox. com
Advanced Sterilization Products
Division of Johnson & Johnson Medical, Inc.
33 Technology Drive
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: (949)581-5799
URL: http://www.sterrad.com
Sources:
Dr. Nancy Pate, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, April 1999.
Journal of Cardiology., "Sterilization of Cardiac Catheters " http://www.hrt.org.
Taurasi, A. Raymond., "Ethylene Oxide Alternatives "
http://www.cea.purdue.edu/iahcsmm/28Lesson.htm
3-VII-1-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
ETHYLENE OXIDE STERILIZER ALARM SYSTEMS
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: MD-01-01, MD-02-02; Air Force: MD01; Army:
N/A
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
Alternative For: Kem Medical Model 9000
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Ethylene Oxide (CAS: 75-21-8),
dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12) (CAS: 75-71-8)
Overview: Ethylene Oxide (EtO) is a commonly used sterilizer in various industries
including medical equipment suppliers, pharmaceuticals, museums, and
hospitals. However, this chemical is a potent carcinogen that has been proven
to cause cancer, reproductive mutations, and chromosomal alterations to
exposed individuals. Therefore, EtO must be carefully monitored in order to
prevent safety and health damage to personnel.
According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
Standard 1910.1047 App.D, many techniques are currently employed to
monitor and test for Ethylene Oxide (EtO): These techniques include charcoal
tube sampling procedures, passive monitors, tedlar gas sampling bags, detector
tubes, and direct reading instruments. This datasheet focuses only on the
sterilizer alarm systems.
The sterilizer alarm system basically functions as a monitor to test the
surrounding air for EtO levels. The system can be either portable, or wall
mounted, depending on the user's need. The alarm will monitor the EtO levels
down to the specific ppm, and employ both visual and auditory alarms when the
level has been exceeded. EtO detectors must be installed near the sterilizer in
accordance with health and safety standards whenever EtO sterilizers are in use.
The sterilizer must also be properly aerated after use.
These detectors are also sensitive to CFCs and HCFCs, and thus can give false
alarms. CFCs and HCFCs are often used as part of the formulation for
sterilizing agents. Because the sterilizing agents are oxidizers, such as EtO, and
are usually very combustible, the CFCs/HCFCs serve as both fire suppressant
and propellant. EtO is a suspected carcinogen, and CFCs and HCFCs are
ODSs, so leak detection is a critical part of sterilization equipment maintenance.
Despite the fact that EtO is a suspected carcinogen, some 100% EtO (CFC
and HCFC free) sterilizers are currently in use. EtO-free replacements have
3-VII-2-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Compliance
Benefit:
been produced (for example, hydrogen peroxide and ozone-based sterilizers).
See the data sheet entitled ODS-Free Sterilization for more information on
alternate sterilization equipment.
Use of ethylene oxide sterilizer alarm systems decreases the possibility that a
facility would need to report releases of ethylene oxide or CFC-12 under 40
CFR 355 and EO 12856.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
No materials compatibility issues were identified.
Consult your local Industrial Health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these
technologies.
Detects leakage of EtO and ODSs
Reduces the possibility of large ODC and EtO releases
Provides warning for personnel to avoid exposure
Also Detects CFC and HCFC releases.
There are many ethylene oxide detectors currently on the market. The EtOX I
Area Monitor (AN 2600) by H.W. Andersen Products, Inc. provides accurate,
single point monitoring of circulating air for EO levels. This system monitors
ethylene oxide down to 1PPM. The Sierra Monitor Corporation utilizes the
4101-27 Ethylene Oxide Gas Sensor Module that provides a 4-20mA signal of
Ethylene Oxide gas concentration within the range of 0-20ppm.
Kernco Instruments Co. Inc. offers both a wall mounted and portable gas
detector unit. The wall-mounted unit provides a signal within the range of 0-10
ppm of ethylene oxide or 0-100 ppm, depending on the user's needs. The
portable unit also provides a signal within the range of 0-10 ppm or 0-100 ppm,
also depending on the user's needs. The following pricing information is based
on Kernco Instruments' website, which can be found at http://kerncoinstr.com
3-VII-2-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Product
Price
ET6200P-10 Ethylene Oxide Detector (0-10 ppm)
(portable)
ET6200P - 100 Ethylene Oxide Detector (0-100 ppm)
(portable)
ET6200-10 Ethylene Oxide Detector (0-10 ppm) (wall
mounted)
ET6200-100 Ethylene Oxide Detector (0-100 ppm) (wall
mounted)
ET6200R-10 Ethylene Oxide Detector with Remote
Sensor (0-10 ppm) (wall mounted)
ET6200R-100 Ethylene Oxide Detector with Remote
Sensor (0-100 ppm)
$1,265.00
$1,265.00
$1,065.00
$1,065.00
$1,025.00
$1,025.00
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
Approval
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Vendors:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
EPA
Dr. Nancy Pate
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, ,NC 27711
Phone: (919) 541-5347
Fax:(919) 541-0242
The following list is not meant to be complete, as there are other manufacturers
of this product.
H.W. Andersen Products, Inc.
Health Science Park
3202 Caroline Drive
Haw River, NC 27258-8710
Phone: (800) 523-1276
URL: http://www.anpro.com
3-VII-2-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Sierra Monitor Corporation
1991 Tarob Court
Milipitas, CA 95035
Phone: (408) 262-6611 or (800) 727-4377
Fax: (408) 262-9042
URL: http://www.sierramonitor.com
Kernco Instruments Co., Inc.
420 Kenazo Ave.
El Paso, TX 79927-7339
Phone: (915) 852-3375 or (800) 325-3875
Fax:(915)852-4084
URL: http://www.kerncoinstr.com
Sources: Dr. Nancy Pate, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency., April 1999.
3-VII-2-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
ODS-FREE SKIN REFRIGERANT
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: MD-02-99; Air Force: MD02; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Low; Marine Corps: Low; Army: Low; Air Force: Low
Alternative For: CFC-114
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: CFC-114 (1,2-dichlorotetrafluoroethane)
(CAS: 76-14-2)
Overview:
Compliance
Benefit:
The ozone depleting substance (ODS) CFC-114 has typically been used as a
refrigerant spray for conducting cold-sensitivity studies at dental clinics.
Alternatives are now available which utilize FIFC-134a in place of CFC-114.
Refrigerant sprays are applied by applying the refrigerant to a piece of cotton,
then placing the cotton to the patient's tooth. The dentist then observes the
patient's reaction and evaluates a course of action. These sprays are much
colder than ice or ethyl chloride, at a temperature of approximately -20ฐ C.
These sprays have typically contained the ODS CFC-114, but now have been
reformulated to incorporate FIFC-134a instead. While not a class I ODS,
FIFC-134a is a green house gas and has a global warming potential.
Use of an ODS-free skin refrigerant will help facilities meet the requirements
under 40 CFR 82, Subpart D and Executive Order 12843 requiring federal
agencies to maximize the use of safe alternatives to class I and class U ozone
depleting substances, to the maximum extent practicable.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
No materials compatibility issues were identified.
Consult your local Industrial Health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these
technologies.
Reduce the amount of ODSs going into the environment.
None identified
3-VII-3-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Economic
Analysis: The U.S. EPA is currently phasing out Applications of R-l 14. The following
economic analysis is based on vendor information and compares the use of a
skin refrigerant which uses R-l 14 (NSN 6506-00-576-8915), and an
alternative that uses HFC-134a:
Assumptions:
Cost of R-l 14 skin refrigerant: $8.76/8oz, or $1.09/oz.
Cost of HFC-134a skin refrigerant: $15.00/6oz. or $2.5/oz.
Equal labor and usage rates
Typical usage rate: one 6oz. can/month, or 72oz/year
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
R-114andHFC-134a
R-l 14 HFC-134a
Operational Costs:
Materials: $78.48 $180
Total Costs: $78.48 $180
Total Income: $0 $0
Annual Benefit: -$7848 -$180
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings: $-101.52
Capital Cost for Equipment/Process: $ 18 0
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: N/A
Note: Although the cost of R-l 14 is currently lower than the alternative, since
this Class IODS is currently prohibited from production and importation, the
cost will increase making the alternative more economically viable.
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost
Green Endo Ref Spray 6520-01-397-9934 6 oz. $9.10
3-VII-3-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Approval
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Vendors:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Air Force
Armstrong Laboratory, AL/AOCD
Dental Investigation
Phone: (210) 536-3502, DSN 240-3502
Provide a list of existing dental alternatives
EPA
Stratospheric Ozone Protection Hotline
USEPA
Mail Code 6205J
401 M St., SW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (800)-296-1996 or (301)-614-3396
The following list is not meant to be complete, as there are other manufacturers
of this product.
Coltene/Whaledent, Dental Division
750 Corporate Dr.
Mahwah,NJ 07430
Phone:(800)221-3046
Manufacturer of Green Endo-Ice that uses HFC-134a instead of CFC-114
3-VII-3-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
ODS-FREE SUBSTITUTE FOR INSULATING FOAM
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-04-99; Air Force: SV01; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Low; Marine Corps: Low; Army: Medium; Air Force: Low
Substitute for: CB 120 Filler Foam
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: ODSs
Overview: CFCs and HCFCs are common blowing agents used in the expansion of
polymer foams, such as expanded polystyrene (STYROFOAMฎ). Most
companies, however, have switched from using CFCs as blowing agents to
using HCFCs or other alternative methods.
Typically, most insulating foams use a CFC (Class I ODS) for the expansion of
the polymer foam. However, the SNAP (Significant New Alternatives Policy)
program that was implemented by the U.S. EPA established that under the
Clean Air Act, CFC importation and production are prohibited in the U.S.
effective January 1, 1996. CFC use, however, is still permitted as long as it
complies with Section 610 of the Clean Air Act "Non-Essential Use Ban".
Although the use is still permitted, the CFCs are becoming more expensive due
to the decrease in availability due to the production ban.
Several alternative chemicals and technologies have come on the market, which
do not use CFCs in their mixture. HCFC (a Class II ODS) is a common
substitute found for CFC insulating foams. However, HCFCs are currently
becoming curtailed in both production and use due to their ozone depleting
potential. One new alternative to gas induced expansion is "electroset"
technology. Electrosetting materials are made up of ordinary resins mixed with
an electrically polarizable aggregate that makes the resin semiconductive while in
its liquid state. The fluid resin is then heated electrically until, at a certain
temperature, one constituent of the resin changes phase from liquid to gas, thus
creating bubbles. The rest of the resin then solidifies, resulting in an expanded
foam. By altering the applied electrical energy, qualities such as foam density
and compressibility can be controlled. Using alternating current in the process
produces a homogeneous foam. Direct current causes a thermal gradient in the
resin resulting in foam with properties that vary within the foam matrix. Molded
items can also be produced.
Below is a table excerpted from the U.S. EPA website,
http://www.epa.gov/ozone. which lists several types of polyurethane foams, the
targeted ODS, and the acceptable substitute.
3-VIII-l-l
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Application
Rigid Polyurethane, Appliance
Rigid Polyurethane, Appliance
Rigid Polyurethane, Commercial
Rigid Polyurethane, Commercial
Flexible Polyurethane
Integral Skin Polyurethane
Integral Skin Polyurethane
Polyurethane, Extruded Sheet
Targeted ODS
CFC-ll,classIODS
HCFCs, class II ODS
CFC- 11, class I ODS
HCFCs, class II ODS
CFC- 11, class I ODS
CFC- 11, class I ODS
HCFCs, class II ODS
CFC- 12, class I ODS
Substitute
HCFC-123
HCFC-141b
HCFC-142b
HCFC-22
Proprietary Blowing Agent 1 (PBA 1)
Saturated Light Hydrocarbons (C3-C6)
HFC-134a
HFC-152a
Electroset Technology
Carbon Dioxide
Vacuum Panels
Proprietary Blowing Agent (PBA 1)
Carbon Dioxide
HFC-134a
Saturated Light Hydrocarbons (C3-C6)
HCFC-123
HCFC-141b
HCFC-142b
HCFC-22
Proprietary Blowing Agent 1(PBA 1)
Saturated Light Hydrocarbons (C3-C6)
HFC-134a
HFC-152a
Electroset Technology
Carbon Dioxide
Proprietary Blowing Agent 1(PBA 1)
Saturated Light Hydrocarbons (C3-C6)
HFC-134a
HFC-152a
Electroset Technology
Carbon Dioxide
Methylene Chloride
Acetone
AB Technology
Saturated Light Hydrocarbons (C3-C6)
HFC-134a
HFC-152a
Electroset Technology
Carbon Dioxide
Methylene Chloride
Acetone
Formic Acid
Carbon Dioxide
HFC-134a
Saturated Light Hydrocarbons (C3-C6)
Acetone
Formic Acid
Saturated Light Hydrocarbons (C3-C6)
HFC-134a
HFC-152a
3-VIII-1-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Electroset Technology
Carbon Dioxide
Polyolefin
CFC-11,CFC-12,&
CFC-114,classIODSs
HCFC-142b
HCFC-22
HCFC-22/HCFC-142b Blends
HCFC-22/Saturated Light Hydrocarbons (C3-
C6) Blends
Saturated Light Hydrocarbons (C3-C6)
HFC-134a
HFC-152a
HFC-143a
Electroset Technology
Carbon Dioxide
Methylene Chloride
HFC-152a/Saturated Light Hydrocarbons (C3-
C6) Blends
Chemical Blend A
Rigid Polyurethane, Slabstock
CFC-lLclassIODS
HCFC-123
HCFC-141b
HCFC-22
Proprietary Blowing Agent 1 (PBA 1)
Saturated Light Hydrocarbons (C3-C6)
HFC-134a
HFC-152a
Electroset Technology
Carbon Dioxide
Rigid Polyurethane, Slabstock
HCFCs, class II OPS
Proprietary Blowing Agent 1 (PBA 1)
Polystyrene, Extruded
Boardstock and Billet
CFC-12,classIODS
HCFC-142b
HCFC-22
HCFC-22/ Saturated Light Hydrocarbons (C3-
C6) Blends
Saturated Light Hydrocarbons (C3-C6)
HFC-134a
HFC-152a
HFC-143a
Electroset Technology
Carbon Dioxide
Rigid Polyurethane &
Polyisocyanurate Laminated
Boardstock
CFC-lLclassIODS
HCFC-123
HCFC-141b
HCFC-142b
HCFC-22
HCFC-22/HCFC-141b Blends
HCFC-141b/HCFC-123 Blends
HCFC-22/HCFC-142b Blends
Proprietary Blowing Agent 1 (PBA1)
Saturated Light Hydrocarbons (C3-C6)
HFC-134a
HFC-152a
2-Chloropropane
Electroset Technology
Carbon Dioxide
Rigid Polyurethane &
Polyisocyanurate Laminated
HCFCs, class II ODS
Proprietary Blowing Agent 1 (PBA 1)
Saturated Light Hydrocarbons (C3-C6)
3-VIII-1-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Board stock
Phenolic Insulation Board &
Bunstock
CFC-llandCFC-113,
class I ODS
HCFC-141b
HCFC-142b
HCFC-22
HCFC-22/HCFC-142b Blends
HCFC-22/Saturated Light Hydrocarbons (C3-
C6) Blends
Saturated Light Hydrocarbons (C3-C6)
HFC-143a
2-Chloropropane
Electroset Technology
Carbon Dioxide
Compliance
Benefit:
Use of an ODS-free substitute for insulating foam will help facilities meet the
requirements under 40 CFR 82, Subpart D and Executive Order 12843
requiring federal agencies to maximize the use of safe alternatives to class I and
class U ozone depleting substances, to the maximum extent practicable. In
addition, using ODS-free insulating foam decreases the possibility that the
facility will meet reporting thresholds for ODSs under 40 CFR 355, 370 and
EO 12856. Chemicals used as substitutions should be reviewed for SARA
reporting issues
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
No material compatibility issues were identified.
Consult your local Industrial Health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these
technologies.
Reduce the amounts of CFCs and other ODSs going into the environment
None identified.
The following economic analysis is based on information provided by vendors
comparing an insulating foam which uses a CFC mixture in their formulation,
with one that uses a substitute:
3-VIII-1-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Assumptions:
Cost for a typical can of 12 oz. insulating foam: $6.99
Cost for a 12 oz. can of insulating foam which uses a CFC substitute: $5.97
Equal usage and labor rates
5 cans of insulating foam used per year
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Insulating Foam and CFC-free Insulating Foam
Operational Costs:
Materials:
Total Costs:
Total Income:
Annual Benefit:
Insulating Foam
$34.95
$34.95
-$34.95
CFC-free
Insulating Foam
$29.85
$29.85
-$29.85
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings:
Capital Cost for Equipment/Process:
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process:
$5.10
$29.85
<6 years
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
Approval
Authority:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
3-VIII-1-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Points of
Contact:
Vendors:
EPA
Stratospheric Ozone Protection Hotline
U.S. EPA
Mail Code 6205J
401 M St., SW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (800)-296-1996 or (301)-614-3396
The following list is not meant to be complete, as there are other manufacturers
of this product.
Macklanburg-Duncan
404IN. SantaFe
Oklahoma City, OK 73118
Phone: (800) 654-8454 or (405) 528-4411
Produces Macklanburg-Duncan Minimal Expanding Foam, which contains an
HCFC.
Flexible Products Co.
Insta-Foam Division
2050 N. Broadway
Joliet, IL 60435
Phone: (815) 774-6500 or (800)-800-3626
Fax:(815)774-6522
Produces Insta-Seal, which also contains an HCFC.
RHH Foam Systems, Inc.
PO Box 752
Cudahay,WI 53110-0752
Phone: (800) 728-6067
Produces polyurethane foam which does not contain any Class I ODS.
3M Corporation
1311 WaterfordRd.
Woodbury, MN 55125
Phone: (800) 480-1704 or (612) 737-7218
Produces Scotch Seal Chemical Grout 5600, which does not contain any
chlorinated solvents.
U.S. Navy
Fax:(410)293-2561
For information on "Electroset" technology.
3-VIII-1-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
FIRE STOP SETTING COMPOUNDS
Revision:
Process Code:
Usage List:
Substitute for:
5/99
Navy and Marine Corps: ID-19-99; Air Force: SV01; Army: N/A
Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Low; Air Force: Low
ODSs and propane expanded insulating foams
Compliance Benefit Score: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: ODSs
Overview:
Compliance
Benefits:
Expanded insulating foams have become popular with the evolution of building
codes in the last several years. Codes now require impervious protection
between certain walls and structures to improve fire resistance. These foams
can be applied where and when needed. However, ODS and propane-free
substitutes are preferable.
Expanded insulating foams are an important part of new building construction,
given strengthened building codes. These foams are used to seal holes between
walls especially where pipes or conduits penetrate the walls. Current expanded
foams are made from isocynate materials; however, no isocynate-free
substitutes exist. Some foams may, however, contain more innocuous
propellants than propane and ODSs, but these are not readily available.
Fire stop compounds are acceptable alternatives to expanded insulating foams
and should meet the latest building codes. The only application in which a foam
would normally be required is where an object passing through a wall or floor
will shrink in a fire; for example, polyvinyl chloride piping. However, the
expanded foam can be avoided in this case also by wrapping an intumescent
collar around the pipe and applying a fire stopping joint compound around the
annular opening.
The use of fire stop compounds in place of traditional insulating foams may help
facilities comply with 40 CFR 82, Subpart D and EO 12843, which requires
Federal agencies to maximize the use of safe alternatives to Class I and Class U
substances.
Materials
Compatibility:
No material compatibility issues were identified.
3-VIII-2-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
Consult your local Industrial Health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these
technologies.
Reduces the amount of isocynates, ODS, and alkyl propellants going into
the environment.
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
NSNs:
Product
None Identified
More expensive than insulating foams
None
NSN
Size/Cost
MSDS
Approval
Authority:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Points of Contact: None
Vendors:
This is not meant to be a complete list, as there are other manufacturers of fire
stop compounds.
Mr. Mark Chapman
National Gypsum Corporation
2001 RexfordRoad
Charlotte, N.C., 28211
(800) 628-4662, Fax: (800) 329-6421
Manufacturer of fire stop joint compound "FS-90"
U.S. Gypsum Company
(800) 874-4968
Manufacturer of fire stop joint compound "Fire Code Compound"
Mr. George Shortreed
Georgia-Pacific
(770) 987-5190 ext. 207
Manufacturer of fire stop joint compound "Fire Halt"
3-VIII-2-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
DRY FILTER PAINT BOOTH CONVERSION
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-05-99; Air Force: PA01; Army: PNT
Usage List: Navy: High; Marine Corps: High; Army: High; Air Force: High
Alternative for: Water Curtain Spray Booths
Compliance Areas: Medium
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Lead (CAS: 743 9-92-1), Chromium
(CAS: 7440-47-3), and Zinc Compounds
Overview: This data sheet covers the conversion of an existing water curtain spray booth
to a dry filter system for the removal of paint-based particulates from spray
booth air emissions.
There are many types of dry filter systems, however, all operate on the same
principle: particulate-laden air flowing towards the filter media is forced to
change directions rapidly. The paniculate, having more inertia than the
surrounding air, impacts the filter media and is removed from the air flow. The
scrubbed air is vented into the atmosphere.
Before installing this technology, there are several system issues to be
considered in the conversion of a paint spray booth. These include
characteristics and applicability of dry filter systems, required fan size, dry filter
surface area, paint booth duty cycles, and paint usage rates. An additional issue
for consideration is the existence and variation of emission regulations in this
country. Generally, the filter system must be chosen such that it meets all local,
state and federal emission regulatory standards. There are many types of dry
filter particulate emissions control systems (PECS) and filters available.
There are four principal types of filters currently used: fiberglass cartridges,
multilayer honeycombed paper rolls or pads, accordion-pleated paper sheets,
and cloth rolls or pads. Each type of filter has different characteristics for
particulate capacity, removal efficiency, cost, and replacement time. Filter
performance is characterized by three basic parameters: particulate capacity,
resistance to air flow, and particulate removal efficiency. Paint characteristics,
such as overspray particulate size distribution, should be compared to the filter's
performance parameters to obtain an effective match between components.
Filter replacement is required when the filter becomes heavily laden with
captured particulates, resulting in a reduction in removal efficiency and an
increase in the pressure differential across the filter face.
4-01-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
A filter system gaining prominence in the Air Force is the Styrobaffle Paint
Arrestor. These filters are Styrofoam-like in composition, and are less
expensive, last longer and are easier to dispose of than traditional fiberglass
filters. When these filters are ready to be disposed, they may be simply
dissolved in used paint gun cleaning solvent, which is then normally recycled.
The waste stream generated is a spent filter laden with paint booth paniculate
emissions. No other media is contaminated during the collection of the
particulate waste, hence the quantity of waste generated is minimized. For
instance, when using lead or zinc chromate paints, the dry filter can eliminate
approximately 50 to 90% of the hazardous waste that is generated by a water
curtain spray paint booth. The removal and replacement of the spent filters is a
simple procedure. The method for disposal of the spent filters will depend on
the particular constituents of the paint used. Many facilities now segregate
operations involving hazardous and non-hazardous painting into separate paint
booths in order to expedite waste handling and disposal.
The existing technology employs a water curtain to remove particulate
emissions. The primary disadvantage of this technology is the generation of
large quantities of wastewater and paint sludge. The wastewater typically
requires off-site treatment and the paint sludge is frequently disposed as a
hazardous waste.
The Styrobaffle Paint Arrestors are highly recommended where applicable and
are best used as the first stage of a two or three-layer airsystem. However,
they do not meet NESHAP requirements and could not be used where the
Aerospace NESHAP requirements are enforced. This does not apply to all Air
Force bases.
Compliance
Benefit: Use of a dry filter paint booth eliminates the wastewater and paint sludge (i.e.,
less hazardous waste is generated) which are generated with a water curtain.
This benefit helps facilities meet the requirements of waste reduction under
RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix, and may also help facilities reduce their
generator status and lessen the number of applicable of regulatory (i.e.,
recordkeeping, reporting, inspections, transportation, accumulation time,
emergency prevention and preparedness, emergency response) requirements
under RCRA, 40 CFR 262. In addition, the dry filter paint booth uses less
water and electricity which meets the requirements in EO 12902. Conversion
to a dry filter system may also decrease a facility's need for an industrial
wastewater discharge permit (local issue).
4-01-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Powder paint is typically not used in dry filter paint booths because this type of
paint is usually recycled, which is not economical when using a dry filter paint
booth.
Facilities which must comply with the National Emissions Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Aerospace Manufacturing and
Rework must use a two stage dry filter system. If the booth is new and the
paint contains chromium or cadmium, then a three stage dry filter system must
be used.
The concerns with the dry filter systems are with the variety of paints that are
used and the potential contaminant exposure. When using lead and zinc
chromate paints, inhalation of lead or zinc can irritate the respiratory tract and
can be poisonous. Some lead compounds are known to be carcinogenic.
Solvent-based paints can irritate the lungs and mucous membranes. Prolonged
exposure can affect respiration and the central nervous system. Proper
personal protective equipment (PPE) and filter handling procedures designed to
minimize the release of paint dust into the air should be used.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
Decreased operating costs when compared to water curtain spray booths:
Eliminates chemical costs
Reduces electrical costs
- Eliminates water costs and potential sewer disposal costs
Reduces waste generation by eliminating wastewater and paint sludge
wastes
Eliminates need for daily skimming and removal of sludge from the booth
Increased particulate removal efficiency
Disadvantages:
Not compatible with powder paint applications
4-01-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Requires the comparison of filter parameters, and paint characteristics prior
to selecting the filter that will maximize the capture of overspray particulates
Economic
Analysis: Converting a water curtain spray booth to a dry filter paint booth can be easily
accomplished and can be done in-house. The cost of conversion usually ranges
from $200 to $2,000, depending on the size and condition of the old water
curtain spray booth. Purchasing a new dry filter paint booth can cost between
$2,000 and $20,000. The conversion from a water curtain spray booth to a
dry filter paint booth can save several thousand dollars in operating and
maintenance costs per year.
* Assumptions (from Columbus Industries, Inc.):
Water curtain spray booth is 7' high, 12' wide; dry filter booth has
28 modules, each 20"x 20"
Eight-hour shift, five days per week
Electricity cost: $0.055/kwh
Power requirements: water curtain system uses 15 hp motor, dry
filter uses three hp motor
Chemical requirements for water curtain system: 20 Ibs/shift
Chemical cost: $0.80/lb
Filters usage rate: 10/shift
Filter cost: $0.62/filter
Wastewater generated: 1,000 gallons/shift
Wastewater sludge generated: 20 Ibs/shift
Labor requirements: water curtain requires 12 min./shift, dry filter
requires 10 min./shift
Labor rate: $45/hr
Dry filter disposal cost: $ I/filter
Wastewater disposal cost: $8.24/1,000 gallons
Wastewater sludge disposal cost: $2/lb
4-01-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Dry Filter Paint Booth Conversion and Water Curtain Spray Booth
Dry Filter Water Curtain
Operational Costs:
Labor: $2,000 $2,300
Material $1,600 $4,200
Energy $260 $1,300
Waste Disposal $2,600 $12,500
Total Costs: $6,500 $20,300
Total Income: $0 $0
Annual Benefit: -$6,500 -$20,300
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for Dry Filter System: $13,800
* Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $2,000
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: < 1 year
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost
None Identified
Approving
Authority: Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required. Authority
for conversion is local at each base.
Points
of Contact: Navy:
Mr. Charles Tittle
Naval Sea Systems Command, SEA OOTF
2531 Jefferson Davis Hwy.
Arlington, VA 22242-5160
Phone: (703) 602-3594
DSN: 332-3594 Fax: (703) 602-7213
4-01-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Vendors:
Sources:
Mr. Bob Fredrickson
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, ESC423
1100 23rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-4897 DSN: 551-4897
Fax: (805) 982-4832
Air Force:
Mr. Charles McKenna
Air Force Corrosion Program Office
AFRL/MLS-OLR(NCI)
325 2nd Street
Robins AFB, GA 31098-1640
Phone: (912) 926-3284, DSN: 468-3284
Fax: (912) 926-6619
The following is a list of Dry Filter Booth manufacturers. This is not meant to be
a complete list, as there are other manufacturers of this type of equipment.
Additional companies that manufacture, install, modify and/or design this
equipment may be located in the Thomas Register of American Manufacturers.
Columbus Industries, Inc.
P.O. Box 257
2938 State Route 752
Ashville, OH43103
(614) 983-2552
The DeVilbiss Company
1724 Indianwood Circle, Suite F,
Maumee, OH 43537-4050
(800) 338-4448
Research Products Corp.
P.O. Box 1467
Madison, WI 53701-1467
(608)257-8801
Chemco Manufacturing Company, Inc.
3175MacArthurBlvd.
Northbrook, Illinois
(800)323-0431
Columbus Industries, Ashville, OH
4-01-6
-------
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
ELECTROSTATIC PAINT SPRAY SYSTEM
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-05-03; Air Force: PA01; Army: PNT
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium: Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
Alternative for: High Velocity Paint Spray Systems
Compliance Areas: Medium
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Toluene (CAS: 108-88-3), Xylene (CAS: 1330-
20-7), Methyl Ethyl Ketone (CAS: 78-93-3), Acetone (CAS: 67-64-1), n-Butyl Alcohol (CAS: 71-
36-3), Lead (CAS: 7439-92-1), Chromium (CAS: 7440-47-3), Zinc Compounds
Overview: An electrostatic paint spray system is a highly efficient technology for the
application of paint to specific workpieces. Negatively charged atomized paint
particles and a grounded workpiece create an electrostatic field that draws the
paint particle to the workpiece, minimizing overspray.
For this technology, an ionizing electrode, typically located at the paint gun
atomizer tip, causes paint particles to pick up additional electrons and become
negatively charged. As the coating is deposited on the workpiece, the charge
dissipates through the ground and returns to the power supply, completing the
circuit. The electrostatic field influences the path of the paint particles. Because
the charged particles are attracted to the grounded workpiece, overspray is
significantly reduced. Paint particles that pass a workpiece can be attracted to
and deposited on the back of the piece. This phenomenon is known as "wrap".
The transfer efficiency is the percent of sprayed paint that is applied to the
workpiece. Paint that is not applied to a workpiece is captured in the paint
spray booth's emission control system and ultimately disposed as waste. The
typical transfer efficiency for an electrostatic paint spray system is 75%. The
electrostatic paint spray system is an excellent process, potentially with many
applications that, unfortunately, can be difficult to implement due to poor
worker acceptance.
In conventional paint spray systems, paint atomization occurs via high velocity
air jets forcing paint through small air holes in the paint gun face caps. Air
pressures used in these systems range from 40 to 80 psi, with air volumes of 8
to 30 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm). The atomized paint particles travel
at high velocities and have a greater tendency to bounce off the object being
painted, as compared to electrostatic systems.
4-02-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Paints used for electrostatic painting must be formulated with polarizable
solvents. Personnel responsible for ordering the paint should coordinate with
the supplier/manufacturer to ensure that they obtain the proper formulation.
No new wastes are generated when a conventional paint spray system is
converted to an electrostatic paint spray system. Significant reductions in waste
generation are achieved due to the electrostatic systems increased transfer
efficiency.
A potential drawback to electrostatic finishing, particularly for coating
complicated surfaces, is the Faraday cage effect: a tendency for charged coating
particles to deposit around entrances of cavities. The Faraday cage effect
allows electric charges on a conductor to reside on the outer surface of the
conductor. In the case of coating complicated surfaces, the electric charge
resides on the entrances of cavities. High particle momentum can help
overcome Faraday cage effects, since particles with greater momentum (larger
particles or particles traveling at higher speeds) are influenced less by the
electrostatic forces. However, high particle momentum also lowers efficiency.
Electrostatic paint equipment is available in three basic types: air atomized,
airless, and rotating discs and bells. High-speed discs atomize the coating more
finely than air atomization and direct more paint to the target. This technology is
particularly efficient for the application of difficult to disperse, high-solids paints.
However, the Faraday cage effect is generally greater with rotary atomizers than
with air or airless types. Rotary atomizers, therefore, may not provide adequate
coverage for complicated surfaces.
Compliance
Benefit: The higher transfer efficiency of an electrostatic paint system will result in a
reduction of hazardous waste generated (i.e., filters do not have to be changed
as often). This benefit helps facilities meet the requirements of waste reduction
under RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix, and may also help facilities reduce
their generator status and lessen the number of regulatory (i.e., recordkeeping,
reporting, inspections, transportation, accumulation time, emergency prevention
and preparedness, emergency response) requirements applicable under
RCRA, 40 CFR 262. In addition, the higher transfer efficiency means that
fewer hazardous chemicals (i.e., paints) are used and therefore, the possibility
that a facility meets any of the reporting thresholds of SARA Title HJ for those
chemicals (40 CFR 300, 355, 370, and 372; and EO 12856) is decreased.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
4-02-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
All primers, paints and coatings applied by electrostatic spray systems must be
formulated with polarizable solvents. Any material that can be atomized can
accept an electrostatic charge, regardless of the coating conductivity. The
workpiece must also be groundable. Metal and some wooden pieces can be
painted electrostatically, but plastic, rubber, ceramic, and glass can not.
Electrostatic paint spray systems operate at high voltages (30 to 150 kV).
Hence, operator safety is a major concern. All items in the work area must be
grounded, including the operators, the paint booth, the application equipment
(unless applying conductive coatings), and conveyors. Ungrounded items
should be removed from the work area. Removing paint buildup from the paint
booth helps assure that workpieces are grounded. Workers should never wear
rubber- or corked-soled shoes (special shoe-grounding devices are available.).
Adequate skin contact is required when using hand-held guns. Painters should
grasp the gun with bare hands or use gloves with finger tips and palms cut out.
Proper design, operation and maintenance of the equipment is required for its
safe use. The spray booth must be well ventilated. Additional health concerns
depend on the coating being applied. Inhalation of lead and zinc chromate
based paints can irritate the respiratory system. Some lead compounds are
carcinogenic. Solvent based coatings can irritate the lungs and mucous
membranes. Prolonged exposure can affect the respiration system and/or the
central nervous system. Proper personnel protective equipment should be
worn, if required.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
Higher transfer efficiencies result in significant reductions in both paint usage
and waste generated.
Less maintenance is required for pollution control equipment serving the
paint booth.
Disadvantages:
High capital cost and more spray equipment maintenance is required.
The electric charges tend to repel on complicated surfaces.
Faraday Cage Effect
4-02-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Surface imperfections are possible due to air molecules becoming trapped
in the coating surface.
Economic
Analysis: Cost will vary, depending upon specific applications: painting/coating type, paint
volume, workpiece specifications, and technique. Generally, electrostatic air
systems cost approximately $4,000, and electrostatic airless systems cost
approximately $6,500. Installation and training are additional costs. According
to the Air Force Corrosion Program Office, the costs for procuring polarizable
solvent paints may be higher than is stated in this analysis, particularly for small
volume users. Thus, the overall costs associated with using an electrostatic
paint spray system may be higher than what is presented in this analysis:
* Assumptions:
Gallons of paint applied to surface per year: 5,000 gallons
Paint procurement cost: $50/gallon
Transfer efficiency of electrostatic spray: 75 percent
Transfer efficiency of high velocity Spray: 50 percent
Gallons of paint purchased: 6,667 gallons for electrostatic, 10,000
gallons for high velocity
Operating hours: 145 hours for electrostatic, 200 for high velocity
Labor rate: $45/hr
Waste paint collected using dry filter system.
Dry filter replacement rate: 1.25 dry filters/hour
Dry filter disposal cost: $ I/filter
4-02-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Electrostatic Paint Spraying and High Velocity Paint Spraying
Operational Costs:
Labor:
Material
Waste Disposal
Total Costs:
Total Income:
Annual Benefit:
Electrostatic
$6,500
$333,500
$200
$340,200
$0
-$340,200
High Velocity
$9,000
$500,000
$300
$509,300
$0
-$509,300
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for Electrostatic Paint Spraying: $169,100
* Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $5,300
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: <1 year
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
ES Paint Gun
ES Paint Outfit
Paint/Full Gloss/Red
Paint/Semi-Gloss/Grn.
Paint/Flat/Blue-Gray
NSN
4940-01-225-3846
5331-01-061-3263
8010-01-293-1366
8010-01-396-6846
8010-01-293-6187
Unit Size
Ipt.
2 gal.
2qt.
Cost
Local
Purchase
$27.41
$6.54
$113.00
$18.53
MSDS*
Click me
Click me
*There are multiple MSDSsfor most NSNs. The MSDS shown here is only meant to serve as an
example. To return from the MSDS, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar
Approving
Authority:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
4-02-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
The Air Force Corrosion Program Office is an approving authority for US Air
Force applications. Table of Allowance (TA) 480 provides authorization,
sources, and National Stock Numbers of electrostatic paint equipment, but
authority resides at the local level. US AIR FORCE Technical Order 1-1-8,
"Application of Organic Coating Systems to Air Force Equipment" also
authorizes the use of electrostatic spray paint systems.
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
Navy:
Mr. Scott Mauro
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, ESC423
1100 23rd Avenue
PortHueneme, CA 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-4889, DSN: 551-4889
FAX: (805) 982-4832
Air Force:
Mr. Charles McKenna
Air Force Corrosion Program Office
AFRL/MLS-OLR(NCI)
325 2nd Street
Robins AFB, GA 31098-1640
Phone: (912) 926-3284, DSN: 468-3284
Fax: (912) 926-6619
The following is a list of electrostatic spray painting system manufacturers. This
is not meant to be a complete list, as there may be other manufacturers of this
type of equipment. Additional companies that manufacture, install, modify and/or
design electrostatic spray painting systems may be located in the Thomas
Register of American Manufacturers.
Accuspray, Inc.
23350MerchantileRd.
Cleveland, OH 44122
Phone: (800) 618-6860 or (216) 595-6860
Fax:(216) 595-6868
Binks Manufacturing Co.
9201 W. BelmontAve.
Franklin Park, IL 60131
Phone: (847) 671-3000
Customer Service Fax: (847) 671-3067
4-02-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
The DeVilbiss Co.
1724 Indian Wood Circle
Maumee, OH 43537
Phone:(419)891-8191
Fax:(800)338-0131
Graco, Inc.
P.O. Box 1441
Minneapolis, MN 55440-1441
Phone: (800) 367-4023
Fax: (612) 623-6777
US Air Force Table of Allowance (TA) 480:
Cart Mounted Electrostatic Spray Outfit
National Stock Number (NSN) 4940-01-061-3263
Graco Corporation Part Number (P/N) AEX-3-1B
US Air Force Table of Allowance (TA) 480:
1/2 Airless, 1/2 Electrostatic Spray Gun
National Stock Number (NSN) 4940-01-225-3846
Sprayco Incorporated Part Number (P/N) 230987
Sources: Robinson, Frank and Dennis Stephens, "Understanding Electrostatic Finishing, "
Industrial Finishing, 9/90, p 34-37.
"Reducing Waste in Railcar Coating Operations, " Graco Equipment and Emissions
Update, June 1994, pp. 8-9.
4-02-7
-------
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
HIGH VOLUME LOW PRESSURE PAINT SPRAY SYSTEM
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-06-04, ID-05-01/-02; Air Force: PA01; Army:
PNT
Usage List: Navy: High; Marine Corps: High; Army: High; Air Force: High
Alternative for: High Velocity Paint Spray Systems
Compliance Areas: Medium
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Toluene (CAS: 108-88-3), Xylenes (CAS: 1330-
20-7), Methyl Ethyl Ketone (CAS: 78-93-3), Acetone (CAS: 67-64-1), n-Butyl Alcohol (CAS: 71-
36-3), Lead (CAS: 7439-92-1), Chromium (CAS: 7440-47-3), Zinc Compounds
Overview: A High Volume/Low Pressure (HVLP) paint spray system is an efficient
technology for the application of paint to specific workpieces. These systems
operate at low pressures which result in the application of paint at low
velocities.
HVLP paint systems atomize paint via a high volume of air delivered at a low
pressure (less than 10 psi). Because the atomized paint particles are delivered at
low velocities to the object being painted, less paint is lost as overspray,
bounce, and blow back. Typically the transfer efficiency with HVLP paint
system is 50 to 65%.
The effect this technology has on pollution prevention is that the paint delivered
at low velocities results in a higher transfer efficiency as compared to
conventional paint spray systems. In conventional spray systems, a stream of
liquid paint is met by jets of pressurized air which form the paint into a fine mist
A typical system employs 100 psi of constant air pressure in a volume of
approximately 25 cfm. The atomized paint particles travel at high velocities and
tend to bounce off the object being painted rather than adhering to the surface.
In addition, the expanding high pressure air (above 100 psi) passing through the
small face cap openings causes turbulent flow of the paint stream following air
currents within the paint booth. The amount of paint that bypasses the
workpiece (overspray) is relatively high for air pressure atomized spray painting.
Transfer efficiencies of 25 to 30% are associated with conventional spray
systems.
There are three other types of high transfer efficiency paint guns: airless (also
called pressure atomized), pressure atomized air-assisted, and electrostatic.
Electrostatic paint spray systems are discussed in a separate Pollution
4-03-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Prevention Opportunity Data Sheet, Electrostatic Paint Spray System. The
other two are described below.
Compliance
Benefit:
Airless spray painting systems atomize paint by forcing it through a small tip
orifice at high fluid pressures (1,500 to 3,000 psi). Transfer efficiencies with
airless spray painting are lower than HVLP systems, typically 20 to 40%.
Large areas can be painted quickly by pressure atomized paint systems. This
technology is, however, inappropriate for fine finishing work, because a large
quantity of paint is delivered with particles that are less finely divided.
Pressure-atomized, air-assisted systems combine the features of the air
atomized (conventional) and airless systems. An airless fluid spray nozzle is
used to atomize the coating into a fan pattern at high pressures (400 to 800 psi).
A second, low-pressure air stream (10 to 30 psi) is injected after the nozzle to
improve atomization and the spray pattern. This system is reported to provide
the fine control of air-atomized spray guns and the improved transfer efficiencies
of airless systems. Transfer efficiencies for pressure-atomized, air-assisted
systems are comparable to HVLP systems. The airless systems generate
significant waste in the process of clean-up and material changes, as compared
to the HVLP system.
The higher transfer efficiency of an HVLP paint system will result in a reduction
of hazardous waste generated (i.e., filters do not have to be changed as often).
This benefit helps facilities meet the requirements of waste reduction under
RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix, and may also help facilities reduce their
generator status and lessen the number of regulatory (i.e., recordkeeping,
reporting, inspections, transportation, accumulation time, emergency prevention
and preparedness, emergency response) requirements under RCRA, 40 CFR
262. In addition, the higher transfer efficiency means that fewer hazardous
chemicals (i.e., paints) are used, therefore lowering the possibility that a facility
meets any of the reporting thresholds of SARA Title HJ for those chemicals (40
CFR 300, 355, 370, and 372; and EO 12856)
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
HVLP paint spray systems can be used in a wide variety of painting
applications. The finer atomization of HVLP systems produce smoother surface
4-03-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
finishes. There are many paint gun models, with a variety of tip sizes to
accommodate most coatings, including solvent-based paints, water based
coatings, fine finish metallic, high-solids polyurethane, contact adhesives,
varnish, top coats, lacquer, enamel primer, latex primer, epoxy, and vinyl fluids.
The manufacturers guidance should be followed in all maintenance and
operating aspects, particularly when spraying high solids paints. Clogging
problems can hamper painting operations if the technician is not familiar with the
equipment or the application techniques required. The efficiency of this system
is reduced if painting is done in exposed areas.
Proper design, operation, and maintenance of the equipment is required for its
safe use. The spray booth must be well ventilated. The coating characteristics
and application procedures (such as surface preparation, spraying and clean-
up) present additional health concerns. The inhalation of lead or zinc can irritate
the respiratory tract and may even result in instances of poisoning. Some lead
compounds are even known to be carcinogenic. Solvent based paints can
irritate the lungs and mucous membranes. Prolonged exposure can affect
respiration and the central nervous system. Proper personal protective
equipment (PPE) should be worn.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these
technologies.
Higher transfer efficiencies result in significant reductions in both paint usage
and waste generation.
Less maintenance is required for pollution control equipment serving the
painting area.
Paint solvent waste and emissions can be further minimized by utilizing a
paint gun cleaning station and solvent recovery system. The USAF has
authorized paint gun cleaning stations for use under Table of Allowance
(TA) 480.
Disadvantages:
HVLP systems are sensitive to changes in temperature, pressure and air
flow rate. The operator must monitor these conditions to ensure that proper
transfer efficiencies are maintained.
Solvent-based paints (epoxy, lacquer, polyurethane, and oil-based enamels)
will require a solvent to adequately clean the spray guns.
4-03-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Economic
Analysis: Costs will vary depending upon specific applications, painting/coating type,
paint volume, workpiece specifications, and technique. Generally, HVLP paint
spray system equipment costs approximately $1,000 for a gun, hose, and paint
pot. Airless or air-assisted airless paint spray systems range from $2,000 to
$3,500. Installation costs will also vary, depending upon location.
* Assumptions:
Gallons of paint applied to surface per year: 5,000 gallons
Gallons of paint purchased per year with HVLP system: 10,000
gallons
Gallons of paint purchased per year with high velocity spray system:
20,000 gallons
Paint procurement cost: $50/gallon - Most paints used by the Air
Force are two component epoxies or polyurethanes coatings that
cost around $100 for a two gallon kit.
Transfer efficiency of HVLP gun: 50%
Transfer efficiency of high velocity spray system: 25%
Labor requirements: The only significant difference in labor between
these systems is the maintenance requirements as there is no
difference in painting times.
Labor for High Velocity Spray Systems: 400 hours
Labor savings for HVLP: 10%
Labor rate: $45/hr.
Waste paint collected using dry filter system.
Dry filter replacement rate: 1.25 dry filters/hour
Dry filter disposal cost: $ I/filter
4-03-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
HVLP Spray Systems and High Velocity Spray Systems
Operational Costs:
Labor:
Paint:
Waste Disposal
Total Costs:
Total Income:
Annual Benefit:
HVLP Spray
Systems
$16,200
$500,000
$450
$516,650
$0
-$516,650
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for HVLP Spray Systems:
* Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process:
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process:
High Velocity
Spray Systems
$18,000
$1,000,000
$500
$1,018,500
$0
-$1,018,500
$501,850
$ 1 ,000
Immediate
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values. To
return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
HVLP Gun
HVLP Gun
Paint Outfit
Paint Outfit
Approving
Authority:
Unit Size
ea.
ea.
ea. (2 gal)
ea. (5 gal)
Cost
$364.76
$303.00
$1,303.98
$2,791.00
NSN
4940-01-315-8352
4940-01-345-2132
4940-01-316-2146
4940-00-255-8683
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
The HVLP system is the preferred paint system by the Air Force in T.0.1-
1-8 for general paint applications. It is authorized in Table of Allowance
480, but authority resides at the local level.
4-03-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
Navy:
Mr. Scott Mauro
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, ESC423
1100 23rd Avenue
PortHueneme, CA 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-4889, DSN: 551-4889
FAX: (805) 982-4832
Air Force:
Mr. Dave Ellicks
Air Force Corrosion Program Office
AFRL/MLS-OLR
325 2nd Street
Robins AFB, GA 31098-1640
Phone: (912) 926-3284, DSN: 468-3284
Fax: (912) 926-6619
The following is a list of FTVLP spray painting system manufacturers. This is not
meant to be a complete list, as there may be other manufacturers of this type of
equipment. Additional companies that manufacture, install, modify and/or
design HVLP spray painting systems may be located in the Thomas Register of
American Manufacturers.
Accuspray, Inc.
23350MerchantileRd.
Cleveland, OH 44122
Phone: (800) 618-6860 or (216) 595-6860,
Fax:(216) 595-6868
Binks Manufacturing Co.
9201 W. BelmontAve.
Franklin Park, IL 60131
Phone: (847) 671-3000
Customer Service Fax: (847) 671-3067
The DeVilbiss Co.
1724 Indian Wood Circle
Maumee, OH 43537
Phone:(416)470-2169
Fax:(800)338-0131
4-03-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Graco, Inc.
P.O. Box 1441
Minneapolis, MN 55440-1441
Phone: (800) 367-4023
Fax: (612) 623-6777
US Air Force Table of Allowance (TA) 480 should be used by Air Force
personnel for National Stock Number (NSN), sources of supply, and costs.
Enviro$ense Fact Sheet: High Volume Low Pressure Spray Equipment
(http://es.inel.gov/program/regional/state/wi/hvlp.html) lists additional vendors
and manufacturers.
Source: The DeVilbiss Co., Maumee, OH 43537
4-03-7
-------
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
PLURAL COMPONENT PROPORTIONING SYSTEM FOR EPOXY PAINTS
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-05-99; Air Force: PA01; Army: PNT
Usage List: Navy: Low, Marine Corps: Low; Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
Alternative For: Manual Paint Mixing of Epoxy Paints
Compliance Areas: High
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Toluene (CAS: 108-88-3), Xylenes (CAS: 1330-
20-7), Methyl Ethyl Ketone (CAS: 78-93-3), Acetone (CAS: 67-64-1), n-Butyl Alcohol (CAS: 71-
36-3), Lead (CAS: 7439-92-1), Chromium (CAS: 7440-47-3), Zinc Compounds
Overview: Plural component proportioning systems are self-contained epoxy paint
proportioning and mixing systems. These systems provide proper mixing and
precise generation of paint required by an application and consequently
generate minimal waste.
Epoxy paint mixtures are prepared by premixing a base and a catalyst, and
combining them in appropriate proportions in a separate container. After mixing
and waiting the specified time, application of the paint to the workpiece may
proceed. Epoxy paint ingredients have a limited pot life once mixed, which
cannot be exceeded without affecting the characteristics of the paint. If the pot
life is exceeded, the mixture must be disposed, and the application equipment
must be cleaned with a solvent. Under conventional methods, the mixture is
prepared by hand. This frequently results in the generation of excess paint,
which requires solvent cleanup and disposal of the paint and solvent as a
hazardous waste.
Proportional paint systems are also suitable for polyurethane paints and should
have many of the same benefits of epoxy paint mixtures. An additional benefit is
that since the mixing is automated it also tends to be more accurate and
consistent than conventional mixing systems.
Plural component proportioning systems are used in conjunction with
application devices. The proportioning and application system layout typically
includes the following components: 1) proportioning pump module, 2) mix
manifold, 3) mixer, 4) application device, 5) material supply module, and 6)
purge or flush module. These systems optimize painting operations by
maximizing efficiency and minimizing waste generated.
The plural component proportioning system for epoxy paints provides total
control of materials from containers) to application. They are accurate and can
4-04-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
provide more consistent material quality than hand mixing. These systems can
also keep pace with higher production requirements. They mix on demand (i.e.
as the gun is triggered), which results in no significant quantities of wasted
materials. Material cleanup requires less labor and maintenance, and generates
less waste because the mixed material can be purged with solvent from the mix
manifold, mixer, hose, and applicator before it cures. The plural component
proportioning system is a closed system and, as a result, there are fewer spills,
less contamination or waste to clean up, and less contact between personnel
and potentially hazardous materials. In addition, the proportioning system
makes bulk purchase of material practical.
If an epoxy paint requires a significant induction time (15 minutes or longer) the
plural component proportioning system can still be used, provided that the
mixed paint is allowed to stand in a separate container prior to application.
A PrecisionMix (P-Mix) controller for the plural component proportioning
system may also be implemented. The P-Mix controller is an electronic system
which continuously mixes resin and catalyst at a pre-selected ratio in small
batches, delivering the mixed material on command. The P-Mix can detect
ratio problems and prevents off-ratio coatings from being applied. This often
results in a significant reduction in rejection rates. The P-Mix system also
reduces the time required for color changes, because the required mix ratios are
entered electronically. All materials are contained in the system; the electronic
control allows color changes and flushing to take place without exposing the
operator to hazardous materials. The P-Mix system can also generate hard
copy reports for environmental and product usage information. Some of the
operating parameters reported are flow rate, mix ratio, resin usage, catalyst
usage, and solvent usage.
No new wastestreams are generated using Plural Component Proportioning
Systems as compared to conventional methods.
Compliance
Benefit: An epoxy plural component proportioning system will eliminate the generation
of excess paint. The system also requires less cleanup solvents and decreases
spills in comparison to traditional handmixing. The decrease in hazardous waste
helps facilities meet the requirements of waste reduction under RCRA, 40
CFR 262, Appendix, and may also help facilities reduce their generator status
and lessen the number of regulatory (i.e., recordkeeping, reporting, inspections,
transportation, accumulation time, emergency prevention and preparedness,
emergency response) requirements applicable under RCRA, 40 CFR 262. In
addition, since less paint and less solvent are used with the plural component
proportion system the possibility that a facility meets any of the reporting
4-04-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
thresholds of SARA Title m for those chemicals (40 CFR 300, 355, 370, and
372; and EO 12856) is decreased. Moreover, since the plural component
proportioning system is a closed system and the components are mixed inside
the applicator the potential release of hazardous air pollutants to the air is
reduced which may decrease the likelihood of the facility requiring an air permit
under 40 CFR 70 and 71
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Material specification data for the epoxy paint materials needs to be evaluated
with respect to the proportioning and application system components prior to
specification of the actual system to ensure material compatibility. The materials
used for the pumps and packings need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Stainless steel and Teflonฎ components do not pose compatibility problems
with most materials used in epoxy paint operations.
Health concerns are dependent on the variety of paint that is used. The use of
polyurethane paints requires implementation of precautions associated with
isocyanates. Inhalation of lead- and zinc chromate-based paints can lead to
irritation of the respiratory system. Some lead compounds are carcinogenic.
Solvent-based paints can irritate the lungs and mucous membranes. Prolonged
exposure can affect respiration and the central nervous system. Proper
personal protective (PPE) equipment should be used. These safety and health
issues are also applicable when using conventional methods.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
Plural component proportioning system provides total control of materials
from container to application.
Paint is generated on an as-needed basis, eliminating the generation of
excess paint. Under conventional methods, this excess paint is frequently
disposed as hazardous waste.
Plural component proportioning systems are effective for many two
component paint systems besides epoxy paints, such as polyurethane paints.
The use of cleanup solvents is minimized.
4-04-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Less potential for spills.
Less contact between personnel and potentially hazardous materials
Cost savings associated with buying paint in bulk.
Disadvantage:
Economic
Analysis:
Plural component proportioning systems need to be designed for specific
applications.
Plural component proportioning systems are only effective where
production utilizes significant quantities of paint and where color or types of
coating are not changed routinely.
Capital costs for plural component proportioning systems can range from
$50,000 to $70,000 for systems that mix multiple materials or $6,000 to
$7,000 for basic units that mix two materials. Application systems are
additional and their capital costs can range from $500 to $5,000. Each
application needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis with respect to
material and labor costs and savings.
The following is an example of the replacement of a hand-mixing paint operation
with a relatively simple Plural Component Proportioning System.
* Assumptions:
Annual paint usage for hand mixing system: 4,000 gallons
Annual solvent usage for hand mixing system: 2,250 gallons
Annual labor required for equipment cleaning using hand mixing
system: 250 hours
Annual solid paint waste generated using hand mixing system: 5,500
pounds
Paint cost: $85/gallon
Solvent cost: $7/gallon
Labor rate: $45/hr
Paint solid waste disposal at $ I/pound
Solvent waste disposal at $3/gallon
All solvent is disposed as waste
Plural component proportioning system reduces paint usage by
15%
4-04-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Plural component proportioning system reduces solvent usage and
waste by 50%
Plural component proportioning system reduces labor usage by
50%
Plural component proportioning system reduces paint waste by
50%
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Plural Component Proportioning System and Hand Mixing System
Plural Component Hand Mixing
Proportioning System System
Operational Costs:
Labor: $5,600 $11,300
Paint and Solvent: $296,900 $355,800
Waste Disposal $6,100 $12,300
Total Costs: $308,600 $379,400
Total Income: $0 $0
Annual Benefit: -$308,600 -$379,400
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for Plural Component System: $70,800
* Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $ 15,000
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: <1 year
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost
None Identified
Approving
Authority: Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
4-04-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
In the Air Force, approval authority is local and does not require engineering
approval. The authorization for use of this equipment is being added to T.O.l-
1-8.
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
Navy:
Mr. Scott Mauro
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, Code 423
1100 23rd Avenue
PortHueneme, CA 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-4889, DSN: 551-4889
FAX: (805) 982-4832
Air Force:
Mr. John Lindsay
Air Force Corrosion Program Office
AFRL/MLS-OLR
325 2nd Street
Robins AFB, GA 31098-1640
Phone: (912) 926-3284, DSN: 468-3284
FAX: (912) 926-6619
The following is a list of plural component proportioning system manufacturers.
This is not meant to be a complete list, as there may be other manufacturers of
this type of equipment.
DeVilbiss Ransburg Industrial Liquid Systems
320 Phillips Avenue
Toledo, OH 43612
Phone: (800) 233-3366
Fax:(419)470-2270
Graco Inc.
P.O. Box 1441
Minneapolis, MN 55440-1441
Phone: (800) 367-4023
Fax: (612) 623-6777
Binks Manufacturing Company
9201 Belmont Avenue
Franklin Park, IL 60131-2887
4-04-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Phone: (847) 671-3000
Fax: (847) 671-4248
Source: Mr. Jeff Smith, DeVilbiss Ransburg Industrial Liquid Systems, Toledo, OH
Mr. Carl Springer, Binks Manufacturing Company, Franklin Park, IL
4-04-7
-------
-------
r
a
-Av-w
Ml Hump
-p
];
Cat* ^K K| mv
unttr imr
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
POWDER COATING PAINTING SYSTEM
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-05-03, ID-05-04; Air Force: PA01; Army: PNT
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Low
Alternative For: Conventional Solvent-based, Waterborne, or High Solids Painting
Compliance Areas: High
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Acetone (CAS: 67-64-1), n-Butanol (CAS: 71 -
36-3), Lead (CAS: 7439-92-1), Methyl Ethyl Ketone (CAS: 78-93-3), Toluene (CAS: 108-88-3),
and Xylenes (CAS: 1330-20-7)
Overview: Powder coating paint systems, also referred to as "dry painting", eliminate
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), and
solvents, and produce superior surface finish.
There are four basic powder coating processes: electrostatic spraying, fluidized
bed, electrostatic fluidized bed, and flame spray. Electrostatic spraying is the
most commonly used powder application method. For all application methods,
surface preparation (i.e. cleaning and conversion coating) is required to develop
a good coating adhesion substrate. Characteristics of the four different powder
coating application techniques are described below.
In electrostatic spraying, an electrical charge is applied to the dry powder
particles while the component to be painted is electrically grounded. The
charged powder and grounded workpiece create an electrostatic field that pulls
the paint particles to the workpiece. The coating deposited on the workpiece
retains its charge, which holds the powder to the workpiece. The coated
workpiece is placed in a curing oven, where the paint particles are melted onto
the surface and the charge is dissipated.
In fluidized bed, powder particles are kept in suspension by an air stream. A
preheated workpiece is placed in the fluidized bed where the powder particles
coming in contact with the workpiece melt and adhere to its surface. Coating
thickness is dependent on the temperature and heat capacity of the workpiece
and its residence time in the bed. Post heating is generally not required when
applying thermoplastic powder coatings. However, post heating is required to
cure thermoset powder coatings completely.
Electrostatic fluidized beds are similar in design to conventional fluidized beds,
but the air stream is electrically charged as it enters the bed. The ionized air
charges the powder particles as they move upward in the bed, forming a cloud
4-05-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
of charged particles. The grounded workpiece is covered by the charged
particles as it enters the chamber. No preheating of the workpiece is required.
However, curing of the coating is necessary. This technology is most suitable
for coating small objects with simple geometry.
The flame-spray technique was recently developed for application of
thermoplastic powder coatings. The thermoplastic powder is fluidized by
compressed air and fed into a flame gun where it is injected through a flame of
propane, melting the powder. The molten coating particles are deposited on the
workpiece, forming a film on solidification. Since no direct heating of the
workpiece is required, this technique is suitable for applying coatings to most
substrates. Metal, wood, rubber, and masonry can be coated successfully using
this technique. This technology is also suitable for coating large or permanently-
fixed objects.
The choice of powders is dependent on the end-use application and desired
properties. Typically, powders are individually formulated to meet specific
finishing needs. Nevertheless, powder coatings fall into two basic categories:
thermoplastic and thermosetting. The choice is application dependent.
Generally, thermoplastic powders are more suitable for thicker coatings,
providing increased durability, while thermosetting powders are often used
when comparatively thin coatings are desired, such as decorative coatings. The
principal resins used in thermoplastic powders are vinyl, nylon, and
fluoropolymer. Thermosetting powders use primarily epoxy, polyester, and
acrylic resins.
Powder coating virtually eliminates waste streams associated with conventional
painting techniques. These waste streams include air emissions, waste streams
generated from air emission control equipment, and spent cleaning solvents.
Powder coating also greatly reduces employee exposure, and liabilities
associated with liquid coating (wet solvent) use. Because the powder is dry
when sprayed, any overspray can be readily retrieved and recycled regardless
of the complexity of the system This results in shorter cleanup times. In all
cases, the dry powder is separated from the air stream by various vacuum and
filtering methods and returned to a feed hopper for reuse. Powder efficiency
(powder particles reaching the intended surface) approaches 100 percent.
Other advantages over conventional spray painting include greater durability;
improved corrosion resistance; and elimination of drips, runs, and bubbles.
Powder coatings are significantly limited in their application to aerospace
equipment. They are not used with any primer systems that inhibit corrosion.
The paint system provides protection as a barrier coating and prevents
corrosion only as long as it is intact and undamaged. The temperatures required
4-05-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
to cure the coating are too high for many materials used in aerospace structures
(primarily aluminum). With the exception of flame sprayed, the paint system is
effective primarily on production lines with significant volumes of work. For
these reasons and some others, the use of powder coatings by the Air Force
will remain low. There is an initiative to use powder coatings on aircraft landing
gear at Hill AFB.
Compliance
Benefit:
Materials
Compatibility:
A powder coating painting system eliminates the generation of hazardous waste
from overspray and spent cleaning solvents. The decrease in hazardous waste
helps facilities meet the requirements of waste reduction under RCRA, 40
CFR 262, Appendix, and may also help facilities reduce their generator status
and lessen the number of applicable regulatory (i.e., recordkeeping, reporting,
inspections, transportation, accumulation time, emergency prevention and
preparedness, emergency response) requirements under RCRA, 40 CFR 262.
In addition, since the powder coating is "dry" and solvents are not used for
cleanup, the possibility that a facility meets any of the reporting thresholds of
SARA Title m for solvents, HAPs and VOCs (40 CFR 300, 355, 370, and
372; and EO 12856) is decreased. Moreover, since the powder coating
painting system does not use HAPs and VOCs there is a decrease in hazardous
air pollutants being emitted to the air, which may decrease the likelihood that a
facility will require an air permit under 40 CFR 70 and 71.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Only workpieces that can be oven heated are suitable for coating by
electrostatic, fluidized bed, and electrostatic fluidized bed application methods.
Hence, these technologies are most appropriate for relatively small, metal
objects. The flame-spray method allows powder coatings to be applied to
other substrates such as wood, rubber, and plastic, and to large or stationary
structures.
For all powder coating application methods, surface preparation pretreatment
(for example, iron phosphate for steel, zinc phosphate for galvanized or steel
substrates, and chrome phosphate for aluminum substrates) is required to
develop a good coating adhesion substrate.
4-05-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Powder and air mixtures can be a fire hazard when an ignition source is
introduced. The concentration of powder in air must be controlled to maintain a
safe working environment. Despite the absence of flammable solvents, any
finely divided organic material, such as dust or powder, can form an explosive
mixture in air. This is normally controlled by maintaining proper air velocity
across face openings in the spray booth. In the dust collector, where it is
difficult to maintain the powder concentration below the lower explosive limit,
either a suppression system or a pressure relief device must be considered.
Inhalation of the powders should be avoided, as this can cause irritation to the
lungs and mucous membranes. Proper personal protective equipment (PPE)
should be used.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
Eliminates air emissions, waste streams generated from air emission control
equipment and spent cleaning solvents
Overspray is easily recycled for reuse
Transfer efficiencies approach 100%
Reduced energy requirements resulting from recirculation of powder coating
spray booth air
Superior finish, greater durability, improved corrosion resistance, and
elimination of drips, runs and bubbles
Disadvantages:
Potential variation in film thickness
Powder/air mixtures must be monitored to eliminate fire hazards.
System configurations are application specific
Economic
Analysis:
The following economic data and basis was provided by the Powder Coating
Institute. It compares a conventional solvent-based coating system to a powder
coating system. The conventional system includes two water wash spray
booths.
Assumptions:
12,000,000 ft2 painted annually
Cost of convention coating: $ 11 /gal
4-05-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Cost of powder coating: $2.3 5/lb
Surface area covered by conventional coating: 250 ft2/gal
Surface area covered by powder coating: 96 ft2/lb
Labor required for conventional coating: 23,000 hrs/year (522 ft2).
This labor includes preparation time and clean up costs.
Powder coating system will provide a 20% saving in labor, as a
result of no paint mixing requirements and reduced clean up costs.
Labor rate: $45/hr
Waste generated: 167 x 55 gal drums of waste sludge generated by
the conventional coating system. 13 x 55 gal drums of waste
powder generated by the powder coating system.
Disposal cost: $300/drum
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Powder Coating System and Conventional Coating System
Powder Coating Conventional
Coating
Operational Costs:
Labor: $828,000 $1,035,000
Material: $293,700 $528,000
Waste Disposal $3,900 50,100
Total Operational Costs: $1,125,600 $1,613,100
Total Recovered Income: $0 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$1,125,600 -$1,613,100
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for Powder Coating System: $487,500
* Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process $145,000
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: <1 Year
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values. To
return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
4-05-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
NSN/MSDS:
Product
ES Paint Gun
Fluidized Bed
Flame Spray Gun
Paint/TypeU/Red
Paint/TypeU/Orange
NSN
4940-01
3680-01
1440-01
8010-01
8010-01
-225-3846
-073-5290
-130-5702
-324-9230
-324-9227
Unit Size
ea.
ea.
ea.
50 lb..
50 lb.
Cost
Local Purch.
$5,388.74
$227.50
$227.50
Approving
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
Technical Orders are the source of authority for all paints used on aerospace
equipment by the Air Force. The process for thermal plastic coatings and
materials is contained in T.O.1-1-8, but the use of it requires approval by the
engineering authority of the specific Weapon System Manager or Equipment
Item Manager within the Air Force.
Navy:
Mr. Scott Mauro
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, ESC423
1100 23rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-4889, DSN: 551-4889
Fax: (805) 982-4832
Air Force:
Mr. Dave Ellicks
Air Force Corrosion Program Office
AFRL/MLS-OLR
325 2nd Street
Robins AFB, GA 31098-1640
Phone: (912)926-3284; DSN: 468-3284
Powder Coating Institute
1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 600
Alexandria, VA 22314
Phone: (703) 684-1770
Fax:(703)684-1771
4-05-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Vendors: The following is a list of powder coating system manufacturers. This is not
meant to be a complete list, as there may be other manufacturers of this type of
equipment.
Coating Manufacturers:
Cardinal Industrial Finishes
Powder Coating Division
901 Stimson Avenue
City of Industry, CA 91745
Phone:(818)336-3345
Fax:(818)336-0410
EVTECH
9103 Forsyth Park Drive
Charlotte, NC 28273
Phone:(704)588-2112
Fax: (704) 588-2280
Parboil Company
8200 Fischer Road
Baltimore, MD 21222
Phone:(410)477-8200
Fax:(410)477-8995
Plastic Flamecoatฎ Systems, Inc.
3400 West Seventh Street
Big Spring, TX 79720
Phone: (800) 753-5263
Fax:(915)267-1318
Pratt & Lambert Inc.
Powder Coatings Division
40 Sonwil Drive
Cheektowaga, NY 14225
Phone: (716) 683-6831, or Customer Service (800) 777-6831
Fax:(716) 683-6204
Equipment Manufacturers:
Nordson Corp.
555 Jackson Street
4-05-7
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Amherst, OH 44001
Phone:(216)988-9411
Fax: (216) 985-1417
Sanies Electrostatic, Inc.
555 Lordship Blvd.
Stratford, CT 06497
(203) 375-1644
Gema
3939 W. 56th Street
Indianapolis, IN 46208
Phone:(317)298-5001
Fax:(317)298-5059
Source(s): Mr. Jeff Palmer, Powder Coating Institute, Alexandria, VA 22314
Miser, ToskoA., 1991. Powder Coatings: Chemistry and Technology, Chapter 6,
Powder Coatings Application Techniques.
"Reducing Waste in Railcar Coating Operations, "Graco Equipment and Emissions
Update, June 1994, pp. 8-9.
4-05-8
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
UNICOAT PAINT TECHNOLOGY
Revision:
Process Code:
Usage List:
Alternative for:
5/99
Navy and Marine Corps: ID-05-99; Air Force: PA01; Army: PNT
Navy: High; Marine Corps: High; Army: Medium; Air Force: Low
Epoxy Primer and Polyurethane Topcoat for Aircraft
Compliance Areas: High
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Toluene (CAS: 108-88-3), Xylenes (CAS: 1330-
20-7), Methyl Ethyl Ketone (CAS: 78-93-3), Acetone (CAS: 76-64-1), n-Butyl Alcohol (CAS: 71-
36-3), Lead (CAS: 7439-92-1), Chromium (CAS: 7440-47-3), Zinc Compounds
Overview:
Compliance
Benefit:
The UNICOAT paint technology is a one coat painting system for aircraft that
replaces the traditional two coat primer and topcoat systems. Since only one
coat is applied instead of two coats, volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions and waste generated from cleanup operations may potentially be
reduced by 50 to 70%.
UNICOAT, developed by Naval Air Warfare Center (NAWC) Warminster, is
a self-priming topcoat for aircraft and other industrial applications that is applied
directly to metal without a primer. UNICOAT, which is formulated lead and
chrome-free, replaces the two-coat system with a blend of organic and
inorganic zinc compounds that are nontoxic. UNICOAT, like traditional
topcoats, is polyurethane; however, UNICOAT is different because corrosion
inhibitors and adhesion promoters have been added. UNICOAT has been
used successfully on both Navy and Air Force aircraft. It has demonstrated
equivalent or superior performance compared to the toxic paints that have been
used in the past. A federal specification (TT-P-2756) has been developed for
this technology.
The UNICOAT process does not contain chromates. As a result, the waste
streams generated with the UNICOAT process are less hazardous than
conventional processes. These waste streams include air emissions and wastes
generated from cleanup operations. Since the UNICOAT process, a one-coat
process, replaces a two-coat process, pollution generated is reduced by
approximately 50%.
A powder coating painting system eliminates the generation of hazardous waste
from overspray and spent cleaning solvents. The decrease in hazardous waste
helps facilities meet the requirements of waste reduction under RCRA, 40
CFR 262, Appendix, and may also help facilities reduce their generator status
4-06-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
and lessen the level of applicable regulatory (i.e., recordkeeping, reporting,
inspections, transportation, accumulation time, emergency prevention and
preparedness, emergency response) requirements under RCRA, 40 CFR 262.
In addition, since the powder coating is "dry" and solvents are not used for
cleanup the possibility that a facility meets any of the reporting thresholds of
SARA Title m for solvents, HAPs and VOCs (40 CFR 300, 355, 370, and
372; and EO 12856) is decreased. Moreover, since the powder coating
painting system does not use HAPs and VOCs there is a decrease in hazardous
air pollutants being emitted to the air which may decrease the likelihood of a
facility to require an air permit under 40 CFR 70 and 71.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Like traditional paint and primer applications, the surface to be painted needs to
be appropriately clean. To avoid adverse reactions, freshly painted wet
surfaces must not be allowed to come into contact with alcohols, amines, water,
or acids. As the Unicoat system does not contain chromates, which typically
aid in corrosion control, there is the potential for corrosion of aluminum surfaces
when using the UNICOAT process.
UNICOAT contains VOCs (i.e. 420g/l). Inhalation of these compounds is the
primary concern. Proper personal protective equipment should be used.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
Contains no toxic pigments (i.e. chromate, lead, etc.)
Reduces VOC emissions and hazardous waste generation by 50 - 70%
Paint and primer cost savings of approximately 65%
Reduced paint weight on equipment and aircraft
Labor cost savings since only one coat is applied
Stripping cost savings since only one coat is applied
Disadvantage:
UNICOAT may not be suitable for all coating applications.
Increased labor and stripping costs due to corrosion and paint failure.
4-06-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
UNICOAT usage on Air Force aircraft has documented limitations when
applied to the fleet of KC-135 aircraft, the paint did not perform well. The
major problems involved poor adhesion, leading to corrosion problems due
a lack of protection. UNICOAT is not approved for use on Air Force
aircraft.
Economic
Analysis: Costs will vary depending upon the specific application. The economic analysis
presented below assumes that the purchase of new coating application devices
is not required.
* Assumptions:
36 aircraft painted annually with a total surface area of 111,600 ft2
(3,100 ft2 per aircraft)
All paint is consumed and no waste is generated from painting
operations
Thickness of all coatings: 1 mil
Surface area coated with one mil thickness: 842 ft2 per gallon
Gallons of UNICOAT used annually: 135 gallons
Gallons of epoxy primer used annually: 135 gallons
Gallons of topcoat used annually: 135 gallons
UNICOAT cost: $75/gallon
Epoxy primer cost: $70/gallon
Topcoat cost: $150/gallon
Labor required to apply one coat: 50 hours
Labor rate: $407 hour
4-06-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
UNICOAT System and Two-Coat System
UNICOAT Two Coat System
Operational Costs:
Labor: $72,000 $144,000
Material: $10,125 $29,700
Total Operational Costs: $82,125 $173,700
Total Recovered Income: $0 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$82,125 -$173,700
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for UNICOAT System: $91,575
* Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: N/A
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: Immediate
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values. To
return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost MSDS*
Paint/Full Gloss/Red 8010-01-354-0977 2qt. $29.10 Click me
Paint/Semi-Gloss/Gry 8010-01-353-5756 2 gal. $105.55 Click me
Paint/Flat Fin./Brwn. 8010-01-376-3702 2 qt. $23.68 Click me
*There are multiple MSDSsfor most NSNs. The MSDS shown here is only meant to serve as an
example. To return from the MSDS, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar
Approval
Authority: Contact NAVAIR Code 4.3.4 for further approval authority for use on aircraft
and aircraft components. Phone is (703) 604-3555; DSN: 664-3555 This
process should be implemented only after engineering approval has been
granted by cognizant authority.
Contact Air Force Corrosion Program Office for USAF applications and the
appropriate Air Logistic Center Corrosion Control Engineers for the specific
aircraft to be painted.
4-06-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
Navy:
Mr. Anthony Eng
Naval Air Warfare Center
Aircraft Division
Code 4.3.4.1, Mail Stop 3, Bldg. 2188
Patuxent River, MD 20670-5304
Phone: (301) 342-8067
Fax: (301) 342-8062
Mr. Scott Mauro
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, Code 423
1100 23rd Avenue
PortHueneme, CA 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-4889, DSN: 551-4889
FAX: (805) 982-4832
Air Force:
Mr. Dave Ellicks
Air Force Corrosion Program Office
AFRL/MLS-OLR
325 2nd Street
Robins AFB, GA 31098-1640
Phone: (912)926-3284; DSN: 468-3284
Fax: (912)926-6619
The following is the UNICOAT vendor that is currently on the qualified
products list for the TT-P-2756 specification. Users should refer to the GSA
Supply Catalog for other paints conforming to Federal Specification TT-P-
2756.
Source:
Deft Inc.
17451 VonKarman
Irvine, CA 92714
Phone: (800) 544-3338, Fax: (714) 474-7269
Attn.: Mr. Leon Ewalt or Ms. Tracy Garrett
General Services Administration (GSA) Supply Catalog
Paint Help Line
Paints and Chemicals Commodity Center
Phone: (206)931-7109
Mr. Anthony Eng, Naval Air Warfare Center, Patuxent River, MD.
4-06-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
WATERBORNE PAINT
Revision 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-05-00; Air Force: PA01; Army: PNT
Usage List: Navy: High; Marine Corps: High; Army: High; Air Force: High
Alternative for: Solvent-Based Paint
Compliance Areas: High
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Toluene (CAS: 108-88-3), Xylenes (CAS: 1330-20-
7), Methyl Ethyl Ketone (CAS: 78-93-3), Acetone (CAS: 67-64-1), n-Butyl Alcohol (CAS: 71-36-3),
Chromium (CAS: 7440-47-3), Cyanides, Lead (CAS: 7439-92-1), and Zinc Compounds
Overview: Waterborne paints have been evaluated as alternatives to solvent-based paints.
The volatile organic compound (VOC) content of waterborne paints is
significantly lower than conventional solvent-based paints, thereby reducing
VOC emissions. Waterborne (or latex) paints are composed of synthetic resins
and pigments that are kept dispersed in water by surfactants. They also contain
small amounts of coalescing solvents. Waterborne paints dry by evaporation of
the water. The coalescing solvents allow the resin particles to fuse together
(coalesce) as the water evaporates to form a continuous coating. Waterborne
paints must be protected from freezing and applied at a minimum temperature of
50 degrees Fahrenheit.
Waterborne paints reduce VOC emissions and worker exposure to hazardous
air pollutants. These paints can also reduce the amount of hazardous waste
generated, depending on the type of paint used. Since waterborne coatings do
not meet the requirements for solvent resistance and temperature as required for
aerospace applications, these coatings are recommended by the Air Force for
non-aerospace applications. The following is a description of nationally stock-
listed latex paints:
1) Exterior Acrylic Latex Paint: These paints are suitable for use on concrete,
masonry, stucco, and wood. They can also be used for interior applications
and may be applied by spray, brush, or roller. They dry to the touch in ten
minutes and dry hard in two hours. Exterior acrylic latex paints are non-toxic
and have a maximum volatile organic compound (VOC) content of 250 grams
per liter.
2) Concrete Floor Sealer/Finisher: Concrete floor sealer/finisher is a resin-
based, water emulsion sealing and finishing compound for use on cured and
uncured concrete floors. It may also be used on other masonry, linoleum,
rubber tile, magnesite, and troweled asphalt and is applied by flooding and
spreading then typical VOC content is 250 grams per liter.
4-07-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
3) Traffic and Airfield Marking Paint: This paint is water-borne, is 100 percent
acrylic, and is suitable for application on traffic bearing surfaces such as
Portland cement concrete, bituminous cement concrete, asphalt, tar, and
previously painted areas of those surfaces. These paints are low VOC, and
lead and chromate-free.
4) Latex Stain: Latex stain is intended for new or previously stained exterior
wood surfaces. It dries hard in one hour and has a VOC content of 250 grams
per liter.
5) Acrylic Enamel: Intended for use on exterior primed metal, concrete,
masonry, and wood, acrylic enamel can be used for interior applications as well.
These paints are lead-free, hexavalent, chromate-free, mercury-free, and have a
maximum VOC content of 200 grams per liter.
6) Low VOC Aerosol Paint: Low VOC aerosol paint is fast-drying, general
purpose interior/exterior enamel. It can be applied to metal, wood, plaster,
masonry, stone, glass, leather, fiber or previously painted surfaces.
7) Recycled Latex Paint: These paints contain a minimum of 50 percent post-
consumer waste and are intended for use on interior or exterior wallboard,
concrete, stucco, masonry, and wood. They may be applied by spray, brush,
or roller, and have a maximum VOC content of 250 grams per liter.
8) Semigloss Paint, Water-Borne for Metal Surfaces: Acrylic or modified
acrylic topcoat paint is suitable for use on exterior or interior metal surfaces in
all non-marine environments. Lead and chromate-free, this paint has a
maximum VOC content of 250 grams per liter.
9) Water-Borne Metal Primer: This acrylic primer can be used on exterior or
interior metal surfaces in all non-marine environments. It has a maximum VOC
content of 250 grams per liter.
10) Stencil Paint: Water-emulsion paint is intended for markings and for
obliterating markings on wood and fiberboard containers. It is non-flammable,
brush applied, and has a maximum VOC content of 250 grams per liter.
11) Water Reducible Epoxy Primer: A corrosion-inhibiting primer, this coating
is intended for use on clean, chemically pretreated metal surfaces where
exposure to lead or chromate pigments is prohibited. Compatible with chemical
agent resistant aliphatic polyurethane topcoats. It is intended for spray
application and has a maximum VOC content of 340 grams per liter.
4-07-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
12) Water-Borne Epoxy Coating Kits: Formulated for use on wood and
concrete floors, these coatings are water-based, non-flammable, non-toxic, and
resistant to brake fluid, petroleum-based agents, jet fuel, caustic compounds,
and most acids up to a 20 percent concentration. The coating may be applied
by spray, brush or roller, and has a maximum VOC content of 168 grams per
liter.
Compliance
Benefit:
Using a waterborne paint decreases hazardous waste generation because
overspray may be recaptured, and the process does not generate spent cleanup
solvents. This benefit helps facilities meet the requirements of waste reduction
under RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix, and may also help facilities reduce
their generator status and lessen the level of applicable regulatory requirements
(i.e., recordkeeping, reporting, inspections, transportation, accumulation time,
emergency prevention and preparedness, emergency response) under RCRA,
40 CFR 262. In addition, waterborne paints do not contain the volume of
solvents that conventional paint contains and therefore, the possibility that a
facility meets any of the reporting thresholds of SARA Title III (40 CFR 300,
355, 370, and 372; and EO 12856) for solvents is decreased. Moreover,
since the VOC content in waterborne paints is significantly lower than
conventional solvent paints, fewer VOCs are emitted to the air, a factor which
may lessen the likelihood that a facility will require an air permit under 40 CFR
70 and 71
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Waterborne paints can rust plain steel and can sometimes attack aluminum.
Application equipment must be constructed of a corrosion-resistant material
such as 316 stainless steel.
Waterborne coating material conducts high voltage electricity much more readily
than solvent-based material. As a result, the electrostatics of a waterborne
system will only work if all wetted equipment is isolated from potential grounds.
Three methods can be used to avoid grounding out the electrostatics in a
waterborne system: (1) isolate the entire paint system from electrical grounds;
(2) isolate a small part of the wetted system with a voltage blocking device; and
(3) indirectly charge the paint particles away from any of the wetted equipment.
Each method has its advantages and disadvantages and should be evaluated for
4-07-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
the specific application. The use of a voltage blocking device at each atomizer
is often the most cost-effective method.
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Health and safety issues are reduced significantly by using waterborne paints.
However, these paints contain coalescing solvents that can be slight irritants by
inhalation. Proper personal protective equipment (PPE) is recommended.
Waterborne paints may also contain other solvents, such as butoxyethanol,
isopropyl alcohol, and sec-butyl alcohol. These solvents have occupational
exposure limits established by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH), American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists
(ACGIH), and/or Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
VOC emissions are significantly reduced
Waterborne paints are generally easier to apply and clean up
Good to excellent surface properties including gloss, rub resistance, anti-
sealing effect, and non-yellowing film
Some waterborne paints allow overspray to be recovered and recycled,
effectively increasing transfer efficiency
Disposal requirements for waterborne paint waste may be reduced,
depending on local requirements and/or waste quantities
Dried waterborne paint waste may be disposed in landfills as non-
hazardous waste
Health and safety requirements for workers are significantly reduced or
eliminated
May have lower chemical and solvent resistance
Reduced temperature resistance
Waterborne coatings are sensitive to humidity. Low humidity can cause
coatings to dry extremely fast, creating craters in the final film. High
humidity can cause very slow drying times, resulting in sagging.
Quality of application is dependent on surface cleanliness. The water's high
surface tension prevents the wetting of some surfaces and causes poor
coating flow characteristics. Surfaces with grease and other contaminants
are especially susceptible to poor coating.
4-07-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Emulsion coatings have poor penetration and adhesion properties on porous
surfaces, e.g. wood. Emulsion coatings do not adhere well to old chalky
surfaces.
Lower abrasive resistance
Requires wetted equipment to be isolated from potential grounds
Economic
Analysis: Solvent-based paint systems can usually be converted to waterborne paint
systems with a limited capital investment. The cost of waterborne paints will
vary depending on the application used. In general, the price of waterborne
paints is comparable to the price of solvent-based paints.
Assumptions:
Waterborne paint procurement cost: $20/gal
Solvent based paint procurement cost: $20/gal
Solvent procurement cost: $5/gal
Water usage cost: $1.94/1000 gal
Industrial wastewater disposal cost: $8.24/1000gal
Waste paint/solvent disposal cost: $1.25/lb
Paint usage: 1,560 gal/year
Solvent usage (solvent based paint application equipment cleaning): 156
gal/yr
Water usage (water based paint application equipment cleaning): 260 gal/yr
Waste paint/solvent generated: l,0001b/yr
Wastewater generated: 260 gal/yr
Labor for materials handling and operation for both methods are assumed
to be comparable
4-07-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Waterborne Paint Application and Solvent Based Paint Application
Operational Costs:
Paint
Solvent
Process Water
Wastewater Disposal
Waste Paint/ Solvent
Disposal
Total Operational Costs:
Total Recovered Income:
Net Annual Cost/Benefit:
Waterborne Paint
$31,200
$0
$1
$2
$0
$31,203
$0
-$31,203
Solvent-Based Paint
$31,200
$780
$0
$0
$1,250
$33,230
$0
-$33,230
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for Waterborne Paint Application: $2,027
* Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $0
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: Immediate
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values. To
return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
Paint/Lacq./Clr.
Paint/Lacq./Red
Paint/Lacq./Clr. Gloss
Paint/Lacq./Blk. Semi
NSN
8010-01-397-3559
8010-01-397-3560
8010-01-397-3588
8010-01-397-3642
Unit Size
55 gal.
Igal.
5 gal.
5 gal.
Cost
$838.74
$25.82
$88.96
$91.11
MSDS*
Click me
Click me
Click me
Click me
*There are multiple MSDSsfor most NSNs. The MSDS shown here is only meant to serve as an
example. To return from the MSDS, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar
4-07-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Approving
Authority:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Technical Orders are the source of authority for all paints used on aerospace
equipment by the Air Force. Only the waterborne epoxy is approved for use in
T.O.1-1-8.
Points of
Contact:
Vendors:
Air Force:
Air Force Corrosion Program Office
AFRL/MLS-OLR
325 2nd Street
Robins AFB, GA 31098-1640
Phone: (912) 926-3284 DSN: 486-3284
The following is a list of waterborne (latex) paint suppliers. This is not meant to
be a complete list, as there may be other suppliers of this product.
Sherwin Williams
7230 1/2 Woodrow Street
Irmo, SC 29063
Mr.RickHiller
Phone: (803)749-0392
Local distributor can also be contacted.
Source (s):
Sikkens
5555 SpaldingDr.
Norcross, GA 30092
Phone: (800) 227-0238 or (404) 662-8464
Deft Inc.
17451 Von Karman Avenue
Irvine, CA 92714
Phone: (714)474-0400, FAX: (714)474-7269
R. Konieczynski, "Converting to Waterbornes for Less Cost, " Metal Finishing, January
1995, Vol. 93, No. 1, pp. 20-23.
P.Bankert, "Waterborne Paint Circulation," Industrial Finishing, July 1990, Vol. 66,
No. 7, pp. 42-43. "GM Adopts Waterborne Basecoats, " Industrial Finishing, July 1990,
P- 32
R. Joseph, "Environmental Coating Problems, " Metal Finishing, May 1994, pp. 44-45.
4-07-7
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
BULK PAINT STORAGE
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-05-00; Air Force: MA01; Army: PNT
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Low
Alternative for: One and Five Gallon Paint Can Storage
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Various
Overview:
Bulk paint storage in 30- gallon heavy-duty conical-bottom polyethylene tanks
is a method of reducing solid waste volume. Paint is purchased in 5, 15-, and
30-gallon containers instead of 1-gallon or pint cans. Purchasing paint in larger
containers reduces the volume and mass of empty paint containers disposed. In
addition, the amount of paint lost to clingage on the interiors of the empty paint
containers is also reduced.
Compliance
Benefit:
The 30-gallon polyethylene tanks have a mount on the bottom for a pneumatic
agitator to assure that the paint is well mixed while it is being dispensed. At the
time of use, the paint is dispensed into re-useable, transportable containers that
are taken to the painting site. After painting, unused and uncontaminated paint
can be returned to bulk storage, and the transporting container can be cleaned
for future use.
This pollution prevention method is useful for paints that are commonly used,
and used at a rate sufficient to ensure paint shelf life is not exceeded. In
addition to reducing solid wastes and the associated landfill fees, this method
can result in a lower paint purchase cost. Buying paint in bulk usually results in
cost savings.
30-gallon heavy-duty conical-bottom polyethylene storage tanks for bulk paint
storage are being put onboard ships under the Navy's P2 Afloat Program.
Bulk paint purchase and storage decreases the amount of solid waste generated
at a facility and helps facilities comply with EO 13101 - Federal Acquisition,
Recycling and Waste Prevention.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
4-08-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
No materials compatibility issues were identified.
Health concerns are dependent on the variety of paint used. When using lead
and zinc chromate paints, inhalation of lead or zinc can irritate the respiratory
tract and can be poisonous. Some lead compounds are carcinogenic. Solvent-
based paints can irritate the lungs and mucous membranes. Prolonged exposure
can affect respiration and the central nervous system. Proper personal
protective equipment should be used.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
Benefits:
Reduced paint purchase costs
Reduced solid waste disposal
Reduced residual paint waste on disposed containers
Disadvantages:
Useful only for commonly used paints
Bulk paint must be used prior to expiration of its shelf-life
Although bulk paint storage has proved effective in some cases, it poses
limitations in the case of aerospace paints. The two component paints used
by the Air Force on aircraft and most equipment are not conducive to this
storage method at most Air Force bases. At depots, where large volumes
of paint are consumed, this system may be incorporated for paint storage of
the two component paint materials. Although paints used on facilities and
structures are amenable to this form of strategy. According to the Air
Force PRO-ACT, most installations do not use a sufficient volume (30
gallons) of a specific shade of paint before it would exceed its shelf life and
have to be disposed. Many bases have adopted paint proportioning
systems which offer an excellent solution for addressing the concerns
associated with purchasing multiple single gallon, or five gallon, cans of
paint.
4-08-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Economic
Analysis: The following cost elements for bulk paint storage and paint storage in 1-gallon
cans are compared.
* Assumptions:
Purchase exterior latex paint in 30-gallon drums and one-gallon
cans
30-gallon drums of paint cost: $340 each
1-gallon cans of paint cost: $12 each
Annual paint usage: 1,200 gallons
Empty 1-gallon cans weight 1 Ib.
Empty 30-gallon drums weight 10 Ibs.
Solid waste disposal costs: $30/ton
No difference in labor requirements
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Bulk Paint Storage and Paint Storage in One Gallon Cans
Bulk Paint One Gallon Cans
Operational Costs:
Paint: $13,600 $14,400
Waste Disposal: $10 $20
Total Operational Costs: $13,610 $14,420
Total Recovered Income: $0 $0
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for Bulk Paint Storage: $810
* Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $ 10,000
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: < 13 years
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values. To
return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
4-08-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
Approving
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Mr. Scott Mauro
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, ESC 423
1100 23rd Avenue
PortHueneme, CA 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-4889, DSN: 551-4889
FAX: (805) 982-4832
Air Force:
Mr. Dave Ellicks
Air Force Corrosion Program Office
AFRL/MLS-OLR
325 2nd Street
Robins AFB, GA 31098-1640
Phone: (912) 926-3284; DSN: 468-3284
Fax: 912-926-6619
The following is a list of vendors. This is not meant to be a complete list, as
there may be other manufacturers of this type of equipment. Users should refer
to the GSA Paint Help Line to obtain sources of bulk paint conforming to
Department of Defense military and federal specifications.
McMaster Carr Distributor
473 Ridge Road
Dayton, NJ 08810
Phone: (908) 329-3200
Fax: (908) 329-3772
ChemTainer Industries
135 E. Greenleaf Avenue
Compton, CA 90022
Phone: (800) 645-5607
Fax:(310)635-5035
4-08-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
General Services Administration (GSA) Supply Catalog
Paint Help Line
Paints and Chemicals Commodity Center
Phone: (253)931-7109
Sources: Fed Log database, Defense Logistics Agency, February 1994.
Steve Verosto, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Annapolis, MD, (410) 293-2755, May
1996
4-08-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
AUTOMATIC PAINT GUN WASHER
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-05-00; Air Force: PA01; Army: PNT
Usage List: Navy: High; Marine Corps: High; Army: High; Air Force: High
Alternative for: Manual Cleaning of Paint Guns
Compliance Areas: High
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Toluene (CAS: 108-88-3), Xylenes (CAS: 1330-
20-7), Methyl Ethyl Ketone (CAS: 78-93-3), Acetone (67-64-1), n-Butyl Alcohol (CAS: 71-36-3),
Lead (CAS: 7439-92-1), Chromium (CAS: 7440-47-3), Zinc Compounds
Overview: Automatic paint gun washers are similar to conventional home dishwashing
machines, except that the thinners and solvents in the automatic washers are not
heated in the process. The washers can be used to clean conventional air
spray, HVLP, electrostatic, airless, or air-assisted paint guns. Solvents used in
the automatic paint gun washer are recycled and reused in the cleaning process.
The paint gun to be cleaned is attached to a nozzle within the automatic paint
gun washer, and the machine is sealed. Most automatic paint gun washers can
wash two to three paint guns at a time. The exterior of the paint gun is cleaned
with atomized paint thinner using a dishwasher action. Circulating solvent
through the nozzle attachment cleans the interior of the paint gun. Automatic
paint gun washers collect used solvent in a reservoir. Impurities in the used
solvent are filtered out in the reservoir. The filtered solvent is then ready for
reuse instead of being disposed as hazardous waste. The solvent impurities
form a sludge, which is collected and disposed. The typical solvent capacity of
the spray gun washer is 3 gallons. The washer solution must be changed every
3 to 8 weeks, depending on usage.
The manual cleaning of paint guns can be labor intensive and can generate
significant quantities of solvent wastes. Automatic paint gun washers can reduce
the amount of solvent used and paint solvent waste generated by up to 70-80%
when compared to manual paint gun cleaning. Since automatic paint gun
washers are sealed units, worker exposure to hazardous materials during
solvent handling is also greatly reduced.
Use of this equipment has not been adopted throughout the Air Force to the
extent possible. Furthermore, there are now solvents that can be used in these
systems that are neither VOC's nor HAP's. The required use of this equipment
is being added to T.0.1-1-8.
4-09-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Compliance
Benefit:
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Automatic paint gun washers generate less solvent waste since the solvent is
recycled. The decrease in hazardous waste helps facilities meet the requirements
of waste reduction under RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix, and may also help
facilities reduce their generator status and lessen the level of regulatory (e.g..,
recordkeeping, reporting, inspections, transportation, accumulation time,
emergency prevention and preparedness, emergency response) requirements
applicable with under RCRA, 40 CFR 262. In addition, the solvent recycling
feature of the automatic paint gun washer allows facilities to use and store fewer
solvents on site, thereby decreasing the possibility that a facility will meet any of
the reporting thresholds of SARA Title m for solvents (40 CFR 300, 355,
370, and 372; and EO 12856). Moreover, since the automatic paint gun
washer is sealed it decreases the VOCs and HAPs being emitted to the air
which may decrease the likelihood of the facility requiring an air permit under 40
CFR 70 and 71
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Chlorinated solvents can not be used in most automatic paint gun washers.
Health concerns are dependent on the variety of solvent and paint that is
handled. Inhalation of lead- and zinc chromate-based paints can lead to
irritation of the respiratory system. Some lead compounds are carcinogenic.
Solvent-based paints can irritate the lungs and mucous membranes. Prolonged
exposure can affect respiration and the central nervous system. Proper
personal protective equipment (PPE) should be used.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
70 to 80 percent cost savings due to solvent recycling and reuse
Reduces the amount of hazardous waste and hazardous air emissions
generated
Localized handling site for solvents used for paint gun washing
Because solvent storage is localized, procurement of standardized solvent(s)
are possible for this maintenance action
4-09-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Accurate waste solvent classification for this maintenance action is simplified
Fully automatic, reduces labor
Pneumatically operated (non-electric) washer
Reduces worker exposure to solvent, hazardous waste and hazardous air
emissions
Disadvantage:
Economic
Analysis:
Users of automatic paint gun washers have noticed that if they delay
washing the paint guns, the cleaning efficiency is reduced, and additional
hand cleaning of the equipment is required.
According to HQ AFCEE/EQP, some installations have noted a drop in
cleaning efficiency if 'virgin' cleaner/solvent is not used. Optimum efficiency
can be obtained by adding an external filter, such as from Gulf Coast Filters,
Inc.
The capital cost for automatic paint gun washers will vary, depending upon the
unit size, unit type, and the application. Capital costs for these washers range
from $600 to $2,400.
* Assumptions:
18 spray guns are cleaned per week
Solvent required for automatic gun cleaning: 6 gallons/month
Solvent required for manual gun cleaning: 36 gallons/week
Hazardous waste disposal cost: $0.30 to $2.00/pound
Solvent procurement cost: $4/gallon
Labor rate: $30/hour
Labor, manual gun cleaning: 10 min/gun or 3 hr/week
Labor, automatic gun cleaning: 1 min/gun or 0.3 hr/week
Electrical costs are negligible
4-09-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Automatic Washing and Manual Washing of Paint Guns
Operational Costs:
Labor:
Material
Waste Disposal
Total Operational Costs:
Total Recovered Income
Net Annual Cost/Benefit:
Automatic Wash
Manual Wash
$468
$288
$580
$1,336
$0
-$1,336
$4,680
$7,488
$15,070
$27,238
$0
-$27,238
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for Automatic Washing: $25,902
* Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $600
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: Immediate
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values. To
return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
Paint Gun Washer
Approving
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
NSN
4940-01-396-5659
Unit Size
ea.
Cost
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Table of Allowance 480 authorizes this equipment, but authority resides at the
local level.
Navy:
Ms. Barbara Roehm (N40R)
Commander Submarine Forces, US Pacific Fleet
Pearl Harbor, ffl 96860
Phone: (808) 474-9118; Fax: (808) 474-3196
4-09-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Vendors:
Mr. Scott Mauro
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, Code 423
110023rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-4889, DSN: 551-4889, Fax: (805) 982-4832
Air Force:
Air Force Corrosion Program Office
AFRL/MLS-OLR
325 2nd Street
Robins AFB, GA 31098-1640
Phone: (912) 926-3284; DSN: 468-3284
The following is a list of automatic paint gun washer manufacturers. This is not
meant to be a complete list, as there may be other manufacturers of this type of
equipment. Additional companies that manufacture, install, modify and/or
design automatic paint gun washers may be located in the Thomas Register of
American Manufacturers.
Source (s):
Technical Innovations, Inc.
2105 Austin Ave.
Troy, MI 48083
Phone: (248) 528-0232, Fax: (248)528-9330
Butler Compressor and Spray Equipment Co.
657 Monterey Pass Road
Monterey Park, CA 91754
Phone: (818)289-4247, Fax: (818)284-9971
Graco Inc.
P.O. Box 1441
Minneapolis, MN 55440
Mr. John Foy
Phone: (612) 623-6709, Fax: (612) 623-6777
Ms. Barbara Roehm, Commander Submarine Forces, US Pacific Fleet, May 1996.
Vendor Communication, Technical Innovations, Inc., April 1996.
Vendor Communication, Butler Compressor and Spray Equipment Co., April 1996.
4-09-5
-------
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
PAINT STRIPPING USING SODIUM BICARBONATE MEDIUM
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-01-01/-99; Air Force: ST01; Army: DPT
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Low; Air Force: Low
Alternative for: Chemical Paint Stripping
Compliance Areas: Medium
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Toluene (CAS: 108-88-3), Xylenes (CAS: 1330-
20-7), Methyl Ethyl Ketone (CAS: 78-93-3), Acetone (67-64-1), n-Butyl Alcohol (CAS: 71-36-3),
Lead (CAS: 7439-92-1), Chromium (CAS: 7440-47-3), Zinc Compounds, Phenols (CAS: 108-95-
2), Chloroacetic Acids (CAS: 79-11-8), Methylene Chloride (CAS: 75-09-2)
Overview: Sodium bicarbonate stripping processes are used as alternatives to traditional
chemical paint stripping. Bicarbonate of soda (or sodium bicarbonate) is a soft
blast medium with a heavier specific gravity and less hardness than most plastic
abrasives. The bicarbonate of soda stripping process can be used with or
without water. It is most frequently used with water, which acts as a dust
suppressant. In this form, compressed air delivers sodium bicarbonate media
from a pressure pot to a nozzle, where the medium mixes with a stream of
water. The soda/water mixture impacts the coated surface and removes old
coatings from the substrate. The water dissipates the heat generated by the
abrasive process, reduces the amount of dust in the air, and assists in the paint
removal by hydraulic action. Workers need to mask the surface of the material
being stripped to prevent intrusion of bicarbonate of soda blast media. Blast
media decomposes at highly elevated temperatures and may become corrosive
if left entrapped within a structure. The solid residue from the wastewater
generated from this process can be separated by settling or filtration.
The effectiveness of bicarbonate of soda stripping depends on a number of
operating parameters, including: nozzle pressures, standoff distance, angle of
impingement, flow rate, water pressure, and traverse speed. In general,
bicarbonate of soda stripping systems remove paint slower than most methods
(other than chemical paint stripping) currently used. The type of equipment
used in this stripping process may also influence results (e.g. Aqua Miserฎ vs.
the Accustrip Systemฎ).
Use of sodium bicarbonate in its dry form (or when not fully mixed with water)
can create a cloud of dust that will require monitoring and may require
containment to meet air standards. The dust generated is not an explosive
hazard, nor is sodium bicarbonate toxic in this form. However, the airborne
particulates generated from the stripping operation can contain toxic elements
5-01-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
from the paint being removed. This stripping process should be performed in
areas where exhaust particulates can be contained and/or exhaust ventilation
system controls are present to remove hazardous airborne metals. If
bicarbonate of soda stripping is operated outdoors, air monitoring of dust (e.g.
for metals) may be necessary to ensure that air standards are met. However,
tests have shown that lead will adhere to the sodium bicarbonate, thus reducing
the risk. Be sure to have your local Industrial Health Specialist check the air for
any resident metals.
The waste generated from bicarbonate of soda stripping systems using the wet
process is a slurry consisting of sodium bicarbonate media, water, paint chips,
and miscellaneous residues such as dirt and grease. Some installations are
employing centrifuges to separate the water from the contaminated waste
stream, thus reducing the amount of hazardous waste being disposed. Filtered
wastewater containing dissolved sodium bicarbonate may be treated at an
industrial wastewater treatment plant. In the dry stripping process, waste
generated includes nuisance dust, paint chips, and miscellaneous residues such
as dust and grease. The solid waste may be suitable for disposal in a sanitary
landfill. Analysis of wastewater and waste solids is required prior to disposal.
Wastewater and bicarbonate residue disposal requirements will depend on the
toxicity of the coatings and pigments to be removed. The sodium bicarbonate
media can not be recycled. The paint chip and miscellaneous residue wastes
may be considered a hazardous waste.
Currently, bicarbonate of soda stripping is not approved by NAVAIR for
depainting aircraft. NAVAIR's primary concern is that at temperatures of 140
to 160 degrees Fahrenheit, sodium bicarbonate may convert to sodium
carbonate, which is corrosive.
The Air Force has expressed the same concerns with the sodium bicarbonate
stripping process as NAVAIR for depainting aircraft. The process is currently
only being utilized as a supplementary process to chemical paint stripping for C-
130 and C-141 aircraft. With regard to component stripping, where intrusion is
not a significant factor, this process offers a viable alternative to chemical
stripping.
This technology has been tested at the USMC Logistics Base, Albany, Georgia.
They tested sodium bicarbonate media in three types of commercial off-the-
shelf equipment. The cost of these systems ranged from $15,000 (Accustrip
16W) to $40,000 (Aqua Miser E25 and Jet Stripper DP-1). The Aqua Miser
and Jet Stripper use medium-pressure water to remove paint with sodium
bicarbonate injected to enhance removal effectiveness (with the Aqua Miser
system, the sodium bicarbonate flow can be turned on and off as necessary).
5-01-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Accustrip uses a stream of 30 to 90-psi air and sodium bicarbonate, and is
combined with a stream of blast water at the nozzle to try to eliminate the dust.
In both cases, the sodium bicarbonate medium is then propelled against the
surface, and the sharp edges of the media blast paint away from the base metal.
Compliance
Benefit:
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Painting stripping using a sodium bicarbonate medium generates less hazardous
waste than chemical stripping since solvents are not used and the hazardous
solid residue can be separated from the rest of the waste. The decrease in
hazardous waste helps facilities meet the requirements of waste reduction under
RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix. This may also help facilities reduce their
generator status and lessen the number of regulatory (e.g. recordkeeping,
reporting, inspections, transportation, accumulation time, emergency prevention
and preparedness, emergency response) requirements applicable with under
RCRA, 40 CFR 262. In addition, the decrease in the amount of solvents on
site decreases the possibility that a facility will meet any of the reporting
thresholds of SARA Title m for solvents (40 CFR 300, 355, 370, and 372;
and EO 12856)
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Material compatibility must be evaluated with respect to the item being cleaned.
Uninhibited sodium bicarbonate and water residue can corrode substrates;
however, current testing indicates that the corrosion potential of inhibited
formulations is similar to that of organic solvent strippers. Results from an Air
Force test program (Tasking Directive 1-90) indicated that there was excessive
corrosion of aluminum cladding materials when sodium bicarbonate and water
slurry were used.
Health concerns are dependent on the variety of paint to be removed.
Inhalation of lead- and zinc chromate-based paints can lead to irritation of the
respiratory system. Some lead compounds are carcinogenic. Solvent-based
paints can irritate the lungs and mucous membranes. Prolonged exposure can
affect respiration and the central nervous system.
Because of the noise and dust produced (the amount of dust produced will vary
from system to system), a sodium bicarbonate stripping system should only be
operated in an isolated area outdoors or indoors in a confined or remote area.
5-01-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Benefits:
Operators must wear double hearing protection - an air-hood blast helmet with
an air-supplied respirator and optional half mask (for those blasting systems that
generate large amounts of dust), or a full-faced air purification respirator with
HEPA filters - and protective clothing (e.g. rain suits, rubber gloves, and safety-
toed rubber boots, depending upon the substrate coating).
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
Significantly reduces in the amount of hazardous waste generated compared
to chemical stripping
Reduces the number of hours required for paint stripping in comparison to
chemical stripping
Selectively removes individual coating layers
Prewashing and masking is not required in most applications
No size limitations for parts being stripped
Wastewater stream may be centrifuged to reduce its volume or treated (if
required) at industrial wastewater treatment plants
Blast media is usually less expensive than PMB, wheat starch, and CO2
pellets
Disadvantages:
Requires subsequent washing of the item; thus, electrical components
cannot be exposed to this stripping process
The sodium bicarbonate solution can not be recycled for stripping, although
the water can be separated for disposal
Process may require monitoring
Containment may be required
Not approved by NAVAIR for depainting aircraft
5-01-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Economic
Analysis: Annual operational costs for depainting 228 aircraft wheels with bicarbonate of
soda stripping system (Accustrip) compared to chemical paint stripping were
evaluated at the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas, as shown
below.
* Assumptions:
Accustrip System cost: $20,000
Compressor, trailer mounted: $20,000
Materials and installation: $125,000
Other significant costs (engineering, contingency, startup): $60,000
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Bicarbonate of Soda Stripping and Chemical Paint Stripping
Bicarbonate of Soda Chemical Stripping
Stripping
Operational Costs:
Labor: $2,200 $16,200
Material: $2,600 $1,600
Waste Disposal: $2,300 $2,800*
Total Operational Costs: $7,100 $20,600
Total Recovered Income: $0 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$7,100 -$20,600
* Figure is based on the material cost of $1,600 for chemical paint remover at
$10/gallon, the material consumption is 160 gallons. Paint/solvent disposal is
$2.10 to $14.00 per gallon, depending on the specific solvents and paint in the
waste. Using the high estimate of $14.00 per gallon, the cost for waste disposal
is $2,240. For waste water treatment an extrapolation was based on the
$8.24/1000 gallons figure from the Plastic Media Blasting Paint Stripping data
sheet, a conservative estimate of 70,000 gallons of waste water, and a waste
water treatment cost of $580. Therefore, the total waste disposal cost is
$2,800.
5-01-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for Bicarbonate of Soda Stripping System: $13,500
* Capital Cost for Equipment/Process: $225,000
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: < 17 years
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost MSDS*
High Pressure Cleaner 4940-01-413-5627 ea. $64,993.00
High Pressure Cleaner 4940-01-413-5629 ea. $53,211.00
Waste Water Centrifuge 4940-01-411-9830 ea. $8,012.00
BOSSBLAST (Blast Media) 5350-01-414-1894 49/50 Ib Bags $1,257.00 Click me
Blast Cleaning Contain. Room 4940-01-413-5605 ea. $20,683.00
*There are multiple MSDSsfor most NSNs. The MSDS shown here is only meant to serve as an
example. To return from the MSDS, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar
Approving
Authority: Approval has not been made by NAVAIR for application on aircraft and
aircraft components without pretreatment of aircraft substrate to remove all
blast media. This technology should be implemented only after cognizant
authority has granted engineering approval.
This process is contained in T.0.1-1-8, but the use of it requires approval by
the engineering authority of the specific Weapon System Manager or Equipment
Item Manager with the Air Force.
Points
of Contact: Navy:
Mr. Scott Mauro
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, ESC 423
110023rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-4889, DSN: 551-4889, Fax: (805) 982-4832
5-01-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Mr. Mike Seybold
Material Engineering Laboratory, Code 344
NADEP - Naval Air Station, North Island
San Diego, CA 92135
Phone: (619) 545-9663, DSN 735-9663
Mr. Talmon Perkins
JDMAG/MAT
Building 280, door 24
4170HebbleCreek
Wright Patterson AFB, OH 45433-3653
Phone: (513) 476-2758, DSN: 986-2758, Fax: (513) 476-2233
Air Force:
Air Force Corrosion Program Office
AFRL/MLS-OLR
325 2nd Street
Robins AFB, GA 31098-1640
Phone: (912) 926-3284, DSN: 468-3284
Marine Corps:
Mr. Warren Akers
USMC Logistics Base
814 Radford Boulevard
Albany, GA 31704
Phone: (912) 439-5344, DSN 317-1126, Fax: (912) 439-6377
Vendors: The following is a list of bicarbonate of soda stripping system manufacturers.
This is not meant to be a complete list, as there may be other manufacturers of
this type of equipment.
Aqua Miserฎ
Carolina Equipment and Supply
7251 Cross Country Road
N.Charleston, SC29418
Phone: (800) 394-4987, Fax: (803) 760-3500
Accustrip Systemฎ
Schmidt Manufacturing, Inc.
P.O. Box 37
Fresno, TX 77545
Phone: (800) 231-2085 or (713) 431-1717, Fax: (713) 431-1717
5-01-7
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
JETSTRIPPER
WhiteMetal, Incorporated
P.O. Box 266736
6300 Mdvale
Houston, TX 77207
Phone: (800) 728-8861 or (713) 640-2860, Fax: (713) 643-2251
SOBI System
Friess Equipment
2222 Akron-Peninsula Road
Akron, OH 44313
Phone: (800) 899-7624, Fax: (216) 923-5833
ARMEX Blast Media
Church and Dwight Specialty Cleaning
469 N. Harrison Street
Princeton, NJ 08540
Phone: (800) 221-0453; Fax: (609) 497-7176
Source(s): Joint Depot Maintenance Analysis Group, "Joint Paint Removal Study on Sodium
Bicarbonate, " February 1995.
Mr. Talmon Perkins, Joint Depot Maintenance Analysis Group, Wright Patterson AFB,
May 1996
Mr. Mike Seybold, Material Engineering Laboratory, NADEP, NAS North Island, San
Diego, California, April 1996.
Vendor communication, Mr. Chris Fulmer, Carolina Equipment and Supply Co., Inc.,
April 1996.
Vendor communication, Ms. Annette Rodriguez, Church and Dwight Co., Inc., April
1996.
5-01-8
-------
-------
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
CARBON DIOXIDE BLASTING OPERATIONS
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-01-99; Air Force: ST01; Army: DPT
Usage List: Navy: Low; Marine Corps: Low; Army: Low; Air Force: Low
Alternative for: Chemical Cleaning and Stripping
Compliance Areas: High
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Acetone (67-64-1), n-Butyl Alcohol (CAS: 71-36-
3), Methyl Ethyl Ketone (CAS: 78-93-3), Toluene (CAS: 108-88-3), Xylenes (CAS: 1330-20-7),
Lead (CAS: 7439-92-1), Chromium (CAS: 7440-47-3), Zinc Compounds, Phenols (CAS: 108-95-
2), Chloroacetic Acids (CAS: 79-11-8), Methylene Chloride (CAS: 75-09-2)
Overview: Carbon dioxide blasting is an alternative process to chemical cleaning and
stripping. The obvious advantage of CO2 blasting over chemical stripping is that
the inert media (CO2) dissipates. There are two basic types of CO2 blasting
systems: pellet blasting for heavy cleaning, and snow blasting for precision
cleaning.
CO? Pellet Blasting:
CO2 pellets are uniform in shape and the effectiveness of the pellets as a blast
medium is similar to abrasive blasting media. However, the pellets do not affect
the substrate; therefore, CO2 pellet blasting is technically not an abrasive
operation. This process can be used for cleaning, degreasing, some de-painting
applications, surface preparation, and de-flashing (flashing is the excess material
formed on the edges of molded parts).
The process starts with liquid CO2 stored under pressure (-850 psig). The
liquid CO2 is fed to a pelletizer, which converts the liquid into solid CO2 snow
(dry ice flakes), and then compresses the dry ice flakes into pellets at about -
110ฐ F. The pellets are metered into a compressed air stream and applied to a
surface by manual or automated cleaning equipment with specially designed
blasting nozzles. The CO2 pellets are projected onto the target surface at high
speed. As the dry ice pellets strike the surface, they induce an extreme
difference in temperature (thermal shock) between the coating or contaminant
and the underlying substrate, weakening the chemical and physical bonds
between the surface materials and the substrate. Immediately after impact, the
pellets begin to sublimate (vaporize directly from the solid phase to a gas),
releasing CO2 gas at a very high velocity along the surface to be cleaned. The
high velocity is caused by the extreme density difference between the gas and
solid phases. This kinetic energy dislodges the contaminants (coating systems,
contaminants, flash, etc.), resulting in a clean surface. Variables that affect
5-02-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
process optimization include the following: pellet density, mass flow, pellet
velocity, and propellant stream temperature.
CO2 pellet blasting is effective in removing some paints, sealants, carbon and
corrosion deposits, grease, oil and adhesives, as well as solder and flux from
printed circuit board assemblies. This process also provides excellent surface
preparation prior to application of coatings or adhesive and is suitable for most
metals and some composite materials. However, thin materials may be
adversely affected. Blasting efficiency is approximately equal to that of other
blasting operations and can approach 1 ft2/minute after optimization. CO2
blasting can be done at various velocities: subsonic, sonic, and even supersonic.
Therefore, equipment noise levels are high (between 95 and 130 dB). This
operation always requires hearing protection.
Waste cleanup and disposal are minimized because only the coating or
contaminant residue remains after blasting. There is no liquid waste because
CO2 pellets disintegrate. They pass from liquid to gaseous state, leaving no
spent media residue. With regard to toxic air control, small quantities of coating
particles are emitted to the air. A standard air filtration system should be
provided.
CO2 Snow Blasting:
In contrast to CO2 pellet blasting, CO2 snow blasting is a low impact process.
Applications for this process are primarily in the precision cleaning domain. A
typical precision cleaning operation must clean small contaminant particles that
attach to surfaces and/or surface layers of adsorbed moisture or soil due to
electrostatic attraction. These particles are so small that they have a large
fraction of their surface area attached to the surface layers. CO2 snow blasting
is most effective in breaking the adhesive forces and dislodging particles from
the substrate surface. Small flakes of dry ice transfer their kinetic energy to
sub-micron particulate contaminants, then sublimate, lifting the paniculate matter
from the substrate surface as the adhesive bonds are broken. This process is
often used as a final cleaning process for sub-micron particulate and light soils
removal.
CO2 snow is generated from liquid CO2, and is discharged directly from the
nozzle of the blasting device. The liquid CO2 is partially vaporized as it passes
through the nozzle, while the rest of the stream solidifies as pressure is reduced.
The "snow," fine solid particles, is propelled by the fraction of CO2 that
vaporizes. No compressed air or other inert gas is needed to propel the snow.
Most media can not be used in precision cleaning because they are too
aggressive or they contaminate the component with media residue. CO2 snow,
5-02-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
however, is ideal for this application, since it is relatively gentle in application,
leaves no media residue, and is highly purified, introducing no new
contaminants. CO2 snow blasting is often done in a clean room or cabinet
purged with nitrogen to provide a dry atmosphere, minimizing moisture buildup
on the component.
Compliance
Benefit:
Materials
Compatibility:
Carbon dioxide blasting operations generate less hazardous waste than chemical
stripping since solvents are not used. The decrease in hazardous waste helps
facilities meet the requirements of waste reduction under RCRA, 40 CFR 262,
Appendix, and may also help facilities reduce their generator status and reduce
their regulatory burden (e.g., recordkeeping, reporting, inspections,
transportation, accumulation time, emergency prevention and preparedness,
emergency response) under RCRA, 40 CFR 262. In addition, the decrease in
the amount of solvents on site decreases the possibility that a facility will meet
any of the reporting thresholds of SARA Title m for solvents (40 CFR 300,
355, 370, and 372; and EO 12856)
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
CO2 as a completely oxidized compound is a non-reactive gas, and thus is
compatible with most metals and non-metals.
Dry ice processes are cold and can cause thermal fracture of a component. In
addition, prolonged use on a component in one spot will cause condensation
and ice buildup. However, this is rarely a problem, because CO2 blasting is a
fast-acting, non-stationary process. Particulate and organic contamination is
either quickly removed or unable to be removed by continued blasting at a
single point. Therefore, the component temperature does not change much,
since contact time is short. Nevertheless, should component temperature drop
below the dew point of the surrounding atmosphere, moisture will accumulate
on the component. This problem can be mitigated by heating the component in
some manner so that its temperature remains above the surrounding
atmosphere's dew point after blasting. If components can not take heat, then
blasting can be performed in an enclosed space purged with a dry gas to lower
or eliminate the dew point problem.
5-02-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
CO2 does not support combustion and it is non-toxic; however, it is an
asphyxiant. CO2 will displace air since its density is greater than that of air,
causing it to accumulate at the lowest level of enclosed spaces. When blasting
with CO2 pellets, additional ventilation should be provided for enclosed spaces.
Personal protective equipment (PPE) is also required when blasting.
Static energy can build up if grounding is not provided. CO2 blasting should not
be conducted in a flammable or explosive atmosphere.
High pressure gases should be handled with great care. Always chain or secure
high pressure cylinders to a stationary support such as a column, prior to their
use.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS for CO2 prior to implementing this
technology.
Significant reduction in the amount of hazardous waste and hazardous air
emissions generated compared to chemical stripping
Time required for cleaning/stripping processes is reduced by 80-90%
Leaves no residue on the component surface
Effective in precision cleaning
Introduces no new contaminants
CO2 blasting is not always a one-pass operation; an effective blasting
operation usually requires multiple passes to achieve the desired effect
Requires operator training
Can have high capital costs
Fixed position blasting operation can damage the component's surface
Generates solid waste containing coating chips that are potentially
hazardous; media does not add to the volume of solid waste
Rebounding pellets may carry coating debris and contaminate workers and
work area
Some coating debris may redeposit on substrate
Non-automated system fatigues workers quickly because of cold
temperature, weight, and thrust of the blast nozzle
Potential hazard from compressed air or high velocity CO2 pellets
5-02-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Carbon dioxide (CO2) blasting is not an effective paint removal process for
aircraft. A production rate of 219 hours per aircraft (27 shifts) is not
acceptable for the Air Force.
Economic
Analysis: CO^ Pellet Blasting: Units come in several different configurations. The
blasting unit alone can be:
1. Purchased- $25,000 to $50,000 or
2. Rented- $1,500 to $2,500 per month.
3. Units that combine pelletizing and blasting are also available, but generally
are not economical unless the blasting operation is performed 24 hours/day,
seven days/week
4. Pellet blasting jobs can be done on a contract basis for a cost between
$200 to $300 per hour including labor, pellets, and equipment (not including
travel time or travel expenses).
5. Pellet cost:
Made by a stand-alone pelletizer that can be purchased for a cost
between $50,000 to $130,000 (cost to make pellets from delivered
liquid carbon dioxide is about $0.10-0.15/lb), or
Purchased directly from a manufacturer for a cost between $0.10/lb
and $0.50/lb delivered, depending on the purity and the distance from
the manufacturer (pelletizer purchase is reported to be economical only
if blasting is done more than 40 hours/week).
CO? Snow Blasting: Units are much lower in cost and operation, as compared
to CO2 pellet blasting, and again there are several different configurations to
choose from:
1. All manual units cost about $2,000.
2. Semi-automated units (can also be used in assembly applications) cost
between $3,000 to $5,000.
3. For highest quality precision cleaning with substantial volume requirements,
CO2 purifiers are also available. Units that can purify commercial grade
liquid CO2 start at a cost of about $5,000.
5-02-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Some of the following data was obtained from US Air Force for paint
stripping of FX Fighter Aircraft using CO2 blasting.
* Assumptions:
CO2 blasting equipment cost: $50,000
Aircraft skin area: 3,100ft2
Paint removal and cleaning area: 2,410 ft2
Labor rate: A C-130 is masked, stripped, and cleaned in 8 shifts
(64 hours). Assuming 10 people working per shift, that is 640
man-hours. The total labor cost at $60 per hour is $460,800 per
year
CO2 cost: $0.50/lb
Paint and solvent sludge disposal cost: $2/gal
Dry paint waste disposal cost: $2/lb
Water treatment/disposal cost: $8.24/1,000 gal
Chemical procurement cost: $ll/gal
One aircraft is de-painted per month
CO2_blasting
Paint removal average rate: 11 ft2/hr
Paint removal and cleaning time: 219 hr/aircraft or 2,628 hr/yr
Total CO2 usage (including training): 101,430 Ib/aircraft or
l,217,1601b/yr
Dry paint waste residue: 27 Ib/aircraft or 324 Ib/yr
Chemical stripping
Total chemical usage: 120 gal/aircraft or 1,440 gal/yr
Paint removal and cleaning time: 64 hr/aircraft or 7,68 hr/yr
Wet chemical waste residue: 120 gal/aircraft or 1,440 gal/yr
Contaminated wastewater residue: 308,700 gallons
5-02-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
CO2 Blasting Process and Chemical Stripping
CO? Blasting Chemical Stripping
Operational Costs:
Labor: $157,700 $460,800
Material $608,600 $15,840
Waste Disposal $650 $2,880
Wastewater $0 $2,544
Treatment
Total Operational Costs: $766,950 $482,064*
Total Recovered Income $0 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$766,950 -$482,064
* Total Operational costs do not take utilities and maintenance costs into
consideration. These costs would be significantly higher for CO2 blasting
than for chemical stripping.
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for CO2 Blasting: -$284,886
* Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $50,000
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: <1 year
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values. To
return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost
None Identified
Approving
Authority: The Air Force Corrosion Program Office does not approve of this process for
paint removal and will not provide technical guidance for this process. Any
implementation of this process for paint removal in the Air Force would require
approval of the engineering authority for specific Weapon System Managers or
Equipment Item managers.
5-02-7
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
Source (s):
Air Force:
Air Force Corrosion Program Office
AFRL/MLS-OLR
325 2nd Street
Robins AFB, GA 31098-1640
Phone: (912) 926-3284, DSN: 468-3284
Alpheus Cleaning Technologies
9119MllikenAve.
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Phone: (800) 445-6131, Fax: (909) 980-5696
Manufacturer of carbon dioxide pelletizers and blasting equipment.
Mr. Howard Bardey, Sales Engineer
Cold Jet Inc.
455 Wards Corner Road, Suite 100
Loveland, OH45140
Phone: (800) 337-9423, (513) 831-3211, Fax: (513) 831-1209
Manufacturer of carbon dioxide pelletizing and blasting equipment.
Mr. Gene Cook/Mr. Jerry Raschau
Va-Tran Systems, Inc.
677 Anita St., Suite A
Chula Vista, CA 91911-4661
Phone: (619) 423-4555, Fax: (619) 423-4604
Manufacturer of the SNO-GUN carbon dioxide precision cleaning system.
Ms. Mary Minas (xlOl) or Mr. Jeff Sloan (x!02)
EPA SAGE 2.0 "Solvent Alternative Guide. "
Cold Jetฎ product literature andvideo.
Va-Tran Systems, Inc. product literature.
Hill, E. A., "Carbon Dioxide Snow Examination and Experimentation, " Precision
Cleaning, p. 36-39, February 1994.
Sloan, J., "Dry Ice Snow Surface Cleaning of Electronics, Optics and Metal Parts, "
MICROCONTAMINATION93 Conference Proceedings, p. 671-676, 1993.
5-02-8
-------
PCS
KHTT.UIU; OMMMiSHmux
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
FLUIDIZED BED PAINT STRIPPER
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-03-99; Air Force: ST01; Army: DPT
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Low; Army: Low; Air Force: Low
Alternative for: Chemical Paint Stripping and Degreasing
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Cadmium (CAS: 7440-43-9), Chromium (CAS:
7440-47-3), Lead (CAS: 7439-92-1), Zinc (CAS: 7440-66-6)
Overview: The fluidized bed paint removal process is an alternative method to chemical
paint stripping and degreasing of non-aluminum and non-heat-sensitive metal
parts. The most notable pollution prevention benefit of this process is that it
produces no solvent wastes. The fluidized bed paint stripper (FBPS) can be
used for forged steel, but not aluminum or aluminum alloys.
The FBPS process removes paint or other organic coatings by heating the part
to greater than 650 degrees F to cause pyrolysis and decomposition of the
organic portion of the paint. The FBPS typically consists of the following four
components: 1) fluidized-bed furnace or retort, 2) fluidized-bed cooling system;
3) off-gas treatment system consisting of a cyclone, afterburner and scrubber,
and 4) low energy shot-blast unit. The fluidized-bed furnace or hot bed is
where pyrolysis of the coatings takes place. A granular material, aluminum
oxide (alumina) in most cases, is used as a heat transfer medium. Air passing
through the bed keeps the media fluidized. Parts to be cleaned are lowered into
the fluidized bed, which quickly heats the part and its surface coatings (paint,
grease, oil, etc.) to a temperature at which organic components of the surface
material pyrolyze into carbon oxides, other gaseous combustion products, and
char. The fluidized-bed cooling system or cold bed is used to cool the parts
after the organics have been pyrolyzed. Carbon monoxide and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) generated during pyrolysis are burned in the afterburner.
The thermal decomposition of paint leaves some carbon and inorganic char on
the part. Most of the char may be removed in the fluidized bed; however, most
parts require further cleaning before they can be repainted. The shot-blast unit
is used to remove the inorganic coatings and char to prepare the parts for
repainting.
This process removes and destroys paint and grease from non-aluminum or
non-heat sensitive materials. Waste streams from this process include spent
heat transfer medium, spent blast media, exhaust air from the afterburner and
scrubber, water discharge from the scrubber, and dust from the cyclone
5-03-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Compliance
Benefit:
separator. The heat transfer medium, blast media, and cyclone dust will contain
metals from the stripped paint.
Field demonstrations of the FBPS have been performed at two Army Depots:
Letterkenny, PA and Red River, TX. The findings and conclusions of these
demonstration projects noted specific limitations of the FBPS process.
The Air Force does not have many rework facilities where the components are
primarily steel and can be heated to the temperatures required by this process.
Consequently, it will be difficult to find sufficient workload suited to this process
and to justify the capital investment. It is an excellent process and it would be
recommended where appropriate and after engineering approval.
Use of a fluidized bed paint stripper will help a facility decrease the amounts of
solvents used and stored on site and therefore, decreases the possibility that a
facility will meet reporting thresholds for solvents under 40 CFR 355, 370 and
EO 12856
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
The FBPS process is not suitable for use with aluminum and aluminum alloy
parts because these materials lose essentially all of their hardness or temper
when exposed to the 700 to 800 degree F process temperatures.
Inhalation of lead and zinc chromate paints can lead to irritation of the
respiratory tract. Some lead compounds are carcinogenic. Solvent-based
paints can irritate the lungs and mucous membranes. Prolonged exposure can
affect respiration and the central nervous system. Proper personal protective
equipment should be used.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
Leaves almost no waste paint residue, thus eliminating significant waste
sludge disposal costs as well as avoiding the future liability associated with
the hazardous components of the paint sludge
5-03-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Uses an inert medium to clean parts of any shape, size, or geometry and
coated with any type of paint. The rapid changes in coating technology do
not affect the performance of the system
Provides cleaning to the bare metal
Disadvantages:
FBPS is not suitable for removal of paint from aluminum and aluminum alloy
parts
The fluidized bed media may be regulated as a RCRA characteristic
hazardous waste because of toxicity
The FBPS process is not suitable for parts with crevices, channels, or
cavities (e.g. engine blocks) that would retain FBPS media and be difficult
to clean after treatment
The FBPS process has little or no effect on corrosion removal
Parts may require secondary cleaning to remove char and inorganic coatings
The amount of waste generated by the FBPS system may exceed the
volume of wastes generated by a caustic stripping system
The FBPS workers and any workers in the buildings containing the system
may be subject to Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)
requirements for employees exposed to lead under 29 CFR 1910.1025
Economic
Analysis:
The cost elements of the FBPS are compared to stripping using Water Blast
Plus. The following economic analysis shows the FBPS to have a lower annual
cost than Water Blast Plus. Water Blast Plus was chosen as the comparison
technique instead of chemical stripping since it has a lower annual cost than
chemical stripping. Fluidized bed paint strippers can range from $7,000 for a
small parts stripper to $800,000 for an industrial scale stripper.
* Assumptions:
350 Ibs. paint per load
2 hours per load
Cost of media grit: $ 1.08/lb
Amount of media grit used: 6,200 Ibs.
10 percent of the paint is converted to dry ash (hazardous waste):
70,000 Ib/yr
Electricity and gas costs for FBPS: $21,400/month
5-03-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Electricity costs for Water Blast Plus: $7,800/month
Disposal cost of sludge and ash: $2/lb
Operator (one per shift): $30/hr
Water cost: $ 1.60/1000 gal
Water use: 100 gpm (24,000,000 gallons/year)
Maintenance costs FBPS: $625/month
Maintenance costs Water Blast Plus: $20,800/month
Amount of sludge generated from Water Blast Plus: 700,000 Ib/yr
The annual costs are based on the operation of 2 shifts/day, 5
days/week, 50 weeks/year
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Paint Stripping by FBPS and Water Blast Plus
FBPS
Operational Costs:
Labor: $120,000
Shot & Fluid Bed $6,700
Media
Utilities $256,800
Water $0
Maintenance Labor & $7,500
Parts
Disposal Cost $140,000
Total Operational Costs: $531,000
Total Recovered Income: $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$531,000
Water Blast Plus
$120,000
$0
$93,600
$38,400
$249,600
$1,400,000
$1,901,600
$0
-$1,901,600
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for FBPS: $1,370,600
* Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $800,000
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: <1 year
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
5-03-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
Approving
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
Due to the low potential application of this process within the Air Force,
technical guidance for this process will not be provided by the Air Force
Corrosion Program Office. Any implementation of this process will require
approval of the engineering authority for specific Weapon System Managers
and Equipment Item managers.
Army:
Mr. Ed Hanna
SDSRR-ME
Red River Army Depot
Texarkana, Texas
DSN: 829-3380, Phone: (903) 334-3380
Fax: (903) 334-3650
Mr. Dennis Reed
Attn. SDSLE-MME
Letterkenny Army Depot
Chambersburg, PA 17201
Phone:(717)261-9427
Air Force:
Air Force Corrosion Program Office
AFRL/MLS-OLR
325 2nd Street
Robins AFB, GA 31098-1640
Phone: (912) 926-3284, DSN: 468-3284
The following is a list of fluidized bed paint stripping system manufacturers. This
is not meant to be a complete list, as there may be other manufacturers of this
type of equipment.
Procedyne Corporation
11 Industrial Drive
New Brunswick, NJ 08901
Phone: (908) 249-8347
5-03-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Segers Dinamec
314 Emery Circle
Anstell, GA 30168
Phone: (770) 739-4205
Fax:(770)739-4205
Fluidtherm Corporation
361 Donovan
South Lyon, MI 48178
Phone: (800) 334-6258
Fax:(810)437-8808
Source: Technical Report No. TR-FBS-86-01 dated January 16, 1986 by Procedyne Corporation.
Final Report: Engineering Test Report Paint Waste Reduction Fluidized Bed Process
Demonstration at Letterkenny Army Depot, Chambersburg, Pennsylvania (July 1991).
Contract No. DAAA15-88-D-0001, Task Order 0007
Final Report: Evaluation of a Fluidized - Bet Paint Stripper Red River Army Depot,
Texarkana, Texas (April 1992). Contract No. DAAA 1S-88-D-001, Task Order 0005.
Point of Contact (E. Hanna).
5-03-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
HIGH AND MEDIUM PRESSURE WATER PAINT STRIPPING PROCESSES
Revision:
Process Code:
Usage List:
Alternative for:
5/99
Navy and Marine Corps: ID-01-01; Air Force: ST01; Army: DPT
Navy: Low; Marine Corps: Low; Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
Chemical Paint Stripping
Compliance Areas: High
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Toluene (CAS: 108-88-3), Xylenes (CAS: 1330-
20-7), Methyl Ethyl Ketone (CAS: 78-93-3), Acetone (67-64-1), n-Butyl Alcohol (CAS: 71-36-3),
Methylene Chloride (CAS: 75-09-2) Lead (CAS: 7439-92-1), Chromium (CAS: 7440-47-3), Zinc
Compounds, Phenols (CAS: 108-95-2), Chloroacetic Acids (CAS: 79-11-8), Cyanides
Overview:
High and medium pressure water blast systems are used for paint stripping
surfaces with low-volume water streams at pressures ranging from 3,000 to
15,000 psi (medium pressure operations), and from 15,000 to 55,000 psi (high
pressure operations). The medium pressure systems may be augmented with
blast water additives and/or surface treatments. For example, sodium
bicarbonate1 may be added to the water stream, or environmentally compliant
chemicals may be applied to painted surfaces prior to water blasting. High-
pressure systems typically use pure water streams. With both medium and high
pressure water systems, specialized nozzles can be used to achieve effects
ranging from a relatively gentle, layer-by-layer removal of organic paints to
removal of metal flame spray coating and other tough, tightly adherent coatings.
The process water, paint, and residue are collected by the effluent-recovery
system for filtering the paint and residue, removing leached ions (copper,
cadmium, lead, etc.), microparticulates, chlorides, sulfates, nitrates, and other
contaminants. The water is then passed through a coalescing tank to remove oils
and film, then through charcoal filter, microfilters and, finally, a deionization
system to ensure that the water is Grade A deionized water. The recovered
deionized water is recycled back into the process.
Compliance
Benefit:
Use of a high or medium pressure water paint and stripping processes can
decrease the amount of hazardous waste generated at a facility since solvents
are not used and the solid residue (hazardous) can be separated from the
wastewater. The decrease in hazardous waste helps facilities meet the
requirements of waste reduction under RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix, and
may also help facilities reduce their generator status and lessen the regulatory
burden (e.g. recordkeeping, reporting, inspections, transportation,
1 This application is discussed in greater detail in the Pollution Prevention Opportunity Data Sheet Sodium
Bicarbonate Stripping Processes."
5-04-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
accumulation time, emergency prevention and preparedness, emergency
response) with under RCRA, 40 CFR 262. In addition, facilities will decrease
the amount of solvents on site and therefore, the possibility that a facility will
meet any of the reporting thresholds of SARA Title HJ for solvents (40 CFR
300, 355, 370, and 372; and EO 12856) is decreased. Moreover, since the
water pressure stripping processes does not generate any dust or airborne
contaminants the likelihood of the facility requiring an air permit under 40 CFR
70 and 71 is decreased.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
No material compatibility problems have been documented for use of high and
medium pressure water processes to de-paint metallic surfaces. However,
according to Mr. Randy Ivey, Materials Engineering (WR-ALC/TIEDM)
medium and high-pressure water streams can damage composite and
honeycomb thin skinned materials. The use of specific chemicals to augment
medium pressure water processes must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Proper design, operation, and maintenance of the equipment is required for its
safe use. Proper personal protective equipment is also recommended.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
Reduces hazardous waste by 90%
Selectively removes individual coating-layers
Pre-washing and masking is not needed in most applications
No size limitations for parts being stripped
Wastewater stream compatibility with industrial wastewater plants must be
determined on a case-by-case basis taking into account the characteristics
of the waste stream and plant's capability.
Low implementation cost utilizing simple robust equipment
Reduces the process material costs significantly
Reduces labor hours for the stripping process by 50%
No dust or airborne contaminants generated
5-04-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Requires no cleanup after stripping
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
High capital costs
Removes one layer at a time
May not remove corrosion
The characteristics of the coatings to be removed may impact personal
protection and waste collection/disposal considerations
Coating debris sludge is a potential hazardous waste
Wastewater disposal requirements depend on the toxicity of the coating
being removed
Workers must be protected from direct impingement of the water jet
Operator training is required
Water can penetrate and/or damage joints, seals, and bonded areas
Additives to the water may have an adverse effect (i.e., flash rusting) on the
surfaces being cleaned
Stripping rate varies with the type of paint, coating condition and coating
thickness
This technique is not appropriate for composite or honeycomb thin skinned
materials
The medium pressure water stripping process works well as a supplement
to chemical paint stripping, but is not recommended as a stand alone paint
removal process for complete aircraft stripping. It has many successful
applications as a part/component stripping process. Medium pressure
water without abrasive additives, such as sodium bicarbonate, does not
always remove paint completely. High-pressure water is not a technology
that has proven effective for off-aircraft component paint stripping. Capital
investment for high pressure water paint stripping is cost prohibitive.
The capital cost for high and medium pressure water processes will vary
considerably, depending upon the process and its application. Capital costs for
medium pressure systems range from $40,000 to $70,000 and capital costs for
high-pressure systems range from $850,000 to $1,500,000. According to the
Air Force PRO-ACT, the cost of water is an integral part of the process and
potential savings due to recycling and elimination of surface washing following
chemical paint stripping.
5-04-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
* Assumptions:
3 aircraft will be de-painted per month
External paint area of each aircraft: 937.8 ft2
Strip rate for one aircraft: 2 ft2/min for Water Process,
0.22 ft2/min for Chemical Process
Labor rate: $30/hr
Electricity: $0.08/kw-hr
Paint and solvent sludge disposal cost: $4/gal
Dry paint waste disposal cost: $2/lb
Water Process
Total labor requirements for one aircraft: 7.8 hr/aircraft
Material costs: $445/aircraft
System electrical requirements: 5,675 kw-hr/aircraft
System maintenance cost: $31 I/aircraft
Dry paint waste residue: 30 Ib/aircraft
Chemical Process
Total labor requirements for one aircraft: 71 hr/aircraft
Chemical procurement cost: $10/gallon
Chemical consumption for a 937.8 ft2 aircraft: 35 gallons/aircraft or
$350/aircraft
Paint and solvent waste: 87 gal/aircraft
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
High Pressure Water Paint Stripping and Chemical Paint Stripping
Water Stripping Chemical Stripping
Operational Costs:
Labor: $8,400 $76,700
Material $16,000 $12,600
Energy $16,300 $0
Waste Disposal $2,200 $12,528
System Maintenance: $11,200 $0
Total Operational Costs: $54,100 $101,828
Total Recovered Income: $0 $0
Net Annual Benefit/Cost: $54,100 $101,828
5-04-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for Water Stripping: $47,728
* Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $1,175,000
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: <25 years
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
Hi-Press. Water Gun Cleaner
10-100 Hose
Approving
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
NSN
4940-01-413-5600
Pending
Unit Size
ea.
ea.
Cost
$2,400.00
$822.60
Medium pressure water paint removal is an approved process in T.0.1-1-8.
However, use of this process requires approval by the engineering authority of
the specific Weapon System manager and Equipment Item Manager. High-
pressure water paint removal systems are not recommended by the Air Force
corrosion Program Office and technical guidance for the process is not
provided. Use of this process must be approved by the engineering authority of
the specific Weapon System Manager and Equipment Item manager.
For Air Force applications, high and medium pressure water paint stripping
must not be used on any aircraft or weapon systems without the knowledge and
approval of the appropriate system manager, office(s) having engineering
authority on the specific airframe(s) and the Air Force Corrosion Program
Office.
Navy:
Mr. Scott Mauro
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, ESC 423
1100 23rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-5318, DSN: 551-5318, Fax: (805) 982-4832
Air Force:
Air Force Corrosion Program Office
AFRL/MLS-OLR (Bldg. 165)
325 2nd Street
Robins AFB, GA 31098-1640
Phone: (912) 926-3284, DSN: 468-3284
5-04-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Mr. Larry Garrettor or Mr. Richard Slife
Materials Engineering (WR-ALC/TIEDM)
DSN 468-4489
Vendors: The following is a list of high and medium pressure water system vendors. This
is not meant to be a complete list, as there may be other manufacturers of this
type of equipment.
Aqua Miserฎ
Carolina Equipment and Supply
Mr. Chris Fulmer
7251 Cross Country Rd.
N.Charleston, SC29418
Phone: (800)394-4987, (803) 760-3000, Fax: (803)760-3500
(Medium pressure water systems)
Water Jet Systems, Inc.
Mr. Bob Hawkins
6000 Technology Drive
Huntsville, AL 35085-1955
Phone: (205)721-2770
O'Cornell Jetting Systems
Mr. Mike Richardson
3195 "H" Park Road
Benicia, CA 94510
Phone: (800) 320-4848, (707) 747-4848, Fax: (707) 747-6372
5-04-6
-------
-------
-------
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
PLASTIC MEDIA BLASTING (PMB) PAINT STRIPPING
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-01-99; Air Force: ST01; Army: DPT
Usage List: Navy: High; Marine Corps: High; Army: High; Air Force: High
Alternative for: Chemical Paint Stripping/Sand Blasting
Compliance Areas: Medium
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Toluene (CAS: 108-88-3), Xylenes (CAS: 1330-
20-7), Methyl Ethyl Ketone (CAS: 78-93-3), Acetone (67-64-1), n-Butyl Alcohol (CAS: 71-36-3),
Lead (CAS: 7439-92-1), Chromium (CAS: 7440-47-3), Zinc Compounds, Phenols (CAS: 108-95-
2), Chloroacetic Acids (CAS: 79-11-8), Methylene Chloride (CAS: 75-09-2)
Overview: Plastic Media Blasting (PMB) is a dry abrasive blasting process, designed to
replace chemical paint stripping operations and conventional sand blasting. This
process uses soft, angular plastic particles as the blasting medium.
PMB is performed in a ventilated enclosure such as a small cabinet (glove box),
a walk-in booth, a large room, or airplane hanger. The PMB process blasts the
plastic media at a much lower pressure (less than 40 psi) than conventional
blasting. PMB is well suited for stripping paints, since the low pressure and
relatively soft plastic medium have minimal effect on the surfaces beneath the
paint.
After blasting, the media is passed through a reclamation system that consists of
a cyclone centrifuge, a dual adjustable air wash, multiple vibrating classifier
screen decks, and a magnetic separator. In addition, some manufacturers
provide dense particle separators as a reclamation system. The denser
particles, such as paint chips, are separated from the reusable blast media, and
the reusable media is returned to the blast pot. Typically, media can be
recycled ten to twelve times before it becomes too small to remove paint
effectively. Waste material consists of blasting media and paint chips. The
waste material may be classified as a RCRA hazardous waste because of the
presence of metals. An alternative solution to handling a potential hazardous
waste is to locate a vendor that would "lease" the blast media to the base and
then recycle the media to recapture the metals.
Plastic media are manufactured in 7 types and a variety of sizes and hardnesses.
A military specification (MIL-P-85891) has been developed for plastic media.
The specification provides general information on the types and characteristics
of plastic media. The plastic blasting media types are:
5-05-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Type I Polyester (Thermoset)
TypeU Urea formaldehyde (Thermoset)
Type in Melamine formaldehyde (Thermoset)
Type IV Phenol formaldehyde (Thermoset)
Type V Acrylic (Thermoplastic)
Type VI Poly(allyl diglycol carbonate) (Thermoset)
Type VII Starch-g-acrylic
PMB facilities typically use a single type of plastic media which they use for all
of their PMB work. The majority of DOD PMB facilities use either Type U or
Type V media. Type V media is not as hard as Type U media and is gentler on
substrates. Type V media is more commonly used on aircraft. Type U is better
for steel-only surfaces.
An option with PMB is to lease the plastic media. Under the lease program, the
used plastic media is picked up by the leasing company for recycling. This
option eliminates media waste from the PMB facility wastestream.
The pollution prevention benefits of this technology as compared to sandblasting
is through the reuse of the blasting media, which greatly reduces the volume of
spent media generated. When compared to chemical paint stripping, this
technology eliminates the generation of waste solvent.
PMB is being used at Puget Sound, Charleston, and Portsmouth Naval
shipyards; Naval Aviation depots (NADEPs) San Diego, Norfolk, and Cherry
Point; and Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) Indian Head, as well as
other Navy activities and throughout the Army and Air Force. Plastic media
glove boxes and enclosed blasting booths have been installed at aircraft
maintenance activities to remove paint from support equipment and
components. A blast media lease and recycle program is currently in place at
NADEP Cherry Point. A more detailed list of organizations within the DOD
depot maintenance community that have implemented PMB operations is
provided in Appendix HJ of Joint Paint Removal Study; Final Report Plastic
Media Blast, Joint Depot Maintenance Analysis Group, Technology
Assessment Division, June 1994.
Compliance
Benefit: Use of plastic media blasting paint stripping will help a facility decrease the
amount of solvents used and stored on site and therefore, decreases the
possibility that the facility will meet reporting thresholds for solvents under 40
CFR 355, 370 and EO 12856. In addition, plastic media blasting generates
less hazardous waste than traditional sanding blasting operations. The decrease
5-05-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
in hazardous waste helps facilities meet the requirements of waste reduction
under RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix, and may also help facilities reduce
their generator status and possibly reduce their regulatory burden (e.g.
recordkeeping, reporting, inspections, transportation, accumulation time,
emergency prevention and preparedness, emergency response) with under
RCRA, 40 CFR 262. Moreover, plastic media blasting uses less water and
electricity than chemical depainting operations which meets the requirements in
EO 12902
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Storage and handling of plastic media and blast waste associated with this
process pose no compatibility problems. Prior to using plastic media for
depainting operations, personnel should check applicable military specifications
[such as (MTL-P-85891)] and operations manuals for the PMB systems.
Plastic media cannot be used with a system designed for other types of media.
Some military specifications do not allow PMB for depainting certain types of
materials (i.e. fiberglass, certain composites, honeycomb sandwich structures,
and some applications with thin-skinned aircraft components). In certain cases,
PMB can inhibit crack detection on some of the softer alloys used for aircraft
components (e.g. magnesium).
As with any blasting operations, airborne dust is a major safety and health
concern. Proper precautions should be taken to ensure that personnel do not
inhale dust/particulate matter. Additional protective measures should be taken
when stripping lead chromate- or zinc chromate-based paints, as these
compounds may be hazardous. Inhalation of lead and zinc compounds can
irritate the respiratory tract, and some compounds are known to be
carcinogenic. Inhalation of paint solvents can irritate the lungs and mucous
membranes. Prolonged exposure can affect respiration and the central nervous
system. Operators must wear continuous flow airline respirators in accordance
with OSHA requirements as specified in 29 CFR 1910.94 when blasting
operations are in progress.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
5-05-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Benefits:
Media can be recycled (10-12 recycling events)
Wastewater disposal costs (typical in chemical paint stripping operations)
are virtually eliminated with PMB
Eliminates the production of waste solvents when compared to chemical
paint stripping
Disadvantages:
Substantial capital equipment investment is required
Solid wastes may have to be disposed of as a hazardous waste
Operator time, maintenance requirements, handling and disposal of waste
varies upon material to be stripped
Quality of stripping is dependent on skill and experience level of the
operator
Military specifications do not allow PMB for depainting certain types of
materials
May not remove corrosion
While this waste may be exempt from Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) regulation as a hazardous waste, it may be classified
as a hazardous material for transportation purposes.
Economic
Analysis:
PMB systems can range in cost from $7,000 for a small portable unit to
$1,400,000 for a major facility for aircraft stripping. The following information
on investment costs and costs/payback for PMB systems at Hill AFB, Utah,
was provided in Joint Paint Removal Study; Final Report; Plastic Media
Blast, Joint Depot Maintenance Analysis Group, Technology Assessment
Division, June 1994. According to the Air Force Corrosion Program Office,
the capital cost for PMB for large aircraft (cargo) grows in great orders of
magnitude, for example, $12,000,000 for C-5. However, the cost savings for
the process of PMB versus chemical stripping do not grow proportionally, and
payback will not occur in two years.
In 1987, Hill AFB gathered data during the stripping of F-4 aircraft using
chemical stripping and PMB.
5-05-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
* Assumptions:
Labor rate: $45/hr
Work load = 75 aircraft/yr
Labor per airplane: 183 hrs for blasting, 364 hrs for chemical
stripping
Chemical procurement cost: $ 11.40/gallon
Chemical use per airplane: 468 gallons
Plastic media procurement cost: $1.76/lb
Plastic media used per airplane: l,5001bs
Water treatment/disposal: $8.24/1000 gallons
Water usage per airplane: 200,000 gallons
Electricity usage costs per airplane: PMB = $173; chemical
stripping = $333
Paint and solvent waste disposal: 0.51 ton per airplane at
$2000/ton
Spent media and blast waste disposal: 0.85 ton per airplane at
$260/ton
Water purchase costs: $0.43/1000 gallons
Maintenance costs per airplane: PMB = $1,333; chemical stripping
= $667
Cost per airplane to strip parts which can't be done using PMB:
$667
5-05-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
PMB and Chemical Stripping
PMB
Operational Costs:
Labor: $617,600
Chemical: $0
Plastic Media: $198,000
Water Treatment/ $0
Disposal:
Electricity: $13,000
Hazardous Waste $16,600
Disposal:
Water: $0
Maintenance Cost: $100,000
Cost of parts not done $50,000
by PMB:
Total Operational Costs: $995,200
Total Recovered Income: $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$995,200
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for PMB:
* Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process:
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process:
Chemical Stripping
$1,228,500
$400,100
$0
$123,600
$25,000
$76,500
$6,500
$50,000
$0
$1,910,200
$0
-$1,910,200
$915,000
$1,400,000
< 1.5 years
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
Phenol Formaldehyde
(Abrasive Grain)
Urea Formaldehyde
(Abrasive Grain)
NSN
5350-01-326-9942
5350-01-326-8222
Unit Size
501b bag
501b bag
Cost
$141.38
$85.05
MSDS*
Click me
5-05-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
*There are multiple MSDSsfor most NSNs. The MSDS shown here is only meant to serve as an
example. To return from the MSDS, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar
Approving
Authority:
PMB is not authorized for use on aluminum and magnesium components that
require a fluorescent penetrant inspection. NAVAIR has authorized PMB use
on metal substrates under specific process control parameters at depot
activities. NAVAIR has not authorized PMB for depainting composites, other
non-metal substrates, or honeycomb sandwich structures. This
recommendation should be implemented only after engineering approval has
been granted by cognizant authority.
For Air Force applications, plastic media blasting must not be used on any
aircraft or weapon systems without the knowledge and approval of the
appropriate system manager, office(s) having engineering authority on the
specific airframe(s) and the Air Force Corrosion Program Office. This process
is contained in T.O.1-1-8, but the use of it requires approval by the engineering
authority of the specific Weapon System Manager or Equipment Item manager
with in the Air Force.
PMB equipment authorizations are listed in the Air Force Table of Allowance
(TA) 480. The following PMB recycling statements of work (SOW) are
available through PRO-ACT: (a) "Statement of Work for Service Contract to
Lease Plastic Media," prepared by Ogden Air Logistics Center and (b)
Composite Leasing Corporation Letter, 11 April 1996, which provides a
service contract outline.
Points
of Contact:
Navy:
Mr. Charles Tittle
Naval Sea Systems Command
Code SEA OOTF
2531 Jefferson Davis Highway
Arlington, VA 22242-5160
Phone: (703) 602-3594, DSN: 332-3594
Fax: (703) 602-7213
Mr. Greg Finer
Code 342
Naval Aviation Depot
PSC Box 8021
Cherry Point, NC 28533-0021
5-05-7
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Phone: (919) 466-7343, DSN: 582-8108
Fax:(919)466-8108
Mr. Butch Green
Materials and Planning Division
Naval Aviation Depot
Naval Air Station Jacksonville
Jacksonville, FL 32212-0016
Phone: (904) 542-2469, DSN: 942-2481
Air Force:
Air Force Corrosion Program Office
AFRL/MLS-OLR (Bldg. 165)
325 2nd Street
Robins AFB, GA 31098-1640
Phone: (912) 926-3284, DSN: 468-3284
Vendors: The following is a list of PMB manufacturers. This is not meant to be a
complete list, as there may be other manufacturers of this type of equipment.
Pauli System
1820 Walters Court
P.O. Box 2589
Fair-field, CA 94533
Phone: (707) 429-2434
Fax: (707) 429-2424
Schlick-America Inc.
Bob Corcoran
P.O. Box 374
Randallstown, MD 21133-0374
Phone: (410) 655-0770
Fax:(410) 521-0483
Leasing Services:
Composite Leasing Corporation, Inc.
Brian Lund
P.O.Box 102
Minocqua, WI. 54548
Phone: (800) 677-4568
Fax:(715)356-3952
5-05-8
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Composition Materials Company, Inc.
1375 Kings Highway East
Fairfield, CT 06430
Phone: (800) 262-7763
Fax:(203) 335-9728
L.S. Solutions, Incorporated
P.O. Box 309
Deer Park, TX 77536
Phone:(281)478-6522
Fax:(281)478-6531
Sources: Joint Paint Removal Study; Final Report; Plastic Media Blast, Joint Depot
Maintenance Analysis Group, Technology Assessment Division, Dayton, Ohio; June
1994; (513) 296-8296
N.E. Wasson, Jr., P.E., "Dry Stripping the C-5 andB-52 in the World's Largest Dry
Stripping Installation ", Proceedings of the Second Annual AF Worldwide Pollution
Prevention Conference, June 2, 1993.
Butch Green, LMTCECode 343, Naval Aviation Depot, Naval Air Station Jacksonville,
June 1996.
MarkMeno, NADEP Cherry Point, July 1996.
Brian Lund, Solidstrip, Inc., June 1996.
5-05-9
-------
:m _*ซ
'pJZar
;| -vrafc
''4|B
, ^., *,f
SST-ftf. I
iTป
',*>*;
<*-t
/M. "*",-
W.
#
i:
a8: asufi^y
>1J .v ซii? >x
* * r^ป-^*w " % * * / - -r
T/'p:p "V .:- e>i
V-fc'JJ ^'
-/' .!'*^'ป !
^ปj^* ' J' *"*?'
tM/t .; *,* fcJr^ ^t
*J *, --
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
DECREASING AND PAINT STRIPPING USING SPONGE BLASTING
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-01-03; Air Force: ST01; Army: DPT
Usage List: Navy: Low; Marine Corps: Low; Army: Low; Air Force: Low
Alternative for: Sand Blasting and Chemical Paint Stripping
Compliance Areas: Medium
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Toluene (CAS: 108-88-3), Xylenes (CAS: 1330-
20-7), Methyl Ethyl Ketone (CAS: 78-93-3), Acetone (67-64-1), n-Butyl Alcohol (CAS: 71-36-3),
Lead (CAS: 7439-92-1), Chromium (CAS: 7440-47-3), Zinc Compounds, Methylene Chloride (CAS:
75-09-2), Phenols (CAS: 108-95-2), Chloroacetic Acids (CAS: 79-11-8)
Overview: Sponge blasting systems incorporate various grades of water-based urethane-
foam cleaning media in order to clean and prepare surfaces. Non-abrasive
media grades are used to clean more delicate substrates. Abrasive media
grades, consisting of grit-impregnated foam, are used to remove surface
contaminants, paints, protective coatings, and rust from a variety of surfaces. In
addition, the abrasive grades can be used to roughen concrete and metallic
surfaces, if desired. The abrasive media may contain a variety of grit including
aluminum oxide, steel, plastic, and garnet, depending upon the application.
The foam cleaning media is absorptive and can be used either dry or wetted
with various cleaning agents and surfactants to capture, absorb, and remove a
variety of surface contaminants such as oils, greases, lead compounds,
chemicals, and radionuclides. The capability of using the foam cleaning media
wetted also provides for dust control without excess damping of the surface
being cleaned. The equipment consists of three transportable modules, which
include the feed unit, the classifier unit, and the wash unit.
The feed unit is pneumatically-powered for propelling the foam cleaning media.
The unit is portable and is produced in several sizes (depending on the capacity
required). A hopper, mounted at the top of the unit, holds the foam media. The
media is fed into a metering chamber that mixes the foam cleaning media with
compressed air. By varying the feed unit air pressure and type of cleaning
media used, sponge blasting can remove a range of coatings from soot on
wallpaper to high-performance protective coatings on steel and concrete
surfaces.
The classifier unit is used to remove large debris and powdery residues from the
foam media after each use. The used media is collected and placed into an
electrically-powered sifter. The vibrating sifter classifies the used media with a
5-06-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
stack of progressively finer screens. Large contaminants, such as paint flakes,
rust particles, etc., are collected on the coarsest screens. The reusable foam
media are collected on the corresponding screen size. The dust and finer
particles fall through the sifter and are collected for disposal. After classifying,
the reclaimed foam media can be reused immediately in the feed unit. The
abrasive media can be recycled approximately six times and the non-abrasive
media can be recycled approximately 12 times.
During degreasing applications, the foam media must be washed every three to
five cycles. The washing of the foam media takes place in the wash unit, which
is a portable centrifuge, closed-cycle device. The contaminated wash water is
collected, filtered, and reused within the wash unit.
This system removes paint, surface coatings, and surface contaminants from a
variety of surfaces. Waste streams produced from this system includes blast
process contaminants, such as paint flakes, rust particles; dust and finer
particles, and the concentrated residue from the bottom of the wash unit.
The effect that this technology has on pollution prevention is that the stripping
media can be recycled (10-15 events) and the quantity of wastewater which is
typically generated using conventional methods (chemical stripping) is greatly
reduced.
Compliance
Benefit: Use of sponge blasting will help a facility decrease the amount of stripping
chemicals used and stored on site and therefore, decreases the possibility that
the facility will meet reporting thresholds for those chemicals under 40 CFR
355, 370 and EO 12856. In addition, less hazardous waste is generated
compared to sandblasting or chemical stripping since the sponge blasting media
can be reused. The decrease in hazardous waste helps facilities meet the
requirements of waste reduction under RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix, and
may also help facilities reduce their generator status and lessen their regulatory
burden (i.e., recordkeeping, reporting, inspections, transportation,
accumulation time, emergency prevention and preparedness, emergency
response) under RCRA, 40 CFR 262. Moreover, sponge blasting uses less
water than chemical stripping operations and thus address the requirements of
EO 12902
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
5-06-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Sponge blasting systems are compatible in most situations where other types of
blasting media have been used.
As with any blasting operations, airborne dust is a major safety and health
concern. Proper precautions should be taken to avoid inhalation of
dust/particulate matter. Additional protective measures should be taken when
stripping lead chromate- or zinc chromate-based paints, as these compounds
may be hazardous. Inhalation of lead and zinc compounds can irritate the
respiratory tract, and some compounds are known to be carcinogenic.
Inhalation of solvent vapor can irritate the lungs and mucous membranes.
Prolonged exposure can affect respiration and the central nervous system.
Proper personal protective equipment should be used.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
Safer for operators compared to other blasting media and chemical stripper
systems
Easily transportable
Waste minimization is achieved by recycling the sponge media (an average
often to fifteen times)
Absorbs and removes contaminants
Reduces dust generation
Disadvantages:
Foam media costs are more expensive than sand blasting media
Reasonably large capital investment cost
The Sponge Blasting paint removal or degreasing process has not received
any engineering evaluation by the Air Force. Any new paint removal
technology for application on aerospace equipment must meet extensive
material characterization testing for compatibility. The responsibility for
determining test and evaluation requirements now belongs to the Coatings
Technology Integration Office at AFRL.
5-06-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Economic
Analysis: The cost elements of a Sponge-Jet stripping system are compared to
chemical stripping.
* Assumptions:
20,000 square feet of paint to be removed per year
Paint stripping rate of the sponge blasting system: 180 ft2/hr
Paint stripping rate of chemical stripping: 25 ft2/hr
Labor rate: $30/hr
Foam media cost: $65/50 Ibs
Foam media used: 18,000 Ibs
Feed unit cost: $15,500
Classifier unit cost: $8,550
Washer unit cost: $23,700
Chemical cost: $ 11.40/gal
Chemicals used: 416 gal
Water usage cost: $1.94/1000 gal
Water treatment: $8.24/1000 gal
Volume water treated: 1,600,000 gal
Paint and solvent sludge disposal cost: $2000/ton
Sludge generated: 4 ton
Dry paint waste residue (after recycling foam media): 240 Ibs
Paint disposal cost: $2/lb
5-06-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Sponge Jet and Chemical Stripping
Operational Costs:
Labor:
Chemical:
Foam Media:
Hazardous Waste
Disposal:
Water Purchase
Water Treatment:
Total Operational Costs:
Total Recovered Income:
Net Annual Cost/Benefit:
Sponge-Jet
$5,080
$0
$23,400
$480
$0
$0
$28,960
$0
-$28,960
Chemical Stripping
$24,000
$4,760
$0
$8,000
$3,200
$13,200
$53,160
$0
-$53,160
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for Sponge-Jet: $24,200
* Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $47,750
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: < 2 Years
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
Sponge-Jet Feed unit
Sponge-Jet Sifter
Sponge-Jet Sifter
Approving
Authority:
NSN
4940-01-395-6212
4940-01-396-6868
4940-01-400-1220
Unit Size
ea.
ea.
ea.
Cost
$6,000
Unless locally controlled, no major claimant has endorsed this technology for
use on aircraft components without subsequent additional treatment to ensure
that the substrate is completely free of blast media. This process should be
5-06-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Points
of Contact:
implemented only after engineering approval has been granted by cognizant
authority.
For Air Force applications, degreasing and paint stripping using sponge blasting
must not be used on any aircraft or weapon systems without the knowledge and
approval of the appropriate system manager, office(s) having engineering
authority on the specific airframe(s) and the Air Force Corrosion Program
Office. This process requires significant engineering evaluation and must be
approved by the engineering authority of the specific Weapon system Manager
or Equipment Item Mangager within the Air Force.
Navy:
Mr. Scott Mauro
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, ESC 423
1100 23rd Avenue
PortHueneme, CA 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-4889, DSN: 551-4889
Fax: (805) 982-4832
Air Force:
Air Force Corrosion Program Office
AFRL/MLS-OLR (Bldg. 165)
325 2nd Street
Robins AFB, GA 31098-1640
Phone: (912) 926-3284, DSN: 468-3284
Vendors:
The following is a list of sponge blasting manufacturers. This is not meant to be
a complete list, as there may be other manufacturers of this type of equipment.
Source:
Sponge-Jet
P.O. Box 243
Eliot, ME 03903
Phone:(207)439-0211
Fax: (207) 439-0309
http: //www. spon gei et. com/index, html
Sponge-Jet May 1996
GSA Contract No.: GS-07F-9542G
SCS Class 4940
Contract Expires: April 1, 2000
(Small Business)
5-06-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
PAINT STRIPPING USING WHEAT STARCH BLASTING
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-01-06; Air Force: ST01; Army: DPT
Usage List: Navy: Low; Marine Corps: Low; Army: Low; Air Force: Low
Alternative for: Chemical Paint Stripping
Compliance Areas: Medium
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituent: Toluene (CAS: 108-88-3), Xylenes (CAS: 1330-
20-7), Methyl Ethyl Ketone (CAS: 78-93-3), Acetone (67-64-1), n-Butyl Alcohol (CAS: 71-36-3),
Lead (CAS: 7439-92-1), Chromium (CAS: 7440-47-3), Zinc Compounds, Phenols (CAS: 108-95-
2), Chloroacetic Acids (CAS: 79-11-8), Methylene Chloride (CAS: 75-09-2)
Overview: Wheat starch blasting is a user-friendly blasting process available as a fully
developed stand-alone system specifically designed for wheat starch blasting, or
as a process that can be adapted for use in systems designed for plastic media
blasting (PMB). The abrasive media is a crystallized form of wheat starch that
is non-toxic, biodegradable, and made from renewable resources. The abrasive
blast media is similar in appearance to plastic media, except that it is softer.
The wheat starch blasting process propels the media at less than a 35 psi nozzle
pressure for most applications. The low pressure and relatively soft media have
minimal effect on the surfaces beneath the paint. For this reason, wheat starch
is well suited for stripping paints without risking damage to the substrate.
Examples include removing paint from aluminum alloys and composites like
graphite, fiberglass, and aramid (Kevlar).
The wheat starch blasting process can remove a variety of coatings. Coating
types range from resilient rain-erosion resistant coatings found on radomes and
radar absorbing materials, to the tough polyurethane and epoxy paint systems.
The wheat starch blast process has also been shown to be effective in removing
vinyl coatings, sealants, and bonding adhesive flash while leaving the metal to
metal bond primer intact. It has also been found effective in removing the paint
from the cadmium-plated parts, while leaving the plating intact.
There are several process-specific requirements for wheat starch blasting
systems. For instance, a moisture control system is needed to control the
storage conditions of the medium. This is especially important when the system
is shut down for an extended period of time, as moisture can severely affect the
performance of the abrasive blast media. Another concern is the removal of
blast contaminants from the wheat starch media. Low levels of dense particle
contamination in the media may result in a rough surface finish on delicate
5-07-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Compliance
Benefit:
substrates. To avoid this situation, spent wheat starch residue is dissolved in
water and then either filtered or separated in a dense particle
separator/centrifuge. The wheat starch media is recycled in the system and may
be used for up to 15 to 20 cycles. The waste stream generated by wheat starch
blasting is sludge from the recycling system. This system produces
approximately 85% less waste sludge compared to chemical stripping.
Use of wheat starch blasting for paint stripping can decrease the amount of
hazardous waste generated at a facility since solvents are not used and the
hazardous residue can be separated from the blast media. The decrease in
hazardous waste helps facilities meet the requirements of waste reduction under
RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix, and may also help facilities reduce their
generator status and regulatory burden (i.e., recordkeeping, reporting,
inspections, transportation, accumulation time, emergency prevention and
preparedness, emergency response) under RCRA, 40 CFR 262. In addition,
facilities can decrease the amount of stripping chemicals on site and therefore,
the possibility that a facility meets any of the reporting thresholds of SARA Title
m for those chemicals (40 CFR 355, 370, and 372; and EO 12856) is
decreased.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Wheat starch blasting can be used on metal and composite surfaces. Direct
contact of wheat starch with water must be avoided to maintain the integrity of
the blast media. Wheat starch blasting requires explosion protection. If
conditions are right, a static electrical charge developed by a high velocity wheat
starch particle in air could effectively ignite the material. Preventive measures
must be taken.
Safety
and Health:
As with any blasting operations, airborne dust is a major safety and health
concern. Proper precautions should be taken to ensure that personnel do not
inhale dust/particulate matter. Additional protective measures should be taken
when stripping lead, chromate, zinc chromate, or solvent-based paints, as these
components may be hazardous. Inhalation of lead and zinc compounds can
irritate the respiratory system and some compounds are known to be
carcinogenic. Inhalation of paint solvents can irritate the lungs and mucous
5-07-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
membranes. Prolonged exposure can affect respiration and the central nervous
system. Proper personal protective equipment should be used.
Noise exposure and explosion hazard are potential occupational saftey and
health hazards associated with this particular stripping process. Consult your
local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety personnel, and the
appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Wheat starch is a plentiful natural resource that is biodegradable
Waste generated from this process can be treated in a bioreactor
Waste volume requiring subsequent disposal is estimated to be only five
percent of the original volume
The wheat starch blasting process can be used for removing coatings from
both metallic and composite materials
This process is very controllable; it can be used to selectively remove from
one to all coating layers
Wheat starch blasting does not cause fatigue to the substrate surface.
Moderate stripping rates can be achieved while maintaining a gentle
stripping action
Safe on soft-clad aluminum
Media is inexpensive and non-toxic
Reduces water use
Fully developed systems available
No size limitations on parts being stripped
High capital investment cost
Requires complex subsystems for media recovery and recycling and dust
collection and control
Operator training required
Low levels of dense particle contamination in the media may result in a
rough surface finish on delicate substrates
Waste material may require costly disposal as hazardous waste
Stripping rates are typically slow to moderate
Stripping rates are slow and inefficient as reported by WR-ALC/TIEDM
Operators must wear personal protective equipment
5-07-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Media is moisture sensitive and may require an air dryer for humidity control
According to the Air Force Corrosion Program Office, wheat starch
blasting is not considered to be a viable method of paint removal for Air
Force aircraft. There may be some advantage in using this process on a
limited basis to remove paint from aircraft composite or fiberglass
components in an area where a very controlled environment can be assured.
Due to the extreme moisture sensitivity of this process, humidity control to
the extent required for very large aircraft such as the C-5 is almost
impossible and not economically feasible.
Economic
Analysis: Capital costs for wheat starch blasting systems will vary, depending upon the
application. A PMB system can be modified for a cost of approximately
$10,000 for a small application. An automated, closed, dust-free system for a
large application (e.g. aircraft) can cost up to $1.5 million.
The operating costs for wheat starch blasting systems have been estimated to be
50 % less than chemical paint stripping (i.e., methylene chloride).
* Assumptions:
Annual area of paints to be removed/year: 93,800 ft2
Labor rate: $30/hr
Stripping rate for wheat starch blasting: 15 ft2/hr
Stripping rate for chemical stripping: 25 ft2/hr
Chemical procurement cost: $11.40/gallon
Chemical stripping efficacy: 15.84 ft2/ gallon
Media usage rate: 1 lb/ft2
Wheat starch media cost: $1.70/lb
Hazardous waste generation rate: wheat starch blasting = 1.07
lbs/ft2
Hazardous waste generation rate: chemical stripping = 5.52 lbs/ft2;
this is based on a stripper requirement of 5,922 gal./yr. which is
derived from the 15.84 ft2/gal rate and assuming about 1/3 remains
after solvent evaporation, rinse water required is about 10 times the
amount of stripper, the density of the stripper residue approaches
8.34 Ibs./gal. density of water, and the weight of the primer and
paint residue is about 6,998 Ibs./yr. which is derived from the
5-07-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
knowledge that a 17,424 ft2 C-141B aircraft with two overcoats
has about 1,300 Ibs. of primer and paint on it.
Hazardous waste disposal cost: $2/lb
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Wheat Starch Blasting and Chemical Stripping
Wheat Starch Blasting Chemical Stripping
Operational Costs:
Labor: $187,600 $112,560
Material $159,460 $67,507
Hazardous Waste $200,732 $1,035,552
Disposal
Total Operational Costs: $547,792 $1,215,619
Total Recovered Income: $0 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$547,792 -$1,215,619
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for Wheat Starch Blasting: $667,827
* Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $12,500,000
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: 18.7 Yrs
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost
None Identified
Approval
Authority: No major claimant has endorsed this technology for use on aircraft and aircraft
components without subsequent additional treatment to ensure substrate is
completely free of blast media. This technology should be implemented only
after engineering approval has been granted by cognizant authority.
5-07-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
For Air Force applications, paint stripping using wheat starch blasting must not
be used on any aircraft or weapon systems without the knowledge and approval
of the appropriate system manager, office(s) having engineering authority on the
specific airframe(s) and the Air Force Corrosion Program Office.
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
Army:
Mr. Edward Cooper
Corpus Christi Army Depot
SIOCC-ESIE
308 Crecy Street, Stop 35
Corpus Christi, TX 78419-5260
Phone: (512) 939-2214 orDSN: 861-2214
Fax:(512)939-3937
Navy:
Mr. Scott Mauro
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, ESC 423
1100 23rd Avenue
PortHueneme, CA 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-4889, DSN: 551-4889
Fax: (805) 982-4832
Air Force:
Air Force Corrosion Program Office
AFRL/MLS-OLR (Bldg. 165)
325 2nd Street
Robins AFB, GA 31098-1640
Phone: (912) 926-3284, DSN: 468-3284
The following is a list of wheat starch media manufacturers. This is not meant to
be a complete list, as there may be other manufacturers of this type of
equipment.
EnviroStripฎ
CAE Electronics
302 Island Drive
Melbourne, FL 32951
Phone: (407) 728-9100
FAX: (407) 728-0175
(Note: CAE Electronics holds the patent for the product and process.)
5-07-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Clemco Industries Corporation
Aerolyte Systems Division
One Cable Car Drive
Washington, MO 63090
Phone:(314)239-0300
FAX: (800) 726-7559
5-07-7
-------
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
VACUUM SANDING SYSTEM PAINT STRIPPING PROCESS
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-10-00; Air Force: ST01; Army: DPT
Usage List: Navy: Low; Marine Corps: Low; Army: Low; Air Force: Low
Alternative for: Chemical Paint Stripping/Traditional Sand Blasting
Compliance Areas: High
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Toluene (CAS: 108-88-3), Xylenes (CAS: 1330-
20-7), Methyl Ethyl Ketone (CAS: 78-93-3), Acetone (67-64-1), n-Butyl Alcohol (CAS: 71-36-3),
Lead (CAS: 7439-92-1), Chromium (CAS: 7440-47-3), Zinc Compounds, Phenols (CAS: 108-95-
2), Chloroacetic Acids (CAS: 79-11-8), Methylene Chloride (CAS: 75-09-2)
Overview: A vacuum sanding system is essentially a dry abrasive blasting process [e.g.,
sand blasting or plastic media blasting (PMB)] with a vacuum system attached
to the blast head to collect the blast media and the removed coating material
(paint or rust). The unit then separates the used blast media from the removed
coating material. The remaining blast material is recycled for further use and the
coating material is disposed.
This system is designed to replace chemical paint stripping, and has three added
advantages. The first advantage is the collection of both the blasting media (e.g.
sand, PMB or other media) and the collection of the waste coating material
being removed. The second advantage is that the media is separated from the
waste material by a reverse pulse filter. The media is reused in the system,
thereby minimizing the quantity of medium required. The third advantage is that,
due to the confinement of the blast material, this technology may be used where
it is impractical to use traditional sandblasting or chemical stripping.
This system is a stand-alone system, including the air compressor to drive the
system. It is portable (skid mounted) and can be moved by a forklift. The air
compressor is a trailer unit (2-wheeled).
If PMB is used as the media in the vacuum sanding system, the used media can
be passed through a reclamation system that consists of a cyclone centrifuge, a
dual adjustable air wash, multiple vibrating classifier screen decks, and a
magnetic separator. In addition, some manufacturers provide dense particle
separators as a reclamation system. The denser particles, such as paint chips,
are separated from the reusable blast media, and the reusable media is returned
to the blast pot. Typically, media can be recycled ten to twelve times before it
becomes too small to remove paint effectively. Waste material consists of
blasting media and paint chips. The waste material may be classified as a
5-08-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
RCRA hazardous waste because of the presence of metals. An alternative
solution to handling a potential hazardous waste is to locate a vendor that would
"lease" the blast media to the base and then recycle the media to recapture the
metals. (See Plastic Media Blasting [PMB] Paint Stripping Process}
The effect this technology has on pollution prevention is that the portable
vacuum sander removes coatings and corrosion from composite or metal
structures while capturing the media and solid waste. Vacuum sanding
eliminates airborne particulate matter and potential lead dust exposure hazard.
When compared to chemical paint stripping, this technology eliminates the
generation of waste solvent.
Vacuum sanding is being used at NAVSTA Everett located in Everett,
Washington. The original application of this technology was to remove paint on
asphalt as well as for maintenance of large service pipelines leading to
NAVSTA Everett. When NAVSTA Everett de-paints pipelines on naval piers,
the U.S. EPA requires complete recovery of waste materials, making both
traditional sand or water blasting and chemical stripping impractical.
This is an abrasive blasting process and not associated with traditional sanding
using an abrasive paper. This system has potential applications for paint
removal on buildings/facilities and structures within the Air Force. It has only
very limited application for paint removal on aircraft when used with plastic
media. This system would be effective for accomplishing selective area paint
removal where paint stripping facilities are not available. The system would also
work well to supplement other stripping methods, as an example to remove
paint from areas that were masked during paint removal.
Compliance
Benefit: Use of a vacuum sanding system will help a facility decrease the amount of
stripping chemicals used and stored on site and therefore, decreases the
possibility that the facility will meet reporting thresholds for those chemicals
under 40 CFR 355, 370 and EO 12856. In addition, if plastic blast media is
used, less hazardous waste is generated compared to traditional sandblasting or
chemical stripping since the plastic blast media can be reused. The decrease in
hazardous waste helps facilities meet the requirements of waste reduction under
RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix, and may also help facilities reduce their
generator status and regulatory burden (i.e., recordkeeping, reporting,
inspections, transportation, accumulation time, emergency prevention and
preparedness, emergency response) with under RCRA, 40 CFR 262.
Moreover, the vacuum sanding system decreases a facility's need to obtain an
air permit under 40 CFR 70 and 71.
5-08-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Storage and handling of sand or plastic media and blast waste associated with
this process pose no compatibility problems. Collection systems should not mix
different types of waste (i.e., pipeline paint and paint from asphalt) to ensure the
most economic disposal can be obtained for each. Prior to using plastic media
for de-painting operations, personnel should check applicable military
specifications [such as (MIL-P-85891)] and operations manuals for the PMB
systems. Some military specifications do not allow PMB for de-painting certain
types of materials (i.e., fiberglass, certain composites, honeycomb sandwich
structures, and some applications with thin-skinned aircraft components). In
certain cases, PMB can inhibit crack detection on some of the softer alloys used
for aircraft components (e.g. magnesium).
Airborne dust, which is a major safety and health concern with any blasting
operations, is essentially eliminated using the vacuum blasting system. However,
in order for the vacuum system to be effective, the vacuum and blasting head
must be kept in contact with the material being stripped of paint or corrosion.
Therefore, training in the proper use of the equipment is essential. In addition,
eye protection and hearing protection are recommended.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
Improves personnel safety by eliminating airborne particulate matter and
potential lead dust exposure hazard
Eliminates the need for the use of respirators while blasting
Separates waste material from blasting media, therefore, the media can be
recycled
Vacuum sanders are versatile and can use multiple media types
Wastewater disposal costs (typical in chemical paint stripping operations)
are virtually eliminated with vacuum sanding
Eliminates the production of waste solvents when compared to chemical
paint stripping
Unit is portable and contains a self-supplied power/air compressor
5-08-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Minimal emissions from portable (mobile source) diesel air compressors, so
no air permit required
Minimizes the clean up time since blast material is contained
Other activities can continue nearby without interruptions
Disadvantages:
Substantial capital equipment investment is required
Used blasting materials and waste coating material may have to be disposed
as a hazardous waste
Operator training is critical to success and safety of operation
Operator time, maintenance requirements, handling, and disposal of waste
varies upon material to be stripped
Quality of stripping is dependent on skill and experience level of the
operator
Economic
Analysis:
Vacuum sanding systems can range in cost from $17,000 to $40,000, excluding
the portable generator to operate the system. The following information on
investment costs and costs/payback for a vacuum sanding system at NAVSTA
Everett, Washington was published in the Arthur D. Little report Site
Assessment Pollution Prevention Equipment at NAS North Island
SUBASE, Bangor, NAVSTA Pascagoula, and NAVSTA Everett, August
1995.
The following analysis compares a vacuum system to a traditional sand blasting
system (although the sand blasting system may not be able to be used based on
EPA constraints described in the overview).
* Assumptions:
Labor rate: Vacuum Sanding (VS) and Traditional Sandblasting
(TS) - $45/hr
Work load: VS and TS - 7200 square feet de-painted per year
Rate of de-painting: VS and TS - 4 square feet per minute
Total hours per year including setup/operation/cleanup: VS - 40
hrs/yr; TS - 80 hr/year
Materials: VS - plastic media rental cost $2.50/lb, includes disposal
of waste segregated from media x 1,500 Ibs/yr = $3,750/yr; TS -
material cost $1.50/lb x 1,500 Ib = $2,250/yr
5-08-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Disposal: VS - $0; TS - $.60/lb x 15,000 Ib + $36/drum x 25
drums = $9,900
Utilities: VS and TS - Diesel fuel $1.00/gallon x 60 gallons/yr =
$60
Equipment maintenance: VS - $2,200; TS - $700
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Vacuum Sanding versus Sandblasting
Vacuum Sanding Sandblasting
Operational Costs:
Labor: $1,800 $3,600
Material: $3,750 $2,250
Energy: $60 $60
Waste Disposal $0 $9,900
System Maintenance $2,200 $700
Total Operational Costs: $7,810 $16,510
Total Recovered Income: $0 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$7,810 -$16,510
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for Vacuum Sanding: $8,700
* Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $64,000
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: <8 years
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost
None Identified
5-08-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Approving
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Vendors:
For Air Force applications, vacuum sanding system paint stripping process must
not be used on any aircraft or weapon systems without the knowledge and
approval of the appropriate system manager, office(s) having engineering
authority on the specific airframe(s) and the Air Force Corrosion Program
Office.
Currently, the Air Force provides no technical guidance on the use of this type
of equipment. However, this equipment may be employed where ever abrasive
blasting technology is approved for the coating removal process. This would
not require any engineering approval as long as the technical requirements for
the blasting process such as nozzle distance (12 to 24 inches), nozzle pressure,
media type, etc., are met. Note: it would probably require some significant
design change to have a vacuum head to support the nozzle distance and this
would be very unwieldy for use on aerospace equipment.
Navy:
Ms. Jill Maclntyre
(908)323-1108
Chris Mahendra
(908)323-7131
Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division
Lakehurst, New Jersey
Air Force:
Air Force Corrosion Program Office
AFRL/MLS-OLR (Bldg. 165)
325 2nd Street
Robins AFB, GA 31098-1640
Phone: (912) 926-3284, DSN: 468-3284
The following is a list of vacuum sanding system suppliers and manufacturers.
This is not meant to be a complete list, as there may be other suppliers or
manufacturers of this type of equipment.
SUPPLIERS:
Baum & Associates, Inc.
711 North Crestline
Spokane, Washington
Contact: Brad Baum
Phone: (509) 535-7664
Fax:(509) 535-6678
5-08-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
MANUFACTURER:
Inventive Machine Corporation
660 Underwood Avenue
Akron, Ohio 44306
Phone: (216) 785 2500 or (800) 325-1074
Fax:(216)785-2510
For PMB Leasing Services, See Plastic Media Blasting (PMB) Paint Stripping
Process.
Sources: Mr. BradBaum, Baum & Associates, Inc., May 1996
Ms. Chris Mahendra, Naval Air Warfare Center, Lakehurst, NJ, May 1996
5-08-7
-------
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
BENZYL ALCOHOL PAINT STRIPPING
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-02-14; Air Force: ST03; Army: DPT
Usage List: Navy: High; Marine Corps: High; Army: High; Air Force: High
Alternative for: Paint stripping with methylene chloride
Compliance Areas: Medium
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Methylene chloride [CAS: 75-09-2]
Overview: Benzyl alcohol and benzyl alcohol blends have been identified as paint strippers
that do not contain Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) that can be substituted for
methylene chloride paint strippers. Specifically, benzyl alcohol has been found
to be effective on typical aircraft coatings (e.g., epoxy primer and polyurethane
topcoat). Benzyl alcohol strippers also can be used in conjunction with
conventional strippers to strip hard-to-remove coatings.
Benzyl alcohol is a colorless liquid with a mild aromatic odor and sharp burning
taste. It has a flash point of 201ฐF. Benzyl alcohol solutions can generally be
divided into acidic and basic formulations. Alkaline benzyl alcohol strippers
contain approximately 30 to 50 percent benzyl alcohol, 5 to 10 percent amine
or ammonia compounds and have a pH of 11.0. Acid benzyl alcohol strippers
contain approximately 25 to 35 percent benzyl alcohol, 10 to 15 percent formic
acid and have a pH of 2.5. A neutral benzyl alcohol stripper also has been
identified.
The acid formulations, which use formic acid as an accelerator, have been found
to react faster than the alkaline strippers. The acid strippers are generally safe
for all metals, except high strength steel or magnesium. Acid-based benzyl
alcohol strippers have the potential to embrittle high strength steel. As a result,
the use of acid strippers is prohibited by some manufacturers and owners.
Nonmetallic surfaces, such as fiber reinforced composites and rubber boots and
seals, must be masked or removed as when stripping with methylene chloride
solutions.
Benzyl alcohol solutions have excellent adherence to vertical surfaces and
remain active for approximately four hours. Acidic benzyl alcohol solutions
typically take slightly longer to delaminate the paint compared to methylene
chloride. Alkaline benzyl alcohol solutions take longer. Benzyl alcohol solutions
rinse easily and may not generate a hazardous wastewater, depending on the
paint removed and the final pH of the solution. The cost difference between
5-09-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
benzyl alcohol and methylene chloride strippers can be significant ($6.00/gal for
methylene chloride vs. $10.00/gal for benzyl alcohol).
The Naval Aviation Depot in Jacksonville, FL has used the alkaline solution
stripper on military aircraft. The process required using the same amount of an
alkaline benzyl alcohol stripper as methylene chloride solution. They found
benzyl alcohol solutions effective on certain paint systems. They have found
them more effective on polyurethane with solvent-based primers than on
polyurethane with water-based primers. They reported that Turco 6813 was
one of the best benzyl alcohol strippers currently available for their applications.
They also have reported success removing polysulfide sealants effectively using
CB 1058 and B&B5151M.
Among the reported limitations are: 1) very slow reaction rate below 65 deg. F;
2) additional time required to strip very thick coatings (over 0.009 in) and water
borne applied primers as opposed to solvent primers, and 3) additional time
required to strip coatings with very aggressive conversion coating below the
primer.
They found that using benzyl alcohol solutions increases the time required to
strip equipment by approximately 25 percent. In addition it is more labor
intensive than methylene chloride. They have begun testing other benzyl alcohol
strippers that seem to work more quickly but have not yet completed testing.
Tinker Air Force Base has used a two-part stripping system with Benzyl
Alcohol as a component of the stripper. They use the solutions to strip several
aircraft including the KC-135 with Koroflex primer and surfaces with
polyurethane paint and epoxy primers. The facility used an alkaline benzyl
alcohol solution with a hydrogen peroxide based stripper. The facility used El
Dorado PR3140 or P3170 (an alkaline benzyl alcohol solution) with El Dorado
PR5000 (a hydrogen peroxide solution). The facility found that the mixed paint
stripper worked approximately 25 percent faster than methylene chloride on the
Koroflex primer and needed approximately half as much stripper to complete
the job. For the polyurethane/epoxy primer systems, the benzyl alcohol solution
took 50% longer to complete the job and used the same amount of solution as
with a methylene chloride stripping system. Tinker personnel also stated that the
benzyl alcohol stripper waste should be rinsed thoroughly with water prior to
drumming to prevent ammonia vapor generation.
Because the permissible exposure limit (PEL) for methylene chloride will be
reduced from 500 ppm to 25 ppm in the near future, facilities that use methylene
chloride strippers will be required to use supplied air for workers or perform
5-09-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
costly upgrades to facility ventilation systems. As a result alkaline benzyl alcohol
strippers may be an alternative that provides satisfactory stripping performance
without the health and safety concerns of methylene chloride.
Compliance
Benefit:
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Switching from methylene chloride to benzyl alcohol paint stripping will
decrease a facility's HAPs emissions which will decrease the possibility that a
facility will meet the HAP emission threshold for an air permit under 40 CFR 70
and 71. Unfortunately, the use of benzyl alcohol will not decrease the facility's
VOC emissions and may increase permitting needs in ozone non-attainment
areas. In addition, a decrease in chemical usage has been observed for using
benzyl alcohol as a component of a stripper. Decreasing the amount of
chemical usage decreases the possibility that a facility will meet reporting
thresholds of SARA Title m (40 CFR 302 and 370; and EO 12856).
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Benzyl alcohol is generally safe for all metals except high strength steel or
magnesium. Acidic benzyl alcohol blends have the potential to embrittle high
strength steel. Nonmetallic surfaces, such as fiber reinforced composites and
rubber boots and seals must be masked or removed in a similar fashion to that
required when stripping with methylene chloride solutions.
The safety and health issues must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing use benzyl alcohol.
Normal good practices for handling all chemicals to avoid any unnecessary
exposure should be followed. This includes wearing of safety glasses and
washing off any material that accidentally contacts the skin and, in particular, the
eyes, with plenty of water.
Although formic acid and ammonia/amine compounds used in benzyl alcohol
strippers are not HAPs, the compounds are regulated by OSHA. For example,
for acid based benzyl alcohol strippers, formic acid has a permissible exposure
limit of 5 ppm that is lower than the current 500 ppm PEL for methylene
chloride. An acidic benzyl alcohol solution with 10 to 15 % formic acid can be a
greater concern to worker safety than methylene chloride solutions with 2
5-09-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Benefits:
percent formic acid. These safety concerns can be resolved with an adequately
designed ventilation system and the use of respirators.
Reduces the use of methylene chloride
Can be an effective stripper for several paint systems.
Can be applied using existing spray equipment
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
Stripping time is longer than methylene chloride. At lower temperatures
(50-60 ฐF) reaction rate slows. However, as temperature rises, the
reaction rate increases. Stripping should occur in a heated area.
The greater the thickness of the paint, the longer the strip time. Thickness
of benzyl alcohol application may need to be greater than standard
strippers.
Benzyl alcohol is a VOC. In non-attainment areas benzyl alcohol strippers
could be regulated or restricted under VOC regulations.
The economics of using benzyl alcohol versus other paint removal methods will
depend on the application. A comparison between benzyl alcohol and
methylene chloride was not developed because of methylene chloride's use
restriction. Therefore, this analysis is made between two environmentally
friendly alternatives, benzyl alcohol and traditional abrasive sandblasting.
According to Air Force PRO-ACT, an estimated capital cost for a sandblasting
unit for F-4 aircraft from 1987 were $1,400,000. The P-3 (which is used for
this analysis) is a much larger aircraft and costs have escalated. For the
following analysis, a conservative estimate for installation for traditional
sandblasting equipment would be $2,500,000.
Assumptions:
Benzyl alcohol wastes are managed as hazardous because of the chromate
inhibitors in the primer.
A P-3 with approximately 7,700 square feet of surface area can be stripped
using approximately 250 gallons of benzyl alcohol generating approximately
250 gallons of waste. Stripping time is approximately 200 hours.
Traditional sandblasting depaints at 2 square feet per minute using
approximately 0.2 Ibs of blast media per square ft
Labor for setup and cleanup for traditional sandblasting is 320 hours per
year
Labor rate is $45/hour
Paint/solvent disposal cost:$2.10 - $14.00 per gallon (Avg. $8.05)
5-09-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Water treatment and disposal cost for benzyl alcohol: Assuming 50,000
gallons of water used per aircraft, and water treatment and disposal costing
$8.24/1000 gallons, the waste disposal cost: $8,200
Blast media disposal is $0.60/lb
Twenty airplanes are stripped per year
Benzyl alcohol solution costs $15.00 per gallon
Benzyl alcohol paint removers are authorized for use in T.O. 1-1-8 and a
list of approved products is provided. Use of these materials does not
require approval by engineering authorities. Any use of materials other than
those in T.O. 1-1-8 does require engineering approval.
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Benzyl Alcohol versus Traditional Sandblasting
Operational Costs:
Labor:
Solvent costs:
Media costs:
Utilities:
Waste Disposal
Maintenance
Total Costs:
Total Recovered Income:
Annual Benefit:
Benzyl Alcohol
$180,000
$75,000
$0
$500
$48,450
$0
$303,950
$0
-$303,950
Traditional
Sandblasting
$288,000
$0
$48,125
$2,200
$18,480
$700
$357,505
$0
-$357,505
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for Using Benzyl Alcohol:
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process:
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process:
$53,555
$0
Immediate
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
5-09-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
NSN/MSDS:
Product
Remover, paint (CEE-BEE E-
1058)
NSN
8010-01-369-2646
Unit Size
ea. 55 gal
Cost
$858.49
Approving
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Vendors:
Technical Order 1-1-8 provides authority for use of specific environmentally
acceptable paint removers, which are primarily benzyl alcohol based, and a list
of approved manufacturers and products is provided. T.O. 1-1-8 does not
approve the use of any benzyl alcohol based strippers with acid components or
the two-component benzyl alcohol paint removers. Use of the acid-based or
two component strippers must be approved on an individual basis by the
weapon system manager.
Navy:
Mr. Rick Barnes,
Naval Aviation Depot
Jacksonville, FL
DSN 942-2457, (904) 772-4516
Air Force:
Mr. John Lindsey
Air Force Corrosion Program Office
AFRL/MLS-OLR (Bldg. 165)
325 2nd Street
Robins AFB, GA 31098-1640
Phone: (912) 926-3284 DSN: 468-3284
Fax: (912) 926-6619
The following is a list of benzyl alcohol stripper suppliers. This is not meant to
be a complete list, as there may be other suppliers of this type of material.
Turco Products Inc.
7320 Bolsa Ave
Westminister, CA 92684
(704) 890-3600
McGean-Rohco Inc
9520 E Cee Bee Dr.
Downey, CA 90241-5501
(213)803-4311
5-09-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
B & B Tritech Inc.
875 West 20th St.
Hialeah, FL 33010
(305) 888-5247
El Dorado Chemical Co. Inc.
143 50 Lookout Road
P. O. Box: 34837
San Antonio, TX 78265
653-9323
Fisher Scientific Co.
Chemical MFGDiv.
1 Reagent LN
Fair Lawn, NJ 07410-2802
(201) 796-7100
Aldrich Chemical Co. Inc.
1001 W St. Paul Ave.
P.O. Box 355
Mlwaulkee, WI 53201
(414) 273-3850ForPMB Leasing Services, See Plastic Media Blasting (PMB)
Paint Stripping Process.
Sources: Bauer, Jerry P. and Edward Ruddy, Options for Complying with the Aerospace MACT
Standard for Depainting Metal Finishing, April 1996, pages 38-34
Tear, David M. and Jeffrey Maxwell, The Results of Brining a New Benzyl Alcohol Paint
Stripper to the Aviation Market, Gage Products Company
Rick Barnes, Naval Aviation Depot, Jacksonville, FL, March, 1997
George Baxter, OC/ALC Tinker AFB, OK, April, 1997
5-09-7
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
N-METHYL PYRROLIDONE
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-02-06, ID-02-14; Air Force: CL-02, MT03;
Army: CLD, DPT
Usage List: Navy: Low; Marine Corps: Low; Army: Low; Air Force: Low
Alternative for: Certain paint stripping and cleaning and degreasing processes
Compliance Areas: Medium
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Methyl ethyl ketone (CAS:78-93-3), Methylene
chloride (CAS: 75-09-2)
Overview: N-Methyl Pyrrolidone (NMP) is an alternate cleaner for several applications
including electronics cleaning, paint stripping, fiberglass fabrication, printing, and
urethane foam production. NMP-based products have proven to be effective
solvents, which when used in proper equipment and in well designed
formulations, will meet metal cleaning requirements. NMP is also used as a
solvent for surface coatings, including acrylates, epoxies, polyurethanes,
polyvinyl chlorides, polyamidimide-based wire enamels, water-based coatings,
and printing inks. It also works on varnishes, lacquers, and burnt-on carbon
deposits. NMP's low evaporation rate contributes to even, smooth surfaces.
Many plastics, including polystyrene, polyesters, and polyvinyl chloride are
soluble in NMP. According to the Air Force PRO-ACT, NMP is best used in
a tank type process. It would require testing and engineering approval for it to
be used as a general wipe solvent and paint remover.
NMP has been commercially produced in the United States since the mid
1960s. The typical pH of NMP is 8.0 to 9.5. It is a highly polar colorless liquid
with a mild amine odor. NMP has a high flash point (196 ฐF [91 ฐC]), low
vapor pressure (0.24 mm Hg/68 ฐF [20 ฐC]), is very stable, water soluble and
is biodegradable with a minimal potential for bioaccumulation.
A typical cleaning process may involve a heated immersion/ultrasonic cleaning
tank with NMP, followed by a heated rinse tank, filled with clean water or
NMP. Because the rinsing agents do not evaporate rapidly, a subsequent drying
step may be required. NMP is commonly used in the pure state but can be used
in a blend with various surfactants and thickeners. It is completely miscible in
water and in most organic solvents, including alcohols, ethers, ketones,
aromatics, and chlorinated hydrocarbons. After a cleaning process, NMP can
be separated and sent back to the wash tank. Many oils become miscible in
NMP only at temperatures above 17 to 20 ฐC (63 - 68 ฐF). This makes it easy
to separate contaminated NMP in a settling tank.
5-10-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
In the electronics industry, NMP has been used for cleaning and degreasing
single-crystal silicon wafers for integrated circuits. NMP is also an active
ingredient in a commercially available product that is a water-miscible,
semiaqueous cleaner used to deflux printed wiring boards (PWBs) after wave
solder or vapor phase reflow. The product dissolves various contaminants
ranging from flux and pyrolized flux to inorganic contaminants and fingerprints.
The product is designed to clean through immersion at ambient temperatures but
cleaning can be enhanced through either ultrasonics, spraying, spraying under
immersion, or agitation.
NMP is used in some commercial processes to strip paint. NMP removes paint
more slowly than methylene chloride, but NMP dissolves multiple layers rather
than lifting each coat. While NMP paint removers work slower, they have lower
vapor pressures, a factor that reduces the potential for solvent inhalation. NMP
blends tend to cost more than conventional solvents but typically require up to
40 percent less usage than these solvents. NMP-based formulas will effectively
strip acrylic latex gloss, epoxy spray paint, polyurethane gloss enamel, high
gloss polyeurethanes and tallow oil alkyd spray paints.
NMP has been used as a replacement for MEK in immersion engine cleaning
applications. One alternate immersion product, Fine Organics (FO) 606, which
is based on n-methyl pyrrolidone (NMP), is being used at Tinker AFB in the
Tank and Cooler Processing Shop as an immersion bath for the removal of
carbon and other difficult to remove soils. The Tinker AFB requirement involves
a 30-minute to 6-hour residence time in a 120 to 160 F (49 to 71 C) bath.
FO 606 is a powerful stripping and cleaning agent for the removal of heavy
greases, oils, and paints from metal surfaces and is considered a suitable
replacement for 1,1,1-TCA in vapor degreasing applications. At present, FO
606 is used in heated tank applications at OC-ALC, WR-ALC, and SM-ALC.
Personnel at Kelly Air Force Base have tested N-methyl pyrrolidone as a wipe
cleaner in place of MEK. The facility performed a study to evaluate the
performance of NMP in cleaning uncured and partially cured epoxy and
polysulfide sealants and adhesives. They reported that NMP was effective but
slower than MEK in removing these sealants and adhesives. NMP was not
shown to be effective on cured epoxy and polysulfide adhesives. The facility is
waiting on the completion of a lexicological evaluation prior to implementing the
use of NMP.
Discussions with Army personnel revealed that except for small applications in
well-ventilated areas, the Army is not currently using NMP as a cleaning
5-10-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
solvent, owing to concerns over the odor and potential reproductive
lexicological effects of NMP.
Safety concerns related to the use of NMP-based products, include potential
effects on the human reproductive system. Several studies have been conducted
to determine the toxicity of NMP. A multigeneration reproduction study in rats,
initiated in 1989, concluded that NMP administered in the diet at a dose of 500
mg/kg/day significantly affected reproduction indices in both male and female
rats during the second generation.
Compliance
Benefit:
Materials
Compatibility:
Switching from conventional solvents to NMP for paint stripping can reduce
solvent usage. Decreasing the amount of chemical usage decreases the
possibility that a facility will meet the reporting thresholds for MSDS submission
and Tier I/Tier U information under 40 370 and EO 12856. Additionally, less
hazardous waste may be generated from NMP stripping operations since less
solvent is used. The reduction of hazardous waste helps facilities meet the
requirements of waste reduction under RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix, and
may also help facilities reduce their generator status and lessen their regulatory
burden (i.e., recordkeeping, reporting, inspections, transportation, accumulation
time, emergency prevention and preparedness, emergency response) under
RCRA, 40 CFR 262
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
NMP dissolves polyamides, polyimides, polyesters, polystyrenes,
polyacrylonitriles, polyvinyl chlorides, polyvinyl acetates, polyurethanes,
polycarbonates, polysulfones, polymethylmethacrylate, and many copolymers.
Assemblies containing these materials should be tested before using NMP.
NMP will dissolve or swell Buna-N rubber, natural rubber, neoprene, and
Viton. Assemblies containing these materials should be tested before using
NMP.
NMP does not react with most metals, including steels, aluminum, nickel, silver,
gold, chromium and chromates, copper, tin, and silicon. However, it should not
be used with bronze or brass valves in process piping.
5-10-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Safety
and Health:
The safety and health issues must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to using these materials. NMP is
resisted by polyethylene, polypropylene, polytetrafluorethyene (Teflon), and
butyl rubber. Teflon is recommended for wetted seals and gaskets. Butyl rubber
is recommended for personal protective equipment. Potential reproductive
toxicological effects have been cited as reasons for not implementing the use of
NMP in the services. Repeated or prolonged skin contact with NMP should
be avoided. NMP does not appear to be a sensitizing agent but it is a severe
eye irritant. The vapor pressure or volatility of this product at room temperature
is very low, thus minimizing the chance of exposure by inhalation. Normal
practices for handling all chemicals to avoid any unnecessary exposure should
be followed.
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
Because of the lower volatility of NMP, its use releases fewer organic
emissions to the atmosphere than the use of other solvents
Miscible in water.
Chemically stable.
NMP is listed in SARA Title m, Section 313, and is subject to
reporting in the Toxics Release Inventory.
Works slower than conventional solvents.
An unpleasant odor has been reported by users
Potential toxicological concerns have been reported and must be evaluated
and compared with standard solvents
The Air Force does not see N-Methyl Pyrrolidone as a promising
alternative to MEK or methylene chloride due to concerns relating to health
and performance. There are a number of materials proving effective for
replacing MEK on an individual application basis that are environmentally
acceptable, cheaper, and have lower health risks to the workers. This also
applies to the potential for N-Methyl Pyrrolidone as a replacement for
methylene chloride.
The economics of using NMP versus other solvents will depend on the
application. NMP blends tend to be more expensive than standard solvents but
according to manufacturers the amount NMP required to perform the task may
be 30 to 40 percent less. While NMP strippers may be more expensive per
gallon than traditional products, less product will be required to achieve similar
results.
5-10-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Assumptions:
Both methylene chloride and NMP stripping wastes are managed as
hazardous waste.
NMP requires 25 percent less solvent to perform the task.
A stripping operation strips approximately 1,000 square feet of area using
300 gallons of methylene chloride or 225 gallons of NMP, generating
corresponding quantities of waste.
Tests have concluded that the use of NMP requires 3 to 10 times longer
than the use of conventional products depending on the substrate and the
coating. Analysis assumes that employees will perform other tasks during
the interval. Therefore, the labor costs are assumed equal.
Cost of equipment downtime is not included in the estimate.
Methylene chloride solution costs $9.00 per gallon
NMP solution costs $35.00 per gallon
All solvent is disposed as waste at $3/gallon
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
NMP versus Methylene Chloride
NMP Methylene Chloride
Operational Costs:
Solvent costs: $7,875 $2,700
Waste Disposal: $675 $900
Total Costs: $8,550 $3600
Total Recovered Income: $0 $0
Annual Benefit: -$8550 -$3600
Economic Analysis Summary
Given the high cost of the NMP solvent, it may be better to use NMP for small
applications or on applications where performance warrants.
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost
N-Methyl Pyrrolidone 6810-01-200-8003 ea. (4 liter) $31.12
5-10-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Approving
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Vendors:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required. For Air
Force applications, N-Methyl Pyrrolidone must not be used on any aircraft or
weapon systems without the knowledge and approval of the appropriate
systems manager, office(s) having engineering authority on the specific
airframe(s) and the Air Force Corrosion Program Office.
Air Force:
Air Force Corrosion Program Office
AFRML/MLS-OLR
325 2nd Street
Robins AFB, GA 31098-1640
Phone: (912) 926-3284 DSN: 468-3284
Army:
Mr. Charles Gawenis
Army Industrial Operations Command
Corpus Christi Army Deport
Corpus Christi, TX
(512)939-4170
The following is a list of n-methyl pyrrolidone suppliers. This is not meant to be
a complete list, as there may be other suppliers of this type of material.
BASF Corporation Chemicals Division
Parsippany, NJ
(800)533-8970
Mallinckrodt Inc.
Paris Byp US 68
P. O. Box: 800
Paris, KY 40362
(314)982-5000
ISP Technologies Inc.
1361 Alps Road
Wayne, NJ 07470
(201) 628-4000
Fisher Scientific Co.
2000 Park Lane
5-10-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Pittsburge, PA 15275
(412)490-8586
Grumman Aerospace Corp.
609 S Oyster Bay Rd.
Bethpage, NY 11714
(516)346-7086
Sources: Walsh, William C., "Replacements ofMEKwithN-methylPyrrolidone (NMP) in
Coatings Plant Resin Cleanup Operations, " BASF Corporation Chemicals Division,
Mount Olive, NJ
"N-MethylPyrrolidone Technical Tips, Removal of Paints and Coatings from NMP
Soluble Plastics, " BASF Corporation Chemicals Division, Parsippany, NJ
"Surface Tension Modifications of NMP-based Chemical Strippers, " BASF Corporation,
Parsippany, NJ
5-10-7
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
USED OIL SEGREGATION AND STORAGE
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-25-99; Air Force: HW01; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: High; Marine Corps: High; Army: High; Air Force: High
Alternative for: N/A
Compliance Areas: Medium
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: N/A
Overview: Proper segregation and storage of used petroleum, oils, and lubricants (POLs)
is necessary to ensure that recycling is promoted. Required segregation is
normally dictated by the waste oil transporter so that waste oils are consistent
with the intended use. Proper storage is the same, regardless of the degree of
segregation. Generally, the goal of proper storage is to eliminate water and dirt
contamination of the waste POL prior to off-site shipment.
Based upon a review of Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part
279, "Used Oil Management Standards," Subpart A, "Definitions," used oil is
defined as any oil refined from crude oil or any synthetic oil that has been used
and, as a result of its use, is contaminated by physical or chemical impurities.
Subpart B, "Applicability," states mixtures of used oil and any hazardous waste
require regulation as a hazardous waste under 40 CFR, Parts 260 through
266, 268, 270, and 124, rather than as used oil under 40 CFR 279. In the
state of California, used oil is regarded as a hazardous waste according to 22 of
the California Code of Regulations, Chapter 11
Generally, testing of used oil to determine if it is hazardous waste is not
required. Title 40 CFR 279, "Used Oil Management Standards" states that
used oil is subject to this regulation regardless of whether it exhibits
characteristics of a hazardous waste. If it is suspected that the used oil has been
mixed with a hazardous waste, it should be tested using the following methods in
accordance with 40 CFR, Parts 261 and 279. Measured values should be
compared to those presented in 40 CFR 261.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 1311, "Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP)" (40 CFR 261.24);
EPA Method 1010 Pensky Martens Closed Cup (PMCC) Method, or
EPA Method 1020;
Setaflash Closed Cup (SCC) Method - "Flash Point" (40 CFR 261.21);
EPA Method 1110, "Corrosivity (pH)" (40 CFR 261.22);
EPA Method 9040 or 9041, "Reactivity" (40 CFR 261.23); and
EPA Method 8010, "Halogenated Volatile Organics."
6-1-1-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Appropriate precautions should be taken to store used oils in a manner that
prevents other non-used oil products from being added. In this event, any or all
of the above tests will not be required. Used oil becomes hazardous when it
contains 1,000 parts per million (ppm), or greater of total halogens, subject to
the rebuttal of 40 CFR 279.
Assuming the oil meets the criteria of used oil rather than a hazardous waste, it
is regulated under 40 CFR 279. 40 CFR 279.1, "Definitions," defines the
following terms:
Used Oil Collection Center: "...means any site or facility that is
registered/licensed/permitted/recognized by a state/county/municipal
government to manage used oil and accepts/aggregates and stores used oil
collected from used oil generators regulated under subpart C of this part who
bring used oil to the collection center in shipments of no more than 55 gallons
under the provisions of subpart 279.24. Used oil collection centers may also
accept used oil from household do-it-yourselfers."
Used Oil Aggregation Point: "...means any site or facility that accepts,
aggregates, and/or stores used oil collected only from other used oil generation
sites owned or operated by the owner or operator of the aggregation point,
from which used oil is transported to the aggregation point in shipments of no
more than 55 gallons. Used oil aggregation points may also accept used oil
from household do-it-yourselfers."
40 CFR 279, Subpart D - "Standards for Used Oil Collection Centers and
Aggregation Points" requires both the used oil collection center and the
aggregation point to comply with the requirements of 40 CFR 279, Subpart C,
"Standards for Used Oil Generators." The essential difference between a used
oil aggregation point and a collection center is the aggregation point can accept
oil only from used oil generation sites owned or operated by the owner or
operator of the aggregation point and there is no requirement for state, county,
or municipal registry, licensing, permitting, or recognition. In both cases,
shipment, acceptance, and transport of used oil is limited to 55 gallons or less.
There is no limitation on the amount of used oil that may be accumulated at the
collection center or the aggregation point.
40 CFR 279, Subpart C, "Standards for Used Oil Generators," requires
used oil to be stored in tanks, containers, or units subject to regulation under 40
CFR 264, "Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal (TSD) Facilities," and 40 CFR 265, "Interim
Status Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment,
6-1-1-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Storage, and Disposal Facilities". Subpart C, "Standards for Used Oil
Generators," states containers and above ground tanks used to store used oil at
generator facilities must be labeled or marked clearly with the words "Used
Oil". Further, used oil generators are subject to applicable Spill Prevention,
Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) plan requirements (Title 40 CFR 112).
Used oil stored in underground storage tanks is also subject to the applicable
regulatory requirements of Title 40 CFR 280, "Technical Standards and
Corrective Action Requirements for Owners and Operators of Underground
Storage Tanks (USTs)".
In addition to federal requirements, state regulations should be carefully
reviewed to ensure all applicable requirements are met.
The most effective method of minimizing contamination is to segregate the used
oil from possible contaminants such as non-petroleum oils, solvents, and
antifreeze. This can be done by providing separate, labeled containers for the
collection of waste solvents, synthetic oils, glycol, and other materials. Physical
separation of the processes using materials that contaminate oil can be helpful in
solving the problem.
Compliance
Benefit:
Segregating used oil promotes a decrease in the amount of hazardous waste on
site due to the fact that any used oil which has been contaminated from
hazardous waste exposure should be classified as a hazardous waste and
treated accordingly. The decrease in hazardous waste may help a facility
reduce their generator status and lessen their regulatory burden (i.e.,
recordkeeping, reporting, inspections, transportation, accumulation time,
emergency prevention and preparedness, emergency response) under RCRA,
40 CFR 262. In addition, segregation allows the used oil to fall under the less
stringent regulations of 40 CFR 279.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Material compatibility concerns exist with non-petroleum-based POLs,
solvents, fuels (some), and non-POLs such as antifreeze. For example the
following materials are not normally mixed with used oils:
Non-petroleum based hydraulic fluids
Solvents
6-1-1-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Parts cleaners
Gasoline (MO gas or Motor Gasoline)
Antifreeze
Methanol
Water
Waste diesel fuel and jet fuels JP-4 and JP-8 may be acceptable for mixing
depending upon the ultimate use of the used oil. For example, if used oil is
destined for energy recovery, waste diesel fuel and jet fuels JP-4 and JP-8 may
be acceptable for mixing. For additional information, refer to Pollution
Prevention Opportunity Data sheet 6-1-2, On-Site Recycling of Used Oil.
With regard to used refrigerant oil, users should refer to 40 CFR Part 279.10,
"Applicability," paragraph (b)(ii), "Rebuttal presumption for used oil". This
paragraph states that used oil containing greater than 1,000 ppm total halogens
is presumed to be a hazardous waste under the assumption the oil was mixed
with halogenated hazardous waste. Users may rebut this presumption by
demonstrating the used oil does not contain hazardous waste. If a user can
document the used oil was not mixed with chlorinated hazardous wastes (e.g.
document the oil is, in fact used refrigerant oil), the oil does not need to be
managed as a hazardous waste, as long as the total halogens do not exceed
4,000 ppm and the used oil is recycled. In order to keep accurate records of
the source of the oil, the used refrigerant oil should be kept separate from other
types of used oils. Most used refrigerant oils do exhibit greater than 1,000 ppm
total halogens. However, if the analytical results of the used refrigerant oil
indicate it contains less than 1,000 ppm total halogens, the used refrigerant oil
can be mixed with other types of used oils destined for energy recovery. If the
total halogen level in the oil is variable, the oil must be analyzed each time it is
removed from a refrigeration unit before mixing it with other types of oil.
Keeping the used refrigerant oil separate from other types of used oil will ensure
compliance with the regulations and preclude the rebuttable presumption
requirements. Related topics and additional information are available in data
sheets 6-1-2 and 6-1-5.
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
Safety and health concerns regarding waste oils are minimal. However, safety
precautions should be exercised when handling synthetic aircraft oils containing
tricresyl phosphate, which is toxic by ingestion and skin adsorption. Care
should also be taken when working with hot oils. Consult your local health and
safety personnel for specific precautions.
Proper used oil segregation and storage helps:
Ensure the marketability of used oil
6-1-1-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Ensure compliance with applicable regulations
Generators avoid the high cost of disposing of oil as hazardous waste
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
N/A
The economic advantage of segregating used oil is based on the payback
associated with the recycling. Economics are usually favorable for off-site
recycling of used oil. Specific economic analysis should be performed on a
case-by-case basis since handling charges/reimbursements differ among used oil
transporters, processors, and marketers. However, in general, cost savings
should be realized due to the reduction of hazardous and/or non-hazardous
waste disposal fees and future liability.
Based on communication with hydraulic fluid recyclers, the cost for off-site
recycling of petroleum-based hydraulic fluid ranges from a reimbursement of
$0.37 per gallon to a cost of $0.15 to $0.68 per gallon. These prices vary due
to the quantity of hydraulic fluid generated at a site (the greater the oil, the lower
the price per unit recycled). Recyclers of petroleum based hydraulic fluid may
be found in the Yellow Pages listed under Oils-Waste.
Assumptions:
400 gallons of waste hydraulic fluid a month is generated (200 gallons
hazardous waste, 200 gallons non-hazardous waste)
Used hydraulic fluid is subject to the Used Oil regulations in 40 CFR
25 hours annual labor for storage, paperwork, and arranging delivery for
recycling hydraulic fluid
40 hours annual labor for storage, paperwork (manifest) and arranging
delivery for disposal as a hazardous waste
Hazardous waste is disposed through DRMO at a cost of $0.84/gallon
Labor rate: $30/hour
Used hydraulic fluid is recycled using a contractor for $0.42/gallon
According to the Dallas Air Force Regional Environmental Office, a non-
hazardous waste disposal cost would in all probability not be significantly
different than the cost for hazardous waste disposal.
6-1-1-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Annual Cost Comparison for
Recycling or Disposal of Used Hydraulic Fluid
Recycling Disposal
Capital and Installation Costs $0 $0
Operational Costs:
Labor $750 $1,200
Hazardous Waste Disposal $0 $2,000
Non-Hazardous Waste $0 $2,000
Disposal
Recycling $2,016 $0
Transportation $0 $0
Total Operational Costs $2,766 $5,200
Total Income: $0 $0
Annual Benefit: - $2,766 -$5,200
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for Recycling: $2,434
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $0
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: Immediate
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost
Waste Oil Storage Tk. 5430-01-384-8091 500 liter $3,375.61
Waste Oil Storage Tk 5430-01-384-8108 1000 liter $3,758.11
Waste Oil Storage Tk 5430-01-384-8132 1500 liter $4,083.21
Waste Oil Storage Tk 5430-01-384-8192 2500 liter $5,114.06
Approving
Authority: Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Air Force approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after
coordination with the installation environmental function. The installation
environmental management activities should ensure local, state, and Federal
regulations are followed.
6-1-1-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Points of
Contact:
Navy:
Mr. Mike Viggiano (Procurement POC)
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
110023rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4370
(805) 982-4895, DSN 551-4895
Email: viggianomlfSlnfesc.naw.mil
Air Force:
PRO-ACT, DSN 240-4214
Headquarters Air Force Civil Engineer Support Agency
Mr. Al Day
DSN 523-6357
Headquarters Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence Regional
Environmental Offices (REOs):
1. Atlanta REO: HQAFCEE/CCR-A
60 Forsyth Street SW, Suite 8M80
Atlanta, GA 30303-3416
(404) 562-4205
2. Dallas REO: HQAFCEE/CCR-D
525 South Griffin, Suite 505
Dallas, TX 75202-5023
(214) 767-4650
3. San Francisco REO: HQAFCEE/CCR-S
333 Market Street, Suite 625
San Francisco, CA 94105-2196
(415)977-8881
Vendors:
Sources'.
N/A
Mr. Ronald Johns, Air Force Regional Environmental Office, Dallas, March 1999.
Mr Michael Viggiano, Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, January 1999.
Mr. Dell Fox, Air Force Regional Environmental Office, San Francisco, January 1999.
58 Federal Register (FR) 26425, "Final Rule; Technical Amendments and Corrections, "
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Standards for Managing UsedOil, US EPA, 3
May 1993, including the clarification of issues discussed in the preamble.
Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 279, "EPA Standards for Managing Used
Oil, " US EPA, 10 Sept. 1992, amended at 58 FR 26425, 3 May 1993 and 58 FR 33342,
17 June 1993.
Guide to Used Oil Regulations, Thompson Publishing Group, 1992.
Air Force Occupational Safety and Health Standard (AFOSH) Standard 127-43,
6-1-1-7
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
"Flammable and Combustible Liquids, " 21 September 1980
National Fire Protection Code (NFPA) 30, "Flammable Liquids Code, " [PF 0425]
Technical Order (T.O.) 42B-1-23, "Management of Recoverable and Waste Liquid
Petroleum Products. "
6-1-1-8
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
ON-SITE RECYCLING OF USED OIL
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-25-99; Air Force: HW01; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Low
Alternative for: Off-Site Disposal/Off-Site Recycling
Compliance Areas: Medium
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: N/A
Overview: It is possible to recycle used lubricating oils generated from fluid changeouts of
internal combustion engines in tactical service (MIL-L-2104) and in
administrative service (MIL-L-46152), steam turbine and gear oil (MIL-L-
17331), marine diesel service (MIL-L-9000), petroleum-based 90W and
140W gear lube oil (MIL-L-2105), and vacuum and compressor oils.
On-site recycling options for used lubricating oil are typically limited to energy
recovery such as diesel fuel supplementation and burning as a boiler fuel
supplement. Based upon a study performed at Red River Army Depot in 1993,
oil could not be successfully reconditioned on site for reuse due to heavy metal
contamination. In addition, re-additizing of treated oils by on-site processors is
generally not recommended.
Diesel Fuel Supplementation
The criteria that must be used in electing on-site recycling options involves the
volume of used lubricating oil generated annually. Diesel fuel on-site use
includes the volume of diesel fuel used (40,000 gal/yr is required to burn 2,000
gallons of used diesel lubricating oil at a 5 percent mixture ratio), volume of
diesel lubricating oil generated, diesel engine warranty, and activity policy.
Boiler Fuel
Used lubricating oils from internal combustion engines, steam turbine and gear
oil, petroleum-based gear lube oil, and mechanical pump oils can be dewatered
and filtered for use as a supplement to No. 6 burner fuel or used to fuel
dedicated waste oil burners. To burn these used oils in a boiler, may require a
permit from the state that defines the source of the fuel. The boiler must be of a
special design to bum used oil and must meet federal containment limits.
Technically, the Navy can burn used lubricating oil, but in practice it is not done.
Burning used lube oil as a supplement to No. 6 fuel oil will increase boiler
maintenance costs. Although burning used oil as a burner fuel supplement is
cost-effective, if the blend of No. 6 oil with used lube oil exceeds 50 percent,
the maintenance costs will increase.
6-1-2-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Compliance
Benefit:
When considering burning used oil in boilers at military installations, users should
coordinate with the installation Civil Engineer, Public Works officer or
equivalent authority. Acceptable oil types (e.g. synthetic, petroleum-based,
etc.) air emission concerns, and regulatory permit requirements should be
determined. Also, users should consider the regulatory requirements of Title
40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 279, Subpart G, "Standards
for Used Oil Burners Who Burn Off-Specification Used Oil for Energy
Recovery". These requirements impose restrictions on burning and specify
procedures for notification, rebuttable presumption, storage, tracking, and
notices.
Vendors, such as Black Gold, manufacture dedicated waste oil burners that are
designed to burn high carbon content waste crankcase oils, lubricating oils,
automatic transmission fluids, and No. 2 heating oils. Black Gold offers turnkey
systems that include everything but the fuel.
Recycling of used oil may allow the used oil to fall under the less stringent
regulations of 40 CFR 279 as opposed to the hazardous waste regulations in
40 CFR 260 through 268. In addition, under 40 CFR 261.5 generators who
recycle their used oil and manage it under 40 CFR 279 do not have to count
the used oil in their monthly totals of hazardous waste generated. The
decrease in the quantity of hazardous waste generated monthly may help a
facility reduce their generator status and lessen the degree of regulatory
requirements (i.e., recordkeeping, reporting, inspections, transportation,
accumulation time, emergency prevention and preparedness, emergency
response) applicable with under RCRA, 40 CFR 262. Recycling also helps
facilities meet the requirements of waste reduction under RCRA, 40 CFR
262, Appendix. Recycling used oil on site generally requires a facility to store
large quantities of used oil. Implementation of Spill, Prevention, Control and
Countermeasure Plan is required to be developed and implemented under 40
CFR 112 for facilities that store certain amounts of oil on site. In addition, the
burning of used oil on site may require an air permit.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
The six types of lubricating oil listed (L-2104, L-17331, L-46152, L-9000, and
L-2105) can and should be combined for efficiency and economy of collection.
6-1-2-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Do not mix or blend low-flash hydrocarbons with used lubricating oil. It is
permissible to collect hydraulic oils (H-5605 and H-17672B) with lubricating
oils provided neither are being recycled for their original use and provided they
are not contaminated with halogens.
These oils should be accumulated by the generator in clean, well-labeled, and
color-coded drums. (Drums should be labeled with the words "Used Oil.")
When the drum is full, the generator should complete a standard 1348-1
manifest form and request Public Works or another appropriate activity to
transfer the drum to the central storage facility.
When storing used lubricating and gear oils for on-site energy recovery, users
should consider the requirements of 40 CFR 279.22, "Used oil storage," which
include storing used oil only in tanks, containers, or units subject to regulation
under 40 CFR 264, "Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous
Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities." Storage of used lubricating
and gear oils for on-site energy recovery is necessary to accumulate a sufficient
volume for recycling or disposal. Storage should be achieved in clean 55-gallon
labeled drums, bowsers, buffaloes, above-ground tanks, or railroad tank cars.
If drums are used, they should be covered so that water does not collect on top
of the drum and possibly contaminate the contents. Storage containers should
be placed in an area that is bermed or diked to contain spills and prevent them
from reaching groundwater.
Care should be taken when handling lubricating oils. Proper personal protective
equipment is recommended. Safety precautions should be exercised when
handling synthetic aircraft oils containing tricresyl phosphate, which is toxic by
ingestion and skin adsorption. Consult your local health and safety personnel
for specific precautions.
Potential benefits of on-site energy recovery of used oil are as follows:
Reduced waste oil disposal
Reduced diesel fuel and fuel oil purchases
Activities that are not users of diesel fuel or No. 6 burner fuel may not
realize an economic benefit.
Economic
Analysis:
Diesel Fuel Supplement
Racor Industries, Inc., Modesto, California, provides a unit designed
specifically for processing used lube oil for use as a diesel fuel supplement. If
permanently installed, it is generally used in conjunction with a fuel reservoir or
6-1-2-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
tank. It automatically blends used crankcase oil with diesel fuel. It also filters,
recycles, and transfers diesel fuel and has its own waste oil holding tank and oil
injection system.
The basic equipment costs of recycling used lubricating oil as a diesel fuel
supplement are $8,500 to $10,000, and the total capital investment ranges from
$57,000 to $80,000. These costs assume that a storage tank for the diesel fuel
exists. The total capital investment includes installation materials and labor,
training, and start-up materials costs. Payback period of these initial investment
costs can be achieved in less than the estimated 10-year life of the equipment.
A brief summary of the costs of recycling used lube oil as a diesel fuel
supplement follows:
Annual volume of used lube oil, gal 2,000
Annual volume of diesel fuel required to meet the 1:20 40,000
dilution factor, gal
Estimated value of diesel fuel per gallon $1.00
Standard or basic equipment costs $8,500
Total capital investment costs $57,000
Savings Investment Ratio (SIR) 1.543
Net Uniform Annual Savings (NUAS) $5,022
Investment payback period, years 5.3
Waste Oil Burners
Material and installation costs for a 200,000 BTU/Hr. (1.4 gallons per hour of
waste fuel) waste oil burner is estimated to be $9,500. The waste oil burner
will require a 2,000-gallon, above-ground tank to store the waste oil, at an
estimated cost of $8,000. Total installed cost allowing for training and SPCC
preparation (update) is estimated to be $18,700. Assuming a status quo
disposal cost of $0.75 per gallon for oil, the payback period is approximately
3.5 years. A brief summary of the cost analysis is presented below.
Volume of used lube oil to be consumed (6,050 1.4 gallons/hour
gallons in 6 months at 24 hours/day)
Waste oil furnace and vent installed $9,500
2,000 gallon storage tank installed $8,000
Training and SPCC preparation $1,200
Energy value of waste oil (per year) (7,600 $3,200
Therms/year)
Waste oil disposal cost (status quo) $0.75/gallon
Increased labor for waste oil handling $975/year
Payback period 3.5 years
6-1-2-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
NSN
Unit Size Cost
Approving
Authority:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Air Force approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after
coordination with the installation environmental function. The installation
environmental management activities should ensure local, state and Federal
regulation are followed..
Points of
Contact:
Navy:
Waste Oil Burners
Mr. Peter Fanning
Code 24
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
110023rdAve.
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4370
(805)982-3564
Air Force:
PRO-ACT, DSN 240-4214
(800)233-4356
Headquarters Air Force Civil Engineer Support Agency
Mr. Gerald Doddington
DSN 523-6343
San Antonio Air Logistics Center (SA-ALC/LDPG)
Mr. Dave Elliott, Small Engine Engineer
DSN 945-6537
Phone: (210)925-6517
6-1-2-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Headquarters Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence Regional
Environmental Offices (REOs):
1. Atlanta REO: HQAFCEE/CCR-A
60 Forsyth Street SW, Suite 8M80
Atlanta, GA 30303-3416
(404) 562-4205
2. Dallas REO: HQAFCEE/CCR-D
525 South Griffin, Suite 505
Dallas, TX 75202-5023
(214) 767-4650
3. San Francisco REO: HQAFCEE/CCR-S
333 Market Street, Suite 625
San Francisco, CA 94105-2196
(415)977-8881
Vendors: Diesel Fuel Supplement
The following is a list of lube oil recycling system manufacturers. This is not
meant to be a complete list, as there may be other manufacturers of this type of
equipment.
Parker - Hannifin, Racor Division
P.O. Box 3208
Modesto, CA 95353
(209) 521-7860, (800) 344-3286, Fax (209) 529-3278
Models: 800D (series 20 and 12)
Waste Oil Burners
The following is a list of manufacturers of on-site heat recovery systems. This is
not meant to be a complete list, as there may be other manufacturers of this type
of equipment.
Black Gold Corp.
Suite 344
240 Great Circle Road
Nashville, TN 37228
(615) 251-0680, (800) 351-0643, Fax (615) 251-0682
URL: http://www.blackgoldcorp.com
ECONO HEAT, Inc.
5714 East 1st Avenue
Spokane, WA 99212
6-1-2-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
(509) 534-1022,(800)255-1363
Manufacturer of Omni Waste Oil Heaters
Source: Mr. Dell Fox, San Francisco REO, January 1999.
6-1-2-7
-------
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
OFF-SITE RECYCLING OF PETROLEUM BASED HYDRAULIC FLUID
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-25-99; Air Force: HW01; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: High; Marine Corps: High; Army: High; Air Force: Medium
Alternative for: Single Use and Disposal of Hydraulic Fluids
Compliance Areas: Medium
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: N/A
Overview: Offsite recyclers of hydraulic fluids process waste fluid into re-refined usable
products. The primary benefits of recycling hydraulic fluids include reduction of
the amount of waste disposed at a facility and the possible allowance of this
material to be managed under less stringent regulatory requirements. One
facility, the Naval Air Station in North Island CA, reported that they recycle
90% of the waste hydraulic fluid generated on-site, leaving only 10% to be
disposed as hazardous waste.
In order to implement an off-site recycling program successfully, the program
costs must be less than the disposal costs. Offsite recycling of hydraulic fluids is
performed by numerous companies with varying charges and fees for waste
fluid pickup. Some recycling companies may charge to pick up hydraulic fluid
while others will remove it free of charge. In addition, some recycling
companies may reimburse facilities for their waste hydraulic fluid.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that oil that has
been refined from crude oil, which has been either used as lubricating, hydraulic,
or heat-transfer fluid, and has become contaminated through use is classified as
a used oil. However, used oil is defined under 40 CFR 279.1 as "any oil that
has been refined from crude oil, or any synthetic oil that has been used and as a
result of such use is contaminated by physical and chemical impurities." As
such, hydraulic fluid can be managed in the same manner as used oil.
Generators who are considering an off-site recycling program for used oil
should refer to Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 279
"Standards for the Management of Used Oil" for specific regulatory guidance.
If the off-site recycling program includes burning used oil for energy recovery,
generators should pay particular attention to the provisions of 40 CFR 279.11,
"Used Oil Specifications". Used oil to be burned for energy recovery which
does not exceed the specifications for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, flash
point, and total halogens is not subject to most requirements of 40 CFR Part
279. Table 1 at 40 CFR 279.11 provides the following limits:
6-1-3-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Compliance
Benefit:
Materials
Compatibility:
a) Arsenic: 5 parts per million (ppm) maximum
b) Cadmium: 2 ppm maximum
c) Chromium: 10 ppm maximum
d) Lead: 100 ppm maximum
e) Flash Point: 100 degrees Fahrenheit minimum
f) Total Halogens: 4,000 ppm maximum
Recycling of used oil may allow the fluid to fall under the less stringent
regulations of 40 CFR 279 as opposed to the hazardous waste regulations in
40 CFR 260 through 268. In addition, under 40 CFR 261.5 generators that
recycle their used oil and manage it under 40 CFR 279 do not have to count
the used oil into their monthly totals of hazardous waste generated. The
decrease in the quantity of hazardous waste generated monthly may help a
facility reduce their generator status and lessen their regulatory burden (i.e.
recordkeeping, reporting, inspections, transportation, accumulation time,
emergency prevention and preparedness, emergency response) under RCRA,
40 CFR 262. Recycling also helps facilities meet the requirements of waste
reduction under RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix.
The Compliance Benefits listed above are only meant to be used as general
guidance. EPA presumes that all used oils are recyclable and, therefore, must
be managed in accordance with 40 CFR Part 279. If the used oil is to be
disposed on-site or sent off-site for disposal, the generator must then, as with
any other solid waste, determine if the used oil exhibits any hazardous
characteristic. If the used oil to be disposed is determined to be a
characteristically hazardous waste, it then must be managed in accordance with
applicable requirements of 40 CFR Parts 260 through 266, 268, 270, and
124. If the used oil to be disposed were determined to be a non-hazardous
waste, it then would be managed in accordance with applicable requirements of
40 CFR 257 and 258
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Mixtures of certain hydraulic fluids may not be acceptable for recycling.
Hydraulic fluid and used oil may be collected in the same container only if the
materials are to be burned for energy recovery. If the used hydraulic fluid is to
be recycled in any other manner than being burned for energy recovery, users
should consult with the recycler for specific requirements.
6-1-3-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
Care must be taken when handling hot waste oils. Proper personal protective
equipment is recommended. Special safety precautions should be exercised
when handling synthetic oils containing tricresyl phosphate, which is toxic by
ingestion and skin absorption. Consult your local industrial health specialist,
local health and safety personnel, and the appropriate product Material Safety
Data Sheet (MSDS) for specific safe handling procedures concerning waste oil
materials.
Reduces the volume of hazardous and/or non-hazardous waste requiring
disposal.
Some recyclers of used oil and hydraulic fluids may pay for the material,
further reducing disposal costs.
Used oil containing greater than 1,000 ppm total halogens is presumed to
be a hazardous waste under the rebuttable presumption provided under 40
CFR279.10(b)(l)
Economics are usually favorable for off-site recycling of used oil. Specific
economic analysis should be performed on a case-by-case basis since handling
charges/reimbursements differ among used oil transporters, processors, and
marketers. However, in general, cost savings should be realized due to the
reduction of hazardous and/or non-hazardous waste disposal fees and future
liability.
Based on communication with hydraulic fluid recyclers, the cost for off-site
recycling of petroleum-based hydraulic fluid ranges from a reimbursement of
$0.37 per gallon to a cost of $0.15 to $0.68 per gallon. These prices vary due
to the quantity of hydraulic fluid generated at a site (the greater the oil, the lower
the price). Recyclers of petroleum based hydraulic fluid may be found in the
Yellow Pages listed under Oils-Waste.
Assumptions:
400 gallons of waste hydraulic fluid a month is generated (200 gallons
hazardous waste, 200 gallons non-hazardous waste)
Used hydraulic fluid is subject to the Used Oil regulations in 40 CFR
25 hours annual labor for storage, paperwork, and arranging delivery for
recycling hydraulic fluid
40 hours annual labor for storage, paperwork (manifest) and arranging
delivery for disposal as a hazardous waste
Hazardous waste is disposed through DRMO at a cost of $0.84/gallon
6T O
-1-j-
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Labor rate: $30/hour
Used hydraulic fluid is recycled using a contractor for $0.42/gallon
According to the Dallas Air Force Regional Environmental Office, a non-
hazardous waste disposal cost would in all probability not be significantly
different than the cost for hazardous waste disposal.
Annual Cost Comparison for
Recycling or Disposal of Used Hydraulic Fluid
Recycling Disposal
Capital and Installation Costs $0 $0
Operational Costs:
Labor $750 $1,200
Hazardous Waste Disposal $0 $2,000
Non-Hazardous Waste $0 $2,000
Disposal
Recycling $2,016 $0
Transportation $0 $0
Total Operational Costs $2,766 $5,200
Total Income: $0 $0
Annual Benefit: - $2,766 -$5,200
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for Recycling: $2,434
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $0
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: Immediate
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost
None Identified
Approving
Authority: Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Air Force approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after
coordination with the installation environmental function. The installation
environmental management activities should ensure local, state and Federal
regulations are followed.
6-1-3-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Points of
Contact: Navy:
Mr. Ray Paulson
Code 08213
Bldg. 334-M
Naval Aviation Depot
Naval Air Station North Island, CA 92135
Phone: (619) 545-2907
Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office (DRMO)
(Consult your local office)
Air Force:
Mr. Ronald W. Jahns
Regional Environmental Manager
Air Force Regional Environmental Office
Central Region
525 S. Griffin Street, Suite 505
Dallas, TX 75202-5023
Phone: (214) 767-4648 of (888) 610-7418 then dial 767-4648
Fax: (214)767-4661
Email: ronald.iahnsfSldallafcee.brooks.af.mil
PRO-ACT
Phone: (800) 233-4356 DSN 240-4214
Headquarters Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence Regional
Environmental Offices (REOs):
1. Atlanta REO: HQAFCEE/CCR-A
60 Forsyth Street S.W., Suite 8M80
Atlanta, GA 30303-3416
(404) 562-4205
2. Dallas REO: HQAFCEE/CCR-D
525 South Griffin, Suite 505
Dallas, TX 75202-5023
(214) 767-4650
3. San Francisco REO: HQAFCEE/CCR-S
333 Market Street, Suite 625
San Francisco, CA 94105-2196
(415)977-8881
6-1-3-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Vendors:
Sources:
The following is a list of hydraulic fluid recyclers. This is not meant to be a
complete list, as there are other providers of this service.
Evergreen Environmental Services
6880 Smith Avenue
Newark, CA 94560
(800) 972-5284
Fleet Environmental Services
Lakeville, MA
(508) 946-6900
Safety-Kleen
1340 W. Lincoln St.
Phoenix, AZ 85007-3420
(602)258-6155
Service: Processor
Mr. Ronald Johns, Air Force Regional Environmental Office, Dallas, March 1999.
Mr. Dell Fox, Air Force Regional Environmental Office, San Francisco, January 1999.
DRMO, Imperial Beach, California, June 97
Mr. Paul Sierra, Naval Aviation Depot, Naval Air Station, North Island, June 97
6-1-3-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
OFF-SITE REFINING OF WASTE OIL
Revision:
Process Code:
Usage List:
Alternative for:
Compliance Areas:
5/99
Navy and Marine Corps: ID-25-99; Air Force: HW01; Army: N/A
Navy: Low; Marine Corps: Low; Army: Low; Air Force: Medium
Off-Site Heat Recovery, On-Site Heat Recovery
Medium
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: N/A
Overview:
Compliance
Benefit:
Refining of waste petroleum lubricants allows the materials to be reused in
similar applications to those for which they were originally produced (e.g.
reused as motor oil). As such, refining of waste oil represents a higher level of
recycling than methods to recover the energy value of the waste petroleum.
Currently, the EPA has identified four facilities that solely refine used oil.
Under this method, the waste oil generator contracts with an oil refiner or
intermediate broker for disposal of waste oil. The broker/refiner will not
normally accept less than full tanker truckloads of waste petroleum, oils, and
lubricants (POL); therefore, on-site storage and accumulation will be necessary
until sufficient quantities are generated. One advantage to this method is that all
POLs can normally be combined into a single tank, including engine oils,
petroleum-based hydraulic fluids, gear lubricants, and petroleum-based
transmission oil. According to the Dallas Air Force Regional Environmental
Office, prior to entering into a contract for re-refining of used oil, generators
should review available records maintained by the appropriate regulatory
agency pertaining to the compliance history of the used oil processor/re-refiner.
In addition, regulatory guidance regarding proper labeling and storage
requirements should be considered. Used oil may only be stored in tanks,
containers, or units subject to regulation under 40 CFR 264 and 265. Also,
containers must be in good condition, not leaking, and labeled with the words
"Used Oil." Used oil is defined under 40 CFR 279.1 as "any oil that has been
refined from crude oil, or any synthetic oil that has been used and as a result of
such use is contaminated by physical and chemical impurities."
Recycling of used oil (i.e., off-site refining) may allow the used oil to fall under
the less stringent regulations of 40 CFR 279 as opposed to the hazardous
waste regulations in 40 CFR 260 through 268. In addition, under 40 CFR
261.5 generators that recycle their used oil and manage it under 40 CFR 279
do not have to count the used oil into their monthly totals of hazardous waste
generated. The decrease in the quantity of hazardous waste generated monthly
may help a facility reduce their generator status and lessen their amount of
6-1-4-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
regulatory burden (e.g. recordkeeping, reporting, inspections, transportation,
accumulation time, emergency prevention and preparedness, emergency
response) they are required to comply with under RCRA, 40 CFR 262. Off-
site refining also helps facilities meet the requirements of waste reduction under
RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix. Off-site refining of used oil generally
requires a facility to store large quantities of used oil on site. A Spill,
Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan is required to be developed and
implemented under 40 CFR 112 for facilities that store certain amounts of oil
on site.
The Compliance Benefits listed above are only meant to be used as general
guidance. EPA presumes that all used oils are recyclable and, therefore, must
be managed in accordance with 40 CFR Part 279. If the used oil is to be
disposed on-site or sent off-site for disposal, the generator must then, as with
any other solid waste, determine if the used oil exhibits any hazardous
characteristic. If the used oil to be disposed is determined to be a
characteristically hazardous waste, it then must be managed in accordance with
applicable requirements of 40 CFR Parts 260 through 266, 268, 270, and
124. If the used oil to be disposed were determined to be a non-hazardous
waste, it then would be managed in accordance with applicable requirements of
40 CFR 257 and 258
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety and
Health:
Generators must ensure only used oil (oil refined from crude oil and used as
lubricating, hydraulic, or heat-transfer fluid) is placed in the used oil tank.
Coordination with the re-refining contractor regarding their analysis plan is
suggested to address the rebuttable presumption (40 CFR 279.10(b)(l)(ii))
and on specification requirements (40 CFR 279.11).
Care must be taken when handling hot waste oils. Proper personal protective
equipment is recommended. Special safety precautions should be exercised
when handling synthetic oils containing tricresyl phosphate, which is toxic by
ingestion and skin absorption. Consult your local industrial health specialist,
local health and safety personnel, and the appropriate product Material Safety
Data Sheet (MSDS) for specific safe handling procedures concerning waste oil
materials.
6-1-4-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
Refining of used oil is a more environmentally acceptable alternative than
most other options
Used oil stored on-site is subject to the regulatory requirements contained in
40 CFR 279.22. These requirements include release response actions and
clean-up steps in the event of a release.
Safety Kleen reports that they will accept truck load quantities of waste oil
charging $0.11 to $0.15 per gallon at the generator's site. The Defense
Reutilization and Marketing Office at Imperial Beach, CA will dispose of used
oil at a cost of $0.84 per gallon.
Assumptions:
200 gallons of waste oil a month is generated
Used oil is subject to the Used Oil regulations in 40 CFR
25 hours annual labor for storage, paperwork, and arranging delivery for
refining used oil
40 hours annual labor for storage, paperwork (manifest) and arranging
delivery for disposal as a hazardous waste
Hazardous waste is disposed through DRMO at a cost of $0.84/gallon
Labor rate: $30/hour
Used oil is refined using Safety Kleen for $0.13/gallon
Annual Cost Comparison for
Refining or Disposal of Used Oil
Refining
Disposal
Capital and Installation Costs
Operational Costs:
Labor
Hazardous Waste Disposal
Refining
Transportation
Total Operational Costs
Total Income:
Annual Benefit:
$0
$750
$0
$312
$0
$1,062
$0
-$1,062
$0
$1,200
$2,016
$0
$0
$3,216
$0
-3,216
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for Refining:
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process:
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process:
$2,154
$0
Immediate
6-1-4-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
Approving
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Air Force approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after
coordination with the installation environmental function. The installation
environmental management activities should ensure local, state and Federal
regulations are followed.
Air Force:
Mr. Ronald W. Jahns
Regional Environmental Manager
Air Force Regional Environmental Office
Central Region
525 S. Griffin Street, Suite 505
Dallas, TX 75202-5023
Phone: (214) 767-4648 of (888) 610-7418 then dial 767-4648
Fax: (214)767-4661
Email: ronald.j ahns(g),dallafcee.brooks, af.mil
PRO-ACT
DSN 240-4214
Comm: (800)233-4356
Headquarters Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence Regional
Environmental Offices (REOs):
1. Atlanta REO: HQAFCEE/CCR-A
60 Forsyth Street SW, Suite 8M80
Atlanta, GA 30303-3416
(404) 562-4205
6-1-4-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
2. Dallas REO: HQAFCEE/CCR-D
525 South Griffin, Suite 505
Dallas, TX 75202-5023
(214) 767-4650
3. San Francisco REO: HQAFCEE/CCR-S
333 Market Street, Suite 625
San Francisco, CA 94105-2196
(415)977-8881
Vendors:
Source:
The following is a list of used oil refiners. This is not meant to be a complete
list, as there are other providers of this service.
Safety Kleen Corp.
777-T Big Timber Rd.
Elgin, IL 60123
(800) 669-5740
Mr. Ronald Johns, Air Force Regional Environmental Office, Dallas, March 1999.
Mr. Dell Fox, Air Force Regional Environmental Office, San Francisco, January 1999.
6-1-4-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
OFF-SITE HEAT RECOVERY OF WASTE PETROLEUM, OILS, AND LUBRICANTS
(POL)
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-25-99; Air Force: HW01; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
Alternative for: On-Site Disposal, On-Site Recycling
Compliance Areas: Medium
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: N/A
Overview: Off-site heat recovery is the most common disposal method for used oil in the
United States. Processors of used oil typically collect automotive and industrial
oil, process it to remove water and sediment, and offer the used oil for sale for
use as a fuel blender in industrial fuel burners. Some fuel processors may use
the blended fuel on site in their own boilers and industrial furnaces.
Off-site heat recovery is facilitated by waste oil processors who collect,
process, burn, or offer for sale the processed oil as specification fuel.
Processing is a physical/chemical process that may include: 1) blending with
virgin petroleum, 2) blending to meet fuel specification, 3) filtration to remove
sediment and/or water, 4) simple distillation to remove water, and 5)
physical/chemical separation. The specification fuel is then burned or sold to
industrial facilities to be burned for energy recovery.
Used oil has been defined by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as oil
that has been refined from crude oil that has been used as lubricating, hydraulic,
or heat-transfer fluid, and has become contaminated through use. However,
used oil is defined under 40 CFR 279.1 as "any oil that has been refined from
crude oil, or any synthetic oil that has been used and as a result of such use is
contaminated by physical and chemical impurities." Generators who are
considering an off-site recycling program for used oil should refer to Title 40
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 279 "Standards for the
Management of Used Oil" for specific regulatory guidance. If the off-site
recycling program includes burning used oil for energy recovery, generators
should pay particular attention to the provisions of 40 CFR 279.11, "Used Oil
Specifications". Used oil to be burned for energy recovery which does not
exceed the specifications for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, flash point, and
total halogens is not subject to most requirements of 40 CFR Part 279. Table
1 at 40 CFR 279.11 provides the following limits:
a) Arsenic: 5 parts per million (ppm) maximum
b) Cadmium: 2 ppm maximum
6-1-5-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
c) Chromium: 10 ppm maximum
d) Lead: 100 ppm maximum
e) Flash Point: 100 degrees Fahrenheit minimum
f) Total Halogens: 4,000 ppm maximum
Compliance
Benefit:
Materials
Compatibility:
Recycling of used oil (e.g. off-site heat recovery) may allow the used oil to fall
under the less stringent regulations of 40 CFR 279 as opposed to the
hazardous waste regulations in 40 CFR 260 through 268. In addition, under
40 CFR 261.5 generators that recycle their used oil and manage it under 40
CFR 279 do not have to count the used oil in their monthly totals of hazardous
waste generated. By decreasing the quantity of hazardous waste generated
monthly, facilities can reduce their generator status and correspondingly reduce
their regulatory burden (e.g. recordkeeping, reporting, inspections,
transportation, accumulation time, emergency prevention and preparedness,
emergency response) under RCRA, 40 CFR 262. Off-site heat recovery also
helps facilities meet the requirements of waste reduction under RCRA, 40
CFR 262, Appendix
The Compliance Benefits listed above are only meant to be used as a general
guidance. EPA presumes that all used oils are recyclable and, therefore, must
be managed in accordance with 40 CFR Part 279. If the used oil is to be
disposed on-site or sent off-site for disposal, the generator must then, as with
any other solid waste, determine if the used oil exhibits any hazardous
characteristic. If the used oil to be disposed is determined to be a
characteristically hazardous waste, it then must be managed in accordance with
applicable requirements of 40 CFR Parts 260 through 266, 268, 270, and
124. If the used oil to be disposed were determined to be a non-hazardous
waste, it then would be managed in accordance with applicable requirements of
40 CFR 257 and 258
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Only used oil may be mixed and collected for disposal via burning for energy
recovery. According to 40 CFR 279.1, "Definitions," used oil is defined as
any oil that has been refined from crude oil, or any synthetic oil, that has been
used and as a result has become contaminated by physical or chemical
impurities.
6-1-5-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Safety and
Health:
Care must be taken when handling hot waste oils. Proper personal protective
equipment is recommended. Special safety precautions should be exercised
when handling synthetic oils containing tricresyl phosphate, which is toxic by
ingestion and skin absorption. Consult your local industrial health specialist,
local health and safety personnel, and the appropriate product Material Safety
Data Sheet (MSDS) for specific safe handling procedures concerning waste oil
materials.
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
Reduces the volume of hazardous and/or non-hazardous waste requiring
disposal.
An abundance of used oil transporters and processors exist
Some recyclers of used oil may pay for the material, further reducing
disposal costs.
Used oil containing greater than 1,000 ppm total halogens is presumed to
be a hazardous waste under the rebuttable presumption provided under 40
CFR 279.10(b)(l)
Economics are usually favorable for off-site heat recovery of waste oil. Specific
economic analyses should be performed on a case-by-case basis, since
handling charges differ from one oil transporter/processor to another.
The Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service (DRMS) manages the
disposal of hazardous property for DOD activities. Hazardous property is
handled according to the same priorities as other property: reutilization within
DOD, transfer to other federal agencies, donations to qualified state and
nonprofit organizations, and sale to the public including recyclers. Hazardous
property that cannot be reused or sold is disposed via commercial service
contracts that must comply with applicable federal, state and local
environmental laws and regulations.
Safety Kleen reports that they will accept truckload quantities of waste oil at a
cost of $0.11 to $0.15 per gallon at the generator's site. The Defense
Reutilization and Marketing Office at Imperial Beach, CA reports that
hazardous waste is disposed of at a cost of $0.84 per gallon.
Assumptions:
200 gallons of waste oil a month is generated
Used oil is subject to the Used Oil regulations in 40 CFR
6-1-5-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
25 hours annual labor for storage, paperwork, and arranging delivery for
refining used oil
40 hours annual labor for storage, paperwork (manifest) and arranging
delivery for disposal as a hazardous waste
Hazardous waste is disposed through DRMO at a cost of $0.84/gallon
Labor rate: $30/hour
Used oil is refined using Safety Kleen for $0.13/gallon
Annual Cost Comparison for
Refining or Disposal of Used Oil
Refining Disposal
Capital and Installation Costs $0 $0
Operational Costs:
Labor $750 $1,200
Hazardous Waste Disposal $0 $2,016
Refining $312 $0
Transportation $0 $0
Total Operational Costs $1,062 $3,216
Total Income: $0 $0
Annual Benefit: -$1,062 -3,216
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for Disposal: -$2,154
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $0
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: N/A
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost
None Identified
Approving
Authority: Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Air Force approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after
coordination with the installation environmental function. The installation
environmental management activities should ensure local, state and Federal
regulation are followed.
6-1-5-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Points of
Contact:
Air Force:
Mr. Ronald W. Jahns
Regional Environmental Manager
Air Force Regional Environmental Office
Central Region
525 S. Griffin Street, Suite 505
Dallas, TX 75202-5023
Phone: (214) 767-4648 of (888) 610-7418 then dial 767-4648
Fax: (214)767-4661
Email: ronald.iahns(5),dallafcee.brooks.af.mil
Vendors:
Source:
PRO-ACT
DSN 240-4214
(800)233-4356
Headquarters Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence Regional
Environmental Offices (REOs):
1. Atlanta REO: HQAFCEE/CCR-A
60 Forsyth Street S.W., Suite 8M80
Atlanta, GA 30303-3416
(404) 562-4205
2. Dallas REO: HQAFCEE/CCR-D
525 South Griffin, Suite 505
Dallas, TX 75202-5023
(214) 767-4650
3. San Francisco REO: HQAFCEE/CCR-S
333 Market Street, Suite 625
San Francisco, CA 94105-2196
(415)977-8881
There are numerous used oil transporters and processors listed in the phone
directory under "Oils-Waste." Prior to releasing oil to the transporter, the
generator should verify that the transporter has an EPA identification number.
Mr. Ronald Jahns, Air Force Regional Environmental Office, Dallas, March 1999.
Mr. Dell Fox, Air Force Regional Environmental Office, San Francisco, January 1999.
6-1-5-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
ANTIFREEZE RECYCLING (ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE)
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-25-99; Air Force: HW01; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: High; Marine Corps: High; Army: High; Air Force: High
Alternative for: Single Use of Antifreeze/Ethylene Glycol
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Ethylene Glycol (CAS: 107-21-1) and Heavy Metal
Contaminants Including Arsenic (CAS: 7440-38-2), Barium (CAS: 7440-39-3), Lead (CAS: 7439-
92-1), Chromium (CAS: 7440-47-3), and Copper (CAS: 7440-50-8) Compounds
Overview: Recycling of spent antifreeze solutions is a viable alternative to disposal. Waste
antifreeze may be considered a hazardous waste in some states due to the
toxicity of the ethylene glycol component, the toxicity of the products of
degradation/oxidation of ethylene glycol, and/or the heavy metals content.
Several reclamation systems are currently available for on-site recycling of
waste antifreeze. Currently, there are two DOD-approved recycling systems
(in addition to several other manufacturers of equipment, and also recyclers) for
waste antifreeze originally procured under MIL-A-46153.
In February 1997, MIL-A-46153 was replaced with Commercial Item
Description (CID) A-A-52624 "Antifreeze, Multi Engine Type". This new
antifreeze covers three types of fully formulated coolants: Type I is an elhylene
glycol (EG) based antifreeze concentrate; Type IP is a prediluted EG based
coolant with 60% by volume glycol; and Type U is a propylene glycol (PG)
based antifreeze concentrate. CID A-A-52624 is based on ASTM
performance specifications D 6210 and D 6211 for fully formulated EG and PG
based engine coolants.
The DOD-approved antifreeze recycling systems use ion exchange and vacuum
distillation as the primary separation/purification process. These systems filter
solids from spent antifreeze, as well as remove the metal ion contaminants from
the solution. The recovered coolant solution often requires blending with an
inhibitor package to restore it to its initial state. The two DOD-approved
recycling systems can work with either ethylene glycol or propylene glycol,
although each coolant must be processed separately. These systems are
relatively simple to operate, compact (~4' x 4'), portable (on wheels or can be
mounted on a trailer or truck), and easy to maintain.
The distillation system produces the larger quantity of waste residue of the two
recycling systems. Residue production is approximately 3 gallons of residue per
75 gallons of spent antifreeze. This residue is probably a hazardous waste since
6-1-6-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Compliance
Benefit:
the lead contamination is often greater than 5 ppm, but only a Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure [TCLP] analysis can determine whether the
waste has this hazardous characteristic. The manufacturer of this unit claims that
a batch of accumulated residue can itself be processed to reduce further the
total volume of waste produced.
The ion exchange unit does not produce any liquid hazardous waste residue;
however, it does require filter replacement. Spent filters accumulate metals and
may be considered hazardous waste if disposed. Once the ion exchange filters
are spent they must be shipped back to the manufacturer for regeneration. The
spent filters are not generally treated as a hazardous waste since they are re-
used after regeneration and are not disposed.
Off-site recycling of antifreeze another option to consider. Some companies
will charge for recycling the antifreeze and for restorating it to standard
specifications so that it may be returned to the original user. Other companies
charge a handling fee, and recycle/restore the antifreeze to sell to other users.
The use of on-site and off-site antifreeze recycling may help facilities meet the
requirements of waste reduction under RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix.
Some states consider used antifreeze a hazardous waste and therefore recycling
could be considered treatment of a hazardous waste.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved
Materials
Compatibility:
Ethylene and propylene glycols are formulated so that they are compatible with
most engine cooling systems. Additives are included in the formulations to
minimize metal corrosion and to inhibit formation of acidic compounds due to
the high-heat operating conditions. Some old formulations may not be suitable
for use in systems containing aluminum. Contact the original equipment
manufacturer and the antifreeze manufactured for specific material concerns.
Glycol recycling equipment is designed to withstand the most severe chemical
conditions of used anti-freeze. However, special concerns or cases may require
consultation with the manufacturer. Follow manufacturer directions carefully
when combining additives to bring the recycled glycol into conformance with
military specifications.
6-1-6-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Heavy metal contaminants can be dangerous to human health. These
contaminants are potential carcinogens and teratogens, and skin absorption or
ingestion is a major health concern. Ethylene glycol can be irritating to the skin,
eyes, and mucous membranes. It can also be toxic if inhaled. Proper personal
protection equipment is therefore recommended. Consult your local industrial
health specialist, your local health and safety personnel, and the appropriate
MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
Reduces coolant storage, transportation, and purchasing requirements
Minimizes production and storage of hazardous waste
Protects the environment by reducing the amount of hazardous waste
produced
Saves generators hazardous waste disposal costs
Reduces hazardous material cleanup costs or soil and groundwater
contamination associated with spills and leaks from stored hazardous waste
Disadvantages:
Controlled blending of additives is required for recycled antifreeze to meet
military specifications
May require a hazardous waste treatment permit
Economic
Analysis:
Recycling economics will vary, depending on whether on-site or off-site
recycling is chosen, and depending on the amount of spent antifreeze generated.
Off-site recycling may not always yield as significant annual savings as on-site
recycling, however, the payback is immediate since there is no capital costs
associated with this process.
In general, a one to three year payback can be expected for an average on-site
installation. Preliminary operating cost data with the two DOD-approved units
seems to indicate that for comparable situations the ion exchange unit has a
higher overall operating cost.
The following economic analysis was obtained from The Pollution Prevention
Equipment Program for a NELP preproduction initiative performed at Naval
Station Mayport for an 18-gallon antifreeze-recycling unit:
6-1-6-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Assumptions:
Cost of fresh antifreeze: $4.77/gallon
63.5 gallons of antifreeze required per year without the antifreeze
recycling unit
10.39 gallons of fresh antifreeze required per year using the
antifreeze recycling unit
Cost of glyclean extender required for recycling unit: $250.19/year
Cost of standard 10 pH buffer solution required for recycling unit:
$12.70/year
Disposal labor requirements: 30 hours
Recycling labor requirements: 45 hours
Labor rate: $10.39
Pounds of waste fluid for disposal: 1,181.1/lbs.
Pounds of contaminated rags/yr. for disposal and recycling
methods: 5-8
Waste fluid & contaminated rag disposal cost: $2.10/lb.
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Diversion by On-Site Recycling and Disposal of Used Antifreeze
Recycling Disposal
Operational Costs:
Labor: $467 $311
Material $312 $302
Waste Disposal $16 $2,497
Total Operational Costs: $796 $3,111
Total Recovered Income: $0 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$796 -$3,111
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for Antifreeze Recycling: $2,314
* Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $2,260
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: < 1 year
6-1-6-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
Recycler,
Recycler,
Recycler,
Recycler,
Recycler,
Recycler,
antifreeze
antifreeze
antifreeze
antifreeze
antifreeze
antifreeze
Approving
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
NSN
4250-01-
4250-01-
4250-01-
4250-01-
4250-01-
4250-01-
380-9034
387-2552
387-5654
390-4378
390-4379
380-9407
Unit Size
ea.
ea. (55gal)
ea. (15gal)
ea.
ea.
ea.
Cost
$10,130.58
$13,160.12
$6,030.02
$15,398.79
$10,173.88
$9,096.07
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required. A CPG
has been issued which mandates that all coolant must be recycled with certified
antifreeze recyclers.
Army:
Ms. Maria E. Goetz
USA TACOM-TARDEC
ATTN: AMSTA-TR-D/210
Warren, MI 48397-5000
Phone: (810) 574-4219 DSN: 786-4219
Fax: (810) 574-4244 DSN: 786-4244
Email: goetzm(5),tacom. amiv.mil
DLA:
Mr. Mike Timms (until 4/1/99)
Defense Supply Center Richmond
8000 Jefferson Davis Highway
Richmond, VA 23297-5609
Phone: (804) 279-5529 Fax: (804) 279-5073
Mr. John Leigh (after 4/1/99)
Defense Supply Center Richmond
8000 Jefferson Davis Highway
Richmond, VA 23297-5609
Phone: (804) 279-4136 Fax: (804) 279-4848
6-1-6-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Mr. CliffMyers
Chemist
Defense Supply Center Richmond
8000 Jefferson Davis Highway
Richmond, VA 23297-5609
Phone: (804) 279-3995
Navy:
Mr. Mike Viggiano (Procurement POC)
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
1100 23rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4370
(805) 982-4895, DSN 551-4895
Email: viggianomlfSlnfesc.naw.mil
Mr. Pano Kordonis
FASTT Team Member
Phone: (843)820-5565
Vendors: The following is a list of vendors of on-site recycling units and off- site recycling
services. This is not meant to be a complete list, as there may be other
suppliers of this type of equipment and services for antifreeze recycling. Off site
recycling services must be approved by the service before implemented.
DOD approved on-site recycling systems available from Defense Supply
Center Richmond, (800) 345-6333:
Finish-Thompson
921 Greengarden Road
Erie, PA 16501-1591
Phone: (800) 934-9384, Fax: (814) 455-8518
Mr. Louis A. Nichilo, Inside Sales Manager
Fawley Enterprises
11890 Old Baltimore Pike, Suite F
Beltsville, MD 20705
Phone: (301)931-1300
Fax: (301)931-0544
CAGE Code: 1B8P5
POC: Mr. Ed Fawley
KFM Coolant Purification System
Carry old BG product systems
6-1-6-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Sources: Ms. Maria E. Goetz, USA TACOM-TARDEC, January 1999.
Mr. Cliff Myers, Defense Supply Center Richmond, January 1999.
The Maintenance Council, American Trucking Association, Recommended Practice 326,
Issued 3/95
6-1-6-7
-------
-------
-------
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
SUBSTITUTION AND RECYCLING OF AIRCRAFT DEICING PRODUCTS
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: N/A; Air Force: N/A; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: High
Alternative for: Disposal Of Aircraft Deicing Fluids As Hazardous Waste
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Ethylene glycol (CAS: 107-21-1)
Overview: Deicing fluids usually become diluted during application onto an aircraft as a
result of precipitation or when ice on the aircraft's fuselage melts after the
deicing fluid is applied. In this impure and diluted form, the deicing fluids cannot
be reused and disposal can be costly since most of these fluids contain ethylene
glycol, which is regulated as hazardous waste in some states. Recycling of
ethylene glycol deicers or substituting these deicers with more environmentally
friendly products are feasible pollution prevention opportunities.
Substitution of environmentally preferred propylene-glycol-based deicing
solutions for ethylene-glycol-based solutions may help mitigate environmental
problems. Ethylene glycol, long the standard component of antifreeze and
deicing products, is a highly soluble chemical that greatly increases the BOD of
receiving waters, and it is also quite toxic to mammals at relatively low
concentrations. Propylene glycol actually exerts a higher BOD, but it is non-
toxic; in fact it is a common additive to cosmetics, medical products, and pet
foods. Use of propylene glycol based products represents the current best
choice for aircraft deicing unless, of course, the mission can be delayed during
inclement weather or heating systems (for example, infrared heaters) can be
carefully deployed. The military specification covering aircraft deicing fluids is
MIL-A-8243, which specifies two products: Military type I deicers that are
propylene glycol based, and Military type U deicers that are ethylene glycol
based (three parts ethylene glycol and one part propylene glycol). The Military
type I fluid has been the deicer of choice, but according to the San Antonio Air
Logistics Center, the US Air Force is currently converting to the use of AMS
fluids for aircraft anti-icing/deicing products, therefore, the Military Type I fluid
is no longer the deicer of choice.
There are other options for replacing ethylene glycol (and propylene glycol) in
certain applications. Deicing products made from potassium, magnesium,
sodium, or calcium magnesium acetates and urea pellets are better suited for
airfield pavement application than the glycols, both of which are being phased
out for direct pavement deicing. Isopropyl alcohol is also approved for airfield
deicing, but is operationally limited, due to its high volatility that results in fumes
6-1-7-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
that can be carried inside aircraft. The preferred replacement products for
airfield surfaces are the acetates because they are non-toxic and almost entirely
biodegradable. Potassium acetate is formulated in a 50% solution and applied
as a liquid. Sodium acetate is a granulated product that is applied to pavement
in the same fashion as urea pellets. Urea products are still used, but they are
not the products of choice because of the ammonia nitrogen's toxicity to aquatic
life. To eliminate the toxicity, somewhat complicated nitrification/ denitrification
treatment is required for wastewater containing ammonia-nitrogen-rich
compounds like urea. In addition, urea products are not as versatile as acetate
products, especially for low temperature situations, due to the relatively high
temperature to which urea depresses the melting point of ice, at best about
15ฐF. Functionally, urea pellets are usually not applied when temperatures are
below 25ฐF. Urea pellets are a USAF approved airfield deicer, but their use is
discouraged.
The U.S. Air Force (USAF) has identified certain deicers that are approved for
specific applications. USAF-approved aircraft deicers include propylene
glycol-based fluid (type I) and ethylene glycol-based fluid (type U). However,
according to the Headquarters Air Force Reserve Command, ethylene glycol is
prohibited for new purchase and the only ethylene glycol that can be used are
existing stores, which are diminishing quickly. Propylene glycol based SAE fluid
(non-shear sensitive) can also be purchased, although the shear sensitive is still
in the process of being approved. USAF-approved airfield deicers include
isopropyl alcohol, potassium acetate, sodium acetate, and sodium formate.
According to the San Antonio Air Logistics Center, USAF installations are
required to provide snow and ice control per API 1045, May 98. For
roadway pavements away from surfaces used by aircraft, sodium chloride and
calcium chloride may be used.
Methods of controlling and/or capturing used deicers may include:
1. Blocking or closing storm drain sewers during dry weather;
2. Conducting deicing operations in areas where fluids can easily be retained;
3. Installing lined detention basins or underground storage tanks;
4. Using mechanical vacuum sweepers or similar devices to capture runoff;
5. Installing aircraft wash racks.
Some facilities contract with recyclers to recover and process glycol for reuse.
There are two common recovery methods. The diluted glycol fluids are either
concentrated using evaporation or membrane separation to enable their reuse as
antifreeze agents, or they are concentrated and then purified using fractional
distillation. The concentrated glycol solutions can be used where quality
considerations are not important; for example, to spray onto coal so that it will
6-1-7-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
not freeze in a railcar when ready to unload. The purified glycol can be used for
blending with virgin feedstock to make new antifreeze and other new glycol-
based products. However, according to the Headquarters Air Force Reserve
Command, where possible the AF tries to discharge the spent glycol to the
wastewater treatment plant, as the least expensive alternative. Recycling is
generally not feasible and portable to semi-portable small treatment units are not
economical.
Because of the high BOD exerted by the glycols, they are not readily sewered
either to surface water or to a wastewater treatment plant. Thus, if the spent
deicing fluids can not be recycled easily or economically, they should at least be
contained and collected to allow treatment and disposal. Some treatment
options are available to handle spent deicing fluids; for example, biological
degradation using a semi-continuous anaerobic process to convert glycols and
low concentrations of any other organic contaminants, such as fuel, oil, or
grease, into carbon dioxide and methane.
Users may also seek to minimize the use of deicing agents whenever possible.
This may be accomplished by: (a) monitoring current and predicted weather
conditions and adjusting flight schedules to avoid those times most prone to
freezing conditions; (b) placing aircraft in hangars to avoid icing or positioning
aircraft to take advantage of natural melting from sunlight or to minimize icing
winds; or (c) using brooms, squeegees, ropes and forced air blowers to remove
ice.
Compliance
Benefit:
Recycling of aircraft deicing products may help facilities meet the requirements
of waste reduction under RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix. In addition,
substitution of ethylene glycol with propylene glycol decreases the possibility of
the facility meeting SARA reporting requirements under 40 CFR 355.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Propylene-glycol-based anti-freeze formulations should not be mixed with any
other chemicals, anti-freeze formulations, or similar products made by different
vendors without first carefully verifying compatibility. These products should
also be stored in dedicated, labeled containers.
6-1-7-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Commercial S A.E. type I (fluid with deicing attributes only, not shear sensitive)
glycol deicing fluids are generally compatible with common materials of
construction. Therefore, stainless steel, mild steel, lined steel, or reinforced
plastic are acceptable. Piping and any ancillary equipment should also use only
the same compatible materials. One incompatible material, galvanized steel,
should never be used in any glycol service.
Commercial S. A.E. type U (shear sensitive fluid with anti-icing attributes) glycol
fluids are also relatively compatible with common materials of construction, but
have a slightly narrower range of material compatibility. Stainless steel or
reinforced plastic are the preferred materials of construction for shipping or
storage containers for commercial type U fluids by at least one vendor.
However, mild steel can be used for commercial type U fluids, provided the
container has a chemically resistant liner made from polyurethane or phenolic
epoxy resins. Piping and any ancillary equipment should also use only
compatible materials, such as stainless steel or plastic. S.A.E type U is currently
being phased out by its replacement S.A.E Type IV.
Potassium acetate formulations should meet all the standards established under
AMS 1432 for corrosion and materials compatibility. Its product formulation
does contain some corrosion inhibitors which, when exposed to low alloy metal
or steel surfaces, forms a barrier on the metal surface to prevent accelerated
corrosion. To prevent depletion of the inhibitors, shipment and storage is
recommended in plastic (polyethylene) or stainless steel containers. Shipment
or storage in low alloy or steel containers can result in fluid degradation.
Granulated sodium acetate products should meet all the standards established
under AMS 1431 A. Granulated sodium acetate is typically supplied in
polyethylene lined containers, but is also compatible with mild steel, as well as
stainless steels, plastics, glass, and polyester-reinforced fiberglass.
When selecting an appropriate deicer, users should also consider the
compatibility with the surface or substrate to which the deicer is to be applied.
For example, sodium chloride and calcium chloride can damage aircraft and are
also not approved for use on runways or taxiways.
Safety and
Health: Ethylene glycol is toxic to mammals if ingested and attracts animals because of
its fragrant odor and sweet taste. Propylene glycol is non-toxic to mammals.
Nevertheless, personal protective equipment such as chemical splash goggles,
impervious gloves, and splash aprons should be considered for most handling
operations. Consult your local health and safety personnel and the appropriate
MSDS for specific precautions.
6-1-7-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
NSN/MSDS:
Substitution or recycling helps:
Reduce the amount of hazardous waste generated
Save thousands of dollars in hazardous waste disposal costs annually
Eliminate hazardous material cleanup costs associated with spills, leaks or
soil and groundwater contamination
Onsite storage and accumulation of used product may be necessary until
sufficient quantities are generated for recycling or treatment
Economics must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis after considering the
unique variables of each site. In general, the more concentrated and the larger
the volume generated, the more feasible on-site recycling becomes. Other
considerations include distance from the recycling facility, frequency of
generation, storage availability, amount of coincident precipitation, cost of labor,
and cost of real estate and site preparation.
Note: Comparisons with and evaluation of anti-freeze recycling equipment for
aircraft deicing fluid recycling should not be made. Deicing fluids are always
more dilute than anti-freeze solutions and contain different types of
contaminants. Deicing fluids come in contact with external surfaces of aircraft
and are likely to contain various soils, but no glycol oxidation products. On the
other hand, antifreeze can contain heavy metals, glycol oxidation products
(primarily organic acids), and precipitated salts from prolonged use.
Product
AMS 1424 Type I
AMS 1424 Type I
AMS 1424 Type I
AMS 1428 Type II
AMS 1428 Type II
AMS 1428 Type II
AMS 1428 Type IV
AMS 1428 Type IV
AMS 1428 Type IV
AMS 1428 Type IV
NSN
6850-01-435-6468
6850-01-435-6465
6850-01-435-6471
6850-01-435-6470
6850-01-435-6469
6850-01-435-6466
6850-01-450-4752
6850-01-450-4750
6850-01-450-4747
6850-01-449-9473
Unit Size
5 Gal
55 Gal
Bulk
5 Gal
55 Gal
Bulk
5 Gal
55 Gal
Bulk
Tote, 275 Gal
Cost
$29.50
$353.97
$5.51
$28.00
$270.00
$4.90
$35.00
$385.00
$7.00
$1,925.00
Approving
6-1-7-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
For the Air Force, USAF activities should refer to Technical Order (T.O.)
42C-1-2, Anti-icing, De-icing, and Defrosting of 'Parked Aircraft. In the
case of potassium acetate, sodium acetate, or sodium formate, approval by the
aircraft and subsystems single managers is required prior to use.
Air Force:
SMSgt. D. Clyde Young
Equipment/Snow & Ice Control Manager
HQ AFCESA
139 Barnes Dr., Suite #1
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403
Phone: (850) 283-6386, DSN: 523-6386
Fax: (850) 283-6499, DSN: 523-6499
Email: clvde.voung@,afcesa. af.mil
Vendors:
Mr. Gary Herrin
San Antonio Air Logistics Center (SA-ALC/SFTT)
Phone: (210) 925-7613 DSN 945-7613,
Ms. Susan Stell
Water Quality Program Manager
Headquarters Air Force Reserve Command (HQ AFRC/CEV)
Robins AFB, GA
Phone: (912) 327-1078 DSN 497-1078
Mr. Jay Shah
Headquarters Air Force, Compliance Division
HQ USAF/ILEV
DSN 227-3360
The following is not meant to be a complete list as there may be other
manufacturers of similar products or suppliers of similar services.
Glycol Specialists:
American Additive Co.
5915 North Broadway
Denver, CO 80216
Phone: (303) 292-2000, Fax (303) 292-0429
Designs, sells, and operates systems that can concentrate (by membrane
6-1-7-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
technology) and purify (by chemical pretreatment and distillation) spent aircraft
deicing fluids. Recovered glycols are sold to the commercial market. Has
current contract to recover glycols at the new Denver International Airport.
Large quantities are usually processed on site (airfield), but can process small
generators' fluids off site. Systems are custom built and can be either owner-
operated or contractor-operated.
Contacts: Mr. Rick Silverberg, Mr. Jim Hamilton, or Mr. Lee Durrwachter
Propvlene Glycol Products:
Aircraft Chemical Deicing (type I) MIL-A-8243D
NSN: 6850-01-281-0338 (DR-55 gallon)
NSN: 6850-01-281-0340 (DR-55 gallon)
NSN: 6850-01-281-0339 (Pint can)
Lyondell Chemical
3801 West Chester Pike
Newton Square, PA 19073-2387
Phone: (800) 321-7000, (610) 359-5540
Manufactures ARCOPLUSฎ (Commercial type I)
Acetate Product Vendors For Airfield Deicing:
Ashland Chemical Company
IC&S Division
5200 Blazer Parkway
Dublin, Ohio 43017
Phone: (614) 790-3333, Fax (614) 889-3465
Distributor of potassium acetate formulation Cryotech E36 brand Liquid
Runway Deicer, calcium magnesium acetate formulation Cryotech CMA, and
sodium acetate formulation Cryotech Clearway 2s.
Contacts: Mr. Bob Strawn, Marketing Director, Mr. Tony Myhra, Product
Manager
Old World Industries, Inc.
4065 Commercial Avenue
Northbrook, IL 60062-1851
Phone: (847) 559-2000
Distributor of potassium acetate brand Safeway KA deicing liquid.
Potassium acetate is available by ordering NSN: 6850-01-341-9855 (55 gallon
drum)
Sources: Ms. Susan Stell, Headquarters Air Force Reserve Command, March 1999.
Mr. Gary Herrin, San Antonio Air Logistics Center, January 1999.
PA Technical Inquiries 2182, 3183, 3383, and 3827.
HTISBulletin, Vol. 5, No. 1, Jan/Feb 95.}
6-1-7-7
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Ashland Chemical Technical Bulletin 2105.
ARCO Chemical Technical Bulletins ARCOPLUS10/93 andKilfrost ABC-3 10/93.
Strawn, R. J., "Cryotech ฃ36 Liquid Runway Deicer, " Conference Proceedings of the
Air Force 1993 Worldwide Pollution Prevention Conference & Exhibition, San Antonio,
Texas, p. 325-336, June 93.
Air Force Technical Order (T.O.) 42C-1-2, "Anti-icing, De-icing and Defrosting of
Parked Aircraft. "
"Interim Guidance on Pollution Prevention and Best Management Practices for Aircraft
and Airfield Deicing/Anti-icing operations, " HQ USAF/CEVQ, December 1996.
Air Force Instruction (API) 32-1045, "Snow andlce Control, " 7March 1994.
6-1-7-8
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
CUTTING FLUID RECYCLER
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-10-00; Air Force: RR-01; Army: MTF
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
Alternative for: Disposal of Cutting Fluids
Compliance Areas: Medium
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Various
Overview: Spent cutting fluids are generated by metal working operations. The purchase
and disposal of such fluids is becoming increasingly expensive. Fluid recycling is
a viable option for minimizing costs. There are several modular systems
available for on-site, batch recycling of metal working fluids. These systems are
designed to clean the fluids by removing solids, bacterial, and tramp oil
contaminants. These systems may incorporate filtration, centrifugation,
pasteurization, oil skimming, and/or coalescence processing steps. Water or
fluid concentrate may be added to the reclaimed fluid to adjust the fluid
concentration to the desired level. The fluids are then returned to the machine
sump or tank. Fluid life can typically be extended by 40 percent. Fluid-
concentrate purchases are expected to be lowered by half or more.
Cutting fluid recycling systems based on the centrifugal removal of contaminants
are available in sizes that will treat 60 to 300 gallons of cutting fluid per hour.
These systems include pumps and hoses to permit fluid recycling directly from a
sump or tank. The system removes solids, tramp oil, odors, and controls
biological activity. Metallic fines and other solids can be removed down to one
micron. The units can be mounted on a cart with brakes to facilitate relocation
of the recycler to various sites. The units can be purchased with the following
options: a self-cleaning centrifuge, a proportional mixer system, a heat
exchanger/economizer, processing tankage, a clean coolant distribution system,
and water deionizer.
Another type of modular recycling system collects, treats, and recycles metal
working fluids through the process of pasteurization and coalescence. The
module provides a central fluid collection point for bacterial control, tramp oil
removal, and adjustment of fluid concentration. The fluid is heated to 160
degrees F, which kills most of the bacteria. The elevated fluid temperature
improves removal of tramp oil by coalescence. These units typically have
basket filters; however, some units are available with additional filtration
capacity. This style of recycling system is available in models that can treat 12.5
6-1-8-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
to 125 gallons of cutting fluid per hour and is currently in operation at the Naval
Shipyard in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.
An alternative to the purchase, operation, and maintenance of recycling
equipment by the shop is the use of mobile recycling services. Mobile services
generally include a truck-mounted fluid-recycling unit that performs the recycling
on the generator's property. Some of these services have the capability of
processing fluid at a maximum rate of 300 gallons per hour. The recycling
process consists of filtering, pasteurizing, and centrifuging the spent fluid. There
is typically a minimum charge per visit plus a rate per gallon of fluid treated.
This technology was recently evaluated by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and found to result in annual cost savings for small- to medium-
sized plants.
Spent metal cutting fluids may be considered hazardous wastes due to the
products formulation or by absorbing contaminants through metal working
operations. Under 40 CFR Part 279, Used Oil Management Standards,
used oil is defined as oil refined from crude (or any synthetic oil), used as a
lubricating, hydraulic, or heat transfer fluid that has become
contaminated through use. Coolants may be managed under these regulatory
provisions and recycled as opposed to disposed.
According to the Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, several new
cutting fluid recycler models are currently being evaluated. Unfortunately, end
line data will not be available until the end of 1999.
Compliance
Benefit: Recycling of cutting fluid may help facilities meet the requirements of waste
reduction under RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix. Recycling of cutting oil may
also allow the used oil to fall under the less stringent regulations of 40 CFR 279
as opposed to the hazardous waste regulations in 40 CFR 260 through 268.
In addition, under 40 CFR 261.5 generators that recycle their used oil and
manage it under 40 CFR 279 do not have to count the used oil into their
monthly totals of hazardous waste generated. The decrease in the quantity of
hazardous waste generated monthly may help a facility reduce their generator
status and lessen the amount of regulations (e.g. recordkeeping, reporting,
inspections, transportation, accumulation time, emergency prevention and
preparedness, emergency response) they are required to comply with under
RCRA, 40 CFR 262
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
6-1-8-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
No materials compatibility issues identified.
There are mild skin and eye irritation effects associated with these compounds.
Personal protective equipment should be used. Consult your local industrial
health specialist, your local health and safety personnel, and the appropriate
MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
Extends fluid life thereby reducing the need to procure new fluid
Reduced labor and machine downtime (cleanout) costs
Reduces the quantity of waste fluids disposed
Improves fluid and machine tool cleanliness and, thus, reduces operation
and maintenance costs
The centrifuge recycling system is capable of processing any type of coolant
or oil
Disadvantages:
Runs on electric power
Economic
Analysis:
According to the Pollution Prevention Equipment Program (PPEP), the
capital cost of a cutting fluid recycler is approximately $25,000. The unit uses a
centrifuge to remove contaminants, and includes pumps and hoses to permit
fluid recycling directly from sump or tank. The unit is mounted on a cart with
brakes to facilitate relocation of the recycler to various sites within the activity.
The following cost analysis is based using a mobile recycling service. The
following example is for a facility that generates a fairly large quantity of spent
cutting fluid. Most facilities will generate less than this amount. For smaller
shops, off-site recycling services may be more cost effective.
Assumptions:
Spent cutting fluid generation rate: 2 gal/hr, 4,212 gal/yr (about 35,150
Ib/yr)
Percent of tramp oil from recycling (requiring disposal): 5%
Fresh make-up fluid required after recycling: 421 gal/yr
Recycling cost: $1.35/gal plus labor, transportation, and filters
Recycling requires 9 site visits per year
6-1-8-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Recycling technician labor: 8 hrs/visit
Transportation costs: $200/visit
Filter costs: $100/visit
Off-site recycling is performed at no cost to the facility.
Cost of fresh cutting fluid: $3/gal
Labor cost: $30/hr
Annual Operating Cost Comparison of
Diversion and Off-site Disposal for Cutting Fluid Recycler
Diversion Disposal
Operational Costs:
Labor: $2,200 $0
Fluid purchases: $1,300 $12,600
Transportation: $1,800 $0
Filter purchases: $900 $0
Disposal: $3,500 $0
Total Operational Costs: $9,700 $12,600
Total Recovered Income: $0 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$9,700 -$12,600
Economic Summary
Annual Savings for Recycler: $2,900
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $0
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: N/A
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost
None Identified
Approving
Authority: Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
6-1-8-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
Sources:
Navy:
Mr. Joseph Cruz
Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division
Lakehurst,NJ 08733
Phone: (732) 323-2966
DLA:
Mr. Ernest Jeniolionis
Equipment Specialist for Cutting Fluids
Defense Supply Center Richmond
Phone: (804) 279-4257 DSN 695-4257
The following is a list of cutting fluid recycler equipment vendors and mobile
fluid recycling services. This is not meant to be a complete list, as there may be
other manufacturers of this type of equipment.
CECOR Inc.
102 Lincoln Street
Verona, WI 53593
Phone: (608) 845-6771
Fluid Recycling Services, Inc.
2720 Croddy Way
Santa Ana, CA 92704
Phone: (714) 754-7220
Master Chemical Corporation
501 West Boundary
Perrysburg, OH 43552-0361
Phone: (419) 874-7902, Fax: (419) 872-9206
Sanborn Technologies
9 Industrial Park Road
Medway, MA 02053
Phone: (800) 343-3381, (508) 533-8800
Mr. Joseph Cruz, Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, March 1999.
Mr. Steve Freidman, Sanborn, May 1996.
Mr. Dan Gerbus, Cincinnati Milacron, April 1996.
Mr. Mike Cummings, Fluid Recycling, June 1996.
6-1-8-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
JP-5 AVIATION FUEL RECYCLER
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-25-99; Air Force: AC01, AC02; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Low; Air Force: Medium
Alternative for: Disposal
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: benzene (CAS: 71-43-2), ethyl benzene (CAS:
100-41-4), toluene (CAS: 108-88-3), xylenes (CAS: 1330-20-7), napthalene (CAS: 91-20-3),
diethylene glycol (CAS: 111-46-6), and methyl ether (CAS: 115-10-6)
Overview: JP-5 aviation fuel, contaminated with particulates and water, is currently used as
lower grade fuel. The use of an aviation fuel recycler to recover JP-5 would
eliminate or reduce the amount of contaminated fuel waste for disposal and/or
reuse. In order to implement such a system, it will be necessary to segregate
the collection of contaminated JP-5.
A basic JP-5 aviation fuel recycling system typically consists of a filter
separator, coalescer separator, working tank, clean fuel tank, and auxiliary
pumps. The filter separator removes particulate contaminants from the fuel
while the coalescer separator removes water from the fuel. These units have
replaceable filter cartridges/elements. Some systems come with multiple units of
the filter separator and the coalescer separator. A basic system, without the
working and clean fuel tanks, comes skid mounted on a 5'x 5' skid. Other
systems including the multiple units of the filter and coalescer separators,
working tank, and clean fuel tank comes on three skids, typically the largest
being 8.5' x 8.5'. The smallest units can process from 15 to 50 gpm of
contaminated JP-5 fuel. The larger units, which are used at bulk terminals
associated with refining facilities, can process 1200 gpm and up.
After treatment in the recycler, the cleaned JP-5 fuel needs to be laboratory
tested and certified to ensure that it meets MIL-T-5624 for JP-5 fuel prior to
use in any aircraft. However, only the first batch of recycled JP-5 fuel needs to
be laboratory tested. Provided that the first batch passes all the tests, the fuel
farm only needs to test all subsequent batches for particulates, free water, flash
point, and API gravity. The particulate and water separated from the JP-5
aviation fuel is disposed as a hazardous waste.
6-1-9-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Compliance
Benefit:
The recycling of JP-5 aviation fuel may help facilities meet the requirements of
waste reduction under RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix. A facility will use
more electricity if they recycle their JP-5 fuel on site. Under EO12902 facilities
are to decrease energy consumption.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
No materials compatibility issues were identified.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
Reduces high-grade fuel waste and associated disposal costs
Promotes waste minimization through reuse of fuel product
Reduces purchases of JP-5 aviation fuel
Disadvantages:
None
Economic
Analysis:
The JP-5 Aviation Fuel recycler recycles JP-5 aviation fuel samples that were
collected and segregated by the squadron for reuse in aircraft. It also minimizes
fuel waste that is currently disposed of or used as lower grade fuel and institutes
waste segregation to reduce overall hazardous waste. This opportunity is in
accordance with OPNAVINST 4110.2, Hazardous Material Control and
Management (HMC&M) program initiatives. The system includes
filter/separator vessels, fuel/water separator vessel, 100-gpm transfer pump,
15-gpm recirculation pump, motor, 2,000-gallon process tank, and 1,000-
gallon issue tank. Each batch of recycled fuel undergoes quality assurance
testing before it is issued to aircraft or blended into stocks.
Previously, waste fuel products, including JP-5 samples, were segregated and
stored in HazMat storage areas maintained by each squadron. A contractor,
under the supervision of the fuel farm, collected waste fuels from the squadrons,
commingling all the fuel grades in one tank truck. The contractor transferred the
fuel to the hazardous waste/waste oil storage tanks located at the fuel farm. Fuel
6-1-9-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
farm personnel estimate that approximately 600 gallons per week of this waste
fuel is composed of potentially recyclable JP-5. Previous studies incorporating
the number of squadrons and detachments assigned to NAS North Island
indicate that up to 1,000 gallons per month of JP-5 may be reclaimed for reuse
in aircraft. Because of the practice of commingling the JP-5 with other waste
fuels, the exact quantity of waste JP-5 under the previous method is not known.
Therefore, the cost analysis will be based on the quantity of fuel collected under
the NELP method at the Naval Air Station North Island:
Assumptions:
Potentially reusable gallons of JP-5 per month: 1,000
(approximate)
Cost per gallon: $0.79
The labor for the disposal method is the same as the NELP method
with the exception of sampling, equipment maintenance and
operation. Therefore, the number of hours under the previous
method have not been calculated; only the additional hours have
been considered. The waste fuel must be collected and handled
under each method.
Gallons of waste JP-5 per month: 1,000
Cost of disposal: TBD
Filter/separator elements used per year: 2
Cost of filter/separator elements: TBD
Additional labor hours for fuel recycler: 5hr./week
Labor cost: TBD
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for Diversion and Disposal
Using a JP-5 Aviation Fuel Recycler
Diversion Disposal
Operational Costs:
Labor: TBD $0
Material: TBD $9,480.00
Waste Disposal: $0 TBD
Total Operational Costs: TBD TBD
Total Recovered Income: TBD TBD
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: TBD TBD
6-1-9-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for JP-5 Aviation Fuel Recycler: TBD
* Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $73,000
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: TBD
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
Approving
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Mr. Ed Bonnes
Pollution Prevention Program Manager
NAS North Island
San Diego, CA 92135
Phone: (619) 545-3426, DSN 735-3426, FAX: (610) 545-2717
Mr. Thomas Rua
Naval Warfare Center Aircraft Division
Highway 547
M/S 4825-B-562-3
Lakehurst,NJ 08733
(732)323-2140
Air Force:
Mr. Jim Young
POL Technical Assistance Team
Kelly AFB, TX
Phone: (210) 925-4617, DSN 945-4617
The following is a list of JP-5 aviation fuel recycling system vendors. This is not
meant to be a complete list, as there may be other manufacturers of this type of
equipment.
6-1-9-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Filterdyne
La Grange, GA
Phone: (800)884-3009
Fax: (706)884-5518
Mr. Jim Robertson, Applications Engineer
Facet International, Inc.
9910 E. 56th Street. North
Tulsa, OK 74117-4011
Phone: (800)223-9910
Fax: (918)272-8787
Sources: Mr. Thomas Rita, Naval Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, January 1999.
Mr. Robert Sax. SGS Control Services, Inc. (310)326-9110. May 21, 1996.
Mr. Jim Petty. Advanced Process Equipment. (805)389-1911. May 21, 1996.
Mr.JayJett. California Filtration Products. (714)848-1333. May 20, 1996.
Material Safety Data Sheet. JP-5. Chevron Environmental Health Center, Inc.
6-1-9-5
-------
tet i, >t
SAMPLE INSTAU.AT1ON
tin
i Jiiv, Ji>J jotVij
-------
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
PNEUMATIC SPILL VACUUM
Revision:
Process Code:
Usage List:
Alternative for:
5/99
Navy and Marine Corps: ID-23-07, ML-02-04; Air Force: HW01, IN06,
SV10; Army: VHM
Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: High
Use and Disposal of Spill Absorbents
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: N/A
Overview:
The pneumatically operated wet and dry vacuum can be used to recover spilled
liquids, including fuels. In this way, the use of rags, absorbents, and other spill
collection items are minimized.
Compliance
Benefit:
The vacuum operates pneumatically, connected to a compressor. The
vacuumed liquid can then be stored in 55-gallon drums or other suitable
containers for recycling, reuse, or proper disposal. In this way the use of
absorbent materials for spill response is reduced or eliminated. Since absorbent
materials that have been used to address spills are normally heavy in weight, the
use of the pneumatic spill vacuum can help to lower hazardous waste disposal
costs.
The pneumatic spill vacuum is in use at several DOD installations, including
Hickam AFB. Non-electric, air operated, explosion-proof vacuums for fuel
spills are also available.
Use of a pneumatic spill vacuum can decrease the amount of hazardous waste
generated at a facility since absorbents do not have to be used. The decrease in
hazardous waste helps facilities meet the requirements of waste reduction under
RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix, and may also help facilities reduce their
generator status and lessen the level of regulatory requirements (i.e.,
recordkeeping, reporting, inspections, transportation, accumulation time,
emergency prevention and preparedness, emergency response) with which they
must comply under RCRA, 40 CFR 262.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
6-1-10-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
The pneumatic spill vacuum is designed to be compatible with a variety of fuels
and solvents.
Caution should be exercised when responding to liquid spills. Proper personal
protective equipment (PPE) should always be worn, and chemical
incompatibility should be assessed. In addition, flammability and the danger of
explosions should be considered. Personnel involved in spill response activities
should also be properly trained in Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) requirements, to include: Title 20 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 1910.120, "Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency
Response," and Title 29 CFR 1910.1200, "Hazard Communication."
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
Minimizes the use and cost of absorbents such as pillows, rags, and brooms
Minimizes contact personnel may have with liquid spills
Decreases disposal costs associated with absorbents
Can be used on a variety of liquid spills, lessening the need for specific
absorbents for specific chemicals
Improves spill response by accelerating spill clean-up
If used for small fuel spills, recovered material may be managed as a
product (useable as a fuel, to include being burned for energy recovery)
instead of being disposed as hazardous waste
Requires energy source (air compressor, or an explosion-proof electrical
power supply)
Requires proper disposal of spent activated carbon used in the vacuum
Economic
Analysis:
According to the Pollution Prevention Equipment Program, the cost for a
pneumatic spill vacuum ranges from $1,213 to $5,168. These units are a
operated in a similar fashion to a household vacuum. They recover liquids at a
rate of 1 gallon/second. The recovered liquids can then be stored in a 55-gallon
drum. The following cost elements compare the use of the pneumatic spill
vacuum and the use of absorbents.
6-1-10-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Assumptions:
1,000 gal of fuel spilled/yr.
Number of 55-gal drums filled/yr.: 18
Cost of disposing 55-gal drum filled with fuel: $200/55-gal drum
(includes transportation cost)
Cost of disposing one 55-gal drum of spent activated charcoal:
$450/55-gal drum
Volume of gasoline for compressor/yr.: 100 gal
Cost of gasoline: $1.20/gal
Labor associated with collecting spills using pneumatic spill vacuum
(at 1,000 gal/yr): 150 hrs for one individual
Labor required for spill vacuum maintenance: 10 hrs/yr
Absorbents procurement cost: $5,000 (for 1,000 gal)
Disposal costs for absorbents/yr: $8,000/yr
Labor associated with collecting spills using absorbents (at 1,000
gal/yr): 100 hrs each for three individuals
Labor rate: $30/hr
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Pneumatic Spill Vacuum and Absorbents
Pneumatic Spill Absorbents
Vacuum
Operational Costs:
Labor: $4,500 $9,000
Material: $0 $5,000
Energy: $120 $0
Waste Disposal: $4,050 $8,000
System Maintenance: $300 $0
Total Operational Costs: $8,970 $22,000
Total Recovered Income: $0 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$8,970 -$22,000
6-1-10-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for Pneumatic Spill Vacuum: $13,030
* Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $5,000
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: <1 year
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values. To
return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
Pneumatic Spill Vacuum
Pneumatic Spill Vacuum
Spill Vacuum
Approving
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
NSN
7910-01-249-2460
7910-01-322-2956
7910-21-910-8810
Unit Size
ea.
ea.
ea.
Cost
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Air Force approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after
coordination with the installation environmental management function. The
installation environmental management activities should ensure local, state and
Federal regulations are followed.
Navy:
Mr. Mike Zitaglio
Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division
Phone: (732) 323-4284,
Air Force:
PRO-ACT, DSN 240-4214
The following is a list of pneumatic spill vacuum vendors. This is not meant to
be a complete list, as there may be other manufacturers of this type of
equipment.
Tiger-Vac
14 Healey Avenue
Pittsburgh, NY 12901
6-1-10-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Phone: (800)668-4437
Fax: (800)668-4439
American Vacuum Company
7301 N. Monticello Avenue
Skokie, IL 60076
Phone: (800)321-2849
Nilfisk, Advanced America, Inc.
300 Technology Drive
Malvern, PA 19355
Phone: (610) 647-6420
New Pig
One Pork Avenue
Tipton,PA 16684-0304
Phone: (800) HOT-HOGS
Fax: (800)621-PIGS
Sources: Mr. Mike Zitaglio, Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division, May 1999.
Air Force Instruction (API) 32-4002, "Hazardous Material Emergency Planning and
Response Compliance, " 9 May 1994
Air Force Handbook, "Environmental Guide for Contingency Operations, "
Department of the Air Force, 1 March 1997
Massimo De Pastena, Tiger-Vac, May 1996.
Dane Westdyk, Vac-U-Max, May 1996
Jackie Felder, Laidlaw Environmental Services, May 1996.
Deb Longenecker, New Pig, May 1996.
6-1-10-5
-------
JJ
-------
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
OIL FILTER CRUSHING
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: N/A; Air Force: N/A; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: High; Marine Corps: High; Army: High; Air Force: High
Alternative for: Disposal of used oil filters
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: N/A
Overview: Classification of used oil filters as non-hazardous solid waste for disposal
purposes or for metal recycling can often be accomplished by crushing or
otherwise voiding the filters of oil. Crushing and draining used oil filters to
manage as non-hazardous solid waste reduces hazardous waste disposal costs.
Waste managers must contact recycling facilities to ensure drainage techniques
and handling methods are compatible with the recycling facility's requirements.
Waste managers must also contact their state to verify what requirements may
apply beyond the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requirements.
Several states have more stringent requirements and do not allow the disposal
of oil filters in landfills.
The EPA used oil filter regulation, published in Title 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), 40 CFR 261.4(b)(13), "Exclusions" states non-terne
plated used oil filters are excluded from regulation as a hazardous waste
provided they are not mixed with any of the wastes listed in Subpart D, Lists
of Hazardous Wastes. Specifically, three criteria for the filters must be met: 1)
must not be terne plated; 2) must not be mixed with listed hazardous waste; and
3) must be gravity hot-drained. These criteria are further explained as follows.
Non-Terne Plated
Terne is an alloy of tin and lead formerly used to cover the interior of oil filters.
The lead content may cause terne-plated filters to become toxic.
Mixture Rule
According to 40 CFR 261.3 "definition of hazardous waste," a solid waste is
exempted from regulation as a hazardous waste if it is excluded under 40 CFR
261.4. Since 40 CFR 261.4 specifically excludes non-terne plated oil filters,
only used oil filters mixed with wastes that are listed in Subpart D are classified
as hazardous waste.
6-1-11-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Gravity Hot-Draining
Non-terne plated used oil filters are exempted from regulation as a hazardous
waste provided they have been gravity hot-drained using one of the following
methods:
Puncturing the filter anti-drain back valve or the filter dome end and hot-
draining;
Hot-draining and crushing;
Dismantling and hot-draining; or
Any other equivalent hot-draining method that will remove used oil.
The EPA defines hot draining in 57 Federal Register 21523 as draining the oil
filter near engine operating temperature and above room temperature. The
EPA also recommends a minimum hot-drain time of 12 hours. The preamble
also states, "if an oil filter is picked up by hand or lifted by machinery and used
oil immediately drips or runs from the filter, the filter should not be considered to
be drained." Some states require a greater amount of oil to be removed from
the filters before recycling.
Oil filters are currently collected for recycling at Naval Station San Diego. The
filters are crushed using a commercial filter crusher. All free-flowing oil is
removed and collected during the crushing process. The used filters are
gathered until a minimum of 5,000 pounds is accumulated. The collected filters
are shipped to a local steel mill, where they are used as feed stock in the
company's steel mill operations.
An oil filter crushing operation has also been established at the Puget Sound
Naval Shipyard. This operation has been very successful in minimizing the
hazardous waste disposal costs associated with oil filters.
Compliance
Benefit: According to 40 CFR 261.4(b)(13) non-terne plated used oil filters that are not
mixed with other wastes are not subject to the hazardous waste regulations in
40 CFR 260 - 265 if the filters have been drained using one of several methods
including hot-draining and crushing.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
6-1-11-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Oil filters should be segregated from hazardous wastes so that they will not be
considered hazardous waste under the "Mixture Rule".
Care must be taken when handling oil filters. Skin absorption is a concern when
handling oil-containing metals. Proper personal protection equipment (PPE) is
recommended. Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health
and safety personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this
technology.
Eliminates the cost and liability associated with hazardous waste disposal
Minimizes the volume of waste disposed
Produces steel products through recycling of the filters
Disadvantages:
Specific criteria must be met before oil filters can be classified as non-
hazardous
Some states may not allow disposal of oil filters
Economic
Analysis:
According to the Pollution Prevention Equipment Program, the cost for oil
filter crushers range from $700 to $5,000, depending on the crusher size
needed and particular specifications. Depending on the endpoint of the crushed
filters (recycled or disposed as solid waste) the economics also vary. However,
in either situation, a cost savings should be realized due to the reduction of
hazardous waste disposal fees and future liability.
* Assumptions:
2,000 oil filters recycled per year
Approximately one ounce of oil generated per crushed filter
100 hours annual labor for operating system, storage, paperwork,
and arranging delivery
80 hours of annual labor for managing storage and disposal of
uncrushed filters
Labor rate: $30/hr
Disposal weight: approximately one pound per filter
Hazardous waste disposal cost: $2/lb (includes transport)
Recycling transport: $40/yr
6-1-11-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Hazardous waste transport: $100/yr
No profit from steel recycling
Oil disposal cost: $0.75/gal
Oil filter crusher maintenance cost: $200/yr
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Diversion and Disposal of Oil Filters by Crushing with Steel Recycling
Diversion Disposal
Operational Costs:
Labor: $3,000 $2,400
Hazardous Waste $0 $4,000
Disposal:
Oil Disposal: $10 $0
Transportation: $40 $100
System Maintenance: $200 $0
Total Operational Costs: $3,250 $6,500
Total Recovered Income: $0 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$3,250 -$6,500
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for Oil Filter Crusher: $3,250
* Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $3,000
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: < 1 year
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost
Oil Filter Crusher 4940-01-363-8723 ea. Local Purchase
Approving
Authority: Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only
after engineering approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not
6-1-11-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
required. Authorized state hazardous waste agencies should be contacted to
determine specific requirements for oil filter crushing.
Air Force approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after
coordination with the installation environmental function. The installation
environmental management activities should ensure local, state and Federal
regulations are followed.
Points
of Contact: Navy:
Mr. Mark W. Montgomery, Solid Waste Manager
Naval Station San Diego
Environmental Code 21.2
3395 Sturtevant Street, Suite 6
San Diego, CA 92136-5071
Phone: (619) 556-0964; DSN 526-0964
Fax:(619)556-5153
Mr. Mike Viggiano (Procurement POC)
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
110023rd Avenue
PortHueneme, CA 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-4895, DSN 551-4895
Email: viggianomlfSlnfesc.naw.mil
Mr. Pano Kordonis
FASTT Team POC
Phone: (843)820-5565
Air Force:
PRO-ACT, DSN 240-4214
Recycling or disposal of used oil filters is managed at the installation level;
therefore, there is no single USAF point of contact for oil filter crushing
equipment. Regulatory support regarding oil filter crushing activities may be
obtained from the Regional Environmental Offices (REOs), Headquarters Air
Force Center for Environmental Excellence:
1. Atlanta REO: HQAFCEE/CCR-A
60 Forsyth Street S.W., Suite 8M80
Atlanta, GA 30303-3416
(404) 562-4205
6-1-11-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
2. Dallas REO: HQAFCEE/CCR-D
525 South Griffin, Suite 505
Dallas, TX 75202-5023
(214) 767-4650
San Francisco REO: HQAFCEE/CCR-S
333 Market Street, Suite 625
San Francisco, TX 94105-2196
(415)977-888
Filter Manufacturers Council
MEMA Environmental Institute, Inc.
P.O. Box 13966
10 Laboratory Drive
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3966
Phone: (919) 549-4800; Filter Hotline: (800) 99-FILTER
Vendors:
Source:
The following is a list of vendors of oil filter crushing equipment. This is not
meant to be a complete list, as there may be other suppliers of this type of
equipment.
Rackerby Sales Company, Inc.
P.O. Box 8309
Santa Rosa, CA 95405
Phone:(800)221-8333
Fax:(707) 571-8354
Autop of North America
P.O. Box 150146
Nashville, TN 37215
Mr. Jim Rau
Phone:(615)255-7434
Fax:(615)255-7439
Mr. Michael Viggiano, Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, February 1999.
Mr. Pano Kordonis, FASTTTeam, January 1999.
Air boy Sales Company, Inc., April 1996
Mr. Mark Montgomery, Naval Station San Diego, April 1996
6-1-11-6
-------
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
BYPASS FILTER FOR VEHICLE MOTOR OIL
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-02-99; Air Force: PM05; Army: VHM
Usage List: Navy: Low; Marine Corps: Low; Army: Low; Air Force: Medium
Alternative for: Waste Oil Generation and Disposal
Compliance Areas: Medium
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: N/A
Overview: Bypass filters are designed to remove smaller particulates than would be
removed by an engine's normal filter, so that the need for additional oil or oil
changes can be reduced. High density bypass filtration extends the useful life of
oils. In addition to reducing waste oil generation, collateral benefits include
reduced acquisition of petroleum based lubricants, reduced labor hours in the
management of waste oil, a reduction in risk associated with storing, pumping
and shipment of used oil, and an extension of engine life through improved
lubrication.
Bypass filtration is a system that provides high density, slow filtration (one to six
quarts per minute at engine operating temperature) of engine oil without affecting
the primary OEM filtration system. Bypass filters also remove solid
contaminants down to 3 microns, control moisture content in oil, are compatible
with all MIL-SPEC oils, and extend oil drain intervals. Bypass filters are
installed in the engine compartment of a vehicle or nearby a stationary engine.
The bypass filter is fed a slip stream of oil that bypasses the engine.
Oil added during filter changing, and to replace burned oil, is normally sufficient
to replenish the oil's additive package (the component of the oil that is
responsible for maintaining pH and preventing deterioration of the oil).
Installing by-pass filters may not be feasible to install on some vehicles in a fleet.
The climate in which the vehicle is used, the duration of engine run time, and the
age of the vehicle can all influence the feasibility of by-pass filter use.
In warm climates (where 15W40 is used year round) all vehicles benefit from
the additional filtration because flow through the filter starts almost immediately.
However, in colder climates, engines need to run at the manufacturer's normal
operating temperature for at least ten minutes to reduce the oil's viscosity and to
allow flow though the bypass filter. Longer run times are necessary in extremely
cold climates.
6-II-1-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Several different types of bypass filters are available. Those manufactured by
Gulf Coast and Enviro Filtration rely on filter elements that remove particles
down to the 1 to 10 micron range. The Gulf Coast unit is distinctive in that it
uses a commonly available roll of toilet paper (or paper towels for larger units)
as the filter element. The TF Purifmer unit filters down to 0.5 to 1 micron, and
then refines the oil by passing it through a heated element refiner that is vented
back into the engine air intake. The heated element volatilizes any unburned
fuel, water, or glycols that contaminate the oil and cause the oil's additive
package to breakdown. These systems reduce the need for complete oil
changes, but the engine's conventional canister filter along with the bypass filters
still need to be changed in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations.
Along with filter changes, engine oil must be sampled and analyzed to determine
the physical and chemical properties of the oil (see data sheet 6-II-3 for
Lubricant Analysis Programs). Using a by-pass filter system in conjunction
with a lubricant analysis program may reduce the number of oil changes without
decreasing the life expectancy of engine parts. The use of bypass filters has
been approved for use in Air Force vehicles.
Compliance
Benefit:
Use of a bypass filter for vehicle motor oil will decrease the amount of used oil
generated and therefore, decrease the personnel efforts of managing the used oil
under 40 CFR 279 or 40 CFR 262. In addition, if used oil is not recycled,
using a bypass filter may help a facility meet the requirements of waste reduction
under RCRA, 40 CFR 262. Moreover, since less oil should be stored on site,
a facility will decrease the possibility of teaching the reporting thresholds for that
chemical under 40 CFR 355 and EO 12856. A decrease in oil stored on site
may also put a facility below threshold amounts for the requirement to develop
and implement a Spill, Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan under 40
CFR 112
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety and
Health:
Bypass filters must be used in conjunction with a lubricant analysis program.
The oil analysis program is used to determine oil change intervals.
Use of vehicle motor oil poses minimal safety and health concerns. Care must
be taken when handling oils that are high in temperature. Proper personal
6-II-1-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
protective equipment is recommended. Consult your local industrial health
specialist, your local health and safety personnel, and the appropriate MSDS
prior to implementing any of these technologies.
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
Reduces the number of oil changes required
Reduces new oil purchases
Reduces the generation of oil waste and the associated costs of waste oil
handling and disposal
Payback period may be longer than life span of the vehicle.
TF Purifmer
A bypass filter with a capacity of up to 12 quarts has a payback period of
approximately 14 years for systems operated with conventional oil. If synthetic
oil is being processed, the payback period is reduced to approximately 3 years.
For a bypass filter with up to 24 quart capacity, the payback periods are 5
years and 1.5 years for conventional and synthetic oils, respectively.
Oil Guard
A bypass filter with a capacity of up to 12 quarts has a payback period of
approximately 2.9 years for systems operated with conventional oil. If synthetic
oil is being processed, the payback period is reduced to approximately 1.4
years. For a bypass filter with up to 24 quart capacity, the payback periods are
1.6 years and 0.7 years for conventional and synthetic oils, respectively.
Enviro Filtration
A bypass filter with a capacity of up to 12 quarts has a payback period of
approximately 2.2 years for systems operated with conventional oil. If synthetic
oil is being processed, the payback period is reduced to approximately 0.8
years. For a bypass filter with up to 24 quart capacity, the payback periods are
1.3 years and 0.4 years for conventional and synthetic oils, respectively.
Assumptions:
Motor Oil Cost
Conventional $4/gallon
Synthetic $17/gallon
Oil Disposal Cost $0.75/gallon
6-II-1-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
NSN/MSDS:
Capital Cost
(Installed)
Number of Oil
Changes Per Year
Operating Labor
Supplies
Payback Period,
Years:
Conventional
Synthetic
TF Purifiner
Bypass
Filters
12qt
$510
0
Ihr/yr
$55/yr
14
3
24 qt
$560
0
Ihr/yr
$66/yr
5
1.5
Enviro
Filtration
Bypass
Filters
12 qt
$140
0
Ihr/yr
$10/yr
2.2
0.8
24 qt
$160
0
Ihr/yr
$30/yr
1.3
0.4
Oil Guard
Bypass
Filters
12 qt
$175
0
1.5hr/yr
$23/yr
2.9
1.4
24 qt
$189
0
2.5hr/yr
$27/yr
1.6
0.7
Status
Quo
12 qt
N/A
4
3r/yr
$0
N/A
N/A
24 qt
N/A
4
5hr/yr
$0
N/A
N/A
Product
Bypass Filter
Bypass Filter
Bypass Filter
Bypass Filter
Approving
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Unit Size
ea.
ea.
ea.
ea.
Cost
$1.94
$4.48
$4.05
$5.59
NSN
4940-01-411-9831
4940-01-411-9832
4940-01-411-9833
4940-01-411-9834
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required. The use
of bypass filters has been approved for use in Air Force vehicles. Approval of
an oil analysis program has to be obtained at the MAJCOM level.
Air Force:
Mr. Michael Schleider
Chief, Systems Engineering Division
Support Equipment and Vehicle Management Directorate
WR-ALC/LER
225 Ocmulgee Ct.
Robins AFB, GA 31098-1647
6-II-1-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
DSN 468-6488 x 175, (912) 926-6488 x 175
FAX: DSN 468-7176, (912) 926-7176
tnichael.schleider@robins.af.mil
Vendors:
This is not meant to be a complete list, as there may be other suppliers of this
type of equipment.
OilGuard Environmental
1384 Poinsettia Ave., Suite F
Vista, CA 92083
Phone: (760)599-5000
Fax: (760)599-5009
Email: oilguard@oilguard.com
URL: www.oilguard.com
Mr. David Herr
Sources:
Gulf Coast Filters
P.O. Box 2787
Gulfport, MS 39505
(601)832-1663
Mr. Jerry Simms
TF Purifmer
3020 High Ridge Road, Suite 100
Boynton Beach, FL 33426
(407) 547-9499
(800) 488-0577
Enviro Filtration
4719 Roosevelt Street
Gary, IN 46408
(219) 884-7963
Mr. Michael Schleider, Robins Air Force Base, January 1999.
OilGuard Environmental, January 1999.
Air Force Manual 24-307, "Procedures for Vehicle Maintenance, "September, 1995
"Pacific Air forces Automotive Analysis Program Guide, " HQPACA/LGT, Draft
6-II-1-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
REUSABLE FILTER FOR VEHICLE MOTOR OIL
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-02-99; Air Force: PM05; Army: VHM
Usage List: Navy: Low; Marine Corps: Low; Army: Low; Air Force: Low
Alternative for: Oil Changes
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: None
Overview: Reusable filters are full-flow filtration units that contain a reusable, stainless steel
wire cloth filter installed in a serviceable housing. The filter removes solids just
as a normal canister filter but can be cleaned and reused many times, eliminating
the need for disposal.
Since reusable filters are cleaned and then reused, they eliminate the used oil
filter waste stream. The filter contains a three-part system of stainless steel cloth
instead of paper. The mechanic opens the filter casing and cleans the steel cloth
filter with any solvent or aqueous parts washer.
Unlike disposable filters, reusable filters are cleaned during normal vehicle oil
changes. Shop mechanics can clean the filters in a parts washer sink after
allowing the fluids to drain from the filter. Ultrasonic cleaning systems have
proven to be the most effective in cleaning reusable filters. Reusable fuel and oil
filters are installed in the same manner as conventional filters and do not require
any additional equipment or fittings. Reusable filters can be moved from vehicle
to vehicle, so the capital investment in the filter will not be lost if a vehicle is later
taken out of service. The filters can be used in a wide range of vehicles
including General Motors, Chrysler, and Ford manufactured passenger vehicles
and construction equipment. Use of reusable filters reduces the quantity and
cost of purchasing oil filters. Labor costs may be equivalent or slightly higher
for the reusable filter. In comparison to paper filters, the reusable filters
increase oil flow and improve engine protection.
With a reusable filter, the standard canister filter is replaced with an adapter that
spins onto the filter header. The adapter directs oil into hoses, which take the
oil to the permanent filter housing, where it is passed through a stainless steel
screen-type filter element. Filter elements can remove particles down to various
sizes with 5 to 10, 15, 28, 40, and 60 microns being typical. The 28 or 40
micron filter element is the typical size used for vehicle engines and is
comparable to a conventional canister filter. After filtration, the oil is returned to
the adapter and recirculated through the engine.
6-II-2-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
The RACOR Tattletale Filter is equipped with a by-pass when the wire cloth
filter element restricts flow due to clogging. At this point, a signal light tells the
operator that there is a need for service. To service the filter, the filter housing
is disassembled, and the wire cloth screen is soft brushed in solvent or cleaned
in a parts washer. The clean filter is then put back into service. A visual
evaluation of dirt accumulated on the filter may be helpful in diagnosing engine
wear problems.
According to Mr. Mike Schleider of the Vehicle Maintenance Directorate at
Warner Robbins Air Logistics Center, the use of permanent filters in Air Force
vehicles has not been approved. However, if approved, these filters will be
required to be used in conjunction with an oil analysis program. The oil analysis
program is to be used to determine oil change intervals.
Compliance
Benefit:
The use of a permanent oil filter in motor vehicles will ensure that a facility is not
subject to the hazardous waste regulations of 40 CFR 260 - 265 for their used
oil filters or the requirements to drain used oil filters (40 CFR 261.4(b)(13)).
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
No materials compatibility issues were identified.
There are minimal safety and health concerns regarding vehicle motor oil. Care
must be taken while handling oils when high in temperature. Proper personal
protective equipment is recommended. Consult your local industrial health
specialist, your local health and safety personnel, and the appropriate MSDS
prior to implementing this technology.
There are no canister filters to be removed, drained, crushed, or disposed
An indicator light reveals when filter is ready for servicing
Labor is required for disassembly and cleaning of permanent filters
The use of permanent filters may require the implementation of an oil
analysis program to determine the appropriate oil change intervals.
The following analysis is for a pilot program on one vehicle.
6-11-2-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Assumptions:
A light truck requires a new oil filter eight times per year (i.e., the filter is
changed every 45 days).
Cost of each conventional filter is $6.00.
An additional five minutes of labor is required to clean the filter in the parts
washer.
Labor rate of $30 per hour
One drum of uncrushed oil filters contains 100 filters and is disposed of at a
cost of $100.
Minimal impact on the change rate of parts washer fluid
Typical costs of the equipment for an automobile/light truck are as follows
(RACOR).
Model Number
LFS5528TT
N/A
Equipment Cost
Description
Filter unit with sensor
Adapter (varies)
Price
$142
$40-$150
$182-$300
Typical cost for a larger capacity filter suitable for large diesel engines are as
follows (RACOR).
Model Number
LFS9028TT
N/A
Equipment Cost
Description
Filter unit with sensor
Adapter (varies)
Price
$396
$40-$ 150
$450-$550
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Reusable filters versus conventional filters
Conventional Filters Reusable Filters
Capital Cost $0 $200
Operational Costs:
Labor: filter cleaning $20
Filter Cost: $48 $0
Filter Disposal $8 $0
Total Operational Costs: $56 $20
Total Recovered Income: $0 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$56 -$20
6-II-2-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for Permanent Filter per Vehicle:
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process:
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process:
$36
$200
5.5 years
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
Approval
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Vendors:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Air Force:
Mr. Michael Schleider
Chief, Systems Engineering Division
Support Equipment and Vehicle Management Directorate
WR-ALC/LER
225 Ocmulgee Ct.
Robins AFB, GA 31098-1647
DSN 468-6488 x 175, (912) 926-6488 x 175
FAX: DSN 468-7176, (912) 926-7176
michael. schleider(5),robins. af.mil
Mr. David Elliott
Small Engine Engineer
San Antonio Air Logistics Center
Phone: (210) 925-6517 DSN 945-6537
Fax: (210)925-8606
The following is the vendor whose data appears in this datasheet. This
information is not meant to be all encompassing, as there are many other
manufacturers of reusable filters. Consult the Thomas Register under
"automotive filters" for suppliers of filters in your area.
RACOR
Parker Hannifin Corporation
RACOR Division
6-11-2-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
P.O. Box 3208
3400 Finch Road
Modesto, CA 95353
(800) 344-3286
System 1 Filtration
6080 Leonard Noell Drive
P.O. Box 1097
Tulare, CA 93275
(209) 687-1955.
Source: Mr. Michael Schleider, Robins Air Force Base, January 1999.
The U.S. Marine Corps Oil Analysis Program, TI-4731-14/1B, 14 Feb 1991.
Vandenberg Air Force Base Technical feasibility and Economic Analysis Report for
Pollution Prevention Opportunity Assessment, September 1994
Air Force Manual 24-307, Procedures for Vehicle Maintenance, September, 1995
Oil Quality Analyzer, Project OV92-11, July 1992, Air Force Management and
equipment Evaluation (MEEP), August, 1993
6-II-2-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
LUBRICANT ANALYSIS PROGRAMS
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-01, SR-02; Air Force: PM07, PM08; Army:
VHM
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
Alternative for: Scheduled Oil Changes
Compliance Areas: Medium
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: l,l,2-trichloro-l,2,2-trifluoroethane (CAS: 76-13-1),
1,1,1-trichloroethane (CAS: 71-55-6)
Overview: Lubricant analysis programs are tests that are used to determine whether a
lubricant remains effective. A lubricant analysis program may allow longer
intervals between changing lubricants thereby reducing lubricant consumption
and waste disposal. In this program, samples of lubricant are collected and
either analyzed in the field (using test equipment) or sent to an analytical
laboratory for analysis. Representative sample collection is critical to ensure
that the sample being analyzed is indicative of the lubricant's overall condition.
Four main types of lubricant testing procedures are discussed in this data sheet.
Physical/Chemical Analysis
The parameters that are typically evaluated include viscosity, total base number
(a measure of the oil's ability to neutralize acids), and the concentration of some
metal ions (e.g., calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, sodium, and zinc) which are
components of many additives. Once the samples are analyzed, various factors
depending on the history of the equipment must be considered in determining
when the oil requires changing. For example, metal levels in engine oils can vary
depending on numerous factors including:
Engine metallurgy
Oil/lubricant consumption and replacement
Types of engine lubricants and additives
Filtration efficiency
Dispersion characteristics of the oil's additive package (which help hold
metals in suspension)
These and other factors must be considered when evaluating whether an oil is
acceptable for continued use. Rapid changes in contaminant metal
concentrations or rapid fluctuation of other oil properties are much more
important in determining whether an oil is failing rather than a strict adherence to
published ranges of criteria. Rapid changes in oil properties can be indicative of
6-II-3-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
faulty equipment, severe operating conditions, or insufficient maintenance
procedures.
Determining whether an additive package is depleted is difficult, because
additive packages vary from one manufacturer to another, and most available
analytical tools do not directly measure the concentration of the additive
package. This process is particularly difficult when oils from different
manufactures are mixed together. Using a single brand of oil will minimize this
difficulty. Instrumentation for analyzing engine oil should be calibrated to the
specific type and manufacturer of oil being used. Differences in oil additives
between manufacturers can affect the accuracy of the tests.
Ferrographic Analysis
Ferrographic analysis is a predictive method for determining equipment
condition long before signs of wear are detected. Ferrography detects particles
of ferrous, non-ferrous, and nonmetallic materials that are generated at the
contact surfaces of moving parts. These particles are analyzed, and changes
from previous results indicate a developing mechanical problem. If sufficient
information about the equipment's metallurgy is available, it may be possible to
identify which gear, bearing, etc., is wearing. The size, number composition,
and type of particles indicate the severity of the wear.
Dielectric Constant
A third form of analysis is a field test unit that measures the dielectric constant of
lubricating oil, which is indicative of oxidation of the lubricant molecules.
Dielectric constant is monitored as a function of time, and once the deterioration
exceeds recommended limits, the oil should be changed. The test equipment
can indicate if one of three following potential problems are present:
1) moderate dielectric increase indicative of contamination due to fuel soot,
sludge, dirt, oxidation, or acid build-up (this condition is monitored over
time until a predetermined point is reached at which time the oil should be
changed);
2) severe dielectric increase indicative of water, antifreeze, or metal particles
(immediate action is required to avoid potentially serious equipment
damage); and
3) moderate dielectric decrease due to gasoline or diesel fuel dilution (this
condition is also indicative of a potentially serious problem that needs
immediate attention). Note that moderate dielectric decreases are
sometimes difficult to detect.
6-II-3-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Particle Counters
A fourth form of analysis is the particle counter, which measures the number and
size of particles present in oils and hydraulic fluids. Use of an electronic particle
counter offers a viable alternative to the patch test, which has traditionally been
conducted with CFC-113 or methyl chloroform (both Class 1, ozone depleting
substances). This equipment requires no hazardous solvents, and test results
are accurate and non-subjective. Use of this technology is approved for Navy
activities as specified in the NA 01-1A-17 Aviation Hydraulics Manual.
Compliance
Benefit:
Instituting a lubricant analysis program may allow longer intervals between
lubricant changes thereby reducing lubricant consumption and waste disposal.
The decrease in the amount of used oil generated will decrease the labor
necessary to manage the used oil under 40 CFR 279 or 40 CFR 262. In
addition, if used oil is not recycled the lubricant analysis program may help a
facility meet the requirements of waste reduction under RCRA, 40 CFR 262,
Appendix. A decrease in oil stored on site may also put a facility below
threshold amounts for the requirement to develop and implement a Spill,
Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan under 40 CFR 112.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
No materials compatibility issues were identified.
Waste oil must be handled with care. The main concern is skin absorption.
Proper personal protective equipment is, therefore, recommended. Consult
your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety personnel, and
the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
Reduces the frequency of oil changes
Decreases consumption and purchase of virgin oil
Reduces the generation of waste oil
Provides valuable diagnostic information
Higher level of knowledge is required to perform the diagnostic tests or take
representative samples
Data must be collected over time and analyzed to determine trends
Results are subject to interpretation
6-II-3-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Oil analyzers must be calibrated to the type and manufacturer of the oil
being used
Economic
Analysis: The capital and operational costs will vary with each of the analytical techniques
available for a lubricant analysis program and also with the equipment that is
included in the program. The cost analysis presented reflects a lubricant
analysis program using a dielectric constant monitoring program, which has a
relatively low capital cost. The oil and filter disposal information was based on
estimates from the San Antonio Air Logistics Center. The oil and filter prices
were obtained through vendor information.
Assumptions:
Dielectric constant sensor cost: $700
Program involves monitoring 125 vehicles with average 6.5 quarts oil each
Regular oil changes conducted at six month intervals
Analysis program increases oil change interval to eight months
Labor: 45 minutes per oil change, 15 minutes per test
Average of three tests conducted per vehicle per year
Labor rate: $30/hr
New oil purchase cost: $4.42/gal or $1.1 I/quart
New oil filters purchase cost: $6.00/each
Oil Disposal: oils are recycled at no cost to the facility
Filter Disposal: Estimated at $100 per drum, 100 filters per drum
Filter Disposal cost: Estimated at $1.00 each
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Lubricant Analysis Program and Scheduled Oil Changes
Lubricant Analysis Scheduled Oil
Program Changes
Operational Costs:
Labor (oil change): $4,200 $5,600
Labor (tests): $2,800 $0
Filter Disposal $190 $250
New Oil: $1,350 $1,800
New Oil Filters: $1,125 $1,500
Total Operational Costs: $9,665 $9,150
Total Recovered Income: $0 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$9,665 -$9,150
6-II-3-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for Lubricant Analysis Program:
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process:
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process:
-$515
$700
N/A
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
Duplex Ferrographic Analysis
System
Duplex Ferrographic Analysis
System
Particle Counter
Oil Analyzer
Oil Analyzer
Approval
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
NSN
6630-01-178-0327
6630-01-158-7638
6640-01-263-6618
6635-01-437-5614
6650-01-114-4663
Unit Size
ea.
ea.
ea.
ea.
ea.
Cost
$26,055
$38,501
$19,170
$34,121
$35,000
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Ms. Jackie Grant
Naval Aviation Depot-Cherry Point Code 4.3.4.2
PSC Box 8021
Cherry Point, NC 25833-0021
Phone:(919)464-7165
Air Force:
Mr. Michael Schleider
Chief, Systems Engineering Division
Support Equipment and Vehicle Management Directorate
WR-ALC/LER
225 Ocmulgee Ct.
Robins AFB, GA 31098-1647
DSN 468-6488 x 175, (912) 926-6488 x 175
FAX: DSN 468-7176, (912) 926-7176
michael. schleider@jobins. af.mil
6-II-3-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Mr. David Elliott
Small Engine Engineer
San Antonio Air Logistics Center
Phone: (210) 925-6517 DSN 945-6537
Vendors: Test Equipment
The following vendors have been identified as supplying test equipment for
lubricants. This is not meant to be a complete list, as there may be other
providers of this type of equipment.
Northern Technologies International Corp.
(Lubri-Sensor / Hydroil Sensor)
6680 N. Highway 49
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
Phone: (612) 784-1250, (800) 328-2433
www.ntic.com
Linda Petro, Marketing
Predict Technologies
9555RocksideRoad
Suite 350
Cleveland, OH 44125
Phone: (800) 543-8786
Russell Loede
Senior Machine Condition Analyst
High Yield Technology (HYT)
1178 Bordeaux Dr..
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Phone: (408) 541-6450 Fax: (408) 541-6455
Analytical Testing Services
The following test services have been identified as providing analytical testing of
lubricants. This is not meant to be a complete list, as there may be other
providers of this service.
Predict Technologies
9555 Rockside Road, Suite 350
Cleveland, OH 44125
Phone: (800) 543-8786
Russell Loede
Senior Machine Condition Analyst
6-II-3-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Source: Mr. Michael Schleider, Robins Air Force Base, January 1999.
Mr. David Elliot, San Antonio Air Logistics Center, January 1999.
The U.S. Marine Corps Oil Analysis Program, TI-4731-14/1B, 14 Feb 1991.
Vandenberg Air Force Base Technical feasibility and Economic Analysis Report for
Pollution Prevention Opportunity Assessment, September 1994
Air Force Manual 24-307, Procedures for Vehicle Maintenance, September, 1995
Oil Quality Analyzer, Project OV92-11, July 1992, Air Force Management and
equipment Evaluation (MEEP), August, 1993
6-II-3-7
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
SUBSTITUTING SYNTHETIC OIL FOR CONVENTIONAL OIL
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-02; Air Force: PM08; Army: VHM
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Low
Alternative for: Conventional Oils
Compliance Areas: Medium
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: N/A
Overview: When used in place of conventional motor oil, synthetic oil lasts longer thus
requiring fewer changeouts. As a result, waste oil generation and consumption
of oil is reduced.
Synthetic motor oils are blends of synthesized hydrocarbon fluids (SHF's) and
esters derived from petrochemicals. These synthetic oils are manufactured by
combining the various organic chemicals together. Other synthetic hydrocarbon
compounds are also suitable for lubricating oils, and manufacturers may blend
two or more of these compounds together to achieve one desired property.
While they appear chemically similar to mineral oils refined from crude, they are
pure chemicals that do not contain the impurities or waxes inherent in
conventional mineral oils. Conventional mineral oils thicken or thin dramatically
with changes in temperature. To compensate for this, manufacturers add
thickeners to conventional multigrade oils to slow thinning as engine
temperatures rise. Synthetic oils have high resistance to changes in viscosity due
to temperature and thus have less of a requirement for thickeners. As a result
they provide a heavier, more stable protective oil film for engine bearings and
piston rings than is provided by similar SAE-grade mineral oils.
Synthetic oil is superior to petroleum oil because it permits better cold weather
performance and longer endurance. Synthesized compounds continue to flow
at the low temperatures. Synthetic 10W-30 oils flow at temperatures as low as
-54ฐC (-65ฐF) and pump at lower temperatures than similar SAE viscosity
conventional oils. Synthetic 15W-50 oils flows at -48ฐC (-55ฐF) and pumps at
temperatures as low as many conventional SAE 5W-30 oils. According to the
San Antonio Air Logistics Center (SA-ALC), the primary benefit of synthetic
oil is this superior performance at low temperatures.
Synthetics are also more thermally stable. Manufacturers claim that synthetic
oils yield increased fuel economy, reductions in friction and wear, decreased oil
consumption, better engine performance at lower temperatures, and extended
oil change intervals. However, since synthetic oil has improved fluidity, oil loss
will occur more quickly through leaks because the thinner fluid will flow through
6-II-4-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Compliance
Benefit:
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
a bad seal or worn ring. SA-ALC reports that the use of synthetic oils has not
enabled them to reduce oil change intervals.
Some synthetic compounds are not compatible with conventional oils.
However if a quart of synthetic oil is added to conventional oil, the resultant
compound will be a compatible mixture. Also, the lower friction resulting from
the use of a synthetic lubricant makes them unsuitable for break-in.
The substitution of synthetic oil for conventional oil may allow longer intervals
between change outs thereby reducing oil consumption and waste disposal.
The decrease in the amount of used oil generated will decrease the labor
requirement for managing used oil under 40 CFR 279 or 40 CFR 262.
Moreover, since less oil should be stored on site, a facility will decrease the
likelihood of reaching reporting thresholds under 40 CFR 355 and EO 12856.
A decrease in oil stored on site may also put a facility below threshold amounts
for the requirement to develop and implement a Spill, Prevention, Control and
Countermeasure Plan under 40 CFR 112.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
No material compatibility issues were identified.
There are minimal safety and health concerns with synthetic oils. Care must be
taken when handling hot oil. Proper personal protective equipment is
recommended. Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health
and safety personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this
technology.
Synthetic oil lasts two to five times longer than conventional oil thus waste
oil generation can be reduced two to five times if synthetic oil is used
Synthetic oils have high resistance to changes in viscosity due to
temperature. As a result they provide a heavier, more stable protective oil
film for engine bearings and piston rings than is provided by similar SAE-
grade mineral oils.
Synthetic oil permits better cold weather performance and longer
endurance.
6-11-4-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Manufacturers claim that synthetic oil yields better fuel economy, reductions
in friction and wear, decreased oil consumption, improved performance,
and extended drain intervals.
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
Synthetic oil costs more than conventional oil (the higher cost is typically
offset by reduced waste generation however)
Since synthetic oil has improved fluidity, oil loss will occur more quickly
through leaks because the thinner fluid will flow through a bad seal or worn
ring.
Some synthetic compounds are not compatible with conventional oils.
The lower friction resulting from the use of a synthetic lubricant makes them
unsuitable for break-in.
An economic analysis assuming synthetic oil lasts three times as long as
conventional oil is presented below for a 12-quart capacity vehicle. Oil and
filter disposal information was based on estimates from the San Antonio Air
Logistics Center. Lubricant and filter price information was provided by the
vendors.
Assumptions:
30 vehicles in fleet
Labor Cost: $20/hour
Labor: 0.5 hour per oil change
Oil Disposal: oils are recycled at no cost to the facility
Oil Cost: Synthetic - $14.51/gallon, Conventional - $4.42/gallon
Conventional Oil is changed three times per year, synthetic oil is changed
once per year.
Filters cost $6.00 each
Filter Disposal: Estimated at $100 per drum, 100 filter per drum
Oil capacity of vehicle is an average of 12 quarts (or 3 gallons)
6-II-4-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Synthetic Oil Versus Conventional Oil Use
Synthetic Conventional
Operational Costs:
Labor: $300 $900
OilCosts $1,305 $1,193
Filter Cost $180 $540
Filter Disposal $30 $90
Total Costs: $1,816 $2,723
Total Income: $0 $0
Annual Benefit: -$1,816 -$2,723
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for Synthetic Oils: $908
* Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $0
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: N/A
Note: There is no payback period because there is no capital cost.
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost
None Identified
Approval
Authority: Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Points of
Contact: Air Force:
Mr. Michael Schleider
Chief, Systems Engineering Division
Support Equipment and Vehicle Management Directorate
WR-ALC/LER
225 Ocmulgee Ct.
6-II-4-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Robins AFB, GA 31098-1647
DSN 468-6488 x 175, (912) 926-6488 x 175
FAX: DSN 468-7176, (912) 926-7176
michael. schleider(5),robins. af.mil
Mr. David Elliott
Small Engine Engineer
San Antonio Air Logistics Center
Phone: (210) 925-6517 DSN 945-6537
Vendors:
Source (s):
Most oil suppliers have a synthetic brand of motor oil. Some are listed below.
Chevron Corp.
575 Market St.
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (415)894-7700
Fax:(415)894-0583
Castrol Industrial North America, Inc.
1001 W. 31st.
Downers Grove, IL 60515
Phone: (800) 621-2661
Fax:(630)241-1957
Mobil Corporation
3225 Gallows Road
Fairfax, VA 22037
Phone: 800-662-4525
Fax: 703-849-6065
Mr. Michael Schleider, Robins Air Force Base, January 1999.
Mr. David Elliot, San Antonio Air Logistics Center, January 1999.
6-II-4-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
EXTENSION OF METAL WORKING FLUID SERVICE LIFE
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-10-00; Air Force: RR-01; Army: MTF
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: medium
Alternative for: Single Use Of Metal Working Fluids
Compliance Areas: Medium
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: None
Overview: Generation of waste metal working fluids can be minimized by extending the
useful life of the fluids. Metal working fluid life is a function of various factors
including: type of metal working operation, type/quality of fluid used,
housekeeping practices, contamination, bacterial contamination, and water
quality.
Spent metal cutting fluids may be considered hazardous wastes due to the
products' formulation or by absorbing contaminants through metal working
operations. Under 40 CFR Part 279, Used Oil Management Standards,
used oil is defined as oil refined from crude (or any synthetic oil), used as a
lubricating, hydraulic, or heat transfer fluid, that has become contaminated
through use. Coolants may be managed under these regulatory provisions and
recycled as opposed to disposed. Extending the fluid life by maintaining its
cleanliness is a practical means of reducing a hazardous waste stream.
Modular systems are available for on-site, batch recycling of metal working
fluids. These systems clean the fluids by removing solids, bacteria, and tramp
oil contaminants. These systems may incorporate filtration, centrifugation,
pasteurization, oil skimming, and/or coalescence processing steps. Water or
fluid concentrate may be added to the reclaimed fluid to adjust the fluid
concentration to the desired level. The fluids are then returned to the machine
sump(s).
Cincinnati Milacron markets modular systems for collection, treatment, and
recycling of metal working fluids, one of which is in use at the Naval Shipyard in
Portsmouth, New Hampshire. The capital costs for a fluid collection device and
recycle module would start at around $40,000.
An alternative to purchase, operation, and maintenance of recycling equipment
by the shop is the use of mobile recycling services, such as Fluid Recycling
Services. These services utilize similar processing steps to those described
above to treat metal working fluids on-site on a periodic basis. There is
typically a minimum charge per visit plus a rate per gallon of fluid treated.
6-II-5-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
For shops that generate less than 25 tons/yr. of waste cutting oil, or less than 45
tons/yr. of waste soluble oil machine coolant, a mobile fluid recycling service
would probably be the preferred arrangement. For shops that generate larger
amounts of waste metal working fluids, purchase of in-house recycling
equipment should be considered. For either option, the economics of recycling
metal working fluids are improved by minimizing the number of different metal
working fluids used in one shop.
Compliance
Benefit:
Recycling metal working fluid may help facilities meet the requirements of waste
reduction under RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix. Recycling of cutting oil may
allow the used oil to fall under the less stringent regulations of 40 CFR 279 as
opposed to the hazardous waste regulations in 40 CFR 260 through 268. In
addition, under 40 CFR 261.5 generators that recycle their used oil and
manage it under 40 CFR 279 do not have to count the used oil into their
monthly totals of hazardous waste generated. The decrease in the quantity of
hazardous waste generated monthly may help a facility reduce their generator
status and lessen the amount of regulations (i.e. recordkeeping, reporting,
inspections, transportation, accumulation time, emergency prevention and
preparedness, emergency response) they are required to comply with under
RCRA, 40 CFR 262
Recycling of used oil generally requires a facility to store large quantities of used
oil on site. A Spill, Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan is
required to be developed and implemented under 40 CFR 112 for facilities that
store certain amounts of oil on site.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
No materials compatibility issues identified.
There are mild skin and eye irritation effects associated with these compounds.
Personal protective equipment should be used. Consult your local industrial
health specialist, your local health and safety personnel, and the appropriate
MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
Potential of a 50 percent reduction in cutting fluid hazardous waste stream
Reduced purchase of new metal working fluids
6-II-5-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
Requires more careful monitoring of cutting fluid quality
For smaller shops, off-site recycling services may be more cost effective
The following example is for a facility that generates a fairly large quantity of
spent cutting fluid (3,000 gallons per year). Most facilities will generate less
than this amount thus extending the potential payback period. For smaller
shops, off-site recycling services may be more cost effective. The information
on recycling cutting fluids off-site was provided by Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.
The cost for fresh cutting fluid is based on vendor information. An economic
analysis comparing on-site cutting fluid recycling versus disposal can be found
on datasheet 6-1-8 Cutting Fluid Recycler.
Assumptions:
Mobile recycler recycles the cutting fluid on-site
Cutting fluids that are sent off-site for recycling are handled at no cost for
the facility
Cost of fresh cutting fluid of $3/gal
Typical activity usage rate of 3,000 gal/yr
Capital costs based on two 500-gallon tanks installed
$950 minimum charge per visit for less than 1,000 gallons (O & M)
Six visits per year
Annual Cost Comparison for
On-Site Recycling or Off-Site Recycling of Used Cutting Fluid
On-site Recycling Off-site Recycling
Operational Costs:
Service Cost
Fluid purchases:
Total Operational Costs:
Total Recovered Income:
Net Annual Cost/Benefit:
$5,700
$4,500
$10,200
$0
-$10,200
$9,000
$9,000
$0
-$9,000
Economic Summary
Annual Savings for On-site Recycling:
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process:
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process:
-$1,200
$3,000
N/A
6-II-5-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
Approval
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Vendors:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Mr. Jim McCullogh
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard
Shop31/Bldg300
Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03804-5000
Phone: (207) 438-5352/5305, Fax: (207) 438-5321
DLA:
Mr. Cliff Myers
Chemist
Defense Supply Center Richmond
Phone: (844) 279-3995 DSN 695-4257
The following are cutting fluid recycler equipment suppliers. This is not meant to
be a complete list, as there may be other suppliers of this type of equipment.
Fluid Recycling Services, Inc.
1308 E. Pomona St.
Santa Ana, CA 92704
Phone:(714)480-1282
CECOR Inc.
102 Lincoln Street
Verona, WI 53593
Phone: (608) 845-6771
Sanborn Environmental Systems
9 Industrial Park Rd.
Medway, MA 02093
Phone: (800) 343-3381, (508) 384-3181
6-II-5-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Master Chemical Corporation
501 West Boundary
Perrysburg, OH 43552-0361
Phone: (419) 874-7902, Fax: (419) 872-9206
Source: Mr. Cliff Myers, Defense Supply Center Richmond, March 1999.
6-II-5-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
SUBSTITUTE LUBRICANTS (NON-LEAD, NON-OZONE-DEPLETING SUBSTANCES)
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ML-99-99; Air Force: FA01, MT08, AD07; Army:
CLD, PST, VHM
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
Alternative for: Lead Based or Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS)
Compliance Areas: Medium
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Lead (CAS: 7439-92-1), ODS
Overview: Substitute lubricants that lack or contain reduced amounts of lead, ozone-
depleting compounds, or other hazardous or toxic substances are preferable
over conventional formulations. These lubricants reduce the consumption and
disposal of these other harmful formulations.
Formulations that use reduced amounts of hazardous and toxic compounds
should be employed over their dangerous alternatives. Product content may be
checked using the material safety data sheet (MSDS). In Section U of the
MSDS, chemical components and their percentage (or range of percentage) of
the product is presented. By comparing MSDSs for multiple products with the
same MIL SPEC and NSN, a more environmentally friendly product may be
selected. As a starting point, the list of hazardous and toxic compounds that
should be avoided include the ozone-depleting compounds (ODCs) and the
"EPA 17" list. Both of these lists are presented below.
Ozone-Depleting Compounds
Trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11)
Dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12)
Trichlorotrifluoroethane (CFC-113)
Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (CFC-114)
Chloropentafluoroethane (CFC-115)
Bromochlorodifluoromethane (Halon 1211)
Bromotrifluoromethane (Halon 1301)
Dibromotetrafluoroethane (Halon 2402)
Chlorotrifluoromethane (CFC-13)
Pentachlorofluoroethane (CFC-111)
Tetrachlorodifluoroethane (CFC-112)
Heptachlorofluoropropane (CFC-211)
Hexachlorodifluoropropane (CFC-212)
Pentachlorotrifluoropropane (CFC-213)
Tetrachlorotetrafluoropropane (CFC-214)
Trichloropentafluoropropane (CFC-215)
6-III-1-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Dichlorohexafluoropropane (CFC-216)
Chloroheptafluoropropane (CFC-217)
Carbon Tetrachloride
Trichloroethane
Dichlorofluoromethane (HCFC-21)
Chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC-22)
Tetrachlorofluoroethane (HCFC-121)
Trichlorodifluoroethane (HCFC-122)
Dichlorotrifluoroethane (HCFC-123)
Chlorotetrafluoroethane (HCFC-124)
Trichlorofluoroethane (HCFC-131)
Dichlorodifluoroethane (HCFC-132)
Chlorotrifluoroethane (HCFC-133)
DicMorofluoroethane (HCFC-141)
Chlorodifluoroethane (HCFC-142)
EPA 17 List
Benzene
Cadmium and compounds
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Chromium and compounds
Cyanides
Dichloromethane
Lead and compounds
Mercury and compounds
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Nickel and compounds
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Xylene(s)
Note: The number in parentheses is the halocarbon number formula.
Potentially applicable substitute lubricants are presented below. MIL SPEC
approval is presented where it is known.
6-III-1-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
MIL SPEC
Product
NSN
Comment
N/A
N/A
N/A
L-23398D
Amend 1, Type I
Break Free CLP
(Non-Chlorinated
in US since April
1993) Break-
Free, Inc.
Cleveland Maint:
No. 81246
Silicone Lubricant
Borden Inc.
Lubricating
Compound 1349
Silicone Lube
Molykote 3402C
(Low Lead) Dow
9150-01-054-
6453 (Liquid)
6850-00-105-
3084 (Aerosol)
9150-00-823-
7860
9150-00-823-
7860
9150-00-142-
9361
Substitute for general
purpose lubricants and
corrosion prevention
ODC-Free Substitute
ODC-Free Substitute
L-23398D
Amend 1, Type I
and II
L-46010D Type
m
L-46010D Type
m
L-46147A
L-46147B Type
m
L-63460
C-81302
Compliance
Benefit: Use
Molykote 3402C
(Low Lead) Dow
Solid Film
Lubricant Black
Solid film
Lubricant Natural
No Lead-Free
Substitute
Available
No Lead-Free
Substitute
Available
Break Free CLP
Non-Chlorinated
(Liquid)
Break Free CLP
Non-Chlorinated
(Aerosol)
9150-00-142-
9361
9150-01-416-
9509
9150-01-416-
9506
9150-01-054-
6453
6850-00-105-
3084
of substitute lubricants can decrease the
Low VOC, Lead-Free
Dry Film
Low VOC, Lead-Free
Dry Film
Non-Chlorinated
Non-Chlorinated
amount of hazardous waste
generated at a facility. The decrease in hazardous waste helps facilities meet the
requirements of waste reduction under RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix, and
may also help facilities reduce their generator status and lessen the amount of
regulations (i.e., recordkeeping, reporting, inspections, transportation,
accumulation time, emergency prevention and preparedness, emergency
response) they are required to comply with under RCRA, 40 CFR 262. In
addition, use of an ODS-free lubricant will help facilities meet the requirements
under 40 CFR 82, Subpart D and Executive Order 12843 requiring federal
6-III-1-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
agencies to maximize the use of safe alternatives to Class I and Class U ozone
depleting substances, to the maximum extent practicable.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
No materials compatibility issues were identified.
The concerns vary with the type of lubricants being used. Proper personal
protective equipment should be used, if needed. Consult your local Industrial
Health specialist, your local health and safety personnel, and the appropriate
MSDS prior to implementing any of these technologies.
Reduced consumption of hazardous substances,
Reduced worker exposure to hazardous substances
Wastes generated by product use may not be classified as hazardous
wastes
Substitute lubricants may cost more
More of a substitute lubricant may be required to do the same job as the
original lubricant
Economics depends upon the substitute lubricant chosen. An economic analysis
should compare the cost of the environmentally friendly product to the
previously used product. The analysis should account for different product
consumption rates (i.e., used to take 1 ounce of spray, now it requires 2
ounces), and for different labor amounts required to use the product.
The following economic analysis was based on vendor information provided for
the listed products. The following cost elements are used in comparing
BREAK-FREE CLP pump spray and WD-40ฎ aerosol cans for lubrication.
Assumptions:
WD-40ฎ, 16-ounce aerosol cans cost: $1.65 ea.
BREAK-FREE CLP, 16-ounce pump/trigger spray cost: $5.36 ea.
No significant difference in labor
No difference in disposal costs
Shop consumption for both is 16 ounces/week
6-III-1-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Refillable Spray Bottles and Aerosol Sprays
Operational Costs:
Lubricant costs:
Total Operational Costs:
Total Recovered Income:
Net Annual Cost/Benefit:
BREAK-FREE CLP WD-40ฎ Aerosol
Trigger/Spray
$278
$278
$0
-$278
Spray
$86
$86
$0
-$86
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Cost for 16 oz. BREAK-FREE CLP: $278
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $0
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: N/A
Note: Although ODC-free lubricants may be more expensive, they help reduce
the levels of ODCs in the atmosphere.
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
BreakFree CLP Liq.
BreakFree CLP Aer
81246SiliconeLub.
Molykote 3402C
Solid Film Lubricant (black)
Solid Film Lubricant (natural)
NSN
9150-01-054-6453
6850-00-105-3084
9150-00-823-7860
9150-00-142-9361
9150-01-416-9509
9150-01-416-9506
Unit Size
Cost
MSDS*
Ipt.
16 oz. Can
Ipt.
Igal.
6 gal
6 gal
$5.36
$9.64
$3.91
$90.58
$204.14
$196.68
Click me
Click me
Click me
Click me
Click me
Click me
*There are multiple MSDSsfor most NSNs. The MSDS shown here is only meant to serve as an
example. To return from the MSDS, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar
Approval
Authority:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
6-III-1-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Points of
Contact:
Vendors:
Army:
Mr. Dennis Harris, SAFR Program
AMCOM, Engineering Group
308 Crecy St., Bldg. 131
Corpus Christi, TX 97419
DSN: 939-2720, (512) 939-2720
Familiar with use of PEN-T
The following list is not meant to be complete, as there are other manufacturers
of this product.
Break-Free, Inc.
Mr. James Mercer, Head of Engineering
Mr. Donald Yoder, Military Sales and Service
1035 South Linwood Avenue
Santa Ana, CA
(714)953-1900
break-free@worldnet.att.net
Manufacturer of BREAK-FREE CLP, a ODS-free penetrant and lubricant,
available in aerosol and non-aerosol forms.
6-III-1-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
PARTICLE COUNTER FOR DETERMINING PURITY OF HYDRAULIC FLUID
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-14-04; Air Force: LA01; Army: LOP
Usage List: Navy: High; Marine Corps: High; Army: High; Air Force: High
Alternative for: The Patch Test (Filtration Testing) and its use of ODSs for Testing Hydraulic
Fluids
Compliance Areas: Medium
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: l,l,2-trichloro-l,2,2-trifluoroethane (CAS: 76-13-1),
1,1,1-trichloroethane (CAS: 71-55-6)
Overview: A particle counter tests hydraulic fluid quantitatively for contamination by shining
a laser through a set quantity of the fluid and counting quantity and size of
particles using a photo-detector. The particle counter is a highly effective,
accurate, proven electronic technology.
Hydraulic fluid contamination testing for foreign particles or worn metal has
traditionally been conducted using the patch test with CFC-113 (a Class 1
Ozone Depleting Substance [ODS] the use of which is no longer allowed),
Methyl Chloroform (Class 1 ODS), or Petroleum Solvent, as defined by federal
specification PD-680 Type II. The patch test is a three-step process whereby
hydraulic fluid is filtered using either a patch or filter, quick-dried using an
evaporating agent, and subsequently read by a trained operator. A particle
counter is superior for two reasons. First, it eliminates the use of the drying
agent (ODS or solvent). Second, it takes the subjectivity out of the process
and hence is a more consistent and accurate analytical method as compared to
the patch test.
Elimination of ODSs leaves PD-680 Type U as the only approved solvent for
use in patch tests. While PD-680 Type U offers a satisfactory alternative, it is
not an ideal solution. Problems associated with using PD-680 Type U include
increased drying time, use of inaccurate color standards, and subjective
interpretation of those standards. The end result is a less accurate, less
convenient, and more time-consuming testing procedure for hydraulic fluid
contamination.
The use of an electronic particle counter offers a viable alternative to the patch
test and produces a more accurate result. This equipment requires no
hazardous solvents, and test results are accurate and non-subjective. Use of
this technology is approved for Naval activities in the NAVAIR 01-1A-17
Hydraulic Manual.
6-III-2-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Through a Navy-funded effort to eliminate ODSs, in conjunction with the
Navy's Reverse Engineering Program (a hands-on effort to help field activities
deal with rapidly changing environmental regulations), particle counters have
been introduced to four prototype sites to completely eliminate the need for
CFC-113 in patch tests.
The goals of the hydraulic fluid contamination-testing project were to eliminate
the need for ODSs and reduce the need for a patch test. Subtasks of the
project included reviewing the sampling frequency requirements, evaluating field
replacements for the patch test, investigating alternate solvents, and prototyping,
at field level, the most promising candidates.
Electronic particle counting has long been approved as a means of determining
contamination of hydraulic systems, but has been mainly used as a depot
maintenance level practice due to the cost and complexity of the particle counter
equipment. Bench-top and portable particle counting equipment was evaluated
with the goal of finding an inexpensive portable unit suitable for deployment.
After investigation, it was determined that none of the portable units were
developed enough for prototype at field activities. Although rather costly, the
HIAC Model 8011 or 8003 with the ASAP sampler benchtop particle counter
appeared to be the best alternative. After a successful two-week initial
prototype aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt, four of the units (8011) were
procured for prototype at four sites (NAS Miramar, NAS Cecil Field, NAS
Oceana, and USS Theodore Roosevelt), at a total cost of $71,000.
After several months in the prototype stage, the results have been extremely
positive. The sample turnaround time has proven to be well within requirements
to maintain fleet readiness. The relationship between patch test results and
particle counter results has been acceptable. The mechanics using the particle
counter equipment are satisfied with its operation and prefer it use to the patch
test. The USS Theodore Roosevelt completed the transition to use of the
particle counter during their 6-month, 1993 cruise.
Compliance
Benefit: The use of a particle counter in place of an ODS will help facilities meet the
requirements under 40 CFR 82, Subpart D and Executive Order 12843
requiring federal agencies to maximize the use of safe alternatives to Class I and
Class U ozone depleting substances, to the maximum extent practicable. In
addition, a particle counter may also reduce the amount of solvents used on site
that may decrease the amount of hazardous waste generated. The decrease in
hazardous waste helps facilities meet the requirements of waste reduction under
RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix, and may also help facilities reduce both their
6-III-2-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
generator status and the number of applicable requirements (i.e., recordkeeping,
reporting, inspections, transportation, accumulation time, emergency prevention
and preparedness, emergency response) under RCRA, 40 CFR 262. The
decrease in solvent and/or ODS use on site will also decrease the possibility
that a facility will meet reporting thresholds for those chemicals under 40 CFR
355 and EO 12856.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
There are no materials compatibility issues raised by the use of electronic
particle counters.
Electronic particle counters require no special health and safety precautions,
although mild dermal and eye irritation effects can result from contact with
hydraulic fluids. Personal protective equipment should be used. Consult your
local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety personnel, and the
appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
Removes any subjectivity of the patch test
Eliminates the use of ODSs or solvents
Viable alternative to the patch test
Technology has been in use for over 20 years
Particle counters count both number and size of particles providing
quantitative results, thus providing a more accurate reading
More accurate testing may extend vehicle life
Routine calibration of units must be maintained to ensure valid results
Glassware used must be extremely clean
Cost of units
Portable units still in development
6-III-2-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Economic
Analysis: The following cost elements are for electronic particle counters for determining
purity of hydraulic fluid. The economic analysis presented below is for a
comparison of a typical patch test employing PD-680 solvent versus the particle
counter method. However, this cost analysis would be applicable independent
of the solvent employed in the patch test. This analysis is based on
Preproduction Initiative NELP performed at NAS North Island and NS
Mayport.
Assumptions:
Labor rate to operate particle counters (PC) and run Patch Test (PT):
$10.39/hr
Tests per year: 660
Time to run tests: PC - 8.5 minutes/test; PT - 1 hour/test
Mlliliters of P-D-680 Type H used per test: 115
Cost per milliliter: $0.000685
Cost of P-D-680 Type II per test: $0.08
Number of filters used per test: 1 filter
Cost per filter: $0.56
Number of Petri slides used per test: 1
Cost per Petri slide: $0.19
Total cost per test: $0.83
Mlliliters of waste generated per test: 230
Gallons of waste generated per year: 40
Pounds per gallon: 6.5 (estimated)
Disposal cost per pound: $2.10
PC generates 20 gallons of hydraulic fluid waste per year that is recycled at
no cost
Energy for PC and PT: negligible
Cost of printer paper and supplies: $422.4
Equipment costs: $7,500
6-III-2-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Operating Particle Counter and Patch Test
Particle Counter Patch Test
Operational Costs:
Labor: $970.2 $6,857
Material: $422.4 $547.8
Energy: $0 $0
Waste Disposal: $0 $546
System Maintenance: $116.55 $0
Total Operational Costs: $1,509 $7,951
Total Recovered Income: $0 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$1,509 -$7,951
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for Particle Counter: $6,442
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $7,500
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: 1.2 years
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost
Particle Counter 6635-01-041-5634 ea. $4,008.00
Particle Counter 6640-01-263-6618 ea. $19,170.31
Metal Part. Detector 2995-01-433-4830 ea. $8,220.00
Approving
Authority: Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required. USAF
activities must follow their governing technical orders for determining whether
the use of particle counters are appropriate for their application.
6-III-2-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
Sources:
Air Force:
Ms. Lois Gschwender
AFRL/MLBT
2941 P St., Ste. 1
WPAFB, OH 45433-7750
Phone: (937) 255-7530 DSN: 785-7530
Fax:(937)255-2176
Mr. Leo Broome
Product Engineering
San Antonio Air Logistics Center (SA-ALC/SFTT)
Phone: (210) 925-7613 DSN 945-7613
Fax: (210)925-9964
The following is a particle counter equipment manufacturer/supplier. This is not
meant to be a complete list, as there may be other manufacturers of this type of
equipment.
HIAC/ROYCO
Pacific Scientific Service, Inc.
11801 Tech Road
Silver Spring, MD 20904-1909
Phone: (800) 600-4422, Fax: (301) 622-0714
Mr. Leo Broome, San Antonio Air Logistics Center, January 1999.
Mr. Glen Fisher, HIAC/ROYCO, May 1996
Mr. Mike Patterson, Mensco, May 1996
Mr. Mike Gibson, Naval Aviation Depot-Cherry Point, May 1996
Mr. Michele Guerard, Millipore, June 1996
Mr. Grant Moscowitz, Ecolink, June 1996
P2 Equipment Book, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, May 1997
6-III-2-6
-------
-------
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
SEMI-SYNTHETIC AND SYNTHETIC COOLANT SUBSTITUTION
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-10-00; Air Force: RR-01; Army: MTF
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
Alternative for: Conventional Cutting Fluids
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: spent halogenated and non-halogenated solvents,
methylene chloride (CAS: 75-09-2), 1,1,1-trichloroethane (CAS: 71-55-6), trichlorofluoromethane
(CAS: 75-69-4), xylenes (CAS: 1330-20-7), acetone (CAS: 67-64-1)
Overview: Semi-synthetic and synthetic coolants typically have longer useful lives, and thus
require fewer changeouts than conventional oil-based cutting fluids. Semi-
synthetic and synthetic coolants are also more resistant to problems such as
rapid bacterial growth, which is often the reason coolants are disposed of
prematurely. At a typical shop, the personnel change cooling fluid when it emits
a rancid odor. The odor is caused by anaerobic bacterial growth and does not
indicate that the cutting fluid has lost its cooling and lubricating properties.
However, the presence of these microorganisms over a period of time can
cause coolants to degrade. The resulting adverse condition of the coolant
include foul odors, clogged transfer lines, changes in pH, and splitting emulsions.
These conditions can affect the quality of the final product.
The coolant is typically removed from the cutting machine's sumps when the
odor of the bacterial growth bothers shop personnel. On average, the coolant
is removed from the cutting machines every 3 weeks. The time between fluid
change is usually 2 to 3 weeks in the summer months, while it is extended to 3
to 4 weeks during the winter. This is due to the variance of temperature and
moisture, both of which affect the rate of bacterial growth.
Several DOD facilities have switched to a semi-synthetic coolant with
considerable success. Personnel at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in New
Hampshire, Code 120, have tested semi-synthetic coolants including Castrol
TLS-995 and DASCOOL 2003. This effort was conducted as part of a
NAVSEA machine shop modernization program to determine cutting fluid
pollution prevention alternatives among eight naval shipyards. The results
showed that the semi-synthetic coolant had been in use for over 6 months
without changeout or experiencing the bacterial growth problems encountered
at other facilities which use oil-based coolants. By switching to a semi-synthetic
coolant that would last 6 months, an activity can reduce the amount of coolant
waste by almost 90%, as evidenced at NADEP Norfolk.
6-III-3-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Compliance
Benefit:
Both synthetic and conventional oil-based coolants may be characterized as
hazardous due to the product's formulation. Waste reduction is achieved as a
result of longer service life of synthetic coolants compared to oil-based
coolants. Either formulation may be a characteristic hazardous waste. Under
40 CFR Part 279, "Used Oil Management Standards," used oil is defined as
oil refined from crude (or any synthetic oil), used as a lubricating, hydraulic, or
heat transfer fluid, and has become contaminated through use. Coolants may be
managed under these regulatory provision and recycled as opposed to
disposed.
A facility will use less semi-synthetic and synthetic coolants than a traditional
coolant since they do not need to be changed out as often. Since less coolant
should be stored on site, a facility may decrease the possibility they will meet
any reporting thresholds for those chemical under 40 CFR 355 and EO
12856.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
No materials compatibility issues were identified.
There are mild dermal and eye irritation effects associated with these
compounds. Personal protective equipment should be used. Consult your
local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety personnel, and the
appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
Reduce coolant waste by as much as 90%
Lower disposal costs
Reduce coolant replacement costs
Semi-synthetic and synthetic coolants cost more than oil-based coolants
The extra expenditure in purchasing semi-synthetic and synthetic coolants is
offset by the savings incurred from by the reduced frequency of coolant
replacement. For this economic analysis, the synthetic cutting fluid prices were
provided by DLA and the oil-based cutting fluid prices were obtained through
6-III-3-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
vendors. The labor time for replacement of cutting fluids and recycling data
were based on estimates provided by the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.
Assumptions:
Spent cutting fluid generation rate for oil-based: 2 gal/hr, 4,212 gal/yr
Labor to replace machine cutting oils is estimated at approximately 2 hours
per week
Both oil-based and synthetic cutting fluids are recycled at no cost to the
facility.
Cost of fresh oil-based cutting fluid: $5.60/gal
Cost of synthetic cutting fluid: $16.41/gallon based on a purchase of a 55
gallon drum
Use of synthetic reduces amount of coolant waste generated by 85 percent,
reduces labor for changing fluid by 85 percent.
Labor cost: $30/hr
Annual Operating Cost Comparison of
Synthetic and Oil-based Cutting Fluids
Synthetic Oil-based
Operational Costs:
Labor: $468 $3,120
Fluid purchases: $10,367 $23,587
Total Operational Costs: $10,835 $26,707
Total Recovered Income: $0 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: $-10,835 $-26,707
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for Synthetic: $15,872
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $0
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: Immediate
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
6-III-3-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
NSN/MSDS:
Product
Dascool 2003 Cutting Fluid
NSN
6850-01-387-4484
Unit Size Cost MSDS*
55 gal. drum $902.75 Click me
*There are multiple MSDSsfor most NSNs. The MSDS shown here is only meant to serve as an
example. To return from the MSDS, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar
Approval
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Vendors:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Mr. Jim McCullogh
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard
Shop31/Bldg300
Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03804-5000
Phone: (207) 438-5352/5305, Fax: (207) 438-5321
Mr. D. Keith Shroyer
Chemical Engineer
Code 106
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard
1400 Farragut Ave.
Bremerton, WA 98314
Phone:(360)476-8151
DSN 439-8151
DLA:
Mr. Clifford Myers
Chemist
Defense Supply Center Richmond
Phone: (804)279-3995 DSN 695-4257
The following is a list of synthetic metal cutting fluid coolant manufacturers. This
is not meant to be a complete list, as there may be other manufacturers of these
products.
Castrol Industrial East Inc.
775 Louis Dr.
Warminster, PA 18974
(215)443-5220
6-III-3-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Cincinnati Milacron
4701 Marbury Ave.
Cincinnati, OH 45209
(513)841-8100
(800) 909-6452
URL: http://www.milacron.com
Spartan Chemical Co., Inc.
1110 Spartan Drive
Maumee, OH 43537
(800)537-8990
D. A. Stuart Inc.
43 Upton Road
Scarborough, Ontario
M1L2C1 CANADA
Phone: (416)757-3226
Fax: (416)757-3220
URL: http'J/www.dastuart. com
6-III-3-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
CORRUGATED CARDBOARD REDUCTION AND RECYCLING
Revision 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: N/A; Air Force: N/A; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: High; Marine Corps: High; Army: High; Air Force: High
Alternative for: Landfilling
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: N/A
Overview: Cardboard is reportedly the largest single source of recovered paper,
comprising 51% of all paper recovered for recycling in the U.S. (American
Forest and Paper Association, 1999). If reducing the amount of cardboard
used for packaging is not feasible (source reduction), then it should be recycled
or composted. Corrugated cardboard is made from strong, good quality wood
fiber and includes un-waxed cardboard boxes and brown paper bags.
Paperboard cartons such as cereal boxes, waxed cardboard used for
packaging fresh vegetables, and other non-corrugated boxes cannot be
recycled as cardboard but may be recycled with mixed paper products.
Waxed corrugated cardboard can be reused. The American Forest and
Paper Association has a complete listing of locations that will accept waxed
corrugated boxes. This list can be found on their website at
http://www.afandpa.org. or call them at (800) 878-8878. Waxed cardboard can
also be composted or pelletized for use as fuel in industrial boilers. Cardboard
usage on base is widespread and contributes significantly to the waste stream
disposed in landfills, even though cardboard is universally marketable,
profitable, and easily recycled.
The simplest and most cost-effective method for reducing the amount of
cardboard is through source reduction. Many suppliers over-package goods
because they assume customers prefer heavily packaged products. If an item
can be delivered with less cardboard or other packaging, it is recommended
that the end user negotiate with the supplier to minimize the excess packaging.
If source reduction is not an option, then the cardboard should be recycled.
The first step in setting up a recycling program is to identify local markets and
contact paper dealers to determine dealer and end-user requirements. Some
dealers require that the corrugated material be baled; while others will take
loose material. The regular waste hauler may also be willing to collect the
corrugated cardboard separately, depending on the volume generated and the
availability of local markets. To obtain more information on how to implement a
corrugated cardboard recycling program, visit The Corrugated Packaging
7-I/A-l-l
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Council's website at http://www.corrugated.ore. or call them at either (847) 364-
9600 or their 24 hour toll free hotline (800) 879-9777.
There are four methods of bundling corrugated cardboard for storage and
marketing: loosely bundling, flat packing, baling, and piling in roll-off containers.
Small quantity generators generally flatten boxes and tie them (loosely bundled).
Flat packing is similar except that flattened boxes are stacked on a pallet about
shoulder high and then banded. Balers are commonly used by small, medium,
and large generators of cardboard for compacting into stackable rectangles.
The bales are much easier to handle and move than bundled cardboard and can
be picked up with a forklift. Baling sometimes increases the market value of the
cardboard. For larger generators, a roll-off compactor or stationary dumpster
may be used for collecting loose, flattened cardboard. These containers will
typically hold 30 cubic yards. A dealer may provide a roll-off container if it can
be filled quickly; (about once per week) on a consistent basis.
If cardboard recycling is not possible, it can be composted. The cardboard
should be shredded so that it will mix with other materials and decompose
quickly.
Compliance
Benefits:
Recycling corrugated cardboard or reducing the use of cardboard will help
facilities meet the requirements under Executive Order 13101 requiring
executive agencies (e.g., DOD) to incorporate waste prevention and recycling
in their daily operations. Facilities increase electricity usage by using balers to
bundle cardboard. Under EO 12902 facilities are required to reduce energy
consumption.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Paperboard cartons such as cereal boxes, other non-corrugated boxes and
waxed cardboard cannot be recycled as cardboard.
N/A
Benefits:
Reduces the volume of waste disposed in landfills by an average of 12.7%
(U.S. EPA, 1994)
7-I/A-1-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Reduces landfill disposal fees
Generates revenue from the sale of the cardboard
Disadvantages:
Training of waste generators will be required, so they can separate
cardboard waste properly.
Economic
Analysis:
Capital costs for a cardboard recycling system will depend on the selected
handling systems:
Recycling trailers (16 x 7 x 8 ft) for collecting loose, flat corrugated
cardboard will cost approximately $1,500 each.
Capital costs for balers range from $8,000 to $150,000, depending on the
model type and capacity required.
The operating costs for a cardboard recycling program include labor costs for a
coordinator/monitor, collection costs (if applicable), materials handling costs (if
applicable), and transportation costs to deliver the material if pick-up service is
not arranged with the recycler. These operating costs are usually offset by
savings incurred from reduced landfill disposal fees and revenue from the sale of
the cardboard.
Market prices for cardboard are $15 to $30/ton (1996), based on recent
surveys in selected regions, with prices on the West Coast generally higher ($80
to $110/ton). The costs presented below are incremental costs for a cardboard
recycling program that is incorporated into a large scale recycling program
which includes other recyclables (e.g. aluminum cans, plastic bottles, etc.) In
many cases where cardboard recycling is incorporated into an existing recycling
program, the purchase of additional recycling equipment (e.g. baler) may not be
necessary. Hence, this is a conservative analysis.
Assumptions:
Two tons of cardboard recycled per week
Cost of recycling trailer: $1,500
Cost of baler: $10,000
Labor for cardboard collection/separation: 4 hrs/week
Labor for transportation to landfill: 1 hr/week
Labor rate: $30/hr
7-I/A-1-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Transportation cost to on-base recycle center: $50/month
Transportation cost to landfill: $150/month
Landfill cost: $25/ton (California)
Market price of cardboard: $90/ton (California)
Annual Operating Cost Comparison of
Diversion and Disposal for Cardboard Recycling
Diversion Disposal
Operational Costs:
Labor: $6,240 $1,560
Transportation $600 $1,800
Landfill Fees $0 $2,600
Total Operational Costs: $6,840 $5,960
Total Recovered Income: $9,360 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: $2,520 -$5,960
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for Cardboard Recycling: $8,480
* Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $11,500
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: <2 Years
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost
None Identified
Approval
Authority: Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
7-I/A-1-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Points
of Contact:
Navy:
Mr. Wallace Eakes, ESC 426
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
1100 23rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, California 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-4882, DSN: 551-4882, Fax: (805) 982-4832
Ms. Heather Lowry
Corrugated Packaging Council
2850 Golf Road
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Phone: (847) 364-9600, (800) 879-9777 (24-hr toll-free number)
Fax: (847) 364-9639
URL: http://www.corrugated.org
Vendors:
Sources:
American Forest and Paper Association
1111 19th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (800) 878-8878, Fax: (202) 463-2785
URL: http://www.afandpa.org
Ms. Eileen Kao
Business Recycling Coordinator for Montgomery County, Maryland
Division of Solid Waste Services
Montgomery County of Public Works and Transportation
101 Monroe Street
Rockville, MD 20850
Phone: (301) 217-2770, Recycling Hotline: (301) 217-2870
Fax:(301)217-2681
Local and state solid waste management government authorities.
See Equipment - Balers and Recycling Trailers.
Ms. Heather Lowry, Corrugated Packaging Council, April 1999.
Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection, Your Guide to Recycling:
Used Corrugated Cardboard.
U.S. EPA, Characterization of Municipal So lid Waste in the United States: 1994 Update.
PaperMatcher Recycling Directory (publication of the American Forest and Paper
Association)
7-I/A-1-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
ALUMINUM CAN RECYCLING
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: N/A; Air Force: N/A; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: High; Marine Corps: High; Army: High; Air Force: High
Alternative for: Landfilling
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: N/A
Overview:
Compliance
Benefit:
Aluminum cans represent less than one percent (0.4%) of the solid municipal
waste stream, but their high value and ease of collection can generate revenue to
help pay for the recycling of other commodities. Aluminum can makers and
recyclers are committed to increasing the national recycling rate in order to drive
their percentage of the waste stream even lower.
The aluminum beverage can is currently the most recycled package on the
market today. Once recycled, the aluminum beverage can returns to the
retailer's shelf as a new, filled can in as little as 60 days after collection. In
those 60 days, the cans are remelted, rolled, manufactured, and distributed.
Aluminum smelters, can manufacturers, recycling centers and scrap dealers are
all good sources to return your aluminum cans, all paying competitive prices for
scrap. Aluminum cans are traded like a commodity with price premiums being
offered based on greater poundage recycled.
Aluminum cans must be separated, clean, and dry to be of value. Cans can be
source separated by base residents and personnel participating in curbside or
voluntary drop-off collection programs, or separated at a materials recovery
facility. "Reverse vending" machines are another collection option available for
lease or purchase. Recyclers insert their used aluminum cans into automatic
recycling machines for weighing and receive cash or vouchers in exchange.
Aluminum cans can be compacted into bales, or shredded to reduce storage
and transportation requirements to the reclamation center where they are melted
down for reuse. The amount of processing required depends on the needs of
the buyer.
Recycling aluminum cans will help facilities meet the requirements under
Executive Order 13101 requiring executive agencies (e.g., DOD) to
incorporate waste prevention and recycling in their daily operations.
7-I/A-2-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
N/A
Proper personal protective equipment, such as long sleeves and gloves, should
be worn when handling scrap metal.
Consult your local industrial health specialist and your local health and safety
personnel prior to implementing this technology.
Reduces the volume of waste disposed in landfills by approximately 1%
(U.S. EPA 1994)
Conserves energy and natural resources used to produce new aluminum
Reduces landfill disposal fees
Generates revenue
Requires little, if any, simple off-the-shelf processing equipment
Encourages the recycling of other commodities
Training of waste generators will be required, to ensure that aluminum waste
streams can be properly separated
Aluminum must be segregated from steel, plastic and other debris
Economic
Analysis:
Aluminum recycling can be incorporated into residential and commercial or
industrial recycling programs with minimal capital costs. The same collection
containers used for curbside collection of residential recyclables can be used for
aluminum collection. Dedicated collection containers can be purchased for
offices or other commercial/industrial areas to increase aluminum recovery from
the commercial/industrial waste stream. Operating costs for recycling aluminum
include labor costs for a coordinator/monitor, collection costs (if applicable),
materials handling costs (e.g., separation of metal by type), and transportation
costs to deliver the material if pick up service is not arranged with the
contractor. These operating costs can be offset with reduced landfill disposal
fees and revenue from the sale of the aluminum.
7-I/A-2-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Based on vendor information, capital costs for the purchase of a typical
recycling unit would be approximately $20,000. Operating costs would include
maintenance activities (e.g. cleaning of the unit, trash removal, coin loading),
consumer revenue, and transportation costs to deliver the cans to market.
Market prices for aluminum range from $350 to $800/ton from local recycling
centers, with prices on the West Coast considerably higher (greater than
$l,000/ton). Higher market prices are generally obtained for good quality
(uncontaminated) metal cans.
Assumptions:
Medium scale aluminum collection program: 1 ton/month
Purchase of 40 curb side recycling containers: $15/container
Purchase of one large collection bin: $500
Labor for collection/separation of aluminum containers: 2 hrs/week
Landfill fee: $25/ton
Labor rate: $30/hr
Transportation cost to on-base recycle center: $50/month
Transportation cost to landfill: $150/month
Aluminum market price: $800/ton
Annual Operating Cost Comparison of
Diversion and Disposal for Aluminum Can Recycling
Diversion Disposal
Operational Costs:
Labor: $3,120 $0
Transportation $600 $1,800
Landfill Fees $0 $300
Total Operational Costs: $3,720 $2,100
Total Recovered Income: $9,600 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: $5,880 -$2,100
7-I/A-2-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for Diversion Method over Disposal $7,980
* Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $1,100
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: < 1 Year
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
Recyclable Container
Recyclable Container
Approval
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
NSN
8115-01-430-5668
8115-01-429-9984
Unit Size Cost
ea. 20x1 IxSOin. $56.93
(25) 15xlOx5in. Local Purchase
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Mr. Wallace Eakes, ESC 426
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
110023rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, California 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-4882, DSN: 551-4882, Fax: (805) 982-4832
Ms. Jenny Day
Can Manufacturers Institute
1625 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 232-4677, (888) -9ROUNDUP
Fax: (202) 232-5756
URL: www.cancentral.com
7-I/A-2-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Vendors:
The following vendors manufacture recycling containers. They do not represent
a complete listing, as other similar manufacturers of this type of equipment may
exist.
Sources:
FIBREX, Inc.
3734 Cook Blvd.
Chesapeake, VA 23 3 23
Phone: (800) 346-4458 or (757) 487-5744
Fax: (757) 487-5876
Recycling Products, Inc.
P.O. Box 5009
Bradford, MA 0183 5
Phone: (800) 875-1735
Fax: (978) 372-3953
Rehrig Pacific Company
173 8 West 20th Street
Erie, PA 16502
Phone: (800) 458-0403
Fax:(814)455-3997
SSI Schaefer
10021 Westlake Dr.
P.O. Box 7009
Charlotte, NC 28241
Phone: (704) 588-2150
Fax:(704)588-1862
Toter, Incorporated
P.O. Box 5338
841 Meachum Road
Statesville, NC 28677
Phone: (800) 772-0071
Windsor Barrel Works
P.O. Box 47
Kempton, PA 19529-0047
Phone: (800) 807-2860
Fax:(215)756-6389
Ms Jenny Day, Can Manufacturers Institute, April 1999.
U.S. EPA, Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1997 Update.
7-I/A-2-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
STEEL CAN RECYCLING
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: N/A; Air Force: N/A; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: High; Marine Corps: High; Army: High; Air Force: High
Alternative for: Landfilling
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: N/A
Overview: Recycling steel cans may generate income based on their market value as well
as save energy and resources. However, steel cans contribute only a small
portion to the municipal wastestream disposed in landfills. The steel category
includes bi-metal cans (steel cans with an aluminum top), and tin cans (steel
cans coated with tin).
Magnetic separation makes steel cans easy to reclaim from commingled
recyclable material. Alternatively, steel cans can be source separated by base
residents and personnel participating in curbside or voluntary drop-off collection
programs. Processing requirements for steel cans vary, but generally the cans
should be rinsed. The labels on the cans do not need to be removed prior to
recycling. The lids on the cans can also be recycled (including steel lids from
glass and plastic bottles). In addition to steel food and beverage containers,
empty steel paint and aerosol cans are also accepted by the steel industry for
recycling. Paint cans do not need to be rinsed, but the thin layer of skin paint
remaining in the empty can must be dry. Aerosol cans must be completely
empty, with the plastic lid removed (spray nozzles do not need to be removed
for recycling). The can scrap may be baled, bundled, or shipped loose to the
recycling facility. There may be specific requirements set by the recycler on
bale size and density or bundle weight and density.
The three major potential markets (steel industry, foundries, and de-tinning
companies) have specific requirements for purchasing post-consumer steel cans.
It is essential to finalize market arrangements prior to processing the cans to
ensure that the preparation process will be acceptable.
The marketability of steel cans depends on the form and purity of the recovered
scrap. Clean compressed steel is more marketable and has a higher value.
Equipment is available to compress the cans; as well as remove the contents.
7-I/A-3-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Compliance
Benefit:
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Recycling steel cans will help facilities meet the requirements under Executive
Order 13101 requiring executive agencies (e.g., DOD) to incorporate waste
prevention and recycling in their daily operations.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
N/A
Consult the base safety office and your local industrial health specialist to
determine the proper personal protection equipment (PPE) and the necessary
training prior to using this technology.
Reduces the volume of waste disposed in landfills by up to 1.3 % (U.S.
EPA 1994)
Conserves energy and natural resources needed to produce new steel
Reduces landfill disposal fees
Minimal processing equipment requirements
Disadvantages:
May not be marketable in a few regions
May not be economical to recycle small quantities
Training of waste generators will be required, to ensure that steel waste
streams can be properly separated.
Economic
Analysis:
Steel recycling can easily be incorporated into residential and
commercial/industrial recycling programs with minimal additional capital costs.
The same collection containers used for curbside collection of residential
recyclables can be used for steel collection. Dedicated collection containers
can be purchased for offices or other commercial/industrial areas to increase
steel recovery from the commercial/industrial waste stream. Operating costs for
recycling steel include labor costs for a coordinator/monitor, collection costs (if
applicable), materials handling costs (e.g. separation of metal by type), and
transportation costs to deliver the material, if pick up service is not arranged
7-I/A-3-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
with the contractor. These operating costs can be offset with reduced landfill
disposal fees and revenue from the sale of the aluminum and steel.
Market prices for steel fluctuate on a regular basis. To obtain information on
the current market value for steel, contact The American Metals Market at
412-281-4405 (URL: http://www.amm.coml or Waste News 330-836-9180
(URL: http://www.wastenews.com). For the most part, higher market prices are
generally obtained for good quality (uncontaminated) metal cans. The recycling
program presented below is dedicated only to steel can recycling. The payout
period for this example is primarily a function of the market price for steel,
which at the time of this datasheet update is $30/ton. Steel can recycling will be
more cost effective if incorporated into an existing program that also includes
glass and aluminum recycling.
Assumptions:
Medium scale steel can collection program: 1 ton/month
Purchase of 40 curb side recycling containers: $15/container
Purchase of one large collection bin: $500
Labor for collection/separation of steel can containers: 1 hr/week
Landfill fee: $25/ton
Labor rate: $30/hr
Transportation cost to recycle center: $50/month
Transportation cost to landfill: $150/month
Recycled steel market price: $30/ton
Annual Operating Cost Comparison of
Diversion and Disposal for Steel Can Recycling
Diversion Disposal
Operational Costs:
Labor: $1,560 $0
Transportation $600 $1,800
Landfill Fees $0 $300
Total Operational Costs: $2,160 $2,100
Total Recovered Income: $360 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$1,800 -$2,100
7-I/A-3-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for Steel Can Recycling: $300
* Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $1,100
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: <4 years
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
Recyclable Container
Recyclable Container
Approval
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
NSN
8115-01-430-5668
8115-01-429-9984
Unit Size
ea. 20x1 Ix30in.
(25) 15xlOx5in.
Cost
$56.93
Local Purchase
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Mr. Wallace Eakes, ESC 426
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
110023rd Avenue
PortHueneme, California 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-4882, DSN: 551-4882, Fax: (805) 982-4832
Steel Recycling Institute - Headquarters
Mr. Greg Crawford, V.P. of Recycling Operations
680 Andersen Drive
Pittsburgh, PA 15220-2700
Phone: (800) 876-7274
Fax: (412) 922-3213
Steel Recycling Institute - Northeast Region
Mr. Chuck Netdeship, Regional Manager
1740 Massachusetts Avenue
Boxborough, MA 01719
Phone:(978)266-1847
7-I/A-3-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Steel Recycling Institute - Central East Region
Ms. Maribeth Rizzuto, Recycling Manager
680 Andersen Drive
Pittsburgh, PA 15220-2700
Phone:(412) 922-3049
Fax: (412) 922-3213
Vendors: The following vendors manufacture recycling containers. They do not represent
a complete listing, as other similar manufacturers of this type of equipment may
exist.
FIBREX, Inc.
3734 Cook Blvd.
Chesapeake, VA 23 3 23
Phone: (800) 346-4458 or (757) 487-5744
Fax: (757) 487-5876
Recycling Products, Inc.
P.O. Box 5009
Bradford, MA 0183 5
Phone: (800) 875-1735
Fax: (978) 372-3953
Rehrig Pacific Company
173 8 West 20th Street
Erie, PA 16502
Phone: (800) 458-0403
Fax:(814)455-3997
SSI Schaefer
10021 WestlakeDr.
P.O. Box 7009
Charlotte, NC 28241
Phone: (704) 588-2150
Fax:(704)588-1862
Toter, Incorporated
P.O. Box 5338
841 MeachumRoad
Statesville, NC 28677
Phone: (800) 772-0071
7-I/A-3-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Windsor Barrel Works
P.O. Box 47
Kempton, PA 19529-0047
Phone: (800) 807-2860
Fax:(215)756-6389
Sources: Ms. Paula Thompson, Steel Recycling Institute, April 1999.
U.S. EPA, Characterization of Municipal So lid Waste in the United States: 1994 Update.
7-I/A-3-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
GLASS RECYCLING AND REUSE
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: N/A; Air Force: N/A; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: High; Marine Corps: High; Army: High; Air Force: Low
Alternative for: Landfilling
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: N/A
Overview: Food and beverage glass containers can be reused or recycled. Windows,
mirrors, and other non-recyclable glass can be crushed for use as aggregate in
construction projects. Glass comprises a significant portion of municipal waste
streams, has a reasonable market value (with an added redemption value in
some states), and the public is generally aware that it is recyclable. In addition,
a simple glass-recycling program requires no processing equipment.
Glass should be reused if possible to reduce losses associated with recycling.
In the U.S. reusable bottles are found only in the wine and beer industry. Some
beer companies bottle their product in reusable, heavier bottles. The companies
then sell the reused bottles to bars and drinking establishments. Since the
bottles never leave the site, they are easily picked up by the manufacturer when
the next delivery is made. Wine bottles are also made from a thicker glass and
some wineries will accept them for refilling. However, only designated refillable
wine bottles should employ this practice. According to the Glass Packaging
Institute, refilling non-refillable bottles is a controversial practice and not
recommended by the industry due to safety concerns. On-base drinking
establishments can contract with suppliers to deliver beer and wine in returnable
bottles.
All food and beverage containers made from glass are recyclable, even if they
have no deposit value. In many states, beverage containers have a deposit
value and are often worth more whole than crushed, since it is possible to verify
the state's deposit value.
Recyclable glass is clear, brown, or green. The highest demand is for clear
glass, followed by brown or amber. Green glass is generally undesirable, as
there is typically an overabundant supply on the market. Broken, mixed-color
glass has a low value, and may not be marketable. Long distances to markets
may necessitate crushing the glass to lower transport costs. It can be broken
into pieces, called "cullet," with a glass crusher.
7-I/A-4-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
The primary market for recycled glass is in the manufacture of container glass.
Competition for good-quality recycled glass bottles and jars (i.e., free of
contaminants) that are separated by color is particularly intense. Recycled glass
is sold to end users as cullet. The cullet is generally sold to glass benefaction
facilities where it is cleaned and processed to meet the quality standards of glass
container manufacturers.
Contamination of recyclable glass is a serious impediment to glass container
recycling. Contaminants that are present in the glass stream include non-
recyclable glass, ceramics, metal caps, lids, bottleneck rings, stones, and dirt.
Standard separation equipment is available at beneficiary facilities to remove
contaminants. A new European technology has just been developed that
removes ceramic contaminates, however, it introduces another step in the
recycling process. The current technology for removing non-ferrous metal
(eddy current detectors) results in about 5% to 8% glass loss.
The glass container industry maintains a high demand for reasonably priced
cullet of good quality. Some states require minimum percentages of cullet in
new glass containers. Other uses for cullet include the manufacture of building
materials such as glass tile and composite wall panels, concrete applications,
construction aggregate, industrial mineral uses, insulation applications, paving
applications in road construction, and re-melt applications to make colored
windows and stained glass.
Window glass, Pyrex, and drinking glasses are of a different composition than
bottle glass and are considered contaminants to the container glass industry.
These non-recyclable glasses, along with non-marketable mixed color glass and
green glass, can be pulverized and turned into a fine sand that can be used in
construction and other applications. Crushed green glass has also been
successfully used atNAS Whidbey Island in place of pea gravel to provide a
bed for new culverts.
Compliance
Benefit: Recycling or reuse of glass containers will help facilities meet the requirements
under Executive Order 13101 requiring executive agencies (e.g., DOD) to
incorporate waste prevention and recycling in their daily operations.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
7-I/A-4-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Recycled glass must not contain contaminates, such as non-recyclable glass
(window glass, Pyrex, and drinking glasses), ceramics, plastic and metal bottle
caps, lids, bottleneck rings, stones, and dirt.
Precautions must be taken when handling glass. Safety gear such as heavy
gloves, long sleeves, boots, and eye protection should be worn to protect
handlers from broken and flying glass shards.
Consult the base safety office on procedures for handling glass.
Reduces the volume of waste disposed in landfills [national average volume
reduction = 5.7% (U.S. EPA, 1994)]
Achieves cost savings from reduced landfill disposal fees
Generates revenue from sale of recyclable glass
Reduces the purchase of aggregate for construction
Returnable bar bottles can be less expensive than disposables
Extreme care must be taken to avoid glass contamination
Glass commodities markets fluctuate frequently
Training of waste generators will be required, to ensure glass waste is
properly separated.
Economic
Analysis:
Glass recycling can be incorporated into residential and commercial/industrial
recycling programs with minimal additional capital costs. The same collection
containers used for curbside collection of residential recyclables can be used for
glass collection. Dedicated collection containers can be purchased for offices
or other commercial/industrial areas to increase glass recovery from the
commercial/industrial waste stream (see "EquipmentRecycling Containers").
Operating costs for recycling glass include labor costs for a
coordinator/monitor, collection costs (if applicable), materials handling costs
(e.g. separation of glass by color), and transportation costs to deliver the
material if pick up service is not arranged with a contractor. According to the
Glass Packaging Institute, transportation costs will vary depending on the
location of the collection site and the proximity of a recycling center. These
operating costs are usually offset by savings incurred from reduced landfill
disposal fees and revenue from the sale of the glass.
7-I/A-4-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Market prices for glass are currently $0 to $15/ton from local recycling centers,
based on recent surveys in selected regions, with prices on the West Coast
considerably higher ($10 to $50/ton). A higher market price could be obtained
if good quality glass is consistently delivered or the glass is delivered directly to
a glass processing facility. The recycling program presented below is dedicated
only to glass recycling. The long payout period for this example is primarily a
function of the market price for glass. Glass recycling will be more cost
effective if incorporated into an existing program that also includes steel and
aluminum recycling.
Assumptions:
Medium scale glass collection program: 1 ton/month
Purchase of 40 curb side recycling containers: $15/container
Purchase of one large collection bin: $500
Labor for collection/separation of glass containers: 1 hr/week
Landfill Fee: $25/ton
Labor rate: $30/hr
Transportation cost to recycle center: $50/month
Transportation cost to landfill: $150/month
Recycled glass market price: $ 15/ton
Annual Operating Cost Comparison of
Diversion and Disposal for Glass Recycling
Diversion Disposal
Operational Costs:
Labor: $1,560 $0
Transportation $600 $1,800
Landfill Fees $0 300
Total Operational Costs: $2,160 $2,100
Total Recovered Income: $180 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$1,980 -$2,100
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for Glass Recycling $120
* Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $1,100
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: <10 years
7-I/A-4-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
Recyclable Container
Recyclable Container
Approval
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
NSN
8115-01-430-5668
8115-01-429-9984
Unit Size
ea. 20x11x3 Oin.
(25) 15xlOx5in.
Cost
$56.93
Local Purchase
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Mr. Wallace Eakes, ESC 426
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
110023rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, California 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-4882, DSN: 551-4882, Fax: (805) 982-4832
Mr. Kevin Hardie
Glass Packaging Institute, Midwestern Office
770 East 73rd Street
Indianapolis, IN 46268
Phone:(317)283-1603
Mr. Doug Gibboney
Glass Packaging Institute, Northeastern States
P.O. Box 1088
Carlisle, PA 17013
Phone:(717)243-1738
Fax:(717)243-1658
Glass Packaging Institute, Headquarters
1627 K Street, N.W., Suite 800
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 887-4850
Fax: (202) 785-5377
7-I/A-4-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Vendors:
The following vendors manufacture recycling containers. They do not represent
a complete listing, as other similar manufacturers of this type of equipment may
exist.
Sources:
FIBREX, Inc.
3734 Cook Blvd.
Chesapeake, VA 23 3 23
Phone: (800) 346-4458 or (757) 487-5744
Fax: (757) 487-5876
Recycling Products, Inc.
P.O. Box 5009
Bradford, MA 0183 5
Phone: (800) 875-1735 Fax: (978) 372-3953
Rehrig Pacific Company
173 8 West 20th Street
Erie, PA 16502
Phone: (800) 458-0403 Fax: (814) 455-3997
SSI Schaefer
10021 WestlakeDr.
P.O. Box 7009
Charlotte, NC 28241
Phone: (704) 588-2150 Fax: (704) 588-1862
Toter, Incorporated
P.O. Box 5338
841 Meachum Road
Statesville, NC 28677
Phone: (800) 772-0071
Windsor Barrel Works
P.O. Box 47
Kempton, PA 19529-0047
Phone: (800) 807-2860 Fax: (215) 756-6389
Mr. DougGibboney, Glass Packaging Institute, April 1999.
Mr. Kevin Hardie, Glass Packaging Institute, April 1999.
Diaz, L. F., et. al., 1993, Composting and Recycling Municipal Solid Waste, Lewis
Publishers. Glass Packaging Institute - Mid Atlantic States.
Reindl, John, June 17, 1993, Reuse/Recycling of Glass Gullet for Non-container Uses.
Resource Recycling, August 1994, Removing Contaminants from Crushed Glass
Containers. Resource Recycling, 1994, Recycling Market Profile: Glass Containers
U.S. EPA, Characterization of Municipal So lid Waste in the United States: 1994 Update.
7-I/A-4-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
WOOD RECYCLING
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-05-00; Air Force: FA06; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: High; Marine Corps: High; Army: Medium; Air Force: High
Alternative for: Landfilling
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: N/A
Overview: A variety of wood wastes are generated from construction, demolition, and land
clearing operations. Wood wastes consist of: tree trimmings, scrap wood,
pallets, lumber, and shipping containers. Wood wastes are often classified as
Construction and Demolition (C&D) debris. Wood wastes can be diverted
from landfilling and used in a number of applications. Such applications include
lumber reuse, mulch, fibers for manufacturing, animal bedding, and biomass fuel.
Wood wastes can also be used in composting operations. Wood wastes can
be applied to cleared areas for dust suppression and runoff control. Such
wastes can also be reused for small construction and hobby projects.
Wood wastes can be reused in home heating or construction. Although this
diversion strategy is cost-free, it is often difficult to reuse all of the waste
products. If the wood wastes cannot be reused or taken offsite by a recycler,
the next viable diversion step is size reduction. Grinding is the most common
method used to reduce the size of wood wastes. Wood tub grinders are used
to reduce wood wastes into smaller particles. No screening is necessary. The
larger-sized output material from the tub grinder can be used as a biomass fuel
or as a bulking agent to balance high nitrogen loads in composting operations.
The smaller-sized material can be composted or used as mulch. However,
according to the Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, it is not
recommended to grind or compost wood covered with lead based paint.
During grinding this paint will generate a toxic dust cloud , where the lead can
leach into the compost. Wood wastes that are chipped or ground will
decompose more readily. Composted wood wastes can be used as a soil
amendment or fertilizer. The reduced wood wastes can also be used as mulch
and help grow grass at municipal and commercial landscape applications, such
as highway projects and golf courses. Mulch can also be used to control weed
growth.
Wood tub grinders are not limited in opening size like smaller chippers or
shredders. The grinders can process large and odd shaped wood including
stumps, pallets, and waste lumber. Material that is pressure treated, chemically
7-I/A-5-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
treated, or creosote contaminated should not be composted. Such wood
contains chemicals that inhibit plant growth or are toxic to the environment.
Avoid plywood or particle board since they contain glues which might be hard
on machinery, difficult to compost, and contain undesirable chemicals for land
application.
Compliance
Benefit:
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Recycling or reuse of wood will help facilities meet the requirements under
Executive Order 13101 requiring executive agencies (e.g., DOD) to
incorporate waste prevention and recycling in their daily operations.
Equipment to reduce the size of waste wood may increase a facilities need for
an air permit under 40 CFR 70 and 71.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
N/A
Safety issues for using the wood tub grinders concern the operation of power
equipment. Operators should be specifically trained to use the grinder. Proper
personal protective equipment including gloves, eye protection, and hearing
protection should be used.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
Produces usable products such as landscape mulch, fuel, and compost
agents
Wood wastes can be ground to a fine, even texture that will compost
quickly
The wood tub grinder can process large trees and finished lumber
Reusing or composting wood waste will result in a reduction of disposed
waste
Composted wood waste can be used as a soil amendment on base,
possibly reducing the need for purchased supplies
Cost savings are achieved from reduced landfill disposal fees
7-I/A-5-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
Requires an initial capital cost for the purchase of a wood tub grinder (or a
fee for a recycling company to perform on-site recycling services)
Increased costs associated with labor and operation and maintenance of the
equipment
The following recycling costs are based on the purchase of a wood tub grinder
for processing the wood wastes. The capital cost includes an 8 foot grinder
(HOhpdiesel).
Assumptions:
Process 1,000 tons/yr of wood waste @ 10 tons/hr
Produce 1,000 tons/yr of mulch
Tub grinder operated for 100 hrs/yr
Green waste disposal costs: $13/ton
Labor: 100 hrs/yr at $3 0/hr
Maintenance: 20 hrs at $30/hr
Engine rating: 110 hp
Heating value of diesel: 137,000 Btu/gal
Price of diesel: $ 1.5 0/gal
Mulch value: $25/ton
Diversion produces minimal effect on labor for solid waste
collection
Annual Operating Cost Comparison of
Diversion and Disposal for Wood Recycling
Diversion
Disposal
Operational Costs:
Labor:
Landfill costs:
Energy:
Maintenance:
Total Operational Costs:
Total Recovered Income:
Net Annual Cost/Benefit:
$3,000
$0
$310
$600
$3,910
$25,000
$21,090
$0
$13,000
$0
$0
$13,000
$0
-$13,000
7-I/A-5-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for Wood Recycling: $34,090
* Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $44,000
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: < 2 years
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values. To
return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
Tub Grinder
Approving
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
NSN
3660-01-385-1908
Unit Size
ea.
Cost
$90,000
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy
Mr. Wallace Eakes, ESC 426
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
110023rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, California 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-4882, DSN: 551-4882, Fax: (805) 982-4832
Mr. John Comstock
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
1100 23rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, California 93043-4370
Phone:(805)982-5315
The following is a list of wood tub grinder vendors. This is not meant to be a
complete list, as there may be other manufacturers of this type of equipment.
DuraTech Industries International
P.O. Box 1940
Jamestown, ND 58402-1940
Phone: (701)252-4601, Fax: (701)252-0502
7-I/A-5-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Morbark Sales Corporation
P.O. Box 1000
Winn, MI 48896
Phone: (800)233-6065
Sources: Mr. John Comstock, Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, May 1999.
Wood Diversion Strategies, Biocycle, January 1996.
Growing Wood Waste, Waste Age, May 1995.
Market Shift for California Wood Waste, Biocycle, November 1994.
Bob Darrow, A&M Disposal and Recycling, April 1996.
7-I/A-5-5
-------
-------
-------
/>'- -
' .
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
APPLIANCE RECYCLERS
Revision:
Process Code:
Usage List:
Alternative for:
5/99
Navy and Marine Corps: N/A; Air Force: N/A; Army: N/A
Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
Landfilling
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents:
7446-09-5)
Mercury (CAS: 7439-97-6), Sulfur Dioxide (CAS:
Overview:
Although appliances comprise only a small portion of the municipal waste
disposed in landfills, they do have a market value. According to the Steel
Recycling Institute (SRI), the steel that is used in appliances consists of a
minimum of 25 percent recycled steel, with the internal steel parts containing
anywhere between 25-100 percent recycled steel. According to SRI, steel
recycling saves on an annual basis the equivalent energy that is required to
power an estimated 18 million households electrically. All appliances are
recyclable, including refrigerators, washers, dryers, air conditioners, water
heaters, and de-humidifiers.
Appliance recyclers specialize in recovering all hazardous materials and wastes
prior to recycling the appliance as scrap metal. For a small fee, appliance
recyclers will pick up the appliance, transport it to their recycling facility and
conduct a multi-stage recycling program to recover all hazardous materials and
wastes. The following table presents the typical hazardous materials and wastes
recovered from appliances and their ultimate disposition.
Recovered Material/Waste
CFC-11
CFC-12
R22
500R500-502
PCBs
Mercury
Oil
Oil
S02
Type of Application
Refrigerator Foam Insulation
Refrigerator Compressors
Air Conditioner Compressor
Water Cooler Compressor
Motor Capacitors
Switches, Thermocouples
Refrigerator Compressors
Washing Machine Motors
Refrigerators Compressors
(pre-1960)
Ultimate Destination of
Recovered Material
Recycled for Reuse
Recycled for Reuse
Recycled for Reuse
Recycled for Reuse
Fli-Temp Incineration
Recycled for Reuse
Treatment to remove CFCs,
Oil then Recycled for Reuse
Recycled for Reuse
Disposed as Waste Gas
7-I/A-6-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Appliance recycling should only be conducted by fully licensed recyclers. As of
1997, 21 states have regulations restricting the disposal of appliances in
municipal landfills. California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts have strict
regulations regarding appliance disposal. Check with your state representative
to determine the regulations in your area.
Compliance
Benefit:
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Appliance recycling will help facilities meet the requirements under Executive
Order 13101 requiring executive agencies (e.g., DOD) to incorporate waste
prevention and recycling in their daily operations.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
N/A
Appliance recycling should only be conducted by trained professionals in a
licensed recycling facility. CFC recovery must be conducted in facilities
equipped for proper CFC recovery and in accordance with Clean Air Act
requirements. Gas operated appliances should not be recycled due to potential
explosion hazards.
Reduces the volume of waste disposed in landfills
Conserves natural resources needed to produce CFCs, mercury, oil, and
steel
Reduces landfill disposal fees
Disadvantages:
Currently not marketable in some regions
Scrap metal recyclers may refuse to accept metal from appliances due to
potential exposure to PCB and mercury components. Contracting with
trained licensed recycling contractors will address this concern.
Economic
Analysis:
Appliance recycling should only be conducted by trained licensed recycling
contractors. Recycling costs vary and are dependent upon the quantity of
appliances recycled and the region. Utility supported recycling programs are
7-I/A-6-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
currently conducted in California and New York. These programs are free and
in some cases include cash incentives. These programs typically require that the
recycled appliance is in good working order and is currently serving as a second
(spare) appliance in the household.
Average recycling fees for a medium scale (50-100 units per year) recycling
program range from $0 to $25 per appliance.
Assumptions:
Medium scale appliance recycling program: 50 units per year
Recycling fees: None
Labor for removal/transport of appliance to recycling center or
landfill: 2hrs/unit
Average appliance weight: 150 Ibs
Landfill fee: $25/ton
Labor rate: $30/hr
Transportation cost to recycle center or landfill: $l,000/year
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Diversion and Disposal for Appliance Recycling
Diversion Disposal
Operational Costs:
Labor: $3,000 $3,000
Transportation: $1,000 $1,000
Recycling fees: $0 $0
Landfill fees: $0 $100
Total Operational Costs: $4,000 $4,100
Total Recovered Income: $0 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$4,000 -$4,100
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for Appliance Recycling: $ 100
* Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $0
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: Immediate
7-I/A-6-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
Approving
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
Vendor:
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Mr. Wallace Eakes, ESC 426
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
1100 23rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, California 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-4882, DSN: 551-4882, Fax: (805) 982-4832
Steel Recycling Institute
1740 Massachusetts Avenue
Boxborough, MA 01719
Phone: (800) YES-1CAN (800-937-1226)
URL: www.recvcle-steel.org
The following vendor currently operates 14 dedicated appliance recycling
facilities. The employment of on-site appliance recyclers are discouraged due
to potential releases that may occur as a result of processing in a non-dedicated
recycling facility:
Appliance Recycling Centers of America (ARCA)
1823 llth Street
Sacramento, CA
Phone:(916)442-8695
Southern California Edison [(800) 234-9722] operates a utility supported
recycling program. This free program requires that the recycled appliance is in
good working order and is currently serving as a second (spare) appliance in
the household. Edison representatives will pick-up the appliance and transport
it to the ARCA facility in Compton, California.
7-I/A-6-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Sources: Mr. Chuck Nettle ship, Steel Recycling Institute, April 1999.
Ms. Glynnis Jones, Appliance Recycling Corporation of America, May 1996.
Mr. Carl Bowmen, Southern California Edison Company, May 1996.
7-I/A-6-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
PLASTIC RECYCLING
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: N/A; Air Force: N/A; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
Alternative for: Landfilling
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: N/A
Overview:
Although plastic containers contribute only a small portion of the municipal
wastestreams disposed in landfills, they have a market value and recycling saves
energy and resources. Plastic container recycling is currently being conducted
for a wide range of plastic products, including polyethylene terephthalate (PET),
high density polyethylene (HOPE), low density polyethylene (LDPE), and
polystyrene.
In order to identify the type of plastic from which a container is made, plastic
containers and other plastic products include a numerical code, within a triangle
with arrows, molded directly on the container. The numerical code, and the
corresponding plastic composition is as follows:
Numerical Code
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Plastic Composition
Polyethylene Terephthalate
High Density Polyethylene
Poly Vinyl Chloride
Low Density Polyethylene
Polypropylene
Polystyrene
Composite
Typical Application
Soda Bottles
Water Bottles and Milk Jugs
Plumbing
Film, Stretch Wrap
Pediatric Containers
Styrofoamฎ, Plastic Plates
Milk Cartons
Recycling programs for polyethylene terephthalate and high density polyethylene
plastics are well established in the United States and abroad. Recycling
programs for other plastic compositions have become more common in recent
years.
Plastic recycling can be easily incorporated into an existing curbside or
voluntary drop-off collection program for other recyclables such as aluminum
cans. To facilitate this process, plastic containers should be separated
according to the composition of the plastic by base residents and personnel
participating in collection programs. The different grades of plastic must be
thoroughly separated, otherwise the inclusion of mixed plastic may ruin an entire
7-I/A-7-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
melt during recycling. The segregated plastic containers can either be
transported to the recycler or in some cases arrangements can be made for the
recycler to provide pick-up services. For lightweight plastics such as
polystyrene, baling the containers prior to transport is recommended.
Processing requirements for plastic containers vary, but generally the containers
are rinsed, ground, and extruded into pellets for re-sale to container
manufacturers. Labels do not need to be removed.
Some restrictions apply to the recycling of plastics. Most notably, recycled
plastic cannot be re-used in the manufacture of food containers. The only
exception is co-extrusion, in which a virgin layer of plastic is used to line the
inside of the container so that only virgin plastic comes in contact with the food
product. Another restriction concerns the market for recycled plastics. Clear
plastic is preferred and depending upon the market demands, the need for
colored plastics may be limited. Recyclers may also be limited as to the type of
containers that they can process. In some cases, narrow neck bottles are
preferred.
A major component of shipboard solid wastes is plastic. In recent years the
Navy has made great progress in reducing plastic waste at sea. This work was
implemented after passage of the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control
Act of 1987. Specific actions include the implementation of a 3-day/20-day
rule, which requires all ships to store food-contaminated plastics for the last 3
days and non-food-contaminated plastic waste for at least the last 20 days at
sea. This rule has resulted in a 70% reduction in plastic waste discharges at
sea. The Navy has also implemented supply system changes for over 350,000
items to reduce or eliminate plastic packaging. This equates to over 475,000
pounds of plastic each year that will not be taken on board Navy ships. The
Navy has also developed a plastic processor, which compresses and sanitizes
plastics waste for storage on board. The plastic processor was approved for
full production in January 1995.
Compliance
Benefit: Recycling plastic or reducing the use of plastic will help facilities meet the
requirements under Executive Order 13101 requiring executive agencies (e.g.,
DOD) to incorporate waste prevention and recycling in their daily operations.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
7-I/A-7-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
N/A
Proper personal protective equipment such as long sleeves and gloves should
be worn when handling waste plastics.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
Reduces the volume of waste disposed in landfills
Conserves energy and natural resources needed to produce new plastic
containers
Reduces landfill disposal fees
Requires minimal processing equipment
May not be economical to recycle small quantities of plastics
Training of waste generators will be required, so they can separate the
wastes properly.
Economic
Analysis:
Plastic container recycling can easily be incorporated into residential and
commercial/industrial recycling programs with a minimum of additional capital
costs. The same collection containers used for curbside collection of residential
recyclables can be used for plastic collection. Dedicated collection containers
could be purchased for offices or other commercial/industrial areas to increase
plastic recovery from the commercial/industrial waste stream. Operating costs
for recycling plastic include labor costs for a coordinator/monitor, collection
costs (if applicable), materials handling costs (e.g. separation of plastic by
composition), and transportation costs to deliver the material, if pick up service
is not arranged with the contractor. These operating costs can be partially
offset with reduced landfill disposal fees and revenue from the sale of the plastic.
Market prices for recycled plastic are currently $200 to $1000/ton from local
recycling centers based on recent surveys in selected regions. As presented
below, a recycling program, dedicated only to plastic container recycling, is not
likely to be cost effective unless large quantities of plastic containers are
collected and sold. This is primarily a function of the market price for plastic. It
will however be cost effective if incorporated into an existing program that
includes glass and aluminum recycling.
7-I/A-7-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Assumptions:
Medium scale plastic container collection program: 2 tons/month
Purchase of 40 curb side recycling containers: $15/container
Purchase of one large collection bin: $500
Labor for collection/separation of plastic containers: 4 hrs/week
Landfill fee: $25/ton
Labor rate: $30/hr
Transportation cost to recycle center or landfill: $ 150/month
Recycled plastic price: $200/ton
Annual Operating Cost Comparison of
Diversion and Disposal for Plastic Container Recycling
Diversion Disposal
Operational Costs:
Labor: $3,100 $0
Transportation $1,800 $1,800
Landfill Fees $0 600
Total Operational Costs: $4,900 $2,400
Total Recovered Income: $4,800 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$100 -$2,400
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for Plastic Container Recycling: $2,300
* Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $1,100
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: <1 year
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost
Recyclable Container 8115-01-430-5668 ea. 20xllx30in. $56.93
Recyclable Container 8115-01-429-9984 (25) 15xlOx5in. Local
Purchase
7-I/A-7-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Approval
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Mr. Wallace Eakes, ESC 426
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
1100 23rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, California 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-4882, DSN: 551-4882, Fax: (805) 982-4832
Mr. John Comstock
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
110023rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, California 93043-4370
Phone:(805)982-5315
Plastic Recyclers
Talco Plastics (HDPE Recycling)
3270 E. 70th Street
Long Beach, CA 90805
Phone: (562) 630-1224
National Polystyrene Recycling Company
720 S. Temescal Street
Corona, CA 91719
Phone: (909) 736-7040
Fax:(909) 734-9588
Marplast Plastic
5160GabbertRoad
Moorpark, CA 93021
Phone: (805) 529-9790
Recycling Containers
FIBREX, Inc.
3734 Cook Blvd.
Chesapeake, VA 23323
Phone: (800) 346-4458 or (757) 487-5744
Fax: (757) 487-5876
7-I/A-7-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Recycling Products, Inc.
P.O. Box 5009
Bradford, MA 0183 5
Phone: (800) 875-1735
Fax: (978) 372-3953
Rehrig Pacific Company
173 8 West 20th Street
Erie, PA 16502
Phone: (800) 458-0403
Fax:(814)455-3997
SSI Schaefer
10021 WestlakeDr.
P.O. Box 7009
Charlotte, NC 28241
Phone: (704) 588-2150
Fax:(704)588-1862
Toter, Incorporated
P.O. Box 5338
841 Meachum Road
Statesville, NC 28677
Phone: (800) 772-0071
Sources: Mr. John Comstock, Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, May 1999.
EPA, Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1994 Update.
Mr. William O'Grady, Talco Plastics, May, 1996.
Mr. Tim Campbell, Talco, May, 1996.
Mr. David Goldstein, Ventura County, May 1996.
Ms. Shield Martin, State of California Department of Conservation, Division of
Recycling, May 1996.
7-I/A-7-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION MATERIAL RECYCLING
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: N/A; Air Force: N/A; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
Alternative for: Landfilling
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: N/A
Overview: Construction and demolition (C&D) waste consists of concrete, asphalt, wood,
fixtures, rebar, metals, drywall, roofing, and other materials. Many of these
building materials and the majority of asphalt and concrete waste can be
recycled. Recycling C&D materials from demolition and renovation projects
is more economical than disposal and can result in reduced project costs. C&D
waste generation and disposal is usually handled by contractors at many military
installations, but alternate diversion methods can be specified in the contract.
This datasheet focuses primarily on the recycling of concrete and asphalt.
Local recyclers of asphalt and concrete may include construction material
companies, sand and gravel producers, and asphalt plants. Alternatively, the
material can be recycled on base. Asphalt and concrete rubble can be recycled
on base without further processing for use as general rubble fill in low-lying
areas or quarries. However, a more beneficial use of the material is to crush the
asphalt and concrete using a portable crusher. The crushed product can be
used as a substitute for crushed stone products in road construction (pavement
and road base) and as a fill material (footing and foundation backfill and general
fill). The use of crushed concrete for landfill roadways or landfill covers should
also be investigated as a potential market. Large slabs of concrete can be used
as rip rap to prevent shoreline and stream erosion, or used in various projects
such as artificial reef development. However, the origin of the concrete and
asphalt must be investigated before use. Any concrete that has been exposed
to PCBs, lead, or other contaminates may not be used in the previous
applications.
The two types of on-site recycling of asphalt pavement include surface recycling
and road base recycling. Surface recycling involves breaking up the top layer of
a pavement structure to a depth of about one-inch by milling or crushing the
material, and then re-compacting the loose material. A new surface is placed
on top of the recycled asphalt, and the pavement is compacted again. Road
base recycling involves recycling both the asphalt surface and base material to
produce a new road base. There is a machine on the market that uses a cutter
drum to raise asphalt and base material. The base aggregate and asphalt top
7-I/A-8-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
coat are blended and crushed by the machine to produce a well-graded base
course, and then deposited back on the roadway. A new surface is then placed
on top of the recycled road base. Alternatively, recycled asphalt can be
transported to an asphalt batch plant and processed.
Compliance
Benefit:
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Recycling or reuse of construction and demolition material will help facilities
meet the requirements under Executive Order 13101 requiring executive
agencies (e.g. DOD) to incorporate waste prevention and recycling in their daily
operations.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
N/A
Care should be taken when handling asphalt, as it may contain carcinogenic
components. Proper personal protection equipment is recommended.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
Recycling asphalt and concrete on base provides a source of crushed stone
product for base applications and reduces the cost of new material
Saves landfill space
Income is generated from the sale of scrap rebar, copper piping, and used
bricks
Cost savings in landfill tipping fees
Cost savings in transportation when material is re-used on base
Conserves resources
Plumbing and lighting fixtures can be sold to fixture reclamation vendors
Machinery may require air permits or permits-to-operate, depending on
local and state regulations where this technology is to be implemented.
Permits-to-operate establish compliance requirements, administrative and
procedural standards to operate maintain, renew and or revise permits
7-I/A-8-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Regulatory compliance may be required with regard to source emission
standards and fugitive emissions, etc., generated by the process
Certain regulatory requirements and restrictions may apply if the materials
are found to contain hazardous materials
Economic
Analysis:
The cost elements of recycling are compared to landfill disposal. According to
the METRO Solid Waste Management Division of Portland Oregon, landfill
costs for concrete, asphalt, and brick will vary greatly depending on the
location. The best all around estimate is $ I/ton.
Assumptions:
Recycle crushed asphalt and concrete on base at 240 ton/yr
Crushing costs: $4/ton (includes labor and crusher rental)
Landfill costs (inert wastes): $l/ton
Hauling costs: $5/ton
Avoided new fill material costs: $12/ton
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Diversion and Disposal of Construction and Demolition Wastes
Diversior
Operational Costs:
Crusher Costs (Labor $ 1,000
& Rental):
Waste Disposal:
Hauling:
Total Operational Costs:
Total Recovered Income:
Net Annual Cost/Benefit:
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for Recycling: $3,340
* Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $0
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: Immediate
Disposal
$0
$0
$0
$1,000
$2,900
$1,900
$240
$1,200
$1,440
$0
-$1,440
7-I/A-8-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
Asphalt Recycler
Approving
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
NSN
3895-01-363-9081
Unit Size
ea.
Cost
$190,000
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Mr. Wallace Eakes, ESC 426
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
110023rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, California 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-4882, DSN: 551-4882
Fax: (805) 982-4832
Mr. William Turley
Construction Materials Recycling Association
P.O. Box 644
Lyle, IL 60532
Phone:(630)548-4510
Fax:(630)548-4511
Asphalt Recycling and Reclaiming Association
3 Church Circle, Suite 250
Annapolis, MD 21401
Phone:(410)267-0023
Fax:(410)267-7546
Solid Waste Association of North America
P.O. Box 7219
Silver Spring, MD 20907
Phone: (301) 585-2898
Fax: (301) 589-7068
Local and state solid waste management government authorities.
7-I/A-8-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Vendors:
Sources:
The following vendors manufacture portable concrete/asphalt crushers. They
do not represent a complete listing, as other similar manufacturers of this type of
equipment may exist.
American Pulverizer
5540 West Park Avenue
Saint Louis, MO 63110-1897
Phone:(314)781-6100
Hazemag USA, Inc.
P.O. Box 1064
Uniontown, PA 15401
Phone:(724)439-3512
Excell Machinery Limited
12100 140 East
Amarillo,TX79118
Phone: (800) 858-4002
Mr. Bryce Jacob sen, Metro Regional Environmental Management, March 1999.
Mr. Michael Krissoff, Asphalt Recycling and Reclaiming Association, Annapolis, MD
7-I/A-8-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
PAPER RECYCLING
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: N/A; Air Force: N/A; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: High; Marine Corps: High; Army: High; Air Force: High
Alternative for: Landfill Disposal
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: N/A
Overview: Paper products have been estimated to represent 35-40% of the waste
presently disposed in landfills. The pollution prevention goal for federal facilities
reduction of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) is 50%. Significant progress
toward this goal can be achieved through waste paper recycling. Recycling
offers the opportunity to decrease the cost of landfill disposal and provide a
renewable source of fiber for recycled paper production as well as a number of
other uses.
The quality of recycled paper products continues to improve, thereby increasing
the demand for recyclable paper, especially, Office Waste Paper (OWP),
which is normally of higher quality due to a higher fiber content. This paper is
now recycled for use in printing and writing paper, graphics stock, and tissue
paper. The paper industry has been improving and integrating paper de-inking
processes in existing mills in order to improve their ability to increase the
quantity and quality of their recycled pulp feedstocks. Some projections
indicate that there could be a shortage of recycled feedstocks in the near future
if the quantities of recycled paper do not increase.
In order to achieve the most effective recycling and reuse program for
recovered paper, it is important to understand the different types of recoverable
paper generated and develop programs that minimize commingling of non-
compatible paper types. Typical types of paper to be segregated include office
paper, newspaper, cardboard, and other lower quality papers such as wrapping
paper and waxed paper.
Other uses for recycled paper include the use of shredded paper for packaging.
This use is often associated with lower quality recovered paper not appropriate
for recycling into writing/printing grade paper. The generation of shredded
paper has increased in numerous industries and agencies. The advantages of
shredding paper for reuse as packaging are decreased costs in alternative
packaging media such as Styrofoam peanuts. Shredded paper can also be
7-I/A-9-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
composted as opposed to disposed of in landfills (See Data Sheet: 7-111-7 -
Paper Shredders).
Another recovered paper reuse alternative is in the production of fuel pellets.
Lower grade waste paper is pelletized and utilized as a solid fuel source in
industrial boilers. Pelletized paper has similar physical characteristics to
conventional solid fuels, is easily consumed by boilers, and can be produced at
competitive costs. The advantages of using pelletized paper fuel include: a new
use for discarded paper; reduction in the consumption of non-renewable fossil
fuels; paper provides a higher level of heat generation; and because paper
contains little sulfur, its co-firing with coal reduces sulfur emissions. Paper also
produces 10-20% less carbon than coal.
A comprehensive paper-recycling program should include an inventory of
existing waste paper sources, management of the wastes to minimize mixing of
higher and lower quality materials, and the identification of appropriate recycling
alternatives for the various grades of paper in the area of the facility. Proper
management and diversion will result in lower landfill disposal costs, potential
energy savings, and environmental benefits.
Compliance
Benefit:
Recycling or reuse of paper will help facilities meet the requirements under
Executive Order 13101 requiring executive agencies (e.g., DOD) to
incorporate waste prevention and recycling in their daily operations.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
N/A
Proper storage and handling of recycled paper prior to off-site shipment should
include an evaluation and reduction of potential fire hazards associated with
accumulating loose, waste paper. Most hazards can be reduced by regular
collections and storage in appropriate containers away from heat sources.
Consult your local fire prevention officials for specific recommendations.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
7-I/A-9-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Benefits:
Reduces the volume and expense of waste disposed in landfills
Reduces the use of non-renewable fossil fuels if pelletized and reused as
solid fuel source
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
Requires handling and transportation to recycling facilities
Requires sorting to obtain most beneficial reuse for each type of paper
Requires personnel training to be effective
The following cost elements for a recycling program represent those anticipated
for a typical Navy application: 2,000 tons of waste paper per year with no
capital costs and operating costs associated with establishing and managing
recycling program. Assumes local recycler will provide storage containers and
pick up the waste paper and recycle at no cost to the facility.
* Assumptions:
The facility/base produces 2,000 tons/year of paper waste
Capital Costs: None
Labor: 12 hours/week
Labor cost: $30/hour
Solid waste transport and disposal cost: $20/ton
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Diversion and Disposal of Waste Paper
Operational Costs:
Labor:
Material:
Energy:
Waste Disposal:
System Maintenance:
Total Operational Costs:
Total Recovered Income:
Net Annual Cost/Benefit:
Diversior
$18,700
$0
$0
$0
$0
$18,700
$0
$18,700
$0
$0
$0
$40,000
$0
$40,000
$0
-$40,000
Disposal
7-I/A-9-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for Recycling: $21,300
* Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $0
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: Immediate
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
Recyclable Container
Recyclable Container
Approving
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
NSN
8115-01-430-5668
8115-01-429-9984
Unit Size Cost
ea. 20xllx30in. $56.93
(25) 15xlOx5in. Local
Purchase
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Air Force:
Mr. Donald Hopson
U.S. Air Force Academy, 510 CES/CEV
8120 Edgerton Drive, Suite 40
Colorado Springs, CO 80840-2400
Phone:(719)333-8393
Navy:
Mr. J.J. Hoyt
Commander Naval Base
1530 Gilbert Street, Suite 2200
CodeN451G
Norfolk, VA
Phone: (757) 444-3009 ext. 366
Mr. Wallace Eakes, ESC 426
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
110023rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, California 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-4882, DSN: 551-4882
Fax: (805) 982-4832
7-I/A-9-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
The American Forest and Paper Association (AFPA)
1111 19th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (800) 878-8878, Fax: (202) 463-2785
URL: http://www. afandapa.ore
Vendors:
Sources:
The following is a list paper recyclers. This is not meant to be a complete list,
as there may be recyclers and municipalities which manage paper recycling.
These contacts vendors may have regional or national representation.
Consult your local yellow pages under Recycling, Waste Paper, and Scrap
Dealers.
South Coast Fibers
5460 San Fernando Road
Los Angeles, CA 90039
Phone:(323)245-5133
Kenco Paper Recycling
13314 Saticoy Street
North Hollywood, CA 91605
Phone:(818)764-3785
Weyerhauser
1404 Benson Court
Baltimore, MD 21227
Phone:(410)737-1510
Mr. Lance Roberts, American Forest and Paper Association, May 1999.
EPA, Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States,
1994PaperMatcher Recycling Directory, American Forest and Paper Association.
Ms. Marilyn Killian, Weyerhauser, May 1996.
7-I/A-9-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
RECYCLING OF SCRAP TIRES
Revision:
Process Code:
Usage List:
Alternative for:
Compliance Areas:
5/99
Navy and Marine Corps: SR-02-02; Air Force: PM08; Army: VHM
Navy: High; Air Force: High; Army: High; Marine Corps: High
Stockpiling or disposing in landfills
Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: None
Overview:
Compliance
Benefit:
Alternatives to stockpiling and disposing of scrap tires in landfills include proper
maintenance and retreading, reuse in other industries and fuel production.
Approximately 850 million to 3 billion scrap tires are disposed in landfills,
stockpiled, or illegally dumped around the United States, a number that
increases by 250 million tires every year. Forty-eight states legislate and
regulate proper and efficient management of scrap tires. Forty-six states have
banned disposal of waste tires in landfills.
Proper tire maintenance includes retaining proper tire pressure, as well as
correct wheel balance and alignment, conducting rotation schedules and
avoiding excessive acceleration and braking. Retreading tires for reuse requires
only one-third of the crude oil necessary to make a new tire. Scrap tires can be
chopped, ground, or powdered for use in the manufacture of floor mats,
adhesives, gaskets, shoe soles, electrical insulators, asphalt and numerous other
products. Scrap tires (whole or shredded) are used as fuel in facilities such as
cement kilns, pulp and paper mills, electric utilities, waste-to-energy plants and
industrial boilers. Other industries that use scrap tires include construction,
landscaping, farming, marine, and playground equipment manufacturers.
Except for proper maintenance and retreading, the recycling methods above are
conducted off-site by specialized scrap tire recycling facilities. Many of these
facilities will accept whole or shredded scrap tires to be recycled in any
combination of these methods. Scrap tire generators could recoup some money
if they recycle scrap tires directly through these facilities. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that a combination of these
recycling alternatives will reduce the amount of scrap tires in the landfill by
approximately 15 percent.
Recycling or retreading scrap tires will help facilities to meet the requirements
under Executive Order 13101 requiring executive agencies (e.g, DOD) to
incorporate waste prevention and recycling in their daily operations to conserve
disposal capacity. These activities also will help facilities comply with state laws
7-I/A-10-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
banning the land disposal of scrap tires. Approximately 46 states currently ban
disposal of scrap tires in landfills.
A facility will use more electricity if it purchases and operates an on-site tire
shredder. A tire shredder reduces the volume of scrap tires to make the tires
more desirable as an end product and to reduce transportation costs. Under
EO 12902, facilities are required to reduce energy consumption. This
equipment also may increase a facility's need for an air permit under 40 CFR
70 and 71
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
No materials compatibility issues were identified.
Stockpiling tires prior to shipment for recycling can create a breeding ground for
rodents and mosquitoes. It also can increase the risk of fire from lightning and
possibly spontaneous combustion. Tire pile fires are extremely difficult to
extinguish or control, and the smoke, ash, and oily leachate can pollute the
surrounding air and water. Consult your local industrial health specialist, your
local health and safety personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to
implementing this technology.
Saves energy;
Meets states' regulations pertaining to scrap tire management;
Reduces air and water pollution risks; and
Conserves landfill space.
Stockpiled tires may provide a breeding ground for rodents and mosquitoes.
Stockpiled tires may pose a fire hazard from lightning or spontaneous
combustion.
Economic
Analysis:
The following cost elements compare the disposal of scrap tires in a landfill with
hauling scrap tires for recycling or reuse.
Assumptions:
Approximately 5,000 scrap tires are generated each year per installation.
Each tire is approximately 50 pounds
7-I/A-10-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Cost to dispose of waste in municipal landfill: $0.10 per pound.
Transportation fee for transporting waste to municipal landfill: $75 per trip.
Fifty trips per year are made to the municipal landfill to dispose of scrap
tires.
Cost of hauling: $2.00 per tire. Depending on the location of the generator
or the state laws, this fee can vary. Sometimes the scrap tire facilities will
haul used tires free of charge. Some facilities are willing to pay generators
up to $0.05 per pound for scrap tires.
For this analysis, assume that a quarter of the total scrap tires generated
were hauled by facilities willing to pay, that another quarter was hauled at
no cost, and that the generator paid for the remainder to be hauled.
Equipment purchase is not necessary.
Cost Comparison for
Disposal in Landfill vs. Hauling Away for Recycling
Disposal in Hauling
Landfill for Recycling
Capital and Installation Costs: $0
Operational Costs:
Municipal Landfill Costs: $25,000 $0
Hauling Fee: $3,750 $5,000
Total Costs (not including capital $28,750 $5,000
and installation costs):
Total Recovered Income: $0 $3,125
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$28,750 -$1,875
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for Recycling: $26,875
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $0
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: Immediate
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost MSDS
None Identified
7-I/A-10-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Approval
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Vendors:
Sources:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Mr. Wallace Eakes
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
110023rd Avenue
PortHueneme, California 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-4882
Mr. John Comstock
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
1100 23rd Avenue
PortHueneme, California 93043-4370
Phone:(805)982-5315
The following list is not meant to be complete, as there may be other suppliers
of this type of equipment or service.
Tire Recyclers, Inc.
710N.Hamilton St.
Suite 210
Richmond, VA 23221-2035
Phone: (804) 358-1303
Mr. John Comstock, Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, May 1999.
Mr. Gary Edwards, Tire Recyclers, Inc.
Mr. William Sterling, D & SRecycling, Inc.
Surface Modification for Scrap Tire Technology, a technical brief written by
Energetics, Inc., for the United States Department of Energy.
Scrap Tire Recycling from the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Clearinghouse
Bulletin Board System for the United States Department of Energy.
Scrap Tires Keep Rollin ' as Recycling/Recovery Markets Expand and Develop, Science
and the Environment, Goodyear Release, Spring 1996.
Summary of Markets for Scrap Tire, EPA/530-SW-90-074B, USEPA, Office of Solid
Waste Emergency Response, Washington, DC, October 1991.
7-I/A-10-4
-------
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
RECYCLED PLASTIC LUMBER
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: MS-01-00; Air Force: MI01; Army: OTG
Usage List: Navy: High; Marine Corps: High; Army: High; Air Force: High
Alternative for: Replaces wood lumber and sheeting products.
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: None
Overview: As some states consider banning treated wood from landfill disposal, plastic
lumber is replacing traditional wood in many applications. Treated lumber often
is considered hazardous and must be disposed as a hazardous waste, making
plastic lumber a desirable alternative.
Plastic lumber can be made from numerous types of plastic resins. Plastic
lumber also can be made with recovered plastics, such as HDPE, PET, or
several commingled, recovered plastics. The HDPE raw material comes from
post-consumer waste (primarily milk jugs) and PET comes primarily from post-
consumer soda bottles. The materials are either molded or continuously
extruded into standard lumber forms.
Composite recycled plastic lumbers also exist, which are a combination of
plastic resins and wood, such as sawdust; or plastic resins and fiberglass.
Since plastic lumber is impervious to the elements (e.g., wind, water, sun,
insects, and salt air) that are destructive to wood, it may be used for many
residential, commercial, or governmental applications. These applications
include decks, floors, marine docks, piers, fences, playgrounds, landscape
timbers, lawn and garden products, parking stops, and railroad ties. Most
recycled plastic lumber is ultraviolet light (UV) stabilized to resist sunlight
damage.
Plastic lumber can be installed using conventional wood working tools and will
cut, drill, and rout very cleanly because there is no grain to split or chip.
Plastic lumber is commonly available in three grades hollow, solid, and
structural solid. The hollow grade plastic lumber can be used for light-load
applications, such as low-load deck surfaces, fences, signage, and shutters.
Regular solid-grade plastic lumber can be used for medium-to-light-load
applications, such as deck surfaces and planters. The structural grade plastic
lumber has a 20 percent fill of fiberglass to provide superior strength and reduce
7-I/A-ll-l
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
the expansion and contraction properties common to plastic wood. A fourth
grade, recycled sheeting, is being tested and evaluated to be used as an
alternative to plywood.
Compliance
Benefit:
Using recycled plastic lumber will help facilities meet the requirements under
Executive Order 13101 requiring executive agencies (e.g., DOD) to
incorporate waste prevention and recycling in their daily operations.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
No materials compatibility issues were identified.
Plastic lumber can be ignited and will maintain a flame very similar to a piece of
soft wood. The fumes generated by burning plastic lumber are very similar to
the fumes of a burning candle. Water via a fogging nozzle should be used to
extinguish plastic lumber that is on fire, since a high velocity waterspray will
spread the burning surface layer. Consult your local industrial health specialist,
your local health and safety personnel, and the appropriate material safety data
sheet (MSDS) for specific precautions and proper procedures prior to
implementing this technology.
Uses recycled materials;
Often can be recycled after use;
Decreases the amount of plastic landfilled;
Reduces replacement costs;
Does not contain toxins (e.g., copper, chromium, and arsenic) found in
treated wood;
Does not require painting, sealing, waterproofing, staining, treatment, or
maintenance;
Does not absorb moisture;
Does not splinter, crack, rot, or warp; and
Allows most graffiti to be washed off easily.
Disadvantages:
Loses its strength characteristics at temperatures of 160ฐF and above;
Expands and contracts more than wood;
7-I/A-11-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Should not be used as a structural component (e.g., support post, joist,
stringer) unless it has been engineered for a specific applications;
Could cause skin irritation to people who are sensitive to fiberglass if a
fiberglass composite plastic lumber is used;
More flexible than wood; and
Heavier than dry wood of the same size.
Economic
Analysis: The economic analysis compares the cost of building, maintaining, and replacing
a southern yellow pine picnic bench over 20 years to the cost of building a
plastic lumber picnic bench that lasts 20 years.
Assumptions:
Plastic Picnic Bench
Total cost of high quality recycled plastic lumber picnic bench (9 pieces of 2
in. x 6 in. x 8 ft. and 5 pieces of 2 in. x 8 in. x 8 ft.) is $266.40
Since the manufacturer guarantees most plastic lumber for 20 years, there is
no cost for treatment and maintenance. Purchase of one large collection
bin: $500
Yellow Picnic Bench
Total cost of one number 1 grade southern yellow pine picnic bench (9
pieces of 2 in. x 6 in. x 8 ft. and 5 pieces of 2 in. x 8 in. x 8 ft.) is $75.00
The yellow pine picnic bench will need to be replaced every 5 years (3
times in 20 years) for an additional capital cost of $225 (3 x $75.00)
Each picnic bench will require treatment and maintenance once during its 5-
year life (4 times in 20 years).
Treatment and maintenance of the wood picnic bench includes
waterproofing, sealing, staining, and painting and costs 20 percent of the
capital cost.
The treated wood picnic bench will be disposed of as hazardous waste at a
cost of 10 percent of the capital cost.
7-I/A-11-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Cost Comparison for
Plastic Lumber vs. Southern Yellow Pine
Plastic Lumber Southern Yellow Pine
Capital and Installation Costs: $26640 $30000
Operational Costs:
Treatment and $0 $60.00
Maintenance:
Disposal Cost: $0 $30.00
Total Costs (not including capital $0 $90.00
and installation costs):
Total Recovered Income: $0 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: $0 -$9000
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for Plastic Wood: $90.00
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $266.40
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: 3 Years
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost
Aeolian Hollow 5675-01-421-XXXX Various. Various
Earth Care Solid 5675-01-422-XXXX Various Various
Trimax Structural 5675-01-421-XXXX Various Various
Recycled Plastic 5675-01-449-XXXX Various Various
Sheets
The last four digits of the NSN establish the dimensions of the plastic lumber by
grade. The sizes range as follows: hollow grade from 1 in. x 4 in. x 8 ft. to 6 in.
x 6 in. x 16 ft. blocks; solid grade from 1 in. x 2 in. x 6 ft. to 6 in. x 6 in. x 10 ft
blocks and 3 in. to 5 in diameter rounds; structural grade from 2 in. x 4 in. x 8
ft. to 10 in. x 10 in. x 16 ft. plain blocks, 2 in. x 10 in. x 8 ft. to 3 in. x 10 in. x
16 ft. "tongue and groove" blocks, and 10 in diameter rounds; and plastic
sheets range from 4 ft. x 8 ft. x 1/4 in. to 4 ft. x 12 ft. x 1/2 in. sheets.
7-I/A-11-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Approval
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
Sources:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
DLA:
Mr. John Martino
Defense Industrial Supply Center
Columbus, OH
Phone: (215) 697-3894
DSN: 850-1685
This list is not meant to be complete, other suppliers of this type of equipment
may be available.
Black Rhino Recycling, Inc.
4503 Lebanon Church Road #1
WestMifflin,PA15122
Phone:(412)460-0160
Fax:(412)460-0166
Aeolian Enterprises, Inc.
P.O. Box 888
Latrobe, PA 15650
Phone: (724) 539-9460
Fax:(724) 539-0572
Earth Cares Products
of Long Island, Inc.
Phone: (8000) 445-4445
Fax:(516)427-7965
TriMax Lumber
Phone:(205)235-8855
Mr. John Martino, Defense Industrial Supply Center, March 1999.
Save a Tree-Starve a termite- Build it once, Part Two, Loglines. Vol 2, No. 4
7-I/A-11-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
REUSE AND RECYCLING OF METAL AND PLASTIC DRUMS
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-11-99; Air Force: HW01; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: High; Marine Corps: High; Army: High; Air Force: High
Alternative for: Disposal of contaminated drums
Compliance Areas: Medium
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituent: Lead (CAS: 7439-92-1), Chromium
(CAS: 7440-47-3)
Overview: Empty drums in good condition can be re-used as collection containers for
hazardous wastes, usually for the same type of product they originally
contained. Damaged or excess metal drums can be washed and recycled as
ferrous scrap metal. In general, drum washers/recyclers wash contaminated
drums inside an enclosed chamber. Drums can range in size from 5-gallon pails
to 55 or 90-gallon drums. There are numerous suppliers of this type of
equipment and multiple options, which can be specified for unique site needs.
Units have both interior and exterior washing capability. Some units use heated
water and detergent dispensing systems and a rinse cycle. Other units offer an
option for solvent washing. Some options include stainless steel construction,
recirculating rinse tanks, live steam capability, explosion proofing, automatic
cycle timers, and remotely located controls which can be operated from non-
hazardous areas.
Legally empty drums are exempt from hazardous waste regulation in 40 CFR
Section 261.7 and can be recycled. For hazardous wastes that are not "acute"
as listed in 40 CFR 261.31, 261.32, or 261.33, empty is defined as containing
less than three percent of the original contents (by weight) or less than a one
inch residue on the bottom. Drums can be made empty by pumping out the
residue or washing the drum. Drums that contained acute hazardous waste are
empty after they have been triple rinsed with a solvent (which may be water)
capable of removing the product.
Drums which contain a residue such that the drum does not meet the legal
definition of empty can still be re-used as collection and storage drums for
hazardous wastes which are compatible with the residue in the drum. If the
drum is used for any material different from the residue in the drum then a
chemical safety reference needs to be checked to ensure that the residue and
the new material will not react in any way. Incompatible materials may react to
form heat, toxic gases, violent reactions, explosions, etc.. The list of
incompatible material combinations is too long to include in this data sheet.
7-I/B-l-l
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Incompatible combinations include combinations such as acids and bases,
oxidizing agents and reducing agents, inorganic sulfides and acids, etc.
Drum reconditioning, regulated by 49 CFR 173.28(c), is the process of
stripping a metal drum down to the bare metal, removing all contents, paint,
corrosion, and labels. The drum is then restored to its original shape and
inspected for pitting, reduction in material thickness, metal fatigue, damaged
threads or closures, or other significant defects. Drums that pass inspection can
be painted and marked according to 49 CFR 178. Plastic drums are
reconditioned by repair or replacement of non-integral packaging components
to a condition such that they conform in all respects with the prescribed
requirements of 49 CFR 178. Companies are available to recondition drums.
The re-use and recycling of drums can potentially remove 100% of drums from
landfilling. Some drums have liners of LDPE #4 plastic, which can be removed
and recycled.
Compliance
Benefit:
Materials
Compatibility:
Recycling or reuse of metal and plastic drums will help facilities meet the
provisions of Executive Order 13101 requiring executive agencies (e.g,
DOD) to incorporate waste prevention and recycling in their daily operations.
Drums which contain a residue such that the drum does not meet the legal
definition of empty can still be re-used as collection and storage drums for those
hazardous wastes (49 CFR 173.28(b)(6)) which are compatible with the
residue in the drum. This practice prevents the drum from becoming a
hazardous waste. The decrease in hazardous waste helps facilities meet the
requirements of waste reduction under RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix, and
may also help facilities reduce their generator status and reduce the number of
applicable regulatory (i.e., recordkeeping, reporting, inspections, transportation,
accumulation time, emergency prevention and preparedness, emergency
response) requirements under RCRA, 40 CFR 262. The wastewater may be a
new waste stream and may need to be disposed as a hazardous waste or
require special treatment.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Empty drums should be stored and handled as if the drums were still full (i.e.,
store incompatibles separately), until properly washed. Rinse waters will
7-I/B-1-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
contain the residues from the drums; therefore, segregation of incompatibles and
proper treatment of rinse water is essential.
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Consult your local industrial health specialist, the base safety office, and the
appropriate MSDS prior to implementation.
Re-using drums saves the cost of purchasing new drums
Recycling of drums prevents drums from becoming hazardous waste
Drum reuse and recycling reduces hazardous waste transportation and
disposal costs
Recycling drums generates income
Disadvantages:
Wastewater from drum rinsing may require special treatment depending on
test results of the rinse water
Economic
Analysis:
The following analysis compares cost elements of re-use and recycling of drums
against those of landfill disposal. The labor and landfill costs were provided by
Naval Station, San Diego:
Assumptions:
1,000 metal drums per year
Weight per empty drum: 10 Ibs.
10% of drums (100 drums) held acutely hazardous wastes and
require disposal as hazardous waste instead of as solid waste
Drums rinsed at 5 drums per hour
Same amount of labor expended to collect drums for washing or
disposing
Estimated labor rate (for rinsing): $50/hr
Waste water treatment per drum: 5 gallons
Waste water treatment cost: $0.25/drum
Wash solution requirements: 55 gallons to wash approximately 200
drums
Cost of wash solution: $800/55 gallon drum
7-I/B-1-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
According to the Naval Station San Diego, landfill costs are not
paid due to a lease the station has with the city. However, typical
landfill costs for the San Diego area are estimated at $4 I/ton
Hazardous waste disposal costs: $2/lb
Utilities to operate: $125/yr to heat water and $75/yr to operate
washer
Unit cost: $23,000
Installation cost: $7,000
Recycling profit: $20/ton
Cost of new drums: $30 each
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Diversion and Disposal of Drums
Diversion Disposal
Operational Costs:
Labor (Rinsing): $10,000 $0
Solid Waste Disposal: $0 $ 18 5
Hazardous Waste $0 $2,000
Disposal:
Detergent: $4,000 $0
Rinse Water $250 $0
Treatment:
Utilities to Operate $200 $0
New Drum Purchase $0 $30,000
Total Operational Costs: $14,450 $32,185
Total Recovered Income: $0 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$14,450 -$32,185
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for Re-use/Recycling: $17,735
* Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $30,000
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: < 2 years
7-I/B-1-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values. To
return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
Approval
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
Vendors:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Mr. Bob Logan
Naval Station, San Diego
San Diego, CA 92136-5294
Phone: (619) 556-7420
Mr. Mike Viggiano, ESC 423
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
110023rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-4895 DSN: 551-4895, Fax: (805) 982-4832
Mr. Wallace Eakes, ESC 426
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
1100 23rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, California 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-4882, DSN: 551-4882, Fax: (805) 982-4832
The following is a list of vendors of this type of equipment. This is not intended
to be a complete list, as there are numerous manufacturers of this type of
equipment.
Enviro-Techniques Products Incorporated
120 Thadeus Street
South Portland, ME 04106
Phone:(207)767-5510
7-I/B-1-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Velcron
122 S. Avenue
P.O. Box 2230
Freeport, TX 77541
Phone:(409)233-5461
Advanced Environmental Solutions
204 1st Avenue, South
3rd Floor
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (800) 275-3549 or (253) 872-9011
Fax: (206) 652-2323
Sources: Mr. Bob Logan, Naval Station San Diego, May 1999.
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 261, Section 261. 7 -Residues of hazardous
waste in empty containers
7-I/B-1-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
REUSE AND RECYCLING OF USED CLOTHING AND HOUSEHOLD ITEMS
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: N/A; Air Force: N/A; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
Alternative for: Landfilling
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: N/A
Overview: Clothing and household items in fair to good condition can be reused if they are
donated to thrift shops, churches, shelters, or private recycling firms. Damaged
clothing can be used as wiping cloths by individual households or processed by
a textile recycler. Often thrift shops sell clothing they are unable to sell to a
recycler that shreds them and produces carpet padding, furniture stuffing, and
other products. Household items can easily be diverted from the waste stream
if housing residents are aware of the location and donation policies of local or
base second-hand stores.
Some military installations have thrift shops on base where residents can donate
durable goods or leave them on consignment for a period of time. If the base
does not have a second-hand store, larger thrift stores may be willing to bring a
truck to a convenient location on base for specified time periods. Base
residents or personnel would be able to bring clean textiles and other durable
goods to be received by the thrift store attendant. The base recycling
coordinator should be responsible for monitoring the effect of the program and
distributing information on what types of household goods can be donated, and
in what condition they must be received. All items must be kept clean, dry and
separate from other waste.
Since textile recyclers do not commonly accept small quantities of material from
the public, the simplest solution is to donate the clothing or fabric to a charitable
organization and let them divert it to the recycler. Current estimates indicate
that 1.25 million tons of post-consumer textile waste are recycled annually.
Post-consumer textile waste consists of any type of garment or household
article made of some manufactured textile. These textiles include clothing,
shoes, towels, bed linens, coats, and draperies. Approximately half of this
material is recycled as second-hand clothing, which is typically given or sold to
third-world nations. The remaining textile waste is either used as wiping and
polishing cloths, or converted into fiber and reused.
7-I/B-2-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Compliance
Benefit:
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Re-using and recycling clothing and household items are simple and effective
pollution prevention opportunities. They effectively remove these items from
solid waste landfills without generating any additional waste streams and creates
employment for 15,000 - 20,000 workers.
Recycling or reuse of clothing and other textile waste will help facilities meet the
requirements under Executive Order 13101 requiring executive agencies (e.g.,
DOD) to incorporate waste prevention and recycling in their daily operations.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
N/A
N/A
Diversion of clothing and footwear can potentially reduce disposed waste
by 2.1%
Cost savings are achieved from reduced disposal fees
Donations to charitable organizations provide affordable household
products and clothing for low income people, and generate revenue for
charity
Creates jobs
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
N/A
There are no capital investments for establishing a durable goods collection
program on base, if done in conjunction with a charitable organization that will
provide a truck and attendant free of charge. Alternatively, a recycling
container could be purchased by the base and centrally located for voluntary
collection of textiles and leather. According to the Council for Textile
Recycling, the private sector recycler may provide the container if they are
supplied with the materials. The donated goods could be periodically
transported to a thrift store. Costs for this option include the capital cost for the
7-I/B-2-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
purchase of a recycling container and transportation and labor costs for trips to
the thrift shop
Assumptions:
40 tons of material re-used per year
Labor and equipment by charitable organizations
Resale profit acquired by charitable organizations
Landfill fees (bulky items): $40/ton
Transportation costs: $5/ton
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Diversion and Disposal of Used Household Items
Diversior
Operational Costs:
Labor:
Waste Disposal:
Transportation:
Total Operational Costs:
Total Recovered Income:
Net Annual Cost/Benefit:
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for Re-use:
* Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process:
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process:
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,600
$200
$1,800
$0
-$1,800
Disposal
$1,800
$0
immediate
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
7-I/B-2-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Approving
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
Sources:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Mr. Wallace Eakes, ESC 426
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
1100 23rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, California 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-4882, DSN: 551-4882, Fax: (805) 982-4832
Mr. Bernie Brill
Council for Textile Recycling
7910 Woodmont Avenue
Suite 1130
Bethesda, MD20814
Phone: (301) 718-0671, Fax: (301) 656-1079
URL: www.smartasa.org
Local charitable organizations, shelters, and churches.
Local and state solid waste management government authorities.
N/A
Mr. Bernie Brill, Council for Textile Recycling, March 1999.
U.S. EPA, Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in theUnited States: 1994 Update.
7-I/B-2-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
CLOTH DIAPER SERVICE
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: N/A; Air Force: N/A; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Low; Air Force: Low
Alternative for: Disposable Diapers
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: N/A
Overview:
An alternative to using disposable diapers is to contract with a diaper service to take
away the soiled diapers and deliver clean diapers. Cloth diapers can be as convenient
as disposable diapers when a diaper service is employed.
The most cost effective way to reduce the quantity of disposable diapers in the waste
stream is to educate base residents on the benefits of using cloth diapers. Diaper
services usually deliver and pick up diapers once a week. The diaper does not need
to be pre-soaked or treated in any way. The soiled diaper is taken off the baby, put
into the hamper, and picked up by the service.
The use of cloth diapers is easily implemented and offers a unique pollution prevention
strategy. Disposable diapers can be a significant source of waste in residential trash.
They contribute untreated human waste to the landfill or waste disposal system,
increasing the potential for groundwater contamination and the spread of disease-
carrying organisms. It is estimated that disposable diapers contribute 1.3%, of the
total volume of municipal waste disposed in U.S. landfills (EPA, 1994). Using cloth
diapers removes the disposable diaper waste stream from landfills and transfers the
human waste to the sanitary sewer system where it is properly treated. Used cloth
diapers are placed in special hampers, which are designed to contain this type of
waste.
Compliance
Benefit:
Materials
Compatibility:
Use of cloth diapers will help facilities decrease the amount of solid waste going to
landfills and therefore, addresses the requirements of Executive Order 13101
requiring executive agencies (e.g, DOD) to incorporate waste prevention and
recycling in their daily operations.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general guideline
and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance benefits will vary
depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of workload involved.
N/A
7-I/B-3-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
Good hygiene practices such as frequent hand washing and careful handling should be
practiced when removing soiled diapers.
Source reduction potential of 1.3 % of disposed waste (EPA, 1994)
Reduction of untreated human waste in landfills
Reduction of resource consumption from disposable diapers
Cost savings due to reduced landfill disposal fees
Cost savings from reusable diapers
Less convenient
Handling, storing, and laundering diapers is a disagreeable task
May be difficult to implement due to the ease and accessibility of disposable
diapers
The cost elements of using cloth diapers are compared to disposable diapers. The
disposable diaper cost is based on vendor information:
Assumptions:
Each use of a cloth diaper is equivalent to one disposable diaper
A baby uses 60 diapers per week, which is 3,120 diapers per year
The weight of a single soiled disposable diaper is 0.5 Ib; the weight of
soiled disposable diapers produced per baby (60 diapers per week) is
1,560 Ib/yr
A package of 40 disposable diapers costs $5.27, and 78 packs are used
per year
The cost of using a diaper service is $ 13.70 per week
Waste disposal costs are $40 per ton
Cost comparison made for diaper use for one baby
7-I/B-3-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Diaper Service and Disposable Diapers
Diaper Service
Operational Costs:
Diaper Cost:
Laundering:
Disposal Cost:
Total Operational Costs:
Total Recovered Income:
Net Annual Cost/Benefit:
$0
$710
$0
$710
$0
-$710
Disposables
$411
$0
$30
$441
$0
-$441
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for Diaper Service:
* Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process:
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process:
-$269
$0
N/A
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values. To
return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
Approving
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
None identified
Navy:
Mr. Wallace Eakes, ESC 426
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
1100 23rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, California 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-4882, DSN: 551-4882, Fax: (805) 982-4832
7-I/B-3-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Vendors:
Sources:
Mr. Jack Shiffert
National Association of Diaper Services
2017 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (610) 971-4850
Local and state solid waste management government authorities
Local diaper service companies
Drug or department stores that sell cloth diapers
Mr. JackShiffert, National Association of Diaper Services, May 1999.
EPA, Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1994 Update
Arthur D. Little, Disposable vs. Reusable Diapers, 1990 report.
Carl Lehrburger, Diapers: Environmental Impacts andLifecycle Analysis, 1990
report.
7-I/B-3-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
VERMICOMPOSTING
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: N/A; Air Force: N/A; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Low; Air Force: Low
Alternative for: Landfilling
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: N/A
Overview: Vermicomposting is a process that uses red earthworms to consume organic
waste, producing castings (an odor-free compost product for use as mulch), soil
conditioner, and topsoil additive. Naturally occurring organisms, such as
bacteria and millipedes, also assist in the aerobic degradation of the organic
material. Vermicomposting is especially useful for processing food waste since
the worms consume the material quickly and there are fewer problems with
odor. Vermicomposting does not generate temperatures high enough to kill
pathogens. For this reason, Vermicomposting is more appropriate for food,
paper, and yard waste. In some states, Vermicomposting is considered as an
animal raising, rather than a composting activity, and is exempt from the
composting permitting process.
Organic material should be chopped or shredded for faster degradation.
Unprocessed materials can be used in Vermicomposting, but the time required
for complete degradation of the organic waste is generally six months or longer.
Vermicomposting does not require a specific carbon-to-nitrogen ratio like
traditional aerobic composting methods.
One large-scale Vermicomposting operation processes approximately five to six
tons of food waste and more than two tons of yard waste per day. This
operation uses a raised, 120-foot-long bed or trough that is 2.5 feet deep and
eight feet wide, with a mesh floor. The operation is enclosed within a
greenhouse-type structure. An adapted manure spreader makes a daily pass
over the trough, spreading roughly three inches of prepared organic materials
per day. The worms' castings are mechanically scraped off the bottom of the
screen and collected. It takes approximately 21 days to make earthworm
castings using this method.
Another large-scale proprietary Vermicomposting system called the
Vermiconversion System uses thermophilic composting (for pathogen
destruction and weed seed neutralization) for three to 15 days, and then places
the composting material in vermiprocessing beds or windrows for an additional
30 days. Two to four inches of new material are applied to the rows every
7-II/A-l-l
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Compliance
Benefit:
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
other day, not exceeding a total row height of three feet. The beds or windrows
can be built on a sloped plastic liner for water reclamation, and can use aeration
piping and a sprinkler to maintain proper oxygen and moisture levels.
Vermicomposting will help facilities meet the requirements under Executive
Order 13101 requiring executive agencies (e.g. DOD) to incorporate waste
prevention and recycling in their daily operations. States and/or localities may
have additional regulations on composting which should be followed.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
N/A
If the compost contains food waste and animal products, it should be handled
with gloves and care should be taken to wash hands and clothing after
processing it. It might be necessary to wear a mask when turning and working
with compost to prevent inhaling bacteria or particles.
Complete composting of yard waste will reduce the amount of waste
generated by an average of 15.9% while the addition of food waste will
divert another 6.7% (U.S. EPA, 1994).
Vermicomposting produces a more marketable compost, which is nutrient-
rich with a smaller particle size, lower odor, and greater nutritional value
than other types of compost.
Vermicomposting has a less stringent permitting process.
Vermicomposting produces compost in about three weeks.
Disadvantages:
Vermicomposting requires more management and maintenance than other
composting systems to maintain healthy worms.
Economic
Analysis:
The estimated capital cost for a large-scale facility processing approximately 10
tons/day (2,500 to 3,000 tons/yr) of food and yard waste is approximately
$30,000 to $40,000 for a basic reactor system, not including land costs. The
cost of materials processing equipment will vary depending on the type of
7-II/A-1-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
equipment selected. Operating costs may run $40 to $60/ton (including labor,
benefits, maintenance, fuel, administration etc.). Alternatively, a 200-ton/day
facility using the Vermiconversion System (thermophilic composting followed by
vermicomposting) was recently implemented for capital cost of approximately
$2,000,000.
For large-scale vermicomposting, cost savings can be incurred from using the
compost for base landscaping and/or selling the compost product as well as
decreased landfill disposal costs. These cost savings will vary from one location
to another. Annual cost savings have been estimated at $30,000 to $60,000
(for facilities producing around 5,000 tons/yr of compost) due to avoiding
disposal fees and fertilizer and topsoil purchases.
Assumptions:
Process 2,500 tons/yr of food and yard waste
Produce 2,000 tons/yr of finished compost
Solid waste disposal costs: $13/ton
Operating costs (labor & maintenance): $60/ton
Avoided topsoil purchases: $50/ton
Labor for collection and disposal: 15 hours per week
Labor rate: $45/hr
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Diversion and Disposal Using a Vermicomposting Facility
Diversion Disposal
Operational Costs:
Labor & maintenance: $ 150,000 $35,100
Landfill costs: $0 $32,500
Total Operational Costs: $150,000 $67,600
Total Recovered Income: $100,000 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$50,000 -$67,600
* Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for Vermicomposting Facility: $ 17,600
* Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $30,000
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: < 2 years
7-II/A-1-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
Approving
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Vendors:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Mr. Wallace Eakes, ESC 426
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
1100 23rd Avenue
PortHueneme, California 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-4882, DSN: 551-4882, Fax: (805) 982-4832
Mr. John Longfellow
Klickitat County Solid Waste
ms-ch-27
131 W. Court Street
Goldendale, WA 98620
Phone: (509) 773-4448, Fax: (509) 773-4521
Local and state solid waste management government authorities.
The following is a list of firms specializing in vermicomposting technologies and
supplies. This list is not meant to be complete, as there may be other providers
of these services.
Sources:
Original Vermitech Systems, Ltd.
2328 Queen Street East
Toronto, Ontario M4E 1G9
Phone:(416)693-1027
Mr. John Longfellow, Klickitat County Solid Waste, March 1999.
Biocycle Magazine, October 1994 and February 1995
U.S. EPA, Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1994 Update.
7-II/A-1-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
WINDROW COMPOSTING
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: N/A; Air Force: N/A; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Low; Air Force: Low
Alternative for: Landfilling
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: N/A
Overview: Windrow composting is a process for biodegrading organic material aerobically.
The process produces heat which destroys pathogens and produces a stabilized
compost product for use as mulch, soil conditioner, and topsoil additive. The
organic material is left to decompose outdoors, aided only by watering and
mechanical turning for aeration. This method is simple, non-intensive, has a very
low capital cost, and is commonly used by farmers, municipalities, and waste
processing corporations. It is the slowest large-scale method used to produce
compost. Windrow composting can be used to process yard waste, food,
paper, and sewage sludge.
The process of composting begins with collecting, receiving, processing, and
storing feed stock materials. These steps are then followed by mixing and pile
construction. The compostable materials must be screened or hand picked for
non-biodegradable materials, and then chipped, ground, or shredded into
uniform particles that will decompose quickly. The high-carbon, dry wood and
paper waste should be mixed in equal proportion with high-nitrogen, high
moisture grass clippings and food waste to provide balanced nutrition for the
organisms of decomposition. Feedstock materials are mixed using a pugmill,
front-end loader, or paddle-blade mixer to distribute the carbon and nitrogen
evenly. The material is then formed into piles to decompose.
Oxygen levels and temperatures must be maintained within a specific range to
provide optimum conditions for the microorganisms. The temperature must be
high enough to kill pathogens and weed seeds but not so high as to kill the
microorganisms. The decomposition produces heat, and the organic material
itself provides insulation. Oxygen is a primary requirement for aerobic
decomposition. A well-aerated and properly mixed compost pile should not
produce unpleasant odors.
Compost is formed into long piles called windrows that are typically 1.5 to three
meters high, three to six meters wide, and up to 100 meters or more in length.
Windrows can be placed directly on soil or paved area. The land requirement
7-II/A-2-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
for a windrow composting facility depends on the volume of material processed.
Generally, all of the materials handling and pile building can be accomplished
with a front-end loader. The windrows can be aerated mechanically by turning
with a front end loader for smaller operations or using a windrow turner.
Following the composting period, the windrows are broken down and
reconstructed into curing piles for additional aging and drying of the material.
Curing compost stabilizes it to prevent odors or other nuisances from
developing while the material is stored. After curing, the compost can be
screened to improve the quality of the final compost product, depending on the
requirements of the compost buyer or consumer.
Compliance
Benefit:
Windrow composting will help facilities meet the requirements under Executive
Order 13101 requiring executive agencies (e.g. DOD) to incorporate waste
prevention and recycling in their daily operations.
States and/or localities may have additional regulations on composting which
should be followed. The equipment used for composting may increase fuel use
on site which may increase a facility's need to comply with SARA (40 CFR
355 and EO 12856) reporting requirements and SPCC (40 CFR 112) issues.
In addition, composting increases water use at a facility. Under EO 12902,
federal facilities are required to implement water conservation projects.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved
Material
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
A discussion of feedstock types should be conducted with the vendor to
determine compatibility with the facility's goals for waste reduction.
Safety issues for composting primarily concern the operation of power
equipment and the potential health effects of working with decomposing organic
matter. Operators should be specifically trained to use the equipment and
should not operate machinery if they are taking medication. Proper personal
protective equipment (PPE) including gloves, eye, hearing, and respiratory
protection should be used if needed.
Consult the base safety office regarding proper protective gear and training
prior to using mechanized equipment.
7-II/A-2-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
Compost reduces the amount of waste to be disposed. Complete recovery
of yard waste will reduce the amount of waste generated by an average of
15.9% while the addition of food waste will divert another 6.7% (EPA,
1994)
Easy to implement and operate
Handles a large volume of material
Low capital costs
Less equipment and maintenance needed than other composting methods
Uses few resources
Requires a lot of land for composting
Attracts scavengers
Often produces odors
Requires large buffer zones due to odor and vectors
May require a permit depending on size
May require processing of rainwater runoff
Compost can become anaerobic in rainy conditions
The cost of constructing and operating a windrow composting facility will vary
from one location to another. The operating costs depend on the volume of
material processed. The use of additional feed materials, such as paper and
mixed municipal solid waste, will require additional capital investment and
materials processing labor. The capital costs include compost pads, grinder,
compost mixer, trommel screen, front-end loader, windrow turner, and offices.
The solid waste disposal costs are based on estimates provided by Seymour
Johnson AFB:
Assumptions:
Process 3000 tons/yr. of yard waste, food waste, etc.
Produce 1,500 tons/yr. of finished compost
Capital costs: $600,000 (does not include land costs)
Solid waste disposal costs: $28/ton
Cost to pickup and haul waste to landfill: $50/ton
7-II/A-2-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Operating costs (labor and maintenance): $165,000/yr
Avoided topsoil purchases: $25/ton
Annual Operating Cost Comparison of
Diversion and Disposal for Windrow Composting
Diversion Disposal
Operational Costs:
Labor and maintenance: $165,000 $0
Landfill costs: $0 $84,000
Transport/waste pickup costs $0 $150,000
Total Operational Costs: $165,000 $234,000
Total Recovered Income
(Topsoil Savings): $37,500 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$127,500 -$234,000
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for Diversion Method over Disposal: $106,500
* Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $600,000
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: 5.6 years
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values. To
return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost
None Identified
Approving
Authority: Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
7-II/A-2-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
Navy:
Mr. Wallace Eakes, ESC 426
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
1100 23rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, California 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-4882, DSN: 551-4882, Fax: (805) 982-4832
Air Force:
Mr. Donald Hopson, HQ USAFA/CEV
U.S. Air Force Academy
Colorado Springs, CO 80840
Phone: (719) 333-4483; DSN: 333-4483, Fax: (719) 333-3753
Mr. Chuck Schwingler
1095 Mitchell Avenue
Seymour Johnson AFB, NC 27531-2355
Phone: (919) 722-5168, DSN 722-5168
Fax:(919)722-5179
Ms. Nancy Carper
Headquarters Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence
3207 North Rd.
Brooks Air Force Base, TX 78235
Phone: (210) 536-4964
Local and state solid waste management government authorities.
Engineering firms specializing in solid waste management and composting
technologies are listed below. This is not meant to be a complete list, as there
are other firms specializing in composting systems.
Mr. Don Landry
Valley Compost & Topsoil
P.O. Box 1013
Buellton, CA 83427
Phone: (805) 965-6617, Fax: (805) 735-1172
Compost Systems Company/Fairfield Service Company
240 Boone Avenue
P.O. Box 354
Marion, OH 43302
(740) 387-3335
7-II/A-2-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Mr. Wolfgang Ebert
Buhler, Inc.
P.O. Box 9497
Minneapolis, MN 55440
Phone: (612) 540-9226, Fax: (612) 540-9246
Sources: Mr. Chuck Schwingler, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, February 1999.
Mr .Tim Brecheen, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, July 1996.
Mr. Wayne Fordham, Tyndall Air Force Base, July 1996.
Martin E. Simson, andC.M. Connelly, "Composting and Costs: The Bigger, The
Better, " Waste Age. September 1994.
Parsons Engineering Science, Inc. "VandenbergAFB Recycling and Composting
Feasibility/Economic Analysis for Municipal Solid Waste ", November 1994.
EPA, Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1994 Update.
7-II/A-2-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
ORGANIC MATERIAL IN-VESSEL COMPOSTING
Revision 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: N/A; Air Force: N/A; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Low
Alternative for: Landfilling
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: N/A
Overview: Composting is a process by which organic material is aerobically biodegraded.
The process produces heat, which destroys pathogens. The result is a stabilized
compost product that can be used as mulch, soil conditioner, and topsoil
additive. In-vessel systems can be used to compost yard waste, food, sewage
sludge, mixed wastes, and paper to produce a marketable, high quality product.
Under optimum conditions, materials degrade aerobically in a tank. Considered
advanced technology compared to other composting methods, in-vessel
systems require precise temperature and oxygen control. In-vessel systems are
used in applications where land space is limited, and work well for food waste
(including animal products) and sewage; material that are often considered too
messy or odoriferous for open composting. Aerobic systems are used to
compost mixed waste and other organics, and produce biogas that can be
burned for energy. Municipalities and large facilities typically use anaerobic
systems. Pilot studies are essential to optimize design and operating features for
in-vessel composting facilities.
Although carbon to nitrogen ratios and moisture content must be considered,
the composition of feed materials is less critical for in-vessel systems than it is
for windrow or aerated static pile systems. This flexibility allows for different
mixes to be composted, based on availability of feed materials. The
compostable materials must be screened or hand picked for non-biodegradable
materials and then chipped, ground, or shredded into uniform particles that will
decompose quickly. Feedstock materials are mixed using a pugmill, front-end
loader, conveyor or paddle-blade mixer to distribute the carbon and nitrogen
evenly.
Oxygen and temperature regulation is critical to maintain optimum conditions for
microbial action. The temperature must be high enough to kill pathogens and
weed seeds but not so high as to kill the microorganisms. The method of
ensuring the maintenance of an air supply to the compost mix depends on the
particular in-vessel system selected. Generally, air is supplied by blowers, and
flows up through the compost. Air can be supplied via piping networks or
7-II/A-3-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
through damper arrangements beneath the compost. Blowers can operate
automatically based on measured temperature set points or can be set at regular
intervals. Pile temperature is controlled by cycling the aeration system on and
off. Good odor control for this system is achieved by collecting and treating the
process air and building air.
Compliance
Benefit:
Organic material in-vessel composting will help facilities meet the provisions of
Executive Order 13101 requiring agencies (e.g. DOD) to incorporate waste
prevention and recycling in their daily operations.
States and/or localities may stipulate additional composting regulations. The
equipment used for composting may increase fuels on site which may increase a
facility's need to comply with SARA (40 CFR 355 and EO 12856) reporting
requirements and SPCC (40 CFR 112) issues.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Many in-vessel systems are not specifically designed for operation using yard
waste as a bulking agent. The optimal feedstock properties should be discussed
with the vendor to determine compatibility with the facility's goals for waste
reduction.
Care should be taken when handling compost material. If nitrogen is present in
excess, ammonia gas will be released from the compost. Ammonia gas has an
extremely pungent odor at very small concentrations. Ammonia at high
concentrations is a severe irritant of the eyes, respiratory tract, and skin.
Personal protection equipment (PPE) may be required.
Consult your local industrial health specialist and your base safety office prior to
implementing this technology.
Compost reduces the amount of waste to be disposed. Yard waste
composting can reduce waste generation by an average of 15.9% and
composting of food waste can divert another 6.7% (EPA, 1994)
In-vessel composting provides a faster method of composting than windrow
composting or aerated static pile composting.
7-II/A-3-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
In-vessel composting requires fewer operators than other composting
methods.
In-vessel materials handling systems are more efficient in design than
aerated static pile and windrow composting systems.
Some in-vessel composting technologies often have considerable
operational flexibility regarding feedstock composition.
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
Higher capital cost
Requires operator training
Requires maintenance
The costs of the various in-vessel-composting systems vary significantly. The
cost of construction, operation, shipping, and disposal for in-vessel-composting
facilities will vary from one location to another based on feed stock, odor
control requirements, and site constraints. The capital costs include compost
pads, reactor, conveyors/compost mixer, trommel screen, front-end loader,
blowers, odor control systems, and offices. The capital and operating costs are
dependent on the volume of material processed. The finished compost rate and
the solid waste disposal costs presented below are based on estimates provided
by Seymour Johnson Air Force Base:
Assumptions:
Process: 4,000 ton/yr. of yard waste, food waste, etc.
Produce: 10,000-20,000 Ibs./day of finished compost, or, an
average of 2,738 tons/yr.
Capital costs: $2,800,000 (does not include land costs)
Solid waste disposal costs: $28/ton
Cost to pickup and haul waste to landfill: $50/ton
Operating Costs (Labor and maintenance): $125,000/yr
Avoided topsoil purchases: $25/ton
7-II/A-3-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Annual Operating Cost Comparison of
Diversion and Disposal for Organic Material In-Vessel Composting
Diversion
Operational Costs:
Labor and maintenance:
Landfill costs:
Transport/waste pickup cost:
Total Operational Costs:
Total Recovered Income
(Topsoil Savings):
Net Annual Cost/Benefit:
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for Diversion Method over Disposal:
* Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process:
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process:
Disposal
$125,000
$0
$0
$125,000
$68,450
-$56,550
$0
$112,000
$200,000
$312,000
$0
-$312,000
$255,450
$2,800,000
<11 years
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values. To
return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
Approving
Authority:
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Points
of Contact:
Mr. Wallace Eakes, ESC 426
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
1100 23rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, California 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-4882, DSN: 551-4882, Fax: (805) 982-4832
7-II/A-3-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Mr. Phil Hayes, Facility Manager
Pinetop-Lakeside Sanitary District
Route3,BoxP-LSD
Lakeside, AZ 85929
Phone: (520) 368-5370, Fax: (520) 368-6039
Mr. Chuck Schwingler
1095 Mitchell Avenue
Seymour Johnson AFB, NC 27531-2355
Phone: (919) 722-5168, DSN 722-5168, Fax: (919) 722-5179
Vendors:
Sources:
Local and state solid waste management government authorities.
This is not meant to be a complete list, as there are other manufacturers and
vendors of in-vessel composting systems.
Bedminster Bioconversion Corporation
Billy J. Toups, Regional Marketing Director
145 Church Street, Suite 200
Marietta, GA 30060
Phone: (770) 422-4455
Jim Schliefle, Sales Manager
CBI Walker
1501 North Division Street
Plainfield, IL 60544-8929
Phone: (815) 439-6543, Fax: (708) 851-9392
Robert Harris
Taulman, Inc.
415 E. Paces Ferry Road, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30305
Phone: (770) 745-3030
Compost Systems Company/Fairfield Service Company
240 Boone Avenue
P.O. Box 354
Marion, OH 43302
Phone: (740) 387-3335, Fax: (740)387-4869
Mr. Chuck Schwingler, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, February 1999.
Mr. Phil Hayes, Facility Manager, Pinetop-Lakeside Sanitary District, Lakeside,
Arizona, July 1996. Mr. Tim Brecheen, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, July 1996.
EPA, "Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1994 Update.
7-II/A-3-5
-------
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
WASTE SEPARATION USING TROMMEL SCREENS
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: N/A; Air Force: N/A; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Low
Alternative for: N/A
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: N/A
Overview: A trommel is a rotary cylindrical screen that is typically inclined at a downward
angle which, combined with the tumbling action of the trommel, separates
materials of different density. Trommel screens are used to separate
commingled recyclables, municipal solid waste components, or to screen
finished compost from windrow and aerated static pile systems.
Trommel screens are used by material recovery facilities to separate
compostable paper from glass and other contaminants in previously shredded
municipal solid waste. Smaller trommels have been used to separate labels and
caps from crushed glass. Some trommels are designed to let paper pass
through the screen while diverting heavier materials to re-crushing or a landfill.
Other applications require multi-stage trommel screens which have meshes or
plates of different aperture sizes. These screens may be used for the separation
of commingled wastes with components of various sizes.
In composting applications, trommel screens are used to enhance the market
value of finished compost by separating large particles and non-degraded
bulking agents such as wood chips from the organic fines. The fines are used or
sold as a soil amendment and the bulking agent can be re-used. Trommel
screens are used when a high quality end product is desired.
The factors that influence the separation efficiency of trommel screens are:
Characteristics and quantity of the incoming materials
Size, proportions, and inclination of the cylinder screen
Rotational speed
Clogging of screen openings
Size and number of screen openings
The types of trommel screens available range from electrically or hydraulically
stationary units with or without conveyors and hoppers to electrically or
7-II/A-4-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
hydraulically self-contained, portable or mobile units with conveyors, cleaning
brushes, and variable speed trommel drums.
Compliance
Benefit:
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Waste separation using trommel screens can help facilities decrease the amount
of solid waste going to landfills and therefore, helps facilities meet the
requirements under Executive Order 13101 requiring executive agencies (e.g.,
DOD) to incorporate waste prevention and recycling in their daily operations.
Use of trommel screens may increase the use of electricity at the facility. Under
EO 12902 facilities are required to reduce energy consumption.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved e.g., the amount of
workload involved.
N/A
Safety issues for using trommel screens deal with the operation of power
equipment. Operators should be specifically trained to use the trommel screen.
Machinery should not be used if workers are on medication. Proper personal
protective equipment (PPE) including gloves, eye protection, and hearing
protection should be used if needed.
Consult the base safety office on proper protective gear and training prior to
using mechanized equipment.
Allows recovery of recyclable and compostable wastes from mixed waste
stream
Produces a high quality compost product for use in landscaping
Produces a more marketable compost product that has higher value
Allows reuse of compost bulking material
Compost reduces the amount of waste to be disposed. Complete recovery
of yard waste will reduce the amount of waste disposed in landfills by an
average of 15.9% (EPA, 1994)
Disadvantages:
N/A
7-II/A-4-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Economic
Analysis: Trommel screens which process material in the range of 50 to 100 cubic
yards/hour range in cost from $50,000 to $180,000. The ecomomic analysis is
for an aerated static pile compost operation. The capital costs include compost
pads with air lines, blowers, a tub grinder, compost mixer, trommel screen, front
end loaders, and offices.
Assumptions:
Process 25,000 tons/yr of wood and yard waste
Produce 15,000 tons/yr of finished compost
Capital costs: $3,000,000
Solid waste disposal costs: $13/ton
Operating costs (labor & maintenance): $25/ton
Avoided topsoil purchases: $50/ton
Hauling to landfill: $5/ton
Hauling to composting facility: $2/ton
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Diversion and Disposal Using a Composting Facility
Diversion Disposal
Operational Costs:
Labor & maintenance: $625,000 $0
Landfill costs: $0 $325,000
Hauling costs: $50,000 $125,000
Total Operational Costs: $675,000 $450,000
Total Recovered Income: $750,000 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: $75,000 -$450,000
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for Composting Facility: $525,000
* Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $3,000,000
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: < 6 years
7-II/A-4-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
Approving
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Mr. John Comstock
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
110023rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, California 93043-4370
Phone:(805)982-5315
Mr. Wallace Eakes, ESC 426
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
1100 23rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, California 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-4882, DSN: 551-4882, Fax: (805) 982-4832
The following vendors manufacture trommel screens. They do not represent a
complete listing, as other similar manufacturers of this type of equipment may
exist.
The McLanahan Corporation
P.O. Box 229
200 Wall Street
Hollidaysburg, PA 16648
Phone: (814) 695-9807, Fax (814) 695-6684
Re-Tech
341 King Street
Myerstown, PA 17067
Phone: (717) 866-2357
7-II/A-4-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Triple/S Dynamics, Inc.
1031 South Haskell Avenue
Dallas, TX 75223
Phone: (214) 828-8600, Fax: (214) 828-8688
Wildcat Manufacturing Co., Inc.
Box 1100
Freeman, SD 57029
Phone: (800) 627-3954, Fax: (605) 925-7536
Sources: Mr. John Comstock, Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, May 1999.
Handbook, Material Recovery Facilities for Municipal Solid Waste, USEPA,
EPA/625/6-91/031.
Wildcat Mfg. Co. Inc., March 1995.
7-II/A-4-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
FOOD WASTE COMPOSTING OR REUSE
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: N/A; Air Force: N/A; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
Alternative for: Landfilling
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: N/A
Overview: It is possible to re-use food waste by diverting it to a hog or livestock farmer.
An estimated 75% of food waste is also usable for composting operations. A
significant reduction in landfilled waste could be achieved by initiating or
expanding programs to re-use or compost food waste. Food waste consists of
vegetable trimmings, raw and cooked food, meat and dairy products, spoiled
food, leftovers, plate scrapings, and some animal feeds. It is a major
contributor to the weight of disposed waste due to its high water content.
Military food services produce large quantities of food waste which makes the
waste easy to capture and divert.
Food waste and paper waste from food service operations can be processed
through waste pulpers. The waste pulpers grind up organic matter with water
(the process is similar to a household garbage disposal) and then extract most of
the moisture to produce a dry, organic pulp. This material is less expensive to
transport than raw food waste and is often in a more usable form for animal
food or composting. The dry pulp is easily mixed with traditional feedstuffs
such as urea and corn.
Diverting food waste to a hog or livestock farmer is a source reduction strategy.
Although animal food processors can take meats and oils, they may not accept
material containing paper. Specific requirements of animal food processors
should be consulted before initiating a program. Licensed animal food
processors will contract to pick up food waste. They charge a fee to the
generator that is approximately half the cost of landfilling the waste. If
unlicensed farmers accept the food waste, the military installation may be liable
for potential damages. The state's Department of Agriculture should be
consulted about legal requirements, permitting, or the location of animal farmers
who can accept food waste prior to implementing a program.
Food waste that is diverted to a composting operation can contain significant
amounts of wastepaper. This makes it easier to separate from regular trash and
results in higher diversion. Food containing meat and dairy products is not
suitable for composting because it attracts scavengers and creates odor
7-II/A-5-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
problems. Most yard waste composting operations can be designed or
adapted to incorporate food waste. The addition of food waste often helps
yard waste decay faster. Housing residents can practice backyard composting
and large scale composting systems can be set up for food service wastes.
Although any composting method can be used for food waste, in-vessel
composting is particularly appropriate since it eliminates problems with odor
and scavengers.
Compliance
Benefits:
Material
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Food waste composting or reuse will help facilities meet the requirements under
Executive Order 13101 requiring executive agencies (e.g., DOD) to
incorporate waste prevention and recycling in their daily operations.
States and/or localities may have additional regulations on composting which
should be followed. The equipment used for composting may increase fuels on
site which may increase a facility's need to comply with SARA (40 CFR 355
and EO 12856) reporting requirements and SPCC (40 CFR 112) issues.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
N/A
Food waste collection facilities have the potential for rodent/pest infestation, foul
odor, and unsightly conditions. The addition of food to composting operations
increases the potential for rodent/pest and odor problems. Consult your local
industrial health specialist and your local health and safety personnel prior to
implementation.
Reusing or composting food waste can result in a potential 6.7% reduction
by weight of disposed waste (EPA, 1994)
Composted food waste can be used as a soil amendment on base, possibly
reducing the need for purchased supplies
Cost savings are achieved from reduced landfill disposal fees
Disadvantages:
Food waste introduces problems of odor and scavengers in outdoor
composting operations
7-II/A-5-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Source separation of food requires extra work and special containers in the
kitchen
Food waste contaminated with trash is not suitable for use as an animal
food
Storing food waste between pickups can be messy, odorous, and requires
frequent cleaning of containers
Food waste composting may require permits
Economic
Analysis: Capital costs for incorporating food waste into an existing composting operation
would include the purchase of separate collection containers for the
compostable material. The economic analysis is limited to this option since it
has a lower capital cost than diversion as livestock feed.
Capital costs for using food waste to produce animal feed may include the cost
of one or more waste pulpers as well as bulk collection containers for the
processed material. Capital costs for a waste pulper range from $27,000 to
$34,000. Operating costs would include transporting the material to the
livestock farmer.
Assumptions:
Purchase of 200 60-gallon bins at $50 each
Labor approximately 1 day per week at $30/hr
Use existing garbage trucks for food waste collection
20 tons per month diverted
Produces 15 tons per month finished compost
Landfill fees: $30/ton
Hauling to landfill costs: $5/ton
Hauling costs to on-base compost facility: $2/ton
Avoided topsoil purchases: $50/ton
7-II/A-5-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Diversion and Disposal of Food Wastes
Operational Costs:
Labor:
Waste Disposal:
Hauling:
Total Operational Costs:
Total Recovered Income:
Net Annual Cost/Benefit:
Diversion
$12,500
$0
$500
$13,000
$9,000
-$4,000
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for Diversion:
* Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process:
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process:
Disposal
$0
$7,200
$1,200
$8,400
$0
-$8,400
$4,400
$10,000
< 3 years
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
Approving
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Mr. Wallace Eakes, ESC 426
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
1100 23rd Avenue
PortHueneme, California 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-4882, DSN: 551-4882, Fax: (805) 982-4832
7-II/A-5-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Vendors:
Sources:
Mr. John Comstock
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
1100 23rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, California 93043-4370
Phone:(805)982-5315
Local and state solid waste management government authorities
State Department of Agriculture
The following list is not meant to be complete, as there may be other suppliers
of this type of equipment or service.
Hobart Corporation
701 Ridge Avenue
Troy, OH 45374-0001
Phone: (937)332-2000
Fax: (937) 332-2399
Jacobson Companies
2765 Niagra Lane
Minneapolis, MN 55447
Phone: (800) 328-6887
Fax: (612) 557-5557
Somat Corporation
855 Fox Chase
Coatesville, PA 19320
Phone: (610) 384-7000
Fax:(610) 380-8500
Vincent Corporation
2810 5th. Avenue
Tampa, FL 33605
Phone:(813)248-2650
Fax:(813)247-7557
Mr. John Comstock, Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, May 1999
Jacobson, Mike Hansen, May 1996
7-II/A-5-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
RAW MATERIAL MIXING USING COMPOST MIXERS
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: N/A; Air Force: N/A; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Low; Air Force: Low
Alternative for: N/A
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: N/A
Overview:
Compliance
Benefit:
Compost mixers are used to mix raw materials such as food, yard waste, paper,
and sewage sludge uniformly before composting. Mixing is an important step to
distribute the carbon and nitrogen materials evenly and to assure fast, clean
smelling decomposition. For materials such as food waste and sewage sludge,
mixers can be used to incorporate bulking agents such as wood chips that add
carbon to the mix and break up wet clumps.
Mixers are large containers with mobile paddles that are used to mix
compostable materials. They are used for larger composting operations where
(1) mixing with a loader is impractical, or (2) compost recipes require precise
mixtures of carbon and nitrogen. The paddle mixer, pugmill mixer, and rotary
drum mixer are the most common compost mixers. The units may be stationary
or mobile, and may be powered electrically or by diesel engine. Some pieces
of equipment designed for mixing other products such as animal feed can be
used to mix compost.
Compost reduces the amount of waste to be disposed. Complete recovery of
yard waste will reduce the amount of waste disposed in landfills by an average
of 15.9% (EPA, 1994).
Composting will help facilities meet the requirements under Executive Order
13101 requiring executive agencies (e.g., DOD) to incorporate waste
prevention and recycling in their daily operations.
States and/or localities may have additional regulations on composting which
should be followed. The compost mixers may increase fuels on site which may
increase a facility's need to comply with SARA (40 CFR 355 and EO 12856)
reporting requirements and SPCC (40 CFR 112) issues. In addition, the
mixers may also contribute to a facility's need for an air permit (40 CFR 70 or
71). If electric mixers are used additional electricity will be used at the facility.
Under EO 12902, federal facilities are required to be as energy efficient as
possible.
7-II/A-6-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
N/A
Safety issues for using compost mixers deal with the operation of power
equipment. Operators should be specifically trained in the proper operation of
the mixer. Machinery should not be used if workers are on medication. Proper
personal protective equipment (PPE) including gloves, eye protection, and
hearing protection should be used if needed.
Consult the base safely office on proper protective gear and training prior to
using mechanized equipment.
Thorough mixing speeds up the composting process by making nutrients
available to microorganisms
Fast, efficient mixing of compost materials compared to mixing with a loader
Can handle a large volume of materials
Breaks up clumps of material that can become anaerobic and odorous in
the compost pile
Disadvantages:
None
Economic
Analysis:
Compost mixers cost from $30,000 to $60,000 for units that process from 20
to 40 tons/hr. Maintenance costs are approximately $500/yr excluding labor.
Compost mixers are available as either stationary units with an electric motor or
mobile units with a diesel engine. The ecomomic analysis presented is based on
an aerated static pile compost operation. The capital costs include compost
pads with air lines, blowers, a tub grinder, compost mixer, trommel screen, front
end loaders, and offices.
Assumptions:
Process 25,000 tons/yr of wood and yard waste
Produce 15,000 tons/yr of finished compost
Capital costs: $3,000,000
7-II/A-6-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Solid waste disposal costs: $13/ton
Operating costs (labor & maintenance): $25/ton
Avoided topsoil purchases: $50/ton
Hauling to landfill: $5/ton
Hauling to composting facility: $2/ton
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Diversion and Disposal Using a Composting Facility
Diversion Disposal
Operational Costs:
Labor & maintenance: $625,000 $0
Landfill costs: $0 $325,000
Hauling costs: $50,000 $125,000
Total Operational Costs: $675,000 $450,000
Total Recovered Income: $750,000 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: $75,000 -$450,000
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for Composting Facility: $525,000
* Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $3,000,000
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: < 6 years
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost
None Identified
Approving
Authority: Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
7-II/A-6-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
Navy:
Mr. Wallace Eakes, ESC 426
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
110023rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, California 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-4882, DSN: 551-4882, Fax: (805) 982-4832
Mr. John Comstock
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
1100 23rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, California 93043-4370
Phone:(805)982-5315
The following vendors manufacture compost mixers. They do not represent a
complete listing, as other similar manufacturers of this type of equipment may
exist.
Sources:
The McLanahan Corporation
P.O. Box 229
200 Wall Street
Hollidaysburg, PA 16648
Phone:(814)695-9807
Fax (814) 695-6684
Detcon
P.O. Box 2249
Farmingdale, NJ 07727
Phone:(732)938-2211
Knight Industrial Division
PO Box 167
Brodhead, WI 53520
Phone: (608) 897-2131, Fax: (608) 897-2561
Mr. John Comstock, Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, May 1999.
The F. B. Leopold Company, Inc., March 1995.
The McLanahan Corporation, March 1995.
Detcon, March 1995.
Knight Industrial Division, March 1995.
7-II/A-6-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
COMPOSTABLE MATERIAL TRANSPORT USING FRONT-END LOADERS
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: N/A; Air Force: N/A; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Low
Alternative for: N/A
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: N/A
Overview:
A front-end loader is one of the most important components of a composting
operation. Typically, front-end loaders are used to move quantities of
compostable materials. It may be the only piece of equipment required for a
small facility using a low-level technology approach. Loaders can be used to fill
a tub grinder, load material into a compost mixer, mix shredded or ground
feedstock, turn and aerate compost, combine decomposing windrows, and
move finished compost off site. Unless the operation is a backyard composting
project, a loader is a required piece of equipment for composting.
Front-end loaders may be fitted with attachments, such as claws for moving
woody wastes, or simple compost turners for the mixing and aeration of
windrows. In compost operations, a large capacity bucket, usually larger than 4
cubic yards (cy) and possibly up to 10 cy, is required.
Compost reduces the amount of waste to be disposed. Complete recovery of
yard waste will reduce the amount of waste disposed in landfills by an average
of 15.9% (EPA, 1994).
Compliance
Benefit:
Composting will help meet the requirements under Executive Order 13101
requiring executive agencies (e.g., DOD) to incorporate waste prevention and
recycling in their daily operations.
States and/or localities may have additional regulations on composting which
should be followed. The use of a front-end loader will increase fuel usage on
site which may a increase facility's need to comply with SARA (40 CFR 355
and EO 12856) reporting requirements and SPCC (40 CFR 112) issues.
7-II/A-7-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
N/A
Safety issues associated with using front end loaders concern the operation of
power equipment. Operators should be specifically trained in the proper
operation of the loader. Machinery should not be used if workers are on
medication. Proper personal protection equipment (PP) including gloves, eye
protection, and hearing protection should be used if needed.
Consult the base safely office on proper protective gear and training prior to
using mechanized equipment.
Efficient material handling with oversized buckets
Functions as a compost turner with attachments
Versatility for other uses
Can handle all composting equipment needs for small to medium projects
Disadvantages:
Slower than a windrow turner for turning compost
Economic
Analysis:
Front end loaders typically cost in the range from $80,000 to $160,000. The
ecomomic analysis presented is based on an aerated static pile compost
operation. The capital costs include compost pads with air lines, blowers, a tub
grinder, compost mixer, trommel screen, front end loaders, and offices.
Assumptions:
Process 25,000 tons/yr of wood and yard waste
Produce 15,000 tons/yr of finished compost
Capital costs: $3,000,000
Solid waste disposal costs: $13/ton
Operating costs (labor & maintenance): $25/ton
Avoided topsoil purchases: $50/ton
7-II/A-7-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Hauling to landfill: $5/ton
Hauling to composting facility: $2/ton
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Diversion and Disposal Using a Composting Facility
Diversion Disposal
Operational Costs:
Labor & maintenance: $625,000 $0
Landfill costs: $0 $325,000
Hauling costs: $50,000 $125,000
Total Operational Costs: $675,000 $450,000
Total Recovered Income: $750,000 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: $75,000 -$450,000
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for Composting Facility: $525,000
* Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $3,000,000
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: < 6 years
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values. To
return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost
Bucket, scoop type loader 3830-00-279-6307 ea. Local
Purchase
Loader/backhoe 3805-01-335-5071 ea $27,000
Approving
Authority: Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
7-II/A-7-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
Navy:
Mr. John Comstock
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
1100 23rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, California 93043-4370
Phone:(805)982-5315
Mr. Wallace Eakes, ESC 426
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
110023rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, California 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-4882, DSN: 551-4882, Fax: (805) 982-4832
Air Force:
Mr. Donald Hopson
510CES/CEV
8120 Edgerton Drive, Suite 40
US Air Force Academy
Colorado Springs, CO 80840-2400
Phone:(719)472-4483
The following vendors manufacture front-end loaders. They do not represent a
complete listing, as other similar manufacturers of this type of equipment may
exist.
Case Corporation
700 State Street
Racine, WI 53404
Phone:(414)636-6011
Fax: (414)636-7809
Caterpillar, Inc.
100-TNE Adams Street
Peoria, IL 61629-0002
Phone: (309) 675-5394
Fax: (309) 675-4660
John Deere
Dubuque Works
P.O. Box 538
Dubuque, IA 52001
Phone:(319)589-5151
Fax:(319)589-5044
7-II/A-7-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Sources: Mr. John Comstock, Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, May 1999.
J. I. Case Corporation, March 1995
Caterpillar, Inc., March 1995
John Deere, March 1995.
Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources, 1989. Management Strategies for
Landscape
Waste-Collection, Composting, Marketing ILENR/RR-89/09.
7-II/A-7-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
COMPOST TURNING AND AERATION USING WINDROW TURNERS
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: N/A; Air Force: N/A; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Low; Air Force: Low
Alternative for: N/A
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: N/A
Overview:
Compliance
Benefit:
Windrow turners are used to turn and aerate compost in windrows (long
extended piles). Windrow turners break up anaerobic pockets in the compost,
introduce oxygen, and release heat from the pile. Windrow turners are
especially suited for high-volume facilities.
Large windrow turners are typically self-propelled and straddle the windrow,
using a cylindrical drum with attached flails to mix the compost. Smaller
windrow turners consist of a unit that can be attached to a front-end loader or
tractor that is driven between windrows. This side-mounted unit may have the
advantage of being more economical for sites that do not require a full-time
windrow turner. However, since they turn only half of the pile or windrow,
more passes are needed for each pile, which produces an increase in labor
hours.
Compost reduces the amount of waste to be disposed. Complete recovery of
yard waste will reduce the amount of waste disposed in landfills by an average
of 15.9% (EPA, 1994).
Composting will help meet the requirements under Executive Order 13101
requiring executive agencies (e.g. DOD) to incorporate waste prevention and
recycling in their daily operations.
States and/or localities may have additional regulations on composting which
should be followed. The use of windrow turners or a front-end loader may
increase fuels on site which may increase a facility's need to comply with
SARA (40 CFR 355 and EO 12856) reporting requirements and SPCC (40
CFR 112) issues
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
7-II/A-8-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
N/A
Safety issues for using windrow turners concern the operation of power
equipment and health effects of working with decomposing organic matter.
Operators should be specifically trained to use the turner. Machinery should
not be used if workers are on medication. Proper personal protective
equipment (PPE) including gloves, eye protection, respiratory protection, and
hearing protection should be used if needed. Consult the base safety office
regarding proper PPE and training prior to using mechanized equipment.
Turns more cubic yards of compost per hour than a front-end loader
Produces compost with a superior texture relative to that produced by a
front-end loader
Disadvantages:
Turner design and size limit windrow dimensions to a maximum of 5 to 7
feet high, and 14 to 18 feet wide at the base.
Windrow turners require level surfaces to operate efficiently.
Turners can be difficult to move from site to site.
Economic
Analysis:
Windrow turners cost can vary from approximately $45,000 to $250,000.
These units can process from 2,000 cubic yards/hour (requires front-end
loader) to 4,000 cubic yards/hour (self-propelled unit). Operating costs, not
including labor, are $18/hour to $35/hour.
The cost of constructing and operating a windrow composting facility will vary
from one location to another. The capital costs include compost pads, grinder,
compost mixer, trommel screen, front-end loader, windrow turner, and offices.
The solid waste disposal costs are based on estimates provided by Seymour
Johnson AFB:
Assumptions:
Process 3000 tons/yr of yard waste, food waste, etc.
Produce 1,500 tons/yr of finished compost
Capital costs: $600,000 (does not include land costs)
Solid waste disposal costs: $28/ton
7-II/A-8-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Cost to pickup and haul waste to landfill: $50/ton
Operating costs (labor and maintenance): $165,000/yr
Avoided topsoil purchases: $25/ton
Annual Operating Cost Comparison of
Diversion and Disposal for Windrow Composting
Diversion
Disposal
Operational Costs:
Labor and maintenance:
Landfill costs:
Transport/waste pickup costs
Total Operational Costs:
Total Recovered Income
(Topsoil Savings):
Net Annual Cost/Benefit:
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for Diversion Method over Disposal:
* Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process:
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process:
$165,000
$0
$0
$165,000
$37,500
-$127,500
$0
$84,000
$150,000
$234,000
$0
-$234,000
$106,500
$600,000
5.6 years
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values. To
return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
Approving
Authority:
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
7-II/A-8-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Points
of Contact:
Air Force:
Mr. Chuck Schwingler
1095 Mitchell Avenue
Seymour Johnson AFB, NC 27531-2355
Phone: (919) 722-5168, DSN 722-5168
Fax:(919)722-5179
Navy:
Mr. Wallace Eakes, ESC 426
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
1100 23rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, California 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-4882, DSN: 551-4882, Fax: (805) 982-4832
Vendors:
The following vendors manufacture compost turners. They do not represent a
complete listing, as other similar manufacturers of this type of equipment may
exist.
Brown Bear Corporation.
P.O. Box 29
Corning, IA 50841
Phone:(515)322-4220
Double T Equipment Manufacturing Limited
Airdrie, Alberta
Canada T4B 2B8
Phone:(403)948-5618
Fax: (403) 948-4780
Scarab Manufacturing and Leasing, Inc.
White Deer, TX 79097
Phone: (806) 883-7621
Fax:(806) 883-6804
Scat Engineering Division, ATI
Delhi, IA 52223
Phone: (800) 843-7228
Fax:(319)922-2700
7-II/A-8-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Wildcat Manufacturing Co., Inc.
Freeman, SD 57029
Phone: (800) 627-3954
Source: Mr. Chuck Schwingler, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, February 1999.
Double T Equipment Manufacturing Limited, March 1995.
Scarab Manufacturing and Leasing, Inc., March 1995.
Scat Engineering, March 1995.
Wildcat Manufacturing Company, Inc., March 1995.
Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources, 1989. Management Strategies for
Landscape Waste - Collection, Composting, Marketing. ILENR/RR-89/09.
Tim Brecheen, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, July 1996.
Wayne Fordham, Tyndall Air Force Base, July 1996.
7-II/A-8-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
BACKYARD AND SMALL-SCALE COMPOSTING
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: N/A; Air Force: N/A; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Low
Alternative for: Landfilling
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: N/A
Overview: Backyard and small-facility composting is a simple and inexpensive way to
recycle yard and garden trimmings, some food waste, wood ash, manure, and
paper waste on-site to eliminate the process of pick-up and central processing.
This technology is appropriate for residences and facilities, universities,
hospitals, and military bases that want to compost their own organic waste on-
site and turn it into a soil amendment.
The primary method of backyard composting is aerobic composting which
requires once a week turning and watering. The majority of commercial units
employ this method of composting. However, another method of small scale
composting involves anaerobic digestion. This method requires only final
aeration before being used for gardening.
Organic material is formed into open piles or contained in composting bins that
can be built or purchased in a variety of design types and materials. A more
intensive system for institutions might include a paved area for heavy equipment
maneuvering and multiple bins to allow for continuous composting.
A balanced compost mixture should contain approximately 25-30 parts carbon-
rich materials such as leaves, wood waste, sawdust, and straw and one part
nitrogen-rich materials such as grass clippings and food waste. Food waste will
tend to attract scavengers, but burying it a foot below the surface of the pile will
eliminate this problem. Meat, oil, or animal products should not be added to
backyard compost since they will produce an unpleasant odor and attract
animals.
For quicker and more homogenous compost, materials should be shredded,
chopped, or chipped. However, particles should not be too small since the
mixture needs to allow air to penetrate. A home or landscaping quality chipper
can be bought or rented for occasional use. These machines will allow the
inclusion of woody branches. These branches should be shredded prior to
being included in a backyard pile, or it will take the branches much longer to
decompose. In addition, these shredders will shred all material into a fine mulch
7-II/B-l-l
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
that can be used directly in landscaping, or that will decompose in a few
weeks/months into a fine soil amendment.
For backyard aerobic composting, a single pile should not exceed two cubic
yards or it will be difficult to turn. If a front end loader is available for
institutional composting, the piles can be larger. The piles should be watered
and turned at least once a week for the first few weeks to produce compost in
about one to two months. A well-aerated and well-mixed compost pile will
smell clean and woodsy. Compost can be used when it is a rich dark brown
color, individual particles are not distinguishable, and it is no longer producing
heat.
Compliance
Benefit:
Composting will help facilities meet the requirements under Executive Order
13101 requiring executive agencies (e.g DOD) to incorporate waste prevention
and recycling in their daily operations.
States and/or localities may have additional regulations on composting which
should be followed. The use of a front-end loader will increase fuels on site
which may increase a facility's need to comply with SARA (40 CFR 355 and
EO 12856) reporting requirements and SPCC (40 CFR 112) issues. In
addition, composting increases water use at a facility. Under EO 12902, federal
facilities are required implement water conservation projects. CPG (60 FR
21370) states that in order to assist in compliance with Comprehensive
Procurement Guidelines for yard trimmings compost, facilities can use
compost generated rather than purchasing other soil amendments.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
N/A
As long as no meat/animal products or pet wastes are included, compost does
not pose health risks and can be touched with bare hands. Sensitive people
should consider using a mask when turning compost to prevent inhaling bacteria
or particles.
Consult the base safety office on proper personal protection equipment (PPE)
and training prior to using mechanized equipment.
7-II/B-1-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Compost reduces the amount of waste to be disposed. Complete recovery
of yard waste will reduce the amount of waste generated by an average of
15.9% while the addition of food waste will divert another 6.7% (U.S.
EPA, 1994).
Backyard or single facility composting incurs few costs for processing.
No pick-up mechanisms or transport are required.
Backyard composting is easily implemented and requires low technology.
Backyard composting produces a nutrient-rich soil amendment for home
gardening and landscaping.
Composting potential to produce odors or attract pests.
Economic
Analysis:
Capital costs for wholesale/retail or mail order purchase of backyard
composting bins can vary from $30 to $300. Homemade compost bins can be
easily built from a variety of materials such as pallets, cinder blocks, and
trashcans with holes in them. For anaerobic composting, a trash can with a tight
lid or a pile under a tarp will restrict airflow. Building costs will vary.
Assumptions:
Annual costs are "per household"
Process 0.5 ton/yr. of yard waste and some food wastes
Produce 0.4 ton/yr. of finished compost
Composting bins : $50/ea
Solid waste disposal costs: $13/ton
Avoided topsoil purchases: $50/ton
No labor requirements
Annual Operating Cost Comparison of
Diversion and Disposal for Backyard and Small-Scale Composting
Operational Costs:
Landfill Costs
Total Operational Costs:
Total Recovered Income:
Annual Cost/Benefit:
Diversion
$0
$0
$20
$20
Disposal
$7
$7
$0
-$7
7-II/B-1-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for Diversion Method over Disposal: $27
* Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $50
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: <2 years
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values. To
return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
Approving
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Mr. Wallace Eakes, ESC 426
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
1100 23rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, California 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-4882, DSN: 551-4882, Fax: (805) 982-4832
BioCycle Magazine
419 State Avenue
Emmaus, PA 18049
Phone: (610) 967-4135
Harmonious Technologies
Mr. John Roulac
P.O. Box 1716
Sebastopol, CA 95473
Phone: (707) 823-1999, Fax: (707) 823-2424
7-II/B-1-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Vendors:
Sources:
Mr. Everett King
Santa Barbara County Composting Specialist
County of Santa Barbara
Public Works Department
Solid Waste and Utilities Division
109 East Victoria St.
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Phone:(805)882-3618
Local and state solid waste management government authorities.
The following list of vendors is not intended to be complete, as there are other
vendors and manufacturers of backyard composting bins.
C.E. Shepherd Co., Inc.
P.O. Box 9445
Houston, TX 77261-9445
Phone: (713) 928-3763
Fax: (713) 928-2324
Norseman Plastics Limited
Mr. Herb Noseworthy
2296 Kenmore Avenue
Buffalo, NY 14207
Phone:(800)267-4391
Smith & Hawken
Mr. Jim Downing
117 E. Strawberry Drive
Mill Valley, CA 94941
Phone:(415)383-4415
Fax:(415)383-8971
Ms. Nora Goldstein, Biocycle Magazine, March 1999.
Mr. Everett King, Santa Barbara Solid Waste and Utilities Division, March 1999.
County of Santa Barbara Backyard Composting and Yard Waste Reduction Guide.
Mr. DeanHartwood, Glendale Integrated Waste Management, July 1996.
U.S. EPA, Characterization of Municipal So lid Waste in the United States: 1994 Update.
7-II/B-1-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
AERATED STATIC PILE COMPOSTING
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: N/A; Air Force: N/A; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Low; Air Force: Low
Alternative for: Landfilling
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: N/A
Overview: Aerated static pile composting is a process that biodegrades organic material
and destroys pathogens, producing a stabilized compost product that can be
used as mulch, soil conditioner, or a soil amendment. Aerated static pile
composting can be used to compost yard waste, food, paper, municipal solid
waste, and sewage sludge. Composting operations can be performed both
indoors as well as outdoors.
The process for composting begins with collecting, processing, and storing
feedstock materials, followed by mixing and pile construction. The
compostable materials must be screened for non-biodegradable contaminants
and then chipped or shredded into uniform particles that will decompose
quickly. A balanced compost mixture should contain approximately 25 to 30
parts carbon-rich materials and 1 part nitrogen-rich materials. The mixed
feedstock materials are then formed into piles to decompose.
Pile sizes are typically three to four meters high, six to eight meters wide, and 30
to 40 meters in length. Perforated pipes are laid under each compost pile.
Each pipe in the aeration system is connected to blowers that blow air through
the pipes. The use of negative air allows air to be biofiltered to eliminate
unpleasant odors. The aeration pipes are typically covered with a layer of
wood chips that facilitates the distribution of air, providing uniform aeration.
The compost mix is placed on top of the wood chip layer forming the piles. The
piles are then covered with a layer of material, usually recycled cured compost,
for insulation. Pile temperature is controlled by increasing aeration to vent the
excess heat. However, if positive pressure is used to vent the heat by blowing
air up through the pile, it may be difficult to meet the temperature requirements
near the aeration pipes.
Oxygen, temperature, and moisture are key environmental parameters that must
be maintained within a specific range to provide optimum conditions for the
microorganisms. Enough oxygen must penetrate the pile to maintain aerobic
decomposition. If anaerobic decomposition occurs, odors will result. The
temperature generated from decomposition must be high enough to kill
7-II/B-2-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
pathogens and weed seeds but not the microorganisms, or approximately 140-
150ฐF. Composting materials should be moist but not wet. Moisture may be
added after turning, since turning releases moisture.
Following the composting period (typically 21 days for biosolids), the piles are
broken down and reconstructed into curing piles for additional aging and drying
of the material. Curing compost stabilizes it to prevent odors or other nuisances
from developing while the material is stored. After curing, the compost can be
screened to improve the quality of the final compost product.
Compliance
Benefit:
Composting will help meet the requirements under Executive Order 13101
requiring executive agencies (e.g., DOD) to incorporate waste prevention and
recycling in their daily operations.
States and/or localities may have additional regulations on composting which
should be followed. The use of a front-end loader will increase fuels on site
which may increase a facility's need to comply with SARA (40 CFR 355 and
EO 12856) reporting requirements and SPCC (40 CFR 112) issues. In
addition, the fans used to aerate the piles will increase electricity consumption.
Under EO 12902, federal facilities are required to reduce energy consumption.
CPG (60 FR 21370) states that in order to assist in compliance with
Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines for yard trimmings compost, facilities
can use compost generated rather than purchasing other soil amendments.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Material
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
N/A
As long as no meat or animal products are included, compost does not pose
health risks and can be touched with bare hands. Some people may wish to use
a mask when turning compost to prevent inhaling bacteria or particles.
Consult the base safety office and your local industrial health specialist to
determine the proper personal protection equipment (PPE) and the necessary
training prior to using this screening and shredding equipment.
7-II/B-2-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Complete composting of yard waste will reduce the amount of waste
disposed by an average of 15.9%, while the addition of food waste will
divert another 6.7% (U.S. EPA, 1994).
The aerated static pile method requires less land than other methods.
The aerated static pile can produce compost in about three weeks.
A negative air system with a biofilter can contain odors
Indoor operation reduces access to scavengers.
Controlled conditions can produce a high quality, marketable compost.
Higher capital cost, and requires more resources to operate than outdoor
methods.
Requires maintenance to keep perforated pipes from clogging. Clogged
pipes will reduce the efficiently of the systems.
Economic
Analysis:
Capital costs for an enclosed facility processing approximately 5,000 tons/yr of
wood and yard waste is approximately $2,000,000 to $5,000,000. The capital
cost, not including land, for an open facility will be decreased by building costs
(approximately $75/sq. ft.). Estimated annual operating costs may run $10 to
$70/ton (including labor, benefits, amendment grinding, maintenance, etc.). In
addition, depending on the design, the aeration pipe may have to be disposed or
recycled. This economic analysis is based on an industry survey of yard waste
composting facilities using the median values from the survey.
Assumptions:
Process 25,000 tons/yr of wood and yard waste
Produce 15,000 tons/yr of finished compost
Capital costs: $3,000,000
Solid waste disposal costs: $13/ton
Operating costs (labor & maintenance): $25/ton
Avoided topsoil purchases: $50/ton
Hauling to landfill: $5/ton
Hauling to composting facility: $2/ton
7-II/B-2-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Diversion and Disposal Using a Composting Facility
Diversion
Operational Costs:
Labor & maintenance:
Landfill costs:
Hauling costs:
Total Operational Costs:
Total Recovered Income:
Net Annual Cost/Benefit:
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for Composting Facility:
* Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process:
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process:
Disposal
$625,000
$0
$50,000
$675,000
$750,000
$75,000
$0
$325,000
$125,000
$450,000
$0
-$450,000
$525,000
$3,000,000
< 6 years
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values. To
return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
Approving
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Mr. Wallace Eakes, ESC 426
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
1100 23rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, California 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-4882, DSN: 551-4882, Fax: (805) 982-4832
7-II/B-2-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Mr. Bruce F. Zimmerman
Public Works Director
Mackinac Island Department of Public Works
Market Street
Box 515
Mackinac Island, MI
Phone: (906) 847-6130
Mr. Joel Thompson
Operations Manager
Montgomery County Regional Composting Facility
2201 Industrial Parkway
Silver Spring, MD 20904
Phone: (301) 206-7575
Vendors:
Sources:
Local and state solid waste management government authorities.
The following is a list of engineering firms specializing in solid waste management
and composting technologies. This list is not meant to be complete, as there
may be other providers of these services.
Mr. Don Landry
Valley Compost & Topsoil
P.O. Box 1013
Buellton, CA 83427
Phone: (805) 965-6617, Fax: (805) 735-1172
Compost Systems Company/Fairfield Service Company
240 Boone Avenue
P.O. Box 354
Marion, OH 43302
Phone: (740) 387-3335
Mr. Joel Thompson, Montgomery Regional Composting Facility, March 1999.
Mr. Bruce Zimmerman, Public Works Director, Mackinac Island Department of Public
Works, Mackinac Island, MI, May 1996.
Martin E. Simson and C.M. Connelly. September 1994. "Composting and Costs: The
Bigger, The Better: " Waste Age.
Parsons Engineering Science, Inc. August 1994. Feasibility Study for a Full-Scale
Composting Facility.
U.S. EPA, Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1994 Update.
7-II/B-2-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
RECYCLING TRAILERS
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-99-99; Air Force: FA01; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: High; Marine Corps: High; Army: Medium; Air Force: Low
Alternative for: Landfilling or Incineration
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: N/A
Overview: Compartmentalized trailers are used to separate plastics, glass, paper, aluminum
and steel cans, and compostables at the source, from residential and
commercial trash. This eliminates/reduces the need to sort the materials at the
recycling center, which results in lower processing costs. The trailers may be
placed at exterior locations around the residential areas or office buildings,
allowing the residents or personnel to place each type of material in its own bin.
The trailers are usually located in centralized, easily accessible locations.
Trailers are made in a wide range of sizes and types, suitable for a large variety
of applications. Trailers may be up to 20 yards long, with compartments for
segregated waste disposal. These compartments range between two and
twenty, depending on the type and amount of waste being collected. Some
trailers may be stationary; however, they are intended to be mobile with the use
of a truck. The recyclables can either be emptied from the compartments or the
whole trailer when full. When the trailer is full, it may be towed to a recycling
center to be emptied. In addition, the compartments should be locked to
prevent scavenging.
Source separation of recyclables by the waste generators requires personnel
education and program support to prevent the recyclables from becoming
contaminated with other materials. All recycling compartments should be
clearly labeled with the types of material that are acceptable, as well as listing a
point of contact (name and phone number) for additional information. A trash
container should be placed next to all recycling stations to reduce
contamination. Publicizing the availability and location of the containers
regularly will bring in new users as well as serve existing users.
The use of recycling trailers is a simple and effective pollution prevention
opportunity. Normal office and household wastes are recycled without
producing any new waste streams. Recycling also helps to foster pollution
prevention awareness in the office or residential areas where they are used.
7-III-1-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Compliance
Benefit:
Recycling trailers are used for separating waste for recycling and composting.
Recycling and composting will help facilities decrease the amount of solid waste
going to landfills and therefore help address provisions of Executive Order
13101 requiring executive agencies (e.g., DOD) to incorporate waste
prevention and recycling in their daily operations.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
No materials compatibility issues were identified.
The establishment of a good housekeeping program to prevent odors, visual
nuisances, and pest (e.g., rodents, insects) propagation is required when
implementing this technology. Consult your local industrial health specialist,
your local health and safety personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to
implementing this technology.
Reduction of landfilled waste through recycling and composting.
Lower processing costs for materials.
Separating recyclables and/or compostables at the generation source
reduces the need for a materials recovery facility.
Trailers are mobile so they can be placed in different locations and can be
hauled away when full.
Mixing of material types often occurs and the materials may require further
sorting.
Some participants who do not understand which materials belong in which
category or find the materials too difficult to separate may interfere with
separation efforts.
May take up valuable space.
Recycling trailers come in a variety of styles and sizes including simple bin style,
removable multiple bins, and hydraulic compaction trailers. The costs for
trailers range from approximately $5,000 to $25,000. The cost elements for
the collection and storage of recyclables using trailers are compared to the
collection and storage of recyclables without using trailers. Trailer use can
7-III-1-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
enhance labor efficiency as compared to manual handling of bags and bundles
of recyclables. For the following economic analysis, the cost of recycling
trailers is based on information provided by vendors:
Assumptions:
Adding recycling trailers to existing recycling operation
Purchasing five trailers at $7,000 each
Existing collection and storage requires five days of labor per week
Recycling trailers reduce the collection and storage labor requirements to
three days per week
Labor rate: $30/hour
Minimal change in recycling quantities
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for a
Recycling Operation with Recycling Trailers
and a Recycling Operation Alone
Recycling Operation Recycling
with Recycling Trailers Operation Alone
Operational Costs:
Labor: $37,400 $62,400
Total Operational Costs: $37,400 $62,400
Total Recovered Income: $0 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$37,400 -$62,400
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for Use of Recycling Trailers: $25,000
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $3 5,000
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: <2 years
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost
None Identified
Approving
Authority: Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
7-III-1-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
Air Force:
Mr. Donald Hopson
510CES/CEV
8120 Edgerton Drive, Suite 40
U.S. Air Force Academy, CO 80840-2400
Phone: (719) 333-8393
Fax: (719) 333-3753
Mr. Steve Brockman
509 CES
660 10th Street, Suite 211
Whiteman AFB, MO 65305-5074
Phone: (660) 687-6243, DSN: 975-6243
Fax:(660)687-5164
The following vendors manufacture recycling trailers. They do not represent a
complete listing, as other similar manufacturers of this type of equipment may
exist.
Sources:
FIBREX, Inc.
3 73 4 Cook Boulevard
Chesapeake, VA 23323
Phone: (800) 346-4458 or (757) 487-5744
Fax: (757) 487-5876
Protainer, Inc.
P.O. Box 427
4941 Highway 27 East
Alexandria, MN 56308
Phone:(800)248-7761
Fax:(612)763-7667
National Manufacturing Company
675 12th Avenue, SE
Valley City, ND 58072
Phone: (701) 845-1017
Mr. Steve Brockman, Whiteman AFB, April 1999.
Ms. Be, Protainer, Inc., July 1996.
7-III-1-4
-------
_-..ป- ' .' --,.*, .'. ' ._.-".. ./ป.*
jfri':'-;.-V .:;.:':';:V: . :.:'-;..-.-.'/ :' ';:^^M.--;/.:.;/ .
>.';.-'v-j' ซ.'..''''.."..' '../.' .-*'.'..'.''.''. .'. .'.''.'. ..-i'..-/.1 '.'..'.'->'.'
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
BALERS
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-99-99; Air Force: FA01; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Low
Alternative for: Landfilling or Incineration
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: N/A
Overview:
Compliance
Benefit:
Balers are machines that compact and bind recyclable materials. A baler uses a
hydraulic ram to compact material into a box shape. Compressed bales are
then secured with wires. A baler can process paper, cardboard, corrugated
boxes, tin or aluminum cans, plastics, or large metal components into dense
stackable bales. The bales reduce space required for storage and
transportation, and can be moved with a forklift. There is a wide range of sizes
for balers. Recycling facilities from small military bases to high volume municipal
waste recovery facilities use them to prepare recyclable materials for market.
Some recyclables must be baled or a buyer will not accept them.
Balers may be fed by a gravity feeder, a mechanical conveyor, or an air feed
system. If the operation calls for the use of the same baler to bale more than
one material type, the baler must be specifically designed to handle different
materials at different ranges of capacity. Tying bales with wire can be manual or
automatic. The number, size, and tension of the baling wires must be adequate
for the particular material baled. Throughput capacity for a typical baler is 20
tons per day. A baler produces no new waste streams.
The primary effect this technology has on pollution prevention is to increase the
ease of handling, marketability, and value of the recycled commodity. It does
not have a direct effect on the amount of materials recycled.
Balers prepare recyclables for market and therefore, help to meet the
requirements under Executive Order 13101 requiring executive agencies (e.g
DOD) to incorporate waste prevention and recycling in their daily operations.
A baler will increase electricity consumption. Under EO 12902, federal facilities
are required to reduce energy consumption.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
7-III-2-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
No materials compatibility issues were identified.
Safety issues deal with the operation of power equipment. Operators should be
trained to use the baler and exercise caution to keep limbs, clothing, and hair
from being caught up in the hydraulic rams or feed hoppers. Machinery should
not be used if workers are on medication. Consult your local industrial health
specialist, your local health and safety personnel, and the appropriate MSDS
prior to implementing this technology.
For work performed in California, Title 14 of CCR Section 17512 requires
daily cleaning of equipment, including balers, at transfer and processing stations
to prevent unsanitary conditions. Other states may have similar regulations.
Benefits:
Enhanced marketability of commodity.
Increased market value of commodity.
Significantly reduces volumes of waste.
Reduced transportation costs.
Reduced storage space.
Disadvantages:
Equipment may have high capital costs.
Economic
Analysis:
Typical application: closed-end horizontal, manual tying baler with a capacity of
less than 20 tons/day; capital costs range from $37,000 to $50,000; operating
costs include labor (offset by labor savings from increased efficiency in material
handling), electrical costs ($0.055 per kwhr), and minimal upkeep ($750 per
year).
Alternate application: open-end horizontal, automatic tying baler with a capacity
of more than 20 tons/day: capital costs range from $75,000 to $150,000;
operating costs include labor (offset by labor savings from increased efficiency
in material handling), electrical costs ($ 0.055 per kwhr), and minimal upkeep
($1,000 per year).
Assumptions:
Baler used for existing cardboard recycling operation processing 40 tons
per month
7-III-2-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Market price of unbaled cardboard: $90/ton
Market price of baled cardboard: $180/ton
Electricity at $ 0.055/kwh; 25 hp motor and use of one hr/day
Baler cost: $40,000
Maintenance: $750/yr
Minimal change in recycling quantities or labor requirements
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for a
Recycling Operation with a Baler and a Recycling Operation Alone
Recycling Operation Recycling Operation
with a Baler Alone
Operational Costs:
Electrical Costs: $270 $0
Maintenance: $750 $0
Total Operational Costs: $1,020 $0
Total Recovered Income: $86,400 $43,200
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: $85,380 $43,200
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for Baler: $42,180
* Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $40,000
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: <1 year
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost
None Identified
Approving
Authority: Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
7-III-2-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
Source s.-
Force:
Mr. Hugh Rue
AFFTC/EM
5 East Popson
Edwards Air Force Base, CA 93524-1130
Phone: (805) 277-1410 Fax: (805) 277-6145
Army:
Mr. John Sweet
P.O. Box 105097
Fort Irwin, CA 92310-5097
Phone: (760) 380-6714 Fax: (760) 380-4114 or 5293
The following vendors manufacture balers. They do not represent a complete
listing, as other similar manufacturers of this type of equipment may exist.
Balemaster
980 Crown Court
Crown Point, IN 463 07
Phone: (219) 663-4525 Fax: (219) 663-4591
Enterprise Baler Company
P.O. Box 15546
Santa Ana, CA 92705
Phone: (714) 835-0551 Fax: (714) 543-2856
Harris Waste Management Group (Mosley Machinery)
200 Clover Beach Dr., Dept. TR
Peachtree City, GA 30269
Phone: (800) 848-2934 Fax: (770) 631-7299
Lindemann Recycling Equipment, Inc.
10620 Southern Loop Boulevard
Pineville,NC28134
Phone: (704) 587-9646 Fax: (704) 587-9693
Mr. Hugh Rue, Edwards Air Force Base, March 1999.
U.S. EPA, Handbook, Material Recovery Facilities for Municipal Solid Waste,
EPA/625/6-91/031.
7-III-2-4
-------
, n
t - :
-*-| ' -IT -4L
_IL. :
n
__^ i '
J_J. | in
aj*
T^ -!
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
AEROSOL CAN PUNCTURING, CRUSHING, AND RECYCLING
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-25-99; Air Force: HW01; Army: OTG
Usage List: Navy: High; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: High; Air Force: High
Alternative for: Landfilling or Incineration
Compliance Areas: Medium
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: CFC Propellants
Overview: Aerosol can puncturing, crushing, and recycling is a way to avoid
disposing of aerosol cans as solid or hazardous waste. Aerosol can
puncture devices rupture and empty the cans to make them classifiable
as "empty," as per U.S. EPA requirements. The processed cans are
then no longer considered to be a hazardous waste and can be sold as
scrap metal.
Aerosol can puncturing devices safely puncture the cans, capturing their
contents for easy recycling or disposal. Spray nozzles are removed as
well. A simple, low-capacity can operator puncturing unit does not
require power and is manually operated. With the can secured inside a
cylinder, the operator presses a handle, which causes a puncture pin to
pierce the aerosol can. The can's contents are then collected in a drum.
More sophisticated units have a pre-loader that moves aerosol cans into
a 12-inch sealed cylinder. This cylinder is ruptured and crushed into a
1/2 inch thick wafer by a piston. The propellant and concentrate then
pass through a check valve in the piston and are collected in a pressure
tank. A scavenger system accepts the small amount of propellant
remaining to reduce internal pressure to atmospheric before the cylinder
is opened. The cans are discharged onto a well ventilated, drying
conveyor where they remain for 10 to 15 minutes, before being
collected in a container.
Sophisticated aerosol can puncturing devices can process more than
99% of aerosol cans for either safe disposal or recycling. Capacities
range from 120 to 2,000 cans per hour. Available features of the more
sophisticated units include explosion proofing, and electric, hot oil, and
steam heaters to vaporize residual propellant.
Empty steel paint and aerosol cans are accepted by the steel industry
for recycling. Aerosol cans must be completely empty, with the plastic
lid removed (spray nozzles do not need to be removed for recycling).
7-III-3-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Compliance
Benefit:
Residues remaining in aerosol cans are subject to federal (40 CFR Sec.
261.7) and state regulations. Can-puncturing processes may need to
be licensed by state agencies or U.S. EPA. Puncturing cans may
involve local air quality regulations; therefore consultation with city and
county air quality agencies is advised. In most states, volatile organic
compound (VOC) venting is regulated. Typically, aerosols use VOC
propellants and hence the puncturing operation could result in release of
these compounds to the environment. One example of a frequently
used propellant is butane. To address this problem, some puncturing
systems provide an activated carbon adsorption canister to capture any
VOCs (not CFCs) released from the punctured can. However, the
carbon has to be replaced and disposed of periodically.
Aerosol can puncturing, crushing, and recycling can reduce the amount
of hazardous and non-hazardous waste at a facility. The decrease in
hazardous waste helps facilities meet the requirements of waste
reduction under RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix, and may also help
facilities reduce their generator status and lessen the amount of
regulations (e.g. recordkeeping, reporting, inspections, transportation,
accumulation time, emergency prevention and preparedness, emergency
response) they are required to comply with under RCRA, 40 CFR
262. Recycling the empty metal cans will help facilities decrease the
amount of solid waste going to landfills and therefore, meets the
requirements under Executive Order 13101 requiring executive
agencies (e.g. DOD) to incorporate waste prevention and recycling in
their daily operations. Increase VOC emissions from aerosol can
puncturing may contribute to a facility's need for an air permit. In
addition, the possibility exists that aerosol can crushing is considered
treatment of a hazardous waste.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a
general guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual
compliance benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g the
amount of workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
The residual contents of all aerosol cans being crushed must be
compatible. Mixing aerosol can contents that are incompatible is not
allowed. It is important to check material compatibly when disposing of
many cans at once, especially when disposing of a group of cans that
contain different products. The containers (55-gallon steel drum or
other container) in which the residues are discharged should be
7-III-3-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
designated and labeled for specific materials (e.g., paints, lubricants,
etc.). Check with product manufacturers for compatibility within the
same class of material, e.g., are two different types of paints compatible
with each other in a disposal drum? The practice of designating drums
for specific classes of materials also simplifies waste management and
disposal.
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
Proper design, operation, and maintenance of the equipment is required
for its safe use. There are minimal health concerns regarding this
process, but care must be taken when pre-loading these cans for
manual processing. Precautions must be taken and proper personal
protective equipment is recommended. Consult your local industrial
health specialist, your local health and safety personnel, and the
appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
Reduces the volume of waste disposed in the landfill by up to 1.3%
(U.S. EPA 1994).
Renders a potentially hazardous waste non-hazardous.
Revenue is generated from the sale of the cans as scrap metal.
Typically requires only simple processing equipment.
May require an air emissions permit.
Training of equipment operators and waste generators will be
required, so they can process the cans and separate the wastes
properly.
Aluminum must be segregated from steel.
The cost elements of crushing and recycling aerosol cans are compared
to landfill disposal. According to the Pollution Prevention Equipment
Program, the cost of an aerosol can puncturer is approximately $800.
Waste Control Systems Inc. sells the Aerosolv Model 5100.
Assumptions:
Aerosol can recycling is incorporated into the existing recycling
program
Aerosol can recycling program has no impact on labor requirements
for garbage collection and disposal
Capital cost for smaller units (200 cans/hr): $775
10% of the cans processed are classified as a hazardous waste
before processing
7-III-3-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Aerosol cans processed for recycling: 0.5 ton/month
Additional labor requirements for separation of aerosol cans: 2
hr/month
Labor for system operation: 5 hr/month
Labor rate: $30/hr
Recycled steel market price: $0.05/lb or $100/ton
Landfill fee: $40/ton
Hazardous waste disposal fee for unprocessed hazardous waste
aerosol cans: $2/lb
Hazardous waste liquid disposal cost: $125/55-gallon drum
Hazardous waste liquid generated from puncture, crush, and recycle
system: One 55-gallon drum/yr
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Diversion and Disposal of Aerosol Cans
Diversion Disposal
Operational Costs:
Labor: $2,500 $0
Landfill Disposal: $0 $240
Hazardous Waste $130 $2,400
Disposal:
Total Operational Costs 2,630 2,640
Total Recovered Income: $600 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$2,030 -$2,640
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for Aerosol Can Recycling: $610
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $775
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: <2 years
Note: The economic analysis assumes that 10% of the unpunctured
aerosol cans are considered hazardous wastes. However, in the event
that a higher percentage of the cans are considered as hazardous
wastes, this process will incur additional costs.
7-III-3-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own
Values. To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
Aerosol Can Recycling System
NSN
4250-01-393-7158
Unit Size
ea.
Cost
$592.90
Approving
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after
engineering approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not
required.
Navy:
Mr. Ivan Cekov
Naval Construction Battalion Center
1000 23rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-3136, DSN: 551-3136
Mr. Mike Viggiano (Procurement POC)
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
1100 23rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, C A 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-4895, DSN 551-4895
Email: viggianoml@nfesc.naw.mil
Mr. Pano Kordonis
FASTT Team POC
Phone: (843) 820-5565
The following is a list of can puncturing systems vendors and can
recyclers. This is not meant to be a complete list, as there may be other
manufacturers of this type of equipment and other recyclers.
Abar EnviroSystems
21000 Aurora Road
Cleveland, OH 44146-1010
Phone: (216) 587-0001
Fax: (216) 587-0000
7-III-3-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Beacon Engineering Company
P.O. Box 129
Jasper, GAS0143
Phone:(706)692-6411
Fax: (706) 692-3227
Katec
P.O. Box 3399
1728 Virginia Beach Blvd., #105
Virginia Beach, VA 23454
Phone: (757) 428-8822
Fax: (757) 428-5757
Sources of can crushing systems:
C.S. Bell
170 W. Davis St.
P.O. Box 291
Tiffin, OH 44883
Phone:(419)448-0791
Fax:(419)448-1203
Drew-It Corporation
P.O. Box 10111
Greenville, SC 29603
Phone: (864) 292-6376
Fax:(864) 834-0756
Email: morrisdrew(5),iuno.com
Can recyclers:
Macon Iron and Metal
P.O. Box 506
Macon, GA 31202
Phone: (912) 743-6773
Fax:(912) 743-9965
Sources: Mr. Michael Viggiano, Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, February
1999.
U.S. EPA, Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States:
1994 Update.
7-III-3-6
-------
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
GLASS PULVERIZERS
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-99-99; Air Force: FA01; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Low
Alternative for: Landfilling or Incineration
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: N/A
Overview:
Compliance
Benefit:
Glass pulverizing converts any waste glass (e.g., bottles, windowpanes, and
windshields) into usable aggregate products. The consistency of these products
may range from coarse sand to fine gravel. Pulverized glass can be used in
many ways. It can be used as an aggregate substitute for gravel and sand, as
well as for glassphalt (e.g., glass/asphalt mixes), turf and soil amendment,
decorative landscaping, water filtration media, and sandblasting. Pulverized
glass also is a convenient form for storing and transporting glass for recycling.
A glass pulverizer is useful when large quantities of waste glass are generated.
Typical glass pulverizer systems consist of a glass pulverizer, trommel
screen/separator, and metering surge hopper. The capacity of the glass
pulverizer ranges from less than one to 20 tons per hour. The trommel screen
capacity ranges from three to 20 tons per hour, and the metering surge hopper
capacity ranges from two to four cubic yards. The system pulverizes glass and
separates caps, metal, or plastic from the glass material. Glass pulverizing
systems are available in both stationary and mobile models.
Pulverized glass can be used on-site for several applications, including road
base, fill, and as a substitute for sand in other applications. Glass pulverizing
produces no new waste streams. The pollution prevention impact of this
technology is the reduction of glass disposal in landfills. Dyess Air Force Base
currently uses a glass pulverizer at the base recycling center. It both decreases
the volume of waste glass at the base, and allows Dyess AFB to diversify in the
used glass markets. The primary use for the pulverized glass is road base for
construction projects.
Glass pulverizers prepare glass for recycling or reuse, therefore their use helps
facilities to meet the requirements under Executive Order 13101 requiring
executive agencies (e.g., DOD) to incorporate waste prevention and recycling
in their daily operations. A glass pulverizer will increase electricity consumption.
Under EO 12902, federal facilities are required to reduce energy consumption.
7-III-4-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
No materials compatibility issues were identified.
Safety issues for using pulverizers concern the operation of power equipment
and the need for respiratory protection. The dust from glass crushing is a
respiratory hazard. Proper personal protective equipment including gloves, eye
protection, respiratory protection, and hearing protection should be used.
Operators should be specifically trained to use the crusher. Machinery should
not be used if workers are on medication.
Consult the base safety office on proper protective gear and training prior to
using mechanized equipment. Consult your local industrial health specialist, your
local health and safety personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to
implementing this technology.
Removes glass from the waste stream.
Increases the convenience of storing and transporting recyclable glass.
Provides an aggregate for paving or construction.
Equipment is usually light, portable, and easily moved from location to
location.
Glass pulverizing units usually require relatively high levels of maintenance
owing to the abrasive nature of the processed glass.
Equipment capital costs can be high.
Application: At one to five tons/hour (includes glass pulverizer, trommel screen,
and metering surge hopper); capital costs are $39,500; operating costs would
include labor, electrical costs, and maintenance.
Application: At five to 10 tons/hour (includes glass pulverizer, trommel screen,
and metering surge hopper); capital costs are $55,800; operating costs would
include labor, electrical costs, and maintenance.
Application: At 15 to 20 tons/hour (includes glass pulverizer, trommel screen,
and metering surge hopper); capital costs are $73,700; operating costs would
include labor, electrical costs, and maintenance.
7-III-4-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Alternate application (capital costs for glass pulverizer only): At one to five
tons/hour = $16,400; at five to ten tons/hour = $26,825; at 15 to 20
tons/hour = $3 8,000.
Assumptions:
1 to 5 tons/hour glass pulverizer: $16,400
Solid waste disposal costs: $30/ton
Savings on sand and gravel purchase: $20/ton
Process 240 tons/yr
Electricity at $0.055/kwh; 25 hp motor and use of one hr/day
Maintenance: $500/yr
Labor: 4 hours/week at $45/hour
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Diversion and Disposal of Glass Using a Pulverizer
Diversion Disposal
Operational Costs:
Electrical Costs: $270 $0
Labor: $9,360 $0
Landfill costs: $0 $7,200
Maintenance: $500 $0
Total Operational Costs: $10,130 $7,200
Total Recovered Income: $4,800 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$5,330 -$7,200
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for Glass Pulverizer: $1,870
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $ 16,400
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: <9 years
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values. To
return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost
None Identified
7-III-4-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Approving
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Air Force:
2Lt. Marc Supinski
7 CES/CEV
710 Third Street
Dyess Air Force Base, TX 79607-1670
Phone: (915) 696-5619; DSN: 461-5619
Fax: (915) 696-2899/2052; DSN: 461-2899/2052
Email: marcs(5),dvess. af.mil
Vendors:
SMSGT Myrl Kibbe
2258 Central Avenue, Suite 100
Eielson Air Force Base, AK 99702-2299
Phone: (907) 377-2184; DSN: (907) 377-2184
Fax:(907)377-4718
Email: kibbemf@.ccgate.eielson.af.mil
The following vendors manufacture glass pulverizers. They do not represent a
complete listing, as other similar manufacturers of this type of equipment may
exist.
Sources:
Andela Tool & Machine, Inc.
493 State Rt. 28
Richfield Springs, NY 13439
Phone: (315) 858-0055 Fax: (315) 858-2669
Pennsylvania Crusher Corporation
600 Abbott Drive
Broomall, PA 19008
Phone: (800) 335-9157 Fax: (610) 543-0190
American Pulverizer Company
5540 West Park Avenue
St. Louis, MO 63110
Phone: (314) 781-6100 Fax: (314) 781-9209
2Lt. Marc Supinski, Dyess Air Force Base, May 1999.
Andela Tool & Machine, Inc., March 1996.
7-III-4-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
METAL DRUM CRUSHERS
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-11-00; Air Force: MA01; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: High
Alternative for: Landfilling or Incineration
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: N/A
Overview:
Drum crushing machines can compact drums, pails, and paint cans into dense
disks prior to recycling, reducing storage space and transportation
requirements. Volume reduction for the drum crushers ranges from 6:1 to 14:1.
A 14:1 volume reduction equates to crushing a standard 55-gallon drum to less
than 2 1/2 inches thick. The mid-size crusher will reduce most pails and paint
cans by 90%. The crushed containers can be recycled as scrap metal. These
machines are used at installations that generate significant quantities of metal
drums.
Drum crushing machines typically include a three to ten horsepower motor, and
one or two (30 to 40 inch) stroke cylinders. The single drum crusher requires
one stroke cylinder, while the double drum crusher requires two. Drum
crushers have a compacting force ranging from 35,000 Ibs to 105,000 Ibs, with
a cycle time of 30 to 60 seconds. Space requirements for drum crushers range
from approximately ten square feet for the single crushers to 20 square feet for
the double unit. In addition, crushers typically contain two heads, one for
crushing the drum internally and another for crushing the entire drum externally.
Mid-range crushers also have been developed to handle pails and paint cans.
These units are pneumatically operated; therefore, a source of clean, dry air
must be provided. An Occupational Safety and Health Administration lock-
out-tag-out safety valve and an air regulator with lubricator and filter are
included as standard equipment.
This technology facilitates the recycling of metal containers while producing no
new wastestreams. It also reduces the liability of having drums found in landfills
or hazardous waste sites. A well-managed recycling program incorporating
metal drum crushers will remove the majority of metal containers from the waste
stream.
Compliance
Benefit:
Drum crushers prepare drums for recycling therefore, they help facilities to meet
the requirements under Executive Order 13101 requiring executive agencies
7-III-5-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
(e.g., DOD) to incorporate waste prevention and recycling in their daily
operations. A metal drum crusher will increase electricity consumption. Under
EO 12902, federal facilities are required to reduce energy consumption.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
No materials compatibility issues were identified.
Safety issues for using drum crushers concern the operation of power
equipment. Operators should be specifically trained to use the crusher and
exercise caution to keep limbs, clothing and hair from being caught up in the
equipment. Machinery should not be used if workers are on medication.
Proper personal protective equipment (PPE) such as gloves, eye protection,
and hearing protection should be used. Consult the base safety office on proper
protective gear and training prior to using mechanized equipment. Consult your
local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety personnel, and the
appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
Increases marketability of metal containers.
Decreases storage and transport requirements.
High capital costs.
Capital costs for drum crushers range from approximately $7,000 to $43,000.
An average single drum crusher costs approximately $15,000, and an average
double drum crusher costs approximately $35,000. Operating costs would
include labor, power to operate a three to ten HP motor, and maintenance (oil
changes, repairs, etc.). According to the Naval Air Warfare Center Lakehurst,
the smaller units (ranging in price from $6,000 - $7,000) were more prone to
breakdowns and failures. However, the larger units ($30,000), performed
more efficiently with fewer breakdowns.
The following economic analysis was obtained through the Pollution Prevention
Equipment Program and is taken from a NELP preproduction initiative at Naval
Station Mayport. The previous method of disposal entailed the personnel to
bring the empty drums to the DRMO, where a contractor picks up and
transports the uncrushed drums off-site at no cost to the facility.
7-III-5-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Assumptions:
55-gallon drum crusher: $8,275.00
1,800 metal drums per year
Contractor disposal cost per 300 crushed drums: $308.00 or
$ 1,848.00/year
Labor time for drum crushing: 1.5 minutes/drum or 45 hours/year
Labor: $10.39/hour or $467.55/year
Annual Operating Cost Comparison of
Diversion Using a Crusher and Disposal of Drums
Diversion Disposal
with Crusher
Operational Costs:
Labor: $467.55 $0
Disposal: $1,848.00 $0
Total Operational Costs: $2,31555 $0
Total Recovered Income: $0 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$2,31555 -$0
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for Drum Crusher: -$2,315.55
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $8,275.00
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: N/A
Note: The primary benefit of using a drum crusher is the significant volume
reduction that results from using this type of equipment. Using a drum
crusher, personnel can reduce the waste volume by 80%, which would
in turn reduce landfill disposal size. This economic analysis assumes that
none of the drums are considered hazardous wastes. However, in the
event that some of the drums are considered as hazardous wastes, this
process may incur additional annual savings and may make the option
economically viable.
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
7-III-5-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
NSN/MSDS:
Product
Drum Crusher
Drum Crusher
Drum Crusher
Drum Crusher
Drum Crusher
Drum Crusher
Approving
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
Unit Size
ea.
ea.
ea.
ea.
ea.
ea.
Cost
$6,602.31
$8,102.84
$9,905.49
$6,454.57
$7,964.33
$7,793.50
Vendors:
NSN
3990-01-443-1139
3990-01-443-1140
3990-01-443-1141
3990-01-443-1143
3990-01-443-1144
3990-01-443-1145
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Mr. Walter Koehler
Naval Air Warfare Center, Lakehurst
Phone: (732) 323-7907
Fax:(732)323-1988
Mr. John Pope
Newport News Shipbuilding
Newport News, Virginia
Phone:(757)380-7645
Army:
Mr. Joe Fallen
Division of Public Works
U.S. Army
Fort Monmouth, New Jersey
Phone: (732) 532-6223
This is not meant to be a complete list, as there are other manufacturers and
vendors of drum crushers.
American Recycling Systems, Inc.
P.O. Box 515
Wayne, PA 19087
Phone: (610) 964-9191
Fax: (610) 964-9172
7-III-5-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Waste Recycler Manufacturing Company
P.O. Box 410364
Charlotte, NC 28241
Phone: (704) 588-4506
Fax: (704) 598-9360
S & G Enterprises Inc.
N115W19000EdisonDr.
Germantown, WI 53022
Phone:(414)251-8300
Fax:(414)251-1616
URL: www.ramflat.com
Sources: Mr. Walter Koehler, Naval Air Warfare Center Lake hurst, April 1999.
American Recycling Systems, Inc., May 1995.
Waste Recycler Manufacturing Company, May 1995.
7-III-5-5
-------
-------
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
CONCRETE/ASPHALT CRUSHERS
Revision 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-05; Air Force: FA04; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Low; Air Force: Low
Alternative for: Landfilling
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: N/A
Overview: Portable concrete/asphalt crushers are typically used at construction sites or
landfills to crush chunks of concrete or asphalt into small pieces. This crushed
material may then be recycled for use in other construction applications.
Crushing is usually performed in two steps; a primary crusher reduces the larger
incoming debris, and a secondary crusher further reduces the material to the
desired particle size. Magnetic ferrous metal recovery can take place after both
stages.
The three main types of equipment are jaw, impact, and rolling crushers. Jaw
crushers are best suited to reduce large or odd-shaped debris quickly from
construction/demolition projects to a manageable size. Impact crushers are
more effective than jaw crushers at freeing rebar encased in rubble. A rolling
crusher is composed of two heavy cylindrical rollers and is used for secondary
crushing.
Crushed concrete and asphalt can be reused in new construction as road and
railroad base material, fill, or pavement constituents. In some applications,
recycled concrete may be used in place of aggregate for drainage layers and
sub-bases. Other potential uses include ballast, sub-ballast, and trickling filter
media for wastewater treatment plants. Finely crushed concrete also can be
used as a neutralizing agent in a variety of applications.
Construction work at an installation is usually performed for a specific project
and may not require year-round use of a crusher. In addition, it is possible to
stockpile the material for extended periods of time, provided land is available
for stockpiling. Therefore, it may be appropriate to lease a unit as required.
There also are companies that will bring portable crushers on site, crush the
material, and leave it for use at the base. The fees will vary based on the
contractor and the distance to the site.
This process produces no new waste streams. With ferrous recovery, the
process produces a second recyclable commodity. The effect of this
technology is to reduce the amount of construction debris to be landfilled.
7-III-6-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Compliance
Benefit:
Concrete/asphalt crushers prepare concrete and asphalt for reuse which
decreases the amount of solid waste going to landfills and therefore, helps
facilities to meet the requirements under Executive Order 13101 requiring
executive agencies (e.g., DOD) to incorporate waste prevention and recycling
in their daily operations.
The concrete/asphalt crusher may increase fuel usage on site which may
increase a facility's need to comply with SARA (40 CFR 355 and EO 12856)
reporting requirements and SPCC (40 CFR 112) issues.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
No materials compatibility issues were identified.
Asphalt is a moderate irritant and may contain carcinogenic components. The
dust from crushing concrete poses a respiratory hazard. Proper personal
protective equipment (PPE), including gloves, eye protection, respiratory
protection, and hearing protection should be used.
Safety issues for using crushers concern the operation of power equipment and
respiratory protection. Operators should be specifically trained to use the
crusher. Machinery should not be used if workers are on medication.
Consult the base safety office concerning proper protective gear and training
prior to using mechanized equipment. Consult your local industrial health
specialist, your local health and safety personnel, and the appropriate MSDS
prior to implementing this technology.
Reduction in a significant component of landfilled waste.
Crushed concrete/asphalt may be used in other construction applications,
reducing the need to purchase aggregate materials.
Crushed material can be used on site, eliminating the need to transport and
haul waste and new material.
Disadvantages:
High cost if purchasing equipment.
7-III-6-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Economic
Analysis: Potential savings from purchasing and using a concrete and asphalt crusher will
vary depending on local disposal rates and the amount of material generated on
base. If purchasing the equipment, an average crusher may cost $55,000.
Assumptions:
1,000 tons/yr demolition asphalt and concrete generated
$25/ton to haul and dispose
Processes 10-15 tons/hr of 12" to 14" concrete chunks
All of the 1,000 tons/yr can be crushed and reused on site so there is an
avoided purchase of 1,000 tons/yr of new material
New fill material costs: $15/ton
Operating cost (including labor and maintenance): $6/ton
Annual Operating Cost Comparison of
Diversion of Concrete and Asphalt Using a Crusher and Disposal
Diversion Disposal
Operational Costs:
Labor: $6,000 $0
Landfill costs: $0 $25,000
Maintenance: $500
Total Operational Costs: -$6,500 $25,000
Total Recovered Income: $15,000 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: $8,500 -$25,000
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for Concrete and Asphalt Crusher: $33,500
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $55,000
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: <2 years
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values. To
return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
7-III-6-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
NSN/MSDS:
Product
Crusher, jaw
Crusher, jaw
Crusher, jaw
Crusher, jaw
Crusher, roll
Crusher, roll
Crusher, roll
Asphalt Recycler
Approving
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
NSN
3820-00-286-9190
3820-00-514-6406
3820-00-530-2095
3820-00-725-6460
3660-01-080-2646
3820-00-876-7876
3820-00-835-1182
3895-01-363-9081
Unit Size
ea.
ea.
ea.
ea.
ea.
ea.
ea.
ea.
Cost
$30,624
$22,255
$56,015
$46,220
$5,780
$48,449
$17,646
$190,000
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Mr. Wallace Eakes, ESC 426
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
110023rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-4882; DSN: 551-4882
Fax: (805) 982-4832
Mr. John Comstock
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
1100 23rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4370
Phone:(805)982-5315
The following vendors manufacture portable concrete/asphalt crushers. They
do not represent a complete listing, as other similar manufacturers of this type of
equipment may exist.
American Pulverizer
5540 West Park Avenue
Saint Louis, MO 63110-1897
Phone:(314)781-6100
Fax:(314)781-9209
7-III-6-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Hazemag USA, Inc.
P.O. Box 1064
Uniontown, PA 15401
Phone:(724)439-3512
Fax:(724)439-3514
Excell Recycling & Manufacturing
P.O. Box 31118
Amarillo, TX 79120
Phone: (800) 858-4002
Fax: (806) 335-3949
Sources: Mr. John Comstock, Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, May 1999.
Hazemag, March 1995.
American Pulverizer, March 1995.
Excell Recycling & Manufacturing, March 1995.
Cosper, S. D., W. H. Hallenbeck, andG. R. Brenniman, "Construction and Demolition
Waste - Generation, Regulation, Practices, Processing, and Policies. " Public Service
Report published by the Office of Solid Waste Management, Chicago, Illinois, 1993.
7-III-6-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
PAPER SHREDDERS
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: PO-01-00; Air Force: OF01; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
Alternative for: Landfilling or Incineration
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: N/A
Overview:
Compliance
Benefit:
Shredders can be used to cut paper into approximately 1/2 inch strips to make
it more suitable for composting or reuse as animal bedding or packing material.
The primary materials targeted for shredding include non-recyclable paper, such
as food contaminated paper and waxed paper, as well as paper generated in
remote locations where recycling is not an option. Paper shredded for security
purposes also can be diverted for these alternate uses. Shredding cuts the
paper into strips, which has the effect of reducing the fiber length. Reducing
fiber length is undesirable for recycling; therefore, shredding is not implemented
in conjunction with recycling operations.
This technology processes paper that would not be acceptable to traditional
recycling operations and it produces no new waste streams. The pollution
prevention impact of this process is capturing and recycling a waste stream
normally missed in recycling operations.
Paper shredders permit composting or reuse of non-recyclable paper which
decreases the amount of solid waste going to landfills and therefore, helps
facilities to meet the requirements specified under Executive Order 13101
requiring executive agencies (e.g., DOD) to incorporate waste prevention and
recycling in their daily operations. A paper shredder will increase electricity
consumption. Under EO 12902, federal facilities are required to reduce energy
consumption.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
No materials compatibility issues were identified.
7-III-7-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
Safety issues for shredders concern the operation of power equipment.
Operators should be specifically trained to use the shredder and exercise
caution to keep limbs, clothing and hair from being caught up in the feed
mechanism. Machinery should not be used if workers are on medication.
Proper personal protective (PPE) equipment including gloves, eye protection,
and hearing protection should be used if needed. Consult the base safety office
and your local industrial health specialist to determine the proper PPE and the
necessary training prior to using this technology. Consult your local industrial
health specialist, your local health and safety personnel, and the appropriate
MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
Permits composting and reuse of otherwise non-recyclable paper.
Potential reduction of 31.7% of waste currently disposed by diverting all
paper products from landfill disposal (U.S. EPA, 1994).
Not appropriate for paper destined for recycling.
Typical Navy Application: at 1,500 tons/year generating %-inch strips; capital
cost - $35,000; operating cost - $200/year (does not include labor or electrical
costs).
Assumptions:
Processes 1,500 tons/yr of paper waste at 2 tons/hr
Paper strips are used in an existing composting operation
Produces 1,000 tons/yr of compost
Capital costs: $35,000
Labor: 15 hrs/wk
Labor costs: $30/hr
Solid waste disposal costs: $30/ton
Landfill hauling costs: $5/ton
Hauling to on-base compost facility: $2/ton
Equipment maintenance: $200/yr
Avoided topsoil purchases: $50/ton
1-111-1-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Annual Operating Cost Comparison of
Diversion Using Shredders and Disposal of Paper
Diversion Disposal
Operational Costs:
Labor: $23,400 $0
Landfill costs: $0 $45,000
Hauling costs: $3,000 $7,500
Maintenance: $200 $0
Total Operational Costs: $26,600 $52,500
Total Recovered Income: $50,000 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: $23,400 -$52,500
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for Diversion Method over Disposal: $75,900
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $3 5,000
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: 6 months
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost
Model 007S-30 7490-01-390-6218 ea. $6,154.87
Model 1550 CC 7490-01-390-6213 ea. $24,139.96
Model Deskside SE 7490-01-390-6219 ea. $494.11
Model 480 SC 7490-01-395-3342 ea. $2,049.31
Model 4000 CC 7490-01-395-3071 ea. $1,630.16
Model 2601C 7490-01-390-6242 ea. $1,737.95
Approving
Authority: Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
7-III-7-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
Navy:
Mr. John Comstock
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
110023rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, California 93043-4370
Phone:(805)982-5315
Air Force:
Mr. Donald Hopson
510CES/CEV
8120 Edgerton Drive, Suite 40
U.S. Air Force Academy, CO 80840-2400
Phone: (719) 333-4483; DSN 259-4483
Fax: (719) 333-3753
The following vendors manufacture paper shredders. They do not represent a
complete listing, as other similar manufacturers of this type of equipment may
exist.
Allegheny Paper Shredders Corporation
P.O. Box 80, Old William Penn Highway East
Delmont, PA 15626
Phone: (800) 245-2497
Fax (412) 468-5919
Ameri-Shred Corporation
P.O. Box 46130
Monroeville, PA 15146
Phone:(800)634-8981
Fax (412)798-7329
Whitaker Brothers Business Machines, Inc.
12410 Washington Avenue
Rockville, MD 20852
Phone: (800) 243-9226
Fax (301)770-9217
PCR, Inc.
North 591 County Road Pi
Coon Valley, WI 54623
Phone:(608)452-3651
Fax:(608)452-3031
7-III-7-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Sources: Mr. John Comstock, Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, May 1999.
Ameri-Shred Corporation, March 1995.
Allegheny Paper Shredders Corporation, March 1995.
Whitaker Brothers Business Machines, Inc., March 1995.
PCR, Inc., March 1995.
U.S. EPA Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1994 Update.
7-III-7-5
-------
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
RECYCLING SORTING LINE
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-04-00; Air Force: FA01; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
Alternative for: Landfilling or Incineration
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: None
Overview: A recycling sorting line (RSL), also known as a clean material recovery facility
(clean MRF), processes commingled recyclables from curbside collection
programs, drop-off sites, and satellite recycling centers. A properly designed
RSL will process and recover up to 90 percent of the collected material.
Recovered material is ultimately resold to specialty recyclers. Materials
processed include newspaper; steel and aluminum cans; brown, green, and
clear glass; polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and high-density polyethylene
(HDPE) plastic containers. An RSL serving a small community is typically
designed to process less than 50 tons per day of recyclables. An RSL serving a
municipality can process 200 to 300 tons per day of recyclables.
RSL designs can vary significantly. RSL sorting systems can be fully
automated, partially automated, or consist solely of manual sorting systems. A
combined system of automated and manual sorting usually begins with
automated sizing and sorting, and ends with manual sorting. The type of
recyclables processed, and anticipated current and future processing rates need
to be considered when designing an RSL. However, the basic features of the
RSL site are similar for all types of RSLs. Each RSL includes customer vehicle
weigh scales; areas for queuing and maneuvering; recyclable shipping areas;
vehicle parking; and outdoor storage of recyclables. The main building housing
the RSL will typically include a tipping floor for dumping recyclables, areas for
sorting materials and processing recyclables, interim storage of recyclable
materials, and warehouse storage for processed recyclables awaiting shipment.
The RSL tipping floor is divided into separate areas for source-separated
recyclables and commingled paper and recyclables. At the tipping floor, a
rubber-tired loader transports the recyclables onto incline conveyors. These
conveyors transport the recyclables to a sorting area, usually located 10 to 20
feet above the ground level. Sorting is conducting at the designated sorting
area, and recovered recyclables are dropped into appropriate segregated
collection bins.
7-III-8-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Automated sorting systems distribute recyclables into containers based on size,
density, and/or chemical composition. These automated sorting systems may
consist of trommels, disk and vibrating screens, density sorters, and magnetic
separators. A trommel, or rotating drum screen, sorts material by size. The
outside of the trommel consists of a screen with small holes that grow larger
along the length of the screen. Small containers, like aluminum and tin cans fall
through the smaller screen holes. Plastic soda bottles and milk jugs pass
through the larger holes.
Disk and vibrating screens also sort by size. The disk screen employs a series
of parallel rotating shafts affixed with discs that are staggered from one shaft to
the next. Between the shafts and the discs are openings where small materials
fall as they pass over the surface of the rotating discs. Larger materials ride
along the discs onto a conveyor.
Density sorting subjects the materials to an air stream, also known as an air
knife or air classifier. The air stream velocity is pre-set so that lighter materials
such as plastic or aluminum cans are blown away from heavier materials such as
glass containers.
Magnetic equipment sorts materials by removing ferrous metals. Eddy current
separators create an electric current in aluminum materials that propels the
aluminum away from other materials.
Manual sorting systems generally consist of flat conveyor belts where workers
remove recyclables by hand from the belt as they pass by. The conveyor belt
for sorting may be 50 to 100 feet long to accommodate between five and 20
sorters. The length of the belt depends on the number of types of recyclables
and the total amount of each type of recyclable being sorted. Glass is usually
separated by hand, in order to ensure the separation of clear, brown, and green
glass.
Once the recyclables are separated, they must be processed into materials for
sale. Processing typically includes baling for paper, steel cans, and plastic
bottles; flattening or densifying for aluminum cans; granulating or perforating for
plastic bottles; and crushing for glass bottles. Once processed, the materials are
sold directly to specialty recyclers for reuse.
RSLs operated by municipalities have had a dramatic effect on reducing the
reliance on landfills. The use of RSLs has, in many states, been mandated by
legislation requiring a significant reduction in landfill disposal. California
Assembly Bill 939 requires every city and county in California to reduce its
landfill waste stream 25% by 1995 and 50% by the year 2000. Similar
7-III-8-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
mandates are now law in many other states. The employment of RSLs in
conjunction with commingled recycling programs have greatly assisted
municipalities in achieving these goals.
Compliance
Benefit:
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Recycling sorting lines process commingled recyclables for recycling which can
help facilities to meet the requirements under Executive Order 13101 requiring
executive agencies (e.g., DOD) to incorporate waste prevention and recycling
in their daily operations.
Use of a loader may increase fuels on site which may raise a facility's need to
comply with SARA (40 CFR 355 and EO 12856) reporting requirements and
SPCC (40 CFR 112) issues. In addition, conveyor liners, automated sorting
systems, balers and crushers will increase electricity consumption. Under EO
12902, federal facilities are required to reduce energy consumption.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Material compatibility issues are specific to the design of the RSL. Most
notably, materials that are not processed by the RSL should not be commingled
with other recyclables. Education is a key element to ensure that users of a
curbside collection program are well informed as to the types of recyclables
processed by the RSL.
Safety issues for operators working at an RSL include the operation of power
equipment, eye, ear, respiratory and dermal protection. Therefore, proper
personal protective equipment including gloves, eye protection, respiratory
protection, and hearing protection should be used. Operators should be
specifically trained in the use of all machinery. Machinery should not be used if
workers are intoxicated or on medication.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
Saves landfill space by diverting recyclable materials.
Allows municipalities to meet mandated landfill reduction goals.
Income is generated from the sale of recyclables.
7-III-8-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Cost savings in landfill tipping fees.
Conserves resources.
Generates community interest in recycling.
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
High capital cost.
The cost of the equipment and installation of an RSL varies depending upon the
size. A small RSL non-automated system including balers, will cost on average
from $500,000 to $700,000. A large system can cost $1,500,000 or more
depending on the equipment and degree of automation. When conducting an
economic analysis for a new RSL, it is critical that the amounts and types of
materials processed be well defined, as well as the markets and finished
specifications for these materials. The market price for recyclables is volatile
and as a consequence, predicting the long-term revenue obtained from a RSL is
difficult. Since there are no long-term markets in recyclables, operators of
successful RSLs must research markets on a frequent basis. The volatility of the
marketplace makes it necessary for RSL operators to avoid long-term contracts
in order to stay on top of changing commodity prices and to avoid getting
locked into a price that has the potential of increasing. The recent high cost of
landfill disposal has enhanced the economics of RSLs.
The economic analysis presented below is for a successful RSL located in the
midwestern United States. This RSL serves a community of approximately
50,000 people. The facility is processing approximately 500 tons per month of
recyclables, with well over 70% of all households in the area participating in the
commingled recycling program.
Assumptions:
Monthly processing rate: 500 tons/month of recyclables
RSL labor cost: $ 100/ton of recyclables
RSL energy and maintenance cost: $30/ton of recyclables
RSL transportation cost: $20/ton of recyclables
Recovered recyclables sale cost: $100/ton
Landfill disposal cost: $25/ton
Landfill disposal labor cost: $80/ton
Landfill transportation cost: $25/ton
7-III-8-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for Diversion
through Recycling Sorting Lines and for Disposal
Diversion Disposal
Operational Costs:
Labor: $600,000 $480,000
Transportation: $120,000 $150,000
Waste Disposal: $0 $150,000
Energy/Maintenance: $180,000 $0
Total Operational Costs: $900,000 $780,000
Total Recovered Income: $600,000 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$300,000 -$780,000
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for New Technology: $480,000
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $850,000
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: <2 years
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost
None Identified
Approving
Authority: Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
7-III-8-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
Navy:
Mr. Eugene Wang, ESC 423
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
110023rd Avenue
PortHueneme, CA 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-4291; DSN: 551-4291,
Fax: (805) 982-4832
Mr. Wallace Eakes, ESC 426
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
1100 23rd Avenue
PortHueneme, CA 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-4882; DSN: 551-4882
Fax: (805) 982-4832
The following is a list of vendors. This is not meant to be a complete list, as
there may be other manufacturers of this type of equipment.
Mayfran International
P.O. Box 43038
Cleveland, OH 44143
Phone:(440)461-4100
Fax:(440)461-5565
Norton Environmental
6200 Rockside Woods Blvd.
Independence, OH 44131
Phone:(216)447-0070
Fax: (216)447-5028
General Kinematics Corporation
777 Lake Zurick Road
Barrington, IL 60010
Phone:(847)381-2240
Fax:(847) 381-1376
Sierra International Machinery, Inc.
1620 East Brundage Lane
Bakersfield, CA 93307
Phone: (805) 327-7073
Fax:(805) 322-8759
7-III-8-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
CP Manufacturing, Inc.
1428 McKinely Avenue
National City, CA 91950
Phone:(619)477-3175
Fax:(619)477-3426
Duraquip, Inc.
P.O. Box 948
Tualatin, Oregon 97062
Phone: (503) 639-9826
Fax: (503) 684-7296
Sources: Mr. Eugene Wang, Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, March 1999.
Mr. Bob Clinton, May/ran International, May 1996.
Mr. Steve Maggi, City of Burbank Recycling Center, May 1996.
Mr. David Goldstein, Ventura County, May 1996.
Ms. Shiela Martin, State of California Department of Conservation, Division of
Recycling, May 1996.
"BurbankRecycle Center, "Waste Age, February 1995.
"Chicago's New Program Goes Beyond the Basics, "World Wastes, August 1994.
7-III-8-7
-------
.
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
WASTE PULPER RECYCLER
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-14-99; Air Force: SV07; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Low; Air Force: Low
Alternative for: Landfilling or Incineration
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: N/A
Overview:
Compliance
Benefit:
Waste pulpers are used to process a variety of solid wastes, primarily portions
of the food service waste stream. Waste pulpers grind up organic matter, such
as food scraps, cardboard, and paper, with water and then extract most of the
moisture to produce a dry, organic pulp. Waste pulpers are available in
capacities ranging from 250 Ibs./hr to 4,000 Ibs./hr. and can reduce the volume
of wastes by up to 70 to 85% (depending on the type of pulper used). This can
reduce waste, transportation and disposal costs. The dry pulp that is produced
is often in a form that can be used for animal feed or composting. Dry pulp can
be easily mixed with traditional feed materials, such as urea and corn. Reuse of
the pulp product will result in an added reduction of disposal costs. Note: the
use of dry pulp requires that the food wastes be segregated from paper and
cardboard packaging materials prior to processing.
Waste pulpers are currently employed at numerous facilities across the nation,
including educational facilities, restaurants, hotels, health care facilities,
corporate dining operations, casinos, cruise ship lines, correctional facilities,
manufacturing plants, in-flight kitchens, and municipal/industrial wastewater
treatment plants. Although waste pulpers have primarily been used for food
service wastes, they also are adaptable to other types of solid wastes, such as
biological sludges, pulp and paper mill sludges, textile mill sludges, and cattle
and dairy waste solids.
Military applications may be appropriate in military base eating facilities and
aboard ships. Waste pulpers aboard ships often are used to process food,
paper and cardboard wastes prior to disposal. Shipboard waste pulpers use
seawater to produce the slurry mixture. They are effective at reducing the
volume of wastes and can improve on-board health, safety, and sanitation.
A waste pulper processes the organic components of solid waste for reuse or
recycling and therefore, helps facilities meet the requirements under Executive
7-III-9-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Order 13101 requiring executive agencies (e.g. DOD) to incorporate waste
prevention and recycling in their daily operations.
A waste pulper, will increase electricity and water consumption. Under EO
12902, federal facilities are required to reduce energy consumption and
implement water conservation projects.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
No materials compatibility issues were identified.
Food waste collection facilities have the potential for rodent/pest infestation, foul
odor, and unsightly conditions. Although waste pulping systems reduce the
potential for rodent and insect problems (since the wastes are washed with
water and then compacted), the owner or operator should properly maintain the
equipment and perform all work in a sanitary environment. Consult your local
industrial health specialist and your local health and safety personnel prior to
implementing this technology.
Reduces volume of waste by up to 85 percent.
Reduces number of trash pickups.
Reduces labor hours needed to haul wastes to pick-up area.
Eliminates the need to sort paper from food waste.
Reduces rodent and insect problems.
Disadvantages:
High initial capital cost for waste pulper equipment.
Increased energy costs.
Economic
Analysis:
The following cost analysis is based on Hobart's WS-800 pulping unit. This
system consists of a pulper, water extractor, valves and an electrical control
panel. The capacity of this system is 700 Ibs/hr. The pulping system is
compared to a 4-hp food waste disposer. The food waste disposer requires
the manual separation of approximately 15% of solid waste from the food
waste. For the economic analysis presented below, the manual separation
7-III-9-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
required by the disposer system requires an additional 2 hours of labor per day.
The pulping system is capable of processing that portion of solid waste without
the need for additional labor.
Assumptions:
Waste pulper operates 8 hrs/day, 5 days/wk, 52 wks/yr
Waste material processed: 700 Ib/hr or 1,456,000 Ib/yr
Pulper water usage: 2gpm
Disposer water usage: 8 gpm
Waste disposal costs (sewer): $8.24/1,000 gal
Water usage costs: $1.94/1000 gal
Pulper electricity costs: $120/mo
Disposer electricity costs: $80/mo
Pulper reduces waste volume 80%, therefore, 291,200 Ibs/yr solid waste
produced
Disposer requires 15% of waste to be disposed as solid waste, or 218,400
Ibs/yr
Solid waste disposal cost: $0.015/lb
Disposer labor: 8 hrs/day
Pulper labor: 6 hrs/day
Labor rate: $30/hr
7-III-9-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Annual Operating Cost Comparison of
Waste Pulper and Food Disposer
Operational Costs:
Labor:
Water (disposal):
Water (purchase):
Electricity:
Disposal (pulp or
waste):
Total Operational Costs:
Total Recovered Income:
Net Annual Cost/Benefit:
Waste Pulper
Disposer
$46,800
$2,100
$480
$1,400
$4,400
$55,180
$0
-$55,180
$62,400
$8,200
$1,900
$960
$3,300
$76,760
$0
-$76,760
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for Waste Pulper:
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process:
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process:
$21,580
$23,000
< 2 years
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values. To
return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
Pulper, waste.
Pulper, waste.
Approving
Authority:
NSN
7320-01-414-3490
7320-01-415-8655
Unit Size
ea.
ea.
Cost
$20,500
$33,499
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
7-III-9-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
Sources:
Army:
Specialist: Ms. Alma Byrd
Tripler Army Medical Center
Honolulu, ffl 96859-5000
Phone: (808) 433-5255
Fax:(808) 433-2397
The following is a list of waste pulper equipment vendors. This is not meant to
be a complete list, as there may be other manufacturers of this type of
equipment.
Hobart Corporation
701 Ridge Avenue
Troy, OH 45374-0001
Phone: (937)332-2000
Fax: (937) 332-2399
Jacobson Companies
2765 Niagra Lane
Minneapolis, MN 55447
Phone: (800) 328-6887
Fax: (612) 557-5557
Somat Corporation
855 Fox Chase
Coatesville, PA 19320
Phone: (610) 384-7000
Fax:(610) 380-8500
Vincent Corporation
2810 5th. Avenue
Tampa, FL 33605
Phone:(813)248-2650
Fax:(813)247-7557
Ms. Alma Byrd, Tripler Army Medical Center, March 1999.
Mr. Wayne Schenker, Somat Corporation, May 1996.
Mr. Jim White, Hobart Corporation, April 1996.
Mr. Bill Stoner, Hobart Corporation, June 1996.
Ms. Sharon Johnston, Vincent Corporation, May 1996.
Ms. LisaRabasca, "Waste from Restaurants, " Waste Age, March 1993.
7-III-9-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
DRUM WASHER/RECYCLERS
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-11-99; Air Force: HW01; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: High; Marine Corps: High; Army: High; Air Force: High
Alternative for: Disposal of Drums as Hazardous Waste
Compliance Areas: Medium
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituent: Lead (CAS: 7439-92-1), Chromium (CAS: 7440-47-3)
Overview: In general, drum washers/recyclers wash contaminated drums inside an
enclosed chamber. Drums can range in size from 5-gallon pails to 55- or 90-
gallon drums. There are numerous suppliers of this type of equipment and
multiple options, which can be specified for unique site needs. Units have both
interior and exterior washing capability. Some units use heated water and
detergent dispensing systems and a rinse cycle. The wastewater should be
tested for hazardous contaminants. Other units offer an option for solvent
washing. Some options include stainless steel construction, recirculating rinse
tanks, live steam capability, explosion proofing, automatic cycle timers, and
remotely located controls that can be operated from non-hazardous areas.
Navy personnel collect hazardous waste from on-base generators using 55-
gallon drums. After pumping out the waste, the drums are disposed as
hazardous waste. Empty drums that formerly contained hazardous materials or
waste and are in good condition can be re-used as collection containers for
hazardous wastes, in lieu of purchasing new drums. Various hazardous
materials and other chemicals used by the Navy are delivered in large metal
drums.
According to the U.S. EPA, empty drums that contained hazardous materials
are exempt from hazardous waste regulation in 40 CFR Section 261.7. For
hazardous wastes that are not "acute" as listed in 40 CFR 261.31, 261.32, or
261.33, "empty" is defined as containing less than three percent of the original
contents (by weight) or less than one inch of residue on the bottom. Drums that
contained acute hazardous waste are empty after they have been triple rinsed
with a solvent (which may be water) capable of removing the product. Rinse
water is the only waste stream from this process and it should be tested for
hazardous substances to determine the method of treatment required. Damaged
or excess metal drums can be conditioned or washed and recycled as ferrous
scrap metal
7-III-10-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Compliance
Benefit:
For additional information, see the Reuse and Recycling of Metal and Plastic
Drums datasheet.
A drum washer will allow the reuse of hazardous waste drums and therefore,
will help facilities meet the requirements under Executive Order 13101
requiring executive agencies (e.g., DOD) to incorporate waste prevention and
recycling in their daily operations. In addition, since the drum is no longer
hazardous the facility decreases its hazardous waste which helps facilities meet
the requirements of waste reduction under RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix,
and may also help facilities reduce their regulatory burden (i.e., recordkeeping,
reporting, inspections, transportation, accumulation time, emergency prevention
and preparedness, emergency response) under RCRA, 40 CFR 262.
The wastewater may be a new waste stream and may need to be disposed as a
hazardous waste or require special treatment. In addition, the washer may
increase water and electricity consumption. Under EO 12902, federal facilities
are required to reduce energy consumption and implement water conservation
projects.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Empty drums should be stored and handled as if the drums were still full (i.e.,
store incompatibles separately), until properly washed. Rinse waters will
contain the residues from the drums; therefore, segregation of incompatibles and
proper treatment of rinse water is essential.
Because the systems are enclosed, exposure to chemicals being removed from
the drums is minimized. Automatic shutdown occurs when unsafe conditions
(overheating and electrical shorting) are detected by the electronic controller.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, the base safety office, and the
appropriate MSDS prior to implementation.
Benefits:
Eliminates disposal of drums as hazardous waste, thereby reducing
hazardous waste quantities.
Avoids hazardous waste transportation and disposal costs.
Washing and re-using drums saves the cost of purchasing new drums.
Recycling damaged drums generates income.
7-III-10-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
More effective than triple rinsing and less labor intensive.
Decreases worker exposure to chemicals being removed as compared to
manual triple rinsing.
Some drum washers are compatible with solvent solutions.
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
Wastewater from drum washing may require special treatment depending
on the test results of the rinse water.
Drum washing using this type of self-contained equipment DOES NOT
qualify a drum as a DOT reconditioned metal drum as defined in 49 CFA
173.28(C)
The cost elements of washing drums are compared to the disposal of drums as
a hazardous waste and the purchase of new drums. According to the Pollution
Prevention Equipment Program, a drum conditioner costs approximately
$35,000. Typically these units cost about $23,000, with an additional $5,000 to
$10,000 for installation.
Assumptions:
500 metal drums per year
Weight per empty drum: 10 Ibs
Drums previously containing hazardous wastes are disposed of as a
hazardous waste
Same amount of labor expended to collect drums for washing or disposing
Drums washed at 5 drums per hour
Labor rate: $30/hr
Waste water treatment per drum: 5 gallons
Waste water treatment cost: $0.25/drum
Wash solution requirements: 55 gallons to wash approximately 200 drums
Cost of wash solution: $800/5 5-gallon drum
Disposal cost for hazardous waste: $0.60/lb
Utilities to operate: $125/yr to heat water and $75/yr to operate washer
Recycling profit: $20/ton
Unit cost: $23,000
Installation cost: $7,000
7-III-10-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Annual Operating Cost Comparison
for Diversion and Disposal of Drums
Washing Disposal
Operational Costs:
Labor: $3,000 $0
Disposal Cost: $0 $3,000
Water Treatment $125 $0
Detergent: $2000 $0
Utilities to Operate $200 $0
New Drum Purchase $0 $15,000
Total Operational Costs: $5,325 $18,000
Total Recovered Income: $0 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$5,325 -$18,000
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for Re-use/Recycling: $12,675
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $30,000
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: < 2.5 years
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values. To
return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost
None Identified
Approval
Authority: Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Points
of Contact: Navy:
Mr. Michael Viggiano
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
1100 23rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, California 93043-4370
7-III-10-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Vendors:
Phone: (805) 982-4895
Fax: (805) 982-4832
The following vendors manufacture drum washers. They do not represent a
complete listing, as other similar manufacturers of this type of equipment may
exist.
Enviro-Techniques Products Incorporated
120 Thadeus Street
South Portland, ME 04106
Phone:(207)767-5510
Fax:(207)767-5519
SRS Industrial Engineering, Inc.
550 Industrial Way, Unit C
Fallbrook, CA 92208
Contact: Arthur Legros
Phone: (760) 728-1790
Fax:(760)728-3151
URL: http://www.srsindustrial.com
Americlean
11 East Ferguson
Wood River, IL 62095
Phone:(618)254-2400
Fax:(618)254-2101
URL: http://www.americlean-inc.com
Source:
Mr. Michael Viggiano, Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, May 1999.
Code of Federal Regulation, Title 40, Part 261, Section 261. 7 -Residues of hazardous
waste in empty containers.
Code of Federal Regulation, Title 49, Part 173.28, Reuse, reconditioning, and re-
manufacture of packaging (D) Reconditioning of non-bulk packaging, reconditioning
of metal drums.
Mr. Arthur Legros, STS Industrial Engineering, May 1996.
Mr. George Adams, Americlean, May 1996.
Ms. Julie Derscher, Public Works Center, San Diego, May 1996.
7-III-10-5
-------
-------
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
SOLID WASTE SORTING LINE
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-04-00; Air Force: FA01; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
Alternative for: Landfilling or Incineration
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: N/A
Overview: A solid waste sorting line (SWSL), also known as a dirty material recovery
facility (dirty MRF), processes recyclables from a stream of raw solid waste
and is typically used in rural areas with no curbside programs and communities
that are not actively promoting recycling. A properly designed SWSL will
process and recover between five and 45 percent of the incoming material as
recyclables. The remainder of the material is used in a waste-to-energy facility,
landfilled or otherwise disposed. Materials processed as recyclables include
newspaper; steel and aluminum cans; brown, green and clear glass;
polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and high-density polyethylene (HDPE) plastic
containers. A SWSL serving a small community is typically designed to process
less than 200 tons per day of solid waste. A SWSL serving a municipality can
process 700 tons per day of solid waste. In many cases, independent private
contractors who haul commercial waste operate SWSLs. Rather than hauling
the waste directly to the landfill, the trucks stop at an SWSL and recyclable
material is extracted. Only the material for which there is no market goes to the
landfill.
SWSL designs can vary significantly. SWSL sorting systems can be fully
automated, partially automated or consist solely of manual sorting systems. A
combined system of automated and manual sorting usually begins with
automated sizing and sorting and ends with manual sorting. The type of
recyclables processed, and anticipated current and future processing rates need
to be considered when designing an SWSL. SWSLs typically include a
customer vehicle weigh scale and areas for queuing and maneuvering; recyclable
shipping areas; vehicle parking; and outdoor storage of recyclables. The main
building housing the SWSL will typically include a tipping floor for dumping
mixed solid waste, areas for sorting materials and processing recyclables,
interim storage of recyclable materials, and warehouse storage for processed
recyclables awaiting shipment.
At the tipping floor, a rubber-tired loader spreads the waste out for inspection.
At this stage, hazardous items and appliances are recovered. The loader then
7-III-11-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
transports the solid waste onto incline conveyors. These conveyors transport
the solid waste to a sorting area, usually located 10 to 20 feet above the ground
level. Sorting is conducted at the designated sorting area, and recovered
recyclables are dropped into the appropriate segregated collection bins.
In an automated system, the initial sorting operation usually removes bulky or
dangerous items followed by waste screening to remove both small grit and
aluminum and tin cans. An air classifier, the most common density sorting
system used at a SWSL, is used to split the solid waste stream into heavy and
light fractions, which allows the other sorting operations to specialize in the most
common materials found in the respective fraction. The light fraction includes
paper, aluminum cans and plastic, while the heavy fraction includes glass and
ferrous materials. Equipment that sorts by chemical composition such as
magnets and eddy current separators are commonly used in automated SWSLs.
Manual sorting follows automated sorting. The waste travels down a flat
conveyor belt and workers remove the recyclables as they pass by. The
conveyor belt for sorting may be as long as 50 to 100 feet to accommodate
between five and 20 sorters. The length of the belt depends on the number of
types of recyclables and the total amount of each type of recyclable being
sorted.
Once the recyclables are separated, they must be processed into materials for
sale. Processing typically includes baling for paper, steel cans, and plastic
bottles, flattening or densifying for aluminum cans; granulating or perforating for
plastic bottles; and crushing for glass bottles. Once processed, the materials are
sold directly to specialty recyclers for reuse.
If the residual solid waste can be used in a waste-to-energy facility, additional
processing is required. In addition to balers, SWSLs employ other processing
equipment including shredders, pelletizers and compactors. A shredder reduces
the volume and increases the uniformity of the residual solid waste for use at a
waste-to-energy facility. Pelletizers receive shredded waste and extrude it
under high pressure to form small pellets. The pellets may then be used as fuel
for a furnace or power plant.
Compactors are typically used to process residual solid waste bound for
landfills. Compactors are large balers that compress either shredded or un-
shredded waste into large bales weighing up to 29 tons. The compactor loads
the bales into trailers for transport to a disposal site, which ensures the
maximum legal load to reduce hauling costs.
7-III-11-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
SWSLs operated by municipalities have had a dramatic effect on reducing the
reliance on landfills. The use of SWSLs has in many states, been mandated by
legislation requiring a significant reduction in landfill disposal. California
Assembly Bill 939 requires every city and county in California to reduce its
landfill waste stream 25% by 1995 and 50% by the year 2000. Similar
mandates are now law in many other states. The employment of SWSLs has
greatly assisted municipalities in achieving these goals.
Compliance
Benefit:
Solid waste sorting lines remove recyclables from a raw solid waste stream and
therefore, help facilities to meet the requirements under Executive Order
13101 requiring executive agencies (e.g. DOD) to incorporate waste prevention
and recycling in their daily operations.
Use of a loader may increase fuels on site which may increase a facility's need
to comply with SARA (40 CFR 355 and EO 12856) reporting requirements
and SPCC (40 CFR 112) issues. In addition, conveyor liners, automated
sorting systems, balers, crushers, shredders and pelletizers will increase
electricity consumption. Under EO 12902, federal facilities are required to
reduce energy consumption.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Material compatibility issues are specific to the design of the SWSL. Most
notably, materials must be inspected when received at the tipping floor to ensure
that materials not compatible to the operation of the SWSL are not processed.
The proper removal and treatment of hazardous materials or wastes is a
necessity.
Safety issues for operators working at an SWSL include the operation of power
equipment, as well as eye, ear, respiratory and dermal protection. Therefore
proper personal protective equipment including gloves, eye protection,
respiratory protection, and hearing protection should be used. Operators
should be specifically trained in the use of all machinery. Machinery should not
be used if workers are intoxicated or on medication.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
7-III-11-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Benefits:
Saves landfill space by diverting recyclable materials.
Allows municipalities to meet mandated goals for the reduction of landfilled
waste.
Income is generated from the sale of recyclables.
Cost savings in landfill tipping fees.
Conserves resources.
Disadvantages:
High capital cost.
Economic
Analysis:
The cost of the equipment and installation of an SWSL varies depending upon
the size. A small SWSL non-automated system, including balers will cost on
average from $500,000 to $700,000. A large system can cost $1,500,000 or
more depending upon the equipment and degree of automation. When
conducting an economic analysis for a new SWSL, it is critical that the amounts
and types of materials processed, as well as the markets and finished
specifications for these materials, be well defined. The market price for
recyclables is volatile and as a consequence, predicting the long-term revenue
obtained from a SWSL is difficult. Since there are no long-term markets in
recyclables, operators of successful SWSLs must research markets on a
frequent basis. The volatility of the marketplace makes it necessary for SWSL
operators to avoid long-term contracts in order to stay on top of changing
commodity prices and to not get locked into a price that has the potential of
increasing. The recent high cost of landfill disposal has enhanced the economics
of SWSLs.
The economic analysis presented below is for a successful SWSL located in the
eastern United States. The facility is processing approximately 1000 tons per
month of solid waste
Assumptions:
Monthly processing rate: 1,000 tons/month of solid waste
Recovered recyclables: 400 tons/month
Recovered waste to energy fuel: 200 tons/month
SWSL labor cost: $ 100/ton of solid waste
SWSL energy and maintenance cost: $30/ton of solid waste
7-III-11-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
SWSL transportation cost: $20/ton of solid waste
Recovered recyclable sale cost: $100/ton
Recovered waste to energy fuel sale cost: $40/ton
Landfill disposal cost: $25/ton
Landfill disposal/waste to energy labor cost: $80/ton
Landfill/waste to energy transportation cost: $25/ton
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for Diversion
Through Solid Waste Sorting Lines and for Disposal
Diversion Disposal
Operational Costs:
Labor: $1,200,000 $960,000
Transportation: $240,000 $300,000
Waste Disposal: $120,000 $300,000
Energy/Maintenance: $360,000 $0
Total Operational Costs: $1,920,000 $1,560,000
Total Recovered Income: $576,000 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$1,344,000 -$1,560,000
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for New Technology: -$216,000
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $ 1,150,000
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: N/A
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost
None Identified
7-III-11-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Approving
Authority:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
Navy:
Mr. Eugene Wang, ESC 423
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
110023rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-4291; DSN 551-4291,
Fax: (805) 982-4832
Mr. Wallace Eakes, ESC 426
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
110023rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, C A 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-4882; DSN: 551-4882
Fax: (805) 982-4832
The following is a list of vendors. This is not meant to be a complete list, as
there may be other manufacturers of this type of equipment.
Mayfran International
P.O. Box 43038
Cleveland, OH 44143
Phone:(440)461-4100
Fax:(440)461-5565
Norton Environmental
6200 Rockside Woods Blvd.
Independence, OH 44131
Phone:(216)447-0070
Fax:(216)447-5028
General Kinematics Corporation
777 Lake Zurick Road
Barrington, IL 60010
Phone:(847)381-2240
Fax:(847) 381-1376
7-III-11-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Sierra International Machinery, Inc.
1620 East Brundage Lane
Bakersfield, CA 93307
Phone: (805) 327-7073
Fax:(805) 322-8759
CP Manufacturing, Inc.
1428 McKinely Avenue
National City, CA 91950
Phone:(619)477-3175
Fax:(619)477-3426
Duraquip, Inc.
P.O. Box 948
Tualatin, Oregon 97062
Phone: (503) 639-9826
Fax: (503) 684-7296
Sources: Mr. Eugene Wang, Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, March 1999.
Mr. Bob Clinton, May/ran International, May 1996.
Ms. Shiela Martin, State of California Department of Conservation, Division of
Recycling, May 1996.
"The Medina County, Ohio, Central Processing Facility, " Waste Age, August 1994.
"Equippingyour MRF, " World Wastes, February 1993.
"EquippingMRFs, " World Wastes, November 1994.
7-III-11-7
-------
.
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
USE OF COLLECTION CONTAINERS FOR RECYCLING
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-99-99; Air Force: FA01; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: High
Alternative for: Landfilling or Incineration
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: N/A
Overview: Using individually dedicated (compartmentalized) recycling containers to
separate common recyclables such as plastics, glass, paper, cans, and
compostables from both residential and commercial waste streams eliminates or
reduces the need to sort the materials at the recycling center and results in lower
processing costs. The containers may be placed at exterior or interior locations
around the residential or work areas, allowing the residents or personnel to
place each type of material in its own bin.
Containers are made in a wide range of sizes and types, suitable for a large
variety of applications. Examples of these containers are listed below:
Personal desk-top office paper recycling containers,
Centralized recycling containers,
Containers for residential recyclables, and
Modified trashcans that have been compartmentalized to permit the
separation of household kitchen wastes (e.g., cans, glass, plastic, and
compostables).
Source separation of recyclables by the waste generators requires consistent
education and program support to prevent recyclables from becoming
contaminated with other materials. All recycling containers should be clearly
labeled with the types of material that are accepted posted on the container, as
well as the name and phone number of a contact for further information. Color-
coded containers for each material type will help users quickly identify the
proper container. A trash can should be placed next to all recycling stations to
reduce contamination. Regularly publicizing the location and availability of the
containers will bring in new users as well as secure existing users.
In an office, recycling containers should be placed in easily accessible locations
so that using them is as convenient as putting the material in the trash. For
material such as office paper that is generated sheet by sheet, desktop or
individual containers are recommended. For less commonly generated items,
such as aluminum cans, a centralized set of containers should suffice. A single
7-III-12-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
bin that is compartmentalized for different materials may be difficult to empty
unless special handling equipment is purchased. Containers that contain single
material types are more suitable for collection.
The use of collection containers for recycling offers a simple and effective
pollution prevention opportunity. Normal office and household wastes are
recycled without producing any new waste streams. Their use also helps to
foster pollution prevention awareness among the office and residential areas
where they are used.
Compliance
Benefit:
Collection containers are used for separating waste for recycling and
composting. Recycling and composting will help meet the requirements under
Executive Order 13101 requiring executive agencies (e.g., DOD) to
incorporate waste prevention and recycling in their daily operations.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
No materials compatibility issues were identified.
The establishment of a good housekeeping program to prevent odors, visual
nuisances and pest (e.g.., rodents and insects) propagation is required when
implementing this technology. Consult your local industrial health specialist,
your local health and safety personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to
implementing this technology.
Reduction of landfilled waste through recycling and composting.
Lower processing costs for recyclables.
Separating recyclables and/or compostables at the source of generation
reduces the level of manpower required for material sorting at a material
recovery facility
Mixing of material types often occurs and the material may require further
sorting.
Some participants who do not understand which materials belong in a
category, or find it too difficult to separate the materials, may interfere with
effective source separation.
7-III-12-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Economic
Analysis:
NSN/MSDS:
Product
Recyclable Container
Recyclable Container
Recycling programs usually depend upon some type of collection container. At
Fort Eustis, paper recycling has become a source of income for the facility. The
paper is separated, and then sold based on type. At Fort Eustis, Computer
paper is sold at $130-$150/ton, White Ledger: $80-$90/ton, Colored: $30/ton,
and Mixed Paper: $0.
Containers range in size and functionality from small household or office bins, to
wheeled carts, to single or multiple material drop-off containers. The
approximate costs of some types of containers are listed below. The exact cost
will depend on quantity ordered and shipping distance.
MULTIPLE COMPARTMENT COLLECTION CONTAINERS
Semi-automated collection container with three 96-gallon carts $ 1,200
Six compartment manual collection container $1,000
SINGLE COMPARTMENT COLLECTION CONTAINERS
Automated 3.5-cubic yard collection container $540
Automated 4.0-cubic yard collection container $580
Automated 4.0-cubic yard paper collection container $660
Manual collection container with bags $560
Manual collection container with two 96-gallon carts $770
55-gallon drum cover $150
WHEELED RECYCLING CARTS
96-gallon cart $55
64-gallon cart $50
DESKSIDE AND STATION CONTAINERS
13-quart rectangular container $5
28-quart rectangular container $7
41-quart rectangular container $11
12.5-gallonbox $14
23-gallon square container $41
NSN
8115-01-430-5668
8115-01-429-9984
Unit Size Cost
ea. 20x1 Ix30in. $56.93
(25) 15xlOx5in. Local Purchase
7-III-12-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Approving
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Air Force:
Mr. Donald Hopson
510CES/CEV
8120 Edgerton Drive, Suite 40
US Air Force Academy, CO 80840-2400
Phone: (719) 333-8393
Fax:(719)333-3753
Mr. Steve Brockman
509 Civil Engineering Squadron
660 10th Street, Suite 211
Whiteman AFB, MO 65305-5074
Phone: (660) 687-6243, DSN: 975-6243
Fax:(660)687-5164
Army:
Mr. Clarence Best
Fort Eustis Recycling Center
Bldg. 190, Madison Avenue
Fort Eustis, VA 23604
Phone: (757) 878-5232
Fax: (757) 878-2692
The following vendors manufacture recycling containers. They do not represent
a complete listing, as other similar manufacturers of this type of equipment may
exist.
FIBREX, Inc.
3734 Cook Blvd.
Chesapeake, VA 23323
Phone: (800) 346-4458 or (757) 487-5744
Fax: (757) 487-5876
Recycling Products, Inc.
P.O. Box 5009
Bradford, MA 0183 5
Phone: (800) 875-1735
Fax:(978)372-3953
7-III-12-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Rehrig Pacific Company
173 8 West 20th Street
Erie, PA 16502
Phone: (800) 458-0403
Fax:(814)455-3997
SSI Schaefer
10021 WestlakeDr.
P.O. Box 7009
Charlotte, NC 28241
Phone: (704) 588-2150
Fax:(704)588-1862
Toter, Incorporated
P.O. Box 5338
841 Meachum Road
Statesville, NC 28677
Phone: (800) 772-0071
Sources: Mr. Clarence Best, Fort Eustis Recycling Center, April 1999.
Mr. Brian J. Basse, Fibrex, Inc., July 1996.
Mr. Michael LaPierre, Recycling Products, Inc., July 1996.
7-III-12-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
WOOD TUB GRINDERS
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-05-00; Air Force: FA06; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Low; Air Force: Low
Alternative for: Landfilling or Incineration
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: N/A
Overview:
Compliance
Benefit:
A wood tub grinder is used to reduce wood or other organic matter into small
particles. The larger-sized output material from the tub grinder can be used as a
biomass fuel or bulking agent to balance high nitrogen loads in composting
operations, while the smaller-sized material is composted. The upper section of
a tub grinder is a large, revolving tub and the lower section is a stationary
hammer mill. Typically, the tub grinder is fed by a front-end loader or stationary
grapple, while a conveyor carries away the continuous stream of shredded
material. Tub grinders are not limited in opening size like smaller chippers and
shredders, and can process large and odd shaped wood including stumps,
pallets, and waste lumber.
Normal tub widths range from 6 to 14 feet in diameter. Most Navy buyers
prefer an 8-foot tub width. Engine horsepower can range from 100 hp to 800
hp. A 575 hp tub grinder is capable of providing a throughput of up to 120
tons per hour. Grinder weight varies from 5,000 pounds to 60,000 pounds.
The entire tub grinder assembly is usually moveable from one site to another.
According to MCB Camp Lejeune, in 1998 wood waste and yard waste
comprised approximately 18%-20% of the total waste stream. Complete
recovery of yard waste will reduce the amount of waste disposed by an average
of 15.9% while the addition of wood waste will divert another 6.6% (U.S.
EPA, 1994).
Wood tub grinders are used to reduce wood into smaller particles for
composting or biomass fuel and therefore, can help meet the requirements under
Executive Order 13101 requiring executive agencies (e.g. DOD) to
incorporate waste prevention and recycling in their daily operations.
Use of a loader may increase fuels on site which may increase a facility's need
to comply with SARA (40 CFR 355 and EO 12856) reporting requirements
and SPCC (40 CFR 112) issues. In addition, a wood tub grinder may increase
electricity consumption. Under EO 12902, federal facilities are required to
reduce energy consumption.
7-III-13-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
No materials compatibility issues were identified.
Safety concerns regarding tub grinder use include issues related to the operation
of power equipment. Operators should be specifically trained to use the
grinder. Machinery should not be used if workers are on medication. Proper
personal protectivon equipment (PPE) including gloves, eye protective, and
hearing protection should be used if needed. Consult your local industrial health
specialist, your local health and safety personnel, and the appropriate MSDS
prior to implementing this technology.
Produces usable products such as landscape mulch, fuel, and compost
agents.
Grinds material to a fine, even texture that will compost quickly.
Can process large trees and finished lumber.
If all yard waste is ground and diverted, there is a possible 15.9% reduction
in waste (U.S. EPA 1994) disposed in landfills.
If all wood is ground and diverted, there is an additional 6.6% possible
reduction in waste (U.S. EPA, 1994) disposed in landfills.
Capital costs may be high.
Maintenance costs may be high and tend to increase after 3-4 years of
steady use
Typical application: 8 foot tub grinder, 110 hp diesel; capital cost - $40,000;
operating cost - $70/hour (includes labor, fuel, and maintenance).
MCB Camp Lejeune operates a 12-foot tub grinder. Capital costs for a typical
12-foot tub grinder with a capacity of 500-650 horsepower range between
$300,000 - $375,000. These grinders can process between 100-250 yards/hr.
Chipper applications: at 25 to 50 cubic yards per hour; capital cost: $10,000 to
$40,000 (with replacement blades at approximately $70 to $200).
The following economic analysis is based on the experience at Seymour
Johnson Air Force Base. The wood chipping program is relatively new and has
been improving each year. The recycling coordinator at the base reported that
currently the program is breaking even and that he expects in a few years, the
program will cost much less than landfilling wood wastes. Currently, labor and
7-III-13-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
maintenance are the biggest costs associated with operating the tub grinder. As
the staff is educated and operation improves, these costs should decrease.
Assumptions:
Process 200 tons/yr. of wood waste
Produce 200 tons/yr. of mulch
Capital costs: $75,000
Solid waste disposal costs: $33/ton
Labor: 150 hrs/yr. at $30/hr
Maintenance: $30,000/yr
Avoided mulch purchases: $25/ton
Annual Operating Cost Comparison of
Diversion and Disposal for Wood Using Tub Grinders
Diversion Disposal
Operational Costs:
Labor: $4,500 $0
Landfill costs: $0 $6,600
Maintenance: $30,000 $0
Total Operational Costs: $34,500 $6,600
Total Recovered Income: $5,000 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$29,500 -$6,600
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for Diversion Method over Disposal: -$22,900
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $75,000
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: N/A
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values. To
return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost
Tub Grinder 3660-01-385-1908 ea. $90,000.00
Approving
Authority: Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
7-III-13-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
Air Force:
Mr. Chuck Schwingler
1095 Mitchell Avenue
Seymour Johnson AFB, NC 27531-2355
Phone: (919) 722-5168, DSN 722-5168, Fax: (919) 722-5179
Marine Corps:
Mr. Kirk Kropinack
Pollution Prevention Program Manager
MCB Camp Lejeune, NC
Phone:(910)451-9759
Fax:(910)451-9935
Email: kropinackk 1 @,clb.usmc.mil
The following vendors manufacture tub grinders. They do not represent a
complete listing, as other similar manufacturers of this type of equipment may
exist.
DuraTech Industries International
P.O. Box 1940
Jamestown, ND 58402-1940
Phone:(701)252-4601
Fax:(701)252-0502
Diamond Z Manufacturing
1102 Franklin Boulevard
Nampa, ID 83687
Phone: (208) 467-6229
Fax: (208) 467-6390
Morbark Sales Corporation
P.O. Box 1000
Winn, MI 48896
Phone: (800) 233-6065, (517) 866-2381
Fax:(517)866-2280
Precision Husky Corp
P.O. Drawer 507
Leeds, AL 35094-0507
Phone:(205)640-5181
Fax:(205)640-1147
7-III-13-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Vermeer, Inc.
P.O. Box 200
Pella, IA 50219
Phone:(515)628-3141
Fax:(515)621-7734
Contact: Mr. Ray Hosier - Government Contracts
(405) 670-4230
Source: Mr. Chuck Schwingler, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, February 1999
Mr. KirkKropinack, MCB Camp Lejeune, February 1999.
DuraTech Industries International, March 1995.
MorbarkSales Corp., March 1995.
U.S. EPA, Characterization of Municipal So lid Waste in the United States: 1994 Update.
7-III-13-5
-------
-------
-------
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
CHEMICAL CLEANING AS A SOLVENT ALTERNATIVE
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-02-01/-02/-03/-04/-05/-14; Air Force: CL03,
CL05; Army: CLD
Usage List: Navy: High; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
Alternative for: Solvent strippers
Compliance Areas: Medium
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Solvents such as benzene (CAS: 71-43-2), toluene
(CAS: 108-88-3), acetone (CAS: 67-64-1), 1,1,1-trichloroethane (CAS: 71-55-6), xylenes (CAS:
1330-20-7), methyl ethyl ketone (CAS: 78-93-3), methyl isobutyl ketone (CAS: 108-10-1), methylene
chloride (CAS: 75-09-2), and perchloroethylene (CAS: 127-18-4)
Overview: Chemical cleaning can sometimes be substituted for solvent cleaning to reduce
the amount of toxic or hazardous chemicals used during the cleaning operation.
Aqueous chemical cleaning is an example of an effective method of parts
washing. Aqueous cleaners are generally environmentally friendly because the
constituents are typically less toxic than solvents and do not contain ozone
depleting substances (ODS). Chemical cleaning is useful in a broad spectrum of
cleaning applications. It can be more efficient than other methods of washing if
the cleaning chemical used, the residue/dirt being removed, and the substrate
materials are strategically matched.
Solvent cleaning can be distinguished from chemical cleaning by reaction to the
target residue. During solvent cleaning, a specific solvent is used to dissolve the
residue in or on the object to be cleaned, whereas a chemical cleaner acts by
initiating a chemical reaction to remove the residue from the object. Chemical
cleaners include products such as bleach, which is an oxidizer. Other frequently
used chemical cleaners are acids and bases. Acids are typically used to remove
mineral deposits or scale from surfaces, while bases or alkaline solutions react
with most carbonaceous residues; for example, oil and grease buildup. The
acidity (or alkalinity) of the solutions will be depleted by the chemical action,
and any excess solution can be easily neutralized.
In general, aqueous chemical cleaners work best at elevated temperatures.
Typical temperature ranges are 140ฐF to 190ฐF. It is estimated that for every
20-degree difference in temperature, cleaning efficiency either increases or
decreases by 50%. The temperature range used in a typical aqueous cleaning
process will depend on a number of factors, all of which affect one another.
3-1-1-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Compliance
Benefit:
In aqueous precision cleaning operations, high quality water for cleaner make-
up and rinsewaters is necessary. High quality water is classified as "pure"
water which means that the natural minerals and dissolved salts found in water
supplies must be removed. The importance of high quality water is often
overlooked in chemical cleaning operations. If rinsewater is contaminated with
impurities, varying all the other parameters of the process will not compensate
or improve the end result of the cleaning process.
Chemical cleaning may allow a facility to use a less toxic materials to get the
same results as cleaning with a solvent. It is possible that a decrease in chemical
cleaning solvents on site will sufficiently reduce the amount stored on site to a
level below any of the reporting thresholds of SARA Title HJ for solvents (40
CFR 355, 370, and 372; and EO 12856). In addition, the use of less toxic
chemicals may decrease the need for a facility to obtain an air permit (40 CFR
70 and 71) and meet NESHAPs requirements for halogenated solvent cleaning
under 40 CFR 63.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
Material compatibility issues depend on the material to be cleaned. For
example, highly alkaline (caustic) chemicals with a pH above 12 can etch
aluminum, while acidic substances can cause hydrogen embrittiement in some
steels. In addition, certain steels are prone to flash rusting and certain
preventative measures must be taken. Be sure to check with the appropriate
cognizant authority prior to using a new cleaning technique.
Mild acids and bases can cause irritation to the skin and mucous membranes.
The effects vary by chemical. Proper personal protective equipment should
always be used.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these
technologies.
Replaces hazardous solvents with biodegradable detergents
3-1-1-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Spent water or detergent solutions may be discharged into the local sewer
system if they meets the discharge regulations
Reduces exposure to carcinogenic and neurotoxic chemicals
Superior ability for removing particles
Neutralizes the static charge of the item
Generally, reduced disposal expenses. However, at Naval Air Station
North Island, aqueous parts water costs were not proven to be lower than
solvent costs.
Meets state and local air regulations regarding ozone depleting substances
(ODSs)
If properly engineered, reduces cleaning times
Disadvantages:
Spent water or detergent waste water or sludge may require pretreatment
Increases water consumption
May require rinsing, drying and oven stations
Typically occupies more floor space
The chemicals used may be more dangerous to human life or the object
being cleaned than the alternative solvent
Economic
Analysis:
NSN/MSDS:
Product
Potassium Hydroxide
The costs incurred will vary depending upon the material being cleaned, the
volume of cleaning required, and the contaminants) being removed. According
to the Naval Air Station North Island, economic data is specific to each
application, and comparisons between other systems would not be applicable.
The principle costs that need to be considered are:
capital expenses based on required or anticipated cleaning volume
floor space considerations for the system being evaluated
a comparison of disposal/recycling costs for the solvent versus equivalent
costs for the chemical chosen to replace the solvent
any additional personal protective equipment (PPE) which might be
necessary
any special handling or storage considerations for the solvent or chemical in
question
NSN
6810-00-419-0634
Unit Size
1 liter
Cost
$7.53
MSDS*
Click me
s-i-i-:
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Na(OH) Reagent
Alkaline Cleaner
Alk. Cleaner Filter Asmbly.
Envirosolv 654CR
6810-00-271-9265
6850-01-330-0196
4940-00-468-7144
6850-01-388-9732
N/A
N/A
ea.
5 gal can
N/A
N/A
$2,640.00
$144.72
Click me
Click me
Click me
*There are multiple MSDSsfor most NSNs. The MSDS shown here is only meant to serve as an
example. To return from the MSDS, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar
This is not meant to be complete list, many others are available. Due to the
nature of some of these chemicals, local purchase approval may be required.
Approval
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Vendors:
Sources:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Ms. Sandra Geheb
Process Engineer
NAS North Island
Phone (619)545-3172
FAX (619) 545-5479
The following are examples of a chemical cleaning companies. This is not meant
to be a complete list, as there are other manufacturers of this type of equipment.
Waste Management
19818 East Highway 6
P.O. Box 2416
Alvin, TX 77512-2416
Phone: (281) 585-4925
ATLANTECH Technical Sales Corp.
P.O. Box 463
Saunderstown, RI 02874
(401) 294-6777, FAX (401) 294-1666
Ms. Sandra Geheb, Process Engineer, NAS North Island, CA, April 1999.
Mr. Robert Sheldon, ATLANTECH Technical Sales Corporation, January, 1998.
Precision Cleaning. Aqueous-based chemistry. December, 1997
Schleckser, Jim. 1993. CFC Replacement Costs, Circuits Assembly, pp. 54-56, June.
3-1-1-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
IMMERSION CLEANING
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: 1D-03-01/-07; Air Force: CL03; Army: CLD
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: High
Alternative for Methyl Ethyl Ketone, Methyl Chloroform, and ODS-based solvents
Compliance Areas: High
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: carbontetrachloride (CAS: 56-23-5), chloroform
(CAS: 67-66-3), dichloromethane (CAS: 75-09-2), methyl ethyl ketone (CAS: 78-93-3),
tetrachloroethylene (CAS: 127-18-4), methyl isobutyl ketone (CAS: 108-10-1), 1,1,1-trichloroethane
(CAS: 71-55-6), toluene (CAS: 108-88-3), trichloroethylene (CAS: 25323-89-1), xylene (CAS:
1330-20-7)
Overview: Aqueous immersion cleaning is an effective method of parts washing and is
considered to be the simplest and least aggressive cleaning method available.
Also, it may be the most environmentally friendly cleaning method since its
constituents are generally less toxic than other cleaning systems and non-ODS.
Aqueous immersion is useful when dirt is easily removed and low equipment
cost is important; however, it is generally slower than other methods of washing
and more particular about the dirt and substrate materials.
Aqueous immersion cleaning can be enhanced in several ways by using several
different techniques either exclusively or together. The most common methods
are heat, agitation, and electricity.
1) Heat - the effectiveness of aqueous solutions increases with temperature;
however, there is an optimum temperature for each situation that is
governed by the physical characteristics of the materials involved.
2) Agitation - achieved by constant movement of the cleaning solution through
and around the part being cleaned. Agitation can be maintained
mechanically through the use of spargers, mixers, and rotating barrels, or it
can be maintained through ultrasonic / megasonic means.
3) Electricity - electrocleaning should not be used as the initial cleaner to
remove the bulk of soils, but should instead be used to remove smuts, light
flash rust, light oxides and residues from previous cleaning operations.
Ultrasonic cleaning is a process of agitating the part being cleaned through high
frequency sound waves. This action literally shakes the dirt off. It provides
excellent penetration and cleaning in the smallest crevices and between tightly
spaced parts in a cleaning tank.
3-1-2-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
A problem that is often associated with immersion tanks is that they can become
heavily loaded with soils in a short time. If soil loads are high, separation and
filtration systems may help, but may also require additional chemical
replenishment since surfactants will also be removed. A prewash station will
usually increase the time between bath changes. But between the prewash, the
rinse and possibly a drying station, an aqueous process will generally require
more floor space than an equivalent solvent process.
The aqueous cleaning solution may be either alkaline, neutral, or acidic, but the
bulk of the industrial mainstay is alkaline. Even with that, the chemistry in the
bath must be carefully matched to both the type of soil on the part and the
substrate material since the process depends mainly on chemical solvency.
When properly matched, it is the least aggressive form of wet cleaning and
works best for the removal of soluble fluids and soils.
Compliance
Benefit: Immersion cleaning allows a facility to use non-toxic or non-ODS chemicals
instead of solvents such as methyl chloroform, methyl ethyl ketone and other
ODSs. The decrease in toxic and ODS solvents on site may reduce the on site
storage below any of the reporting thresholds of SARA Title HJ for those
chemicals (40 CFR 355, 370, and 372; and EO 12856). In addition, the use
of less toxic chemicals may decrease the need for a facility to obtain an air
permit (40 CFR 70 and 71). Switching from a halogenated solvent (i.e., methyl
chloroform) may also decrease the need for a facility to meet the NESHAPs for
halogenated solvent cleaning (40 CFR 63). Using a non-ODS substance will
also help facilities meet the requirements under 40 CFR 82, Subpart D and
Executive Order 12843 requiring federal agencies to maximize the use of safe
alternatives to class I and class II ozone depleting substances, to the maximum
extent practicable. Moreover, depending on what is used for the immersion
cleaning (i.e., water and detergent) the facility may decrease the amount of
hazardous waste generated (i.e., no waste solvent generated). Waste reduction
is required under RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix. The reduction of
hazardous waste may also help facilities reduce their generator status and lessen
the number of regulatory requirements (i.e., recordkeeping, reporting,
inspections, transportation, accumulation time, emergency prevention and
preparedness, emergency response) with which they must comply with under
RCRA, 40 CFR 262
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
3-1-2-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Material
Compatibility:
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
Specifications are stipulated for the cleaning of most materials. For example,
some materials can not be exposed to heat or vibration. In addition, certain
steels are prone to flash rusting and certain preventative measures must be
taken. Be sure to check with the appropriate cognizant authority prior to using
a new cleaning technique.
The handling and use of cleaners follows general, common chemical handling
rules. Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these
technologies.
Simplicity of process
Lower capital costs
Safer chemicals used
Can be more time consuming
May require repeated applications to obtain same results
Likely to require a larger work area
Immersion cleaning equipment varies in cost. Simple tabletop ultrasonic tanks
may cost under $500. Large precision cleaning systems consisting of multiple
tanks and drying stations with automated parts handling may cost $500,000.
Typically immersion cleaning is a less capital intensive method of cleaning, so
lower costs can be expected. The capital cost for medium and heavy duty
immersion units will vary considerably, depending upon the unit type and its
application. Capital costs for these systems can range from $5,000 to $12,000.
According to the Naval Air Station North Island, both energy and material
costs are highly dependent on the type of chemical being used and the
temperature at which it is being applied.
Assumptions:
Labor rate: $30/hr
Total labor requirements for solvent cleaning: 20 hr/wkor 1,040 hr/yr.
Total labor requirements for immersion cleaning: 22.5 hr/wk or 1,170 hr/yr.
Immersion Cleaning
Immersion type cleaning equipment cost: $6,000
The immersion cleaning system includes wash and rinse stations
System electrical requirements: 700 kW-hr/yr. at a cost of $0.08/kw-hr
5-1-Z-J
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Process wastewater: 16500 gal/yr. at a disposal cost of $8.24/1000 gal
Alkaline cleaning bath: 150 gal at a cost of $ 1.30/gal
Water usage cost: $1.94/1000 gal
Solvent Cleaning
Solvent usage: 600 gal/yr. at a cost of $11/gal
Waste solvent: 100 gal/yr. at a disposal cost of $2/gal
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Immersion Cleaning and Solvent Cleaning
Immersion Cleaning Solvent Cleaning
Operational Costs:
Labor: $35,100 $31,200
Materials: $195 6,600
Process Water: $32 $0
Energy: $60 $0
Waste Solvent Disposal: $0 $200
Wastewater Treatment: $136 $0
Total Operational Costs: $35,519 $38,000
Total Recovered Income: $0 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$35,159 -$38,000
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for Immersion Cleaning: $2,481
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $6,000
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: 2.4 years
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost
Cleaner, Ultrasonic 4940-00-253-3905 Ea. $4,248.75
Cleaner, Ultrasonic 4940-00-498-6090 Ea. $17,607.00
3-1-2-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Approval
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Vendors:
Sources:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Ms. Sandra Geheb
Code 970, Naval Aviation Depot,
NAS North Island
Commercial: (619) 545-3172 DSN: 735-3172
FAX: (619) 545-5479
The following are examples of a companies that deal with immersion cleaning
products. This is not meant to be a complete list, as there are other
manufacturers of this type of equipment.
Better Engineering Manufacturing
8361 Town Center Court
Baltimore, Maryland 21236-4964
Phone: (800) 229-3380 Fax: (410)931-0053
www.betterengineering.com
ATLANTECH Technical Sales Corp.
P.O. Box 463
Saunderstown, RI 02874
(401) 294-6777, FAX (401) 294-1666
Branson Ultrasonics Corp.
PO Box 1961
Danbury, CT 06813-1961
Phone: (203)796-0400 FAX: (203)796-0535
Ms. Sandra Geheb, Process Engineer, NAS North Island, CA, April 1999.
Mr. Robert Sheldon, ATLANTECH Technical Sales Corporation, January, 1998.
Ms. Terry Love, Better Engineering Manufacturing, January,1998.
Mr. John Hurley, Branson Ultrasonics Corporation, January, 1998.
US EPA SAGE documentation
Schleckser, Jim. 1993. CFC Replacement Costs, Circuits Assembly, pp. 54-56, June.
3-1-2-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
EPA'S SOLVENTS ALTERNATIVES GUIDE - SAGE
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-02-00, ID-03-00; Air Force: CL01, CL02,
CL03, CL04; Army: CLD
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
Alternative for: Various cleaning and degreasing technologies
Compliance Areas: High
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: carbon tetrachloride (CAS: 56-23-5), chloroform
(CAS: 67-66-3), dichloromethane (CAS: 75-09-2), methyl ethyl ketone (CAS: 78-93-3),
tetrachloroethylene (CAS: 127-18-4), methyl isobutyl ketone (CAS: 108-10-1), 1,1,1-trichloroethane
(CAS: 71-55-6), toluene (CAS: 108-88-3), trichloroethylene (CAS: 25323-89-1), xylene (CAS:
1330-20-7)
Overview: SAGE is an Expert System computer program designed to provide suggestions
on alternative cleaning and degreasing technologies. Solvents targeted for
reduction under the US EPA 33/50 program, such as chlorinated solvents, are
not included as valid alternatives in this program. The program is designed to
be used by state regulatory personnel, process engineers, shop supervisors, or
anyone looking for alternative cleaning technologies.
The goal of the program is to provide general information on viable cleaning
alternatives. The intent of the SAGE program is to provide information to
reduce the number of alternatives that must be considered. Wherever possible
only generic names for solvent or processes are used to determine the
recommended alternative(s). SAGE narrows the list of alternative cleaning
technologies to those technologies that best fit the application. The user can
either; 1) answer questions about the product and cleaning needs, allowing the
Expert System to suggest the best alternatives, or 2) go directly to the
descriptions of alternative technologies. If the user only needs information about
certain technologies, the information is available without having to go through the
question and answer process.
To learn which cleaning process is best suited for a particular application, the
user should be prepared to answer questions about the product and production
process. The program will supply generic responses to questions that the user
cannot answer. Questions include the following:
What is the material composition of the part?
Is the part metallic or non-metallic?
3-1-3-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Does the product have a coating? Should the coating be removed?
Does the part have blind holes or a complex shape?
What type of contaminants require removal?
Is the part subject to cleanliness inspections?
What cleaning equipment is available?
What is the next process step?
Which solvents are used for part cleaning?
What is the volume of the parts to be cleaned?
Can the part withstand ultrasonic vibration? High atmospheric pressure?
High pressure spray?
The program lists recommended technologies based on a scoring system that
rates the technologies against the desired application. Brief summaries are
available for each recommended technology. Detailed reports then further
describe each process and solvent application Information concerning solvent
alternatives includes materials compatibility information, chemical properties,
safety precautions, cleaning processes, and combustibility. Material Safety
Data Sheets (MSDSs) are included for all chemicals. In the descriptions about
alternative processes, the user can learn about case studies of implementations,
equipment costs, safety precautions, compatible cleaning solutions, and
particular applications. Economic summaries range in detail, but will typically
itemize the cost-benefits to some reasonable degree. The program also includes
a NESHAP for Degreasers Decision Tree, a State Information Page, a glossary
of terms and a process conversion checklist.
Stand alone versions of the software can be downloaded free of charge from
the EPA's Clean Air Technology Center (CATC) website located on the EPA
Technology Transfer Network (TTN), www.epa.gov/TTN/CATC. An online
version is also available over the World Wide Web at http://clean.rti.ore.
Computer Requirements
Any Internet browser connection will allow access to SAGE. All of the
information in SAGE, including the Expert System, is also available at the
SAGE World Wide Web site at http://clean.rti.org.
Alternatives included in SAGE
Process Alternatives
Abrasives
Brushing
CO2 Pellets
Snow
3-1-3-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
High Pressure Spray
Immersion Cleaning
Laser Ablation
Low Pressure Spray
Megasonics
Plasma Cleaning
Power Washing
Semi-Aqueous Cleaning
Steam
Supercritical CO2
Ultrasonics
UV/Ozone Cleaning
Wiping
Xenon Flash Lamp
Solvent Alternatives
Acetone
Acidic Aqueous Solutions
Alcohols
Alkaline Aqueous Solutions
Dibasic Esters
Ethyl Lactate
Glycol Ethers
Neutral Aqueous Solutions
N-Methyl Pyrrolidone
Petroleum Distillates
Pure Water
Terpenes
Compliance
Benefit: Use of EPA's Solvent Alternatives Guide allows facilities to choose alternative
cleaning and degreasing technologies. Technologies that do not use toxic or
ODSs may decrease the amounts of solvents and/or ODSs on site below any of
the reporting thresholds of SARA Title III for those chemicals (40 CFR 355,
370, and 372; and EO 12856). In addition, the decrease in toxic chemicals
may decrease the need for a facility to obtain an air permit (40 CFR 70 and
71). Switching from a halogenated solvent (i.e. methyl chloroform, methylene
chloride, and perchloroethylene) may also decrease the need for a facility to
meet the NESHAPs for halogenated solvent cleaning (40 CFR 63). Using a
non-ODS will also help facilities meet the requirements under 40 CFR 82,
Subpart D and Executive Order 12843 requiring federal agencies to
maximize the use of safe alternatives to class I and class U ozone depleting
substances, to the maximum extent practicable. Moreover, depending on what
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
alternative is used the facility may decrease the amount of hazardous waste
generated (i.e. no waste solvent generated). Waste reduction is required under
RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix. The reduction of hazardous waste may also
help facilities reduce their generator status and regulatory burden (i.e.
recordkeeping, reporting, inspections, transportation, accumulation time,
emergency prevention and preparedness, emergency response) under RCRA,
40 CFR 262
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
NSN/MSDS:
No materials compatibility issues were identified.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology
Provides a quick but detailed reference for a variety of EPA-approved
chemical and process alternatives.
Need Internet or Web access.
Need some level of computer literacy.
SAGE software is free to use and free to download. The time committed to
mastering a very friendly program is outweighed by this program's utility.
Product
None Identified
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
Approval
Authority:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
3-1-3-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Points of
Contact:
Vendors:
Source:
Developers of SAGE Software:
Ms. Elizabeth A. Hill
Research Triangle Institute
3040 Cornwallis Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Phone: (919)541-6747
Fax: (919)541-6936
Email: lizh@rti.org
Mr. Charles H. Darvin
US Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27511
Phone: (919)541-7633
Fax: (919)541-7891
Email: darvin.charlesfSlepamail.epa. gov
Navy:
Mr. Rudy M. Pontemayor, P.E. (Chemical Engr.)
Deputy Force Environmental Advisor, N451
Commander, U.S. Naval Forces, Japan
DSN 243-9197/9078, FAX: 243-6388
COML PH (FR CONUS): 81-311-743-9197/9078
COML PH (JAPAN): (0468) 21-1910 extension 9197/9078
Email: n451@cnfi.navy.mil
The following list is not meant to be a complete, as there are other
manufacturers of this type of equipment.
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
Phone: (800) 553-6847, (703) 487-4650
Fax: (703) 321-8257
URL: http://www.ntis. gov/
Mr. Charles Darvin, US Environmental Protection Agency, February 1999.
US EPA SAGE documentation
3-1-3-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
SOLVENT DISTILLATION
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-24-00; Air Force: HW01; Army: CLD, VHM,
DPT
Usage List: Navy: High; Marine Corps: High; Army: High; Air Force: High
Alternative for: Single use of Methyl Ethyl Ketone, Methyl Chloroform, and CFC-based
Solvents ,
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Methyl Ethyl Ketone (CAS: 78-93-3), Methyl
Chloroform (CAS: 71-55-6), and other chlorinated organic compounds, including the CFC solvents
Overview: Solvent distillation as a means of recycling, is a viable alternative to the single
use/disposal of solvents. It is environmentally benign and reduces the amount of
solvent purchased and disposed. Solvent distillation is best suited for
processing waste solvents that are not excessively contaminated.
Solvent distillation units process waste solvents in separate, stand-alone batch,
on-line batch, or continuous systems. The distillation units heat the waste
solvent to its boiling point. This causes the solvent to evaporate and the solvent
vapors are then condensed in a separate container. The remaining contaminants
in the process chamber are disposed. The basic components of a distillation
unit are the process chamber or boiler, encapsulated heaters, a water-cooled
chamber, and associated piping and instrumentation. Temperature sensors
monitor the temperature and help maintain the required distillation temperature.
Disposable vessel liners can be used to provide simple collection and disposal
of still bottoms. Vacuum pumps that can distill high-boiling solvents at lower
temperatures are also available.
Operating experience at Charleston AFB has shown recoveries of 90 to
95 percent for solvents recycled by batch vacuum distillation. Five-gallon
batches of methyl ethyl ketone or paint thinner in nominal 5-gallon units typically
require 3.5- to 3.75-hour cycles to complete evaporation.
According to Naval Aviation Depot, Cherry Point, solvent distillation rarely
brings the designated material back to it's original requirement. Generally,
distillation processes result in a product that is hopefully still suitable for use , or
can be used to serve an alternate purpose. According to NAVDEP, an
example of this is the solvent distillation for CFC-113 (Freon). NAVDEP
procures CFC-113 with less than 2ppm of hydrocarbon contamination. After
distillation, the Freon now contains less than 5 ppm of hydrocarbon
3-1-4-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
contamination, which is still suitable for use but not as pure as virgin material. In
addition, excessive contamination adds to distillation cost because it generally
requires more than one cycle.
Compliance
Benefit:
Use of a solvent distillation will decrease the amount of waste solvent disposed.
The decrease in hazardous waste will help facilities meet the requirements of
waste reduction under RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix, and may also help
facilities reduce their generator status and lessen the applicable regulatory (i.e.,
recordkeeping, reporting, inspections, transportation, accumulation time,
emergency prevention and preparedness, emergency response) requirements
under RCRA, 40 CFR 262
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Distillation equipment should be constructed of high-alloy stainless steel to
prevent corrosion from degradation of solvents or the heating oil. The alloys
also protect against iron contamination of the recovered solvent. Using a liner
adds an extra layer of protection to the distillation unit's boiling chamber and
greatly simplifies cleaning. The liner containing the solvent residue is simply
lifted out of the unit for proper disposal.
Proper design, operation, and maintenance of the distillation equipment are
required for its safe use.
Inhalation of solvent vapors can cause irritation to the respiratory tract and
mucous membranes. Prolonged exposure may result in damage to the lungs and
central nervous system. Contact with the skin can cause dryness, irritation, and
possibly dermatitis. Use in well ventilated areas with proper personal protective
equipment.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
Less hazardous waste and hazardous air emissions are generated
Reduces hazardous waste disposal costs
Provides solvent cost savings
8-1-4-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Reduces worker exposure to solvent, hazardous waste, and hazardous air
emissions
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
Requires trained personnel to perform the recycling process and operate the
process equipment
Equipment or recycling process may require permits from a local regulatory
agency
Solvent distillation systems need to be specific to the type of solvent, the
contaminants being removed, the batch size or throughput, and the type of
cleaning operation. These requirements lead to a wide range of costs. For
instance, self-contained, batch-distillation units vary in price from $2,000 to
more than $30,000. Costs of the units depend on the size, the materials of
construction, and the options selected. Capacities typically range from 1- to
250-gallon batches. The following cost estimate is for the use of a 2-gallon
capacity solvent distillation-recycling unit. The Freon procurement cost is based
on information obtained through FEDLOG:
Assumptions:
Freon 113 usage (single use of solvent application): 500 gal/yr
Freon 113 usage (with distillation unit): 100 gal/yr
Freon procurement cost: $130-140/gal
Waste solvent (single use of solvent application): 400 gal or 640 Ib/yr
Distillation unit waste sludge (still bottoms): 250 Ib/yr
Waste solvent disposal cost: $1.40/lb
Still bottoms disposal cost: $1.25/lb
Labor required for disposal of waste solvent: 1 hr/wk or 52 hr/yr
Distillation unit electrical requirements: 480 kw-hr/yr
Electricity: $0.08/kw-hr
Labor rate: $45/hr
Total labor requirements recycling unit operation: 2 hr/wk or 104 hr/yr
Solvent distillation unit cost (installation and training): $3,800
3-1-4-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Solvent Distillation and Solvent Disposal
Solvent Distillation Solvent Disposal
Operational Costs:
Material $13,500 $67,500
Labor: $4,680 $2,340
Electricity $38 $0
Waste Disposal $313 $896
Total Operational Costs: $18,531 $70,736
Total Recovered Income: $0 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$18,531 -$70,736
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for Solvent Distillation: $52,205
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $3,800
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment: <1 year
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost
Solvent Reclaimer 4940-01-395-9468 ea. (25 gal)
(distillation unit)
Solvent Reclaimer 4940-01-395-9469 ea.
(distillation unit)
Solvent Reclaimer 4940-01-312-0765 ea. (5 gph)
Distillation units are available by ordering one of the following two NSNs and
specifying the desired volume - NSN 4940-01-395-9468 or NSN 4940-01-
395-9469. Small units are single phase; the large units are three-phase; and are
220 VAC. 440 VAC versions are available.
Approving
Authority: Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
8-1-4-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
Sources:
Navy:
Ms. Stacey Luker
Naval Aviation Depot, Cherry Point
Cherry Point, NC
Phone:(252)464-8142
The following is a list of vendors and manufacturers of solvent distillation units.
This is not meant to be a complete list, as there are other manufacturers of this
type of equipment.
Detrex Corporation
322 International Parkway
Arlington, TX 76011
Phone: (800) 525-1496
Finish Thompson Inc.
921 Greengarden Road
Erie, PA 16501-1591
Phone:(814)455-4478
Fax:(814)455-8518
PER Industries
143 Cortland Street
Lindenhurst, NY 11757
Phone:(516)226-2930
Fax (516) 226-3125
URL: http ://www.pbrind. com
Ms. Stacey Luker, NAVDEP Cherry Point, May 1999.
John Hurley, Branson Ultrasonics Corporation, January, 1998.
PA Technical Bulletin # 2791, August 94, Finish Thompson Inc. and PER Industries
product literature
Salvesen, Robert H., "On-Site Reuse and Recycle of Solvents, " Solvent Waste Reduction;
US Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH; ICF Consulting Associates, Inc.,
Los Angeles, CA; pp. 78-89, 1990.
3-1-4-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
THE CLEAN-IN-PLACE (CIP) METHOD TO MINIMIZE HAZARDOUS WASTE
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-03-99; Air Force: CL04; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
Alternative for: Hydroblasting, manual chemical and solvent cleaning
Compliance Areas: Medium
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: carbon tetrachloride (CAS: 56-23-5), chloroform
(CAS: 67-66-3), dichloromethane (CAS: 75-09-2), methyl ethyl ketone (CAS: 78-93-3),
tetrachloroethylene (CAS: 127-18-4), methyl isobutyl ketone (CAS: 108-10-1), 1,1,1-trichloroethane
(CAS: 71-55-6), toluene (CAS: 108-88-3), trichloroethylene (CAS: 25323-89-1), xylene (CAS:
1330-20-7)
Overview: Clean-In-Place (CIP) is a method designed to "automatically" clean pipes and
process equipment without the time and labor requirement of manually
dismantling equipment components. Long-term, CIP is less expensive and
more consistent than conventional manual cleaning methods. CIP is not a
substitute for the use of solvents, but rather, a more efficient way to use them.
CIP is more of a design method than a cleaning process. The CIP method
works "automatically" by eliminating the places where residue can accumulate.
This is achieved by placing pipes at an angle to the horizontal (minimum 3%) to
improve drainage, and using instruments and valves that connect flush to pipes,
thereby eliminating "dead legs" (places where residues can be trapped). CIP is
perhaps best applied to batch process operations because the amount of
residual product from a single batch can contaminate subsequent batches.
Given the frequency of these operations, the CIP method is ideally suited to fast
turnarounds and to achieving a high degree of piping and equipment cleanliness.
The CIP method can be improved with specially designed process equipment,
piping, and fittings which have ducts and spray balls for cleaning the equipment
internally. As of July 1994, only diaphragm valves have been used with CIP.
Ball and slide valves can be modified with injection ports for use with CIP, but
this makes them very complex. Plug and stem valves have been used
successfully for these installations.
To enhance the CIP method, use a CIP cleaning system which consists of a
centralized control unit with satellite spray-washing and rinsing units to clean the
process equipment, pumps, valves and pipes. Also, use gear pumps with a low
"dead" volume (where "dead" volume refers to the amount of void space that
3-1-5-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
does not drain freely and as a consequence can be difficult to clean because
material is stagnant and then dries or polymerizes). Mechanical drives have
internal parts that have void spaces where residue can be deposited. Generally,
these must be removed for cleaning, however, for difficult applications with
rotating equipment such as agitators, magnetic drives can be used. As an
alternative, spray devices can be installed in mechanical drives as well.
The CIP cleaning system is procured as a package consisting of a recirculation
system: storage tank, pump, heat exchanger, and rotary strainer; a chemical
feeder which makes the cleaning solutions; a cleaning system with spray balls
and piping to supply and return the various solutions; solution-return tanks; and
control instrumentation. After the chemical process is complete, activate the
CIP cleaning system to clean and rinse the equipment, the cleaning can even be
integrated into the process program.
According to the Deputy Force Environmental Advisor, N451
for U.S. Naval Forces Japan, a similar method employed by the petroleum
industry is a "pig" to clean product lines. Basically, it consists of a rotating head
with brushes or similar implement, a launcher and a retriever. To clean the pipe,
the cleaner head is launched or propelled with compressed air, cleaning the pipe
as it goes. The cleaning head is recovered (retrieved) at the end of the pipe run.
This is particularly suited for longer pipe runs.
Compliance
Benefit: Use of the clean-in-place method will decrease the amount of hazardous waste
generated from cleaning process equipment and pipes. The decrease in
hazardous waste will help facilities meet the requirements of waste reduction
under RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix, and may also help facilities reduce
their generator status and lessen the number of regulatory requirements (i.e.,
recordkeeping, reporting, inspections, transportation, accumulation time,
emergency prevention and preparedness, emergency response) with which they
must comply with under RCRA, 40 CFR 262. This cleaning method may also
decrease the amount of solvents used on site below any reporting thresholds of
SARA Title m for those chemicals (40 CFR 355, 370, and 372; and EO
12856).
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
3-1-5-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
As the CIP cleaning system does not alter the actual chemicals used for
cleaning, material compatibility should not be an issue.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these
technologies.
Lower labor costs
Decrease in raw material usage
Lower energy costs
Requires redesign or modification of the current system.
Costs associated with the Clean In Place Method are highly specific to the
application. Prices will vary on a case by case basis. Factors affecting capital
investment and operating costs are size of system, type of system and
components, cleanliness level, production rate, and operating requirements.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
Approval
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Mr. Rudy M. Pontemayor, P.E. (Chemical Engr)
Deputy Force Environmental Advisor, N451
Commander, U.S. Naval Forces, Japan
DSN 243-9197/9078, FAX 243-6388
COML PH (FR CONUS): 81-311-743-9197/9078
COML PH (JAPAN): (0468) 21-1910 extension 9197/9078
Email: n451 @,cnfi.naw.mil
Vendor:
The following companies can assist in setting up the Clean-in-Place technology.
This is not meant to be a complete list, as there are other manufacturers of this
type of equipment.
3-1-5-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Hartel Corp.
201 North Main Street
Ft. Atkinson, WI 53538
Contact: Mr. Gene Bohn
Phone: (920) 563-8461
Chemdet, Inc.
50 Sintsink Drive, East
Port Washington, NY 11050
Phone:(800)645-5150
Fax:(516)883-2044
URL: www.chemdet. com
Sources: Mr. Rudy Pontemayor, Deputy Force Environmental Advisor, N451, April 1999.
Mr.Gene Bohn, Hartel Corporation, January, 1998.
3-1-5-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
STEAM CLEANING AS A SOLVENT ALTERNATIVE
Revised:
Process Code:
Usage List:
Alternative for:
5/99
Navy and Marine Corps: ID-02-13; Air Force: CL05; Army: CLD
Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: High; Air Force: High
Solvent Cleaning
Compliance Areas: High
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Methyl ethyl ketone (CAS: 78-93-3), toluene (CAS:
108-88-3), 1,1,1-trichloroethane (71-55-6), andxylenes (CAS: 1330-20-7)
Overview:
Compliance
Benefit:
Steam cleaning is a viable solvent alternative for removing oily or greasy residue.
High risk factors are often associated with solvent use, and these risks are
avoided through the use of this type of system. The use of heat in the steam
cleaning process accelerates emulsification, break-down, and removal of dirt
and grease. Steam's high temperature and low specific heat allow surfaces to
be heated to relatively high temperatures. High temperature is maintained on the
surface long enough for the steam to vaporize or liquefy the oil, grease, or dirt.
The residue can then be effectively washed away with the condensate remaining
from the condensed steam. Steam cleaning can also be used with a degreasing
agent (often a surfactant) that enhances the solubility of grease in water. Steam
cleaners are available to perform medium duty (e.g. auto parts, engines, etc.) to
heavy duty (e.g. large machinery and oil drilling rigs) cleaning jobs. Steam
cleaning units can be electric or fired with gasoline or diesel fuel.
The Mini-Max system, which is manufactured by PDQ Precision, Inc., has been
used at many military installations with outstanding results. Unlike the typical
steam cleaners, the Mini-Max operates efficiently at high temperature (550ฐF),
while using a minimum amount of water. Waste disposal and chemical costs are
almost completely eliminated using the Mini-Max system, which can be used for
multiple applications and are available in various sizes.
The wastewater generated from the steam cleaning process may be treated at
an industrial wastewater treatment plant, depending on the nature of the dirt and
grease removed. Analysis of the wastewater is required prior to disposal.
Steam cleaning allows a facility to use steam in place of solvents. The decrease
in toxic and/or ODSs may reduce the on site storage below any of the reporting
thresholds of SARA Title m for those chemicals (40 CFR 355, 370, and 372;
and EO 12856). In addition, the decrease in toxic chemicals may eliminate the
need for a facility to obtain an air permit (40 CFR 70 and 71). Switching from
a halogenated solvent (i.e., methyl chloroform, methylene chloride,
8-1-6-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
perchloroethylene) may also enhance the facility's compliance with the
NESHAPs for halogenated solvent cleaning (40 CFR 63). Using a non-ODS
will also help facilities meet the requirements under 40 CFR 82, Subpart D
and Executive Order 12843 requiring federal agencies to maximize the use of
safe alternatives to class I and class U ozone depleting substances, to the
maximum extent practicable. Moreover, steam cleaning will decrease the
amount of hazardous waste generated (i.e., no waste solvent generated).
Waste reduction is required under RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix. The
reduction of hazardous waste may also help facilities reduce their generator
status and lessen the number of regulatory requirements (i.e., recordkeeping,
reporting, inspections, transportation, accumulation time, emergency prevention
and preparedness, emergency response) with which they must comply under
RCRA, 40 CFR 262
The wastewater discharge from steam cleaning operations may require a local
wastewater discharge permit. In addition, steam cleaning will increase
electricity and water consumption. Under EO 12902, federal facilities are
required to reduce energy consumption and implement water conservation
programs.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Flash rusting may be a problem for ferrous materials. However, soaps,
detergents, and disinfectants may be purchased which contain rust inhibitors in
their formulation. These rust inhibitors incorporate defoamers that reduce rust
accumulation on ferrous materials. But, preventative measures may still be
necessary. Prior to implementing this technology, performing a test case is
recommended to ensure that the desired finish product is achieved.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
Reduces the amount of hazardous waste and hazardous air emissions
generated compared to solvent degreasing
Wastewater stream is generally compatible with conventional industrial
wastewater plants located at many installations
Low implementation cost utilizing simple equipment
8-1-6-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
Provides solvent cost savings
Steam cleaning is not recommended for any equipment, component, or
material that is temperature or moisture sensitive
Water can penetrate and/or damage joints, seals, and bonded areas
According to the Naval Air Station North Island, the Mini Max steam cleaner
has been used for many military applications. The system can be found at the
Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division Lakehurst. The Mini Max steam
cleaner is available in several models, and the prices range from $2,000 -
$6,000. However, other types of steam cleaners are available which will vary
considerably, depending upon the unit type and its application. Capital costs for
these systems can range from $5,000 to $12,000.
Assumptions:
Steam Cleaning
Steam cleaning equipment cost: $5,000
Labor requirements for cleaning: 5 hr/week or 260 hr/yr at $30/hr
System electrical requirements: 350 kw-hr/yr at a cost of $0.08/kw-hr
Process wastewater: 62,400 gal/yr at a disposal cost of $8.24/1000 gal
Wastewater: 65,500 gal/yr at a usage cost of $1.94/1000 gal
Solvent Cleaning
Labor requirements for cleaning: 20 hr/week or 1,040 hr/yr at $30/hr
Solvent usage: 5 gal/week or 260 gal/yr at a cost of $11/gal
Waste solvent: 50 gal/yr at a cost of $2/gal
8-1-6-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Steam Cleaning and Solvent Cleaning
Steam Cleaning Solvent Cleaning
Operational Costs:
Labor: $7,800 $31,200
Materials: $0 $2,900
Process Water: $120 $0
Energy: $30 $0
Waste Solvent Disposal: $0 $ 100
Wastewater Treatment: $540 $0
Total Operational Costs: $8,500 $34,200
Total Recovered Income: $0 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$8,500 -$34,200
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for Steam Cleaning: $25,700
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $5,000
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: <1 year
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost
Cleaner, Steam 7910-01-157-8272 ea. $1,220.90
Cleaner, Steam, Pressure, Jet 4940-00-186-0027 ea. $5,905.75
Cleaner, Steam, Pressure, Jet 4940-00-542-2505 ea. $1,609.30
Approval
Authority: Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
8-1-6-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Point
of Contact:
Vendors:
Navy
Mr. Hector Padilla
CNAP/AIMD
Naval Air Station, North Island
San Diego, CA 92135
Phone: (619) 545-9771 or-9897, Fax: (619) 545-6173
Mr. Walter Koehler
Naval Air Warfare Center, Aircraft Division Lakehurst
Highway 547
Code 4.8.1.4
Lakehurst, NJ 08733
The following is a list of companies that carry steam cleaning equipment. This is
not meant to be a complete list, as there are other manufacturers of this type of
equipment.
PDQ Precision, Inc.
1165 Walnut Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 91911
Phone:(619)581-6370
Fax:(619) 575-4061
Mr. Max Freedman
URL: www.minimaxcleaner.com
Manufacturer of Mini Max steam cleaners.
Belter Engineering Manufacturing Inc.
8361 Town Center Court
Baltimore, MD 21236
Phone: (800) 229-3380, Fax: (410) 931-0053
URL: www.betterengineering.com
Manufacturer of steam and pressure cleaners.
Pacer Cleaning Equipment
1777 ShermerRoad
Northbrook, IL 60062-5360
Phone: (800) 348-0801 or (219) 873-9790, Fax: (219) 873-9788
Mr. Earl N. Engus
8-1-6-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Hydro Tek Systems, Inc.
10418 Enterpri se Drive
Redlands, CA 92374
Phone: (800) 274-9376 or (909) 799-9222, Fax: (909) 799-9888
The Hotsy Corporation
21 Inverness East
Englewood, CO 80112-5796
Phone: (800) 821-6490 or (303) 792-5200, Fax: (303) 792-0547
Mr. David Stark
Manufacturer of pressure cleaners.
Source(s): Mr. Hector Padilla, CNAP/AIMD, Naval Air Station, Northlsland, CA, April 1999.
.Better Engineering Manufacturing Inc., Vendor Communication, January, 1998.
Senior Chief English, CNAP, Naval Air Station, Northlsland, CA, May 1996.
Pacer Cleaning Equipment, Vendor Communication, May 1996.
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
MECHANICAL CLEANING PROCESSES AS SOLVENT ALTERNATIVES
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-01-08/-09/-10/-11; Air Force: CL04; Army:
CLD
Usage List: Navy: High; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
Alternative for: Solvent Cleaning
Compliance Areas: High
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Solvents such as benzene (CAS: 71-43-2), toluene
(CAS: 108-88-3), acetone (CAS: 67-64-1), 1,1,1-trichloroethane (CAS: 71-55-6), xylenes (CAS:
1330-20-7), methyl ethyl ketone (CAS: 78-93-3), methyl isobutyl ketone (CAS: 108-10-1), methylene
chloride (CAS: 75-09-2), and perchloroethylene (CAS: 127-18-4)
Overview: Mechanical cleaning processes are viable alternatives to traditional solvent-
based cleaning operations. Mechanical cleaning processes reduce waste
production and eliminate potential safety problems with the handling and usage
of toxic, ozone depleting, and often-flammable solvents. These cleaning
processes are many and varied. Cleaning of almost any piece of equipment,
surface, or component is possible if it is sturdy enough to withstand the friction
and force produced by the mechanical work of cleaning operations such as
sanding, grinding, polishing, brushing, and scraping.
Brushing - Wire or plastic brushes are used to remove grime or grease buildup
from equipment. Metal and wooden surfaces can be prepared for painting or
repainting by vigorous brushing of the surfaces to remove dirt, loose paint,
scale, or corrosion.
Grinding - A rotating abrasive stone or disc is used to grind down some of the
hardest and most difficult materials to remove, such as accumulated dirt, dry
paint, long-standing corrosion, and mineral scale.
Polishing and Buffing - Light surface dirt, residue, tarnish, or scale is removed
by polishing and buffing. These operations typically involve the use of a soft
device like a fabric or fiber cloth, and a slightly abrasive polishing cream to
remove dirt, corrosion, scale, tarnish, oxidized paint, and grease residue from
painted or bare metal surfaces.
Sanding - Sanding is an abrading operation using a fiber (paper, cloth, plastic,
etc.) sheet embedded with sand or other mineral grit particles that removes
surface dirt or loose paint. It can be done manually or with a motor driven
sander.
3-1-7-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Compliance
Benefit:
Mechanical cleaning allows a facility to decrease the amount of solvents used
for cleaning. The decrease in cleaning solvents may allow a facility to remain
below any of the reporting thresholds of SARA Title HJ for those chemicals (40
CFR 355, 370, and 372; and EO 12856). In addition, a decrease in toxic
chemicals may decrease the need for a facility to obtain an air permit (40 CFR
70 and 71). Switching from a halogenated solvent (e.g., methyl chloroform,
methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride or chloroform) may
also decrease the need for a facility to meet the NESHAPs for halogenated
solvent cleaning (40 CFR 63). Eliminating an ODS will also help facilities meet
the requirements under 40 CFR 82, Subpart D and Executive Order 12843
requiring federal agencies to maximize the use of safe alternatives to class I and
class U ozone depleting substances, to the maximum extent practicable.
Moreover, mechanical cleaning will decrease the amount of hazardous waste
generated (i.e., no waste solvent generated). Waste reduction is required under
RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix. The reduction of hazardous waste may also
help facilities reduce their generator status and lessen the number of regulatory
(i.e., recordkeeping, reporting, inspections, transportation, accumulation time,
emergency prevention and preparedness, emergency response) requirements
with which they must comply under RCRA, 40 CFR 262. Mechanical
cleaning may increase electricity consumption. Under EO 12902, federal
facilities are required to reduce energy consumption.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
These technologies are not meant to be used on precision or delicate parts.
Check with your local cognizant authority prior to implementing any of these
technologies.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these
technologies.
Significant reduction in the amount of hazardous waste generated compared
to chemical stripping
Reduces hazardous waste disposal costs
Provides solvent cost savings
5-1-7-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Reduces the number of hours required for paint stripping in comparison to
chemical stripping
Reduces worker exposure to solvent, hazardous waste and hazardous air
emissions
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
Not appropriate for precision or delicate parts
Stripping rate varies with the type of paint, coating condition and coating
thickness
Costs associated with mechanical cleaning will vary on a case by case basis.
Cleaning rates are dependent on the equipment used and the thickness and type
of coating or grime being removed. Prior to full usage, performing a test case is
recommended to ensure that the desired finish product is achieved. The
following cost estimate is for stripping paint from a T-38 aircraft:
Assumptions:
Paint removal and cleaning area: 2,410 ft2
Labor rate: $45/hr
One aircraft is de-painted per month
Mechanical Cleaning (Sanding)
Mechanical equipment (4 sanders) cost: $420
Paint removal and cleaning time: 640 hr/aircraft or 7,680 hr/yr
Dry paint waste residue: 30 Ib/aircraft or 360 Ib/yr
Dry paint waste disposal cost: $2/lb
Chemical Stripping
Chemical procurement cost: $ll/gal
Paint and solvent sludge disposal cost: $2/gal
Total chemical usage: 1,400 gal/aircraft or 16,800 gal/yr
Paint removal and cleaning time: 600 hr/aircraft or 7,200 hr/yr
Wet chemical waste residue: 1,200 gal/aircraft or 14,400 gal/yr
5-1-7-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Mechanical Cleaning and Chemical Stripping
Mechanical Cleaning Chemical Stripping
Operational Costs:
Labor: $345,600 $324,000
Material $748 $184,800
Waste Disposal $720 $28,800
Total Operational Costs: $347,068 $537,600
Total Recovered Income $0 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$347,068 -$537,600
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for Mechanical Cleaning: $190,532
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $420
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: <1 month
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost
Pneumatic Disk Sander 5130-00-596-1176 ea. $200.13
Pneumatic Compact Sander 5130-00-340-0719 ea. $99.29
Sand, Disk Holder 5130-00-357-2301 ea. (7-9in.) $30.62
Pneumatic Die Grinder 5130-00-900-9514 ea. $104.81
Pneumatic Needle Sealer 5130-01-029-8043 ea. $122.19
SandingDisks 5345-01-053-7925 1 roll $14.05
Abrasive Wheel 5130-00-049-7912 ea. $2.27
Wire Brush 5130-00-473-6443 ea. $17.71
Approval
Authority: Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
5-1-7-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
Sources:
Air Force:
MSgt. Bryan Stock
412 EMS/LGMSFP
Edwards AFB, CA 93523
Phone: (805) 275-4297
Fax: (805) 277-8336
Experience in using mechanical processes to clean aircraft.
The following is a list of companies that carry mechanical cleaning equipment.
This is not meant to be a complete list, as there are other manufacturers of this
type of equipment.
National Detroit Company
P.O. Box 2285
Rockford, IL 61131
Phone:(815)877-4041
Fax:(815)877-4050
Manufacturer of air-pneumatic sanders.
Burr King Manufacturing Company
3 Tamara Lane
Warsaw, MO 65355
Phone: (800) 621-2748 or (660) 438-8998
Fax:(660)438-8991
Manufacturer of abrasive belt grinders.
Grinding and Polishing Machinery Corporation
2801 Tobey Drive,
Indianapolis, IN 46219-1481
Phone:(317)898-0750
Fax:(317)899-1627
MSgt. Bryan Stock, 412 EMS/LGMSFP, Edwards AFB, May 1999.
Mr. Scott Oakman, 412 EMS/LGMSFP, Edwards AFB, January, 1998
Mr. Scott Nakashige, 412 EMS/LGMSFP, Edwards AFB, May 1996.
Burr King Manufacturing Company, Vendor communication, May 1996
5-1-7-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
HAND WIPE CLEANING ALTERNATIVE
Revision:
Process Code:
Usage List:
Alternative for:
5/99
Navy and Marine Corps: ID-02-06; Air Force: CL02; Army: CLD
Navy: High; Marine Corps: High; Army: Medium; Air Force: High
Chlorinated Solvent Hand Wipe Cleaning, Aerosol Sprays
Compliance Areas: Medium
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: 1,1,1-trichloroethane (CAS: 71-55-6), CFC-113
(CAS: 76-13-1), Methyl ethyl ketone (CAS: 78-93-3), Toluene (CAS: 108-88-3)
Overview:
Compliance
Benefit:
The Wet Task Wiping System from the Kimberly-Clark Corporation has been
used under the Navy's P2 Afloat Program to replace the use of aerosol cans
and rags. This system consists of a 1.2-gallon bucket with a perforated top
through which pre-moistened wipes are removed. The user adds the wipes and
cleaning solutions to the 1.2-gallon bucket. The wipes are roughly 12 inches by
12 inches, one-ply paper towelettes, with 60 wipes per roll. The wipes are
available in two varieties for solvents of regular strength and solvents with strong
solvating action.
Hand wipe cleaning can reduce the use of aerosol cans and ozone depleting
compounds. The Wet Task Wiping System is designed so the cleaning solution
of choice can be added to the container of wipes. This allows the user to select
the solvent that is most appropriate for the task. In addition, this system allows
the user to select more environmental-friendly cleaning solutions such as
aqueous cleaning solutions or low vapor pressure cleaning solutions. As each
hand wipe is pulled from the container, it is compressed through the opening to
remove excess solution from the wipe. This packaged hand wipe system can
replace the use of rags and reduce waste disposal since the wipes have less
mass than rags.
The use of a hand wipe cleaning system will decrease the amount of hazardous
waste generated (i.e. the system eliminates the need for aerosol cans and hand
wipes have less mass than rags). Waste reduction is required under RCRA, 40
CFR 262, Appendix. In addition, the reduction of hazardous waste may also
help facilities reduce their generator status and lessen their regulatory burden
(e.g. recordkeeping, reporting, inspections, transportation, accumulation time,
emergency prevention and preparedness, emergency response) under RCRA,
40 CFR 262. Moreover, eliminating aerosol cans may decrease the amount of
ODSs and help the facility meet the requirements under 40 CFR 82, Subpart
D and Executive Order 12843 requiring federal agencies to maximize the use
8-1-8-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
of safe alternatives to Class I and Class U ozone depleting substances, to the
maximum extent practicable.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
The buckets are compatible with all types of common solvents and cleaning
solutions. The regular solvent strength wipes are designed for detergents and
solvents such as alcohols. The extra solvent strength wipes are designed for
organic solvents such as methyl ethyl ketone.
Aqueous cleaning solutions may be acidic or alkaline. Organic solvents are
flammable. Cleaning solutions or solvents may have an irritating effect on skin
or mucus membranes. Some components of cleaning solutions or solvents may
have toxic components. Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local
health and safety personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing
this technology.
Reduces disposal of aerosol cans and rags
Reduces solvent waste
Allows for the purchase of bulk quantities of solvents
Lowers capital costs
Disadvantages:
A complete roll, consisting of 60 wipes, must be prepared for use with this
system
Wipes are disposed, not recycled
Economic
Analysis:
The following cost elements compare hand wipe cleaning using the Wet Task
Wiping System from the Kimberly-Clark Corporation with hand wipe cleaning
using aerosol sprays and rags.
Assumptions:
120 gallons of cleaning solution used annually
Bulk cleaning solution costs: $4,320
1,024 spray cans provide 120 gallons solution at a cost of $11,520
8-1-8-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Regular solvent strength wipes cost: $37/6-rolls (60 wipes/roll)
Using sixteen wipe-dispensing buckets at a cost of $120.
200 roles of wipes, each using 0.6 gallons of cleaning solution, required.
One rag is equivalent to two wipes
750 pounds of rags are required at an average of 8 rags/lb.
Cost: $750.
Labor needs identical for both methods
Empty solvent containers and aerosol cans weigh 0.5 Ibs/ea
Solid waste disposal of containers, rags, and wipes costs: $0.015/lb
Case of 6-rolls of wipes - weight 10 Ibs.
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Wet Task Wiping System and Aerosol Sprays with Rags Wipe Cleaning
Wet Task Wiping Aerosol Sprays and
System Rags Wipe Cleaning
Operational Costs:
Cleaning Solution Costs: $4,300 $11,500
Wipes and Rags Costs: $1,200 $800
Solid Waste Disposal: $ 10 $20
Total Operational Costs: $5,500 $12,300
Total Recovered Income: $0 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$5,500 -$12,300
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for Wet Task Wiping System: $6,800
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $ 120
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: <1 year
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
5-1-5-.3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
Approving
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Mr. Rudy M. Pontemayor, P.E. (Chemical Engr.)
Deputy Force Environmental Advisor, N451
Commander, U.S. Naval Forces, Japan
DSN 243-9197/9078, FAX: 243-6388
COML PH (FR CONUS): 81-311-743-9197/9078
COML PH (JAPAN): (0468) 21-1910 extension 9197/9078
Email: n451 @.cnfi.naw.mil
Vendors:
Mr. Dan Bojorquez
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, ESC 423
110023rd Avenue
PortHueneme, CA 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-3425, DSN: 551-3425
FAX: (805) 982-4832
The following is a list of wipe system vendors. This is not meant to be a
complete list, as there may be other manufacturers of this type of equipment.
Kimberly-Clark Corp.
351PhelpsDr.
Irving, TX 75038-6507
Phone:(972)281-1200
URL: www.kimberly-clark.com
McMaster Carr Distributor
473 Ridge Road
Dayton, NJ 08810
Phone: (732) 329-3200
Fax: (732) 329-3772
URL: www.mcmaster.com
8-1-8-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Unisource
1250 Virginia Dr.
Ft. Washington, PA 19034
Phone: (800) 639-9389
Sources: Mr. DanBojorquez, Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, PortHueneme, CA,
February 1999.
Mary Jo Bieberich, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Annapolis, Maryland, May 1996
Steve Verosto, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Annapolis, MD, May 1996
Lynn Coiner, Kimberly-Clark Corp., May 1996
Economic Analysis Report for Pollution Prevention Process Assessment, Hill Air Force
Base, Utah, March 1993
8-1-8-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
HAND PUMP SPRAY BOTTLE APPLICATORS
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-02-06; Air Force: CL02, MT03; Army: CLD
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
Alternative for: Aerosol Sprays
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Various propellants
Overview:
Compliance
Benefit:
Hand pump spray bottles filled from bulk containers are a convenient method of
reducing the use of aerosol cans. This technology reduces both the disposal of
aerosol cans and the release of propellants. Hand pump spray bottles can be
refilled by pumping the solution from bulk containers such as 1-, 5-, 30-, or 55-
gallon drums. This method is best suited for cleaning solutions, lubricants, and
other spray solutions that are available in bulk. The spray bottles are composed
of plastic and are compatible with most cleaning solutions and lubricants. They
are durable and can last for many refills. Hand pumps are available to pump
solutions directly from drums for use in the spray bottles. A pail adapter, to
allow the use of the hand pump, is available for solutions which are in pails or
buckets.
The Navy's P2 Afloat Program is promoting this technology to replace many
uses for aerosol cans.
Eliminating aerosol cans may decrease the amount of ODSs used at a facility
and will also help the facility meet the requirements under 40 CFR 82, Subpart
D and Executive Order 12843 requiring federal agencies to maximize the use
of safe alternatives to class I and class U ozone depleting substances, to the
maximum extent practicable. In addition, aerosol cans are removed from the
solid waste stream which helps facilities to meet the requirements under
Executive Order 12873 requiring executive agencies (e.g., DOD) to
incorporate waste prevention and recycling in their daily operations.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
8-1-9-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
This technology is applicable to all spray solutions available in bulk which are
compatible with the spray bottles.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
Reduces solid waste disposal
Reduces aerosol propellant discharge to the atmosphere
Bulk purchase of many spray systems is less expensive than small quantity
procurement of solutions in aerosol cans
Different nozzles are needed for different density fluids
Does not work well with paints
The following cost elements compares using refillable pump spray bottles and
aerosol cans for lubrication. The cost for both aerosol cans and spray bottles
was obtained through vendor communication:
Assumptions:
55-gallon drum lubricating oil cost: $490
16-ounce aerosol can lubricating oil cost: $1.87
440 16-ounce aerosol cans equivalent to one 55-gallon drum
The equivalent of one 55-gallon drum is consumed annually
Drum pump costs: $20/ea
Purchase 20 spray bottles at $1.08/each
No significant difference in labor
8-1-9-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Refillable Spray Bottles and Aerosol Sprays
Refillable Spray Bottles Aerosol Sprays
Operational Costs:
Lubricant costs:
Total Operational Costs:
Total Recovered Income:
Net Annual Cost/Benefit:
$490
$490
$0
-$490
$830
$830
$0
-$830
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for Pump Spray Bottles: $340
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $20
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: < 1 year
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
Applicator Bottle
Applicator Bottle
Applicator Bottle
Approving
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
NSN
8125-00-782-4000
8125-00-488-7952
8125-00-089-5199
Unit Size Cost
ea. (8 oz.) $0.94
ea. (16 oz.) $1.08
ea. (16 oz.) $5.43
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Mr. Dan Bojorquez
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, ESC 423
1100 23rd Avenue
PortHueneme, CA 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-3425, DSN: 551-3425
FAX: (805) 982-4832
5-i-y-j
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Vendors:
The following is a list of drum dispenser pumps and spray bottles vendors. This
is not meant to be a complete list, as there may be other manufacturers of this
type of equipment.
McMaster Carr Distributor
473 Ridge Road
Dayton, NJ 08810
Phone: (732) 329-3200
Fax: (732) 329-3772
URL: www.mcmaster.com
Action Pump Company
170 Chicago Street
Cary, IL 60013
Phone:(847)516-3636
Fax:(847)516-0033
Lab Safety Supply
POBox 1368
Janesville, WI 53547
Phone: (800) 356-0783
Fax:(800) 543-9910
URL: www.labsafetv.com
Sources:
VWR Scientific
405 Herron Drive
Bridgeport, NJ 08014
Phone:(800)944-1894
Fax: (609) 467-3336
Mr. Dan Bojorquez, Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, Port Hueneme, CA,
April 1999.
Ms. Mary Jo Bieberich, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Annapolis, Maryland, May 1996.
Fed Log database, Defense Logistics Agency, February 1994.
Steve Verosto, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Annapolis, MD, May 1996
8-1-9-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
ULTRASONIC CLEANING PROCESSES AS A SOLVENT ALTERNATIVE
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-01-08/-09/-10/-11; Air Force: CL04; Army:
CLD, PNT, VHM
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
Alternative for: Vapor degreasing, immersion cleaning
Compliance Areas: Medium
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (CAS: 71-55-6),
perchloroethylene (CAS: 127-18-4), methylene chloride (CAS: 75-09-2)
Overview: Ultrasonic cleaning is a process that enhances immersion cleaning. It improves
the cleaning efficiency of most liquids, including neutral, alkaline, and acidic
aqueous solutions, as well as semi-aqueous solutions. It is a viable alternative to
traditional solvent-based cleaning operations such as vapor degreasing.
Ultrasonics can be used in gross cleaning operations as well as precision
applications and effectively removes particles, machining chips, grease, oils, and
other contaminants.
An ultrasonic cleaning system consists of transducers, a generator, a tank, and a
liquid medium. The transducers convert the energy supplied by the generator to
sonic energy vibrations. These vibrations are transmitted through the tank and
produce cavitation bubbles in the liquid medium in the tank. The formation and
collapse of these bubbles create a scrubbing action that is very effective at
removing contaminants. The energy provided by the ultrasonics will raise the
temperature of the liquid; heaters, thermostats, and cooling coils may be
required to control the operating temperature to within a few degrees.
Ultrasonic cleaning is usually employed in a multistage process consisting of an
ultrasonic wash, rinse, and dry. Depending on the application, the cleaning
process may include a prewash to remove gross contaminants and a spray rinse
to reduce dragout into the rinse tank. Ultrasonics may be used in the rinse step
as well. The drying step may incorporate some combination of air knives, hot-
air ovens, and vacuum drying ovens.
Ultrasonics can be used to improve the cleaning efficiency of an immersion
cleaning process. Special safety equipment must be used if the cleaning solution
is flammable or combustible. Additives such as surfactants should be low
foaming.
Proper fixturing is important to assure uniform cleaning. Improperly designed
fixtures may create "shadows" which block the action of ultrasonic waves.
8-1-10-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Baskets should have a wide mesh with minimal part contact, and parts should
be placed to avoid nesting. Delicate parts should be fixed in place to keep them
from moving during insertion into and removal from the tank
Ultrasonics work best on sound-reflecting materials such as metal, glass, and
plastics. It is less efficient on sound-absorbing materials such as rubber and
cloth.
Compliance
Benefit:
Use of ultrasonic cleaning may decrease the amount of ODSs used at a facility
which will help the facility meet the requirements under 40 CFR 82, Subpart D
and Executive Order 12843 requiring federal agencies to maximize the use of
safe alternatives to class I and class U ozone depleting substances, to the
maximum extent practicable. In addition, a decrease solvents may decrease the
need for a facility to obtain an air permit (40 CFR 70 and 71). Switching from
a halogenated solvent (i.e., methyl chloroform, methylene chloride,
perchloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride, or chloroform) may also decrease the
need for a facility to meet the NESHAPs for halogenated solvent cleaning (40
CFR 63). Ultrasonic cleaning will increase electricity and water consumption.
Under EO 12902, federal facilities are required to reduce energy consumption
and implement water conservation programs.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
Excessive dwell times may cause cavitation erosion of some materials.
Resonant damage caused by standing ultrasonic waves can be reduced by using
a sweep frequency.
Ultrasonics typically operate in the 25 kHz to 40 kHz range; hearing protection
may be required. Other safely and health issues depend on the cleaning solution
used. Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
Ultrasonics can achieve very high levels of cleanliness
Capable of removing small particles (smaller than 0.000005 meters)
Can remove debris from parts with complex geometries
Decrease cleaning times over immersion cleaning
8-1-10-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
NSN/MSDS:
Product
Ultrasonic Cleaner
Ultrasonic Cleaner
Approval
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
May require rinsing and drying of parts
Not as effective as directed sprays for cleaning blind holes
Waste stream may require testing for hazardous constituents
Will vary on a case by case basis. Factors affecting capital investment and
operating costs are size of system, number of tanks, cleanliness level,
production rate, and operating temperature.
Standard sizes are available and may range from 5-gallon capacity benchtop
units with 240 watts output power to 3 5-gallon capacity units with 1440 watts
output power. Manufacturers can also provide custom configurations designed
to meet specific needs.
NSN
4940-01-319-6450
4940-00-253-3905
Unit Size
ea.
ea.
Cost
$180,000.00
$4,248.75
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Mr. Paul Klein
Naval Air Warfare Center, Lakehurst
Lakehurst, NJ
Phone: (732) 323-2963
The following is a list of companies that carry ultrasonic cleaning equipment.
This is not meant to be a complete list, as there are other manufacturers of this
type of equipment.
CAE Ultrasonics
PO Box 220
Jamestown, NY 14702-0220
Phone: (800)766-6606
FAX: (716)665-2480
8-1-10-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Blue Wave Ultrasonics
PO Box 4347
Davenport, IA 52808
Phone: (800)373-0144
FAX: (319)322-7180
Branson Ultrasonics Corp.
PO Box 1961
Danbury, CT 06813-1961
Phone: (203)796-0400
FAX: (203)796-0535
Sources: Mr. Paul Klein, Naval Air Warfare Center, Lakehurst, May 1999.
Mr. Peter Bond, Blackstone Ultrasonics Corporation, January, 1998.
Mr. John Hurley, Branson Ultrasonics Corporation, January, 1998.
Ms. Sandra Geheb, Process Engineer, NAS North Island, CA, January, 1998
8-1-10-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
PORTABLE STEAM CLEANING SYSTEM (MINI-MAX)
Revised:
Process Code:
Usage List:
Alternative for:
6/99
Navy and Marine Corps: ID-02-13; Air Force: CL05; Army: CLD
Navy: High; Marine Corps: High: Army: High; Air Force: High
Solvent Cleaning
Compliance Areas: High
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Methyl ethyl ketone (CAS: 78-93-3), toluene
(CAS: 108-88-3), 1,1,1-trichloroethane (71-55-6), and xylenes (CAS: 1330-20-7)
Overview:
Compliance
Benefit:
A portable, hand-held steam cleaning system, the Mini-Max system, is
a viable alternative to replace solvent cleaning and degreasing of
weapons, automotive parts, electronics, printed circuit boards, ground
support equipment, and other gear. This technology uses distilled or
deionized water mixed with a cleaning solution to generate steam at a
temperature of 500 degrees Fahrenheit. The cleaning solution is
proprietary but is non-toxic, non-flammable, biodegradable and
eliminates the use of solvents which are currently used in these cleaning
processes. The steam is generated through a nozzle at a pressure of
150 psi - 295 psi, depending on the unit. The steam's high temperature
and low specific heat allow surfaces to be heated to relatively high
temperatures. High temperature is maintained on the surface long
enough for the steam to vaporize or liquefy the oil, grease, or dirt. The
residue can then be effectively washed away with the steam condensate.
An additive for rust prevention can also be used with the unit where
flash rusting is a concern.
This equipment is available for procurement through the GSA supply
system and the Navy's P2 equipment procurement program. No
installation is required. Units are currently in use at several Navy and
DoD installations, including: SUBASE Bangor; Tobyhanna Army
Depot; and NAS Patuxent River. This technology has been
recommended for use by the Fleet Assistance Support and Technology
Transfer (FASTT) team.
A portable steam cleaning system will decrease the generation of waste
solvent from cleaning and degreasing operations. The decrease in
hazardous waste helps facilities meet the requirements of waste
reduction under RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix, and may also help
facilities reduce their generator status and lessen the amount of
regulations (i.e., recordkeeping, reporting, inspections, transportation,
3-1-11-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
accumulation time, emergency prevention and preparedness, emergency
response) they are required to comply with under RCRA, 40 CFR
262. In addition, since less solvent is used the possibility that a facility
meets any of the reporting thresholds of SARA Title HJ for solvents (40
CFR 355, 370, and 372; and EO 12856) is decreased. A steam
cleaning system may also decrease the likelihood of the facility requiring
an air permit under 40 CFR 70 and 71 since less volatile and toxic
cleaning solutions are used. Switching from a halogenated solvent (i.e.,
methyl chloroform, methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, carbon
tetrachloride or chloroform) may also decrease the need for a facility to
meet the NESHAPs for halogenated solvent cleaning (40 CFR 63).
Moreover, the steam cleaner may decrease the amount of ODSs used
at a facility which will help the facility meet the requirements under 40
CFR 82, Subpart D and Executive Order 12843 requiring federal
agencies to maximize the use of safe alternatives to class I and class U
ozone depleting substances, to the maximum extent practicable. A
steam cleaner will increase water consumption. Under EO 12902,
federal facilities are required to implement water conservation projects.
In addition, a wastewater discharge permit may be required from the
local POTW.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a
general guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual
compliance benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the
amount of workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Flash rusting may be a problem for certain types of steel. Preventative
measures (such as use of additives to the solution) may have to be
taken. Prior to implementing this technology, performing a test case is
recommended to ensure that the desired finished product is achieved.
Gloves and safety goggles should be worn when operating this
equipment. No other personal protective equipment (PPE) is required.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and
safety personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this
technology.
Eliminates the use of solvents, carbon removers and bore cleaners
currently used in these processes
Reduces the amount of hazardous waste and hazardous air
emissions generated compared to solvent degreasing
3-1-11-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Utilizes simple equipment with low implementation cost
Reduces worker exposure to toxic organic chemicals
Provides solvent cost savings
Reduces the labor hours and associated costs compared to current
solvent-based cleaning procedures
Steam cleaning is not recommended for any equipment, component,
or material that is temperature or moisture sensitive; a rust
prevention additive should be used when flash rusting is a concern
System may pose an Electrostatic Discharge (ESD) threat when
cleaning electronic components; preventative measures may have
to be taken
Water can penetrate and/or damage joints, seals, and bonded
areas; hand-held air blowers (compressors) may be required to
remove residual moisture
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
The capital cost for a mobile unit and multiple-station steam cleaning
units will vary, depending upon the unit type and its application. Capital
costs for these systems can range from $1,500 to $3,500.
+ Assumptions:
Mobile steam cleaning equipment cost: $3,500
Labor rate: $16.77/hr
Solvent procurement cost: $ll/gal
Water usage cost: $1.94/1000 gal
Electricity: $0.08/kw-hr
Waste solvent disposal cost: $2/gal
Industrial wastewater disposal cost: $8.24/1000 gal
Hazardous waste disposal cost: $0.12/lb
Steam Cleaning
Total labor requirements for weapons cleaning:
0.4 hr/gun x 120 guns/day x 220 days/yr
System electrical requirements: 350 kw-hr/yr
L-J
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Solvent Cleaning
Total labor requirements for equipment cleaning:
1.25 hr/gun x 120 guns/day x 220 days/yr
Solvent usage: 5 gal/week or 260 gal/yr
Waste solvent: 50 gal/yr
Materials usage: 352 boxes (rags)
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Portable Steam Cleaner vs. Solvent Cleaning
Portable Steam Cleaning Solvent Cleaning
Operational Costs:
Labor: $177,091 $553,410
Materials: $1600 $7,920
Process Water: $120 $0
Energy: $30 $0
Waste Solvent/Mat'1 $0 $607
Disposal:
Wastewater Treatment: $0 $0
Total Operational Costs: $178,791 $561,937
Total Recovered Income: $0 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$178,791 -$561,937
Economic Analysis Summary
+ Annual Savings for Portable Steam Cleaning: $383,146
+ Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $8,324
+ Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: <1 year
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own
Values. To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost
3-1-11-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Cleaner,steam,pressure,jet (min-m; 4940-01-411 -8632
cleaner only)
Cleaner,steam,pressure,jet (min-m; 4940-01 -409-0148
work station)
ea.
ea.
$1,294.98
$5,891.82
Approval
Authority:
Point
of Contact:
Vendors:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after
engineering approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not
required.
Navy:
Mr. Charles Tittle
FASTT Team Director
NAVSEA
Phone: (703) 602-3594
The following is a list of companies that carry steam cleaning equipment.
This is not meant to be a complete list, as there are other manufacturers
of this type of equipment.
Mini-Max Cleaner
PDQ Precision, Inc.
P.O. Box 99838
San Diego, CA. 92169
Phone:(619)581-6370
FAX (619) 575-4067
GSA# GS-O7F-5805A
Sources:
Pacer Cleaning Equipment
1777 ShermerRoad
Northbrook, IL 60062-5360
Phone: (800) 323-5431 or (219) 873-9790, Fax: (219) 873-9788
Mr. Earl N. Engus
Mr. Charles Tittle, FASTT Director, Code SEA OOTB, (703) 602-3594
3-1-11-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
WIRE ROPE LUBRICATION SYSTEM
Revision: 6/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-02-06; Air Force: CLO1; Army: CLD
Usage List: Navy: Low; Marine Corps: Low; Army: Low; Air Force: Low
Alternative for: Manual and Pressurized Spray Lubricant Application
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: N/A
Overview: The Wire Rope Lubrication System has been designed as an alternative for the
manual cleaning and lubrication of wire ropes. Using the Wire Rope
Lubrication System, old lubricant and grit are mechanically scraped from the
grooves and surfaces of the wire ropes. Simultaneously, new lubricant is
uniformly applied to the cleaned wire ropes surface and injected into the inner
core of wires. The new lubricant will reduce wear between individual strands of
wire and displace trapped moisture in the wire rope, which is a major cause of
corrosion. These two actions help to maintain a high level of confidence in the
safety of the wire rope and extend its working life.
Currently, most wire rope maintenance is performed by hand. Shipboard or
shore based personnel clean the rope using wire brushes and manually apply
new lubricant using mops, rags and brushes. Manual application often means
using a low viscosity lubricant that is designed to penetrate to the core by
gravity. It is also tedious and requires an inordinate amount of time and labor.
The Wire Rope Lubrication System can clean, scrape and lubricate wire ropes
using a higher viscosity lubricant in less time. The benefit of using a higher
viscosity lubricant is a longer period of fluid film support protection against
internal wire friction and corrosion.
The Wire Rope Lubrication System consists of a Groove Cleaner Kit, a Seal
and Scraper Plate Kit that fits in the Collar Unit, a Cart/Drum Pump Unit and all
the other equipment required to clean and lubricate wire rope. The
recommended air pressure settings for various rope travel speeds, and lubricant
viscosities are provided in the equipment's operating manual.
Each size wire rope requires a correctly sized Seal and Scraper Plate Kit and
optional Groove Cleaner Kit. If the user has additional sizes of wire rope that
require cleaning and lubrication, the corresponding sized Seal and Scrapper
Plate Kit and optional Groove Cleaner Kit will need to be ordered. The seal
kits slip easily into the lubrication collar and the groovers snap directly onto the
wire rope.
3-1-12-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Compliance
Benefit:
The wire rope lubrication system will prolong the life of metal wire thereby,
decreasing the amount of solid waste going to a landfill. The decrease in solid
waste helps facilities meet the requirements under Executive Order 12873
requiring executive agencies (i.e., DOD) to incorporate waste prevention and
recycling in their daily operations. In addition, since the system decreases the
generation of used oil (the higher viscosity oil last longer) less personnel time is
spent managing used oil under 40 CFR 279 or 40 CFR 262.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
The Wire Rope Lubrication System is compatible with the wire rope lubricants
currently used shipboard and shore-side. The Wire Rope Lubrication System
has been added to the US Navy Allowed Equipment List (AEL) and assigned a
National Stock Number by the Defense Construction Supply Center.
Proper design, operation, and maintenance of the equipment is required for its
safe use. Care should be taken when handling lubricants, especially when
pressurized. Proper personnel protective equipment is recommended.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, and your local health and safety
personnel prior to implementing this technology.
Increase the working life of wire rope.
Reduce maintenance time and labor by as much as 50%.
Reduce safety hazards associated with the previous cleaning methods.
Disadvantages:
Padeye or structural member required as an opposing anchor point.
The Wire Rope Lubrication System may not be economically effective
when cleaning and lubricating shorter runs of wire rope.
Economic
Analysis:
The economic analysis for the Wire Rope Lubrication System is not complete at
this time. The equipment is part of an R&D effort to place pollution prevention
equipment shipboard to reduce the quantity of hazardous waste generated and
off loaded to the shore facility. Cost benefit data and analysis for this equipment
8-1-12-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
will be made available as it is received from the fleet. Excerpts from customer
letters to the vendor indicate that manpower savings of up to 50% may be
attainable.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
Lube Unit Model JU-120
Lube Unit Model JU-120B
Lube Unit Model SU-35B
NSN
4930-01-319-0787
4930-01-328-1851
4930-01-424-2197
Unit Size
ea.
ea.
ea.
Cost
$6,093.86
$6,712.20
$7,000.00
Approval
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Mr. Steve Verosto
Code 632
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division
9500 MacArthur Blvd.
West Bethesda, Maryland 20817-5700
Phone: (301) 227-5182, Fax: (301) 227-5359
Mr. Thomas Luchay P.E., CHMM
Naval Surface Warfare Center - Carderock Division Code 631
Naval Business Center
Philadelphia, PA 19112-5083
(215) 897-1081; DSN: 443-1081
Fax:(215)897-8786
Email: luchayTJ@nswccd.naw.mil
Mr. Daniel Bojorquez
Code ESC 423
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
110023rdAve.
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-3425, DSN: 551-3425, Fax: (805) 982-3425
The following is a list of vendors that carry or manufacture frequency
converters, transformers, and electrical controls. This is not meant to be a
complete list, as there may be other suppliers of these types of equipment.
3-1-12-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
The Kirkpatrick Group, Inc.
401 S. Sherman St., Suite 211
Richardson, Texas 75081
Phone: (800) 466-4414 / (972) 669-9988, Fax: (972) 669-0205
Grignard Company, Inc.
900 Port Reading Avenue
P.O. Box 221
Port Reading, NJ 07064
(908)541-6661
POC Etienne Grignard (pronounced "TN")
8-1-12-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
PARTS WASHER, AQUEOUS JET
Revised: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-02-09; Air Force: CL03; Army: CLD
Usage List: Navy: High; Marine Corps: High; Army: High; Air Force: High
Alternative for: Solvent Cleaning
Compliance Areas: High
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Methyl ethyl ketone (CAS: 78-93-3), toluene (CAS:
108-88-3), 1,1,1-trichloroethane (CAS: 71-55-6), andxylenes (CAS: 1330-20-7)
Overview: Aqueous jet parts washers clean using a combination of water and detergent. A
parts washer is comprised of a cleaning cabinet in which spray nozzles,
positioned along the interior walls and ceiling, spray directly heated, high
pressure streams of water at the objects to be cleaned. Generally these
washers are used to clean brake drums, wheels (including ground support
equipment and aircraft), bearings (not aircraft), engine parts (including blocks),
and electric motors. The high pressure water is typically used in conjunction
with a detergent and will remove dirt, grime, oil, and grease from the materials
being cleaned as well as prevent the parts from flash rusting.
Because the detergent solution is biodegradable, the solution may be discharged
into the local sewer system if it meets the discharge limitations. These
detergents should contain defoamers and rust inhibitors to prevent flash rusting.
However, most of the washers have a purifying/recycling system, whereby the
detergent solution is recycled and can be reused. These purifying/recycling
systems work by skimming oil from the solution, and removing any sludge waste
that has settled to the bottom of the washer. In addition, filters used in the
system remove particulate matter, further purifying the solution. These closed-
loop systems enable the user to reuse the detergent solution several times before
requiring a fresh solution.
The detergents are available in two forms: water soluble liquid concentrate or
water-soluble powder. Most contain a rust inhibitor and a lubricant to protect
the parts from rust. The detergents are formulated so that they can effectively
remove carbon, heavy greases, and other dirt.
The washer units are available in a variety of sizes, ranging from 75-gallon to
400-gallon capacities. The units are either front-loading or top-loading,
depending on the model. Parts are placed in baskets or on shelves, which
rotate to expose the parts to the jet washers and the detergent solution. The
baskets can be multi-tiered, depending on the size of the washer and the parts
8-II/A-l-l
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
being cleaned. Options include rinse and dry modules, where the parts are
given a final rinse with fresh water and dried using blasts of heated air.
Because the system uses biodegradable detergents, no hazardous solvents are
used. In addition, hazardous wastes will be minimized, reducing disposal costs.
However, because paints and metals may collect and form sludge, hazardous
wastes may still be generated, although on a smaller scale.
Aqueous jet parts washers are used throughout the Army, Navy, Marine
Corps, and Air Force. According to the Deputy Force Environmental Advisor
for U.S Naval Forces, Japan, these washers performed well on trial runs at
Naval Aviation Depot, Alameda. Aqueous jet parts washers are used to clean
a variety of parts, including aircraft components and engine parts. Closed loop
aqueous jet parts washers have been used on-board Navy vessels to clean a
variety of parts, including aircraft components.
Careful maintenance and oversight will minimize operational problems with an
aqueous jet parts washer. The following list obtained from the FASTT Team's
F ASTTGRAM ONE, provides some examples of aqueous parts washer
operation problems and likely causes:
1. The part rusts when removed from the aqueous parts washer due to
inadequate rust inhibitor in the cleaning solution.
2. Aqueous part washer cleans more effectively at the end of the day and does
not work well at the beginning of the workday. The cleaning solution is
probably not at the optimum temperature. Many part washers have a timer
switch which can be set to heat up the cleaning solution before the work
day starts.
3. Parts need additional cleaning after removal from the aqueous parts washer.
Possible causes include: improper cleaning solution temperature (too low),
or weak soap mixture (need to adjust the cleaning solution concentration).
The following checklist from FASTTGRAM ONE has been created to ensure
efficient aqueous parts washer operation:
1. Maintain operating temperature between 190ฐF - 195ฐF in the supply tank.
This will ensure proper operating temperature (185ฐF) in the washer.
2. Solution concentrate should be five percent (this will also prevent flash
rusting). A higher soap concentration does not always lead to better
cleaning and often leads to reduced cleaning efficiencies, as cleaning residue
remains on the component being cleaned.
3. Typical run time is 15 minutes.
8-II/A-1-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Compliance
Benefit:
4. Test solution, using kit provided with cleaner, once a week (to ensure
optimum soap concentration).
5. Average solution life is six months (with required additions) but may vary
from one to twelve months depending on usage.
An aqueous jet parts washer will decrease the generation of waste solvent from
cleaning and degreasing operations. The decrease in hazardous waste helps
facilities meet the requirements of waste reduction under RCRA, 40 CFR 262,
Appendix, and may also help facilities reduce their generator status and lessen
the number of regulatory requirements (e.g., recordkeeping, reporting,
inspections, transportation, accumulation time, emergency prevention and
preparedness, emergency response) with which they must comply under
RCRA, 40 CFR 262. In addition, since less solvent is used the possibility that
a facility meets any of the reporting thresholds of SARA Title HJ for solvents
(40 CFR 355, 370, and 372; and EO 12856) is decreased. An aqueous
parts washer may also decrease the likelihood of the facility requiring an air
permit under 40 CFR 70 and 71 since less volatile and toxic cleaning solutions
are used. Switching from a halogenated solvent (i.e., methyl chloroform,
methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride, or chloroform)
may also decrease the need for a facility to meet the NESHAPs for halogenated
solvent cleaning (40 CFR 63). Moreover, use of an aqueous parts washer may
decrease the amount of ODSs used at a facility which will help the facility meet
the requirements under 40 CFR 82, Subpart D and Executive Order 12843
requiring federal agencies to maximize the use of safe alternatives to Class I and
Class U ozone depleting substances, to the maximum extent practicable.
An aqueous parts washer will increase water consumption. Under EO 12902,
federal facilities are required to implement water conservation projects. In
addition, a wastewater discharge permit may be required from the local POTW.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
The aqueous jet parts washer may be used on a wide variety of parts.
However, mild steel and tool steel fixtures may corrode if not treated with a rust
inhibitor or dried properly. Residues from aqueous cleaners, which may affect a
part's performance, include phosphorus, calcium, magnesium, chlorides,
hydrocarbon films, amines, and nitrates. Because some detergents used are
8-II/A-1-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
acidic or alkaline in nature, certain types of metals may become etched or
tarnished. However, using inhibitors can prevent these effects.
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
Since most aqueous cleaners are acidic or alkaline, personal protective
equipment (PPE) should be worn; i.e. eye protection, gloves, etc.. In addition,
some aqueous cleaners are petroleum based and may cause allergic reactions to
susceptible individuals. Also, caution should be exercised due to possible heat
exposure.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
Replaces hazardous solvents with biodegradable detergents
Minimizes the disposal of hazardous wastes
Spent water or detergent solutions may be discharged into the local sewer
system if they meet the discharge regulations
Eliminates exposure to carcinogenic and neurotoxic chemicals
Meets state and local air regulations regarding ozone depleting substances
(ODSs)
Reduces cleaning times
Spent water or detergent wastewater or sludge may require pretreatment
Increases water consumption
The following cost analysis is based on information provided by the Pollution
Prevention Equipment Program. This analysis compares the use of Safety
Kleen immersion tanks for parts washing versus aqueous parts washers at both
Naval Station Mayport and Naval Air Station North Island:
Assumptions:
Capital cost for aqueous parts washers: 8,000 - $14,000; for this economic
analysis a Model 200 was used which costs $8,747.60.
Cost per month for Safety Kleen services (equipment): $144.37 or
$l,732.44/year
Labor rate for both systems: $10.39/hour
Time per part for cleaning with Safety Kleen: 20 minutes
8-II/A-1-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Parts cleaned per year with Safety Kleen: 2,600
Cleaning costs per year: $9,004.67
Waste disposal with Safety Kleen: 30 gallons of waste are generated per
month. Waste disposal costs are included in the Safety Kleen contract for a
monthly service fee of $144.37 per Safety Kleen unit.
Gallons of Daraclean 282 detergent for aqueous parts washer used per
year: 60
Cost per gallon of Daraclean 282 detergent for aqueous parts washer:
$17.25, or $1,035.00 per year
Better Engineering Defoamer: $44.85/year
Time per part for aqueous parts washer: 15 minutes
Parts cleaned per year: 2,600
Cost of cleaning per year with aqueous parts washer: $6,753.50
Amount of waste generated using aqueous parts washer over a three week
period: 250 cc
Cost for waste disposal: $29.00/3 weeks or $505.00/year
Aqueous solution is replaced every six months and has generally been found
non-hazardous. If the solution is hazardous, the yearly waste disposal figure
must incorporate the following information:
Cost per one 55-gallon drum of hazardous waste: $21.30
Two drums of hazardous waste, disposed twice a year: $85.20
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Aqueous Parts Washer and Safety Kleen Immersion Tanks
Aqueous Parts Washer Safety Kleen
Immersion Tanks
Operational Costs:
Materials: $1,079.85 $0
Rental Fee: $0 $1,732.44
Labor: $6,753.50 $9,004.67
Waste Disposal: $590.00 $0
Total Operational Costs: $8,42335 $10,73711
Total Recovered Income: $0 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$8,42335 -$10,73711
8-II/A-1-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for Aqueous Jet Parts Washer: $2,313.76
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $8,747.60
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: <4 years
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
Aqueous Parts Washer
Aqueous Parts Washer
Aqueous Parts Washer
Aqueous Parts Washer
Approving
Authority:
NSN
4940-01-445-9632
4940-01-360-4096
4940-01-361-6126
4940-01-361-6127
Unit Size
ea.
ea.
ea.
ea.
Cost
$7,423.70
Local Purchase
Local Purchase
Local Purchase
Points
of Contact:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Mr. Rudy M. Pontemayor
Deputy Force Environmental Advisor, N451
Commander, U.S. Naval Forces, Japan
DSN 243-9197/9078, FAX 243-6388
COML PH (FR CONUS): 81-311-743-9197/9078
COML PH (JAPAN): (0468) 21-1910-extension 9197/9078
Email: n451@cnfj.navy.mil
Ms. Jill Maclntyre, 1.1.X.7.1.J.B (Procuring Activity Manager)
Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division
Lakehurst, NJ
Phone: (732) 323-1936
8-II/A-1-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Mr. Scott Mauro
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, ESC 423
110023rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-4889, DSN: 551-4889
Fax: (805)982-4832
Vendors:
Sources:
The following is a list of aqueous jet parts washer vendors. This is not meant to
be a complete list, as there may be other manufacturers of this type of
equipment.
Better Engineering Manufacturing
8361 Town Center Court
Baltimore, Maryland 21236-4964
Phone: (800)229-3380
Fax: (410)931-0053
URL: www.betterengineering.com
The Mart Corporation
2450 Adi Road
Maryland Heights, MO 63043
Phone: (800) 543-MART
Fax: (314)567-6551
PCI of America
6610 Rockledge Drive, Suite 200
Bethesda, MD 20817
Phone: (800) 222-1455
URL: www.hurrisafe.com
Mr. Rudy Pontemayor, Deputy Force Environmental Advisor, N451, April 1999.
FASTT TEAM, FASTGRAMONE, March 1999.
Mr. Scott Mauro, Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, Port Hueneme, CA,
January, 1998
Ms. Terry Love, Better Engineering Manufacturing, January, 1998.
Vandenberg Air Force Base Technical Feasibility and Economic Analysis Report for
Pollution Prevention Opportunity Assessment, September 1994.
Ms. Joan Thompson, Better Engineering Manufacturing, May 1996.
Mr. Jackie Felder, Laidlaw Environmental Services, May 1996.
National Defense Center for Environmental Excellence Technology Report, Aqueous
Cleaning-Alternative Materials, April 1994
8-II/A-1-7
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Cleaning and Degreasing
Product Name
Application
Replaces
Method of Use
Chemical
Ingredients
Paint Removal
Safety & Health
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling Options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
Impact Concentrated Industrial
Degreaser
Removes heavy accumulation of
grease, oil, and tar asphalt from
engine blocks, road equipment, and
aircraft parts. May be used in high
pressure washers.
1,1,1 Trichloroethane, other
chlorinated solvents, petroleum
distillates, MEK, and Toluene
Wipe and spray
Coconut Diethanolamine, d-
limonene, dye, nonylphenol
polyethoxate, citrus terpenes
Yes
May cause irritation to eyes.
Prolonged/repeated skin contact may
cause drying, defatting, and irritation.
Ingestion may cause irritation of
mouth, throat, and gastrointestinal
system. Excessive inhalation may
cause irritation of respiratory tract.
$1,815.22 55-gal
$178.27 5-gal
$130.97 12/1-qt
Yes Emulsifier
Disposal of in accordance with
federal, state, and local regulations.
Reusing, recycling, or incineration with
material recovery is recommended.
Contract with a licensed waste
disposal agency.
90%+
less than 10 mm Hg
130
335
7.18
6850-01-380-4053 55-gal
6850-01-380-4369 5-gal
6850-01-384-0618 12-1-qt
Lectra Clean n
Electrical cleaning and degreasing,
motors, parts and other equipment.
1,1,1 Trichloroethane, other
chlorinated solvents
Spray and wipe
Dipropylene, glycol monoethyl ether,
petroleum distillate, DPM acetate,
paraffmic hydrocarbons, propylene
glycol
No
Inhalation: May cause irritation and
central nervous system effects.
Skin/Eyes: May cause irritation.
Ingestion: May cause lung damage if
vomited after swallowing.
$1,823.18 55-gal
$279.91 4-1-gal container
$173.45 5-gal can
$86.89 12-20 oz. cans
No
Disposal of in accordance with
federal, state, and local regulations.
100%
less than 1mm Hg
219
more than 400
6.90
6850-01-382-5252 55-gal
6850-01-382-5369 4-1-gal
6850-01-382-5390 5-gal
8-II/A-2-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Cleaning and Degreasing
MSDS
POC
Manufacturer
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847 DSN 695-5168
Allied Enterprises
8 14 W 45th Street
Norfolk, VA 23 508-2008
(757) 489-8282
6850-01-382-5783 12-20 oz. cans
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847 DSN 695-5168
CRC Industries Inc.
885 Louis Drive
Warminster, PA 18974
(215)674-4300
8-II/A-2-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Cleaning and Degreasing
Product Name
Application
Replaces
Method of Use
Chemical
Ingredients
Paint Removal
Safety & Health
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling
Options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point ฐF
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
MSDS
POC
Manufacturer
Hurri-Safe Special Formula
Degreaser
Used in cold parts washing for metal
cleaning & degreasing; ultrasonic
degreasers used at ambient
temperatures; wipe on/wipe-off process
to remove contaminants from metals
prior to painting.
1,1,1 Trichloroethane, Methyl Ethyl
Ketone, Toluene, and various
petroleum solvents
wipe-on/wipe-off
2-butoxyethanol
Yes
Acute: No health effects if vapor/mist
inhaled. Contact may irritate skin or
eyes. Ingestion may cause nausea
and/or diarrhea. Chronic: None
expected.
$19.13 1-gal $743.53 55-gal
$80.13 5-gal
Yes, completely
Sewer discharge
Clarifier, OCS can provide a recycling
unit
0.05 %
non-volatile
N/A
212
8.45
6850-01-369-2474 1-gal
6850-01-369-2475 55-gal
6850-01-369-9303 5-gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5 168
PCI of America
6610 Rockledge Drive, Suite 200
Bethesda,MD20817
(800) 222-1455
OCS Systems/Hurri-Safe Exterior
Surface Cleaner (HK188)
For wipe on/wipe off cleaning of metal
parts and surfaces prior to painting,
bonding, priming, or using adhesives
MEK, Toluene, MTOK, Chlorinated
Solvents
wipe-on/wipe-off
2-butoxyethanol
Yes
Acute: Skin: May cause dryness and
irritation. Eye: Irritation. Chronic:
Should treatment ever be required, it
would be directed at control of
symptoms.
$885.04 55-gal
$135.80 5-gal
Yes, completely
Sewer discharge
Clarifier, OCS can provide a recycling
unit
0.05 %
N/A
212
8.45
6850-01-373-5865 55-gal
6850-01-426-6682 5-gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5 168
PCI of America
6610 Rockledge Drive, Suite 200
Bethesda,MD20817
(800) 222-1455
8-II/A-2-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Cleaning and Degreasing
Product Name
Application
Replaces
Method of Use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling
Options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point
(ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
MSDS
POC
Manufacturer
Bio T Max
Cleaner/Degreaser for removing grease,
dirt, oil, and similar substances. For use
in dip tanks, pressure spray units and
other industrial equipment.
1,1,1 Trichloroethane, petroleum
distillates, and methylene chloride
Varied
Natural terpene
Inhalation of aerosol/spray may result in
central nervous system depression.
Contact may irritate skin or eyes.
Prolonged or repeated exposure may
cause central nervous system
depression; dermatitis
No
$240.82 4-1 -gal cans/box
$160.54 (5-gal can)
$1,131.97 (55-galdrum)
Dispersible
HW due to low flashpoint
Parts washer, filter
780 g/1
Less than 2 mm Hg
130
334
7.17
6850-01-381-3785 4/1-gal
6850-01-381-3930 5-gal
6850-01-381-3944 55-gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847 DSN 695-5168
Biochem Systems
P.O. Box 47610
Wichita, KS 67201
(800) 777-7870
Hurri-Safe Hot Immersion
Degreaser
For use in heated immersion tanks, re-
circulating in in-line wash systems,
heated ultrasonic degreasers steam
cleaners, and high pressure washers
1,1,1 Trichloroethane, MEK, CFC's,
various petroleum solvents
Wipe-on/wipe-off
2-butoxyethanol
Skin exposure can cause dryness and
irritation. Direct eye contact and
prolonged/repeated skin contact may
cause irritation seen as redness.
Ingestion may cause nausea and/or
diarrhea.
No
$90.22 5-gal
$716.06 55-gal
Yes, complete
Sanitary sewer
Clarifier, OCS can provide recycling
unit
206 g/1
14.2 mm Hg
N/A
212
8.48
6850-01-373-5866 5-gal
6850-01-373-5867 55-gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847 DSN 695-5168
PCI of America
6610 Rockledge Drive, Suite 200
Bethesda,MD20817
(800) 222-1455
8-II/A-2-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Cleaning and Degreasing
Product
Application
Replaces
Method of Use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety &
Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling
Options
VOC
Vapor
Pressure
Teksol EP
Cleans aerospace and electronic
components, auto appliances, motors,
switches, relays and other electrical
appliances. Cleans circuit boards and
other electronic components.
CFC- 113,1,1,1 Trichloroethane, PERC,
and other chlorinated or halogenated
solvents
Manual wipe, dip tank
D-limonene, hydrotreated heavy naphtha
Product contacting the eye may cause eye
irritation. Low order oral and dermal
toxicity. Prolonged or repeated skin
exposure can cause, mild irritation,
defatting and dermatitis.
No
$214.11 6/1 gal
$736.70 30 gal drum
$1,174.06 55-galdrum
$103.74 12 aero. Cans
$166.90 5-gal can
No
Contact federal, state, county, or local
environmental regulatory agencies for
guidance.
Distillation, Inland filtration system
available
100%
Less than 10 mm Hg
AMEROID OWS
Fast-breaking emulsifier for cleaning bilges
and degreasing engines.
N/A
Place mixture of seawater and OWS in
bilges for 24 hours, allow motion of vessel
to stir the mix.
Naphthalene (SARA 313), aliphatic and
aromatic petroleum distillates.
Acute: Skin: Prolonged or repeated
contact can cause moderate irritation,
defatting, dermatitis. Eyes: Can cause
severe irritation, redness, tearing, blurred
vision. Ingestion: Can cause
gastrointestinal tract irritation, nausea,
vomit, and diarrhea. Inhalation of material
into lungs can cause chemical pneumonia
which can be fatal. Inhalation: Excessive
inhalation of vapors can cause nasal and
respiratory irritation.
No
$11.35/gal(1992)
Disperses in water, separates when
emulsion breaks
Allow volatile portion to evaporate in hood.
Allow sufficient time for vapors to
completely clear hood duct work. Disposal
of remaining material in accordance with
federal, state and local regulatory agencies
Oily contaminants can be filtered out,
leaving water that may be suitable for reuse
98% volatile
Less than 1mm Hg
8-II/A-2-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Cleaning and Degreasing
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point
(op)
Density
(Ibs/gal)
NSN
MSDS
POC
Manufacturer
112
310
6.40
6850-01-378-0581 6-1 -gal
6850-01-378-0700 30-gal
6850-01-378-0650 55-gal
6850-01-399-1640 12 aero. Cans
6850-01-378-0583 5-gal can
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847 DSN 695-5168
Inland Technology
401 East 27th St.
Tacoma, WA 98421
(253) 922-8932
153
320
7.5
6850-01-298-9823 6-gal
6850-01-298-9822 32-gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847 DSN 695-5168
Drew Ameroid Marine
One Drew Plaza
Boonton, NJ 07005
(973) 263-7600
8-II/A-2-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Cleaning and Degreasing
Product Name
Application
Replaces
Method of use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling Options
Flashpoint (ฐF)
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
MSDS
POC
Manufacturer
HI-SOLV
Degreaser for electrical motors,
generators, AC machinery, plastic
and metal production parts, electronic
assemblies and components
CFCs, chlorinated and stoddard
solvents
Immersion or brush
Azeotropic blend of distilled odorless
hydrocarbon solvents, C^Cis
Manufacturer states prolonged skin
exposure may lead to defatting. Eye:
Slight irritation. Ingestion: Possible
nausea.
No
$79.98 5-gal $535.21 55-gal
No
Absorbed material may be incinerated
in accordance with all applicable local,
state, and federal regulations.
Solvent can be distilled and reused
210
787 g/1
less than 0. 1mm Hg
432
7.0
6850-01-277-0595 5-gal
6850-01-244-3207 55gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847 DSN 695-5168
Bio-Tek
4680 Alvarado Canyon Rd. 575
P.O. Box 600094
San Diego, CA 92160-0094
(619)286-1786
OCS H2002U
Removes grease, oil, dirt, carbon
TCA, acetone, chlorinated solvents,
perchloroethylene
Ultrasonic cleaner
2-Butoxyethanol
Acute: Skin: May cause dryness and
irritation. Ingestion: May cause
nausea and/or diarrhea. Chronic:
This is a relatively innocuous
substance not expected to cause
harm. Should treatment ever be
required, it would be directed at
control of symptoms.
No
$15/gal cone. (1992)
Yes
Spent solution may be suitable for
disposal as a non-hazardous waste
after removal of contaminants by
filtration or other treatment
None
N/A
(in concentrate) 206 g/1
14.2 @20C
212
8.4
7930-00-N04-1780
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847 DSN 695-5168
OCS Systems
429 Madera Street
San Gabriel, CA 91778-0370
(818)458-2471
FAX (8 18) 458-2437
8-II/A-2-7
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Cleaning and Degreasing
Product Name
Application
Method of use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling options
VOC
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Vapor Pressure
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
MSDS
POC
Manufacturer
Bio-T
Effective for dissolving and removing
grease, dirt, oil, and similar tough
substances. Ideal for industrial use as
a general purpose cleaner. Also
removes adhesive and latex residues
and inks.
Dip tank, parts washer, sprayer
Natural terpene
Acute: Inhalation of aerosol/spray
may result in central nervous system
depression. Contact may irritate skin
or eyes. No health effects given for
ingestion. Chronic: Prolonged or
repeated exposure may cause central
nervous system depression; dermatitis.
No
$24.19 4-1-gal
$40.00 5-gal can
Dispersible
Dispose of in accordance with federal,
state, and local regulations.
68g/l
no flash point
0.03 mm Hg
212
7.77
6850-01-380-2062 4 1-gal
6850-01-380-4216 5-gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5168
Biochem Systems
P.O. Box 47610
Wichita, KS 67201
(800) 777-7870
Bio-T Foam
Effective for dissolving and removing
grease, dirt, oil, and similar tough
substances. Ideal for industrial use as
a general purpose cleaner. Also
removes adhesive and latex residues
and inks.
Aerosol can
Isopropyl alcohol, natural terpene,
ammonium hydroxide, hydrocarbon
propellant
Eyes: May cause irritation. Skin:
May cause irritation. Ingestion: May
cause gastrointestinal tract irritation.
Inhalation: May cause respiratory
irritation.
No
$74.00 6/1 7-oz aerosol
Dispersible
Dispose of in accordance with federal,
state, and local regulations. Unused
waste may be ignitable (D001).
197 g/1
no flashpoint
less than 2 mm Hg
200
8.07
6850-01-381-1012 6/17-oz
aerosol
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5 168
Biochem Systems
P.O. Box 47610
Wichita, KS 67201
(800) 777-7870
8-II/A-2-8
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Cleaning and Degreasing
Product Name
Application
Replaces
Method of use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling options
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
Citra-Safe and Citra Safe
(deodorized)
For surface preparation, general
solvent cleaning, and cleaning prior to
sealing and painting aircraft. Precision
cleaning of metal parts, ultrasound,
immersion, and manual wipe cleaning.
1,1,1 Trichloroethane (TCA), MEK,
toluene, and blends of MEK and
toluene,
Manual wipe, dip tank
D-limonene
Acute: Product contacting the eves
may cause eye irritation. Low oral
and dermal toxicity. Prolonged skin
exposure can cause mild irritation,
defatting and dermatitis.
No
$1,287.21 30-gal
$236.08 5-gal
$123.31 12/15-oz.
$1,880.26 55-gal
$297. 1 3 6/1 -gal (deodorized only)
$2,292.21 55-gal
$256.53 5-gal
No
Contact federal, state, or local
environmental agencies for guidance.
Distillation, Inland filtration system
available
Less than 2 mm Hg
132
340
6.98
6850-01-378-0564 30-gal
6850-01-378-0575 5-gal
6850-01-378-0616 12-15-oz
6850-01-378-0797 55 gal
6850-01-378-0886 6-1-gal
(deodorized)
6850-01-381-7081 55-gal
6850-01-381-7169 5-gal
Breakthrough Solvent
For parts washing and other metal
cleaning operations. Designed for use
with Edge Tek Filtration System. Safe
on most plastics and elastomers.
Stoddard solvent/mineral spirits; P-D
680 Type H, PERC
Manual wipe, dip tank
C12-C13 Paraffinic Hydrocarbons
Acute: Product contacting the eves
may cause eye irritation. Low oral
and dermal toxicity. Prolonged skin
exposure can cause mild irritation,
defatting and dermatitis.
No
$1,115.31 55-gal
$149.53 5-gal
$384.40 1 5-gal
No
Contact federal, state, or local
environmental agencies for guidance.
Distillation, Inland filtration system
available
Less than 2 mm Hg
150
370
6.40
6850-01-378-0666 55-gal
6850-01-378-0679 5-gal
6850-01-378-0698 15-gal
8-II/A-2-9
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Cleaning and Degreasing
MSDS
POC
Manufacturer
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5168
Inland Technology
401 East 27th St.
Tacoma, WA 98421
(253) 922-8932
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5 168
Inland Technology
401 East 27th St.
Tacoma, WA 98421
(253) 922-8932
8-II/A-2-10
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Cleaning and Degreasing
Product Name
Application
Replaces
Method of Use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling Options
VOC
Electron Dielectric Solvent
Electrical maintenance, motors,
generators, etc. Removes grease, oil,
carbon, and organic resins. Safe on
most plastic and rubber surfaces.
Approved NAVSfflPS Tech Manual
Chaps. 300 and 556.
1,1,1 Trichloroethane, CFC-113, and
other chlorinated solvents
Petroleum hydrocarbon, d-limonene
citrus terpene
Ingestion may cause gastrointestinal
tract irritation. Inhalation of vapors
may cause dizziness/headache.
Aspiration into lungs may cause injury.
Contact with eye may cause irritation.
Prolonged or repeated skin contact
may cause drying and flaking.
No
$103.79 12/22-oz.
$111.64 6/1 -gal
$99.25 6-gal
$821.22 55-gal
Negligible
Under most circumstances,
ELECTRON can be disposed as
simple waste oil. Incinerate or landfill
in manner conforming to local, state,
and federal regulations.
Can be recycled using vacuum
distillation. Additionally, solvent which
has been used in a large spray on
application can be collected via
containment and absorption and
reused in parts until it is no longer
effective.
782 g/1
Electron Aerosol Dielectric
Solvent
Electrical maintenance, motors,
generators, general wipe down
removes grease, fuel oil, carbon, and
organic resins can be used on most
plastic and rubber surfaces.
Approved NAVSfflPS Tech Manual
Chaps. 300 and 556.
1,1,1 Trichloroethane, CFC-113, and
other chlorinated solvents
Petroleum hydrocarbon, carbon
dioxide
Ingestion: Can cause gastrointestinal
tract irritation, nausea, vomit.
Inhalation: Aspiration into lungs may
cause injury. Excessive inhalation of
vapor may cause respiratory tract
irritation. Repeated skin contact may
cause excessive drying or flaking of
skin.
No
$83.33 12/15-oz
Negligible
Dispose of in accordance with all
local, state, and federal regulations.
Do not puncture, incinerate spray
cans. Dispose of empty cans in trash
picku-up. Do not place in home trash
compactor.
Can be recycled using vacuum
distillation. Additionally, solvent which
has been in a large spray on
application can be collected via
containment and absorption and
reused in parts until it is no longer
effective.
782 g/1
8-II/A-2-11
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Cleaning and Degreasing
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
MSDS
POC
Manufacturer
Less than 1 mm Hg
147
370
6.53
6850-01-371-8049 12/22-oz
6850-01-375-5554 6/1-gal
6850-01-375-5553 6-gal
6850-01-375-5555 55-gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5168
Ecolink Inc.
1481 Rock Mountain Blvd.
Stone Mountain, GA 30086
(800) 886-8240
Less than 3 mm Hg
100
320
5.0
6850-01-371-8048 12/15 oz
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5 168
Ecolink Inc.
1481 Rock Mountain Blvd.
Stone Mountain, GA 30086
(800) 886-8240
8-II/A-2-12
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Cleaning and Degreasing
Product
Application
Replaces
Method of Use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling Options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
MSDS
POC
Manufacturer
Parts prep (Some information is
not available at this time)
Removes deposits of carbon, smut,
grease, multipurpose lube oils and
buffing compounds from ball bearings,
aluminum, brass, stainless steel,
carbon steel, and specialty alloys.
LD50: >5,000mg/kg
1,1,1 Trichloroethane, CFC-113,
other halogenated solvents
1 -methylpyrrolidone
Inhalation: No evidence of toxic
effects. Eyes: Moderate irritation.
Skin: Minimal irritation
$1,903.99 4601bs. drum
$243.09 5 -gal can
Yes
Dispose of in accordance with federal,
state and local regulations.
Less than 0.30 mm Hg
193
396
6850-01-383-0780 4601bs.
6850-01-383-0833 5-gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5168
ISP
1361 Alps Rd.
Wayne, NJ 07470-3688
(800) 622-4423
ISO PREP
Removes oil, grease, glues, wax,
asphalt and other deposits. Safe on
most plastics and elastomers.
CFCs, aromatic solvents
Manual wipe, dip tank
C12-C13 parafmnic hydrocarbons,
Hydrotreated heavy naphtha
Acute: Product contacting the eve
may cause eye irritation. Low order
acute oral and dermal toxicity.
Prolonged skin exposure causes mild
irritation, defatting and dermatitis.
No
$136.94 5-gal
No
Contact federal, state, and local
environmental regulatory agencies for
guidance.
Distillation, Inland filtration system
100% volatile
Less than 10 mm Hg
104
303
640
6850-01-378-0706 5-gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5 168
Inland Technology
401 East 27th St.
Tacoma, WA 98421
(253) 922-8932
8-II/A-2-14
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Cleaning and Degreasing
Product
Application
Replaces
Method of Use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling Options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
Citrix Solvent
Cleans fiberglass and epoxy resins.
Carburetor cleaner and cold tank
compound; stripping and cleaning
agent for removing paints, coatings,
carbon, grease, fuel residues and
resins from ferrous and non-ferrous
metals.
Methylene chloride, cresylic acid,
dichlorobenzene, acetone
l-butoxy-2-propanol, 2-butoxy-l-
propanol, n-methylpyrrolidone, d-
limonene
Target organs: Eye, skin, respiratory,
and gastrointestinal tracts. Acute:
May cause irritation of eyes, skin,
respiratory and gastrointestinal tracts.
Ingestion may cause vomiting/diarrhea.
Can be absorbed through skin in
harmful amounts. Chronic: May
cause defatting and dermatitis.
$282.20 5-gal can
$2,351.06 55-galdrum
$327.10 6/1 -gal containers/box
Very slightly
Dispose of in accordance with federal,
state, and local regulations.
Distillation, Inland filtration system
available
100% volatile
Less than 2 mm Hg
144
340
7.31
6850-01-378-0618 5-gal
6850-01-378-0624 55-gal
6850-01-378-0838 6/1 gal
Partsmaster 140
For parts washer use. Removes oil,
grease, glues, inks, wax, and asphalt.
For degreasing and parts cleaning.
CFCs, aromatic solvents
Parts washer
C10-C11 paraffinic hydrocarbons, d-
limonene
Product contacting the eye may cause
irritation. Low order acute oral and
dermal toxicity. Prolonged or
repeated skin exposure causes mild
irritation, dermatitis and defatting.
No
$830.37 55-gal drum
No
Prevent waste from contaminating
surrounding environment. Discard any
product, residue, disposal container,
or liner in accordance with all federal,
state, and local regulations.
Distillation, Inland filtration system
available
100% volatile
Less than 10 mm Hg
105
310
6.40
6850-01-378-0610 55-gal
8-II/A-2-15
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Cleaning and Degreasing
MSDS
POC
Manufacturer
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5168
Inland Technology
401 East 27th St.
Tacoma, WA 98421
(253) 922-8932
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5 168
Inland Technology
401 East 27th St.
Tacoma, WA 98421
(253) 922-8932
8-II/A-2-16
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Cleaning and Degreasing
Product
Application
Replaces
Method of Use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling Options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
MSDS
POC
Citrex Soak
Solvent degreaser, water miscible.
Substitute for aromatic degreasers.
ODCs
Manual wipe, dip tank
D-limonene, isoprapylamine,
dodecylbenzene sulfonate
Contact may cause eye irritation.
Low dermal and oral toxicity.
Chronic: Prolonged or repeated skin
exposure can lead to mild irritation,
defatting, and dermatitis.
No
$229.78 5-gal can
$1,997.96 55-galdrum
Appreciable
Dispose of in accordance with federal,
state, and local regulations.
Distillation, Inland filtration system
available
Greater than 90% volatile
Less than 2 mm Hg
136
340
7.15
6850-01-378-0649 5-gal
6850-01-378-0687 55-gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
PF-145 HP Degreaser
Many industrial applications via
wiping, coarse spraying or dipping,
parts washing, ultrasonic cleaners, and
flow rinsing systems. Also used as
cleaning solvent for liquid penetrants.
1,1,1 Trichloroethane, other
halogenated ingredients
Wipe, coarse spraying, dipping
N/A
Contact may cause eye irritation.
Ingestion of large amounts may cause
gastrointestinal tract irritation.
Aspiration during swallowing/vomiting
may cause lung injury. Chronic:
Prolonged or repeated exposure may
cause dermatitis/skin irritation.
Inhalation of vapors may cause
respiratory irritation, dizziness, nausea,
and headache.
N/A
$86.28 6/1 -gal containers/box
$63.66 5 -gal can
$828.58 55-gal drum
Negligible
Incinerate or burial in an approved
landfill. Dispose of in accordance with
local, state, and federal environmental
regulations
N/A
N/A
1mm Hg
145
More than 360
N/A
6850-01-378-0044 6/1-gal
6850-01-377-9710 5-gal
6850-01-377-9360 55-gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
8-II/A-2-17
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Cleaning and Degreasing
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5168
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5168
Manufacturer
Inland Technology
401 East 27th St.
Tacoma, WA 98421
(253) 922-8932
P-T Technologies, Inc.
108 4th Avenue, South
Safety Harbor, FL 34695
(800)441-7874
(813)726-4644
8-II/A-2-18
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Cleaning and Degreasing
Product
Application
Replaces
Method of Use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling Options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
MSDS
POC
Manufacturer
DG-7 Neutral pH Degreaser
Used to degrease all types of surfaces where mildness and neutral pH are
essential.
Solvent and petroleum based degreasers.
Spray on
4-isopropyl- 1 -methylcylohexene
Direct contact with eyes can cause irritation. No health effects noted for
any other route of exposure.
No
$244.97 5-gal container
$2,890.80 55-gal drum
Complete
Dispose of in accordance with federal, state and local regulations.
None. Designed to emulsify.
Same as water
N/A
212
8.31
6850-01-384-5205 5-gal
6850-01-384-5126 55-gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5168
Dominion Restoration Inc.
225 1-BDaney Road
Richmond, VA 23230
(804) 359-4400
8-II/A-2-19
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
General Metal Cleaning
Product Name
Application
Replaces
Method of Use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling Options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
MSDS
POC
Impact Concentrated Industrial
Degreaser
Removes heavy accumulation of
grease, oil, and tar asphalt from engine
blocks, road equipment, and aircraft
parts. May be used in high-pressure
washers.
TCA, chlorinated solvents, petroleum
distillates
Wipe and spray
Coconut Diethanolamine, d-limonene,
dye, nonylphenol polyethoxate, citrus
terpenes
May cause irritation to eyes.
Prolonged/repeated skin contact may
cause drying, defatting, and irritation.
Ingestion may cause irritation of
mouth, throat, and gastrointestinal
system. Excessive inhalation may
cause irritation of respiratory tract.
Yes
$1,815.22 55-gal
$178.27 5-gal
$130.97 12/1-qt
Yes Emulsifier
Dispose of in accordance with federal,
state, and local regulations. Reusing,
recycling, or incineration with material
recovery is recommended. Contract
with a licensed waste disposal agency.
90%+
less than 10 mm Hg
130
335
7.18
6850-01-380-4053 55-gal
6850-01-380-4369 5-gal
6850-01-384-0618 12-1-qt
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847 DSN 695-5168
Bio T Max
Cleaner/Degreaser for removing
grease, dirt, oil, and similar
substances. For use in dip tanks,
pressure spray units and other
industrial equipment.
TCA, petroleum distillates and
methylene chloride
Varied
Natural terpene
Acute: Inhalation of aerosol/spray
may result in central nervous system
depression. Contact may irritate skin
or eyes. No health effects given for
ingestion. Chronic: Prolonged or
repeated exposure may cause central
nervous system depression; dermatitis.
No
$240.82 4/1-gal cans/box
$160.54 5-gal can
$1,131.97 55-gal drum
Dispersible
HW due to low flashpoint
Parts washer, filter
780 g/1
Less than 2 mm Hg
130
334
7.17
6850-01-381-3785 4/1-gal
6850-01-381-3930 5-gal
6850-01-381-3944 55-gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
8-II/A-3-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
General Metal Cleaning
DSN 695-5168
Manufacturer
Allied Enterprises
814 W 45th Street
Norfolk, VA 23508-2008
(757) 489-8282
BioChem Systems, Inc.
P.O. Box 47610
Wichita, KS 67201
(800) 777-7870
8-II/A-3-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
General Metal Cleaning
Product Name
Application
Replaces
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling Options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
MA 102
Removes heavy soils, grease, and oil
from metal surfaces. Non-acidic and
will leave no residue.
Ethylene glycol, phospates, and
phenols
Di-propylene glycol mono methyl
ether
Inhalation: Believed to be minimally
irritating. Skin No evidence of
adverse effects from available
information. Unlikely to be absorbed
through skin in harmful concentration.
Eye: May cause slight temporary
irritation. Cornea! injury is unlikely.
No
$92.24 12/24-oz
$64.20 5-gal
$470.80 55-gal
Yes
Dispose contaminated
products/materials used in cleaning up
spills in manner approved for the
product. Consult appropriate
federal/state/local regulatory agencies
to ascertain proper disposal
procedures. Product is not
characteristic waste by RCRA
definition. Dispose properly of empty
container.
0.084 g/1
N/A
More than 200
200
8.54
Hurri-Safe Special Formula
Degreaser
Used in cold parts washing for metal
cleaning and degreasing; ultrasonic
degreasers used at ambient
temperatures; wipe-on/wipe-off
process to remove contaminants from
metals prior to painting.
1,1,1 Trichloroethane, methyl ethyl
ketone, toluene, and various
petroleum solvents
2-butoxyethanol
Acute: No health effects if vapor/mist
is inhaled. Contact may irritate skin or
eyes. Ingestion may cause
nausea/diarrhea. Chronic: None
expected.
Yes
$19.13 1-gal
$743.53 55-gal drum
$80.13 5-gal
Yes
Sewer discharge
Clarifier, OCS can provide a recycling
unit
0.05%
Non-volatile
N/A
212
8.45
8-II/A-3-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
General Metal Cleaning
NSN
MSDS
POC
Manufacturer
6850-01-418-4573 12/24-oz
6850-01-378-0425 5-gal
6850-01-378-0401 55-gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5168
JAD Chemical Inc.
P.O. Box 6786
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90734
(310)833-7457
6850-01-369-2474 1-gal
6850-01-369-2475 55-gal
6850-01-369-9303 5-gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5 168
PCI of America
6610 Rockledge Drive, Suite 200
Bethesda,MD 20817
(800) 222-1455
8-II/A-3-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
General Metal Cleaning
Product Name
Application
Replaces
Method of Use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling Options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
MSDS
POC
Manufacturer
Hurri-Safe Hot Immersion
Degreaser
Used in heated immersion tanks;
recirculating in-line wash systems,
heated ultrasonic degreasers, steam
cleaners, and high-pressure washers.
1,1,1 Trichloroethane, MEK, CFC's,
various petroleum solvents
Wipe-on/wipe-off
2-butoxyethanol
Skin exposure can cause dryness and
irritation. Direct eye contact and
prolonged/repeated skin contact may
cause irritation seen as redness.
Inhalation: None. This is a relatively
innocuous substance not expected to
cause harm. Ingestion may cause
nausea and/or diarrhea.
No
$90.22 5-gal
$716.06 55-gal drum
Yes, completely
Sanitary sewer
Clarifier, OCS can provide a recycling
system
206 g/1
14.2 mm Hg
N/A
212
8.48
6850-01-373-5866 5-gal
6850-01-373-5867 55-gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5168
PCI of America
6610 Rockledge Drive, Suite 200
Bethesda,MD 20817
(800)222-1455
Hurri-Safe HK-188 (Aircraft
Exterior Wash)
For wipe on/ wipe off cleaning of
metal parts and surfaces prior to
painting, bonding, priming, or using
adhesives. .
MEK, toluene, MIBK, chlorinated
solvents
Wipe-on/wipe-off
2-butoxyethanol
Acute: Skin: May cause dryness and
irritation. Inhalation: None. Eye:
Irritation: Chronic: This is a relatively
innocuous substance. Should
treatment ever be required, it would
be directed at the control of the
symptoms.
Yes
$885.04 55-gal drum
$135.80 5-gal
Yes, completely
Sanitary sewer
Clarifier, OCS can provide a recycling
system
0.05 %
Non volatile
N/A
212
8.45
6850-01-373-5865 55-gal
6850-01-426-6682 5-gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5 168
PCI of America
6610 Rockledge Drive, Suite 200
Bethesda,MD 20817
(800) 222-1455
8-II/A-3-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
General Metal Cleaning
Product Name
Application
Method of use
Replaces
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Electron 0296-55 (Dielectric
Solvent)
Electrical maintenance, motors,
generators, etc. Removes grease, oil,
carbon, and organic resins. Safe on
most plastic and rubber surfaces.
Approved NAVSfflPS Tech Manual
Chaps. 300 and 556.
1,1,1 Trichloroethane, CFC-113, and
other chlorinated solvents
Petroleum hydrocarbon, d-limonene
Citrus terpenes
Ingestion may cause gastrointestinal
tract irritation. Inhalation of vapors
may cause dizziness/headache.
Aspiration into lungs may cause injury.
Contact with eye may cause irritation.
Prolonged or repeated skin contact
may cause drying and flaking.
No
$103.79 12/22-oz.
$111.64 6/1 -gal
$99.25 6-gal
$821.22 55-gal
Negligible
Under most circumstances,
ELECTRON can be disposed as
simple waste oil. Incinerate or landfill
in manner conforming to local, state,
and federal regulations.
Can be recycled using vacuum
distillation. Additionally, solvent which
has been used in a large spray on
application can be collected via
containment and absorption and
reused in parts until it is no longer
effective.
782 g/1
Less than 1 mm Hg
147
Daraclean 282
Alkaline all-purpose cleaner;
formulated to be non-aggressive to
zince and aluminum alloys. Designed
for aerospace and electronics
applications. Used in soaking,
agitation, and spray.
Soaking, agitation, spray
Chlorinated solvent degreasers, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane
Diethylene glycol monobutyl ether
Target Organs: Eye, skin respiratory
and gastrointestinal tracts. Acute:
Eyes/Skin: May irritate upon direct
contact. Inhalation: May cause
respiratory tract irritation if material
becomes airborne. Oral: Unknown.
$111.78 5-gal
$763.48 55-gal
Yes
Contact federal, state, and local
environmental regulators for guidance
regarding proper disposal. IfpHis
12.5 or greater, the material is defined
as a hazardous waste. EPA Waste#
D002
29 mm Hg @ 73 degrees ฐF
None to boiling
8-II/A-3-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
General Metal Cleaning
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
MSDS
POC
Manufacturer
370
6.53
6850-01-371-8049 12/22-oz
6850-01-375-5554 6/1 -gal
6850-01-375-5553 6-gal
6850-01-375-5555 55-gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5168
Ecolink Inc.
1481 Rock Mountain Blvd.
Stone Mountain, GA 30086
(800) 886-8240
212
8.18
6850-01-364-8328 5-gal
6850-01-364-8329 55-gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5 168
W.R Grace and Co.
1750 Clint Moore Rd.
Boca Raton, FL 33487
(561) 362-2000
8-II/A-3-7
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
General Metal Cleaning
Product
Application
Replaces
Method of Use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling Options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
MSDS
POC
Manufacturer
Partsprep
Removes deposits of carbon, smut,
grease, multipurpose lube oils and
buffing compounds from ball bearings,
aluminum, brass, stainless steel,
carbon steel, and specialty alloys.
LD50: >5,000mg/kg
1,1,1 Trichloroethane, CFC-113,
other halogenated solvents
1 -methylpyrrolidone
Inhalation: No evidence of toxic
effects. Eyes: Moderate irritation.
Skin: Minimal irritation
$1,903.99 4601bs. drum
$247.09 5-gal can
Yes
Dispose of in accordance with federal,
state and local regulations.
Less than 0.30 mm Hg
193
396
6850-01-383-0780 4601bs.
6850-01-383-0833 5-gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847 DSN 695-5168
ISP
1361 Alps Rd.
Wayne, NJ 07470-3688
(800) 622-4423
ISO PREP
Removes oil, grease, glues, wax,
asphalt and other deposits. Safe on
most plastics and elastomers.
CFCs, aromatic solvents
Manual wipe, dip tank
C12-C13 parafmnic hydrocarbons,
Hydrotreated heavy naphtha
Acute: Product contacting the eye
may cause eye irritation. Low order
acute oral and dermal toxicity.
Prolonged or repeated skin exposure
causes mild irritation, defatting and
dermatitis.
No
$136.94 5-gal
No
Contact federal, state, and local
environmental regulatory agencies for
guidance.
Distillation, Inland filtration system
available
100% volatile
Less than 10 mm Hg
104
303
640
6850-01-378-0706 5-gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847 DSN 695-5168
Inland Technology
401 East 27th St.
Tacoma, WA 98421
(206) 922-8932
8-II/A-3-8
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Emulsifier for Cleaning Bilges
Product
Application
Replaces
Method of Use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling Options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
MSDS
POC
Manufacturer
Ameroid OWS
Fast breaking emulsifier for cleaning bilges and degreasing engines.
N/A
Place mixture of seawater and OWS in bilges for 24 hours, allowing
motion of vessel to provide agitation, or apply the solution with a brush,
followed by a warm water rinse.
Naphthalene (SARA 313), aliphatic and aromatic petroleum distillates.
Skin: Prolonged/repeated contact can cause moderate irritation, defatting,
and dermatitis. Eyes: Can cause severe irritation, redness, tearing, and
blurred vision. Ingestion: Can cause gastrointestinal irritation, nausea,
vomit, and diarrhea. Aspiration of material into lungs can cause chemical
pneumonia, which can be fatal. Inhalation: Excessive inhalation of vapors
can cause nasal and respiratory irritation, and central nervous system
effects.
No
$11.35/gal(1992)
Disperses in water, separates when emulsion breaks
Allow volatile portion to evaporate in hood. Allow sufficient time for
vapors to completely clear hood. Disposal of remaining material in
accordance with federal, state, and local regulatory agencies.
Oily contaminants can be filtered out, leaving water that may be suitable
for reuse.
98 % Volatile
Less than 0.3 mm Hg
153
320
7.5
6850-01-298-9823 6 gal
6850-01-298-9822 32 gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5168
Drew Ameroid - Marine
One Drew Plaza
Boonton, NJ 07005
(973) 263-7600
8-II/A-4-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Electronic & Electrical Equipment Cleaning
Product Name
Application
Replaces
Method of use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling options
VOC
Electron Aerosol Dielectric
Solvent
Electrical maintenance, motors,
generators, general wipe down
removes grease, fuel oil, carbon, and
organic resins can be used on most
plastic and rubber surfaces.
Approved NAVSfflPS Tech Manual
Chaps. 300 and 556.
1,1,1 Trichloroethane, CFC-113, and
other chlorinated solvents
Petroleum hydrocarbon, carbon
dioxide
Ingestion: Can cause gastrointestinal
tract irritation, nausea, vomit.
Inhalation: Aspiration into lungs may
cause injury. Excessive inhalation of
vapor may cause respiratory tract
irritation. Repeated skin contact may
cause excessive drying or flaking of
skin.
No
$83.33 12/15-oz
Negligible
Dispose of in accordance with all
local, state, and federal regulations.
Do not puncture or incinerate spray
cans. Dispose of empty cans in trash
picku-up. Do not place in home trash
compactor.
Can be recycled using vacuum
distillation. Additionally, solvent which
has been in a large spray on
application can be collected via
containment and absorption and
reused in parts until it is no longer
effective.
782 g/1
Electron Dielectric Solvent
Electrical maintenance, motors,
generators, etc. Removes grease, oil,
carbon, and organic resins. Safe on
most plastic and rubber surfaces.
Approved NAVSfflPS Tech Manual
Chaps. 300 and 556.
1,1,1 Trichloroethane, CFC-113, and
other chlorinated solvents
Petroleum hydrocarbon, d-limonene
citrus terpene
Ingestion may cause gastrointestinal
tract irritation. Inhalation of vapors
may cause dizziness/headache.
Aspiration into lungs may cause injury.
Contact with eye may cause irritation.
Prolonged or repeated skin contact
may cause drying and flaking.
No
$103.79 12/22-oz.
$111.64 6/1 -gal
$99.25 6-gal
$821.22 55-gal
Negligible
Under most circumstances,
ELECTRON can be disposed as
simple waste oil. Incinerate or landfill
in manner conforming to local, state,
and federal regulations.
Can be recycled using vacuum
distillation. Additionally, solvent which
has been used in a large spray on
application can be collected via
containment and absorption and
reused in parts until it is no longer
effective.
782 g/1
8-II/A-5-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Electronic & Electrical Equipment Cleaning
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
MSDS
POC
Manufacturer
Less than 3 mm Hg
100
320
5.0
6850-01-371-8048 12/15 oz
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5168
Ecolink Inc.
1481 Rock Mountain Blvd.
Stone Mountain, GA 30086
(800) 886-8240
Less than 1 mm Hg
147
370
6.53
6850-01-371-8049 12/22-oz
6850-01-375-5554 6/1-gal
6850-01-375-5553 6-gal
6850-01-375-5555 55-gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5 168
Ecolink Inc.
1481 Rock Mountain Blvd.
Stone Mountain, GA 30086
(800) 886-8240
8-II/A-5-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Electronic & Electrical Equipment Cleaning
Product Name
Application
Replaces
Method of Use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling Options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
Lectra Clean II
Electrical cleaning and degreasing,
motors, parts and other equipment.
1,1,1 Trichloroethane, other
chlorinated solvents
Spray and wipe
Dipropylene, glycol monoethyl ether,
petroleum distillate, DPM acetate,
paraffinic hydrocarbons, propylene
glycol
Inhalation: Mav cause irritation and
central nervous system effects.
Skin/Eyes: May cause irritation.
Ingestion: May cause lung damage if
vomited after swallowing
No
$1,823.18 55-gal
$279.91 4-1-gal container
$173.45 5-galcan
$86.89 12/20 oz can/box
No
Disposal of in accordance with
federal, state, and local regulations.
100%
less than 1mm Hg
219
more than 400
6.90
6850-01-382-5252 55-gal
6850-01-382-5369 4-1-gal
6850-01-382-5390 5-gal
Citra-Safe and Citra-Safe
(deodorized)
For surface preparation, general
solvent cleaning, and cleaning prior to
sealing and painting aircraft. Precision
cleaning of metal parts, ultrasound,
immersion, and manual wipe cleaning.
1,1,1 Trichloroethane (TCA), MEK,
toluene, and blends of MEK and
toluene,
Manual wipe, dip tank
D-limonene
Acute: Product contacting the eyes
may cause eye irritation. Low oral
and dermal toxicity. Prolonged skin
exposure can cause mild irritation,
defatting and dermatitis.
No
$1,287.21 30-gal
$236.08 5-gal
$123.31 12/15-oz.
$1,880.26 55-gal
$297. 1 3 6/1 -gal (deodorized only)
$2,292.21 55-gal
$256.53 5-gal
No
Contact federal, state, or local
environmental agencies for guidance.
Distillation, Inland filtration system
available
Less than 2 mm Hg
132
340
6.98
6850-01-378-0564 30-gal
6850-01-378-0575 5-gal
6850-01-378-0616 12-15-oz
8-II/A-5-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Electronic & Electrical Equipment Cleaning
MSDS
POC
Manufacturer
6850-01-382-5783 12/20 oz
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847 DSN 695-5168
CRC Industries Inc.
885 Louis Drive
Warminster, PA 18974
(215)674-4300
6850-01-378-0797 55 gal
6850-01-378-0886 6-1-gal
(deodorized)
6850-01-381-7081 55-gal
6850-01-381-7169 5-gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5 168
Inland Technology
401 East 27th St.
Tacoma,WA 98421
(253) 922-8932
8-II/A-5-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Electronic & Electrical Equipment Cleaning
Product
Application
Replaces
Method of Use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling Options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
MSDS
P-F-145 HP Degreaser
Many industrial applications via
wiping, coarse spraying or dipping,
parts washing, ultrasonic cleaners, and
flow rinsing systems. Also used as
cleaning solvent for liquid penetrants.
1,1,1 Trichloroethane, other
halogenated ingredients
Wipe, coarse spraying, dipping
N/A
Contact may cause eye irritation.
Ingestion of large amounts may cause
gastrointestinal tract irritation.
Aspiration during swallowing/vomiting
may cause lung injury. Chronic:
Prolonged or repeated exposure may
cause dermatitis/skin irritation.
Inhalation of vapors may cause
respiratory irritation, dizziness, nausea,
and headache.
N/A
$86.28 6/1-gal containers/box
$63.66 5 -gal can
$828.58 55-gal drum
Negligible
Incinerate or burial in an approved
landfill. Dispose of in accordance with
local, state, and federal environmental
regulations
N/A
N/A
1mm Hg
145
More than 360
N/A
6850-01-378-0044 6/1-gal
6850-01-377-9710 5-gal
6850-01-377-9360 55-gal
Click me
Micropure CDF
Circuit board cleaner used in
immersion cleaning or spray washing
CFC-113,methanol
1-methylpyrrolidone, dipropylene
glycol methyl ether
No effects expected from ingestion or
inhalation. If misted at high
concentrations may cause pallor,
nausea, anesthetic or narcotic effects.
Prolonged or repeated skin contact
causes redness, swelling, or cracking.
Vapors/splashes will irritate and cause
painful burning of eyes.
$312.73 5-gal can
Miscible
Prevent waste from contaminating
surrounding environment. Discard any
product, residue, disposal container or
liner in accordance with all federal,
state, and local regulations.
100% volatile
< 1mm Hg
191
363
6850-01-383-3043 5-gal
Click me
8-II/A-5-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Electronic & Electrical Equipment Cleaning
POC
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5168
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800)848-4847 DSN 695-5168
Manufacturer
P-T Technologies, Inc.
108 4th Avenue, South
Safety Harbor, FL 34695
(800)441-7874
(813)726-4644
ISP
1361 Alps Rd.
Wayne, NJ 07470-3688
(800) 622-4423
8-II/A-5-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Electronic & Electrical Equipment Cleaning
Product
Application
Replaces
Method of Use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Recycling Options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
MSDS
POC
Teksol EP
Cleans aerospace and electronic
components, auto appliances, motors,
switches, circuit boards, and relays.
1,1,1 Trichloroethane, CFC-113,
PERC, and other chlorinated or
halogenated solvents.
Manual wipe, dip tank
D-limonene and hydrotreated heavy
naphtha
Product contacting the eye may cause
eye irritation. Low order oral and
dermal toxicity. Prolonged or repeated
skin exposure can cause mild irritation,
defatting and dermatitis.
No
$103.74 12 aero cans
$214.11 6/1 -gal containers/box
$166.90 5-gal can
$736.70 30-gal drum
$1,174.06 55-gal drum
No
Distillation, Inland filtration system
available
100% volatile
Less than 10 mm Hg
112
310
6.40
6850-01-399-1640 12 aero cans
6850-01-378-0581 6/1-gal
6850-01-389-0583 5-gal
6850-01-378-0650 55-gal
6850-01-378-0700 30-gal
Click me
Hazardous Tech. Info. Services
Daraclean 282 Solvent
Alkaline all-purpose cleaner,
formulated to be non-aggressive
toward zinc and aluminum alloys.
Designed for aerospace and
electronics applications. Used in
soaking, agitation, and spray.
1,1,1 Trichloroethane, chlorinated
solvent degreasers
Agitation, hand wipe, soak, spray,
steam, ultrasonic
Diethylene glycol monobutyl ether
Target Organs: Eye, skin, respiratory
and gastrointestinal tracts. Acute:
Eyes/Skin: May irritate upon direct
contact. Inhalation: May cause
respiratory tract irritation if material
becomes airborne.
No
$111.78 5-gal can
$763.48 55-gal drum
Yes
Designed for soil rejection, media
filtration ultra filtration
214-403g/l
29 mm Hg at 73F
None to boiling
212
8.5
6850-01-364-8328 5-gal
6850-01-364-8329 55-gal
Click me
Hazardous Tech. Info. Services
8-II/A-5-7
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Electronic & Electrical Equipment Cleaning
(800) 848-4847 DSN 695-5168
(800)848-4847 DSN 695-5168
Manufacturer
Inland Technology
401 East 27th St.
Tacoma, WA 98421
(253) 922-8932
W.R. Grace and Co.
1750 Clint Moore Rd.
Boca Raton, FL 33487
(561) 362-2000
8-II/A-5-8
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Product Name
Application
Replaces
Method of Use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling
Options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
MSDS
POC
Manufacturer
Flight Deck Cleaners
Flight Deck Cleaner
Navy approved carrier flight deck cleaner
N/A
Sodium Silicate, Diethylene glycol butyl ether
Skin: irritant. Causes reddening & swelling. Eve: irritant. May injure eves,
causing corneal damage. Inhalation: vapors & mists may be irritating to
mucous membranes in nose, throat & lungs. Ingestion: irritating &
corrosive to mouth & throat, may cause headache,
nausea, abdominal pain, vomiting & diarrhea. Possible collapse
$33.84 5 -gal can
$139.32 55-galdrum
Yes, Complete
Dispose of in accordance with local, state, and federal environmental
regulations.
Unknown
None
200
6850-01-376-1201 5-gal
6850-01-376-1202 55-gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5 168
Allied Enterprises
8 14 W. 45th Street
Norfolk, VA 23508-2008
(757) 489-8282
8-II/A-6-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Engine Degreasing
Product Name
Application
Replaces
Method of Use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling Options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
MSDS
POC
Manufacturer
Hurri-Safe 9050 Hot Immersion
Degreaser
For use in heated immersion tanks, re-
circulating in in-line wash systems,
heated ultrasonic degreasers steam
cleaners, and high pressure washers
1,1,1 Trichloroethane, MEK, CFC's,
various petroleum solvents
Wipe-on/wipe-off
2-butoxyethanol
Skin exposure can cause dryness and
irritation. Direct eye contact and
prolonged/repeated skin contact may
cause irritation seen as redness.
Ingestion may cause nausea and/or
diarrhea. Inhalation: None. This is a
relatively innocuous substance.
Yes
$90.22 5-gal
$716.06 55-gal
Yes, complete
Sanitary sewer
Clarifier, OCS can provide recycling
unit
206 g/1
14.2 mm Hg
N/A
212
8.48
6850-01-373-5866 5-gal
6850-01-373-5867 55-gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5168
PCI of America
6610 Rockledge Dr. Suite 200
Bethesda, MD 20817
(800)222-1455
DG-7 Neutral pH Degreaser
Used to degrease all types of surfaces
where mildness and neutral pH are
essential.
Solvent and petroleum based
degreasers.
Spray on
4-isopropyl-l-methylcylohexene
Direct contact with eyes can cause
irritation. No health effects noted for
any other route of exposure. Chronic:
None specified by manufacturer
No
$244.97 5-gal container
$2,890.87 55-gal drum
Complete
Dispose of in accordance with federal,
state and local regulations.
None. Designed to emulsify.
Same as water
N/A
212
8.31
6850-01-384-5205 5-gal
6850-01-384-5126 55-gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5168
Dominion Restoration Inc.
225 1-BDaney Road
Richmond, VA 23230
(804) 359-4400
8-II/A-7-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Engine Degreasing
Product
Application
Replaces
Method of Use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling Options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
MSDS
POC
Manufacturer
P-F-145 HP Degreaser
Many industrial applications via wiping, coarse spraying or dipping, parts
washing, ultrasonic cleaners, and flow rinsing systems. Also used as
cleaning solvent for liquid penetrants.
1,1,1 Trichloroethane, other halogenated ingredients
Wipe, coarse spraying, dipping
N/A
Contact may cause eye irritation. Ingestion of large amounts may cause
gastrointestinal tract irritation. Aspiration during swallowing/vomiting may
cause lung injury. Inhalation of vapors may cause respiratory irritation,
dizziness, nausea, and headache. Chronic: Prolonged or repeated
exposure may cause dermatitis/skin irritation .
N/A
$86.28 6/1-gal containers/box
$63.66 5 -gal can
$828.58 55-gal drum
Negligible
Incinerate or burial in an approved landfill. Dispose of in accordance
local, state, and federal environmental regulations
with
N/A
N/A
1mm Hg
145
More than 360
N/A
6850-01-378-0044 6/1-gal
6850-01-377-9710 5-gal
6850-01-377-9360 55-gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5168
P-T Technologies, Inc.
108 4th Avenue, South
Safety Harbor, FL 34695
(800)441-7874
(813)726-4644
8-II/A-7-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Automotive - General Applications
Product
Application
Replaces
Method of Use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling Options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
MSDS
POC
Manufacturer
Teksol EP Solvent
Cleans aerospace and electronic components, auto appliances, motors,
switches, relays and other electrical appliances. Cleans circuit boards and
other electronic components.
CFC-113, 1,1,1 Trichloroethane, PERC, and other chlorinated or
halogenated solvents
Manual wipe, dip tank
D-limonene, hydrotreated heavy naphtha
Product contacting the eye may cause eye irritation. Low order oral and
dermal toxicity. Prolonged or repeated skin exposure can cause, mild
irritation, defatting and dermatitis.
No
$214.11 6/1 gal
$736.70 30 gal drum
$1,174.06 55-gal drum
$103.74 12 aero. Cans
$166.90 5-gal can
No
Contact federal, state, county, or local environmental regulatory agencies
for guidance.
Distillation, Inland filtration system available
100%
Less than 10 mm Hg
112
310
6.40
6850-01-378-0581 1-gal
6850-01-378-0700 30-gal
6850-01-378-0650 55-gal
6850-01-399-1640 12 aero. Cans
6850-01-378-0583 5-gal can
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847 DSN 695-5168
Inland Technology
401 East 27th St.
Tacoma, WA 98421
(253) 922-8932
8-II/A-8-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Aircraft - Skydrol Removal
Product Name
Application
Replaces
Method of use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
MSDS
POC
Manufacturer
Skysol
Designed for the aircraft industry as a
Skydrol remover and general solvent
cleaner. Used with Edge Tek
Filtration System.
Chlorinated and aromatic solvents, P-
D 680, Type II
Manual wipe, dip tank
C12-C13 paraffinic hydrocarbons, d-
limonene
Acute: Contact may cause eve
irritation. Low oral and dermal
toxicity. Prolonged or repeated skin
exposure can cause mild irritation,
dermatitis and defatting
No
$154.88 5-gal can
$1,174.06 55-gal drum
Negligible
Contact local, state, and federal
environmental regulatory agencies for
guidance.
Distillation, Inland filtration system
available
Less than 2 mm Hg
152
340
6.40
6850-01-381-4420 5 gal
6850-01-381-4404 55 gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5168
Inland Technology
401 East 27th St.
Tacoma, WA 98421
(253) 922-8932
Skysol 100
Designed for the aircraft industry as a
Skydrol remover and general solvent
cleaner. Used with Edge Tek
Filtration System.
Chlorinated and aromatic solvents, P-
D 680, Type II
Manual wipe, dip tank
C12-C13 paraffinic hydrocarbons, d-
limonene
Acute: Contact may cause eve
irritation. Low oral and dermal
toxicity. Prolonged or repeated skin
exposure can cause mild irritation,
dermatitis and defatting
No
$195.72 5-gal can
$1,582.20 55-gal can
No
Contact local, state, and federal
environmental regulatory agencies for
guidance.
Distillation, Inland filtration system
available
Less than 2 mm Hg
146
340
6.48
6850-01-381-4423 5 gal
6850-01-381-4401 55 gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5 168
Inland Technology
401 East 27th St.
Tacoma, WA 98421
(253) 922-8932
8-II/A-9-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Aircraft - Skydrol Removal
Product Name
Application
Method of use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
MSDS
POC
Manufacturer
Skysol 200
Designed for the aircraft industry as a
Skydrol remover and general solvent
cleaner. More aggressive than Skysol
100. Used with Edge Tek Filtration
System.
Manual wipe, dip tank
C12-C13 Paraffmic Hydrocarbons,
d-Limonene
Target Organs: Eye, skin, respiratory
tract. Acute: Mists may cause
respiratory tract irritation. Eye contact
may cause irritation. Low oral and
dermal toxicity. Prolonged or
repeated skin exposure can cause mild
irritation, dermatitis and defatting
No
$207.25 5-gal
$1,586.01 55-gal drum
No
Dispose of in accordance with federal,
state, and local regulations.
Distillation, Inland filtration available
Less than 2 mm Hg
144
340
6.48
6850-01-381-4427 5-gal
6850-01-381-4410 55-gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5168
Inland Technology
401 East 27th St.
Tacoma, WA 98421
(253) 922-8932
Skysol 300
Designed for the aircraft industry as a
Skydrol remover and general solvent
cleaner. Non RCRA precision
cleaner and wipe cleaner. More
aggressive than Skysol 200.
Manual wipe, dip tank
C12-C13 Paraffmic Hydrocarbons,
d-Limonene
Acute: Contact may cause eye
irritation. Low oral and dermal
toxicity. Prolonged or repeated skin
exposure can cause mild irritation,
dermatitis and defatting
No
$300.67 5-gal
$1,703.71 55-gal drum
Negligible
Dispose of in accordance with federal,
state, and local regulations.
Distillation, Inland filtration available
Less than 2 mm Hg
142
340
6.48
6850-01-381-4429 5-gal
6850-01-381-4417 55 gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5 168
Inland Technology
401 East 27th St.
Tacoma, WA 98421
(253) 922-8932
8-II/A-9-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Aircraft - Skydrol Removal
Product
Application
Replaces
Method of Use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling Options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
MSDS
POC
Manufacturer
Skysol 500
Designed for the aircraft industry as a Skydrol remover and general solvent
cleaner. Non RCRA precision cleaner and wipe cleaner. More aggressive
than Skysol 300.
ODC
Manual wipe, dip tank
C12-C13 Hydrocarbons, d-limonene
Acute: Product contacting the eve mav cause irritation. Low oral and
dermal toxicity. Prolonged or repeated skin exposure can cause mild
irritation, dermatitis and defatting
No
$224.43 5-gal can
$1,939.11 55-galdrum
No
Dispose of in accordance with federal, state, and
local regulations.
Distillation, Inland Filtration system available.
Less than 2 mm Hg
148
340
6.48
6850-01-381-4400 5 gal
6850-01-381-4412 55 gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5168
Inland Technology
401 East 27th St.
Tacoma, WA 98421
(253) 922-8932
8-II/A-9-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
General Aircraft Cleaning
Product Name
Application
Replaces
Method of Use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling Options
VOC(g/l)
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
MA-102 Aircraft Cleaning
Compound
Removes heavy soils, grease, and oil
from metal surfaces. Non-acidic and
will leave no residue.
Ethylene glycol, phosphates, and
phenols
Spray washers, steam cleaners,
pressure sprayers, brush and spray-on
Dipropylene glycol mono methyl ether
Inhalation: Believed to be minimally
irritating. Skin No evidence of
adverse effects based on available
information. Unlikely to be absorbed
through skin in harmful concentration.
Eye: May cause slight temporary
irritation. Cornea! injury is unlikely.
No
$92.24 12/24-oz
$64.20 5-gal
$470.80 55-gal
Yes
Dispose contaminated
products/materials used in cleaning up
spills in manner approved for the
product. Consult appropriate
federal/state/local regulatory agencies
to ascertain proper disposal
procedures. Product is not
characteristic waste by RCRA
definition. Dispose properly of empty
container.
0.084 g/1
N/A
More than 200
200
8.54
6850-01-418-4573 12/24-oz
MA-102NF Aircraft Cleaning
Compound
Aircraft cleaning compound which
removes heavy soils, grease, and oil
from aircraft surfaces and does not
leave a residue.
Meets or exceeds MIL-C-85570,
TypeU
Spray washers, steam cleaners,
pressure sprayers, brush and spray-on
Dipropylene glycol, methyl ether
The propellant is deionized water.
Eyes: Irritation, redness. Inhalation:
May cause minimal respiratory
irritation. Ingestion: Irritation of
gastrointestinal tract.
$3.46 16 oz can
Yes, completely
Do not incinerate. Dispose in
accordance with local, state, and
federal regulations regarding pollution.
Disposal of empty containers: Do not
incinerate
0.084
Unknown
Greater than 200
200
8.54
6850-01-378-0402 16-oz
8-II/A-10-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
General Aircraft Cleaning
MSDS
POC
Manufacturer
6850-01-378-0425 5-gal
6850-01-378-0401 55-gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5168
JAD Chemical Inc.
P.O. Box 6786
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90734
(310)833-7457
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5 168
JAD Chemical Co.
P.O. Box 6786
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90734
(3 10) 833-7457 (voice)
8-II/A-10-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
General Surface Preparation
Product
Application
Replaces
Method of Use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling Options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
MSDS
POC
Manufacturer
Skysol
Designed for the aircraft industry as a
Skydrol remover and general solvent
cleaner. Used with Edge Tek
Filtration System.
Chlorinated and aromatic solvents, P-
D 680, Type II
Manual wipe, dip tank
C12-C13 paraffinic hydrocarbons, d-
limonene
Acute: Contact may cause eye
irritation. Low oral and dermal
toxicity. Prolonged or repeated skin
exposure can cause mild irritation,
dermatitis and defatting
No
$154.88 5-gal can
$1,174.06 55-gal drum
Negligible
Contact local, state, and federal
environmental regulatory agencies for
guidance.
Distillation, Inland filtration system
available
Less than 2 mm Hg
152
340
6.40
6850-01-381-4420 5 gal
6850-01-381-4404 55 gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5168
Inland Technology
401 East 27th St.
Tacoma, WA 98421
(253) 922-8932
Skysol 100
Designed for the aircraft industry as a
Skydrol remover and general solvent
cleaner. Used with Edge Tek
Filtration System.
Chlorinated and aromatic solvents, P-
D 680, Type II
Manual wipe, dip tank
C12-C13 paraffinic hydrocarbons, d-
limonene
Acute: Contact may cause eye
irritation. Low oral and dermal
toxicity. Prolonged or repeated skin
exposure can cause mild irritation,
dermatitis and defatting
No
$195.72 5-gal can
$1,582.20 55-gal can
No
Contact local, state, and federal
environmental regulatory agencies for
guidance.
Distillation, Inland filtration system
available
Less than 2 mm Hg
146
340
6.48
6850-01-381-4423 5 gal
6850-01-381-4401 55 gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5 168
Inland Technology
401 East 27th St.
Tacoma, WA 98421
(253) 922-8932
8-II/B-l-l
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
General Surface Preparation
Product
Application
Replaces
Method of Use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling Options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
MSDS
POC
Manufacturer
Skysol 200
Designed for the aircraft industry as a
Skydrol remover and general solvent
cleaner. More aggressive than Skysol
100. Used with Edge Tek Filtration
System.
Chlorinated and aromatic solvents, P-
D 680, Type II
Manual wipe, dip tank
C12-C13 Paraffinic Hydrocarbons,
d-Limonene
Target Organs: Eye, skin, respiratory
tract. Acute: Mists may cause
respiratory tract irritation. Eye contact
may cause irritation. Low oral and
dermal toxicity. Prolonged or
repeated skin exposure can cause mild
irritation, dermatitis and defatting
No
$207.25 5-gal
$1,586.01 55-gal drum
No
Dispose of in accordance with federal,
state, and local regulations.
Distillation, Inland filtration available
Less than 2 mm Hg
144
340
6.48
6850-01-381-4427 5-gal
6850-01-381-4410 55-gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847 DSN 695-5168
Inland Technology
401 East 27th St.
Tacoma, WA 98421
(253) 922-8932
Skysol 300
Designed for the aircraft industry as a
Skydrol remover and general solvent
cleaner. Non RCRA precision
cleaner and wipe cleaner. More
aggressive than Skysol 200.
ODC
Manual wipe, dip tank
C12-C13 Paraffinic Hydrocarbons,
d-Limonene
Acute: Contact may cause eye
irritation. Low oral and dermal
toxicity. Prolonged or repeated skin
exposure can cause mild irritation,
dermatitis and defatting
No
$300.67 5-gal
$1,703.71 55-gal drum
Negligible
Dispose of in accordance with federal,
state, and local regulations.
Distillation, Inland filtration available
Less than 2 mm Hg
142
340
6.48
6850-01-381-4429 5-gal
6850-01-381-4417 55 gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847 DSN 695-5 1 68
Inland Technology
401 East 27th St.
Tacoma, WA 98421
(253) 922-8932
8-II/B-1-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
General Surface Preparation
Product
Application
Replaces
Method of Use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling Options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
MSDS
POC
Skysol 500
Designed for the aircraft industry as a
Skydrol remover and general solvent
cleaner. Non RCRA precision
cleaner and wipe cleaner. More
aggressive than Skysol 300.
ODC
Manual wipe, dip tank
C12-C13, paraffinic hydrocarbons, d-
limonene
Acute: Product contacting the eve
may cause irritation. Low oral and
dermal toxicity. Prolonged or repeated
exposure can cause mild irritation,
dermatitis and defatting.
No
$224.43 5-gal can
$1,939.11 55-galdrum
No
Dispose of in accordance with federal,
state, and local regulations.
Distillation. Inland filtration system
available.
Less than 2 mm Hg
148
340
6.48
6850-01-381-4400 5-gal
6850-01-381-4412 55-gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
EP921
For surface preparation when
followed by a rinse. For resin and
paint application equipment clean up.
Immersion tank replacement for vapor
degreasing. Precision cleaning for
electronics and metal parts.
MEK, MEK/toluene blends, 1,1,1
trichloroethane, CFC-113, and
lacquer washes
d-limonene, propylene carbonate
Target Organs: Eyes, skin,
gastrointestinal tract. Acute: Product
contacting eyes may cause irritation.
Prolonged skin contact may cause
redness and irritation. Swallowing
large amounts can cause
gastrointestinal disturbances. Chronic:
Prolonged or repeated skin contact
can lead to dermatitis.
$218.78 5-gal can
$1,703.71 55-gal drum
Very Slight
Discharge, treatment or disposal may
be subject to local, state, and federal
regulations.
Distillation. Inland filtration system
available.
less than 1mm Hg at 77F
146
340
6850-01-381-3300 5-gal
6850-01-381-4408 55-gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
8-II/B-1-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
General Surface Preparation
Manufacturer
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5168
Inland Technology
401 East 27th St.
Tacoma, WA 98421
(253) 922-8932
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5 168
Inland Technology
401 East 27th St.
Tacoma, WA 98421
(253) 922-8932
8-II/B-1-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Surface Preparation - Welding & Painting
Product Name
Application
Replaces
Method of Use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling Options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
MSDS
POC
Manufacturer
Hurri-Safe Special Formula
Degreaser
Used in cold parts washing for metal
cleaning & degreasing; ultrasonic
degreasers used at ambient
temperatures; wipe on/wipe-off process
to remove contaminants from metals
prior to painting.
1,1,1 Trichloroethane, Methyl ethyl
ketone, Toluene, and petroleum solvents
wipe-on/wipe-off
2-butoxyethanol
Acute: No health effects if vapor/mist
inhaled. Contact may irritate skin or
eyes. Ingestion may cause nausea
and/or diarrhea. Chronic: None
expected.
Yes
$19.13 1-gal $743.53 55-gal
$80.13 5-gal
Yes, completely
Sewer discharge
Clarifier, OCS can provide a recycling
unit
0.05 %
non-volatile
N/A
212
8.45
6850-01-369-2474 1-gal
6850-01-369-2475 55-gal
6850-01-369-9303 5-gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847 DSN 695-5168
PCI of America
7307MacarthurBlvd.
Bethesda, MD20816
(301)320-9100
Hurri-Safe Hot Immersion
Degreaser
Used in heated immersion tanks;
recirculating in-line wash systems,
heated ultrasonic degreasers, steam
cleaners, and high-pressure washers.
1,1,1 Trichloroethane, MEK,
CFC's, various petroleum solvents
Wipe-on/wipe-off
2-butoxyethanol
Skin exposure can cause dryness
and irritation. Direct eye contact
and prolonged/repeated skin contact
may cause irritation seen as redness.
Ingestion may cause
nausea/diarrhea.
Yes
$716.06 55-gal drum
$90.22 5-gal
Yes, completely
Sewer discharge
Clarifier, OCS can provide a
recycling unit
0.05%
Non-volatile
N/A
212
8.45
6850-01-373-5866 5-gal
6850-01-373-5867 55-gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847 DSN 695-5168
PCI of America
7307MacarthurBlvd.
Bethesda, MD 208 16
(301)320-9100
8-II/B-2-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Surface Preparation - Welding & Painting
Product Name
Application
Replaces
Method of use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
MSDS
POC
Manufacturer
Skysol
Designed for the aircraft industry as a
Skydrol remover and general solvent
cleaner. Used with Edge Tek
Filtration System.
Chlorinated and aromatic solvents, P-
D 680, Type II
Manual wipe, dip tank
C12-C13 paraffinic hydrocarbons, d-
limonene
Acute: Contact may cause eye
irritation. Low oral and dermal
toxicity. Prolonged or repeated skin
exposure can cause mild irritation,
dermatitis and defatting
No
$154.88 5-gal can
$1,174.06 55-gal drum
Negligible
Contact local, state, and federal
environmental regulatory agencies for
guidance.
Distillation, Inland filtration system
available
Less than 2 mm Hg
152
340
6.40
6850-01-381-4420 5 gal
6850-01-381-4404 55 gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5168
Inland Technology
401 East 27th St.
Tacoma, WA 98421
(253) 922-8932
Skysol 100
Designed for the aircraft industry as a
Skydrol remover and general solvent
cleaner. Used with Edge Tek
Filtration System.
Chlorinated and aromatic solvents, P-
D 680, Type II
Manual wipe, dip tank
C12-C13 paraffinic hydrocarbons, d-
limonene
Acute: Contact may cause eye
irritation. Low oral and dermal
toxicity. Prolonged or repeated skin
exposure can cause mild irritation,
dermatitis and defatting
No
$195.72 5-gal can
$1,582.20 55-gal can
No
Contact local, state, and federal
environmental regulatory agencies for
guidance.
Distillation, Inland filtration system
available
Less than 2 mm Hg
146
340
6.48
6850-01-381-4423 5 gal
6850-01-381-4401 55 gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5 168
Inland Technology
401 East 27th St.
Tacoma, WA 98421
(253) 922-8932
8-II/B-2-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Surface Preparation - Welding & Painting
Product Name
Application
Method of use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
MSDS
POC
Manufacturer
Skysol 200
Designed for the aircraft industry as a
Skydrol remover and general solvent
cleaner. More aggressive than Skysol
100. Used with Edge Tek Filtration
System.
Manual wipe, dip tank
C12-C13 Paraffinic Hydrocarbons,
d-Limonene
Target Organs: Eye, skin, respiratory
tract. Acute: Mists may cause
respiratory tract irritation. Eye contact
may cause irritation. Low oral and
dermal toxicity. Prolonged or
repeated skin exposure can cause mild
irritation, dermatitis and defatting
No
$207.25 5-gal
$1,586.01 55-gal drum
No
Dispose of in accordance with federal,
state, and local regulations.
Distillation, Inland filtration available
Less than 2 mm Hg
144
340
6.48
6850-01-381-4427 5-gal
6850-01-381-4410 55-gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5168
Inland Technology
401 East 27th St.
Tacoma, WA 98421
(253) 922-8932
Skysol 300
Designed for the aircraft industry as a
Skydrol remover and general solvent
cleaner. Non RCRA precision
cleaner and wipe cleaner. More
aggressive than Skysol 200.
Manual wipe, dip tank
C12-C13 Paraffinic Hydrocarbons,
d-Limonene
Acute: Contact may cause eye
irritation. Low oral and dermal
toxicity. Prolonged or repeated skin
exposure can cause mild irritation,
dermatitis and defatting
No
$300.67 5-gal
$1,703.71 55-gal drum
Negligible
Dispose of in accordance with federal,
state, and local regulations.
Distillation, Inland filtration available
Less than 2 mm Hg
142
340
6.48
6850-01-381-4429 5-gal
6850-01-381-4417 55 gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5 168
Inland Technology
401 East 27th St.
Tacoma, WA 98421
(253) 922-8932
8-II/B-2-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Surface Preparation - Welding & Painting
Product Name
Application
Replaces
Method of use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
Citra-Safe and Citra-Safe
(deodorized)
For surface preparation, general
solvent cleaning, and cleaning prior to
sealing and painting aircraft. Precision
cleaning of metal parts, ultrasound,
immersion, and manual wipe cleaning.
1,1,1 Trichloroethane (TCA), MEK,
toluene, and blends of MEK and
toluene,
Manual wipe, dip tank
D-limonene
Acute: Product contacting the eves
may cause eye irritation. Low oral
and dermal toxicity. Prolonged skin
exposure can cause mild irritation,
defatting and dermatitis.
No
$1,287.21 30-gal
$236.08 5-gal
$123.31 12/15-oz.
$1,880.26 55-gal
$297. 1 3 6/1 -gal (deodorized only)
$2,292.21 55-gal
$256.53 5-gal
No
Contact federal, state, or local
environmental agencies for guidance.
Distillation, Inland filtration system
available
Less than 2 mm Hg
132
340
6.98
6850-01-378-0564 30-gal
6850-01-378-0575 5-gal
6850-01-378-0616 12-15-oz
6850-01-378-0797 55 gal
6850-01-378-0886 6-1-gal
Skysol 500
Designed for the aircraft industry as a
Skydrol remover and general solvent
cleaner. Non RCRA precision cleaner
and wipe cleaner. More aggressive than
Skysol 300.
ODC
Manual wipe, dip tank
C12-C13, paraffmic hydrocarbons, d-
limonene
Acute: Product contacting the eve may
cause irritation. Low oral and dermal
toxicity. Prolonged or repeated
exposure can cause mild irritation,
dermatitis and defatting.
No
$224.93 5-gal can
$1,939.11 55-gal drum
No
Dispose of in accordance with federal,
state, and local regulations.
Distillation. Inland filtration system
available.
Less than 2 mm Hg
148
340
6.48
6850-01-381-4400 5-gal
6850-01-381-4412 55-gal
8-II/B-2-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Surface Preparation - Welding & Painting
MSDS
POC
Manufacturer
(deodorized)
6850-01-381-7081 55-gal
6850-01-381-7169 5-gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5168
Inland Technology
401 East 27th St.
Tacoma, WA 98421
(253) 922-8932
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5168
Inland Technology
401 East 27th St.
Tacoma, WA 98421
(253) 922-8932
8-II/B-2-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Surface Preparation - Welding & Painting
Product Name
Application
Replaces
Method of Use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling Options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
MSDS
POC
Manufacturer
Dominion Rust Stain Remover
Removes rust stains from non-
polished surfaces such as brick,
concrete, masonry, and stone; without
agitation.
Hydrofluric and sulfuric acids
Spray
Oxalic acid, phosphoric acid,
ammonium hydrogen fluoride solution
Acute: Contact may cause skin
irritation or burn eyes. Chronic :
Prolonged or repeated skin contact
may cause irritation.
No
$1,696.57 55-gal drum
$224.43 5 -gal can
Yes
Dispose of in accordance with local,
state, and federal regulations.
Not established
Same as water
N/A
212
7.94
6850-01-380-4145 55-gal
6850-01-380-4314 5 -gal can
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5168
Dominion Restoration Inc.
2251-BDaneyRd.
Richmond, VA 23230
(804) 359-4400
DR-80 Metal Corrosion Control
Removes heavy concentrations of rust
from all types of metal and
phosphatizes the surface in one step.
Prepares rusty metal surfaces for
priming and painting.
Hydrofluric and sulfuric acids
Brush
Phosphoric acid, glycolic acid
Acute: Contact may cause skin
irritation or burn eyes. Chronic :
Prolonged or repeated skin contact
may cause irritation.
No
$1,964.43 55-gal drum
$211.75 5-galcan
Yes
Dispose of in accordance with local,
state, and federal regulations.
Not established
Same as water
N/A
212
6.73
6850-01-375-9325 55-gal
6850-01-375-9326 5-gal can
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5 168
Dominion Restoration Inc.
2251-BDaneyRd.
Richmond, VA 23230
(804) 359-4400
8-II/B-2-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Surface Preparation - Welding & Painting
Product
Application
Replaces
Method of Use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling Options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
MSDS
POC
Manufacturer
Preprite
Removes paint, coatings, cured resin. May be brushed or sprayed on,
application and rinse away
one
Methylene chloride, methanol, toluene, acetone, MEK, ethylene glycol
brush on/spray on
1 methylpyrrolidone, ethyl-3-ethoxy propionate, gamma-butyrolacetone
Target Organs: Eves, skin, respiratory tract. Acute: Eve contact may
cause
severe irritation. Skin contact may cause irritation. No evidence of toxic
effects by ingestion. Inhalation of vapors may cause narcotic effects. Chronic:
Prolonged or repeated exposure may cause severe dermatitis.
$300.51 5-galcan
$1,240.99 55-gal. drum
Yes, completely
Dispose of in accordance with all local, state, and federal regulations.
0%
0.29 mm Hg
191
396
6850-01-454-6489 5-gal
6850-01-454-6500 55-gal
Click me
Hazardous Tech. Info. Services
(800)848-4847 DSN 695-5168
Ecolink Inc.
1481 Rock Mountain Blvd.
Stone Mountain, GA 30086
(800) 886-8240
8-II/B-2-7
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Surface Preparation Prior to Painting/Bonding/Adhesion
Product
Application
Replaces
Method of use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling Options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
MSDS
POC
Manufacturer
OCS Systems/Hurri-Safe Exterior Surface
Cleaner (HK 188)
For wipe on/wipe off cleaning of metal parts and surfaces prior to painting,
bonding, priming, or using adhesives
MEK, Toluene, MBK, Chlorinated Solvents
wipe-on/wipe-off
2-butoxyethanol
Yes
Acute: Skin: May cause drvness and irritation
None. Chronic: This is a relatively innocuous
Eye: Irritation. Inhalation:
substance. Should treatment
ever be required, it would be directed at control of symptoms.
$885.04 55-gal
$135.80 5-gal
Yes, completely
Sewer discharge
Clarifier, OCS can provide a recycling unit
0.05 %
N/A
212
8.45
6850-01-373-5865 55-gal
6850-01-426-6682 5-gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5168
PCI of America
6610 Rockledge Drive, Suite 200
Bethesda,MD20817
(800)222-1455
8-II/B-3-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Fiberglass Surface Preparation and Epoxy Resin Cleaning
Product Name
Application
Replaces
Method of use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
Teksol EP
Cleans aerospace and electronic
components, auto appliances, motors,
switches, relays and other electrical
appliances. Cleans circuit boards and
other electronic components.
CFC-113, 1,1,1 Trichloroethane,
PERC, and other chlorinated or
halogenated solvents
Manual wipe, dip tank
D-limonene, hydrotreated heavy
naphtha
Acute: Product contacting the eve
mav cause eve irritation. Chronic:
Low order oral and dermal toxicity.
Prolonged or repeated skin exposure
can cause, mild irritation, defatting and
dermatitis.
No
$214.11 6/1 gal
$736.70 30 gal drum
$1,174.06 55-gal drum
$103.74 12 aero. Cans
$166.90 5-gal can
No
Contact federal, state, county, or local
environmental regulatory agencies for
guidance.
Distillation, Inland filtration system
available
Less than 10 mm Hg
112
310
6.40
6850-01-378-0581 1-gal
6850-01-378-0700 30-gal
X-Caliber
For paint stripping; cold tank soak;
resin removal. Precision cleaning
substitute for vapor degreasing when
followed by a rinse.
Methylene chloride, 1,1,1
Trichloroethane, CFC-113, TCE
Manual wipe, dip tank
N-methyl pyrrolidone, d-Limonene
Acute: Product contacting the eve
may cause irritation. Prolonged skin
contact may cause irritation and
defatting. Excessive inhalations of
vapor can cause nasal and respiratory
irritation, possible unconsciousness
and asphyxiation. Swallowing large
amounts can cause gastrointestinal
disturbances. Chronic: Mid
Irritation.
Yes
$283.35 5-gal
$352.47 6/1-gal
$2,533.43 55-gal
Very slightly
Contact federal, state, country or local
environmental regulation agencies for
guidance.
Distillation, Inland filtration system
available
Less than 2 mm Hg
136
370
7.65
6850-01-378-0582 5-gal
6850-01-378-0809 6/1-gal
8-II/B-4-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Fiberglass Surface Preparation and Epoxy Resin Cleaning
MSDS
POC
Manufacturer
6850-01-378-0650 55-gal
6850-01-399-1640 12 aero. Cans
6850-01-378-0583 5-gal can
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847 DSN 695-5168
Inland Technology
401 East 27th St.
Tacoma, WA 98421
(253) 922-8932
6850-01-378-0662 55-gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800)848-4847 DSN 695-5 168
Inland Technology
401 East 27th St.
Tacoma, WA 98421
(253) 922-8932
8-II/B-4-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Fiberglass Surface Preparation and Epoxy Resin Cleaning
Product Name
Application
Replaces
Method of Use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling
Options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point
(ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
MSDS
Preprite
Removes paint, coatings, cured resin.
May be brushed or sprayed on, one
application and rinse away
Methylene chloride, methanol, toluene,
acetone, MEK, ethylene glycol
brush on/spray on
1 methylpyrrolidone, ethyl-3-ethoxy
propionate, gamma-butyrolacteone
Target Organs: Eyes, skin, respiratory
tract. Acute: Eve contact may cause
severe irritation. Skin contact may
cause irritation. No evidence of toxic
effects by ingestion. Inhalation of
vapors may cause narcotic effects.
Chronic: Prolonged or repeated
exposure may cause severe dermatitis.
$300.51 5-galcan
$1,240.99 55-gal. drum
Yes, completely
Dispose of in accordance with all
local, state, and federal regulations.
0%
0.29 mm Hg
191
396
6850-01-454-6489 5-gal
6850-01-454-6500 55-gal.
Click me
EP921
For surface preparation when followed
by a rinse. For resin and paint
application equipment clean up.
Immersion tank replacement for vapor
degreasing. Precision cleaning for
electronics and metal parts.
MEK, MEK/toluene blends, 1,1,1
trichloroethane, CFC-113, and lacquer
washes
d-limonene, propylene carbonate
Target Organs: Eyes, skin,
gastrointestinal tract. Acute: Product
contacting eyes may cause irritation.
Prolonged skin contact may cause
redness and irritation. Swallowing large
amounts can cause gastrointestinal
disturbances. Chronic: Prolonged or
repeated skin contact can lead to
dermatitis.
$218.78 5-gal can
$1,703.71 55-gal drum
Very Slight
Discharge, treatment or disposal may be
subject to local, state, and federal
regulations.
Distillation. Inland filtration system
available.
less than 1mm Hg at 77F
146
340
6850-01-381-3300 5-gal
6850-01-381-4408 55-gal
Click me
8-II/B-4-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Fiberglass Surface Preparation and Epoxy Resin Cleaning
POC
Manufacturer
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5 168
Ecolink Inc.
1481 Rock Mountain Blvd.
Stone Mountain, GA 30086
(800) 886-8240
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5168
Inland Technology
401 East 27th St.
Tacoma, WA 98421
(253) 922-8932
8-II/B-4-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Fiberglass Surface Preparation and Epoxy Resin Cleaning
Product Name
Application
Replaces
Method of use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
MSDS
POC
Manufacturer
Citrex Soak
Solvent degreaser, water miscible. Substitute for aromatic degreasers.
ODCs
Manual wipe, dip tank
D-limonene, isoprapylamine, dodecylbenzene sulfonate
Contact may cause eve irritation. Low dermal and oral toxicity. Chronic:
Prolonged or repeated skin exposure can lead to mild irritation, defatting, and
dermatitis.
No
$229.78 5-gal can
$1,997.96 55-galdrum
Appreciable
Dispose of in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations.
Distillation, Inland filtration system available
90% volatile
Less than 2 mm Hg
134
340
7.15
6850-01-378-0649 5-gal
6850-01-378-0687 55-gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5168
Inland Technology
401 East 27th St.
Tacoma,WA 98421
(253) 922-8932
8-II/B-4-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Cleaning Prior to Sealing
Product Name
Application
Replaces
Method of use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
MSDS
POC
Manufacturer
Citra-Safe and Citra Safe (deodorized)
For surface preparation, general solvent cleaning, and cleaning prior to sealing
and painting aircraft. Precision cleaning of metal parts, ultrasound, immersion,
and manual wipe cleaning.
1,1,1 Trichloroethane (TCA), MEK, toluene, and blends of MEK and toluene,
Manual wipe, dip tank
D-limonene
Acute: Product contacting the eves may cause eve irritation. Low oral and
dermal toxicity. Prolonged skin exposure can cause mild irritation, defatting
and dermatitis.
No
$1,287.21 30-gal
$236.08 5-gal
$123.31 12/15-oz.
$1,880.26 55-gal
$297. 1 3 6/1 -gal (deodorized only)
$2,292.21 55-gal
$256.53 5-gal
No
Contact federal, state, or local environmental agencies for guidance.
Distillation, Inland filtration system available
Less than 2 mm Hg
132
340
6.98
6850-01-378-0564 30-gal
6850-01-378-0575 5-gal
6850-01-378-0616 12-15-oz
6850-01-378-0797 55 gal
6850-01-378-0886 6-1-gal (deodorized)
6850-01-381-7081 55-gal
6850-01-381-7169 5-gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5168
Inland Technology
401 East 27th St.
Tacoma, WA 98421
(253) 922-8932
8-II/B-5-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Corrosion Inhibitors
Product
Application
Replaces
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling Options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
MSDS
POC
Manufacturer
MILITEC-1 Corrosion Inhibitor
Corrosion inhibitor for lubricating oil
which acts as a metal conditioner and
creates a super tough barrier that
smoothes and seals all types of metal
surfaces.
N/A
Typical of that for hydrocarbon
lubricants. Acute: Inhalation may
cause mild irritation of respiratory
tract. Contact with eyes may cause
irritation. Aspiration of product during
ingestion or vomiting may cause
chemical pneumoconiosis. Chronic:
Prolonged or repeated skin contact
may cause skin irritation or dermatitis.
$127.89 12/16-oz. Bottles/box
$175.00 1-gal cans
$2,200.00 50-gal drum
Negligible
Dispose of in accordance with local,
state, and federal regulations for waste
oil.
< 1 mniHg
410
528
6850-01-378-3118 12/16-oz
6850-01-378-3151 1-gal
6850-01-378-4297 50-gal
Click me
Hazardous Tech. Info. Services
(800) 848-4847 DSN 695-5168
Militec Inc.
601 -A Losstrand Lane
Rockville, MMD 20850
(703) 528-8371
Safety Flush
Radiator safety flush which removes
rust and scale and is safe for all
metals.
Sodium metasilicate, borax
Eve Contact: May cause irritation.
Skin Contact: May cause slight
irritation. Inhalation: Notlikelv
source of exposure. Ingestion: Water
based product-pH between 5 and 7.
$95.50 12/22-oz bottles/box
Complete
Dispose of in accordance with local,
state, and federal regulations.
N/A
None
240
6850-01-383-4030 12/22-oz
Click me
Hazardous Tech. Info. Services
(800)848-4847 DSN 695-5 168
Terminal Packaging Corp.
727 South 13th Street
Omaha, NE 68102
(402) 341-2805
8-II/B-6-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
PAINT STRIPPER, HOT TANK
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-02-14; Air Force: PA09; Army: PNT
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
Alternative for: Solvent Paint Stripping
Compliance Areas: High
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Methylene Chloride (CAS: 74-87-3), Methyl Ethyl
Ketone(CAS: 78-93-3), 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (CAS: 71-55-6)
Overview: Parts can be stripped of paint using aqueous chemicals at elevated
temperatures. These chemicals are biodegradable and can be discharged into
the sewer system, thereby virtually eliminating hazardous waste disposal costs.
However, certain hazardous constituents in the paint may contaminate the
solution. Check your local discharge regulations prior to disposing the
contaminated solvent.
By using these chemicals in a hot tank, the elevated temperatures increase the
stripping action by stripping paint as well as removing grease, oil, rust, and dirt.
The parts requiring stripping are immersed into the solution and then agitated to
speed up the stripping process. In conjunction with optional equipment such as
filtration systems and skimmers, the chemical solution may be recycled and used
again.
Most of the aqueous strippers are alkaline in nature. These strippers are
different from acid strippers in that acid strippers may attack the metal parts,
causing structural weakening (hydrogen embrittlement). In addition, acid
strippers normally require a neutralization process after stripping.
Hot tanks can come in a variety of sizes, from 100-gallon to 2,500-gallon
capacities. Most hot tanks have an agitating operation to accelerate the
stripping. With agitation, the mechanical force of the moving solution keeps
washing newly formed emulsions and soaps away from surfaces while applying
fresh chemical stripping agents to the newly exposed layers of paint, thereby
speeding the entire action. Most hot tanks have a temperature range from 180-
210ฐF.
Unlike the current practice of using a cold tank in conjunction with solvents, no
solvent waste streams are generated with the hot tank using biodegradable
cleaners. Effluent waste streams associated with the use of hot tank aqueous
strippers would be the aqueous solution and sludge products composed of
8-II/C-l-l
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Compliance
Benefit:
paint, grease, oil, and dirt. The aqueous solution may be recycled, or if it meets
local sewer discharge limits, it may be discharged directly into the local sewer
system. Any sludge products generated would require proper disposal.
However, the use of hot tank/aqueous strippers eliminates exposure to toxic
solvent vapors.
The Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force currently use hot tank/aqueous
strippers. They are used to strip paint from a variety of parts, including aircraft
components.
The use of a hot tank paint stripper which uses aqueous chemicals in place of
solvents will decrease the generation of waste solvent from stripping operations.
The decrease in hazardous waste helps facilities meet the requirements of waste
reduction under RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix. It may also help facilities
reduce their generator status and lessen the number of regulatory requirements
(e.g., recordkeeping, reporting, inspections, transportation, accumulation time,
emergency prevention and preparedness, emergency response) with which they
must comply under RCRA, 40 CFR 262. In addition, since less solvent is
used, the possibility that a facility meets any of the reporting thresholds of
SARA Title m for solvents (40 CFR 355, 370, and 372; and EO 12856) is
decreased. Use of an hot tank paint stripper may decrease the amount of ODSs
used at a facility. This will help the facility meet the requirements under 40 CFR
82, Subpart D and Executive Order 12843 requiring federal agencies to
maximize the use of safe alternatives to Class I and Class U ozone depleting
substances, to the maximum extent practicable. Replacing toluene, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, and methyl ethyl ketone used in cleaning prior to sealing may
decrease the likelihood of the facility requiring an air permit under 40 CFR 70
and 71. Switching from a halogenated solvent (e.g., methyl chloroform,
methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride, or chloroform)
may also decrease the need for a facility to meet the NESHAPs for halogenated
solvent cleaning (40 CFR 63). A wastewater discharge permit may be
required from the local POTW.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Aqueous strippers used in hot tank paint stripping are compatible with most
metals; e.g. iron, steel, magnesium, titanium, and stainless steel. However, the
8-II/C-1-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
aqueous solution may darken the metallic surface. Also, some aqueous
strippers cannot be used on metals such as aluminum, zinc, and tin. The
product container label should be consulted for metals compatibility.
Though biodegradable and environmentally friendly, the majority of the cleaners
are corrosive and may cause burns to the skin or other parts of the body with
which they come into contact. Proper personal protective equipment (PPE)
should be worn. In addition, since the tank will be heated, caution should be
exercised to prevent burns. Insulation should be provided for both energy
conservation as well as protection from skin burns.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
Minimizes hazardous waste disposal
Eliminates exposure to known carcinogenic and neurotoxic solvents
Lessens paint stripping time
Meets environmental regulations regarding the use of ozone depleting
substances (ODSs)
Spent wash solutions may be discharged into sewer systems if they meet the
local discharge limits
Not compatible with all metals
May require additional ventilation
The following cost elements are reported for Hot Tank Paint Stripping and Cold
Tank Paint Stripping using Trichloroethane.
Assumptions:
Area of parts to be stripped of paint: 1,000 sqft
Minimal process water usage for the hot tank
Water discharged into the sewer system meets the local discharge
limits
Stripping rate for the hot tank is equal to the cold chemical stripping
rate
Hot tank procurement cost: $30,000 (300-gal tank)
8-II/C-1-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Aqueous stripper procurement for a 300-gal tank: $705
Hot tank electricity: 304 kw-hr for 1,000 sqft (based on a stripping
rate of 0.22 sqft/min, or 76 hrs)
Electricity rate: $0.08 kw-hr
Labor required for the hot tank stripping: 50 hrs
Labor rate: $30/hr
Paint/sludge disposal from the hot tank stripping: $400 (based on
one 55-gal drum for 1,000 sqft of material stripped)
Water discharge into local sewer system: $3 (based on 300 gal at a
rate of $10/1,000 gal)
TCA procurement cost for 300 gal: $5,000
Solvent tank pump electricity: 304 kw-hr for 1,000 sqft (based on
stripping rate of 0.22 sqft/min, or 76 hrs)
Labor required for the solvent cold tank stripping: 50 hrs
Solvent disposal: $2,000 based on 8 55-gallon drums of spent
solvent and soiled rags
Paint/sludge disposal from solvent stripping: $400 (based on one
55-gal drum for 1,000 sqft of material stripped)
Solvent profile analysis: $l,000/yr
8-II/C-1-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Hot Tank Stripping and Solvent Stripping
Operational Costs:
Labor:
Material:
Electricity:
Waste Disposal
(includes
discharge into
sewer system, if
applicable):
Effluent Profile
Analysis
Total Operational Costs:
Total Recovered Income:
Net Annual Cost/Benefit:
Hot Tank Stripping Solvent Stripping
$1,500
$705
$24
$403
$0
$2,632
$0
-$2,632
$1,500
$5,000
$24
$2,400
$1,000
$9,924
$0
-$9,924
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for Hot Tank Stripping: $7,292
* Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $30,000
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: < 4 years
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
Approving
Authority:
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
8-II/C-1-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Points
of Contact:
Navy:
Mr. Rudy M. Pontemayor, P.E. (Chemical Engr)
Deputy Force Environmental Advisor, N451
Commander, U.S. Naval Forces, Japan
DSN 243-9197/9078, FAX 243-6388
COML PH (FR CONUS): 81-311-743-9197/9078
COML PH (JAPAN): (0468) 21-1910 extension 9197/9078
Email: n451@,cnfi.naw.mil
Vendors:
Mr. Scott Mauro
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, ESC 423
1100 23rd Avenue
PortHueneme, CA 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-4889, DSN: 551-4889
Fax: (805)982-4832
The following is a list of hot tank and aqueous stripper vendors. This is not
meant to be a complete list, as there may be other manufacturers of this type of
equipment.
Ramco Equipment Corporation
3248 Montgomery St.
Hillside, NJ 07205
Phone: (908)687-6700 Fax: (908)687-0653
West Penetone
74 Hudson Avenue
Tenafly,NJ 07670
Phone: (800) 631-1652 or (201) 567-3000
Fax: (201)569-5340
Brulin Corporation
2920 Dr. Andrew J. Brown Avenue
Indianapolis, IN 46205
Phone: (317)923-3211 Fax: (317)925-4596
Sources:
Mr. Rudy Pontemayor, Deputy Force Environmental Advisor, N451, April 1999.
Mr. Bob Grange, Brulin Corp., May 1996.
Mr. DonMartel, West Penetone, May 1996.
Mr. Fred Randall, Ramco Equipment Corp., May 1996.
Ms. Jackie Felder, Laidlaw Environmental Services, May 1996.
8-II/C-1-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Paint Removal
Product Name
Application
Replaces
Method of Use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling Options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
POC
Manufacturer
TURCO 5668
Removes epoxies, polyurethanes,
chromated primers, PRC-1560M,
andPRC-1560MC
Chlorinated solvents
Immersion; tank heated to 160-180
degrees Fahrenheit. High pressure
water rinse after immersion.
Potassium hydroxide,
monoethanolamine, N-methyl
pyrolidone, hydrotreated naphthenic
distillate, N-butyl-P-toluene
sulfonamide.
Consult your local Industrial Hygienist,
Health and Safety personnel, and
MSDS.
Yes
$28.50/gal (1992)
No
Spent solution will require disposal as
a hazardous waste.
None
765 g/1
.3 mm Hg
>200
250
8.6
8010-01-019-7948 5 gal
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5168
Elf Atochem North America, Inc.
2000 Market St.
Philadelphia, PA 19103-3222
(215)419-7000
TURCO 6088A
Removes epoxy paints, polyurethanes,
and epoxy primers or carbonaceous
deposits.
Chlorinated solvents
Immersion in tank heated to 70-140
degrees Fahrenheit. High pressure
water rinse after immersion.
Benzyl alcohol, 2-mercaptobenzo
thiazole, hydroxyacetic acid,
propylene glycol, sodium xylene
sulfonate.
Consult your local Industrial Hygienist,
Health and Safety personnel, and
MSDS.
Yes
$21.33/gal(1992)
No
Spent solution will require disposal as
a hazardous waste.
None
505 g/1
Less than . 1 mm Hg
>200
220
8.5
6850-00-DOO-0599
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5 168
Elf Atochem North America, Inc.
2000 Market St.
Philadelphia, PA 19103-3222
(215)419-7000
8-II/C-2-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Paint Removal
Product Name
Application
Replaces
Method of use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
DBE Solvent
Removes polyester resins. May be a
suitable substitute for methylene
chloride paint stripper, when mixed
with m-pyrol and monoethanolamine
Methylene chloride
Immersion, spray, or wipe
Aliphatic dibasic acid esters, dimethyl
adipate, dimethyl succinate, dimethyl
glutarate, methanol and hydrogen-
cyanide (<10 ppm)
DBE are skin, eye, and upper
respiratory tract irritants. Skin contact
may initially cause irritation/rash. Eye
contact may initially include irritation,
tearing/blurring of vision. Inhalation
may initially cause irritation of upper
respiratory passages. Overexposure
may cause blurring of vision. Animal
data: Mild to severe skin irritant and
slight eye (effects of overexposure).
Yes
$6.38/gal (1992)
5.3 wt% @20C
Treatment, storage, transportation,
and disposal must be in accordance
with applicable federal,
state/provincial, and local regulatory
agencies. Recover nonusable free
liquid and dispose of in approved and
permitted incineration. Recover
nonusable free liquid and dispose of in
approved and permitted biological
treatment (ING 17).
Filter out contaminants to extend life
of solution.
.2mm Hg @20C
212
Breakthrough
For parts washing and other metal
cleaning operations. Designed for use
with Edge Tek Filtration System. Safe
on most plastics and elastomers.
Stoddard solvent/mineral spirits; P-D
680 Type H, PERC
Manual wipe, dip tank
C12-C13 Paraffmic Hydrocarbons
Acute: Product contacting the eves
may cause eye irritation. Low oral
and dermal toxicity. Prolonged skin
exposure can cause mild irritation,
defatting and dermatitis.
No
$1,115.21 55-gal
$149.53 5-gal
$384.40 1 5-gal
No
Contact federal, state, or local
environmental agencies for guidance.
Distillation, Inland filtration system
available
Less than 2 mm Hg
150
8-II/C-2-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Paint Removal
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
MSDS
POC
Manufacturer
385-437
9.1
6850-00-N06-8419
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5168
DuPont Nylon Intermediates and
Specialties
FM1006 Four Market Rd.
Orange, TX 77630
(800)231-0998
370
6.40
6850-01-378-0666 55-gal
6850-01-378-0679 5-gal
6850-01-378-0698 1 5-gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5 168
Inland Technology
401 East 27th St.
Tacoma, WA 98421
(253) 922-8932
8-II/C-2-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Paint Removal
Product Name
Application
Replaces
Method of use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Recycling options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
MSDS
Citra-Safe
For surface preparation, general
solvent cleaning, and cleaning prior to
sealing and painting aircraft. Also
used for precision cleaning of metal
parts, ultrasound, immersion, and
manual wipe cleaning.
1,1,1 Trichloroethane, MEK, toluene,
and blends of MEK and toluene
Manual wipe, dip tank
D-limonene
Acute: Product contacting the eye
may cause irritation. Low oral and
dermal toxicity. Prolonged and
repeated skin exposure may cause
mild irritation, dermatitis and defatting.
No
$1,287.21 30-gal drum
$236.08 5-gal can
$123.31 12/15 oz cans/box
$1,880.26 55 gal drum
$297.13 6/1 -gal containers/box
No
Distillation, Inland filtration system
available
840gm/l
<2mmHg
132
340
6.98
6850-01-378-0564 30-gal
6850-01-378-0575 5-gal
6850-01-378-0616 12/15-oz
6850-01-378-0797 55 gal
6850-01-378-0886 6-1-gal
Click me
EP-921
For surface preparation when
followed by a rinse. For resin and
paint application equipment clean up.
Immersion tank replacement for vapor
degreasing. Precision cleaning for
electronics and metal parts.
MEK, MEK/toluene blends, 1,1,1
trichloroethane, CFC-113, and
lacquer washes
d-limonene, propylene carbonate
Target Organs: Eyes, skin,
gastrointestinal tract. Acute: Product
contacting eyes may cause irritation.
Prolonged skin contact may cause
redness and irritation. Swallowing
large amounts can cause
gastrointestinal disturbances. Chronic:
Prolonged or repeated skin contact
can lead to dermatitis.
$218.78 5-gal can
$1,703.71 55-gal drum
Very Slight
Distillation. Inland filtration system
available.
less than 1mm Hg at 77F
146
340
6850-01-381-3300 5-gal
6850-01-381-4408 55-gal
Click me
8-II/C-2-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Paint Removal
POC
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5168
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5168
Manufacturer
Inland Technology
401 East 27th St.
Tacoma, WA 98421
(253) 922-8932
Inland Technology
401 East 27th St.
Tacoma, WA 98421
(253) 922-8932
8-II/C-2-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Paint Removal
Product Name
Application
Replaces
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
MSDS
POC
Citra-Safe Deodorized
For surface preparation, general
solvent cleaning, and cleaning prior to
sealing and painting aircraft. Also
used for precision cleaning of metal
parts, ultrasound, immersion, and
manual wipe cleaning.
1,1,1 Trichloroethane, MEK, toluene,
and blends of MEK and toluene
D-limonene
Acute: Product contacting the eve
may cause irritation. Low oral and
dermal toxicity. Prolonged and
repeated skin exposure may cause
mild irritation, dermatitis and defatting.
$2,292.21 55-gal drum
$256.53 5-gal can
No
Contact federal, state, or local
environmental agencies for guidance.
Distillation, Inland filtration system
available
Less than 2 mm Hg
132
340
6.98
6850-01-381-7081 55-gal
6850-01-381-7169 5-gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical.
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5168
Citrex Solvent
Cleans fiberglass and epoxy resins.
Carburetor cleaner and cold tank
compound; stripping and cleaning
agent for removing paints, coatings,
carbon, grease, fuel residues and
resins from ferrous and non-ferrous
metals.
Methylene chloride, cresylic acid,
dichlorobenzene, acetone
1 -butoxy-2-propanol , 2-butoxy- 1 -
propanol, n-methylpyrrolidone, d-
limonene
Target organs: Eye, skin, respiratory,
and gastrointestinal tracts. Acute:
May cause irritation of eyes, skin,
respiratory and gastrointestinal tracts.
Ingestion may cause vomiting/diarrhea.
Can be absorbed through skin in
harmful amounts. Chronic: May
cause defatting and dermatitis.
$282.20 5-gal can
$2,351.06 55-gal drum
$327.10 6/1-gal containers/box
Very slightly
Dispose of in accordance with federal,
state, and local regulations.
Distillation, Inland filtration system
available
100% volatile
Less than 2 mm Hg
144
340
7.31
6850-01-378-0618 5-gal
6850-01-378-0624 55-gal
6850-01-378-0838 6/1 gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5 168
8-II/C-2-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Paint Removal
Manufacturer
Inland Technology
401 East 27th St.
Tacoma,WA 98421
(253) 922-8932
Inland Technology
401 East 27th St.
Tacoma,WA 98421
(253) 922-8932
8-II/C-2-7
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Paint Removal
Product Name
Application
Replaces
Method of use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
MSDS
POC
Citra Soak
Solvent degreaser, water miscible.
Substitute for aromatic degreasers.
ODCs
Manual wipe, dip tank
D-limonene, isoprapylamine,
dodecylbenzene sulfonate
Contact may cause eye irritation.
Low dermal and oral toxicity.
Chronic: Prolonged or repeated skin
exposure can lead to mild irritation,
defatting, and dermatitis.
No
$229.78 5-gal can
$1,997.96 55-galdrum
Appreciable
Dispose of in accordance with federal,
state, and local regulations.
Distillation, Inland filtration system
available
Greater than 90% volatile
Less than 2 mm Hg
136
340
7.15
6850-01-378-0649 5-gal
6850-01-378-0687 55-gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
X-Caliber
For paint stripping; cold tank soak;
resin removal. Precision cleaning
substitute for vapor degreasing when
followed by a rinse.
Methylene chloride, 1,1,1
Trichloroethane, CFC-113, TCE
Manual wipe, dip tank
N-methyl pyrrolidone, d-Limonene
Acute: Product contacting the eye
may cause irritation. Prolonged skin
contact may cause irritation and
defatting. Excessive inhalations of
vapor can cause nasal and respiratory
irritation, possible unconsciousness
and asphyxiation. Swallowing large
amounts can cause gastrointestinal
disturbances. Chronic: Mid
Irritation.
Yes
$283.35 5-gal
$352.47 6/1-gal
$2,533.43 55-gal
Very slightly
Contact federal, state, country or local
environmental regulation agencies for
guidance.
Distillation, Inland filtration system
available
Less than 2 mm Hg
136
370
7.65
6850-01-378-0582 5-gal
6850-01-378-0809 6/1-gal
6850-01-378-0662 55-gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800)848-4847 DSN 695-5 168
8-II/C-2-8
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Paint Removal
Manufacturer
DSN 695-5168
Inland Technology
401 East 27th St.
Tacoma,WA 98421
(253) 922-8932
Inland Technology
401 East 27th St.
Tacoma, WA 98421
(253) 922-8932
8-II/C-2-9
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Paint Removal
Product
Application
Replaces
Method of Use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling Options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint(ฐF)
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
MSDS
POC
Foamflush
Urethane remover cleans mixing
heads, holding tanks, troughs, feeder
lines, and spray equipment. LD50:
1,500 - 5,000 mg/kg, oral, rat
Methylene chloride
Butyrolacetone, n-methyl pyrrolidone,
ethyl-3-ethoxy propionate
No effects expected from ingestion or
inhalation. If misted at high
concentrations may cause pallor,
nausea, anesthetic or narcotic effects.
Prolonged or repeated skin contact
causes redness, swelling, and
cracking. Vapors/splashes irritate and
cause painful burning of eyes.
$283.82 5-gal can
$1,402.04 460-lb. drum
Complete
Dispose of liquid waste in accordance
with federal, state, and local
regulations.
.29mm Hg
191
396
6850-01-383-3032 5-gal
6850-01-383-3049 460-lb.
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
Citrix-EB Solvent
Removes unsaturated polyester resins,
gel coat lines, paint guns and lines,
chopper guns, uncured polyurethane
foam, coating, carbon, grease, most
paints, most graffiti, fuel residues, and
inks. Also non-methylene carbon
remover.
Methylene chloride, cresylic acid,
dichlorobenzene, aromatic
hydrocarbons
Manual wipe, dip tank
1-butoxy, 2-propanol, n-methyl
pyrrolidone 2-butoxy, 1-proparolD-
limonene, 2-butoxyethanol
Consult your local Industrial Hygienist,
Health and Safety personnel, and
MSDS.
Yes
$261.88 5 -gal can
Very slightly
Distillation, Inland filtration system
available
Less than 2 mm Hg
136
340
7.15
6850-01-378-0599 5-gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
8-II/C-2-10
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Paint Removal
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5168
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5168
Manufacturer
ISP
1361 Alps Rd.
Wayne, NJ 07470-3688
(800) 622-4423
Inland Technology
401 East 27th St.
Tacoma, WA 98421
(253) 922-8932
8-II/C-2-11
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Paint Removal and Painting Cleanup
Product
Application
Replaces
Method of Use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling Options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
MSDS
Shipshape
Cleans painting equipment, urethane
foam feeder lines, lay-up tools, spray
equipment, and hand tools. Can be
used in spray booth, fabrication room,
or foam injection areas. LD50: 2,650
mg/kg, oral, rat.
Acetone, methylene chloride, water-
based emulsifier
N-methyl pyrrolidone, butyrolacetone
If misted at high concentrations, may
cause pallor, nausea, anesthetic, or
narcotic effects. Vapors and splashing
are slightly irritating.
$208.93 5-gal can
$1,402.30 460-lb. drum
Complete
Dispose of in accordance with local,
state, and federal regulations.
Incineration is recommended.
99%
0.29mm Hg @ 68F
197
202
3.00
6850-01-383-3848 5-gal
6850-01-383-3784 460 Ib.
Click me
X-Caliber
For paint stripping; cold tank soak;
resin removal. Precision cleaning
substitute for vapor degreasing when
followed by a rinse.
Methylene chloride, 1,1,1
Trichloroethane, CFC-113, TCE
Manual wipe, dip tank
N-methyl pyrrolidone, d-Limonene
Acute: Product contacting the eve
may cause irritation. Prolonged skin
contact may cause irritation and
defatting. Excessive inhalations of
vapor can cause nasal and respiratory
irritation, possible unconsciousness
and asphyxiation. Swallowing large
amounts can cause gastrointestinal
disturbances. Chronic: Mid
Irritation.
Yes
$283.35 5-gal
$352.47 6/1-gal
$2,533.43 55-gal
Very slightly
Contact federal, state, country or local
environmental regulation agencies for
guidance.
Distillation, Inland filtration system
available
Less than 2 mm Hg
136
370
7.65
6850-01-378-0582 5-gal
6850-01-378-0809 6/1-gal
6850-01-378-0662 55-gal
Click me
8-II/C-3-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Paint Removal and Painting Cleanup
POC
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5168
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800)848-4847 DSN 695-5168
Manufacturer
ISP
1361 Alps Rd.
Wayne, NJ 07470-3688
(800) 622-4423
Inland Technology
401 East 27th St.
Tacoma, WA 98421
(253) 922-8932
8-II/C-3-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Paint Removal and Painting Cleanup
Product
Application
Replaces
Method of Use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling Options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
EP921
For surface preparation when
followed by a rinse. For resin and
paint application equipment clean up.
Immersion tank replacement for vapor
degreasing. Precision cleaning for
electronics and metal parts.
MEK, MEK/toluene blends, 1,1,1
trichloroethane, CFC-113, and
lacquer washes
d-limonene, propylene carbonate
Target Organs : Eyes, skin,
gastrointestinal tract. Acute: Product
contacting eyes may cause irritation.
Prolonged skin contact may cause
redness and irritation. Swallowing
large amounts can cause
gastrointestinal disturbances. Chronic:
Prolonged or repeated skin contact
can lead to dermatitis.
$218.78 5-galcan
$1,703.71 55-gal drum
Very Slight
Discharge, treatment or disposal may
be subject to local, state, and federal
regulations.
Distillation. Inland filtration system
available.
less than 1mm Hg at 77F
146
340
6850-01-381-3300 5-gal
6850-01-381-4408 55-gal
Citrix-EB Solvent
Removes unsaturated polyester resins,
gel coat lines, paint guns and lines,
chopper guns, uncured polyurethane
foam, coating, carbon, grease, most
paints, most graffiti, fuel residues, and
inks. Also non-methylene carbon
remover.
Methylene chloride, cresylic acid,
dichlorobenzene, aromatic
hydrocarbons
Manual wipe, dip tank
1-butoxy, 2-propanol, n-methyl
pyrrolidone 2-butoxy, 1-proparolD-
limonene, 2-butoxyethanol
Consult your local Industrial Hygienist,
Health and Safety personnel, and
MSDS.
Yes
$261.88 5-galcan
Very slightly
Distillation, Inland filtration system
available
Less than 2 mm Hg
136
340
7.15
6850-01-378-0599 5-gal
8-II/C-3-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Paint Removal and Painting Cleanup
MSDS
POC
Manufacturer
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5168
Inland Technology
401 East 27th St.
Tacoma, WA 98421
(253) 922-8932
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5 168
Inland Technology
401 East 27th St.
Tacoma, WA 98421
(253) 922-8932
8-II/C-3-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Rust, Corrosion, and Heat Scale Removal
Product
Application
Replaces
Method of Use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling Options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
MSDS
POC
Manufacturer
DR-80
Removes heavy concentrations of rust from all types of metal and phosphatizes
the surface in one step. Prepares rusty metal surfaces for priming and painting.
Hydrofluric and sulfuric acids
Brush
Phosphoric acid, glycolic acid
Acute: Contact may cause skin irritation or burn eves. Chronic: Prolonged or
repeated skin contact may cause irritation.
No
$1,964.43 55-galdrum
$211.75 5-galcan
Yes
Dispose of in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations.
Not established
Same as water
N/A
212
6.73
6850-01-375-9325 55-gal
6850-01-375-9326 5-gal can
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5168
Dominion Restoration Inc.
2251-BDaneyRd.
Richmond, VA 23230
(804) 359-4400
8-II/D-l-l
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Carbon & Carbonaceous Deposit Removal
Product
Application
Replaces
Method of Use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling Options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
MSDS
POC
Manufacturer
Citrex Solvent
Cleans fiberglass and epoxy resins. Carburetor cleaner and cold tank
compound; stripping and cleaning agent for removing paints, coatings, carbon,
grease, fuel residues and resins from ferrous and non-ferrous metals.
Methylene chloride, cresylic acid, dichlorobenzene, acetone
Manual wipe, dip tank
l-butoxy-2-propanol, 2-butoxy-l-propanol, n-methylpyrrolidone, d-limonene
Target organs: Eve, skin, respiratory, and gastrointestinal tracts. Acute: May
cause irritation of eyes, skin, respiratory and gastrointestinal tracts. Ingestion
may cause vomiting/diarrhea. Can be absorbed through skin in harmful
amounts. Chronic: May cause defatting and dermatitis.
$282.20 5-gal can
$2,351.06 55-galdrum
$327.10 6/1 -gal containers/box
Very slightly
Dispose of in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations.
Distillation, Inland filtration system available
100% volatile
Less than 2 mm Hg
144
340
7.31
6850-01-378-0618 5-gal
6850-01-378-0624 55-gal
6850-01-378-0838 6/1 gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5168
Inland Technology
401 East 27th St.
Tacoma,WA 98421
(253) 922-8932
8-II/D-2-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Rust Stain Removal
Product Name
Application
Replaces
Method of Use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling
Options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point
(op)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
MSDS
POC
Manufacturer
Dominion Rust Stain Remover
Removes rust stains from non-
polished surfaces such as brick,
concrete, masonry, and stone; without
agitation.
Hydrofluric and sulfuric acids
Spray
Oxalic acid, phosphoric acid,
ammonium hydrogen fluoride solution
Acute: Contact may cause skin
irritation or burn eves. Chronic:
Prolonged or repeated skin contact
may cause irritation.
No
$1,696.57 55-gal drum
$224.43 5-gal can
Yes
Dispose of in accordance with local,
state, and federal regulations.
Not established
Same as water
N/A
212
7.94
6850-01-380-4145 55-gal
6850-01-380-4314 5-gal can
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5 168
Dominion Restoration Inc.
2251-BDaneyRd.
Richmond, VA 23230
(804) 359-4400
DR-80 Metal Corrosion Control
Removes heavy concentrations of rust
from all types of metal and phosphatizes
the surface in one step. Prepares rusty
metal surfaces for priming and painting.
Hydrofluric and sulfuric acids
Brush
Phosphoric acid, glycolic acid
Acute: Contact may cause skin irritation
or burn eves. Chronic: Prolonged or
repeated skin contact may cause
irritation.
No
$1,964.43 55-gal drum
$211.75 5-gal can
Yes
Dispose of in accordance with local,
state, and federal regulations.
Not established
Same as water
N/A
212
6.73
6850-01-375-9325 55-gal
6850-01-375-9326 5-gal can
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5168
Dominion Restoration Inc.
2251-BDaneyRd.
Richmond, VA 23230
(804) 359-4400
8-II/D-3-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Corrosion Removal - Potable and Non-Potable Systems
Product Name
Application
Replaces
Method of Use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling Options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
MSDS
POC
Manufacturer
DR-9000 Corrosion Removing Compound
NAVSEA-approved for use in internal shipboard piping systems and closed
piping systems such as ballast tanks, boilers, chilled water systems, heat
exchange pumps, and valves.
Hydrofluric and sulfuric acids
Injected into systems
Phosphoric acid glycolic acid
Acute: May cause irritation to skin and eyes on contact. May irritate
respiratory tract if mist inhaled. May cause irritation of gastrointestinal tract if
swallowed. .
No
$211.75 5-galcan
$1,981.51 55-galdrum
$34.16 bulk
Yes
Sanitary system
Not established
14mm Hg @20C
N/A
300
Same as water
6850-01-362-4840 5-gal
6850-01-362-3901 55-gal
6850-01-362-3900 bulk
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5168
Dominion Restoration Inc.
2251-BDaneyRd.
Richmond, VA 23230
(804) 359-4400
8-II/D-4-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Ink Removal
Product
Application
Replaces
Method of Use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling Options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
MSDS
Printsolve Ink Remover
Cleans all cured aqueous and non-
aqueous inks via spray wash from
doctors, blades, holders, cylinders, ink
pans, transfer pails, drums, and other
press equipment.
N/A
1 -methyl -2-pyrrolidimone propanol,
2-methoxy methylethoxy-dipropylene,
glycol methyl ether
Prolonged skin or repeated exposure
can cause redness, swelling, and
cracking. If misted at high
concentrations can cause pallor,
nausea, and anesthetic/narcotic effects
$1,329.00 4601b. drum
Mscible
less than 1mm Hg
191
363
6850-01-383-2064 4601b.
X-Caliber
For paint stripping; cold tank soak;
resin removal. Precision cleaning
substitute for vapor degreasing when
followed by a rinse.
Methylene chloride, 1,1,1
Trichloroethane, CFC-113, TCE
Manual wipe, dip tank
N-methyl pyrrolidone, d-Limonene
Acute: Product contacting the eye
may cause irritation. Prolonged skin
contact may cause irritation and
defatting. Excessive inhalations of
vapor can cause nasal and respiratory
irritation, possible unconsciousness
and asphyxiation. Swallowing large
amounts can cause gastrointestinal
disturbances. Chronic: Mid
Irritation.
Yes
$283.35 5-gal
$352.47 6/1-gal
$2,533.43 55-gal
Very slightly
Contact federal, state, country or local
environmental regulation agencies for
guidance.
Distillation, Inland filtration system
available
Less than 2 mm Hg
136
370
7.65
6850-01-378-0582 5-gal
6850-01-378-0809 6/1-gal
6850-01-378-0662 55-gal
Click me
8-II/D-5-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Ink Removal
POC
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847 DSN 695-5168
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800)848-4847 DSN 695-5168
Manufacturer
ISP
1361 Alps Rd.
Wayne, NJ 07470-3688
(800) 622-4423
Inland Technology
401 East 27th St.
Tacoma, WA 98421
(253) 922-8932
8-II/D-5-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Ink Removal
Product
Application
Replaces
Method of Use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling Options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
MSDS
POC
Breakthrough Solvent
For parts washing and other metal
cleaning operations. Designed for use
with Edge Tek Filtration System. Safe
on most plastics and elastomers.
Stoddard solvent/mineral spirits; P-D
680 Type H, PERC
Manual wipe, dip tank
C12-C13 Paraffmic Hydrocarbons
Acute: Product contacting the eves
may cause eye irritation. Low oral
and dermal toxicity. Prolonged skin
exposure can cause mild irritation,
defatting and dermatitis.
No
$1,115.21 55-gal
$149.53 5-gal
$384.40 1 5-gal
No
Contact federal, state, or local
environmental agencies for guidance.
Distillation, Inland filtration system
available
Less than 2 mm Hg
150
370
6.40
6850-01-378-0666 55-gal
6850-01-378-0679 5-gal
6850-01-378-0698 15-gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5168
Partsmaster 140 Solvent
For parts washer use. Removes oil,
grease, glues, inks, wax, and asphalt.
For degreasing and parts cleaning.
CFCs, aromatic solvents
Parts washer
C10-C11 paraffinic hydrocarbons, d-
limonene
Product contacting the eye may cause
irritation. Low order acute oral and
dermal toxicity. Prolonged or
repeated skin exposure causes mild
irritation, dermatitis and defatting.
No
$830.37 55-gal drum
No
Prevent waste from contaminating
surrounding environment. Discard any
product, residue, disposal container,
or liner in accordance with all federal,
state, and local regulations.
Distillation, Inland filtration system
available
100% volatile
Less than 10 mm Hg
105
310
6.40
6850-01-378-0610 55-gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5 168
8-II/D-5-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Ink Removal
Manufacturer
Inland Technology
401 East 27th St.
Tacoma, WA 98421
(253) 922-8932
Inland Technology
401 East 27th St.
Tacoma, WA 98421
(253) 922-8932
8-II/D-5-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Ink Removal
Product Name
Application
Replaces
Method of use
Chemical
Ingredients
Safety & Health
Paint Removal
Cost
Water Soluble
Disposal
Recycling options
VOC
Vapor Pressure
Flashpoint (ฐF)
Boiling Point (ฐF)
Density (Ibs/gal)
NSN
MSDS
POC
Manufacturer
Citrix-EB Solvent
Removes unsaturated polyester resins, gel coat lines, paint guns and lines,
chopper guns, uncured polyurethane foam, coating, carbon, grease, most paints,
most graffiti, fuel residues, and inks. Also non-methylene carbon remover.
Methylene chloride, cresylic acid, dichlorobenzene, aromatic hydrocarbons
Manual wipe, dip tank
1-butoxy, 2-propanol, n-methyl pyrrolidone 2-butoxy, 1-proparol D-limonene,
2-butoxyethanol
Consult your local Industrial Hygienist, Health and Safety personnel, and
MSDS.
Yes
$261.88 5 -gal can
Very slightly
Distillation, Inland filtration system available
Less than 2 mm Hg
136
340
7.15
6850-01-378-0599 5-gal
Click me
Hazardous Technical
Information Services
(800) 848-4847
DSN 695-5168
Inland Technology
401 East 27th St.
Tacoma, WA 98421
(253) 922-8932
8-II/D-5-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
SECONDARY USE OF ACIDS AND ALKALIS FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Revision
Process Code:
Usage List:
Alternative for:
Compliance Areas:
5/99
Navy and Marine Corps: SR-15-99; Air Force: FA09; Army: N/A
Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Low; Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
Use of virgin chemicals for neutralization
Medium
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Sulfuric Acid (CAS: 7664-93-9), Sodium Hydroxide
(CAS: 1310-73-2)
Overview:
Compliance
Benefit:
The secondary use of acids and alkalis as treatment chemicals in an Industrial
Wastewater Treatment Plant (IWTP) is a method to reduce the disposal of
used or excess acids and alkalis as hazardous waste. The secondary use of
acids and alkalis can reduce problems associated with disposal of acid and
alkali waste streams, such as the high cost and the liability of normal waste
disposal.
Activities that generate appropriate secondary use acids and alkalis include
pickling baths, rinsewaters, metal plating operations, battery shop effluents, and
boiler cleaning operations. In addition, expired shelf life materials may also be
used as treatment chemicals in an IWTP. These secondary use acids and
alkalis can replace treatment chemicals such as sulfuric acid and sodium
hydroxide in chromic reduction, cyanide oxidation, metal precipitation, and
neutralization processes in an IWTP.
Prior to implementing an acid and alkali secondary use program, tests must be
conducted to establish the viability of each wastestream. In addition, the IWTP
processes must be evaluated to ensure that the addition of the secondary use
material to the wastewater will not interfere with the present design and
operation of the treatment plant. Similarly, the program must operate without
disrupting normal shop operations.
If use of the material is feasible, the lab should establish mixture ratios for the
plant operators. The plant operator then uses the secondary use acids and
alkalis in the batch processing of wastewater.
The use of excess and expired acids and alkalis for wastewater treatment will
decrease the amounts of these chemicals going out as waste. The decrease in
hazardous waste helps facilities meet the requirements of waste reduction under
RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix, and may also help facilities reduce their
9-1-1-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
generator status and lessen the amount of regulations (i.e., recordkeeping,
reporting, inspections, transportation, accumulation time, emergency prevention
and preparedness, emergency response) they are required to comply with under
RCRA, 40 CFR 262. In addition, since excess and expired acids and alkalis
are used instead of purchasing new product, the possibility a facility will meet
any of the reporting thresholds of SARA Title HJ for those chemicals (40 CFR
355, 370, and 372; and EO 12856) is decreased
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
The IWTP should not use secondary use acids and alkalis for the final pH
adjustment prior to discharge due to the amount of metals found in many of the
waste streams. The IWTP should stock sufficient commercial process
chemicals for use during waste shortages and for final neutralization.
The safety and health concerns vary with the type of acids/alkalis chemicals
being used. Proper personal protective equipment is recommended. Consult
your local Industrial Health specialist, your local health and safety personnel,
and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these technologies.
Secondary use of acids and alkalis in the IWTP eliminates the need to
dispose of these materials as hazardous waste.
Reduces the amount of commercial chemicals kept on hand and the
problems associated with the purchase and storage of these chemicals.
The IWTP should not use secondary use acids and alkalis for the final pH
adjustment prior to discharge due to the amount of metals found in many of
the wastestreams.
The use of secondary use acids and alkalis may decrease the amount of
wastewater that can be treated in one batch since secondary use acids and
alkalis may be dilute and add to the volume in a treatment tank.
To be cost effective, the facility must have a constant supply of secondary
use acids and alkalis in a substantial volume.
Savings may result from the secondary use of acids and alkalis. The purchase
of commercial chemicals will drop, as will the amount of used/excess material
9-1-1-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
requiring disposal. As demonstrated in the example below, the majority of the
savings would be the result of less waste being disposed of as hazardous and
therefore, the economic benefit is a cost avoidance. Unfortunately, the actual
cost savings can significantly affect by several factors such as those discussed in
the "Disadvantages" section above. The following cost comparison is based on
information provided by the Navy Public Works Center in Norfolk, Virginia:
Assumptions:
Ten 50,000-gallon batches of wastewater are treated annually
20 gallons of sulfuric acid are required per batch
50 gallons of sodium hydroxide are required per batch
Sulfuric acid costs $0.70 per gallon
Sodium Hydroxide costs $0.70 per gallon
10 man-hours are required per batch to maintain IWTP using virgin
chemicals
10 man-hours are required per batch to maintain IWTP using secondary
use chemicals
$45 average hourly rate for plant operator
90% of acid and alkali can be replaced with secondary use chemicals and
the processes that produce these chemicals can provide a constant supply
of acids and alkali that are not so dilute as to change the volume of
wastewater that can be treated at one time.
$6,000 is required for start up costs (SOPs and testing)
$2.85 per gallon to dispose of acid and alkali as a hazardous waste
Annual Cost Comparison for
Use of Acids and Alkalis in a IWTP vs. Commercial Chemicals
Secondary Use Commercial
Chemicals Chemicals
Capital and Installation Costs $0 $6,000
Operational Costs:
Labor $4,500 $4,500
Chemical Cost $50 $490
Hazardous Waste Disposal $0 $2,000
Total Operational Costs $4,550 $6,990
Total Income: $0 $0
Annual Benefit: -$4,550 -$6,990
9-1-1-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for Secondary Use
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process:
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process:
$2,440
$6,000
< 1 year
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
Approval
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
Source:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Mr. Brian Lee
Navy Public Works Center, Code 941-3
9742 Maryland Avenue
Norfolk, Virginia 23511-3095
Phone: (757) 444-3009 ext. 390, DSN 564-3009 ext. 390
Mr. Nick Stencel
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center Code 421
1100 23rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-1793, DSN 551-3626
Mr. Tom Schaeffer
Base Staff Civil Engineer - Environmental Quality Division
Naval Amphibious Base Little Creek
Norfolk, Virginia
Phone: (757) 462-4006, Fax: (757) 462-7060
Not Applicable.
Mr. JohnBunn, Navy Public Works Center, Norfolk, Virginia, March 1999.
Mr. Otis Carter, Naval Depot, Norfolk, IWTP, June 97
Mr. Joe Olson, Navy Public Works Center, Naval Air Station North Island, June 97
Mr. John Vanname, Naval Amphibious Base Little Creek, June 97
9-1-1-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
SODIUM NITRITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
Revision: 6/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps; SR-15-99; Air Force: N/A; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Low; Marine Corps: Low; Army: Low; Air Force: Low
Substitute for: N/A
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Sodium Nitrite (7632-00-0), Heavy Metals
Overview:
Materials
Compatibility:
The Navy generates over 10 million gallons of sodium nitrite-contaminated
wastewater from marine steam boiler maintenance operations, which include
hydroblasting cleaning, hydrostatic pressure testing, lay up, and rinsing. The
sodium nitrite added to feed water prevents the flash rusting of the boiler's metal
surfaces. The nitrite level of 800 mg/1 prohibits the discharge of the wastewater.
Currently, NPDES prohibits the discharge to surface water of wastewater
containing 1 mg/1 of nitrites.
The addition of sulfamic acid to the wastewater effectively removes sodium
nitrite by reducing the nitrites to form sodium bisulfate, diatomic nitrogen, and
water. The addition of sodium hydroxide to the wastewater results in the
formation of a precipitate effectively removing heavy metals. The treatment
process generates sludge from the initial settling and heavy metal flocculation
which must be dewatered and disposed as a hazardous waste. The unit
removes sodium nitrite to a level below the NPDES level of 1 mg/L. Therefore
the wastewater can be discharged to the sanitary sewer system. The centralized
unit began operating in August 1996 at Naval Air Station North Island.
The system consists of mixing tanks, metering pumps, filters, and chemical
sensors. The influent enters a feed settling tank for gravity settling of large
suspended particles. The wastewater then undergoes nitrite reduction through
the addition of a 15% solution of sulfamic acid (NH2SO3H). For heavy metal
precipitation, sodium hydroxide is added to the wastewater. The sodium
hydroxide forms a precipitate that removes heavy metals through coagulation
and flocculation. Anionic polymer are added to aid in the precipitation of the
heavy metals. The final addition of sulfuric acid neutralizes the wastewater prior
to discharge. Filters, as small as 5 microns, clean the effluent subsequent to its
discharge to the sanitary sewer system. Sludge produced from the settling tank
and the heavy metal precipitation is dewatered prior to disposal.
No materials compatibility issues were identified.
9-1-2-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
Heavy metals and sodium nitrite are irritants to skin, eyes, and mucous
membranes. Inhalation of these fumes can be toxic. Proper personal protection
equipment is, therefore, recommended.
Consult your local Industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these
technologies.
This system demonstrates an effective process to convert nitrite to nitrogen
gas. It will allow for treatment of wastestream produced by the marine
steam boiler maintenance which had gone to contractors for disposal. This
will result in an substantial costs savings. This technology will potentially be
available in stationary and mobile treatment units.
Effective only on waste stream generated from boiler steam cleaning.
The 600-gallon transportable unit has been developed by NFESC and is being
implemented by the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division. The
projected annual cost savings Navy-wide will be $10 million. The unit should
reduce disposal costs by approximately 95% (from $3.25 per gallon contracted
disposal, to $0.15 per gallon treatment costs). Six units have been built to date
at a cost of $60,000 each.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
NSN
NA
Unit Size
Cost
Approval
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Mr. Scott Mauro
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center Code 423
1100 23rd Avenue
PortHueneme, CA 93043-4370
(805) 982-4889, DSN 551-4889
9-1-2-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
FERROUS SULFATE /SODIUM SULFIDE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESS
Revision 6/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-15-99; Air Force: FA09; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Low; Marine Corps: Low; Army: Low; Air Force: Low
Substitute for: N/A
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Chromium (CAS: 7440-47-3) and Heavy Metals
Overview: The Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center has demonstrated a ferrous
sulfate/sodium sulfide process (patented by the United States Air Force) to
remove heavy metals from wastewater. A pilot plant study was conducted at
Naval Air Station Pensacola and the process has been demonstrated at Naval
Undersea Warfare Center Keyport and is currently operational. Also, this
technology has been implemented at the Marine Corps Logistic Base (MCLB)
Albany, NY.
This physical/chemical treatment process uses ferrous sulfate and sodium sulfide
to remove heavy metals from wastewater through precipitation at normal or
alkaline pH. Ferrous and sulfide ions act together to reduce hexavalent
chromium to trivalent chromium to form a precipitate. The ferrous ion acts with
the sulfide, aiding in the reduction of chromium at neutral or alkaline conditions.
The ferrous and sulfide precipitate further removes suspended and dissolved
metals through coagulation and flocculation.
The coagulation and flocculation system used by sodium sulfide and ferrous
sulfate is similar to other chemical-physical treatment methods used to remove
metals from wastewater. The system consists of two mixing tanks with chemical
feeds and a clarifier, followed by an activated sludge basin and final clarifier.
The influent must be kept above a pH of 7.0 to prevent offgassing of hydrogen
sulfide from the addition of sodium sulfide. The wastewater must also be kept
between a pH of 7.2 and 7.5 when the ferrous sulfate is added to ensure the
proper coagulation and reduction of chromium. External recycled sludge and
anionic polymer are added to the chemical tank effluent to aid in the flocculation
process. This mixture enters the clarifier for settling and clarification.
The clarifier is used to settle flocculant from the wastestream. The clarifying
chamber contains internal sludge recycling to aid in settling. The effluent from the
clarifier must pass through a sludge blanket, which aids in the removal of fine
particles. The floe produced from this process is very light in weight and
volume, and has a tendency to form very fine particles. The process must
9-1-3-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Material
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
operate at optimum conditions to ensure discharge levels below regulatory
standards.
No materials compatibility issues were identified.
Sodium sulfide and ferrous sulfate have mild dermal and oral effects. Chromium,
on the other hand, is known to have shown carcinogenic effects, thus making it
a potentially dangerous substance to handle. It also has corrosive effects on skin
and mucous membranes. Care should be taken when handling other heavy
metals. Most of them are absorbed by the skin and have detrimental effects.
Proper personal protective equipment is, therefore, highly recommended.
Consult your local Industrial Health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these
technologies.
This system has several benefits over treatment methods currently in use.
This method decreases the amount of sludge generated and chemicals used
while producing lower metal levels in treated effluent. Sludge generation is
reduced 30% by volume (when compared to sulfuric acid/sulfur
dioxide/lime treatment method), resulting in significant savings in sludge
disposal costs for most wastewater treatment plants. Chemical usage is cut
by 40% (when compared to sulfuric acid/sulfur dioxide/lime treatment
method). No pretreatment or post treatment (e.g. water softening) is
needed, which results in operational cost savings.
This process is highly efficient at removing suspended and dissolved metals
from a wastewater stream. It can effectively reduce hexavalent to trivalent
chromium, allowing it to be removed by flocculation. This process can also
remove cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc, among other contaminants. It has
an application in treatment of metal-bearing wastewater generated by
operations such as plating, paint stripping, and metal cleaning.
If the batch becomes acidic (pH less than 7), then there is the possibility of
hydrogen sulfide generation. However, this should not occur because the
process is not designed to operate in acidic conditions.
The cost for this treatment system must be determined on a site-by-site basis.
Costs of wastewater treatment will vary from one location to the other. The
capital cost is approximately $250,000 regardless of plant capacity. Other
factors that affect cost include: flow rate, and the level and type of
9-1-3-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
contamination. Each naval activity will have to examine the cost effectiveness of
the treatment technology needed before selecting the treatment system.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost
None Identified N/A
Approval
Authority: Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Points
of Contact: Navy:
Mr. Scott Mauro, Code 423
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
1100 23rd Avenue
PortHueneme, CA 93043-4370
(805) 982-4889
DSN 551-4889
FAX (805) 982-4832
Vendors: N/A
9-1-3-3
-------
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
RECYCLING WASH WATER USING CLOSED LOOP WASH RACKS
FOR VEHICLES
Revision: 6/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-02-99; Air Force: CL05; Army: VHM
Usage List: Navy: High; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: High; Air Force: Low
Alternative for: Wastewater treatment
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Benzene (CAS: 71-43-2), Cadmium (CAS: 7440-
43-9), Chromium (CAS: 7440-47-3), Toluene (CAS: 108-88-3), Mercury (CAS: 7439-97-6),
Lead (CAS: 7439-92-1), Zinc (CAS: 7440-66-6), Copper (CAS: 7440-50-8), Xylenes (CAS:
1330-20-7)
Overview: A closed loop wash rack contains and treats wastewater generated from
the washing of vehicles, construction equipment, and support equipment
prior to reuse. The wastewater may contain fuel, oil, metals, and other
contaminants. The specific equipment, and process required to treat the
wastewater will vary by site. Incorporating a recycling system to an
existing wash rack will reduce water consumption and may eliminate the
need for water discharge permits.
A typical process flow consists of the mechanical equipment (trucks, cars,
etc.) stopping over a wash pad collection pit for washing. The collected
wash water proceeds through a series of treatment processes discussed
below.
In the first step of the process, free oil and dirt are separated from the
wastewater. Sand and grit are removed as the wastewater passes through a
"zig-zag" liquid-solid separator. Free oil is removed via a polypropylene
coalescent pack with a high-density adsorption filter for removal of very
fine oil droplets. Engineered flow baffling and an oil skimmer remove the
floating oil and dirt.
The second process step removes fine particles and any remaining
hydrocarbons. Water passes through a filtration system (i.e., quad
cartridge filter, an adsorbent media filter for filtration down to 5 to 20
microns, a 30 Ib. carbon filter) for removal of trace contaminants.
The treated effluent is stored in a holding tank where it can be discharged
to the sewer or reused for washing. The holding tank is made of a Vi"
thick, corrosion-proof polyethylene tank. Integrated into the treatment
system is a centrifugal pump with a surge tank; a switch to draw reclaimed
water from the holding tank into a pressure washer; a level control valve
for maintaining a proper treated water level; an overflow drain; and an
ozone generator.
9-II-1-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Closed loop wash racks require dedicated maintenance. This may include
replacing or cleaning filters. Additionally, all the closed loop wash rack
systems are available as fully assembled modular units that are simple to
install.
The following table provides an example of closed loop wash rack
treatment efficiency as provided by vendors:
Table 1
Closed Loop Wash Rack Treatment Efficiency
Pollutants
Oil & Grease
Lead
Cadmium
Mercury
Chromium
Benzene
Toluene
Xylene
Barium
Silver
Typical Pressure
Cleaning Equipment
57,500 ppm
270 ppm
2.2 ppm
0.067 ppm
1.54 ppm
5,250 ppb
55,200 ppb
654,000 ppb
1,150 ppm
14 ppb
Closed Loop
Wash Rack System
5 ppm
0.03 ppm
5 ppb
0.2 ppb
0.95 ppm
5 ppb
5 ppb
400 ppb
1 ppm
0.05 ppb
ppm: parts per million
ppb: parts per billion
Close loop wash racks have been operating successfully at various
locations in the United States, including the following locations:
NAS Willow Grove
Norfolk Naval Shipyard
NAS El Centra
NSWC Indian Head
MCAGCC Twentynine Palms
NAS Point Mugu
Compliance
Benefit:
Use of a closed loop wash rack will eliminate the chance of exceeding
local discharge limits. Also, since wash and rinse water is recycled, less
water will be used which helps the activity meet the requirements of EO
12902 (requires federal facilities to implement water conservation
projects).
9-II-1-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
The compliance benefits listed here meant only to be used as general
guidance and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
The materials used in the washing process may change depending on the
system procured. Several systems require the use of low foaming and low
emulsifying detergents. Facilities that experience winter weather may
need to address the effects of salt on the performance of the detergent. (It
is recommended to rinse with fresh water.)
Care should be taken when handling chemicals and/or detergents. They
are irritants to the skin, eyes, and mucous membranes. Inhalation of the
fumes can be dangerous. Therefore, proper personal protection equipment
is recommended.
Consult your local Industrial Hygienist specialist, local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any closed
loop system.
Reduces the quantity and cost of water used to wash vehicles, and
equipment.
Reduces the quantity and cost of detergent used to wash vehicles, and
equipment.
Reduces wastewater loading on wastewater treatment plants.
Heavy soil loading from tracked vehicles may be a consideration.
This may require extra space for settling tanks.
For areas that experience winter weather conditions, road salt may be
an issue. Salt concentration build-ups may affect the effectiveness of
the detergent and cause corrosion. Extra treatment effects may need to
be added (e.g., evaporators, distillers) to handle and treat the salt.
Closed loop wash racks are specifically sized to meet the needs of the
facility. System design varies on the number and types of vehicles,
equipment, and/or aircraft cleaned at the specific facility. Consequently,
the purchase, installation, and operation cost of a closed loop system
varies significantly.
A basic wash rack for automobiles and other small vehicles with an
integrated wash water recovery system will cost between $25,000 and
$30,000. If a facility has an existing wash rack without a closed loop
recycling system, an above ground water recovery system can be installed.
A 500-gallon above ground system costs approximately $10,000. If the
9-II-1-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
facility has a clarifier in place, a wash water recovery system can be
purchased for $5,000.
To prepare an economic analysis:
Gather facility specific information and data to identify the type of closed
loop system that will meet your needs,
Determine the cost to install and operate the system, and
Determine the cost to maintain the system.
Other variables that can effect the costs associated with a closed loop wash
rack include:
The cost of water,
The cost to treat and dispose, and
The cost of electricity.
The following economic analysis is based on information provided by
vendors of closed loop wash rack systems and the following assumptions:
Existing facility has a wash rack and can accommodate an above ground
water recovery system.
Labor rate and length of time to wash vehicles remains unchanged.
Minor maintenance to clean stainless steel double screen filter.
Cost of water (includes treatment/discharge) at $0.01 per gallon.
Cost to install one GFI dual outlet 15 amp outlet and plumb to existing
equipment not included.
Cost of electricity for one pump is not significant.
500 gallon above ground water recovery system with a single tank, /^ HP
pump transfer station, 5 HP pumping motor, one particle accelerator, and a
pump and motor enclosure. (This system is capable of recovering wash
water from a maximum of 16 cars per hour using approximately 50
gallons of water per vehicle.)
Facility washes 250 vehicles per month and each wash uses 50 gallons of
water per wash.
System provides 85% of the wash water required for each vehicle.
System provides 70% of the detergent required for each vehicle.
Cost of equipment based on GS A price.
Cost of detergent is $400 per year.
Closed loop system has a 15% drag out rate and requires 15% fresh rinse
water to be added.
9-II-1-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Table 2 provides the annual cost comparison for closed loop wash rack
system.
Table 2
Annual Cost Comparison For Closed Loop Wash Rack System
Capital and Installation Costs
Operational Costs
Annual Soap Coast
Annual Water Cost
Annual Maintenance
Total Operational Costs
Total Income
Annual Benefit
Closed Loop System
$10,430
$120
$230
$200
$550
$0
-$550
No Closed Loop System
$0
$400
$1,500
$0
$1,900
$0
-$1,900
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual savings for water recycling systems: $1,350
Capital costs for equipment/process: $10,430
Payback period for investment in equipment/process: 7.7 years
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own
Values. To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
Approval
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after
engineering and environmental approval has been granted. Major
Claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Mr. Norman Bolduc
Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Newport
1176 Howell St., Building 331
Newport, RI 02841
Phone (401)832-2546
Fax (401) 832-1021
9-II-1-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Mr. Gary Anguiano
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
1100 23rd Ave, Code ESC421/GA
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4370
DSN 551-1302
Phone (805)982-1302
Fax (805) 982-4832
Vendors: The following is a list of closed loop wash rack vendors. This is not
meant to be a complete list, as there are other manufactures of this type of
equipment.
Mr. Mike Maddock
California Steam Inc.
(LANDA Distributor)
4300 82nd St., Suite 1
Sacramento, CA 95826
Phone: (800) 432-7999
Mr. Brent Feldman
N/S Corporation
(Drive through vehicle wash equipment)
235 West Florence Ave
Inglewood, CA 90301
Phone: (800) 782-1582
RGF Environmental Systems, Inc.
3875 Fiscal Court
West Palm Beach, FL 33404
Phone: (800) 842-7771
Mr. Thomas Bueling
Blace Filtronics
2310E. 2nd St.
Vancouver, WA 98661
Phone: (360) 750-7709
9-II-1-6
-------
-------
-------
V?
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
HYDROBLASTING WASTEWATER RECYCLING SYSTEM
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-15-99; Air Force: FA09; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Low
Alternative for: Wastewater disposal
Compliance Areas: Medium
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Antimony (CAS: 7440-36-0), Arsenic (CAS: 7440-
38-2), Cadmium (CAS: 7440-43-9), Chromium (CAS: 7440-47-3), Copper (CAS: 7440-50-8),
Lead (CAS: 7439-92-1), Mercury (CAS: 7439-97-6), Nickel (CAS: 7440-02-0), Selenium (CAS:
7782-49-2), Sodium Nitrite (CAS: 7632-00-0)
Overview: This technology has been used successfully to recycle wastewater generated
during the hydroblasting of ship's boilers. Hydroblasting is a time-consuming
process that generates 8,000 to 12,000 gallons of wastewater, per boiler
cleaning, containing heavy metals and sodium nitrite. Sodium nitrite is added to
the water used in the hydroblasting process and acts as a surface conditioner
that prevents flash rusting of boiler tube surfaces during the hydroblasting
operations. This water/sodium nitrite mixture can be reused in the hydroblasting
process without adversely effecting the finished product only if the solids have
been removed.
The recycling system consists of collection, settling, filtration, reconditioning and
reuse of the hydroblasting water. The water is continuously recycled during the
hydroblasting operations until the operation has been completed. Initially,
potable water is mixed with sodium nitrite before being pumped under pressure
to high pressure nozzles. The water is pressurized and sprayed on to the steam
side surfaces of the boiler tubes to remove scale build-up. The wastewater
from the blasting operation is collected and pumped out of the boiler.
Utilizing the recycling unit, wastewater is sent to two 650-gallon settling tanks.
Once enough water has been collected, the fresh water is shut off and the
wastewater is recycled through the unit. The wastewater is pumped to the first
collection tank, where it is gravity fed to the second tank, allowing larger,
suspended particles to settle out. It is then pumped from the second settling
tank through a parallel train of six cartridge filters each side rated at 50, 25, and
5 microns, respectively. The recycled water passes through a heat exchanger
before being returned to the hydroblasting operation for reuse. The filters
remove small suspended material that cannot be removed through gravity
settling. The filters do not remove sodium nitrite, which remains above 1,200
ppm, the level needed to prevent flash rusting. As a result, no additional sodium
nitrite needs to be added to recycled water.
9-II-2-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Compliance
Benefit:
The recycling unit has resulted in no known mechanical failures during the
hydroblasting operations, nor does it cause a decrease in the quality of the
cleaning operation. The sodium nitrite stays above the 1,200 ppm threshold,
preventing rusting and surface damage. After inspection, no residuals were
observed on the tube surfaces of boilers cleaned with the hydroblasting
recycling unit and the cleaning operation was completed satisfactorily.
Use of a hydroblasting wastewater recycling system will decrease the amount of
water used which helps a facility meet the requirements of EO 12902 requiring
federal facilities to implement water conservation projects. In addition, the
system will decrease the use of sodium nitrate used at the facility and therefore,
reduce the possibility that a facility will reach any of the reporting thresholds of
SARA Title m for that chemical (40 CFR 370 and EO 12856). Since the
volume of wastewater is decreased, the facility would be decreasing their
hazardous waste generation if in fact the wastewater is considered a hazardous
waste (i.e., contains heavy metals). Decreasing the volume of hazardous waste
will help facilities meet the requirements of waste reduction under RCRA, 40
CFR 262, Appendix, and may also help facilities reduce their generator status
and lessen the number of applicable regulations (i.e., recordkeeping, reporting,
inspections, transportation, accumulation time, emergency prevention and
preparedness, emergency response) under RCRA, 40 CFR 262.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
No materials compatibility issues were identified.
Heavy metals and sodium nitrite are irritants to skin, eyes, and mucous
membranes. Inhalation of these fumes can be toxic. Proper personal protection
equipment is, therefore, recommended.
Consult your local Industrial Health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these
technologies.
With the use of the recycling unit, the amount of wastewater generated by
hydroblasting operations can be reduced by 90%.
9-11-2-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Since less potable water is used in the operation, the amount of sodium
nitrite used can be reduced dramatically.
No additional personnel are needed to operate the recycling unit.
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
This process generates spent filters that must be disposed as hazardous
waste.
The process has been used successfully throughout the Navy for the
hydroblasting of ships' boilers and may apply to other hydroblasting operations
as well. It has been implemented at several shipyards, Ship Repair Facilities
(SRFs), on board US Navy Tenders, and Shore Intermediate Maintenance
Activities (SEVIA) by the former Naval Energy and Environmental Support
Activity (NEESA) and Naval Ship System Engineering Station (NAVSSES).
The cost of the recycling unit is around $25,000 which includes the equipment,
spare filters for a year, training and support. The savings generated will vary
from activity to activity depending on the number of boiler cleanings performed.
Assumptions:
10 boiler cleanings are conducted a year
10,000 gallons of wastewater are generated per boiler cleaning
Cost to dispose of wastewater is $2.50/gallon (including transport)
2 hours of labor is needed to set up hydroblast recycling equipment
No extra labor is needed to operate recycling system
80 labor hours are required per boiler cleaning
Labor rate: $45/hour
1,000 gallons of wastewater needs to be disposed of after hydroblasting
boiler using the recycling system
10 pounds of sodium nitrite is used with the recycling system and 100
pounds of sodium nitrite is used without the recycling system
Sodium nitrite costs $2.35/lb
Water costs $4/1,000 gallons
Disposal of used filters costs $50/cleaning
Yearly maintenance cost for recycling system: $200
9-II-2-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Annual Cost Comparison for
Recycling Versus No Recycling of Hydroblast Wastewater
Capital and Installation Costs
Operational Costs:
Labor
Water
Sodium Nitrite
Wastewater Disposal
System Maintenance
Filter Disposal
Total Operational Costs
Total Income:
Annual Benefit:
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for Secondary Use
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process:
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process:
Recycling
$25,000
$36,900
$40
$235
$25,000
$200
$500
$62,575
$0
-$62,575
No Recycling
$0
$36,000
$400
$2,350
$250,000
$0
0
$288,750
$0
-$288,750
$226,175
$25,000
2 cleanings
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values. To
return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
Approval
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
Source:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Mr. Joe McGillian
Code 9222
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division
Naval Ship Systems Engineering Station (NAVSSES)
(215) 897-7705, DSN 443-7705
E-mail: McGillianJM(g),nswccd.naw.mil
Web Link: http://www.navsses.naw.mil/dept92
Mr. Joe McGillian, Navy Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division, January 1999.
9-11-2-4
-------
I
-
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
LASER REDUCTION OF TOXIC ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN WASTEWATER
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-15-99; Air Force: FA09; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: None
Substitute for: N/A
Compliance Benefit Score: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Methylene chloride (CAS: 75-09-2), carbon
tetrachloride (CAS: 56-23-5), chlorinated fluorocarbons, and spent solvent
mixtures/blends used in degreasing
Overview: The Laser-Induced Photochemical Oxidative Destruction (LIPOD) is a method
to photochemically oxidize organic compounds in wastewater. Using a laser,
ultraviolet radiation can be applied to organic compounds to achieve complete
oxidation of a variety of organic compounds.
The LIPOD process oxidizes low levels of toxic organic chemicals in aqueous
solutions. The toxic organic compounds include unsaturated and chlorinated
organic compounds. These compounds rank high on the EPA's list of priority
pollutants. Because of low concentrations (parts per billion) removal of these
compounds from wastewater can be difficult.
The oxidation process uses a UV laser to excite organic compounds in the
presence of an oxidant to initiate a chain oxidation reaction. The UV source is
an excimer laser, which excites gas to produce a high-intensity coherent energy
source. The oxidant is hydrogen peroxide, which mixes with water. The laser's
energy initiates hydrogen peroxide oxidation of the organic compounds.
Hydroxyl radicals, which are powerful oxidants, are produced when the laser
impacts the hydrogen peroxide.
Sufficient oxygen or hydroxyl radicals are formed to completely oxidize the
organic compounds to carbon dioxide, water, and inorganic ions. The narrow
band UV radiation is preferentially absorbed by the organic molecules and
hydrogen peroxide. Little radiation is absorbed by the surrounding water
molecules. The process requires no ozone use. The wastewater needs to be
exposed to the UV light for a short time (less than 50 seconds) to initiate the
oxidative chain reaction. Only a portion of the contaminated water is exposed to
the UV radiation source in the presence of hydrogen peroxide. The exposed
water can be mixed with unexposed water to cause a chain oxidation reaction.
These chain reactions can last 40 to 62 hours. In the LIPOD process, the feed
stream containing the toxic organic compounds and hydrogen peroxide flows
countercurrent to the laser beam in a photochemical reactor where the
9-II-3-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Compliance
Benefits:
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
compounds are irradiated. When oxidizing halogenated solutions, the reaction
byproducts are carbon dioxide, water, and the halide ion.
The pretreatment of wastewater through the use of the LIPOD process may
help facilities meet the wastewater pretreatment requirements under 40 CFR
403. Also, by decreasing the amount of organic compounds in the wastewater,
the LIPOD process may help facilities meet an efflulent standard on a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit under the requirements
of 40 CFR 122.
No materials compatibility issues were identified.
There are safety and health concerns when dealing with compounds that are
suspected carcinogens or toxic (e.g., carbon tetrachloride; 1,1,1-
trichloroethane). Carbon tetrachloride is a suspected carcinogen; therefore,
caution should be taken when handling wastewater contaminated with it. In
addition, carbon tetrachloride is also a skin and eye irritant, along with
trichloroethane. They are toxic by inhalation. Proper personal protection
equipment is therefore recommended.
Consult your local Industrial Health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these
technologies.
The LIPOD process is effective in destroying benzene, chlorobenzene,
chlorophenol, dichloroethene, benzidine, and phenol. Destruction
percentages of the test compounds measure using the LIPOD process
ranged from 89 percent to greater than 99 percent. Destruction of other
contaminants can be achieved by varying the electromatic.
The destruction of the chemicals occur during the initiation phase of the
reaction when reactants are exposed to the light source and continues as the
reaction proceeds in the absence of light. Limited destruction is also
achieved during the photochemical initiation phase for all compounds
irradiated. Increased destruction can occur during this phase only when a
greater irradiation dose is applied. After several days changes in the
percent destruction is dependent on the concentrations of toxic organic
compounds and hydrogen peroxide, and the irradiation dose applied during
the initiation phase.
No disadvantages were identified.
9-II-3-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Economic
Analysis:
Capital cost ranges from $25,000 to $60,000 for the laser, depending on the
size of the reactor
Based on a 50 mg/L initial toxic concentration, the cost to operate the LIPOD
process ranges from $0.01/L to $0.02/L ($0.03/gal. to $0.07/gal.). The cost
reflects the complete conversion of toxic organic compounds to carbon dioxide
and water.
NSNs:
Product
None Identified
NSN
Size/Cost
MSDS
Approval
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
James Porter
John Roll
UV Technology, Inc.
Cambridge, MA
(617) 666-5500
None
9-II-3-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
RECYCLING ACTIVATED CARBON
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-25-99, SR-15-99; Air Force: FA09, FA10;
Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Low; Marine Corps: Low; Army: Low; Air Force: Low
Alternative for: Single Use/Disposal of Spent Activated Carbon Waste Streams
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Toxic Organic Compounds
Overview: Carbon adsorption is a process in which a contaminated waste liquid- or vapor-
phase waste stream is treated by removing the targeted contaminant (the
adsorbate) through contact with a solid surface (the adsorbent). Activated
carbon that has been processed to significantly increase the internal surface
contact area, is widely used in many applications as the adsorbent material.
Use of different raw materials (e.g., coal, wood, coconut shells) and processing
techniques has resulted in a range of carbon types, in both powdered and
granular forms. These types have various adsorption characteristics that tend to
make them better suited for specific environmental applications. Granular
activated carbon (GAC) is most commonly used for removal of a wide range of
toxic organic compounds from contaminated groundwater, industrial
wastewater, and vapor phase waste streams. Powdered activated carbon
(PAC) is used extensively in biological waste treatment systems, and typically
involves different handling and disposal practices than those used for GAC
systems.
Activated carbon waste stream can be classified into a variety of possible
categories, including both hazardous and non-hazardous waste. The handling
and disposal of activated carbon waste streams can pose a significant economic
and logistical burden on the waste generator. The incentives for recycling spent
activated carbon wastes include financial benefits and reduced liabilities
associated with improper handling or disposal of the activated carbon waste
stream.
Many companies offer activated carbon recycling services as part of an overall
service arrangement or as a stand-alone service. The specific service offered
will depend on such factors as the characteristics of the GAC treatment system,
the volume of spent carbon to be handled, and the capabilities of the selected
vendor. Spent carbon waste can be handled in either bulk shipments via tanker
truck or rail cars, or in drums or alternative containers. Virtually all spent
carbon waste to be regenerated is processed using a thermal
destruction/scrubbing system, which destroys the organic contaminants as well
9-II-4-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
as regenerates the carbon for reuse. Some vendors offering activated carbon
regeneration services will segregate the waste batches handled from each
customer, if required, while other vendors will "blend" together waste carbon
batches from multiple customers prior to processing. This process can be a
significant concern to those seeking to minimize liability associated with mixing
and disposal their waste stream with other unidentified wastes from other
sources.
Compliance
Benefit:
Recycling activated carbon (if hazardous) may help facilities meet the
requirements of waste reduction under RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix. If the
activated carbon is non-hazardous, recycling will help facilities meet the
requirements under Executive Order 13101 requiring executive agencies (e.g.,
DOD) to incorporate waste prevention and recycling in their daily operations.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
No materials compatibility issues were identified.
Activated carbon may contain toxic impurities that can be irritating to the eyes,
skin, and mucous membranes. Proper personal protective equipment is
recommended.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
Eliminates the cost, handling, and related liabilities associated with spent
carbon disposal at off-site facilities.
Significantly reduces the volume of fresh carbon that must be purchased to
regenerate the system.
Regeneration of powdered activated carbon is typically not practical.
If carbon is contaminated with PCB's, dioxins, heavy metals, or DCBP
(dichlorobromopropane), regeneration may not be an option.
Special packaging may be required if carbon has certain chemical
properties (e.g., 2l 1, halide and sulfur contamination, etc.)
Regenerate of carbon on-site is not economically feasible unless more than
400,000 pounds of spent AC is generated per year.
9-11-4-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Economic
Analysis: It is recommended that activated carbon be purchased from a virgin activated
carbon supplier that will accept the spent carbon for regeneration. Typically,
activated carbon sample analysis and shipping fees are paid by the user,
however, there is no charge for regeneration. The economics associated with
recycling spent activated carbon will vary based on the volume, system
characteristics, contaminants, and handling mode (i.e., bulk or packaged units).
One vendor, Envirotrol, Inc., which performs custom segregated reactivation by
which the same carbon is shipped back to the original user, offered the
following cost comparison.
Assumptions:
Facility uses 2,000 Ibs. of activated carbon per month.
Spent carbon from the facility is classified as hazardous and must be
incinerated.
Incineration costs $0.60/lb.
Virgin carbon costs $l/lb.
Reactivated carbon costs $0.65/lbs.
Losses during reactivation of carbon equals 15%. This is made up for with
virgin carbon when carbon is shipped back to user.
Labor and freight costs are the same for both uses.
Cost Comparison of Annual Use
of Virgin versus Reactivated Carbon
Virgin Carbon Reactivated Carbon
Carbon Purchase $24,000 $16,860
Carbon Disposal $14,400 $0
Total $38,400 $16,860
Economic Analysis Summary:
Annual Savings for Recycling Activated Carbon: $21,540
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $0
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: Immediate
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost
None Identified
9-II-4-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Approval
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
Source:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Mr. Scott Berner
Naval Air Station
NADEP
Box 0016
Jacksonville, FL 32212-0016
(904) 772-5990
Mr. Charles Sokol
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
1100 23rd Avenue
PortHueneme, CA 93043-4370
(805)982-5318
Calgon Carbon Corporation
P.O. Box 717
Pittsburgh, PA 15230-0717
(800) 422-7266
Carbtrol Corporation
51 Riverside Avenue
Westport, CT 06880
(203) 226-5642, (800) 242-1150
Envirotrol, Inc.
432 Green Street
P.O. Box 61
Sewickley, PA15143
(412) 741-2030
Mr. Scott Berner, Naval Air Station Jacksonville, January 1999.
9-II-4-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
MEMBRANE PROCESSES FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Revision 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-15-99; Air Force: FA09; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: High
Alternative for: Disposal as a hazardous waste 1-butanol, butyric alcohol
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Xylenes (CAS: 1330-20-7), Acetone (CAS: 67-64-1),
Ethylbenzene (CAS: 100-41-4), Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (CAS: 108-10-1), N-Butyl Alcohol (CAS:
73-36-3), Methanol (CAS: 67-56-1), Cresols (CAS: 1319-77-3), and Nitrobenzene (CAS: 98-95-3)
Overview: Reverse osmosis (RO) typically technology uses membrane separation systems
to typically remove inorganic salts from wastewater. However, reverse osmosis
can also be used to treat wastewater containing some organic solvents. The
RO system uses a semi-permeable membrane to separate pure water from
contaminated liquids. Osmotic theory asserts that when a contaminated solution
is separated from pure water by a semi-permeable membrane, the higher
osmotic pressure of the contaminated solution will cause the water to diffuse
into the contaminated solution. Water will continue to permeate into the
contaminated solution until the osmotic pressure of the contaminated solution
equals that of the pure water. RO occurs when an external pressure is exerted
on the contaminated solution. Water will flow in the reverse direction from the
contaminated solution into pure water. RO systems can be used to separate
pure water from contaminated matrices, and is utilized in the treatment of some
hazardous wastes through concentration of hazardous chemical constituents,
and the recovery of water on the other side of the membrane.
Ultrafiltration (UF) is a pressure-driven, membrane filtration process that is used
to separate and concentrate macromolecules and colloids from wastewater. A
fluid is placed under pressure on one side of a perforated membrane having
measured pore size. All materials smaller than the pore pass through the
membrane, leaving large contaminants concentrated on the feed side of the
process. UF is used as a pretreatment step to RO or as a stand-alone process.
Control of pass-through constituents can be achieved using a membrane with a
limiting pore size, or by installing a series of membranes with successively
smaller pores. The UF process cannot separate constituents from water to the
same level of purity that RO can achieve. However, the two technologies can
be used in tandem, with UF removing most of the relatively large constituents of
a process stream before RO application selectively removes water from the
remaining mixture. The UF process is applicable for particles in the molecular
9-II-5-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
range of 0.1-0.01 |j,m, while the RO process is applicable for particles in the
ionic range of less than 0.001|j,m.
Membrane technology can be used to treat a variety of wastes, including
sanitary landfill leachate containing both organic and inorganic chemical species,
water-soluble oil wastes used in metal fabricating and manufacturing industries,
solvent-water mixtures, and oil-water mixtures generated during washing
operations at metal fabricating facilities.
Waste feed, process permeate, and rinse water are potential feed materials to
the skid-mounted RO-UF modules that consist of a tank and a high-pressure
feed system. The feed system consists of a centrifugal feed pump, a prefilter
cartridge housing, and a triplex plunger pump. The processing units are self-
contained and need only electrical and interconnection process piping to be
installed prior to operation.
RO-UF modules have been used in military applications as part of larger
systems, but no facilities have been identified that use the technology alone.
However, several commercial applications have been identified, the data from
which can be easily transferred to military applications.
Compliance
Benefit:
The use of a reverse osmosis and ultrafiltration wastewater treatment process
may help facilities meet the requirements of waste reduction under RCRA, 40
CFR 262, Appendix. This technology may also be used to meet effluent
standards stipulated on NPDES permits (40 CFR 122). Wastewater treatment
units that are covered under NPDES permits or provide for pretreatment prior
to discharge into a POTW may not require a hazardous waste treatment permit.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
The RO and UF technologies produce chlorinated and oxidizing waste streams.
In addition, these technologies also produce fouling waste streams composed of
many substances including both iron and sulfur.
Hydrocarbon-bearing material management raises health concerns. Inhalation
of vapors can be dangerous to human health causing oral, dermal, and ocular
effects. Personal protective equipment is recommended.
9-II-5-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these
technologies.
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
This technology can be applied to a variety of wastewaters and the units are
compact for use at sea.
High capital cost
The capital cost of a typical, 40,000 gallons per day (gpd) membrane treatment
unit is approximately $350,000. For this system, electrical costs are
$0.000024 per one gallon of wastewater treated and maintenance costs are
$0.0003 per one gallon of wastewater treated.
For the treatment of gray water, the capital cost of a 1,000 to 20,000 gpd RO-
UF treatment unit is approximately $500,000. Electrical and maintenance costs
would be similar to the single membrane treatment unit.
Based on a case study developed by PPG Industries, Inc., in Cleveland, OH,
the following comparison of the application of RO-UF and traditional disposal
was developed. Although the information is based on a commercial industry's
application of the technology, the data can be applied to military situations as
well.
Assumptions:
Hazardous waste disposal off-site costs $ I/gall on
Facility generates 390,000 gallons/year of wastewater or approximately
1,000 gpd
Cost Comparison for
Treatment by RO-UF System vs. Disposal as Hazardous
Capital and Installation Costs
Operational Costs:
Operation & Maintenance Costs
Hazardous Waste Disposal Costs
Total Costs (not including capital and
installation costs)
Total Income:
Annual Benefit:
Traditional RO-UF system
Disposal
$0 $450,000
$0
$390,000
$390,000
$175,000
$19,800
$194,800
$0
-$390,000
$0
-$194,800
9-II-5-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for RO-UF:
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process:
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process:
$195,200
$450,000
2.3 years
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values. To
return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
Osmosis desalinator
Reverse Osmosis Module
Reverse Osmosis Element
NSN
4620-01-224-9725
4620-01-285-8123
4610-01-261-0700
Unit Size
ea.
ea.
ea.
Cost
$19,560.00
$978.00
$487.23
Approval
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Mr. John Dinkins
Program Manager for Hazardous Waste Minimization Projects
Naval Aviation Depot
Jacksonville, FL 32212
Phone: (904) 542-4455 ext. 107
Mr. Charles Sokol
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
110023rd Avenue
PortHueneme, CA 93043-4370
Phone:(805)982-5318
The following is a list of manufacturers. This is not meant to be a complete list,
as there may be other manufacturers of this type of equipment.
Pall/Rochem Separation Systems, Inc.
3904 Del Amo Boulevard, Suite 801
Torrance, CA 90503
Phone:(310)370-3160
Fax (310) 370-4988
Contact: Mr. David LaMonica
9-II-5-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Sources: Mr. JohnDinkins, Naval Aviation Depot Jacksonville, May 1999.
National Renew able Energy Laboratory "Installation of Ultrafiltration/Reverse
Osmosis System at Automotive Coatings Plant Minimizes Hazardous Waste Advances
in Industrial Energy-Efficiency Technologies, " prepared for U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Industrial Technologies, Washington, DC 20585, DOE/CHI 0093-199,
DE93000064, December 1993
9-II-5-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
OIL/WATER SEPARATOR FOR PIERSIDE APPLICATIONS
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-16-99; Air Force: FA09; Army: CLD
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Low; Air Force: Low
Alternative for: Hazardous Waste Disposal of Oil Contaminated Water
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: NA
Overview: Oil/water separators are self-contained, automatic treatment systems used for
treatment of oily wastewaters. The units can incorporate a coalescing pack to
promote oil globule agglomeration that is used to enhance the conventional
gravity separation process. The units are durable and simple to operate,
requiring a minimum level of operator sophistication. The unit requires no filter
or filter media, eliminating the costs of purchasing filters and their operation.
Eliminating the need to clean or replace clogged filters minimizes downtime.
These units are not designed to remove emulsified oils, dissolved inorganic
chemicals such as heavy metals, or dissolved organic chemicals such as solvents
and some fuels.
According to the Deputy Force Environmental Advisor, N451 at U.S. Naval
Forces Japan, the oil/water separator should be protected from precipitation
with a cover as part of the equipment, or provided with a shelter when installed
at the facility (Navy activity action). The oil/water separator should also be
provided with an expanded metal catwalk with railings for operator safety
during operation and maintenance of the unit. This protects the operator from
slipping or falling.
Oil/water mixtures are separated in the unit by conventional gravity separation
and by enhanced coalescence in the coalescing pack. These two steps may
take place in separate compartments or in a single chamber. The selection of
the appropriate type of system depends on the amount of wastewater to be
treated, its physical and chemical characteristics, and the treatment objectives.
Some units incorporate a hopper-type bottom for accumulation and ultimate
discharge of settled material.
Free oil is removed from the water by gravity separation; a process that takes
advantage of the density difference between the oil and water. In general, the
greater the difference in densities, the more effective will be the oil removal.
The effectiveness of the process also depends on the rate that oil droplets rise
through the water column, which in turn depends on the size of the oil droplets.
9-II-6-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Small oil droplets may not rise fast enough to be captured for removal unless the
unit is very large (unsuitable for pierside operation) or a coalescing pack is used.
The coalescing pack may consist of a series of parallel plates or a volume of
packing. The purpose of this material is to provide surface area to contact and
intercept small oil droplets. Oil droplets become removed by adhering to the
packing. On the packing, the small oil droplets will agglomerate, forming larger
oil droplets. As these oil droplets grow in size, their buoyancy and rise rate
increases and they will rise to the surface of the unit where they will be
removed.
The treated effluent from these units should not contain free oil. Free oil is
retained in the units by a baffle located upstream of a fixed level control device,
usually a weir. Free oil is removed from the unit by skimming the surface with a
variety of devices, which are specifically designed for this purpose. Selection of
a skimming device depends on the amount and necessary quality (e.g., for
recycling) of the oil to be removed. Both manual and automatic skimming
devices are available. Sludge blowdown from the bottom hoppers can also be
automated. Recovered oil and sludge is generally transferred to holding tanks
for storage prior to disposal. Additional processing of these waste materials
prior to disposal may be warranted for larger systems.
Oil/water separators can be located pierside to treat oily wastewater off-loaded
from ships. Depending on the type of wastewater treated in the unit and the
local water quality standards, the unit may or may not provide sufficient
treatment for discharge to a sanitary sewer without further pretreatment.
Compliance
Benefit:
The use of an oil/water separator for pierside applications can help facilities
meet pretreatment standards for discharges of wastewater into a POTW (40
CFR 403). In addition, this treatment process may help facilities meet the
requirements of waste reduction under RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Oil/water separators can be constructed from a variety of structural materials
and can be protected with a wide variety of coating systems. Wastewater
characteristics and the operating environment must be considered when
specifying equipment. Some coalescing pack models may not be available in
9-11-6-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
compatible materials but other models are available with a complete range of
materials and protective systems.
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
The principal safety concerns associated with the units concern the potential for
industrial accidents associated with operation and maintenance of mechanical
(pumps) and electrical equipment. Protection against slip accidents, that are
associated with handling oily materials, should also be considered. Some oily
wastewaters may be considered hazardous by characteristic and this would
require that the pierside oil/water separator include a system for spill
containment. Personnel protection training and equipment must be consistent
with the activities' safety programs and procedures for hazardous waste
treatment, should be consistent with 29CFR 1910. Because of the potential for
oily wastewater to be contaminated with fuels, tanks should be well ventilated to
prevent buildup of vapors that could become explosive.
Minimizes the need for disposal of some oily wastewaters as hazardous
wastes
Effluent product may be discharged directly into industrial wastewater
sewers or sanitary sewers
No filters or filter media to purchase, replace, or dispose
Can handle most mixtures of free oil and water in a continuous operation
Operation and maintenance is not complex; operations can be automated
Can be installed by in-house military personnel
May meet environmental regulations regarding discharge into sewers
Cannot effectively treat emulsified oils
Can not remove dissolved materials such as fuels (gasoline), solvents, or
heavy metals to most discharge limits
May require storage tanks for collected oils and sludges
Space requirements to place the separating unit on the pier
Requires electrical service and plumbing connections
Treatment effectiveness depends strongly on wastewater characteristics.
Performance may not be consistent
9-II-6-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Economic
Analysis: A comparison of the costs for disposal of oily wastewater by (1) offsite disposal
as a hazardous waste or (2) treatment in a pierside oil/water separator followed
by disposal in an industrial wastewater sewer was conducted. Using the design
and cost assumptions outlined below, the cost comparison was developed to
determine the amount of oily wastewater that must be handled by an activity in
one year to justify the implementation of this treatment equipment and allocation
of manpower and resources to its proper operation and maintenance.
From this analysis it was determined that an activity must handle at least
104,000 gallons per year of oily wastewater to justify installation of a pierside
oil/water separator if a one year payback period is required. This analysis
assumed that the wastewater would receive additional treatment at the activity
and if the wastewater characteristics were such that this was not necessary, the
payback period would be shorter or a smaller volume could be treated
economically. However, this analysis is most sensitive to the assumptions
pertaining the hazardous waste disposal costs, and care should be taken in
applying these results to a specific activity that may have substantially different
hazardous waste disposal costs.
Assumptions:
Oily wastewater will be unloaded pierside into a storage tank from
which it can be fed into the oil/water separator.
Treated water from the oil/water separator will be discharged to the
activity's industrial wastewater sewer and will be treated in the
activity's industrial wastewater treatment plant. The cost of this
supplemental treatment will be $0.10/gallon.
Oily wastewater can be disposed offsite without treatment for
$0.75/gallon
Oil/water separator unit: $30,000 for 10 gpm unit (includes
installation and one time manufacturer training)
Electrical power required for operating the oil/water separator is
7.5 kW for operation of necessary pumps and controls
Electrical power required for transferring wastewater from ships to
pier are equal for both alternatives and therefore not included
Electricity rate: $0.08/kw-hr
Labor associated with operating unit: 2 personnel while unit is in
operation plus an additional 20 percent for mobilization,
demobilization, and hazardous waste handling
9-II-6-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Sludge production in the oil/water separator is 5 percent of the
process flow
Sludge will be disposed in drums at $200/55-gallon drum as
hazardous waste
Oil production in the oil/water separator is 10 percent of the
process flow
Oil will be recycled offsite at a cost of $0.75/gallon
Burdened Labor rate: $60/hr
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for Pierside Oil/Water Separator and
Hazardous Waste Disposal
166,000 gallons per year Production Basis
Pierside Oil/Water Hazardous Waste
Separator Disposal
Operational Costs:
Labor: $39,800 $0
Energy: $166 $0
Waste Disposal: $56,440 $124,500
Total Operational Costs: $96,400 $124,500
Total Recovered Income: $0 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: -$96,400 -$124,500
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for Pierside Oil/Water Separator: $28,100
* Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $30,000
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: <2 years
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
9-II-6-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN
Oil/Water Separator. 6695-01-073-7109
Oil/Water Separator Assembly 2090-01-076-5852
Oil/Water Separator Assembly 2090-01-076-5849
Unit Size
ea.
kt (5gpm)
kt (5gpm)
Cost
$315.47
$665.03
$3,671.46
Approving
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Mr. Rudy M. Pontemayor, P.E. (Chemical Engr)
Deputy Force Environmental Advisor, N451
Commander, U.S. Naval Forces, Japan
DSN 243-9197/9078, FAX 243-6388
COML PH (FR CONUS): 81-311-743-9197/9078
COML PH (JAPAN): (0468) 21-1910 extension 9197/9078
Email: n451 (g),cnfi.naw.mil
Mr. Scott Mauro
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, ESC423
110023rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-4889, DSN: 551-4889
Fax: (805)982-4832
The following is a list of pierside oil/water separator vendors. This is not
intended to be a complete list, as there are numerous manufacturers of this type
of equipment.
Great Lakes Environmental, Inc.
315 S. Stewart Ave.
Addison, IL 60101
Phone: (630) 543-9444; Fax: (630)543-1169
Hydro-Flo Technologies, Inc.
205 E. Kehoe Blvd.
Suite #2
Carol Stream, IL 60188
Tel: (630) 462-7550 Fax: (630) 462-7728
9-II-6-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
National Fluid Separators
827 Hanley Industrial Court
St. Louis, MO 63144
Phone: (314) 968-2838; Fax: (314)968-4773
QED Environmental Systems
P.O. Box 3726
Ann Arbor, MI 48106
Phone: (800) 624-2026; Fax: (313)995-1170
Jay R. Smith Mfg. Co.
Environmental Products Group
2781 Gunter Park Drive, East
Montgomery, AL 36109-1405
Phone: (800) 767-0466; Fax: (205)272-7396
US Filter, Zimpro Division
301 W. Military Road
Rothschild, WI 54474
Phone: (715) 359-7211 or (800) 826-1476
Fax: (715)355-3335
Sources: Mr. Rudy Pontemayor, Deputy Force Environmental Advisor, N451, April 1999.
Mr. Bill Matthews, National Fluid Separators, May 1996.
9-11-6-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
EVAPORATOR FOR AQUEOUS WASTE REDUCTION
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: N/A; Air Force: FA09; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium: Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
Alternative for: Hazardous Waste Disposal
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Various
Overview: Evaporation is a proven technology for reducing aqueous wastes. By using
active evaporation or heating to evaporate excess water, hazardous waste rinse
water disposal, or wastewater treatment can be minimized.
Evaporator units discussed in this data sheet are gas-fired and fully factory
assembled. The only potential problem with these systems is the possible
mixing of liquid droplets with vapor. If this occurs, purchase of an entrainment
separator would eliminate this problem. The following are the design, process,
and safely requirements for these units:
Evaporation rate of 30 to 40 gallons/hour;
Natural gas-fired (supply available at 8 psig);
Compatible with existing electrical supply (120 V);
Designed for outdoor duty in a marine environment;
304 Stainless steel construction for all wetted surfaces;
Water cooled vapor condenser;
Maximum foot print of 8 feet by 8 feet;
Fitted with a feed pump;
Fitted with a concentrated solution removal pump;
Automatic fill level control for the evaporator;
Unattended operation for at least 8-hours;
Provisions for the removal of sludge from the evaporator;
Automatic gas shutdown when the flame goes out;
Condensate receiving tank high level shut off and alarm; and
Feed tank low level shut off and alarm.
9-II-7-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
In addition to these design requirements, operational options for evaporators
include evaporation to the atmosphere versus evaporation and condensing
(closed loop), with no waste emissions. All evaporator units require operator
training. Although all evaporator units have their own heat source, the humidity
of the location can affect performance. Atmospheric evaporation, in high
humidity locations, will require longer time periods to process a batch.
Evaporation units have the capability to reduce waste or rinse water by up to 90
percent of the previous volume. This reduction decreases the quantity of
hazardous waste designated for disposal, and the associated transportation and
drum purchase costs for hazardous waste disposal.
These evaporative systems have been installed at multiple facilities throughout
the Army, Air Force, and the Navy. One evaporative unit has been in use at
Pensacola, Florida Naval Air Station since 1992.
Compliance
Benefit:
The use of an evaporator for aqueous waste reduction may help facilities meet
the requirements of waste reduction under RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix.
An evaporator will increase electricity and water consumption. Under E.O.
12902, federal facilities are required to reduce energy consumption and
implement water conservation programs. In addition, the facility will require an
air permit for a gas burner (new source) and for evaporation to atmosphere.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Because this process only handles waste, there are no materials compatibility
problems. It should be noted that these systems are for aqueous waste streams
and reduce the amount of water in a waste or rinse stream. If the evaporator
waste stream changes, the evaporation system should be thoroughly cleaned to
avoid cross contamination or chemical reactions.
Safety
and Health:
Units are equipped with automatic natural gas shut offs, if the flame goes out
there are low and high level alarms for the condensate and feed tanks
respectively. These units must be installed in areas with fire suppression
systems, must be protected from the rain, and should not be allowed to freeze.
9-II-7-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
All of the proper warning signs such as those concerning hazardous materials
and flammable materials must be posted. Additionally, all appropriate warning
lines must be painted on the floors. All personnel who will work in the area
should be trained prior to operating the evaporator and should be made aware
of the potential hazards associated with the process and the required personal
protective equipment (PPE).
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Reduces aqueous waste
Reduces hazardous waste by up to 90 percent
Reduces the cost of hazardous waste disposal
Reduces the cost of drums for hazardous waste disposal
The units can operate unattended
Requires utility hookups for natural gas, electricity, and cooling water
Requires installation of a concrete pad, and two 1,500-gallon feed and
condensate tanks
Requires explosion-proof wall installation
May require an air permit for a gas burner (new source) and for
evaporation to atmosphere
All units require operator training
Economic
Analysis:
This economic analysis compares the operation of an evaporator versus waste
disposal as hazardous. According to the Pollution Prevention Equipment
Program, the capital cost for a rinse water evaporator is $31,000, however,
the evaporator used for this economic analysis cost $83,000. For this
evaporator, the annual waste stream processed is 47,000 pounds of neutralized
sulfamic acid contaminated with chrome, and 47,000 pounds of tri-sodium
phosphate contaminated with metals. The employment of an evaporator
reduces the quantity of liquid hazardous waste disposal by 90%, resulting in the
evaporation of approximately 11,000 gallons of water annually.
9-II-7-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Assumptions:
Labor to clean the systems is the same for evaporation (E) or
disposal as a hazardous waste (DHW). Labor for operating the
evaporation system: 500 hrs/yr
55 gallon drums are required for disposal: E=20 drums, DHW=220
drums
Labor rate: $45/hour
Utilities for operating evaporation system:
Electrical: 7,600 kwhr, $0.10/kwhr
Water: 200,000 gallons, $4/1000 gallons
Natural gas: $0.08/gallon water evaporated
Cost of waste disposal: $0.75/lb
Annual maintenance costs for the evaporator: $2,000
Cost of an empty, clean 55 gallon drum: $30/drum
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Evaporation versus Disposal as Hazardous Waste
Evaporation
Disposal as
Operational Costs:
Labor:
Material:
Energy:
Waste Disposal:
System Maintenance:
Total Operational Costs:
Total Recovered Income:
Net Annual Cost/Benefit:
$22,500
$600
$2,440
$7,050
$2,000
$34,590
$0
-$34,590
Hazardous Waste
$0
$6,600
$0
$70,500
$0
$77,100
$0
-$77,100
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for Evaporation: $42,510
* Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $83,000
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: 2 years
9-II-7-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
Water evaporator, paint booth
NSN
4940-01-424-0719
Unit Size
ea.
Cost
$21,500
Approving
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Mr. Rudy M. Pontemayor, P.E. (Chemical Engr)
Deputy Force Environmental Advisor, N451
Commander, U.S. Naval Forces, Japan
DSN 243-9197/9078, FAX 243-6388
COML PH (FR CONUS): 81-311-743-9197/9078
COML PH (JAPAN): (0468) 21-1910 extension 9197/9078
Email: n451(g)cnfi.naw.mil
Mr. Charles Sokol
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
1100 23rd Avenue
PortHueneme, CA 93043-4370
Phone:(805)982-5318
The following is a list of evaporation unit manufacturers and vendors. This is not
meant to be a complete list, as there may be other manufacturers of this type of
equipment.
Reduction Technologies, Inc.
2808 South Willis Street
Santa Ana, CA 92705
Contact: Ms. Mary Ann Parker or Ms. Sheri McElroy
Phone: (949) 752-2670
Enders Process Equipment Corp.
P.O. Box 308
Glen Ellyn,IL 60137
Contact: Mr. Joe Enders
(630)469-3787
9-II-7-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Landa Water Cleaning Systems
4275 NW Pacific Rim Blvd.
Camas, WA 98607
Phone: (800) 792-6174
Lake View Engineered Products
2010 Lakeview Drive
Fort Wayne, IN 46808
(219)432-3479
Sources: Mr. Rudy Pontemayor, Deputy Force Environmental Advisor, N451, April 1999.
Contact with Sheri McElroy, May 1996.
Contact with Joe Enders, May 1996.
Arthur D. Little, 1995. Site Assessment Pollution Prevention Equipment at NASNorth
Island, SUBASEBangor, NAVSTA, Pascagoula, andNAVSTA Everett. August.
Cambridge, MA.
9-11-1-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
BIOLOGICAL AQUEOUS WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
Revision 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-15-99; Air Force: FA09; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Low
Alternative for: Activated carbon, chemical oxidation, UV/ozone, UV/peroxide, air stripping
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Pentachlorophenol (CAS: 87-86-5), creosote
(CAS: 8001-58-9), petroleum fuels (gasoline, diesel, etc.), Benzene (CAS: 71-43-2), Toluene (CAS:
108-88-3), Xylene (CAS: 1330-20-7), ketones, alcohols
Overview: The BioTrol BioAccelerator is a biological aqueous treatment system for
contaminated wastewater. This system uses naturally occurring microbes;
however, where highly toxic or recalcitrant target compounds are present,
innocuous, microbial amendments are introduced.
The contaminated process wastewaters flow to a mix tank where the pH is
adjusted and inorganic nutrients are added. If necessary, the water is heated to
an optimum temperature using both a heater and a heat exchanger to minimize
energy costs. The heated water flows to a bioreactor where the contaminants
are biodegraded. The degrading microorganisms are then immobilized in a
multiple-cell, submerged, fixed-film bioreactor. Each cell is filled with a
structured packing material, where the microbes adhere. For aerobic
conditions, fine bubble membrane diffusers mounted at the bottom of each cell
supply air. This system can also operate under anaerobic conditions.
As water flows through the bioreactor, contaminants are degraded to biological
end products, predominantly carbon dioxide and water. The resulting effluent
may be discharged to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) or may be
reused on site.
This technology can be applied to a wide variety of wastewaters. Contaminants
amenable to treatment include pentachlorophenol, creosote components,
gasoline and fuel oil components, chlorinated hydrocarbons, ketones, alcohols,
phenolics, and solvents. Other potential target waste streams include coal tar
residues and organic pesticides. The system has been used successfully at forty
different locations.
Approximately ten years ago, a Pilot Unit was tested at the MacGillis and Gibbs
Superfund Site in New Brighton, Minnesota. The system was operated
continuously for six weeks at three different flow rates. This demonstration
project showed the following:
9-III-1-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Reduced pentachlorophenol concentrations from 45 to 1 ppm in a single
pass
Achieved 96 to 99 percent removal of pentachlorophenol
Produced minimal sludge and no air emissions of pentachlorophenol
Mineralized chlorinated phenolics
Eliminated biotoxicity in the wastestream
Required minimal operator attention
Compliance
Benefit:
The use of a biological aqueous wastewater treatment system can help facilities
meet pretreatment standards for discharges of wastewater into a POTW (40
CFR 403). In addition, this treatment process may help facilities meet the
requirements of waste reduction under RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix.
Wastewater treatment units that are covered under a NPDES permit or provide
for pretreatment prior to discharge into a POTW may not need to comply with
requirements for a hazardous waste treatment permit.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
No materials compatibility issues were identified.
The technology itself poses no safety or health risks. However, several
contaminants treated using the system are dangerous. Pesticides and herbicides
must be handled with care. Skin adsorption can be a concern when handling
wastewater contaminated with these chemicals. Pentachlorophenol is an
experimental teratogen and carcinogen. It is also poisonous when inhaled and
causes dermatitis. Proper personal protective equipment is, therefore,
recommended.
Benefits:
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
Capable of reducing concentrations of many organic wastewaters
Produces minimal sludge and air emissions
Eliminates biotoxicity in the wastestream
Requires minimal operator attention
9-III-1-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
Technology is not applicable for non-biodegradable contaminants, such as
DDT, PCBs, dioxins, and heavy metals.
The capital cost for this technology depends on the flow rate. Typical capital
costs are $15,000 for a 1 to 2 gallons per minute unit and $150,000for a 100
gallon per minute unit. Operating costs are approximately $0.75 per 1,000
gallons for a 5-gallon per minute unit and $0.40 per 1,000 gallons for a 30-
gallon per minute unit
Factors determining costs of treatment are the technology used, the flow rate,
and the level and type of contamination. Each user must examine the cost
effectiveness of the technology needed before selecting the system.
The assumptions on which the BioAccelerator figures are based are as follows:
Assumptions:
Cost comparison is based on the treatment of groundwater contaminated
with 30 ppm BTEX
Electrical needs = 12 hp @$0.06/kW
Nutrients =1.14 gpd @$ I/gall on + delivery
Labor = 5 hours/week @$20/hour
Cost Comparison of Air Stripping/Activated Carbon,
UV/Peroxide, and the BioAccelerator
Cost
Capital
Installation &
Start-up
Utilities/yr
Carbon/yr
Lamp/yr
Chemical s/yr
Labor/yr
Depreciation/yr
O&M Total/yr
Cost/1000 gall.
Air Stripping/
Activated Carbon
$110,000
UV/Peroxide BioAccelerator
$180,000
$150,000
$18,000
$6,000
$87,000
$0
$750
$5,500
$10,800
$110,050
$2.79
$24,000
$22,500
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,400
$59,400
$1.62
$20,000
$3,000
$0
$0
$600
$5,200
$12,500
$21,300
$0.52
9-III-1-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Economic Analysis Summary:
Annual Savings $88,750 vs. air stripping/activated carbon system
$38,100 vs. UV/peroxide system
Capital Costs $150,000
Payback periods 1.7 years vs. air stripping/activated carbon system
years vs. UV/peroxide system
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
Approval
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Mr. John Fernandez
International Technology Corporation
Point Molate Naval Fuel Depot
Richmond, CA
Phone: (925) 372-9100 Fax: (972) 372-5220
EPA:
Ms. Mary Stinson
US EPA, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
2890 Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 08837
(908)321-6683
Vendors:
Source:
The following is a list of vendors. This is not meant to be a complete list, as
there may be other vendors of this system.
BioTrol
328 Shady Lane
Alvaton, KY 42122 Phone: (502) 746-6651
Mr. John Fernandez, International Technology Corporation, April 1999.
9-III-1-4
-------
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
BILGE AND OILY WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM (BOWTS)
Revision 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-15-99, ID-25-02; Air Force: FA09; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Low; Army: None; Air Force: Low
Alternative for: Treatment using ferrous sulfate, aluminum, and polymers to break emulsions, in
conjunction with an oil water separator for free oil removal, and calcium
hydroxide for metal removal.
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Benzene (CAS: 71-43-2), Antimony (CAS: 7440-
36-0), Arsenic (CAS: 7440-38-2), Cadmium (CAS: 7440-43-9), Chromium (CAS: 7440-47-3),
Copper (CAS: 7440-50-8), Lead (CAS: 7439-92-1), Mercury (CAS: 7439-97-6), Nickel (CAS:
7440-02-0), Selenium (CAS: 7782-49-2), Silver (CAS: 7440-22-4), Thallium (CAS: 7440-28-0),
Zinc (CAS: 7440-66-6). Pesticides, PCB (CAS: 1336-36-3), Phenolic Compounds
Overview: The Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center has developed a shore-side
system for treating bilge and other oily wastewaters in addition to designing a 50
gpm mobile system. The Bilge and Oily Wastewater Treatment System
(BOWTS) separates oil, grease, and heavy metals found in bilge and oily
waters. BOWTS has the capability to lower the contaminant levels to less than
the permissible limits for discharge into publicly owned treatment works
(POTWs).
The BOWTS shore-side systems have successfully operated at Naval Shipyard
Long Beach, Naval Air Station Alameda, Fleet Industrial Support Center
Oakland, Naval Station Pearl Harbor, Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Naval
Station Guam, Naval Station San Diego, Submarine Base San Diego, Naval
Construction Battalion Center, Port Hueneme and the Naval Station Roosevelt
Roads, Puerto Rico. Mobile systems will be shipped to Yokosuka and Sasebo
Japan in September 1999.
The ship's bilge water is transferred to a large load equalization tank, equipped
with a skimmer for removal of bulk free product. After sufficient residence
time, the water fraction is selectively removed and fed through a plate coalescer
for mechanical removal of free oil. The water then passes through mixing
chambers where chemical treatment is performed.
Three chemical metering pumps feed a reverse emulsion breaker, sodium
hydroxide, and anionic polymer into the mixing chambers to breakdown the
emulsion, precipitate the heavy metals, and floe the solids. The effluent is then
pumped into an induced-air flotation unit, where all the solids generated by the
process are removed. Two slop oil tanks are provided for collecting the free oil
9-IV-l-l
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
separated in the load equalization tank and the oil/water separator, and a sludge
tank is provided for holding the sludges collected in the oil/water separator and
the induced-air flotation device. The water fraction leaving the system will be of
sufficient quality to be discharged directly into the sanitary sewer.
Although the pollutants found in ship bilge and other oily wastewaters vary from
ship to ship, NFESC applied a strategy to categorize and quantify the principal
pollutants. The data collected was used in designing the basic BOWTS.
Additional process units could be added where local discharge requirements
indicate the need for more rigorous treatment than is available from the basic
system design.
Compliance
Benefit:
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
The use of a bilge and oily wastewater treatment system can help facilities meet
pretreatment standards for discharges of wastewater into a POTW (40 CFR
403) or meet effluent limits of a NPDES permit (40 CFR 122). In addition,
this treatment process may help facilities meet the requirements of waste
reduction under RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved
No materials compatibility issues were identified.
BOWTS chemicals are irritants to skin, eyes, and mucous membranes.
Inhalation of these fumes can be dangerous. Proper personal protection
equipment is, therefore, recommended.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
BOWTS can recover oil for recycling.
BOWTS is a proven off-the-shelf technology.
The system is sufficiently flexible to accommodate a wide range of
concentrations and flow ranges; each system can be tailored to site-specific
requirements (e.g., configuration, modifications, etc.).
The BOWTS requires only one or two people to operate and monitor the
process.
9-IV-1-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
Not an economical alternative for activities generating less than one million
gallons of ship's bilge and oily wastewater annually.
The BOWTS design is unique for each activity and reflects selection of
hundreds of component parts designed for automatic operation within the
activity's infrastructure. The following analysis is based on data provided by
Naval Station San Diego.
Assumptions:
The system processes 15 million gallons of wastewater annually.
Traditional methods require transport of large volumes of oily wastewater
for treatment/disposal at a cost of $0.24/gallon.
Cost figures for the BOWTS system are actual budgetary allocations for
each activity provided by Naval Station San Diego.
Cost Comparison for
BOWTS System vs. a Traditional Disposal System
Capital and Installation Costs
Operational Costs:
Operation and Maintenance Costs
Waste Treatment and Disposal Costs
Utility Costs (electricity, sewer)
Permitting and Lab Analysis Costs
Total Costs (not including capital and
installation costs)
Total Income:
Annual Benefit:
Traditional
System
$0
$0
$3,600,000
$0
$0
$3,600,000
$0
- $3,600,000
BOWTS
$1,400,000
$155,000
$77,000
$80,000
$24,000
$336,000
$0
-336,000
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for BOWTS: $3,264,000
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $ 1,400,000
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: < 6 months
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values. To
return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
9-1V-1-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Approval
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Vendors:
Sources:
Implementation of the BOWTS technology requires coordination between
major claimant, the base environmental office, and a contracting vehicle.
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Mr. Tom Torres
Technical POC
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, ESC 421
1100 23rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4370
DSN 551-1658
(805)982-1658
Mr. James Sanfedele
Naval Station San Diego
Phone: (619) 545-8433
Fax:(619)545-6451
There currently is no equivalent off-the-shelf system commercially available from
vendors.
Mr. Tom Torres, Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, February 1999.
Mr. James Sanfedele, Naval Station San Diego, January 1999.
9-IV-1-4
-------
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
PEROXIDE ADVANCED OXIDATION WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Revision 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-15-99; Air Force: FA09; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Low; Marine Corps: Low; Army: Low; Air Force: Low
Alternative for: Air Stripping with Off-Gas Treatment, Granular Activated Carbon
Compliance Areas: Medium
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Trichloroethylene (CAS: 79-01-6),
tetrachloroethene (CAS: 127-18-4), chlorinated solvents, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (CAS:
1336-36-3), phenolics, fuel hydrocarbons.
Overview: The ultraviolet (UV) oxidation process is designed to destroy dissolved organic
contaminants through an advanced chemical oxidation process using ultraviolet
radiation and hydrogen peroxide. Hydrogen peroxide is added to the
contaminated water, and the mixture is fed into the treatment system. The
treatment system contains one or more oxidation chambers. Each chamber
contains one high-intensity UV lamp, mounted in a quartz tube. The
contaminated water flows in the space between the chamber wall and the quartz
tube in which each UV lamp is mounted.
This technology has been successfully applied at more than 200 sites throughout
the United States, Canada, and Europe. The units at these sites have treated
groundwater, industrial wastewater, landfill leachates, potable water, and
industrial reuse streams.
The technology was demonstrated at the Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory Site 300 Superfund site. The results of the demonstration
successfully reduced trichloroethene and tetrachloroethene to below analytical
detection limits. Currently, the concentration of contaminants is much lower
than when the system was originally put in place. For this reason, the
technology will be discontinued due to its high cost. However, the technology is
appropriate at other facilities.
UV light catalyzes chemical oxidation of organic contaminants in water by its
combined effect upon the organic substances and reaction with hydrogen
peroxide. First, many organic contaminants that absorb UV light may undergo
a change in their chemical structure or may become more reactive with chemical
oxidants. Second and more importantly, UV light catalyzes the breakdown of
hydrogen peroxide to produce hydroxyl radicals, which are powerful chemical
oxidants. Hydroxyl radicals react with organic contaminants destroying them
9-IV-2-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
and producing harmless carbon dioxide, halides, and water byproducts. The
process produces no hazardous by-products or air emissions.
The hydrogen peroxide oxidation equipment includes circular wipers attached to
the quartz tubes. These wipers periodically remove solids that may accumulate
on the tubes; a feature designed to maintain treatment efficiency.
The chemical oxidation process in the hydrogen peroxide oxidation system is
dependent upon a number of reaction conditions that can affect both
performance and cost. The process variables that are related to the
contaminated water condition are:
the type and concentration of organic contaminant,
total organic substances present,
light transmittance of the water (turbidity or color),
type and concentration of dissolved inorganic substances (e.g., carbonates
and iron), and
pH.
The process variables that are related to the treatment process design and
operation are:
UV and hydrogen peroxide dosage,
pH and temperature conditions,
use of supplementary catalysts, and treatment mode (batch, recycle, or
continuous).
Compliance
Benefit: The use of a peroxide advanced oxidation wastewater treatment system can
help facilities meet pretreatment standards for discharges of wastewater to a
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) (40 CFR 403) or meet effluent
limits of aNPDES permit (40 CFR 122). In addition, this treatment process
may help facilities meet the requirements of waste reduction under RCRA, 40
CFR 262, Appendix. Wastewater treatment units that are covered under a
NPDES permit or provide for pretreatment prior to discharge into a POTW
may not need to comply with requirements for a hazardous waste treatment
permit. In addition, this technology will increase the amount of hydrogen at the
facility, which may increase the likelihood that the facility will meet one of the
reporting thresholds of SARA Title HI. The technology may also increase
electricity consumption at the facility.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
9-IV-2-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
No materials compatibility issues were identified.
Proper operation, design, and maintenance of the system will ensure its safe use.
Hydrogen peroxide can be poisonous to the skin, eyes, and mucous
membranes. Polychlorinated biphenyls are experimental carcinogens and
teratogens; therefore, proper personal protective equipment is highly
recommended.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
Treats wastewater contaminated with a variety of pollutants, including:
chlorinated solvents, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls, phenolics, fuel
hydrocarbons, cyanides, and other organic compounds ranging from a few
thousand milligrams per liter to less than 1 microgram per liter.
In some cases, the process can be combined with air stripping, activated
carbon, or biological treatment for optimal treatment results.
High capital cost
High operational cost (energy intensive)
The capital cost for the hydrogen peroxide oxidation system is between
$100,000 and $200,000 for a 200,000 gallon per day treatment facility.
Equipment capacities can range up to several thousand gallons per minute.
Operating costs range from $0.50 to $10 per 1,000 gallons.
The cost comparison presented below is based on a report from Malcolm
Pirnie, "Technical Memorandum - Estimates of annual costs to remove MTBE
from water for potable used," provided by Calgon Carbon Advanced
Oxidation Technologies. The cost comparison is based on the following
assumptions:
Assumptions:
Flowrate = 600 gpm
Influent MTBE concentration = 700 ppb
Effluent concentration = 35 ppb
Removal efficiency = 95%
9-IV-2-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Operation and Maintenance Costs include 2 hrs/day labor at $45/hour
Power rate = $0.08/kWh
The traditional activated carbon treatment system is already in place
Cost Comparison for
UV treatment vs. a Traditional GAC System
UV/Peroxide Granular Activated
Carbon
Capital Costs $339,000 $0
Treatment Unit Costs $100,000 $0
Operational Costs:
Operation and Maintenance Costs $150,000 $613,000
Total Costs (not including capital and $150,000 $613,000
installation costs)
Total Income: $0 $0
Annual Benefit: -$150,000 -$613,000
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for UV: $463,000
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $439,000
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: 1 year
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values. To
return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost
None Identified
Approval
Authority: Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
9-IV-2-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
Sources:
Navy:
Mr. Tom Wick
Puget Sound Naval Shipyard
1400 Farragut Avenue
Code 105.71
Bremerton, WA 98314
(360) 476-2185, x250; DSN 439-2185
The following is a list of vendors. This is not meant to be a complete list, as
there may be other vendors of this system.
Mr. Bertrand Dussert
Calgon Carbon Oxidation Technologies.
P.O. Box 717
Pittsburgh, PA15230
(412)787-6681
FAX (412) 787-6682
Mr. Tom Wick, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, February 1999.
"Technical Memorandum - Estimates of annual costs to remove MTBEfrom water for
potable used, " provided by Calgon Carbon Advanced Oxidation Technologies,
Malcolm Pirnie
9-IV-2-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
PRECIPITATION AND MICROFILTRATION WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS
Revision 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: N/A; Air Force: N/A; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy and Marine Corps: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
Substitute for: N/A
Compliance Benefit Score: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Heavy Metals
Overview:
The precipitation and microfiltration process uses a combination of treatments
on a variety of wastes. First, heavy metals are removed via precipitation by
adjusting the pH in a reaction tank. Metal hydroxides or oxides form a dynamic
membrane with other suspended solids. Microfiltration modules are fabricated
from a unique tubular woven polyester material. Wastes pumped into these
polyester tubes form a dynamic membrane that produces a high quality filtrate
and removes all particles larger than 0.1 to 0.2 micron. Turbulence continually
maintains the membrane and maximizes treatment efficiency.
The concentrate, which contains up to 50 percent solids by volume, is
periodically discharged to solids concentration and drying systems (filter press,
centrifuge, or sludge thickener). Water from solids concentration is recycled to
the feed tank.
Constituents are removed using seeded slurry methods in the microfilter.
Hardness can be removed through traditional precipitation reactions. Oil and
grease can be removed by adding adsorbents. Organics and solvents can be
removed using activated carbon, bone char, or powdered ion exchange resins
as adsorbents.
Compliance
Benefits:
The pretreatment of wastewater using precipitation and microfiltration may help
facilities meet the wastewater pretreatment requirements under 40 CFR 403.
Also, by decreasing the amount of metals, organic compounds, and solvents in
the wastewater, pretreatment of wastewater using precipitation and
microfiltration may help facilities meet an effluent standard on a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit under the requirements
of 40 CFR 122.
Materials
Compatibility:
The polyester membrane support cloth is suitable for use in all conditions except
high concentrations of caustic at elevated temperatures. All other system
9-IV-3-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
components are either plastics (PVC, polyethylene, fiberglass) or type 316
stainless steel.
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Care should be taken when handling wastewater contaminated with heavy
metals. They can be poisonous, and skin absorption is the major route. Proper
personal protection equipment is, therefore, highly recommended.
Consult your local Industrial Health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these
technologies.
Modular construction allows flow rates from a few gallons per minute to
virtually any capacity required;
Contaminant can be converted to solid form either through precipitation or
through adsorption on any of a variety of adsorbents; and
Commercial applications include removal of heavy metals from
semiconductor and components manufacturing, oil and grease removal from
industrial laundry effluent, and silica removal through water softening
reactions from reverse osmosis concentrate.
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
High capital cost
High operating cost
The capital cost of the precipitation, microfiltration, and sludge dewatering
treatment process will vary, depending on the particular removal challenge
presented. A typical capital cost is approximately $1.00 to $2.00 per gallon
per day of capacity. For example, the capital cost of a system to treat a
wastewater flow of 100,000 gallons per day would be between $100,000 and
$200,000. Operating costs consist of normal mechanical maintenance,
neutralization chemicals, and adsorbents. Typical operating costs are in the
range of $1.00 to $2.50 per 1,000 gallons.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
NSN
Size/Cost
MSDS
Approval
Authority:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
9-IV-3-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
Army:
Mr. Greg Jones
Department of the Army, Anniston Army Depot
Environmental Coordinator
(256) 235-6350, DSN 571-6350
FAX: (205) 235-7726
This is not meant to be a complete list, as there are other manufacturers and
vendors of this equipment.
Mr. Rodney Squires
EPOC, Inc.
3065 N. Sunnyside
Fresno, California 93727
(209)291-8144
FAX: (209) 291-4926
Michelle Bisson
Kinetico, Inc.
(440) 564-5397
FAX: (404) 338-8694
9-IV-3-3
-------
:
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Revision 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-15-99; Air Force: FA09; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Low; Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
Alternative for: N/A
Compliance Area: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Trichloroethylene (CAS: 79-01-6),
tetrachloroethylene (CAS: 127-18-4), chlorinated solvents, pesticides, poly chlorinated biphenyls (CAS:
1336-36-3), phenolics, fuel hydrocarbons, and other organic compounds.
Overview: The powder activated carbon wastewater treatment system combines biological
treatment (such as the activated sludge process) with adsorption on powdered
activated carbon (PAC). The technology removes organic contaminants from
wastewater and minimizes the inhibitory effects of process wastewater
containing toxic organic compounds. Mobile powder activated carbon
wastewater treatment systems can be furnished as continuous flow or batch
treatment systems. Continuous flow systems come mounted on a mobile trailer,
with treatment capacities from 2,500 to 10,000 gallons per day. Batch operated
or continuous flow package plants can be provided for flows to 100,000 gal/d.
In-ground systems of up to 53,000,000 gal/day are currently in operation.
Typically, living microorganisms (biomass) and PAC contact wastewaters in an
aeration basin (anaerobic systems are also available). Biomass removes
biodegradable organic contaminants through biological assimilation, while the
carbon physically adsorbs conventional and toxic organics.
The degree of removal achieved by the system depends on the influent waste
characteristics and the system's operating parameters. Important considerations
are biodegradability, absorbability, and concentrations of toxic inorganic
compounds, such as heavy metals.
Powder activated carbon wastewater treatment systems can be adjusted to
specific waste stream feeds by varying the concentration of the PAC in the
system, adjusting the retention time of the mixed liquor, and adjusting the waste-
to-biomass ratio. If necessary, the temperature and the pH of the incoming
waste can be adjusted, and nutrients can be added.
After the aeration cycle, solids (PAC, with adsorbed organics, biomass, and
inert solids) are removed through settling. The removed solids are mostly
returned to the aeration tank, with only excess solids being removed. Solids
may be regenerated to recover PAC, or may be dewatered and disposed.
9-IV-4-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Compliance
Benefit:
A two-stage powder activated carbon wastewater treatment system may be
applied where environmental standards require an even higher degree of
treatment. In the first stage aeration basin, a high level of biomass and PAC
removes most contaminants. The second stage aeration basin polishes the first
stage effluent. The virgin PAC, added just before the second stage, and the
counter flow of solids to the first stage increases process efficiency. Excess
solids are removed from the first stage and treated as described above.
The use of a powdered activated carbon wastewater treatment system can help
facilities meet pretreatment standards for discharges of wastewater to a POTW
(40 CFR 403) or meet effluent limits of a NPDES permit (40 CFR 122). In
addition, this treatment process may help facilities meet the requirements of
waste reduction under RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix. Wastewater
treatment units that are covered under a NPDES permit or provide for
pretreatment prior to discharge into a POTW may not need to comply with
requirements for a hazardous waste treatment permit.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Material
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
No materials compatibility issues were identified.
Care should be taken when handling wastewater polluted with organic
substances. They have a high order of dermal toxicity. Proper personal
protection equipment is, therefore, highly recommended.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these
technologies.
A powder activated carbon wastewater treatment system has been applied for:
Pretreatment and end-of-pipe treatment of industrial process wastewaters
Combined industrial/municipal wastewaters
Contaminated surface runoff and groundwater
Landfill leachates
The technology can be very useful at naval installations that have a combined
industrial and municipal collection system.
9-IV-4-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Powder activated carbon wastewater treatment systems can treat liquid wastes
with a chemical oxygen demand (COD) in excess of 60,000 parts per million
(ppm), including toxic volatile organic compounds in excess of 1,000 ppm.
Treatability studies have shown that the system can reduce the concentration of
specific toxic organic chemicals to below the detection limit.
Other benefits of the system include:
Stability in the face of shock loadings
Color and ammonia removal
Improved sludge settleability
The process can be retrofitted into an existing activated sludge system at
minimal cost.
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
High capital cost
High operating 1 cost
The capital and operating costs of a powder activated carbon wastewater
treatment system depends on the influent quality and the effluent standards. The
budget level capital cost estimate for a mobile powder activated carbon
wastewater treatment system ranges from $100,000 to $300,000. The
operational costs range from less than $0.50 to greater than $1.00 per 1,000
gallons, depending upon a number of variables. Costs of wastewater treatment
vary from one location to another. Factors determining the wastewater
treatment costs are: the treatment technology used, the flow rate, and the level
and type of contamination. Each naval activity will have to examine the cost
effectiveness of the treatment technology needed before selecting the
appropriate treatment system.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
Approval
Authority:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
9-IV-4-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Points
of Contact: Navy:
Mr. Charles Sokol
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
1100 23rd Avenue
PortHueneme, CA 93043-4370
(805)982-5318
Vendors: The following is a vendor of this type of equipment. This is not intended to be
the only vendor, as there are numerous manufacturers of this type of equipment.
US Filter, Zimpro Division, Inc.
301 W. Military Road
Rothschild, WI 54474
Phone: (715) 355-3550
Fax:(715)355-3219
Contact: Mr. John Meidl
9-IV-4-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
WET AIR OXIDATION FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-15-99; Air Force: FA09; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy and Marines: Low; Air Force: Low; Army: Low
Alternative for: Incineration or Other Hazardous Waste Treatment
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Ammonia (CAS 7664-41-71), Cyanide (CAS: 57-12-
5), Toluene (CAS: 108-88-3), Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Aliphatic Hydrocarbons
Overview: Wet air oxidation (WAO) destroys toxics in wastewater by breaking down
complex molecular structures into simpler components such as water and
carbon dioxide. The process is based on the discovery that organics will
oxidize in water, at relatively low temperatures, as long as oxygen is present and
the proper operating pressure is maintained. Hazardous waste is oxidized in the
liquid phase at high temperatures (150-325 C) and pressures (300-3000 psi).
Research indicates that most organic constituents will be oxidized under these
conditions. At these elevated temperatures and pressures, the solubility of
oxygen in water is dramatically increased, thus providing a strong driving force
for the oxidation. The WAO process generally involves a number of oxidation
and hydrolysis reactions in series that degrade the initial compound into a series
of compounds of simpler structure. Complete WAO results in converting of
hazardous organic compounds into carbon dioxide, water vapor and ammonia
(for nitrogen containing wastes), sulfate (for sulfur containing wastes) and
halogen acids (for halogenated wastes). Partial degradation products may
remain in treated wastewaters from WAO and may be given subsequent
treatment before being discharged.
Wet air oxidation is applicable to wastewaters containing organics and
oxidizable inorganics such as cyanide. The process is typically used to oxidize
sewage sludge, regenerate spent activated carbon, and treat process
wastewaters. Wastewaters treated using this technology include pesticide
wastes, petrochemical process wastes, cyanide containing metal finishing
wastes, spent caustic wastewaters containing phenolic compounds and some
organic chemical production wastewaters. WAO can be used to treat
wastewaters that have higher organic concentrations than are normally handled
by biological treatment, carbon adsorption and chemical oxidation, but may be
too dilute to be effectively treated by thermal processes such as incineration.
WAO is most applicable for waste streams containing dissolved or suspended
organics in the 500 to 15,000 mg/1 range. Below 500 mg/1, the rates of WAO
of most organic constituents are too slow for efficient application of this
technology. WAO can be applied to wastes that have significant concentrations
9-IV-5-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
of metals (approximately 2 %) whereas biological treatment, carbon adsorption,
and chemical oxidation may have difficulty treating such wastes.
WAO proceeds as a series of reaction steps and the intermediate processes are
not always as readily oxidized as are the original constituents. Therefore the
process does not always achieve complete oxidation of the organic constituents.
As a result it is important to evaluate the process to assess the potential
products of incomplete oxidation prior to implementing the technology.
WAO technology is well-developed and demonstrated for treating several
hazardous wastes such as spent non-halogenated solvents and still bottoms,
sludges from electroplating operations, and spent cyanide bath solutions.
Successful bench scale WAO studies have been conducted on energenics
[hydrazine based rocket fuel wastewater and OTTO fuel (used in torpedo
propellant) wastewater], chemical agent surrogates and TNT red water. In
addition, the EPA recommends WAO as the "Best Demonstrated Available
Technology" for a variety of hazardous wastes.
Typical results of wet air oxidation of organic compounds in industrial
wastewaters are presented in the following table:
Wet Air Oxidation of Organic Compounds
In Industrial Wastewater*
Concentration, mg/1
Compound
COD
Methylene Chloride
Xylene
MEK
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Influent
56,000
734
109
3,937
8.0
2,450
Effluent
7,200
0.08
0.11
2.3
0.03
2
% Removal
87.1
>99.9
99.9
99.9
99.6
99.9
* wet air oxidation temperature = 495 F, pressure >700 psi, residence
time = 83 minutes.
The U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratories (USACERL)
has completed WAO batch studies on TNT red water which is the wastewater
from the manufacturing of trinitrotoluene. Major pollutants in red water include
the products formed during the sellite purification of crude TNT and other by-
products formed during various stages of the production process. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classifies TNT red water as RCRA
hazardous waste K047 due to its reactivity. The lack of a cost-effective,
9-IV-5-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
environmentally acceptable treatment for red water impairs the Army's mission
readiness for TNT production. Results indicate that WAO can be used for
successfully treating red water. Information on waste destruction rates and other
performance evaluation parameters has been obtained. Toxicity of the WAO-
treated red water to activated sludge and other bacteria have also been
evaluated. A USACERL technical report on the feasibility, kinetics, and
toxicity studies is available.
Compliance
Benefit:
The use of a wet air oxidation system can help facilities meet pretreatment
standards for discharges of wastewater to a POTW (40 CFR 403) or meet
effluent limits of a NPDES permit (40 CFR 122). A WAO system may also
decrease the amount of hazardous waste generated which helps facilities meet
the requirements of waste reduction under RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix.
It may also help facilities lessen the amount of regulations they must comply with
for the management of hazardous waste (i.e., recordkeeping, reporting,
inspections, transportation, accumulation) under RCRA, 40 CFR 262.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Wastewater with low pH may cause corrosion damage to the metals used in the
WAO equipment. Wastewater pH adjustment could provide better materials
compatibility results.
Care should be taken when handling wastewater. Wastewater can be toxic
and/or corrosive. Proper personal protection equipment is, therefore, highly
recommended.
Benefits:
Consult your local Industrial Health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these
technologies.
A variety of chemical compounds can be treated at the same time in the one
step process.
Wastes are destroyed in liquid phase. As a result, the problems associated
with air pollution are reduced.
The process is less energy intensive than incineration and is less likely to
produce oxides of nitrogen as by-product air pollutants.
9-IV-5-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Disadvantages:
Waste must be in the liquid phase.
Limited to wastewaters containing oxidizable organic and inorganic
compounds. For example, WAO cannot destroy PCBs, some halogenated
aromatics and some pesticides.
Economic
Analysis:
Capital costs for wet air oxidation systems depend on the capacity of the
system, oxygen demand reduction of the wastewater, severity of the
oxidation conditions required to meet the treatment objectives, and the
materials of construction of the wet oxidation system. The following
analysis provides costs associated with a WAO system which would treat
TNT red water. The operation and maintenance costs for the WAO system are
based on estimates from the U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research
Laboratories and is based on redwater at 3.2 MG/year.
Assumptions:
WAO System for treating TNT red water costs $12 million for a 16,000
gallon per day system.
Operation and maintenance costs $974,000 per year.
WAO system runs 200 days per year.
Disposal of hazardous waste costs $1.17 per gallon.
Labor of 100 man-hours a year for disposal of hazardous waste at $45 per
hour.
WAO system runs at 340ฐC and 1 hour contact time.
Cost Comparison for WAO System vs. Disposal of Wastewater
Capital and Installation
Operation and Maintenance
Costs
Waste Disposal
Annual Total (w/o capital)
WAO
$12,000,000
$974,000
$0
$974,000
Disposal
$0
$4,500
$3,744,000
$3,748,500
Economic Analysis Summary:
Annual Savings for WAO: $2,774,500
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $12,000,000
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: 4.3 years
9-IV-5-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values. To
return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None identified
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
Approving
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Army:
Dr. Stephen Maloney
USACERL
ATTN: CECER-UL-I
P.O. Box 9005
Champaign, IL 61821-9005
COMM 217-373-3482; toll-free 800-USA-CERL
FAX 217-373-3490
Vendors:
Sources:
U.S. Filter/Zimpro
301 West Military Road
Rothschild, WI 54474
715-359-7211
Dr. Stephen Maloney, Ph.D., USACERL, January 1999.
Mr. William Copa, Ph.D., U.S. Filter/Zimpro, Rothschild Wisconsin, July 1997.
"Wet Air Oxidation of Hazardous Waste, U.S. Filter/Zimpro
"Wet Air Oxidation, A "rediscovered technology", " Reactor, May 1989.
"Wet Air Oxidation (WAO) of TNT Red Water, " USACERL Fact Sheet, February 1996.
S. W. Maloney, V.M. Boddu, K.K. Phull and O.J.Hao, "TNT Red Water Treatment by Wet
Air Oxidation, " USACERL Technical Report EP-95/01, November 1994.
9-IV-5-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
SAND FILTER FOR TREATING STORM WATER RUNOFF
Revision 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-16-99; Air Force: FA08; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Low; Marine Corps: Low; Army: Low; Air Force: Low
Alternative for: Wet ponds, Infiltration basins, Infiltration trenches, extended detention dry
ponds, vegetated filter strips, grass swales
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Lead (CAS: 743 9-92-1); Phosphorus
(CAS: 7723-14-0)
Overview: Sand filters can be used for storm water quality control and managing storm
water runoff volumes. Sand filters are composed of at least two components: a
sedimentation chamber and a filtration chamber. The sedimentation chamber
removes floatables and heavy sediments, while the filtration chamber removes
additional pollutants by filtering flow through a sand bed. Treated filtrate is
normally diverted back to the storm drainage system via an underdrain system
or pipe network. Pollutants such as suspended solids, biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD), total phosphorus, and fecal coliform bacteria are effectively
removed from storm water flows when treated by a sand filter system. Other
pollutants removed include phosphorus and metals. Sand filter designs include
the surface sand filter basin (AKA Austin sand filter), the underground vault
sand filter (Washington, DC sand filter), the double trench sand filter (Delaware
sand filter), the stone reservoir trench sand filter, and the peat sand filter system.
Modifications are often made to these designs based on site-specific conditions.
Sand filters provide a highly effective means of removing pollutants from storm
water while remaining flexible in application to allow for modifications in basic
design structure to accommodate site-specific criteria. Modifications to the
basic structure arise due to site differences, including drainage area served, filter
surface areas, land requirements, and quantity of runoff treated. Sand filters are
currently popular best management practices (BMPs) used in Delaware;
Florida; Austin, Texas; Alexandria, Virginia; and Washington, DC.
The Austin sand filter was designed to detain runoff in a sedimentation chamber
where heavy sediments and floatables are removed. Estimates of pollutant
removal efficiencies for various Austin sand filters, based on the preliminary
findings of the city's storm water monitoring program, are as follows. In
addition, data from an intermittent sand filter (Delaware sand filter), constructed
to treat runoff from a commercial parking lot near National Airport in
Alexandria, Virginia, are provided below.
10-1-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Pollutant
Fecal Coliform
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BOD)
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
Iron (Fe)
Lead (Pb)
Zinc (Zn)
Total Phosphorous (TP)
Total Nitrogen
Nitrate as Nitrogen (NO3~N)
Austin sand filter
76%
70%
70%
48%
46%
45%
45%
45%
33%
21%
0%
Delaware sand
filter
not measured
80-83%
77.5%
65.9%
70.6%
not measured
not measured
81.6%
72.3%
47.2%
62.7%
The percentages listed for the Austin sand filter include partial and full
sedimentation systems with different drainage areas. Current monitoring data
from the Austin sand filters indicates phosphorous removal efficiencies of up to
60 percent. The Austin sand filter also has been used in Alexandria, Virginia;
monitoring of these units indicated a phosphorus removal of up to 40 percent.
Nitrate was not removed nor is it known what the removal efficiencies are for
other dissolved pollutants.
Performance of sand filters may be sustained through frequent inspections and
replacement of the filter fabric and the top of the media every three to five
years, depending on the pollutant load being treated. One system has been
reported to need filter changes two times per year due to heavy pollutant loads.
Accumulated trash and debris should be removed from the sand filters every six
months or as necessary. Performance also can be increased by stabilizing the
drainage area to minimize sediment loading, ensuring that the sedimentation
chamber adequately removes suspended solids and sediments prior to the
filtration chamber and allowing for adequate detention times for both
sedimentation and filtration.
The design of sand filters with impermeable chambers that prevent groundwater
infiltration are preferred in situations where groundwater contamination is a
concern. The Austin; Delaware; and Washington, DC, sand filters may
substitute for water quality inlets when hydrocarbons are of concern. Due to
the size of the Austin sand filter, it also can be used instead of wet ponds for
treatment of contaminated run-off in areas where evaporation exceeds rainfall.
10-1-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Compliance
Benefit:
The use of a sand filter for treating stormwater runoff may help facilities meet
requirements for implementation of stormwater runoff best management
practices contained in stormwater permits and plans (40 CFR 122.26).
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
No materials compatibility issues were identified.
Safety and health concerns are dependent on the types of contaminants in the
stormwater. Metals and phosphorus, for instance, require caution in handling.
They are skin irritants. Protective gear should be worn when handling
contaminants such as fecal coliform. Proper personal protection equipment is,
therefore, recommended. In addition, care should be taken when working with
sealed systems, as gas may accumulate.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these
technologies.
Sand filters, in particular those mentioned previously, achieve high removal
efficiencies for suspended solids, BOD, and fecal coliform bacteria, and
total phosphorous.
Hydrocarbons and nutrients also are removed by sand filters.
Sand filters designed with impermeable basins limit the potential for
groundwater contamination while treating storm water.
Sand filters can be used in small sites (e.g., gas stations or other urban
settings) where a wet pond is not possible due to spacial constraints.
Nitrates are not removed.
Sand filters are ineffective in removing dissolved pollutants except by
adsorption.
Construction costs vary depending on the sand filter system being designed.
The Austin sand filtration system costs approximately $18,500 for treatment of
a 1-acre drainage area. In this instance, the cost decreases with increasing
drainage area. Cost per acre decreases as the number of acres served
10-1-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
increases. For example, the cost for a sand filter decreases to approximately
$2,360/acre when treating 30 acres. The precast cost for one impervious acre
for a Washington, DC, sand filter is approximately $25,000 to $30,000. Costs
for the Delaware sand filter are $20,000 per impervious acre treated.
Assumptions:
The following comparison uses an average cost of sand filters.
Maintenance costs for a sand filter average 5 percent of the construction
cost.
Labor costs for operating a wet pond include mowing and debris removal.
Labor costs for operating a sand filter include filter changing, gravel and
sand replacement, and debris removal, estimated at approximately 3
hours/year.
Material costs for the gravel layer, filter fabric, and top portion of sand
based on the experience of the Washington, D.C., sand filter are
approximately $1,700 annually.
The figures in the table are based on one impervious acre treated.
The cost per pound of pollutant removed equals $8.30 based on the
experience for the Washington, D.C. sand filter.
Labor costs $45/hour.
Materials disposed are not hazardous. Solid waste disposal costs are
$40/ton or $0.02/lb.
Annual disposal of sediments is 350 Ibs.
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Wet Ponds and Sand Filter
Wet Pond Sand Filter
Operational Costs:
Labor: $1,620 $135
Materials: $0 $1,700
Waste Disposal $7 $7
Total Costs: $1,627 $1,842
Total Income:
Annual Benefit: -$1,627 -$1,842
10-1-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings:
Capital Cost for Equipment/Process:
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process:
$-215
$20,000
N/A
Overall costs for installing and operating a sand filter system appear to be higher
than that of using a wet pond system. However, in many urban situations, it is
not feasible to install a wet pond. A sand filter is an effective alternative for
treating stormwater runoff.
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
Approval
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Air Force:
Mr. Peter B. Drottar
11 CES/CEV
370 Brookley Avenue
Boiling Air Force Base
Washington DC 20332-0402
(202) 404-7003
DSN 754-7003
Fax (202)767-1160
Environmental Research Management
Two Commodore Plaza
206 E. 9th Street, Suite 17.102
Austin, Texas 78701
(512)499-2722
10-1-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Vendors:
Sources:
Mr. Randy Greer
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
89 Kings Highway
Dover, Delaware 19901
(302) 739-4411, Fax (302) 739-6724
Mr. Warren Bell
City of Alexandria
Department of Public Works
P.O. Box 178
City Hall
Alexandria, Virginia 22313
(703) 838-4327, Fax (703) 838-6438
Mr. Timothy Kari-Kari
Watershed Protection Division
Department of Health
Environmental Health Administration
2100 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave., SE
Washington, D.C. 20020
(202) 645-6059 ext.3052
N/A
Mr. Peter B. Drottar, Boiling Air Force Base, January 1999.
Bell, W. M. andT. N. Nguyen, 1993. Structural Best Management Practices for
Stormwater Quality in the Ultra-Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation
66th Annual Conference & Exposition. AC93-032-007.
Bell, W.M. andT.N. Nguyen, 1996. BMP Technologies for Ultra-Urban Settings. Effective
Land Management for Reduced Environmental Impact. Tidewater's Land Management
Conference on Water Quality.
Bell, W.M. andT.N. Nguyen, 1995. Intermittent Sand Filter BMP s for Stormwater
Quality. Watershed Protection Through Stormwater Management Regulation and
Design for New Developments, Montgomery County, Maryland.
Bell W.M. et al., Assessment of the Pollutant Removal Efficiencies of Delaware Sand
Filter BMP s, City of Alexandria, Virginia, Department of Transportation and
Environmental Services.
Shaver, Earl, 1991. Sand Filter Design for Water Quality Treatment. Delaware
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control.
Troung, H. 1989. The Sand Filter Water Quality Structure. District of Columbia.
City of Austin, Texas, 1988. Design Guidelines for Water Quality Control Basins.
Environmental Criteria Manual.
Galli, John, 1990. Peat-sand Filters: A Proposed Storm Water Management Practice for
Urbanized Areas. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, DC.
10-1-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
VORTEX SOLIDS SEPARATORS FOR TREATING STORM WATER RUNOFF
Revision 5/99
Process Code: Navy: N/A; Marine Corps: N/A; Air Force: N/A; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Low; Marine Corps: Low, Army: Low; Air Force: Low
Alternative for: N/A
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: N/A
Overview: A vortex solids separator is a wet-weather treatment unit, containing no moving
parts, designed to remove solids and floatables from wastewater or storm water
physically. The unit is cylindrical in design so that, as flow enters the unit
tangentially, it induces a swirling vortex which concentrates solids at the bottom
of the unit in the underflow. Vortex solids separators can be used for both
combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and separate storm sewers. During CSO
events, concentrated solids are collected and removed from the bottom of the
unit through a sanitary sewer and discharged to a wastewater treatment plant.
During separate storm water events, concentrated solids can be removed
through the bottom of the unit and sent to a holding tank or pond, where further
sedimentation will take place. Clarified effluent exits through the top of the unit
and is returned to the receiving water. Vortex units can be installed on line or
offline in a system. The units can also be designed to be used individually or as
group of units (e.g. in parallel at high flows and series at lower flows). Vortex
units can be designed to be used in combination with other best management
practices (BMPs).
The design of a vortex solids separator should be based on the anticipated type
and quantity of pollutants to be removed, as well as the settleability
characteristics of those pollutants. The quantity of flow to be treated should be
established prior to the design phase to achieve the desired treatment level.
Pilot-scale testing should be conducted during the design phase to determine the
swirl treatability at each site.
Unit performance is based on the vortex separation mechanism for which each
type has its own design criteria for solids/liquids separation. The design criteria
for the Swirl, which is available to the public from the EPA, is based on
settleability studies developed in the 1970s. Design specifications and pilot-
scale treatability studies are required for each site-specific application.
Data collected from solids removal studies indicate vortex solids separators are
effective at removing gritty materials, heavy particulates, and floatables from
10-2-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Compliance
Benefit:
waste water flow, but ineffective in removing materials with poor settleabilities.
The net solids have been calculated for various units in use for CSO
applications. Net solids accounts for the large underflow volume and solids
collected as a result of swirl concentrating. Net solids removal ranged between
7 and 34 percent. The following table presents average performance
characteristics of commercial Vortex Separators collected from four units.
Unit
Location
Effluent Volume Total
Hydraulic Reduction Solids
Net Solids
Removal %
Swirl Washington,
DC
Fluid Tengen,
sep Germany
Storm James Bridge,
King UK
Loading
Rate
(gpm/sf)
10
11
7.5
24
47
39
Removal
%
38
54
53
12
7
14
Disadvantages of vortex solids separators are limited effectiveness as evidenced
by comparing percent solids to net solids removal. Vortex separators have an
underflow that requires further treatment. The documented removal rates for
vortex separators may not meet water quality treatment objectives for proposed
locations. Little information is available for vortex solids separators treating
pollutants other than solids.
An advantage of vortex separators is the small land requirement as compared to
other BMPs (i.e., wet ponds). Vortex unit construction constraints include the
ability of the soil to support the unit, the depth of soil, and the slope of the site,
which may determine whether an above- or below-ground unit is used.
Maintenance for most separators includes a wash down after every CSO event
to prevent odors. This would not be necessary for a storm water application.
Some units have a self-washing mechanism.
The use of a vortex solids separator for treating storm water runoff may help
facilities meet requirements for implementation of storm water runoff best
management practices contained in stormwater permits and plans (40 CFR
122.26). In addition, the vortex solids separators can be used in combined
sewer overflows to help facilities meet pretreatment standards for discharges of
wastewater to a POTW (40 CFR 403).
10-2-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
N/A
Proper design, operation, and maintenance of the equipment is required for its
safe use.
Consult your local Industrial Health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these
technologies.
Vortex solids separators are able to separate solids and floatables from
storm water and wastewater using a swirling vortex. They can be used in
instances where a separation technology is limited by space or land
constraints, such as surface slope or soil composition. Vortex separators
have no moving parts and, therefore, are not maintenance intensive.
Vortex solids separators have limited effectiveness in use with wet-weather
flows
May not meet water quality treatment objectives for some locations
Limited information is available for vortex solids separators treating pollutants
other than solids
Budgeting for construction of a vortex separator unit should include predesign
costs, capital costs, and operation and maintenance costs. As of 1997, the
predesign costs for a Storm King are typically $21,000, and between $27,000
and $106,000 for the Fluidsep. Settleability curves published for the Swirl can
be used as the basis for design and eliminate predesign costs. Capital costs for
vortex solid separator treatment facilities in the US are site specific and vary
between $3,200 and $5,600 per acre of drainage basin. The capital cost for an
individual unit alone is approximately $5,200 per mgd.
Energy requirements for most vortex solid separators are nil unless the facility
requires pumping. Washdown costs for vortex separators primarily include
labor or energy costs for an automatic washdown. The Surrey Heath Storm
King facility lacks a foul sewer line and collects residuals in a collection zone.
10-2-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
These residuals are periodically emptied every 2 to 3 years, at an estimated cost
of between $300 and $500 per cleaning.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
Approval
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Vendors:
Sources:
Navy: Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after
engineering approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not
required.
EPA
Mr. Richard Field
Urban Watershed Management Branch
US EPA (MS-104)
2890 Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 08837-3679
Phone: (908) 321-6674
The following is a list of vendors. This is not meant to be a complete list, as
there may be other manufacturers of this type of equipment.
H.I.L. Technology
P.O. Box 366
Scarborough, ME 04070-0366
Phone: (800) 848-2706
Contact: Mr. Steve Hides
Hansj rgBrombach
Umwelt- und Fluid-Technik
SteinstraSe 7
D-97980 Bad Mergentheim
Germany
Phone: (07931)97 10-0
Mr. Thomas O'Connor, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 1999.
American Public Works Association, 1978. The Swirl Concentrator as a CSO Regulator
Facility. US EPA Report. No. EPA-430/9-78-006.
Brombach, H., 1992. Solids Removal From CSOs With Vortex Separators. Novatech 92,
Lyon, France, pp. 447-459.
Engineering-Science, Inc. and Trojan Technologies, Inc., 1993. Modified Vortex
10-2-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Separator and UV Disinfection for CSO Treatment. Prepared for the Water Environment
Research Foundation, VA.
Hedges, P. D., P. E. Lockley, andJ. R. Martin, 1992. A Field Study of an Hydrodynamic
Separator CSO. Novatech 92, Lyon, France.
H.I.L. Technology, 1993. Informative brochures andmemos.
NKK Corporation, 1987. Solid-Liquid Separation by Swirl Concentration. Brochure.
O 'Brien and Gere, 1992. CSO Abatement Program Segment 1: Performance Evaluation.
Prepared for the Water and Sewer Utility Administration, Washington, D.C.
Pisano, William., 1992. Survey of High Rate Storage and Vortex Separation Treatment
for CSO Control. For the Daly Road High Rate Treatment Facility Demonstration
Project, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Pisano, William C., 1993a. Summary: The Fluidsep Vortex Solids Separator Technology.
WK Inc. Marketing Brief, Belmont, Massachusetts.
Purcell Associates, 1975. Pollution Abatement Plan, Newark, New Jersey. Prepared for
the City of Newark, Department of Public Works.
Randall, Clifford W., Kathy Ellis, Thomas J. Grizzard, and William R. Knocks, 1983.
"Urban Runoff Pollutant Removal by Sedimentation. " Proceedings of the Conference on
Storm Water Detention Facilities. American Society of Civil Engineers. New York, New
York.
Smith andGillespie Engineers, Inc., 1990. Engineer's Study for Storm Water
Management Demonstration Project No. 2 for Evaluation of Methodologies for
Collection, Retention, Treatment and Reuse of Existing Urban Storm Water. S&G
Project No. 7109-133-01.
Sullivan, R. H., et al., 1974. The Swirl Concentrator as a Grit Separator Device. EPA
Report No. EPA-670/2-74-026.
Sullivan, R. H., et al., 1974. Relationship Between Diameter and Height for the Design of
a Swirl Concentrator as a CSO Regulator. EPA Report No. EPA-670/2-74-026.
US EPA, 1982. Swirl and Helical Bend Pollution Control Devices. EPA-600/8-82-013.
NTIS#PB82-266172.
US EPA, 1984. Swirl and Helical Band Regulator/Concentrator for Storm and CSO
Control. EPA-600/2-84-151. NTIS# PB85-102523.
Water Environment Federation Manual of Practice, 1992. Design and Construction of
Urban Storm Water Management Systems. MOP FD-20. Water Environment Federation,
Alexandria, Virginia; American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, New York.
10-2-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
WATER QUALITY INLETS TO CONTROL STORM WATER RUNOFF
Revision 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-16-99; Air Force: FA08; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Low; Marine Corps: Low; Army: Low; Air Force: Low
Alternative for: Direct Stormwater Discharge
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: N/A
Overview: Water quality inlets (WQIs) separate pollutants from the first flush of storm
water using a series of chambers for pollutant sedimentation, screening, and
separation. A water quality inlet typically consists of a sedimentation chamber,
an oil separation chamber, and a discharge chamber. Because of their
separation capabilities, WQIs are occasionally referred to as oil/grit separators
or oil/water separators. These best management practices (BMPs) may be
constructed on site, precast, or manufactured by a vendor.
Water quality inlets are widely used in the US for improving storm water runoff
quality where space is limited and funding prohibits the use of larger BMPs,
such as ponds or wetlands. Water quality inlets effectively separate
hydrocarbons from storm water runoff. During the first 5 years of use, over
95% of all WQIs were in operation as designed. WQIs do not manage the
volume of storm water flow, due to limited capacity, and have limited removal
efficiencies when not properly maintained. For these reasons, WQIs are often
used to pretreat runoff prior to discharge to other BMPs.
The WQI should be located within close proximity to a storm drain network to
allow for future discharge from the WQI to the sewer system. WQIs are
typically used as an off-line treatment process where lower flows will be
encountered; high flows result in resuspension of settled material. Construction
activity should be complete and the drainage area stabilized to minimize
sediment loading to a WQI. The WQI should be located in a small, impervious
area and be watertight.
Storm water runoff enters the sedimentation chamber in a water quality inlet
where coarse materials settle. Flow from the sedimentation chamber is
conveyed to the second chamber through an orifice covered with a trash rack
and located halfway down the wall separating the two chambers. The second
chamber functions as an oil separation chamber. Water that enters the third
sequential chamber discharges through a storm water outlet pipe. The design
should include permanent pools within the chambers, to reduce sediment
resuspension during storm events, and manholes above the chambers, to
provide access for cleaning and inspection.
10-3-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Compliance
Benefit:
The limited capacity of most WQIs typically means that the discharge rate is
high and the detention time is relatively short. Most water quality inlets have an
average detention time of less than a half-hour. Efficient pollutant removal is
dependent upon proper maintenance; the lack of proper maintenance may result
in resuspension and discharge of settled pollutants and separated oil. The
required maintenance will vary from site to site, but cleaning before the start of
each season and inspection after every storm event should ensure proper
functioning of the WQI.
Water quality inlets generally have minimal effect on the removal of nutrients,
metals, and organic pollutants other than free petroleum products. The
sedimentation chamber can be expected to reduce grit and sediments partially.
Separation of dissolved or emulsified oil from water is rarely achieved, although
WQIs are effective in separating free oil and grease from storm water.
The use of water quality inlets for treating storm water runoff may help facilities
meet the requirements for implementation of storm water runoff Best
Management Practices (BMPs) contained in stormwater permits and plans (40
CFR 122.26)
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
No material incompatibilities identified.
The safety and health issues depend on the types of contaminants in the storm
water. Some hydrocarbons may be a minor irritant to mucous membranes and
eyes. Handling hydrocarbons requires caution; proper personal protective
equipment is recommended.
Consult your local Industrial Health Specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these
technologies.
WQIs are useful for separating sediments and oil from storm water runoff.
If properly maintained, these pollutants are removed in the WQI, and the
quality of the downstream storm water is improved.
10-3-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
WQIs do not manage large volumes of storm water
Limited removal efficiencies when not properly maintained
WQI residuals may require disposal as a hazardous waste.
The cost for a precast WQI ($5,000 - $35,000) is generally lower than for
other units. The cost varies depending on the capacity of the inlet and the
complexity of the system. A cast-in-place WQI also varies in cost. The cost of
a large oil/water separator that services the air field storm drains at Westover
Air Reserve Base was estimated to cost approximately $380,000 for labor and
materials.
Assumptions:
Labor Rate: $45/hour.
Cost to develop procedures (estimated at 4 man-hours) for maintenance,
and for disposal.
Inspect separator four times a year (0.5 hours/each).
Twice a year remove oil/water from WQI.
Remove 200 gallons of oil/water a year from WQI.
Oil/grease analysis done at each cleaning of WQI, $40/each.
Cost of disposal is $0.42/gallon to dispose of oil/water plus an additional
$80 for a vacuum truck to come to the facility.
Once a year remove sediment from WQI.
Annual disposal of sediments is 350 Ibs at $0.02/lb.
Requires two people four hours to clean separator when removing
sediment.
A Labor cost for operating a sand filter includes filter changing, gravel and
sand replacement, and debris removal, which takes approximately 3
hours/year.
Material costs for the gravel layer, filter fabric, and top portion of sand for
sand filter are approximately $1,700 annually.
The figures in the table are based on one impervious acre treated.
10-3-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Cost Comparison for
Water Quality Inlets vs. Sand Filter
WQI Sand Filter
Capital and Installation Costs $20,000 $20,000
Operational Costs:
Labor Costs $630 $135
Materials $0 $1,700
Waste Disposal Costs $251 7
Permitting and Lab Analysis Costs $80 $0
Total Costs (not including capital and
installation costs) $961 $1,842
Total Income: $0 $0
Annual Benefit: -$961 -$1,842
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for WQI: $881
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $20,000
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: >20 years
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
Approval
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Mr. Matthew L. Jabloner, P.E.
Engineering Field Activity, Northwest
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
19917 7th Avenue NE
Poulsbo, WA 98370-7570
Phone: (360) 396-0050, DSN 744-0050
Email: iablonermlfSlefanw.navfac.naw.mil
10-3-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Air Force:
Ms. Gina Rossi- Linderme
439 SPTG/CEV
Westover Air Reserve Base
250 Patriot Avenue, Suite 1
Chicopee,MA 01022-1638
Phone: (413) 557-2484, DSN 589-2484
Vendors:
Sources:
The following is a list of oil/water separator vendors. This is not intended to be
a complete list, as there are numerous manufacturers of this type of equipment.
Jay R. Smith Mfg. Co. (Ultracept)
Environmental Products Group
2781 Gunter Park Dr.
P.O. Box 3237
Montgomery, AL 36109
Phone: (800) 767-0466
XERXES Corp.
7901 Xerxes Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55431-1253
Phone:(612)887-1890
National Fluid Separators, Inc.
827 Hanley Industrial Court
St. Louis, MO 63144
Phone:(314)968-2838
URL: http://www.miind.com
Mr. Matthew Jabloner, Engineering Field Activity, Northwest, January 1999.
Ms. GinaRosse-Linderme, Westover Air Reserve Base, January 1999.
American Petroleum Institute (API), 1990. Monographs on Refinery Environmental
Control - Management of Water Discharges. Publication 421, First Edition.
Berg, V.H., 1991. Water Quality Inlets (Oil/Grit Separators). Maryland Department of
the Environment, Sediment andStormwater Administration.
Schueler, T.R., 1992. A Current Assessment of Urban Best Management Practices.
Metropolitan Council of Governments.
Metropolitan Council of Governments (MWCOG), 1993. The Quality of Trapped
Sediments and Pool Water within Oil Grit Separators in Suburban Maryland. Interim
Report.
Mr.JimMcPhee, United Industrial Services, Wyoming, RI, July 1997.
Joint Services Pollution Prevention Technical Library Fact Sheet on Sand Filter For
Treating Storm Water Runoff, June 1997.
10-3-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
WET DETENTION PONDS TO TREAT STORM WATER RUNOFF
Revision: 5/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-16-99; Air Force: FA08; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Low; Marine Corps: Low; Army: Low; Air Force: Low
Alternative for: Direct Storm Water Discharge
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Heavy Metals; Phosphorus (CAS: 7723-14-0)
Overview: A wet detention pond is a constructed storm water retention pool wherein
physical, biological, and chemical processes remove pollutants from storm
water runoff. Pollutants removed include suspended solids, organic matter,
dissolved metals, and nutrients. In addition, wet detention ponds control storm
water flow which prevents downstream flooding. As storm water enters the
pond, treated water is displaced and discharged into a receiving body of water.
Enhanced treatment of storm water runoff can be achieved through extended
detention and the use of aquatic plants on the perimeter of the pond. Sediment
removal can also be increased through the use of a sediment forebay.
Before construction of a pond begins, local, state, and federal permits should be
in place for all aspects of construction including wetlands, water quality, dam
safety, grading, erosion control, and land use. Wet detention ponds rely on the
maintenance of a permanent pool of water within the pond and therefore, should
be placed in areas with adequate baseflow from groundwater or from the
drainage area to maintain the permanent pool. Soils under the pond should
have a low permeability (10"5 to 10"6 cm/sec) to maintain a permanent wet pool.
Pond placement should optimize reuse of a topographic area that allows for
maximum detention while requiring minimal earth removal, thus lowering
construction costs. Pond construction should not be undertaken near utilities or
underlying bedrock.
Pollutant removal in the pond is achieved through one of two methods: solids
settling and eutrophication. The solids settling method relies on pollutant
removal through sedimentation. The eutrophication method removes nutrients
using natural biological processes. According to the National Urban Runoff
Program (NURP), up to 2/3 of the suspended sediments, trace metals, and
nutrients settle out within 24 hours. Other studies, examining biological removal,
suggest hydraulic residence times (HRTs) of close to 2 weeks are required for
phosphorus removal.
Documented removal efficiencies for wet detention ponds are as follows:
10-4-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Percent Removal
Parameter Schueler, 19921 Hartigan, 19882
Total Suspended Solids
Total Phosphorous
Soluble Nutrients
Lead
Zinc
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Chemical Oxygen Demand
50-90
30-90
40-80
80-90
50-70
70-80
40-50
20-40
20-40
1 hydraulic residence time varies
2 hydraulic residence time of 2 weeks
Two ratios are useful for predicting pollutant removal efficiencies: volume ratio
and area ratio. Volume ratio (VB/VR) is the ratio of permanent pool storage
(VB) to the mean storm runoff (VR). Area ratio (A/As) is the ratio of the
contributing drainage area (A) to the permanent pool surface area (As). Both
of these ratios are correlated with treatment efficiencies. Large volume ratios
result in increased retention and treatment between storms while low pollutant
efficiencies are achieved with low volume ratios.
Pool depth can play a critical role in pollutant removal and storage, but caution
should be taken when increasing the depth of the pool. A pond with an HRT of
2 weeks would function optimally at depth ranges from 3 to 8 feet; shallower
depths with the same pond surface area have shorter HRTs.
Water within the pond is discharged through a wet pond outlet. A wet pond
outlet consists of a vertical riser, either concrete or corrugated metal, attached
to a horizontal barrel that conveys storm water flow under the embankment to a
receiving stream. The outlet is designed to pass excess water while maintaining
a permanent pool. Risers are typically placed in or on the edge of the
embankment and are capped with a trash rack to prevent clogging.
As with any storm water best management practice (BMP), proper
maintenance will ensure continued proper functioning of the wet detention pond.
Proper maintenance may include any or all of the following:
Clearing trash and debris
Conducting routine inspections of the embankment and spillway to check
structural integrity and look for signs of erosion or animal habitation
Conducting periodic repairs on the embankment, emergency spillway, inlet,
and outlet
Removing sediment and algae
10-4-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Removing woody vegetation or trees from the embankment that could
potentially weaken the embankment
Maintaining the outfall area (i.e., replacing rip-rap, removing sediments,
etc.)
Sediments collected by the wet detention pond typically meet toxicity limits and
can be landfilled safely. Testing of the sediments may be required if the
upstream drainage area is industrial and/or results in highly contaminated runoff.
Non-toxic sediments can also be disposed on site, but away from the shoreline
to prevent their re-entry into the pond. The removal of sediments in a pond
may be necessary every 20 years. This may be decreased to every 50 years if
a sediment forebay is used prior to the wet pond. The sediment forebay would
require maintenance every 5 to 7 years or when 50% of forebay capacity is
silted.
Compliance
Benefit:
The use of wet detention ponds for treating storm water runoff may help
facilities meet requirements for implementation of storm water runoff best
management practices contained in stormwater permits and plans (40 CFR
122.26).
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
No materials incompatibilities identified.
Proper design, operation, and maintenance of the equipment is required for its
safe use. Consult your local Industrial Health specialist, your local health and
safety personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these
technologies.
Wet detention ponds can decrease the potential for downstream flooding
and streambank erosion, and provide improved downstream water quality.
Water quality is improved through removal of suspended solids, metals, and
dissolved nutrients using natural biological and physical processes.
Properly designed and maintained wet detention ponds can also enhance
landscape aesthetics as well as provide wildlife habitat.
10-4-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
Pond construction should not be conducted near utilities or underlying
bedrock.
Sediments from upstream industrial or highly contaminated runoff areas may
constitute a hazardous waste requiring special disposal/treatment.
In Maryland, use of wet ponds is strongly discouraged in cold water
fisheries (streams) due to potential thermal impacts.
Budgeting for construction of a wet detention pond should include costs for
permitting, designing, constructing, and maintaining the pond. Costs will vary
for permitting from state to state, as will requirements concerning pond
construction in a developing area versus a developed one. Developing areas
tend to be less costly, as there are fewer problems presented by existing utility
and other constraints. A publication review indicated an average cost for a
lacre, 5 foot deep pond with a storage volume of 180,000 cubic feet is
$75,000.
Fort Meade installed five storm water wet detention ponds in 1997. The cost
of the ponds ranged from $4 -7 million. The average pond size is
approximately two acres with a depth of one foot.
Literature indicates that annual maintenance and operational costs typically
range between 3 to 5 percent of construction costs. Maintenance costs include
sediment removal, grass mowing, nuisance control (problematic animals), trash
removal, and routine inspections. On-site sediment disposal should be utilized
when possible, as costs can be reduced by as much as 50 percent. The
operation and maintenance costs at Fort Meade are estimated to be less than 1
percent of the total construction costs.
Assumptions:
Labor rate: $45/hour.
Labor costs for operating a wet pond include mowing and debris removal
requiring an estimated three hours per month
Labor costs for operating a sand filter includes filter changing, gravel and
sand replacement, and debris removal, requiring an estimated 3 hours/year.
Material costs for the gravel layer, filter fabric, and top portion of sand for
sand filter are approximately $1,700 annually.
The figures in the table are based on one impervious acre treated.
Annual disposal of sediments is estimated at 350 Ibs. at $0.02/lb.
10-4-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Cost Comparison for
Wet Detention Ponds vs. Sand Filters
Wet Detention Sand Filter
Pond
Capital and Installation Costs $18,000 $20,000
Operational Costs:
Labor $1,620 $135
Materials $0 $1,700
Sediment Disposal $7 $7
Total Costs (not including capital and
installation costs) $1,207 $1,842
Total Income: $0 $0
Annual Benefit: -$1,627 -$1,842
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for Wet Detention Pond: $215
Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $ 18,000
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: >30 years
Based on the above analysis it appears that the operational cost of a sand filter
system is similar to that of a wet pond system. However, a wet pond system
has a high land requirement. Where land is available, wet pond systems may be
more appropriate.
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost
None Identified
Approval
Authority: Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
10-4-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Points of
Contact:
Army:
Mr. Bill Harmeyer
DPW-EMO
239 Ross Street
Fort Meade, Maryland 20755-5115
(301)677-9168, DSN 923
E-mail: hannevew(g)meade-emh2.army.mil
Vendors:
Sources:
Mr. Glenn Moglen
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742
(301)405-1964
Mr. Ken Pensyl
Maryland Department of the Environment
Non-Point Source Program
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
(410) 631-3543, Fax: (410) 631-3553
(Can provide publications)
Contact local construction or A&E firms for more information
Mr. Bill Harmeyer, Fort Meade, Maryland, January 1999.
Hartigan, J. P. 1988. "Basis for Design of Wet Detention Basin BMPs " in Design of
Urban Runoff Quality Control. American Society of Engineers.
Maryland, Department of Environment (MD), 1986. Feasibility and Design of Wet Ponds
to Achieve Water Quality Control. Sediment and Stormwater Administration
Northern Virginia Planning District Commission (NVPDC) and Engineers and
Surveyors Institute, 1992. Northern Virginia BMP Handbook.
Schueler, T. R, 1992. A Current Assessment of Urban Best Management Practices.
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWPRC), 1991. Costs for
Urban Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Control Measures. Technical Report No. 31.
Urbonas, Ben and Peter Stahre, 1993. Stormwater Best Management Practices and
Detention for Water Quality, Drainage, and CSO Management. PTR Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Joint Services Pollution Prevention Technical Library Fact Sheet, Sand Filter for
Treating Storm Water Runoff, June 1997.
Maryland Department of the Environment, http://www.mde.state.md.us
10-4-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
CRYOGENIC CONDENSATION AND RECOVERY OF VOCs USING LIQUID
NITROGEN
Revision: 4/98 - To the best of our knowledge, this technology is not being used in
the Joint Services. This data sheet will not be updated.
Process Code: Navy: N/A; Marine Corps: N/A; Air Force: N/A; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Low; Marine Corps: Low; Army: Low; Air Force: Low
Alternative for: CFC-12 and Treatment Processes such as Absorption, Adsorption, and
Incinerators
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Acetaldehyde (CAS: 75-07-0), Acetone (CAS:
67-64-1), Acetonitrile (CAS: 75-05-8), CFC-11 (CAS: 75-69-4), CFC-12 (CAS: 75-71-8), CFC-
113 (CAS: 76-13-1), Chloroform (CAS: 67-66-3), Ethylene Oxide (CAS: 75-21-8), Methanol (CAS:
67-56-1), Methyl Bromide (CAS: 74-83-9), Methyl Chloroform (1,1,1-trichloroethane) (CAS: 71-55-
6), Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (CAS: 108-10-1), Methylene Chloride (CAS: 75-09-2), Styrene (CAS:
100-42-5), Toluene (CAS: 108-88-3), Trichloroethylene (CAS: 79-01-6), Vinyl Chloride (CAS: 75-
01-4)
Overview: A process that allows recovery of the VOCs for reuse is cryogenic
condensation. The condensation process requires very low temperatures so that
VOCs can be condensed. Traditionally, chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) refrigerants
like CFC-12 have been used to condense the VOCs, but with the phase-out of
these ozone-depleting substances (ODSs), liquid nitrogen has emerged as a
viable substitute for use in the extremely low temperature or cryogenic (less than
-160 degrees C) condensation process. Cryogenic condensation is best suited
to exhaust streams with low flowrates (below 2000 standard ftVmin) and/or
vapor concentrations above 100 parts per million on a volumetric basis (ppmv).
Cryogenic condensation is a versatile process which is not VOC specific.
Typically, condensation takes place with liquid nitrogen as the refrigerant in a
straightforward heat exchange process. Non-toxic, non-corrosive, and non-
flammable, liquid nitrogen is a versatile, zero ODS coolant with a normal boiling
point of-196 degrees C.
As the organic-laden vapor stream is cooled, VOCs will condense when the
dew point is reached. Fluctuations in VOC stream velocity or content are easily
handled by quick response controls on liquid nitrogen injection. Typically, the
only constraint on the VOC itself is that its freezing point should be below about
-30 degrees C; otherwise, freezing is likely to occur.
Cryogenic condensation systems generally consist of one or a series of plate-fin
or shell-and-tube heat exchangers. The VOC stream and the liquid nitrogen
11-01-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
stream flow through the heat exchanger countercurrently, maximizing heat
transfer. The VOC condenses on the shell side of the exchanger then drains into
a collection tank, from which it can be recycled, reclaimed, recovered for reuse,
or, at worst, accumulated for disposal.
During condensation, the presence of water vapor or VOCs with a high melting
point can cause freezing on the external surface of the tubes inside a cryogenic
condenser. A solid buildup will blanket the heat transfer area and thus reduce
the efficiency of the process, unless suitable precautions are taken. One method
of preventing buildup due to freezing is to periodically flush the pipes with the
condensed phase. Another method is to use two condensers in parallel
(continuous operation) so that one condenser is in operation while the other is
out of service being cleaned or defrosted. Another option when excessive
moisture is a concern is to arrange two condensers in series. In the first or pre-
cooling stage, the VOC stream is cooled to about 1 degree C, condensing the
majority of water so that it will not be present to freeze at condensing
temperatures below 0 degrees C (system shutdown for defrosting might be
required). In the second, or main, condensing stage, the temperature of the
VOC stream can be lowered as needed to drop out the required/desired
amount of VOCs without concern of ice formation.
For some VOCs, substantial cooling -40 to -50 degrees C below the
compound's dew point may cause fog to form. This occurs when the rate of
heat transfer exceeds the rate of mass transfer to the liquid stage, causing the
bulk of the gas to quickly cool below its dew point. This causes the nucleation
of tiny droplets of the VOC which, instead of coalescing and condensing on the
surface of the tube, become a colloidal suspension in the bulk gas stream. The
formation of fog, like the formation of solids, can be minimized by splitting the
cooling process into steps, allowing better control of temperature changes.
Other options to minimize fog formation include the use of a mist elimination
device or reduction of the gas stream velocity by using a larger diameter inlet
pipe.
Air sweeps can sometimes be replaced with nitrogen sweeps to enhance the
recovery of VOCs from the vent gas. Because the amount of VOC recovered
is proportional to the fraction of VOC in the vapor (expressed as the partial
pressure of the component), recovery rates are increased at higher vapor
concentrations. For example, if a 5 percent concentration of VOC in a gas
stream is technically feasible, but the vent stream concentration is controlled at
0.5 percent in air to eliminate the risk of explosion, that is, the concentration is
controlled below the lower explosion limit, (LEL), then the addition of nitrogen
can render the atmosphere inert and at the same time allow a VOC
11-01-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Compliance
Benefit:
concentration of 5 percent, without which the mixture would be explosive. Thus,
VOC recovery is increased, while maintaining safe operating conditions.
Cryogenic condensation has been selected as the Best Achievable Control
Technology (BACT) by environmental regulators for VOC control in a few
processes.
Replacing CFC-12 with liquid nitrogen will help the facility meet the
requirements under 40 CFR 82, Subpart D and Executive Order 12843
requiring federal agencies to maximize the use of safe alternatives to class I and
class U ozone depleting substances, to the maximum extent practicable. Reuse
of VOCs may decrease the amount of VOCs stored on site below any of
reporting thresholds of SARA Title m for those chemicals (40 CFR 355, 370,
and 372; and EO 12856). In addition, cryogenic condensation and recovery
of VOCs may be considered a best available control technology for a permit to
construct under 40 CFR 52.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
There are virtually no material compatibility problems from a chemical
standpoint with the cryogenic condensation process because the VOC stream
and the nitrogen stream never come in direct contact. Heat exchanger materials
of construction must, of course, be compatible with both streams and the low
temperature operation. Typically, 316 stainless steel is used, since no carbon
steel or cast iron is allowed in cryogenic service.
High pressure gases and cryogenic fluids should be handled with great care.
Always chain or secure high pressure cylinders to a stationary support such as a
column after moving, but before using. Always wear personal protective
equipment when using cryogenic fluids, since exposure to skin could cause
severe frostbite. Volatile organic compounds should be used only in areas with
adequate ventilation, in enclosed process equipment, or by personnel wearing
the proper protective equipment (respirator or supplied air).
Consult your local Industrial Health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDSs prior to implementing this technology.
11-01-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
Reduces the amount of VOCs and ODSs emitted into the environment.
Does not contaminate the recovered product.
Good reliability due to the low number of moving parts.
No secondary pollution is created, e.g., no wastewater, no nitrogen oxides,
no acid gases, no dioxins.
Very low operating costs if liquid nitrogen is already being used at a facility
for blanketing tanks or purging equipment.
Systems have essentially 100% turndown and are excellent in intermittent
applications having a big variation in demand.
Typical outlet VOC concentrations range from 5 to 2,000 ppmv, depending
on emission requirements and the system in place. The efficiencies of these
systems approach those of incinerators, but offer more flexibility in
operation and lower operating costs compared to incinerators.
If inlet gas is contaminated with just a single VOC, reuse is especially
promising. Multiple VOCs in a vent stream will be recovered, but cryogenic
condensation is not a fractionation operation; thus, if high purity components
are required for reuse, separation of a VOC mixture must be done with a
separate alternative technology. See Major Assumptions for a more
detailed explanation of this point.
Installation costs are low, since the units come essentially fully assembled.
VOCs are often released or captured as mixtures in large volume gas
streams
Condensed mixtures are typically not easily separated even by subsequent
reclamation
To maximize purity and minimize cross-contamination, batches may have to
be separated by purging and flushing of the system
Commercially available system capacities vary from small units handling 25 scfm
of spent gas to large systems handling 10,000 scfm. Units with capacities
greater than 500 scfm are custom designed and assembled on skids or a
number of skids for transport. Typically, units 500 scfm and smaller are
standard modules that are customized to the application. Approximate costs for
essentially fully assembled cryogenic recovery systems are as follows:
$50K for a 25 scfm unit
$ 150K to $200K for a 100 scfm unit
$500K for a 500 scfm unit
Units larger than 500 scfm can cost up to several million dollars.
Operating costs are relatively low, provided a ready source of liquid nitrogen is
used at the site for some other purpose such as tank blanketing. Nitrogen
demand depends on type of solvents, concentration desired, control efficiency,
11-01-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
inlet temperature and pressure. For facilities with no continuous source of liquid
nitrogen, several options are available:
1. For an intermittent, single-use installation, e.g., VOC recovery from semi-
annual ship off-loading, the required amount of liquid nitrogen could be
brought in for the duration of off-loading.
2. For continuous use, combination systems with mechanical refrigeration (for
the bulk condensation) and liquid nitrogen (only for polishing) can be
assembled. This type of combination system is much more efficient if liquid
nitrogen has to be purchased solely for this process.
A more meaningful economic analysis can only be done knowing the value of
the VOC and the concentration, flowrate, and availability of liquid nitrogen at
the facility. In certain cases, greater efficiency can be gained by designing the
system for countercurrent contact of the streams using the cooling capacity of
the "warm" liquid nitrogen from the main condenser to cool the incoming warm
or ambient temperature VOC vapors in the pre-condenser.
Assumptions: Cryogenic condensation technology using liquid nitrogen is not a
fractionation process. It will condense essentially all the components of a vapor
stream with the exception of elemental gases like hydrogen, helium, and neon,
including gases as light as methane. Recovery and reuse of pure VOC streams
from a cryogenic condensation system is the ideal application of this technology.
However, VOCs are often released or captured as mixtures in large volume gas
streams. Although the cryogenic condensation process will recover these
materials, condensed mixtures are typically not easily separated even by
subsequent reclamation. Another possibility for mixtures includes sale for
another application that tolerates a mixture. Cryogenic condensation systems
can also accommodate different VOC streams if production processes allow
batches, e.g., single contaminant streams. To maximize purity and minimize
cross-contamination, batches may have to be separated by purging and flushing
of the system.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
Liquid Nitrogen
Liquid Nitrogen
Approval
Authority:
NSN
6830-00-285-4769
6830-01-106-0895
Unit Size
Igal
Igal
Cost
$0.59
$1.00
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
11-01-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
Navy:
Mr. Nick Stencel
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
110023rd Avenue
PortHueneme, CA 93043-4370
(805)-982-1793
DSN 551-1793
FAX (805) 982-4832
BOC Gases (formerly AIRCO)
575 Mountain Avenue
Murray Hill, NJ 07974
(908) 771-1620, Fax (908) 771-1672
Manufacturer of the Kryoclean Vapor Recovery Systems: Kryoclean units
500 scfm to 10,000 scfm and the Mini-Kryoclean units 25 scfm to 500 scfm.
All units delivered ready to connect to utilities and process, minimum amount of
assembly required. Controls with programmable logic controllers (PLCs).
Mr. Robert F. Zeiss
Source (s):
Environmental Engineering World, Jan.-Feb. 1995, p. 26-29.
Thomas, S. T., "Process Changes to Meet New Regulations, "Proceedings of National
Conference Minimization & Recycling of Industrial & Hazardous Waste '92, pp. 89-91,
Sep 92.
11-01-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
NO FOAM KIT - AIRCRAFT RESCUE FIRE FIGHTING (ARFF) VEHICLE
Revision: 6/99
Process Code: Navy:; Marine Corps: SR-06-99; Air Force: SV09; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium; Air Force: Medium; Army: Low
Alternative for: AFFF
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Glycol ether and fluorocarbon surfactants
Overview: The Aircraft Rescue Fire Fighting (ARFF) vehicles are currently a main line of
defense at shore-base airfields facilities utilizing Aqueous Film Forming Foam
(AFFF). The US Naval Fire Protection Program mandates quarterly and
annual foam distribution system tests and training on the vehicles. However, the
fire chiefs at the activities often conduct daily, weekly or monthly AFFF system
tests, in addition to the mandated requirements, due to local airfield
requirements.
Significant amounts of AFFF wastewater are released during regular operational
maintenance and routine checks of ARFF vehicle foam distribution systems.
Despite its wide use and effectiveness for firefighting, AFFF poses an
environmental risk because of its resistance to biodegradation, its toxicity, and
its high Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Chemical Oxygen Demand
(COD). The frequent vehicle system tests and training are becoming an
environmental problem. Prohibitions of AFFF wastewater discharge onto the
ground or to waste treatment facilities (because of the extreme foaming capacity
and tendency to upset biological treatment facilities), and the prohibitive
hazardous waste disposal and handling costs are now the controlling factors for
vehicle system tests and training. The development of a foam free discharge test
kit eliminates the need to release AFFF for operational maintenance and routine
checks.
The NoFoam Kit is a retrofit to the existing ARFF vehicles models CF4000L
(Amertek) and P-19 (Oshkosh). In the cab of the vehicle, the fire fighter simply
pushes and holds a push-button to activate the kit. Then the fire fighter
continues through the normal firefighting discharge procedure. A flow sensor
installed in the kit piping sends electrical signals to the meter in the cab. The
firefighter simply reads and quickly determines the vehicle's AFFF delivery
system performance. By releasing the push-button the kit is deactivated and the
vehicle is in the ready mode, firefighing mission. The kit uses biodegradable and
environmentally benign water-based dye solution or water to test the vehicle's
foam distribution system. This eliminates the AFFF wastewater normally
generated during the required nozzles discharge test.
11-2-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Compliance
Benefit:
The use of a NoFoam Kit can help facilities meet material pretreatment
standards for discharges of wastewater into a POTW (40 CFR 403). In
addition, this treatment process may help facilities meet the requirements of
waste reduction under RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
No materials compatibility issues were identified.
Consult your local Industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these
technologies.
Uses biodegradable and environmentally benign dye solution or water to
test the onboard foam distribution system
Reduces AFFF wastewater normally generated during firefighting
equipment testing which reduces:
Groundwater contamination
Wastewater treatment plant upsets
Hazardous waste management and disposal requirements
Returns quickly to the foam mode after testing-ready for the fire fighters
missions
Fire Chiefs may perform ARFF vehicle discharge tests more frequently
while staying in environmental compliance
Requires minimal training for firefighters to operate the kit
Equipment is highly cost-effective
None Identified
The NFESC NoFoam Kit is currently available for ARFF vehicle models
CF4000L (Amertek) and P-19 (Oshkosh). The capital cost of $7,500 for
each kit, is estimated and the pay back period, based on daily foam distribution
system checks and avoided AFFF wastewater disposal costs, will be eight
routine 5-second system tests (5-second through each nozzles eight times) or
less than two weeks.
11-2-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
By not using actual AFFF for discharge testing, more savings are realized.
Because a 30-second test will consume approximately 10-20 gallons of AFFF
concentrate, an estimated $70 to $140 savings per test by simply not having to
purchase the AFFF concentrate.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
Approval
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
NSN
NA
Unit Size
Cost
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Mr. Scott Mauro (Implementation)
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
Code 423
110023rd Avenue
PortHueneme, CA 93043-4370
(805) 982-4889, DSN 551-4889
Email: maurosm@nfesc.naw.mil
Mr. Ranee Kudo (Technical)
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
Code 421
110023rd Avenue
PortHueneme, CA 93043-4370
(805) 982-4976, DSN 551-4976
11-2-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
CLOSED LOOP WASHRACK WASTEWATER RECYCLING SYSTEMS
FOR AIRCRAFT
Revision: 6/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-02-99; Air Force: CL05; Army: VHM
Usage List: Navy: High; Marine Corps: Medium; Army: High; Air Force: Low
Alternative for: Wastewater treatment
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Cadmium (CAS: 7440-43-9), Chromium (CAS:
7440-47-3), Lead (CAS: 7439-92-1), Zinc (CAS: 7440-66-6), Copper (CAS: 7440-50-8)
Overview: Aircraft and vehicle washing operations generate large quantities of
wastewater containing free and emulsified oils, detergents, heavy metals,
suspended solids, and other contaminants. Management of washrack
wastewater varies from activity to activity. However, the most prevalent
practice used involves treatment with an oil/water separator (OWS) prior
to discharging into a sanitary sewer. This practice is not recommended
due to the emulsified oils generated by the detergents and heavy metals
found in the waste stream. Conventional OWS do not remove these
contaminants that are commonly found at levels that exceed sanitary sewer
discharge limits.
A closed loop washrack wastewater recycling system offers activities an
alternative that can achieve compliance with discharge limits while
reducing water and detergent usage. As environmental regulations
continue to set more stringent discharge limits for wastewater
contaminants, recycling becomes even more lucrative since regulatory
agencies grant permitting exemptions to activities that recycle wastewater
on-site.
Numerous systems are commercially available including one developed by
the Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center. In general, systems are
purported as capable of removing contaminants from the wastewater to the
following concentrations: oil to less than 10 ppm, heavy metals to less
than 0.1 ppm, and suspended solids to 1 ppm.
Although each system is unique in configuration and operations, all use
one or more of the following treatment processes; chemical precipitation,
flocculation, filtration, absorption, oxidation, and gravity separation. In
addition, all require appurtenance including sumps, tanks, pipes, and
pumps. For illustrative purposes the Navy's recycle system is described in
the following paragraphs.
Vehicle, equipment, or aircraft wash and rinse water is collected from a
wash pad and pumped via a sump pump to the treatment system's load
11-3-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Compliance
Benefit:
Materials
Compatibility:
equalization tank (LET) until sufficient water is collected to begin
processing. The wastewater from the LET is then pumped to the treatment
system. Inside the treatment system a corrugated parallel plate separator
removes free oil. Next, the system adds a demulsifier to treat emulsified
oils, sodium hydroxide to precipitate heavy metals, and hydrogen peroxide
as a disinfectant. Following the chemical additions, the solids generated
by the chemistries are removed through an automated diatomaceous earth
pre-coat indexing filter. The treated water is then stored in a holding tank
to be utilized for washing and preliminary rinse of aircraft or discharged
directly into a Publicly Owned Treatment Works.
Closed loop wastewater recycling systems require scheduled maintenance
to insure satisfactory performance. This may include replacing or
cleaning filters, transferring chemicals, or collecting water samples. The
Navy's closed loop wash rack systems are installed with automated
controls and sensors to ease operation and maintenance.
System capital and recurring costs are important factors when determining
the feasibility of installing a recycling system at a particular activity.
Recycling systems are not always the most cost-effective way to manage
washrack wastewater. However, certain pre-existing conditions may make
recycling a cost-effective alternative. Favorable conditions include
activities that promote water conservation, remote areas that lack readily
available disposal alternatives, or when a permit under Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act Part B is required for treatment prior to
discharging into a sanitary sewer.
Use of a closed loop wash rack recycle system complies with Executive
Orders 12902 and 12856 requiring federal facilities to implement water
conservation projects and to reduce offsite hazardous waste disposal.
Systems also keep activities in compliance with local discharge
requirements.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
The detergents used in the washing process will not change with the use of
a closed loop washrack recycling system. However, recycled water used
on aircraft must be continually monitored for chloride content. Chloride
concentration of recycled water can increase to detrimental levels that
accelerate corrosion of metal surfaces (i.e. the aircraft). This particularly
occurs in regions that are subject to salt laden water/air exposure and to
11-3-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
regions that apply salt on roadways to control icy road conditions. As a
protective measure against corrosion, it is recommended to always rinse
aircraft with fresh water. Establishing a schedule to routinely dispose of
recycled water from time to time also insures that excessive chloride
build-up does not occur. Depending upon the rate of chloride build-up, a
Reverse Osmosis (RO) unit may be required as an add-on to the system to
remove chlorides.
Recycling systems are relatively safe systems that can be operated for
years if properly maintained. With any new system all operators should
receive proper training and guidance. Since many systems utilize
chemical agents in the recycling process, special consideration should be
taken when handling chemicals and/or detergents. They are irritants to the
skin, eyes, and mucous membranes. Inhalation of the fumes can also be
dangerous, therefore, proper personal protection equipment and
procedures should be heavily stressed.
Consult your local Industrial Hygienist, local health and safety personnel,
and acquire appropriate MSDSs prior to implementing any closed loop
recycling system.
Since all systems require electrical power, only trained professionals
should undertake electrical troubleshooting and repair.
Complies with discharge requirements.
Reduces annual quantity of water used to wash vehicles, equipment,
and aircraft.
Reduces annual detergent used to wash vehicles, equipment, and
aircraft.
Reduces loading on wastewater treatment plants.
Requires additional space to store holding tanks.
Require additional resources to operate and maintain system.
Closed loop wash racks are specifically sized to meet the needs of the
facility. System design varies on the number and types of vehicles,
equipment, and/or aircraft washed at the specific facility. Consequently,
the purchase, installation, and operation cost of a closed loop system
varies significantly from activity to activity. The following illustrates the
fixed costs and recurring costs for the Navy's closed loop system as
described in the overview section. Costs based on an estimated 500,000
gallons of wastewater generated in one year.
11-3-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Approval
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Fixed Costs
Site preparation $40,000
Treatment system equipment/installation $100,000
Total fixed cost $140,000
Recurring Costs
Electricity $500
Sewer (pretreatment) $1,000
Sludge disposal $1,300
Oil disposal (recycle) $500
Chemicals $2,500
Labor $3,500
Plant overhead $3,600
Maintenance $4,800
Imputed insurance $1,100
Total recurring cost $18,800
Total recurring cost per gallon $0.04
However, total capital investment costs for wash racks servicing small
vehicles and equipment could be considerably less, typically $25,000 to
$30,000.
Unless compliance driven a thorough cost benefit analysis should be
conducted at each activity to determine economic payback. Analysis will
include frequency of use, utilities cost, and disposal or discharge rates. A
feasible payback period for a closed loop wash rack should range from 2
to 7 years.
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after
engineering and environmental approval has been granted. Major
Claimant approval is advisable.
Navy
Mr. Norman Bolduc
Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Newport
1176 Howell St., Building 331
Newport, RI 02841
Phone (401)832-2546
Fax (401) 832-1021
11-3-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Mr. Gary Anguiano
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
1100 23rd Ave, Code ESC421/GA
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4370
DSN 551-1302
Phone (805)982-1302
Fax (805) 982-4832
Vendors: The following is a partial list of closed loop wash rack vendors.
Mr. Thomas Bueling
Blace Filtronics
2310E. 2nd St.
Vancouver, WA 98661
(360) 750-7709
Mr. Mike Maddock
California Steam Inc.
(LANDA Distributor)
4300 82nd St., Suite 1
Sacramento, CA 95826
(800) 432-7999
Mr. Brent Feldman
N/S Corporation
(Drive through vehicle wash equipment)
235 West Florence Ave
Inglewood, CA 90301
(800)782-1582
RGF Environmental Systems, Inc.
3875 Fiscal Court
West Palm Beach, FL 33404
(800) 842-7771
11-3-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
SUPERCRITICAL FLUID CLEANING AS A SOLVENT ALTERNATIVE
Revision: 6/99
Process Code Navy and Marine Corps: ID-03-99; Air Force: CL01; Army: LOP
Usage List: Navy: Low; Marine Corps: Low; Army: Low; Air Force: Low
Alternative for: Solvent cleaning operations such as vapor degreasing
Compliance Areas: Medium
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Trichlorotrifluoroethane (CFC-113)
(CAS: 76-13-1) and Methyl Chloroform (MCF) (CAS: 71-55-6)
Overview: Supercritical fluid is a high pressure cleaning process that takes advantage of the
fact that the fluid chosen becomes an extremely effective solvent for many
organic materials, once in its supercritical state. It is a cleaning process that
penetrates small openings and is especially useful for precision or intricate
components like gyroscopes, accelerometers, nuclear valve seals, laser optic
components, special camera lenses, electromechanical assemblies, and porous
ceramics. The process works well removing liquid contaminants, including
silicone, petroleum and dielectric oils, flux residues, lubricants, adhesive
residues, and fats and waxes. However, it is not very effective on heavy soils,
nor for removal of particles or salts, except in circumstances where it is used in
conjunction with agitation or ultrasonic cleaning.
The supercritical point is the pressure and temperature condition above which a
chemical can no longer be vaporized, but, at the same time, the fluid does not
retain its liquid-phase characteristics. Supercritical fluids have qualities unique to
their fluid state; that is, unlike the characteristics and properties of either the
vapor or the liquid phases. Small changes in temperature and pressure produce
significant changes in density and solvent power. This combination of
characteristics allows for greater mass transfer rates, effectively decreasing the
time required to move the contaminants into the bulk supercritical fluid stream,
thus providing rapid cleaning.
Carbon dioxide is probably the most widely used fluid in supercritical cleaning
applications. CO2 is especially useful, since it is non-toxic, non-flammable, and
non-ozone depleting; has a supercritical temperature near ambient temperatures
(good for temperature sensitive parts); and exhibits excellent solvent properties
in its supercritical state. Carbon dioxide supercritical cleaning does require high
operating pressures in the range of 1,500 to 2,000 psig, but operating
temperatures of only 35 to 65ฐC. As a result, most supercritical cleaning
equipment has been designed for high pressure operation and is relatively small.
High pressure cylindrical chambers of supercritical cleaning equipment are
intended to hold primarily small, intricate parts or parts with deep crevices, tiny
11-4-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
holes, or very tight tolerances that normal alternative precision cleaning
processes, specifically aqueous or semi-aqueous processes, have difficulty
cleaning.
A basic CO2 supercritical cleaning system has two primary cleaning vessels: the
extraction vessel, in which the component to be cleaned is placed and flooded
with supercritical carbon dioxide and, as the CO2 dissolves the contaminants, it
flows to a separator vessel where the fluid is subjected to a pressure and
temperature change (pressure is reduced and the carbon dioxide vaporizes). As
that occurs, the solubility of the contaminant in the carbon dioxide decreases,
causing the contaminant to separate from the bulk fluid. Once all the CO2 is
evacuated from the separator, the concentrated contaminant is usually in residue
form, often as an oily or tar-like liquid that is simply drained from the separator.
The residue can then be recovered, recycled, or reused, if suitable; otherwise,
the residue is disposed as the sole component; no solvents, wastewater, or
other contaminants are present to increase the volume of waste disposed.
The greatest concern when using supercritical cleaning processes is the safety
risk of high operating pressures. Equipment must be properly maintained to
prevent over pressure or failure of high-pressure components. Although carbon
dioxide is non-toxic and non-flammable, it can displace oxygen and cause
asphyxiation if leakage occurs in closed, occupied spaces. A CO2 monitor may
be useful for closed areas, despite the fact that there are early warning
symptoms, primarily difficulty in breathing (unlike nitrogen, which can quickly
cause asphyxiation without warning).
Compliance
Benefit: Supercritical fluid cleaning eliminates the production of waste solvents at a
facility. Hazardous waste reduction is required under RCRA, 40 CFR 262,
Appendix. In addition, the reduction of hazardous waste may also help
facilities reduce their generator status and lessen the amount of regulations (i.e.,
recordkeeping, reporting, inspections, transportation, accumulation time,
emergency prevention and preparedness, emergency response) they are
required to comply with under RCRA, 40 CFR 262. Using a non-ODS will
also help facilities meet the requirements under 40 CFR 82, Subpart D and
Executive Order 12843 requiring federal agencies to maximize the use of safe
alternatives to class I and class U ozone depleting substances, to the maximum
extent practicable. Moreover, the decrease in solvents may decrease the
possibility that a facility will meet any of the reporting thresholds of SARA Title
m for solvents (40 CFR 355, 370, and 372; and EO 12856). Increased
carbon dioxide will be used on site, which may increase the possibility of
meeting reporting thresholds for that chemical under SARA Title HI.
11-4-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Carbon dioxide, in its supercritical state, is compatible with virtually all metals;
however, non-metallic components, such as plastics, gaskets, and o-rings must
be checked for compatibility. In general, cross-linked polymers and high density
polyethylene are not affected by CO2 supercritical cleaning. Cellulose acetate
butyrate is one plastic that is not compatible with supercritical carbon dioxide.
Other plastics that are susceptible to damage from supercritical cleaning are
generally affected because the carbon dioxide solvates the plasticizers within the
plastic and once removed, the absence of plasticizer tends to make the cleaned
plastics more brittle. This is usually an undesirable result for plastic
components. Compatibility should always be checked and tested, if necessary.
The extremely high pressures at which supercritical cleaning takes place make it
unsuitable for components containing gas or evacuated spaces because they
could implode or deform during the cleaning cycle.
The primary safety concern when using supercritical fluids is the high pressure
and/or temperature operating range of the equipment. Proper design, operation,
and maintenance are critical to safe use of the equipment. In addition, the
hydrocarbon gases are flammable; thus, their use requires excellent maintenance
measures to safeguard against leaks.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these
technologies.
Some of the benefits are an equally high degree of cleanliness; relatively
short cleaning times, typically 15 to 30 minutes; completely dry parts at
room temperature (no supplemental drying is needed); low operating costs;
contaminants are the sole waste; and systems are typically closed-loop,
designed to maximize recycling of the carbon dioxide. For difficult
applications, the addition of agitation will usually provide a significant
improvement in a supercritical fluid system's cleaning ability, as well as
reduce the time required for cleaning.
The disadvantages of supercritical carbon dioxide cleaning are high capital
costs, poor removal of hydrophilic (polar molecules) contaminants, high-
11-4-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
pressure operation, and, as a result, limited component size, due to
equipment design pressure constraints. Development work using co-
solvents to aid cleaning of hydrophilic contaminants is in progress.
Economic
Analysis:
Supercritical cleaning systems are expensive, but operating and waste disposal
costs are usually low.
Installed cost of a supercritical carbon dioxide system can range from $60K
to $300K for once-through CO2 use, depending on the complexity of the
controls and other components. Recovery and recycling of the CO2 will add
$25K to $50K. (Sometimes liquid CO2 at 800 to 900 psig can be used as
an alternative to supercritical CO2 if the contaminant is readily soluble in
liquid CO2. This can reduce the equipment cost by 10 to 15%.)
Operating costs are low; power costs are minimal because cycles are short
and no heat is input into the process. Furthermore, liquid CO2 is
approximately $0.10/lb (in bottles).
Maintenance costs under contract can run $15K per year, according to one
manufacturer.
Waste disposal costs are lower than competing cleaning technologies that
require disposal of spent solvent, wastewater, or blasting media, since the
waste residue is 100% contaminant. In some cases, there is no disposal of
waste, since the contaminant can be recovered, recycled, or reclaimed.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
Approval
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Mr. Dan Smudski, Mechanical Engineer
SM-ALCTLI(l)
5441 Bailey Loop
McClellan AFB, CA 95652-1133
DSN 633-3787, (916) 643-3787
National Defense Center for Environmental Excellence
(800) 282-4392
11-4-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Vendors:
The following is a list of companies that deal with super critical equipment. This
is not meant to be a complete list, as there are other manufacturers of this type
of equipment.
CF TECHnologies, Inc.
Hyde Park, MA (617) 364-2500, Fax (617) 364-2550
Mr. Bill McGovern
Sources:
EnviroPro Technologies
P.O. Box 5051, 2930 West 22nd Street, Erie, PA, 16512-5051
(814) 838-5888, Fax (814) 838-5755
Painter Design and Engineering
37320 26th Mile road
New Baltimore, Michigan
(810)725-3330
EPA Solvent Alternative Guide, SAGE 2.0, EPA and ICOLP guides for "Eliminating
CFC-113 and Methyl Chloroform in Aircraft Maintenance Procedures, " Oct 93, and
"Eliminating CFC-113 and Methyl Chloroform in Precision Cleaning Operations, "
revised Oct 94.
Pirrotta, R. and T. Pava, "Replacement ofCFCs with Supercritical Carbon Dioxide for
Precision Parts Cleaning, " Proceedings of the International Conference on CFC and
Halon Alternatives '94, p. 532-539, October 94.
Mr. Bill McGovern, CF TECHnologies, Inc., Hyde Park, Massachusetts.
11-4-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
VITRIFICATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE STREAMS USING NATURAL GAS AS AN
ENERGY SOURCE
Revision: 4/98 - To the best of our knowledge, this technology is not being used in the Joint
Services. This data sheet will not be updated.
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-24-00; Air Force: HW01; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Low; Marine Corps: Low; Army: Low; Air Force: Low
Alternative for: Landfill, Incineration, and HW Disposal
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Various
Overview: A high temperature vitrification process can convert hazardous waste into a
nonhazardous glass/ceramic matrix which can be used as a commercial product.
Organic components in the waste stream are gasified by the system and utilized
as an auxiliary energy source. Inorganic components of the waste stream are
incorporated into the glass/ceramic matrix. The glass/ceramic matrix is
extremely stable and passes typical regulatory leachate tests.
The vitrification system consists of four sections, (1) feed preparation, (2)
preheater, (3) vitrifier/converter, and (4) air pollution control/off gas treatment
system. The feed preparation system consists of a counter-current rotary drum
dryer, batch surge bin to maintain uniform waste feed and allow for the addition
of glass formers, and auger feeders to convey the waste to the preheater. The
preheater is an indirect gas-fired auger preheater which heats the waste to over
1100ฐF. This effectively gasifies the organic contaminants contained in the
waste stream to allow them to be used as fuel. The vitrifier/converter heats the
inorganic waste to 2700ฐF in a well mixed chamber. Oxygen enriched natural
gas is the primary energy source for the vitrifier/converter. The molten
glass/ceramic exits the vitrifier through a discharge system that allows the molten
material to be shaped into useful products. Flue gas from the vitrifier flows
through a high temperature heat exchanger. The cooled flue gases pass through
a dry baghouse for particulate capture, a wet acid/gas packed tower venturi
scrubber, an ammonia scrubber to remove NOx, and an activated carbon filter
to remove any trace organics. Dust from the baghouse is recycled back into the
vitrification process.
Waste streams which can be processed with the vitrification process include
garnet residues, plating wastes, sand blast media residues, waste water sludges,
paint residues, asbestos, medical waste, and incinerator ash. Waste volume
reductions as high as 75% have been achieved with this process. In addition to
the glass/ceramic product a wastewater stream is produced from the flue gas
11-05-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
wet scrubber. This process can also process low level radioactive wastes
resulting in a stable radioactive glass/ceramic matrix.
This type of vitrification system is being investigated for applicability at
McClellan and Tinker Air Force Bases. Currently the Navy is pursuing another
type of vitrification system which uses Joule electrical heating for treating
hazardous wastes in Hawai'i. There are several other types of vitrification
systems such as Plasma Arc, Vortec type, etc.
Compliance
Benefit:
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
The use of vitrification of hazardous waste streams can be used to meet land
disposal limits under 40 CFR 268. Vitrification of hazardous waste will require
a RCRA permit for treatment of hazardous waste and may require an air permit.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved
No materials compatibility issues were identified.
Proper design, operation, and maintenance of vitrification system is required to
ensure safe operation. All operators must be properly trained in the operation
and maintenance of the vitrification system. Operators must also be trained in
hazardous waste operations as required by OSHA and EPA regulations.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
The system is compact and transportable
Can treat a variety of metal contaminated wastes while achieving regulatory
leachate and land disposal limit requirements
Can process mixed organic/inorganic waste streams in solid and/or sludge
forms on a batch or continuous basis
Uses the energy content of the organic waste contaminants to minimize
operating costs
Converts hazardous wastes into nonhazardous forms which can be used to
manufacture commercial products and provides a permanent treatment
solution
Requires a RCRA Part B Permit
11-05-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
Treatment of radioactive wastes will produce a radioactive glass which
needs to be handled according to applicable regulations for radioactive
materials
The following cost elements for treatment of hazardous wastes using the
vitrification process is compared to incineration. Capital costs, including
installation, range from $2,000,000 for a solid/dust system to $2,500,000 for a
sludge system. Both systems process 500-1,000 kg/hr of waste material.
Operating costs of the vitrification process range from $100 to $420 per ton.
The operating costs include labor, fuel, and maintenance.
* Assumptions:
Costs are for a sludge vitrification system.
Process 1,000 tons per year
Utility costs: $35/ton
Glass former chemicals: $19/ton
Air pollution control chemicals: $42/ton
Spare parts/ maintenance costs: $54/ton
Labor (at $30/hr) costs: $460/ton
Miscellaneous costs (laboratory analysis, insurance, etc.): $39/ton
Incineration disposal costs: $3,000/ton
Glass product used but generates no income
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for Vitrification and Incineration
Vitrification Incineration
Operational Costs:
Utility Costs: $35,000
Chemical Costs: $61,000
Spare Parts/ $54,000
Maintenance Costs:
Labor Costs: $460,000
Miscellaneous Costs: $39,000
Treatment Fee: $0
Total Operational Costs: $649,000
Total Recovered Income: $0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,000,000
$3,000,000
$0
11-05-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for Vitrification: $2,3 51,000
* Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $2,500,000
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: < 2 years
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
Approving
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
Sources:
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Mr. Scott Mauro
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, ESC 423
1100 23rd Avenue
PortHueneme, CA 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-4889, DSN: 551-4889
FAX: (805) 982-4832
The following is a list of vitrification system vendors. This is not meant to be a
complete list, as there may be other manufacturers of this type of equipment.
Seller Pollution Control Systems, Inc.
555 Metro Place North, Suite 100
Dublin, Ohio 43017
Phone: (614) 791-3272
Fax:(614) 761-8995
Mr. AlanSarko, Seller Pollution Control Systems, Inc., May 1996.
Mr. AlanSarko and Mr. Arthur Helmstetter, Hazardous Waste Recycling System, Seller
Pollution Control Systems
11-05-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
MOLTEN METAL PROCESSING OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
Revision: 4/98 - To the best of our knowledge, this technology is not being used in the Joint
Services. This data sheet will not be updated.
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-24-00; Air Force: HW01; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: Low; Marine Corps: Low; Army: Low; Air Force: Low
Alternative for: Incineration, Landfilling
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Various
Overview: A molten metal bath is at the core of the Catalytic Extraction Process (CEP),
developed by Molten Metal Technology Inc., which converts hazardous wastes
into products of commercial value. The liquid metal acts as a catalyst and
solvent in the dissociation of waste feed and the synthesis of products. Molten
metal causes complex compounds in the feed to be dissociated into their
elements, which readily dissolve in the liquid metal solution. By adding select
co-reactants and/or controlling operating conditions, the dissolved elemental
intermediates can be reacted to form desired products of commercial value.
Thermodynamics determine product synthesis, while solution equilibria
determine partitioning between the metallic, ceramic, and gaseous product
streams.
The gaseous product stream contains mostly synthesis gas, a mixture of carbon
monoxide and hydrogen, which can be used as a feedstock by the chemical
industry or as a low NOX fuel. Synthesis gas can also be separated to form
pure hydrogen and carbon monoxide, both useful feedstocks for the chemical
industry. The gaseous product stream can also contain commercially valuable
acids such as hydrochloric acid. The ceramic product stream will contain
alumina (A12O3) and silica (SiO2) along with the oxide forms of other non-
reducible metals. The ceramic material contains no detectable levels of organic
compounds and passes the TCLP extraction test for all metal constituents. The
ceramic material can be processed into industrial abrasives, construction
materials, or refractory base. By tapping the metal bath, reducible metals in the
feed can be recovered as metal alloys and recycled. Volatile heavy metals in
the feed, such as mercury, zinc, and lead, may evolve from the metal bath as
vapors and can be recovered from the gas phase using a cold trap or high-
efficiency filter.
Feed conversion efficiency in the metal bath is driven by solvation effects with
the carbon concentration being a key variable affecting feed conversion
efficiency. The lower the carbon concentration relative to saturation, the more
efficient feed conversion per unit time is achieved. Reducing the carbon
11-06-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
concentration in the liquid metal at constant operating conditions can increase
the destruction efficiency by several orders of magnitude. At high carbon
concentrations, the addition of oxygen from the feed or as a co-reactant will
convert the carbon into carbon monoxide which will be removed as a gaseous
product.
The CEP process has been designated by EPA as BDAT for all waste streams.
In addition, the CEP process has received a determination as a recycling
technology by the EPA, Texas, Massachusetts, Tennessee, and Ohio. The
CEP process can also process low level radioactive wastes achieving an eight
to 100 fold volume reduction.
Compliance
Benefit:
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
Benefits:
The use of molten metal processing of hazardous waste can be used to meet
land disposal limits under 40 CFR 268. Molten metal processing may require
an air permit.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
The molten metal process can handle a wide variety of organic, inorganic, and
low level radioactive wastes.
Proper design, operation, and maintenance of molten metal process system is
required to ensure safe operation. All operators must be properly trained in the
operation and maintenance of the system. Operators must also be trained in
hazardous waste operations as required by OSHA and EPA regulations.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
Can treat a variety of metal contaminated wastes while achieving regulatory
leachate and land disposal limit requirements
Can process mixed organic/inorganic waste streams
Converts hazardous wastes to nonhazardous or commercially useful forms
and provides a permanent treatment solution
Does not require a RCRA Part B permit
Reduces future liability compared to current disposal methods
11-06-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
Products from radioactive wastes are returned to generator
The following cost elements for the recycling of hazardous wastes using the
CEP is compared to incineration. Molten Metal Technology is interested in
building regional processing centers, at their expense, at or near bases that can
guarantee 5 to 10 years of wastes. They state that prices will be at or below
Defense Realization and Marketing Service prices. Expected prices range
from $0.38 to $5.37/lb depending on type of waste.
* Assumptions:
Process 4,000 tons of paint sludge and related wastes per year
Bulk quantities incineration disposal costs: $2,000/ton
CEP costs: $l,200/ton
Molten Metal Technology, Inc. builds CEP unit at their cost
Sale of recyclable products included in CEP costs
Annual Operating Cost Comparison for
Molten Metal Process and Incineration
Operational Costs:
Treatment Costs:
Total Operational Costs:
Total Recovered Income:
Net Annual Cost/Benefit:
Molten Metal Process
$4,800,000
$4,800,000
$0
-$4,800,000
Incineration
$8,000,000
$8,000,000
$0
-$8,000,000
Economic Analysis Summary
* Annual Savings for Molten Metal Process: $3,200,000
* Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $0
* Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: N/A
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the double reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
11-06-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
Approving
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
Sources:
Approval is controlled locally. Technology is proprietary and can only be
implemented after regulatory approval has been granted. Major claimant
approval is not required.
Navy:
Mr. Scott Mauro
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, ESC 423
1100 23rd Avenue
PortHueneme, CA 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-4889, DSN: 551-4889
FAX: (805) 982-4832
The following is a list of molten metal process system vendors. This is not
meant to be a complete list, as there may be other manufacturers of this type of
equipment.
Molten Metal Technology, Inc.
Technical Test Center
lOOOClearviewCt.
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
Phone: (423) 220-5007
Fax: (423) 220-5047
Molten Metal Technology, Inc.
Headquarters
400-2 Totten Pond Road
Waltham,MA02154
Phone:(781)487-5822
Molten Metal Technology, Technical Attachments.
Robert Sameski, M4 Environmental Management Inc., May 1996.
Randy Davis, M4 Environmental Management Inc., May 1996.
11-06-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
CLEANING OF LIVE FRONT ELECTRICAL SWITCHGEAR USING CARBON DIOXIDE
PELLETS
Revision 6/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-03-00; Air Force: CL04, FA05; Army: CLD,
ELM
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marine Corps: Low; Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
Alternative for: N/A
Compliance Areas: High
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Synthetic Oils, Chlorinated Solvents
Overview: Navy Public Work Center (PWC) personnel are required to periodically clean
large electrical switchgear known as Load Interrupter (LI) switches. The
presence of foreign matter on high voltage power distribution equipment can
cause dielectric breakdown and arcing between otherwise non-conductive
surfaces. The result is expensive equipment damage and power outages.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) pellet media blasting is a technique that can be used to
clean energized power distribution equipment. Contaminants are removed from
the LI switch by the impact of the CO2 pellet. The pellet compresses and
mushrooms out, creating a high velocity snow flow that flushes the surface. The
dry ice shears and lifts the contaminant off the surface with no or very minimal
damage and leaves no residual waste. This shearing or lifting force is caused by
the sublimation (direct transition from solid phase to gaseous phase) of the dry-
ice pellets resulting in a sudden 400 fold increase in volume of the gas directed
along the plane of the substrate. The contaminant is swept up, or in the case of
outdoor switches, blown out of the enclosure. The released CO2 gas is a
naturally occurring atmospheric compound and presents no significant
environmental concern.
Operationally, CO2 pellets have a dielectric constant of 3.1 kV/mm at ambient
pressure (about equal to dry air), enabling users to clean energized equipment
with no safety hazard. The theory of operation is to generate a large volume of
compressed VERY DRY air, transport it to the hot stick/nozzle assembly, mix it
with CO2 pellets in the hot stick, and then direct the mixed stream in a safe
manner to the object to be cleaned. The air must be extremely dry because of
the tendency for a high voltage arc, often called flashover or tracking or arc
blast, to develop along contaminated or wet surfaces.
The required equipment installed on the Navy truck consists of the following
components:
11-7-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
C O2 blaster/mixer, Alpheus MniBlast model PLT-5HV.
Air compressor, Sulair, Model 300H, 80-150 psi at 300 cfm.
After cooler/air dryer & filter, Domnick Hunter, PNUEDRI; with dew point
indicator, Model 8097; and ZEKS Air Dryer Corp, Model 301ACHA540;
and heat exchanger, shell and tube type, API-Ketema, Inc., size 5-Y-18,
200 psig, 3OOF.
Diesel electrical generator, Acme Motori, Model ADX 740, 10KW,
120/240 Volt Duplex.
Non conductive hot stick air gun with safety ring, assorted blast hoses,
Model A. B. Chance hot sticks and nozzles. All either Alpheus designs or
manufactured to A.B. Chance specifications.
Compliance
Benefit:
Material
Compatibility:
Use of non-ODS solvents or mechanical cleaning methods for degreasing and
cleaning activities will help facilities meet the requirements under 40 CFR 82,
Subpart D and Executive Order 12843 requiring federal agencies to
maximize the use of safe alternatives to class I and class U ozone depleting
substances, to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, the elimination of
ODSs at the facility decreases the possibility that the facility will meet any of the
reporting thresholds for those chemicals under 40 CFR 355, 370 and EO
12856. Chemicals used as substitutions should be reviewed for SARA
reporting issues.
Using mechanical cleaning methods may also reduce the amount of hazardous
waste generated and therefore, helps facilities meet the requirements of waste
reduction under RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix. The reduction of hazardous
waste may also help facilities reduce their generator status and lessen the
amount of regulations (i.e., recordkeeping, reporting, inspections,
transportation, accumulation time, emergency prevention and preparedness,
emergency response) they are required to comply with under RCRA, 40 CFR
262. Additionally, using mechanical cleaning methods in place of solvents may
decrease the need for a facility to obtain an air permit under 40 CFR 70 and
40 CFR 71 and meet NESHAPs requirements for halogenated solvent cleaning
under 40 CFR 63.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
No materials compatibility issues were identified.
11-7-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
The CO2 pellets have a surface temperature of-110 F and require gloves for
material and equipment handling. In the cleaning process the dry-ice particles
are propelled at high velocities from a nozzle to impact and clean a surface. Air
pressure in the range of 80-100 pounds per square inch is used to create
airflow rates up to 300 cubic feet per minute and dry-ice pellet flow rates of 2-3
pounds per minute.
The operator must wear all required personal protective equipment and be
trained in the use of the CO2 cleaning components as well as be suitably
qualified for "high voltage" work as is the standard PWC practice. The
personal protective equipment will generally consist of eye protection including
face shield, hearing protection, safety shoes, hard hat, gloves, and "Nomex"
type non-conductive clothing.
Consult your local Industrial Health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing any of these
technologies.
The current LI maintenance practice is to de-energize the equipment with a
scheduled power outage, then manually wipe surfaces with rags using synthetic
oil, grease, or a chlorinated solvent. PWCs would like to clean the switches
without using solvents and de-energizing the circuits. Doing so eliminates the
need to schedule power outages and costly overtime pay for work performed at
night or on weekends when most scheduled power outages are permitted to
occur.
This system has several benefits over cleaning methods currently in use.
The technology was demonstrated at Naval Station San Diego. A series of
seven tests were conducted on L.I. switches located throughout the Naval
Station, including some at active piers. All switches were energized at 13.8 kV
standard line voltage. The test results showed that the CO2 cleaning process
can be safely used to clean energized LI switches. The CO2 process is efficient
and does not cause any damage to the component parts. Furthermore, the
process is environmentally friendly, improves system reliability, and lowers
maintenance costs by reducing station power outages.
The benefits of the CO2 process are realized by having a LI switch maintenance
cleaning program that eliminates or minimizes the need for scheduled power
outages. The benefits of using the CO2 cleaning technology are summarized as:
Cost effective
Electrically safe and effective process
11-7-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
Improved power system reliability
Improved customer service by reducing power outages
Improved quality of life for Navy personnel
Eliminates the usage of hazardous material
During wet or highly humid days, the cleaning of high voltage electrical
equipment should not be attempted for either this technique or the current
technique. The reason is the tendency for a high voltage arc, often called
flashover or tracking or arc blast, to develop along contaminated or wet
surfaces.
Using a conservative estimate of savings of 1.5 man-hours per switch cleaned,
and one power outage avoided per year, the yearly savings would be about
$40K/yr. A simple pay back of the $125K capital cost of the equipment is
about 3 years. The cost for this treatment system must be determined on a site-
by-site basis. The capital cost does not include the Navy truck, about $30K if
one is not available.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
NSN
N/A
Unit Size
Cost
Approval
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Mr. Scott Mauro, Code 423 (Implementation)
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
1100 23rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4370
(805) 982-4889
DSN 551-4889
FAX (805) 982-4832
Email maurosm(5)nfesc.naw.mil
11-7-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Mr. Edward R. Durlak, Code 421 (Technical)
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
110023rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4370
(805)982-1341
DSN 551-1341
FAX (805) 982-4832
Email durlaker@nfesc.naw.mil
Vendors: CAE Alpheus Inc.
9119 Mlliken Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
(909) 481-6444 or (800) 257-4387
FAX (909) 481-9724
Email info(5)iceblasting.com
11-7-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
TRUE ZERO-DISCHARGE POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEMS
Revision: 6/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-16-99; Air Force: FA09; Army: N/A
Usage List: Navy: High; Air Force: High; Army: High; Marine Corps: High
Alternative for: Conventional Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Cadmium (CAS: 7440-43-9); Chromium (CAS: 7440-
47-3); Silver (CAS: 7440-22-4); Cyanide (CAS: 57-12-5)
Overview: In the spring of 1989, Beale AFB in California was issued a Cease and Desist
Order from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board
(CRWQCB) to halt all operations involving the discharge of photographic
chemical waste and wash waters into its photographic waste treatment facility.
At that time, up to 88,000 gallons of highly contaminated photographic waste
and wastewater was being routed to the base treatment facility daily. In order
to maintain the photo processing capability and to comply with the CRWQCB
requirements, a one of a kind, True Zero Discharge Pollution Control
System was designed which resulted in a total discontinuance of drainage to the
base waste treatment facility. The drains from the building were literally
cemented shut. The idea was not only intended to remove the Cease and
Desist Order, but also to cause the CRWQCB and EPA to lose interest in the
Beale AFB photo lab.
In order to design a True Zero Discharge Pollution Control System to include
the photo wash water, it was first necessary to reduce the high volume of wash
water being used in the process. This was accomplished by utilizing a
previously designed water conservation system (WCS) applied to all film
processing units. This WCS system reduced the wash water flow volume per
processing machine from 1,200 gallons per hour to 15 gallons per hour with no
adverse affects on the film process. The result was a total hazardous chemical
waste discharge from the lab of less than 2,000 gallons per day.
The pollution control system that was designed for the Beale AFB photo lab
consisted of vacuum evaporators, which separate the water from the chemical
waste. Within the vacuum evaporators, the chemical becomes a pumpable
sludge concentrate representing approximately 3% of the total original solution,
and the distillate (water) discharged from the evaporators represents
approximately 97% of the original solution. In the second step of the process,
the distillate is further refined through polishing. The water is processed through
reverse osmosis units, which remove organic and inorganic chemicals, and a
deionization system that completes the polishing process. The polished water,
11-8-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
which is ultra pure water, is recycled back into the lab for chemical mixing and
film wash water. In addition, pH control, carbon and paniculate filtration,
ozonation and nitrogen infusion, and electrolytic silver recovery are incorporated
within the system.
The Beale AFB pollution control system reduced the 88,000 gallon per day
hazardous waste stream from the photographic lab to the base photographic
waste treatment facility to approximately 22 gallons per day of concentrated
waste sludge which is collected and recycled by the Defense Reutilization and
Management Service (DRMS). The lab has used the recycled water
continuously for more than eight years. The California EPA has since then
rescinded the Cease and Desist Order and classified the lab as a recycling
process exempt from permitting. A benchmark now has been established for
the advancements and continuing improvements that the squadron is making
with its photographic chemical waste pollution control system. This system can
easily be applied to any facility where water-based chemistry is used.
According to the Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, The Beale AFB
Zero Discharge System is a very large system and would best be suited for
plating shops with large volumes of effluent wastewater.. The vacuum
distillation units delivered to NAS Oceana for their Imaging Center field testing
were much smaller and off-the shelf. The three units were a Brittel, a Noritsu
and a Calfran. Two of the units had a 50 gallons/day photo wastewater effluent
capacity and the other 12 gallons/day. Oceana personnel were very pleased
with their performance. NAS Oceana Imaging Center supports about 600
commands according to the P2 manager, and is the largest in the Navy. Their
focus now is to convert to digital as best and as fast as they can. Nevertheless,
their current chemical photographic processing load is not large enough to
sustain one 50 gal/day unit on a daily basis.
Compliance
Benefit: The "Zero Discharge" Pollution Control System allows the treatment facility to
eliminate the need for permitting under (40 CFR122). In addition, the facility
will drastically reduce its need for new industrial water since water is recycled
within the facility. The reuse of water will help meet the requirements under EO
12902 to implement water conservation projects.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
11-8-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety
and Health:
No materials compatibility issues were encountered.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate material safety data sheet (MSDS) prior to
implementing this technology.
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Recovers 100% of metals for recycling
Recovers 97% of water for reuse
Eliminates or reduces the generation of hazardous sludge at publicly owned
treatment works (POTW).
Eliminates waste and waste water discharges to domestic sewer plants or
publicly owned treatment works (POTW)
A reduction of 99% in water usage
Total reduction of waste products are possible for complete zero discharge
and sludge recovery
None identified
Economic
Analysis:
Houston Fearless 76, Inc. has completed five years of evaluation and testing of
Beale AFB Zero Discharge System. The capital cost associated with the
project design and construction totaled approximately $1.5 million, which
includes extensive research and development (R&D). The installation of a
similar system would be $600,000 to $800,000 dollars without the extensive
R&D. The three units installed at NAS Oceana now are in the $5K to $10K
range.
Assumptions:
Water Usage
The old method of processing used 87,000 gallons of potable water a day
or 15,840,000 gallons per year. At a cost of $1.65/1000 gallons or
$26,136.00 dollars per year.
The Zero Discharge System uses 2,000 gallons per year of make-up water
at a cost of $1.65/1000 gallons or a cost of $3.30 a year.
For Beale AFB, the Zero Discharge system results in annual savings of
$26,132.70 in water usage.
11-8-3
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Cost of Traditional Wastewater Treatment
Cost of the conventional wastewater treatment = $50/1000 gallons
Cost of the conventional treatment of chrome bearing waste = $950/1000
gallons
Cost of the conventional treatment of silver bearing waste = $ 100/1000
gallons
The old method processed 1,500,000 gallons per year of waste containing
silver, cadmium, and chrome. Since the Beale AFB wastewater treatment
plant was incapable of treating the waste to comply with the NEPDES
requirement, no cost comparison can be made.
Cost of Hazardous Waste (HW) Disposal
Conventional HW Disposal Cost: $ 1,000,000
New method of treating waste processed = 250,000 gallons per year
Waste sludge disposal = 7,5000 gallons
Total cost of treatment = $42,500.00
Cost of Zero discharge waste and waste water treatment = $170.00/1000
gallons
Item
Potable Make-up Water
Wastewater Treatment
HW Disposal
TOTAL COSTS
Conventional IWTP
$26,136.00
N/A
$1,000,000
$1,026,136
Zero Discharge
$3.30
N/A
$42,500.00
$42,503.30
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for Zero-Discharge IWTP: $983,632.70
Capital Cost for Equipment/Process: $1,500,000
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: 1.5 years
Houston Fearless 76, Inc., holds patents on the pollution control system
described above as well as a patent on a series of vacuum evaporators utilized
within the application.
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values. To
return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
11-8-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
None identified
Approving
Authority:
Points
of Contact:
Vendors:
Source:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Air Force:
Mr. Michael A. Freiberg
9th Intelligence Squadron
Unit Environmental Coordinator
58 lOCst Suite 300
Beale AFB, CA 95903
Phone: 530-634-3016
Fax: 530-634-4080
Michael .freiberg@beal. af.mi
Because wastewater treatment characteristics are so variable, the required
technologies for each application must be evaluated prior to implementation.
Houston Fearless 76, Inc.
Corporate Project Office
Mr. Bill Scholz
203 W.Artesia Blvd.
Compton, CA 90220-5550
Phone: 1-800-421-5000
Fax: 310-608-1556
bill@houstonfearless.com
Houston Fearless 76, Inc.
Project Office
Mr.Paul A. Lindke
P.O. Drawer 390
Marysville, CA 95901-0390
Phone: 530-788-0288
Fax: 530-788-0301
plindke@houstonfearless.com
Mr. Michael Freiberg, Beale Air Force Base, March, 1999.
11-8-5
-------
^j- ^^w r^i
**& L ซ T '
I^S/'^J*,. "-'*
:4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
DISINTEGRATORS FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF CLASSIFIED MATERIALS
Revision
Process Code:
Usage List:
Alternative for:
6/99
Navy and Marine Corps: SR-07-99; Air Force: SV03; Army: NA
Navy: Low; Air Force: Low; Army: Low; Marine Corps: Low
Incineration for the destruction of classified materials
Compliance Areas: Medium
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents:
None
Overview:
Compliance
Benefit:
Joint Service facilities have classified material that must be destroyed.
Disintegrators provide an alternative to incineration for the destruction of
classified materials. Disintegrators are able to handle the destruction of paper,
thick documents, videocassettes, microfilm or reels, CD-ROMs, microfiche,
and diskettes. Disintegrators are available with a capacity of 50 to over 7500
Ibs. per hour.
According to Security Engineered Machinery, a manufacturer of disintegrators
for the destruction of classified materials, disintegrators work in the following
way:
Waste material is fed into the machine through a safety feed hopper. The cutting
mechanism consists of 2 to 5 knives mounted on a steel rotor that pass 2
stationary bed knives (0.005 inch gap) at 500-600 RPM for up to 6,000 cuts
per minute.
Waste is cut until small enough to fall through a perforated steel screen beneath
the cutting rotor. The screens are interchangeable so that the degree of
destruction can be varied from 3/32 to 3 inches. Thick, tough materials such as
diskettes and CD-ROMs can be destroyed with less power and less chance of
jams due to the high mass of the rotor and thickness of the knives.
A vacuum or fan unit creates a constant cooling air flow, dissipates heat, and
draws the waste out of the cutting chamber eliminating the melting of plastic
materials. The same air flow automatically bags the waste or discharges it to a
collection bin or waste compactor.
Using a disintegrator for the destruction of classified materials instead of a
incinerator will decrease the amount of air emissions from a facility. The
decrease in air emissions will decrease a facility's likelihood to require an air
permit under Title V (40 CFR 70 and 71). Additionally, the facility may no
12-1-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
longer need to meet incinerator performance standards (i.e., particulate matter
and stack monitoring) such as those required under 40 CFR 60, subpart E.
Since an incinerator uses natural gas but a disintegrator does not, switching to a
disintegrator will decrease natural gas consumption therefore helping a facility
meet the requirements under EO 12902, Energy Efficiency and Water
Conservation at Federal Facilities.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
No materials compatibility issues were identified.
Cutting knives are sharp. Equipment should only be used and serviced by
trained staff. Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and
safety personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this
technology.
Stack emissions from incinerators are eliminated;
The need for air permits for the incinerators are eliminated;
Operating costs are reduced;
Toxic and complex environmental contaminants are not created during the
destruction of the materials;
On-site operation may reduce transportation and labor costs.
Some disintegrators may be too noisy and dusty for office use unless
they are installed in a noise and dust proof enclosure.
Peterson Air Force Base (AFB) in Colorado Springs, CO, analyzed the costs
associated with replacing incinerators with disintegrators for destroying
classified materials.
Assumptions:
Startup costs: Startup costs include the cost to buy 2 disintegrators, any
electrical modifications required for installation, and a 1-year
Labor costs: Disintegrators will be in operation 416 hours per year (1 day
per week for 8 hours, 52 weeks a year. The incinerators were in operation
12-1-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
20 hours per week (52 weeks per year) for a total of 1040. Labor cost is
$20/hour
Maintenance costs: Annual maintenance costs are assumed to be $1,600
per disintegrator. Maintenance and repair of the incinerators would no
longer be necessary. A review of work orders for the incinerators in 1996
revealed that the amount was $1,469.
Electricity costs: Annual electric costs are assumed to be similar to the
incinerators.
Natural gas consumption: Natural gas would no longer be needed for the
incinerators. Annual natural gas consumption of the incinerators (3,740 mcf)
is based on the rated capacities of the incinerators and the actual 1996
hours of operation. The cost of natural gas represents the 1996 average of
$2.80 per cubic foot (cf).
Classified materials costs: Certain levels of classified materials require 2
people to transport the classified material to the burn facility and to remain
there until the material is destroyed. It is assumed that transportation to and
from the burn facility and that the wait while the classified material is being
weighed and burned will take 1 1/2 hour per person. Labor rate is
$20/hour.
Administrative costs: It is estimated that the facility will save $3,000/year in
administrative costs by replacing the incinerators with disintegrators. This
reduction in administrative costs can be attributed to reduced paperwork,
record keeping, report preparation, and compliance certification costs.
Compliance monitoring and stack testing: Stack testing (required when
noncompliance with the opacity standard occurs on 2 separate days of any
calendar month) is estimated to be $19,123 (estimate provided by
Armstrong Laboratories from Brooks AFB). Replacing the incinerators with
disintegrators will eliminate this cost.
Air emissions fee: Air emissions fee, estimated to be $14.98 per ton of
criteria pollutants (carbon monoxide and paniculate matter were not billed
at this time), would be eliminated by replacing the incinerators with
disintegrators. The billable 1996 emissions fee for both incinerators at
Peterson AFB was $1.16.
12-1-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Cost Comparison for Incinerators vs. Disintegrators
for the Destruction of Classified Materials
Incinerator Disintegrator
Capital and Installation Not available $46,000
Costs:
Operational Costs:
Labor Costs: $20,800 $8,320
Maintenance Costs: $1,469 $3,200
Natural Gas Costs: $10,472 $0
Classified Materials Costs: $3,100 $0
Administrative Costs: $3,000 $0
Monitoring and Testing Costs: $19,123 $0
Fees: $1 $0
Total Costs: (not including $57,965 $11,520
capital and installation costs)
Total Income: $0 $0
Annual Benefit: -$57,965 -$11,520
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for Disintegrator System: $46,445
Capital Cost for Equipment/Process: $46,000
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: 1 year
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost
Disintegrator, SEM 7490-01-395-3146 Each $24,775
Model 22HDS
Disintegrator, SEM 7490-01-395-3141 Each $14,912
Model 15
12-1-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Approval
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Air Force:
Mr. Daniel Rodriguez
21 Space Wing
Chief, Environmental Quality
21CES/CEVQ
580 Goodfellow St.
Peterson AFB, CO 80914-2370
Voice: (719) 556-1459
DSN: 834-1458
Fax:(719)556-8078
E-mail: danrodri@spacecom. af.mil
Mr. Walter Roberts
21 Space Wing
Pollution Prevention Manager
21CES/CEVQ
580 Goodfellow St.
Peterson AFB, CO 80914-2370
Voice: (719) 556-1458
DSN: 834-1458
Fax:(719)556-8078
Email: warobert@spacecom.af.mil
Mr. Dave Kource
21 Space Wing
Air Quality Specialist
21CES/CEVQ
580 Goodfellow St.
Peterson AFB, CO 80914-2370
Voice: (719) 556-7328
DSN: 834-7328
Fax:(719)556-8078
Email: dkource@spacecom.af.mil
12-1-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Vendors:
Sources:
The following is a partial list of companies supplying disintegrators for the
destruction of classified materials. This is not meant to be a complete list, as
there may be other suppliers of this type of equipment.
Security Engineered Machinery
5 Walkup Drive
Westboro, MA01581
Phone: (800) 225-9293
Fax:(508) 366-6814
http://www. semshred.com
Whitaker Brothers Business Machines
12410 Washington Avenue
Rockville, MD
20852-1822
Phone: (301) 230-2800
Fax: (301)770-9217
http://www.whitakerbrothers.com
Vendor information from Security Engineered Machinery.
Case study information on the replacement of incinerators with disintegrators from
Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado Springs, CO.
12-1-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
REDUCTION OF FUGITIVE AIR EMISSIONS FOR CONVENTIONAL DRY
CLEANING FACILITIES
Revision 6/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-99-99; Air Force: PM-01, SV-05; Army: NA
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Air Force: Medium; Army: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium
Alternative for: Lack of a leak detection and solvent management program
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: perchloroethylene (CAS: 127-18-4)
Overview: Implementation of improved work practices, monitoring and record keeping,
and leak detection/repair program can reduce fugitive air emissions in dry
cleaning operations. Air emissions may result from fugitive leaks from piping,
gaskets and seatings, improperly maintained control technology, or from
residual vapors on clothes after they are released from dryers.
In September 1993, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.
EPA) promulgated national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
(NESHAP) for perchloroethylene (PCE) dry cleaning to control PCE air
emissions from dry cleaners. This NESFLAP requires dry cleaners to take
pollution prevention (P2) steps to limit PCE emissions from both existing and
new dry cleaning facilities.
Improved work practices: Once implemented, a number of work practices can
reduce PCE losses. These include:
Maintaining proper reclamation time to ensure that solvents are not lost
during aeration;
Weighing clothes to ensure that machines are not overloaded, which makes
proper drying times harder to predict;
Operating the equipment at the proper drying time to ensure that the least
amount of solvent remains in the clothing;
Monitoring the drying temperature to ensure that the maximum amount of
solvent is removed from the clothing;
Removing shoulder pads from garments whenever possible to limit the
amount of solvent absorbed into the clothing; and
Using log sheets to predict proper drying times by noting the trends in the
weight of the load, the type of clothing, and drying times.
12-2-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Monitoring: Refrigerated condensers, carbon adsorbers and other control
technology should be monitored to ensure operation in accordance with
manufacturers' instructions.
Record keeping: Records should be kept of solvent usage and purchases and
when leak inspections and repairs were performed. Increases in the monthly
amount of PCE used without corresponding increases in the number of loads
washed may indicate solvent losses.
Leak detection and repair program: According to one estimate1, up to 25
percent of solvent emissions can be attributed to equipment leaks. Dry cleaning
facilities should implement a leak detection and repair (LDAR) program to
check for leaks by sight (visual inspection to check for pools or droplets of
liquid), smell (odor of PCE), and touch (manual detection of gas flow over the
surface of the equipment or with the help of a halogenated hydrocarbon
detector). The Dry Cleaning NESHAP requires that the following components
be inspected at least every other week, although many dry cleaning operations
should conduct weekly inspections:
1. Hoses, pipe connections, fittings, couplings, and valves
2. Door gaskets and seatings
3. Filter gaskets and seatings
4. Pumps
5. Solvent tanks and containers
6. Water separators
7. Muck cookers
8. Stills
9. Exhaust dampers
10. Diverter valves
11. Cartridge filter housings
In addition, all leaks found should be repaired within 24 hours. A training
program to implement the LDAR program fully should include training on which
pieces of equipment to check and how to use leak detection equipment
properly.
Compliance
Benefit: The implementation of a program to reduce fugitive air emissions may help
facilities meet the NESHAP for perchloroethylene under 40 CFR 63, subpart
M. In addition, since the reduction of fugitive emissions will decrease the
Cleaning the Air on Clean Air: Strategies for PERC Dry Cleaners, The University of Tennessee, Center for Industrial
Services, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, p. 44.
12-2-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
amount of perchloroethylene used there is less of a chance that the facility would
meet any of the reporting thresholds for hazardous substances/chemicals under
SARA Title m (40 CFR 302, 370, 372; and EO 12856).
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
PCE or its vapors can decompose at high temperatures (above 700ฐC) to form
hydrogen chloride gas and traces of phosgene. Such conditions could occur in
the vicinity of open flames of steam boilers, open electric heaters, gas-fired
dryers, and gas-fired area heaters. Those gases can corrode heating elements or
other equipment parts used in dry cleaning operations and could damage
fabrics.
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Ventilation in dry cleaning area should conform with National Fire Prevention
Association (NFPA) Standard 32. Operators should have ready, access to
respiratory equipment approved by NIOSH/Mine Safety and Health
Administration for use with organic vapors and protective clothing (including
Viton gloves and apron) when changing filter cartridges and removing
residues. The permissible exposure limit (PEL) for PCE is 25 parts per million
(ppm) averaged over an 8-hour period, and short-term exposure limits (STEL)
are 100 ppm. Air-purifying respirators may be necessary in some instance to
ensure that worker exposure to PCE does not exceed the PEL or STEL.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.
Implementation of this P2 options can be accomplished with minimal
disruption of dry cleaning operations;
Implementation and operating costs are minimal;
Implementation of this P2 option will help the facility comply with the
requirements of the Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning NESHAP;
Reduced PCE losses will decrease the amount of new PCE to be
purchased; and
Worker exposure to PCE is reduced.
Operators must be trained in proper leak detection techniques and in
how to use leak detection equipment.
12-2-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Economic
Analysis: In their June 1996 P2 Plan, Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, NC, analyzed
the costs associated with implementing improved work practices and an LDAR
program at the base dry cleaning facility.
Assumptions:
Dry cleaning machines: Three dry-to-dry machines equipped with
condensers, vapor recovery systems, and other control technology with an
average load of 70 pounds of clothing per machine were used.
Air emissions: Air emissions from point sources (e.g., refrigerated
condenser vent and the water-cooled condenser vent in the distillation
column) were negligible compared to fugitive air emissions. Fugitive air
emissions (1994) were 20,100 pounds.
Air emissions reductions: Air emissions from equipment leaks, wet clothing,
and the refrigerated condenser can be reduced by at least 75 percent or
approximately 15,000 pounds per year.
Capital costs: Leak detection equipment had been purchased previously
and was already on hand.
Training: Three employees will be trained twice per year; each training
session will last 16 hours for a total of 96 hours per year; labor rates
Labor costs: Two hours of additional labor per week to implement
improved work practices; and 2 hours of additional labor per week to
implement the LDAR program.
Equipment repair costs: An average of 15 leaks per year will be detected
and repaired in-house; the average repair time for in-house leaks is 1 hour
and the part will cost $50; an average of 1 leak per year will be detected
and require the services of an outside contractor; and the average repair
time for contractor repairs is 3 hours (the part will cost $200, and the labor
rate is $40/hour).
Materials savings: Approximately 175 gallons of PCE were purchased in
1995; the cost of PCE (1995) is $4.99 per gallon; and materials savings
from PCE purchases should total 131 gallons (75 percent of 175 gallons)
per month.
12-2-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Cost Analysis for Implementing Improved Work
Practices and LDAR Program vs. Lack of Improved Work Practices and
LDAR Program
LDAR Program No LDAR Program
Capital and Installation $0 $0
Costs:
Operational Costs:
Training Costs: $1,920 $0
Labor Costs: $4,000 $0
Equipment Repair Costs: $1,370 $0
Material Costs: $2,620 $10,479
Total Costs: (not including $9,910 $ 10,479
capital and installation costs)
Total Income: $0 $0
Annual Benefit: -$9,910 -$10,479
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for LDAR Program: $569
Capital Cost for Equipment/Process: $0
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: Immediate
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost
None Identified
Approval
Authority: Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
12-2-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Points of
Contact:
Vendors:
Sources:
Marine Corps:
Ms. Cynthia Rester
Marine Corps Base (MCB) Camp Lejeune
Dry Cleaning Facility
Jacksonville, NC
EPA:
Ms. Cindy Stroup
U.S. EPA
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
Manager, Garment and Textile Care Program
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Voice: (202) 260-3 889
Fax:(202)260-0981
E-mail: stroup.cindy@epamail.epa.gov
URL: http ://www.epa.gov/dfe/
The following is a partial list of companies supplying dry cleaning equipment.
This is not meant to be a complete list, as there may be other suppliers of this
type of equipment.
Boggs and Company
Charlotte, NC
Phone: (800) 322-6699
Key Contact: Riley Kirk
American Dryer Corporation
88 Currant Road
Fall River, MA 02720
Phone: (508) 678-9000 Fax: (508) 678-9447
Key Contact: Edward O'Neill
Clearing the Air on Clean Air: Strategies for Perc Dry Cleaners, The University
Tennessee Center for Industrial Services, Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation.
EPA Office of Compliance Sector Notebook Project: Profile of the Dry Cleaning
Industry, EPA/310-R-95-001, September 1995.
Plain English Guide for Perc Dry Cleaners: A Step-By-Step Approach to Understanding
Federal Environmental Regulations, EPA 305-B-96-002, August 1996.
12-2-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
LOW-TEMPERATURE OXIDATIVE STERILIZATION METHODS FOR STERILIZING
MEDICAL DEVICES
Revision 6/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: MD-01-01; Air Force: MD01; Army: NA
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Air Force: Medium; Army: Medium; Marine Corps: Medium
Alternative for: Ethylene Oxide Sterilization
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Ethylene oxide (CAS: 75-21-8)
Overview: Low-temperature oxidative sterilization for medical devices and surgical
instruments is a safe alternative to ethylene oxide (EtO) sterilization. Two of
these low-temperature oxidative methods include hydrogen peroxide plasma
sterilization, developed by Advanced Sterilization Products (ASP) and
marketed under the trade name STERRAD, and peracetic acid gas/plasma
technology, developed by AbTox, Inc. and marketed under the tradename
PLAZLYTE.
Hydrogen peroxide plasma sterilization uses 1.8 milliliters of 58 percent
hydrogen peroxide that is vaporized in a sterilization chamber. The vapor is
converted into a plasma through the use of radio frequency (RF) energy.1 The
plasma consists of highly charged particles and free radicals to sterilize
instruments in about one hour without producing toxic residues or emissions.
The only byproducts of this method are water vapor and oxygen.
Peracetic acid gas/plasma technology provides a continuous infusion of
peracetic acid gas into the sterilization chamber, where the gas is subjected to
RF energy and converted to a plasma state.2
Hydrogen peroxide plasma sterilization and peracetic acid gas/plasma
sterilization will have the greatest impact in the smaller volume areas, such as in-
hospital sterilization. According to one study,3both methods are emerging
technologies and are unable to handle large-volume requirements; therefore,
they will ^ot greatly affect the industrial sterilization market in the next few
years.
'CDR T.C. Stewart, Head, Sterile Processing, National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, 20889-5000, "Sterilization Alternatives
to Ethylene Oxide."
2 Stewart.
Michael H. Scholia and Mary E. Wells, "Tracking Trends in Industrial Sterilization," Medical Device & Diagnostic industry,
September 1997.
12-3-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Compliance
Benefit:
Switching to hydrogen peroxide plasma sterilization should decrease the amount
of power consumed during the sterilization process. This will help facilities meet
the requirements under EO 12902, Energy Efficiency and Water Conservation
at Federal Facilities. In addition switching to an alternative sterilization
techniques (which does not use CFC-12) will help a facility meet the
requirements under 40 CFR 82, Subpart D and EO 12843 requiring federal
agencies to maximize the use of safe alternatives to class I and class U ozone
depleting substances, to the maximum extent practicable. Low-temperature
oxidative sterilization methods are currently not subject to the regulatory
reporting associated an emission standard. The United States Environmental
Protective Agency has a NESHAP under 40 CFR 63, Subpart O for ethylene
oxide emissions from sterilizers that use 1 ton or more of EtO per year but it
does not apply to hospitals or medical facilities.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety and
Health:
Certain materials (e.g., cellulose products, cotton, paper, towels, certain
packaging materials, muslin, dressings, and wadding) are not compatible with
hydrogen peroxide plasma units. For example, cellulosic materials will absorb
the sterilant, often leading to incomplete sterilization of the device4. Materials
incompatibility issues for peracetic acid plasma sterilization are unknown.
In hydrogen peroxide plasma sterilization, the hydrogen peroxide used in the
process is contained in cassettes or cartridges. At no time does the operator
come in contact with the chemical. Also, the process does not produce any
toxic residues or emissions. The only byproducts are water vapor and oxygen.
These new technologies eliminate the use of the EtO sterilization process. EtO
is highly explosive in nature, a known carcinogen/mutagen, and in the
sterilization process, must be mixed with a carrier agent such as
chlorofluorocarbon (CFQ-12 (Freonฎ), which is an ozone-depleting
substance (ODS).
Scholia and Wells.
12-3-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate material safety data sheet (MSDS) prior to
implementing these technologies.
A hydrogen peroxide plasma sterilization unit:
Consumes less power than traditional EtO sterilization units;
Requires no water, drainage, or venting;
Has shorter cycle times than traditional EtO sterilization units (74 minutes
vs. 12 hours);
Eliminates the use of EtO, a carcinogen/mutagen and highly explosive
chemical;
Has significantly lower annual operating costs than traditional EtO
sterilization units;
Eliminates the use of CFC-12, an ODS; and
Avoids costs and regulatory paperwork associated with the emissions
Peracetic acid plasma technology requires a cycle time of about three hours.
Hydrogen peroxide plasma sterilization units:
Are not compatible with cellulose products, cotton, paper, towels, certain
packaging materials, dressings, and wadding;
Are more expensive than EtO sterilization units ($100,000 vs. $40,000 for
an EtO sterilization unit with the same sterilization volume); and
Are unable to handle large-volume requirements (i.e., hydrogen peroxide
sterilization units can handle the sterilization of items up to about 18 inches;
however, larger hydrogen peroxide sterilization units that will be able to
meet industrial sterilization requirements are beginning to enter the market).
The following cost elements compare the hydrogen peroxide plasma unit to the
EtO sterilization unit.
Wilford Hall Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas, switched their EtO
sterilization unit to a hydrogen peroxide plasma unit in January 1998. A cost
analysis was performed in November 1995 by ASP, the vendor of the
STERRAD unit, and is summarized below.
Assumptions:
Sterilization unit: STERRAD1 M 100 Sterilizer
Sterilization volume: 14,976 cubic ft.
12-3-:
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Supplies: Pouches and wrap, biological indicators, chemical indicators, and
tape
Utilities: EtO sterilization (electricity, steam, and water), hydrogen
peroxide plasma sterilization (electricity)
EtO tanks: 104 tanks required per year
Hydrogen peroxide cassettes: $7.95 per cycle and 4680 cycles per year
Maintenance and service: Maintenance and service for the hydrogen
peroxide plasma units for the first year are included in the capital and
installation costs and will be $17,280 every year thereafter
Risk management cost: Includes insurance premium, potential employee
lawsuits, environmental lawsuits
Cost Comparison for
Ethylene Oxide Sterilization vs. Hydrogen Peroxide Plasma Sterilization
EtO Sterilization Hydrogen Peroxide
Plasma Sterilization
Capital and Installation $40,000 $100,000
Costs:
Sterilization unit cost, including
installation and initial supplies.
This cost also includes the 1st
year maintenance contract for
the STERRADunit only:
Operational Costs (1st year):
Supplies: $28,521 $28,040
Utilities: $6,627 $468
EtO tanks: $63,440 $0
Hydrogen peroxide cassettes: $0 $37,206
Maintenance, service: $16,000 $0
Training, protective attire: $2,000 $0
EtO recovery cost: $10,000 $0
Risk management cost: $5,000 $0
Total Costs: (not including $131,588 $65,714
capital and installation costs)
Total Income: $0 $0
Annual Benefit: -$131,588 -$65,714
12-3-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual savings for hydrogen peroxide plasma sterilization: $65,874
Capital Cost for Equipment/Process: $ 100,000
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: 1.5 years
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values. To
return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
STERRAD sterilizer
PLAZLYTE sterilizer
NSN
None identified
None identified
Unit Size
Cost
Approval
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Air Force:
Captain DeDecker
Wilford Hall Medical Center
San Antonio, Texas
Phone:(210)292-5675
Fax:(210)292-6781
E-mail: dedecker@whmc.lafb.af.mil
Navy:
Mr. Bill Rogers
Navy Environmental Health Center
BUMED Environmental Program Manager
2510 Walmer Avenue
Norfolk, Virginia 23513-2617
Phone: (757) 363-5546
DSN: 864-5546
Fax:(757)444-7261
E-mail: rogersw@nehc.med.naw.mil
12-3-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Vendors:
Sources:
The following is a partial list of companies supplying hydrogen peroxide plasma
sterilization equipment and peracetic acid gas/plasma equipment. This list is not
meant to be, other suppliers of this type of equipment may be available.
Advanced Sterilization Products
A Division of Johnson & Johnson Medical, Inc.
14 Rose Court
Atlanta, Georgia 30342
Phone: (800) 595-0200, Extension 7553
Key Contact: Mr. Stephen Cooper
AbTox, Inc.
104 Terrance Drive
Mundelein, Illinois 60060
Conversation with Mr. Bill Rogers, BUMED Environmental Program Manager, Navy
Environmental Health Center, March 6, 1998.
Conversation with Captain DeDecker, Wilford Hall Medical Center, March 5, 1998.
Sterilization Alternatives to Ethylene Oxide, CDR T.C. Stewart, Head, Sterile
Processing, National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland.
Tracking Trends in Industrial Sterilization, Michael H. Scholia and Mary E. Wells,
Medical Device & Diagnostic Industry, September 1997.
Vendor information from Advanced Sterilization Products (ASP), a division of Johnson
& Johnson and AbTox, Inc.
12-3-6
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
AIRCRAFT BEARING CLEANING USING AN IPA VAPOR DEGREASER
Revision
Process Code:
Usage List:
Alternative for:
10/98
Navy and Marine Corps: ID-02-09; Air Force: CL01; Army: CLD
Navy: High Air Force: N/A Army: NA Marine Corps: NA
cyclohexane vapor degreaser to replace chlorofluorocarbon (CFQ-12 vapor
degreaser
Compliance Areas: High
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Cyclohexane (CAS No 110-82-7)
Overview:
Compliance
Benefit:
Naval Aviation Depot, North Island (NADEP), in association with the Navy
Environmental Leadership Program (NELP) evaluated and implemented an
alternative cleaning system that meets established military cleaning requirements
to use while refurbishing aircraft bearings. The system uses isopropyl alcohol
(IPA)/cyclohexane vapor degreasing as an alternative to solvent cleaning.
Stoddard solvent (PD-680), 1,1,1-trichloroethane (1,1,1, TCA, Class I ozone-
depleting substance), and L&R-222 (Stoddard solvent and naphtha) are
typically used to clean aircraft bearings during refurbishment. The cleaning
process uses a cascading line of solvent immersion tanks to remove grease, oil,
and carbon from the bearings. Following the cleaning process, a thin, residual
solvent film remains on the bearings, which must be removed, according to the
drying standards, before refurbishing can continuing. Normally, the residual film
is removed using a Class I ozone-depleting substance (ODS, Freon
12) vapor degreaser.
CFC-
The IPA/cyclohexane vapor degreaser eliminates the use of ODSs. The system
uses IPA and cyclohexane as an alternative to the Stoddard solvent cleaning
system. The IPA/cyclohexane system is a self-contained immersion cleaner with
a wash sump, an ultrasonic rinse sump, and an offset boil sump. The cleaning
process involves immersing the bearings in a bath of IPA vapor. The vapor
condenses on the bearings and flushes the surface clean of contaminants. When
the bearing is withdrawn, cooling coils flush any residual IPA off the bearings.
Switching to the IPA system decreases the amount of hazardous waste
generated from aircraft bearing cleaning since there is no waste solvent
generated. The reduction of hazardous waste helps facilities meet the
requirements of waste reduction under RCRA, 40 CFR 262, Appendix, and
may also help facilities reduce their generator status and lessen the amount of
regulations (i.e., recordkeeping, reporting, inspections, transportation,
12-4-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
accumulation time, emergency prevention and preparedness, emergency
response) they are required to comply with under RCRA, 40 CFR 262.
Additionally, the IPA system uses less chemicals than the Freon system which
decreases a facility's chance of meeting reporting thresholds for hazardous
chemicals under SARA Title m (40 CFR 370 and EO 12856). Since ODSs,
such as TCA and CFC-12, are not used in the IPA system using this alternative
technology will also help facilities meet the requirements under 40 CFR 82,
Subpart D and EO 12843 requiring federal agencies to maximize the use of
safe alternatives to class I and class U ozone depleting substances, to the
maximum extent practicable. Furthermore, a facility would decrease the
likelihood that they would need to meet the NESHAP for halogenated solvent
cleaning (40 CFR 63, subpart 1) if it switches to an IPA system. The facility
may also decrease the likelihood to require an air permit under Title V (40 CFR
70 and 71) since there may be a decrease in VOC emissions.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
No materials compatibility issues were identified.
Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety
personnel, and the appropriate material safety data sheet (MSDS) for specific
precautions and proper procedures prior to implementing this technology.
Meets established drying standards and eliminates the use of a Class I
and Class II ODS;
Helps the Department of Defense (DOD) achieve ODS phase-out goals;
Reduces cost;
Reduces hazardous waste generation and overall air emissions;
Reduces operating labor; and
Reduces worker exposure potential to toxic fumes.
Requires large initial investment; and
Uses flammable solvents (IPA/cyclohexane).
The following cost elements compare replacing a CFC-12 vapor degreaser with
an IPA/cyclohexane vapor degreaser.
12-4-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Assumptions:
Capital and installation costs include cost for equipment purchase,
construction labor and materials, permits, and operator training.
Operational and maintenance (O&M) costs include the following:
Utilities and consumables including electricity, fuel, water, wastewater
treatment, compressed air, and solvents.
-Freon system uses 2,184 Ib./yr. of the Stoddard solvent
-IPA/cyclohexane system uses 313 Ib./yr. of virgin
IPA/cyclohexane
Waste disposal includes the following:
-Freon system: 4,118 Ib./yr. of chlorinated and non-chlorinated
solvent
-IPA/cyclohexane system: 245 Ib./yr. of oil and grease and
approximately four spent filters.
Labor and overhead include the following operating and maintenance
labor:
-Freon system: 12 hr./day for about $25 per hour
-IPA/cyclohexane: 1.33 hr./day for about $25 per hour
Maintenance parts and supplies include damaged parts and supplies
required during maintenance
Cost Comparison for
IPA Vapor Degreaser versus Freon Vapor Degreaser
IPA System Freon System
Capital and Installation $ 110,000 $0
Costs:
Operational Costs:
Utilities and Consumable: $2,938 $2,277
Waste Disposal: $255 $4,282
Labor and Overhead: $9,303 $81,432
Maintenance Parts & Supplies: $2,208 $200
Total Costs: (not including $14,704 $88,191
capital and installation costs)
Total Income: $0 $0
Annual Benefit: -$14,704 -$88,191
12-4-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for IP A System:
Capital Cost for Equipment/Process:
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process:
$73,487
$110,000
1.5 yrs.
Click Here to View an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the reverse arrow in the Tool Bar.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
A-Prime 2S Precision
Cleaning System
Portable Solvent Tank
CO2 Gas Cylinder
Chiller
NSN
None Identified
None Identified
None Identified
Unit Size
Cost
Approval
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Navy:
Mr. Ed Bonas
Navy Environmental Leadership Program
NAS North Island
San Diego, CA
Phone: (619) 545-3426
DSN: 735-3426
Vendors:
Sources:
This list is not meant to be complete, other suppliers of this type of equipment
may be available.
Forward Technology Inc.
Minneapolis, MN 55441
(800) 369-1489
Navy Environmental Leadership Program
12-4-4
-------
-------
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
SURFACE COATING TECHNOLOGY AIR EMISSIONS - OVERVIEW
Revision 6/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: ID-06-00; Air Force: PA01; Army: PNT
Usage List: Navy: High Air Force: High Army: High Marine Corps: High
Alternative for: Alternative to Conventional Coating Systems with High Emissions Contents
Compliance Areas: Low
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: Acetone (CAS: 67-64-1), n-Butanol (CAS: 71-36-3),
Chromium (CAS: 7440-47-3), Cyanides Compounds, Lead (CAS: 7439-92-1), Methyl Ethyl Ketone
(CAS: 78-93-3), Toluene (CAS: 108-88-3), Xylenes (CAS: 1330-20-7), and Zinc Compounds
Overview: The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(U.S. EPA) to establish standards that limit hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) and
volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from various sources. There are
188 CAA-regulated HAPs, which include many of the solvents commonly used
in surface coating. Many of these solvents are VOCs. The EPA is developing
new emissions standards for surface coating operations that are expected to be
promulgated by November 2000. The new emissions standards will cover
HAPs and VOCs emitted from surface coating sources, such as automobiles
and light-duty trucks, plastic parts, and miscellaneous metal parts.
These new standards will apply to facilities engaged in the surface coating of
synthetic polymer components; facilities engaged in the coating of a wide range
of metal products that vary in size, shape, application method, and use; and
vehicle assembly operations that apply primers, guide coat/primer surfacers, top
coats, and other related coatings. New surface coating technologies have lower
VOCs and HAPs contents than the conventional coating systems mostly
because of the reduced solvent concentration in the formulation. Six of the new
technologies are briefly described below, including reference to a Joint Service
Pollution Prevention Technical Library data sheet, if applicable.
Powder Coating:
Powder coating paint systems, also referred to as "dry painting," apply finely
ground thermosetting or thermoplastic powders, usually by electrostatic means,
followed by curing to melt and fuse the powder into a continuous coating.
Powder coating has no VOC content, and the HAPs content is considerably
reduced because of the minimal solvent in the coatings. The presence of HAPs
in the coating is dependent on the specific formulation of the coating.
See: Joint Service Pollution Prevention Technical Library Data sheet:
Section 4-5, Powder Coating Painting System.
12-5-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
High-Solids Coatings:
High solids coatings are one- or two-component systems based on acrylic,
alkyd, epoxy, polyester, or urethane resins and can be cured at ambient
temperatures or in high temperature bake ovens. High-solids coatings and
primers contain higher concentrations (40 to nearly 100 percent) of non-volatile
organics than conventional paints (which typically contain 8 to 30 percent
solids) because the high solids formulations use low-molecular weight resins and
require less solvent to attain the viscosity needed for the application. Depending
on the coating formulation, the VOC concentrations of high-solids coatings
typically range from 0 to 60 percent. HAPs from the application of high-solids
coatings tend to be less than with conventional coatings because of the reduced
solvent concentrations. Emissions of non-solvent HAPs, such as isocyanatyes
and chromates, are specific to the coating.
Waterborne Coatings
Waterborne paints differ from conventional coatings in that water is substituted
for certain organic solvents in the coating and is used as the dispersal medium
for synthetic resins and pigments in the coatings. These types of coatings may
still contain between 5 to 20 percent organic solvents for wetting, viscosity
control, and pigment dispersion. The organic solvents in the paint allow the
particles of resin to coalesce, as the water evaporates, to form a continuous
coating. The HAPs content tends to be lower because of the reduced solvent
concentrations. Concentrations of metals and other HAPs are specific to the
type of paint used.
See: Joint Service Pollution Prevention Technical Library Data sheet:
Section 4-7, Waterborne Paint.
UNICOAT
UNICOAT, originally developed at the Naval Warfare Center (NAWC)
Warminster, is a one coat priming system for aircraft that replaces the traditional
two coat primer and topcoat systems. UNICOAT is a polyurethane that
provides the adhesion and corrosion resistance of a primer and the chemical
resistance, durability, and flexibility of the original topcoat. It is lead-free,
chromate-free, and a blend of non-toxic, organic, and inorganic zinc
compounds; however these compounds do contain isocyanates, a HAP, which
may be released during mixing and spraying. UNICOAT complies with the
VOC levels of 420 grams per liter (g/L), thereby reducing VOC emissions and
hazardous waste generation by 50 to 70 percent.
See: Joint Service Pollution Prevention Technical Library Data sheet:
Section 4-6, UNICOAT Paint Technology.
12-5-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Radiation Curable Coatings
Radiation-Curable Coatings are especially formulated to cure quickly by
exposure to ultraviolet light (UV), electron beam (EB), infrared (IR), or
microwave radiation. Radiation-Curable Coatings have a higher solids content
and consist of a low-molecular weight olefm resin, a reactive solvent containing
unsaturated groups, and a photointiator. Radiation-Curable Coatings are usually
clear, but can be pigmented and tend to exhibit good resistance to abrasion,
heat staining, and weathering. VOC-compliant radiation curable coatings have
been developed with VOC contents as low as 360 g/L. The HAPs content of
these coatings is dependent on the composition of the specific coating, but
should be less than that found in conventional coatings.
Supercritical Carbon Dioxide (CCh) Spraying
Supercritical CO2 Spraying is a paint-spraying process that substitutes CO2,
above its critical temperature and pressure, for about 80 percent of the solvents
that are used in conventional coating formulations. Supercritical CO2 reduces
paint viscosity and produces a vigorous atomization and quality finish. VOC
content and emissions may be reduced up to 80 percent, and HAPs emissions
can be as much as 90 percent lower.
Compliance
Benefit:
Use of alternative surface coating technologies can help facilities comply with
EPA's NESHAP for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair - Shipbuilding and Ship
Repair (40 CFR 63, Subpart n) and for Aerospace Manufacturing and
Rework Facilities (40 CFR 63, Subpart GG). Additionally, these alternative
technologies may help facilities comply with the upcoming surface coating
regulations. For other specific compliance benefits see referenced Joint Service
Pollution Prevention Technical Library data sheets.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Materials compatibility depends on the alternative surface coating methods
implemented. Considerations can include (1) working on pieces that can be
oven-heated and (2) damages to the work pieces from alcohol, ketones, and
ethers. Testing will reveal damage. Consult the appropriate Joint Services
Pollution Prevention Technical Library data sheet or point of contact for more
information.
12-5-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
Economic
Analysis:
Using these new technologies may significantly reduce a health and safety issue.
Consult the material safety data sheets (MSDS) of the particular paint to ensure
proper use and that all necessary safety requirements (e.g., personal protective
equipment, increased ventilation, and fire fighting equipment) can be met.
Consult your local industrial health specialist and your local health and safety
personnel prior to implementing this technology.
Reduces the amounts of VOCs and HAPs emitted into the
environment and improves the ability of installations to comply with
EPA's potential emission standards for surface coating.
Whenever a new procedure is implemented, there will be a certain
amount of "down time" while the technicians leam the new process
and how to achieve the desired finish quality. However, this is to be
expected in any process improvement.
Cost will vary depending on the specific application or coating method used.
The economic feasibility of implementing an alternative technology should be
evaluated for each application prior to conversion. Consult the appropriate Joint
Service Pollution Prevention Technical Library data sheets or point of contact
for more information.
NSN/MSDS:
Product
None Identified
NSN
Unit Size
Cost
Approval
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Mr. Michael J. Docherty
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
1450 Scalp Avenue
Johnstown, PA 15904
Phone:(814)269-6462
Fax:(814)269-2798
docherty@ndcee. etc, com
12-5-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Navy:
Mr. Scott Mauro
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, ESC423
1100 23rd Avenue
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4370
Phone: (805) 982-4889
DSN: 551-4889
Fax: (805) 982-4832
Mr. Anthony Eng
Naval Air Warfare Center
Aircraft Division
Code 4.3.4.1, Mail Stop 3, Bldg. 2188
Patuxent River, MD 20670-5304
Phone: (301) 342-8067
Fax: (301) 342-8062
Air Force:
Staff Sergeant Benjamin Lee
92MS/LGMSME
201 West Arnold, Suite 101
FairchildAFB,WA99011
Phone:(509)247-3610
DSN: 657-3610
Vendors:
Sources:
This list is not meant complete, other suppliers of this type of equipment may be
available.
Cardinal Industrial Finishes
Powder Coating Division
901 Stimson Avenue
City of Industry, CA 91745
Phone:(818)336-3345
Fax:(818)336-0410
Air Quality Management Using Pollution Prevention: A Joint Service Approach, March
1998.
12-5-5
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
LOW NITROGEN OXIDES (NOx) BURNERS FOR REDUCTION OF NOx EMISSIONS
IN INDUSTRIAL BOILERS
Revision
Process Code:
Usage List:
Alternative for:
Compliance Areas:
6/99
Navy and Marine Corps: SR-10-03; Air Force: FA03; Army: NA
Navy: High; Air Force: High; Army: High; Marine Corps: High
Normal combustion practices
Medium
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: None
Overview:
Compliance
Benefit:
Low NOx burners (LNB) reduce the formation of NOx by staging the
combustion process by producing fuel rich and fuel lean zones within the flame.
The fuel rich zone is the primary combustion zone and prevents the formation of
thermal NOx (formation of NOx caused by high flame temperatures) as a result
of low oxygen concentration. The cooler fuel lean zone prevents thermal and
fuel NOx (formation of NOx resulting from the oxidation of fuel bound nitrogen).
LNBs can reduce NOx emissions by as much as 60 percent.
NOx represents nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). It is a pollutant
that causes many health problems, leads to the formation of ozone and smog, is
one of the causes of acid rain (nitric acid), and reduces visibility due to the
formation of aerosols. By replacing existing burners with burners designed to
reduce the formation of NOx, reductions in NOx emissions of between 20 and
60 percent can be achieved.
Department of Defense (DoD) installations have large numbers of small single
burner water and fire tube boilers. These units range in size from 0.4 million Btu
per hour (MMBtu/hr) to 250 MMBtu/hr, with the majority under 50
MMBtu/hr. Older units are generally exempt from emission control regulations.
Commercial off-the-shelf LNBs are available to control emissions produced in
these boilers, however they often require extensive retrofitting and the
installation of additional equipment and controls. They normally require very
little additional maintenance other than more frequent tip cleaning.
The use of LNB decreases the amount of NOX formation at the facility and
therefore may help facilities meet state RACT or BACT (40 CFR 52)
requirements. Additionally, this technology may help facilities meet standards of
performance for industrial-commercial-institutional steam generating units in 40
CFR 60, Subpart Db. A decrease in a facility's NOX emissions may decrease
12-6-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
the possibility that a facility will meet the NOX emission threshold for an air
permit under 40 CFR 70 and 71.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
No materials compatibility issues were identified. Any change in boiler
configuration or operation should be checked to ensure that no flame
impingement or other adverse change in operations occurs.
No significant changes in safety or health issues should result from the
installation and implementation of LNBs. Consult your local industrial health
specialist, your local health and safety personnel, and the appropriate material
safety data sheet (MSDS) prior to implementing this technology.
Effectively reduces NOx emissions to meet most Federal, state,
and local NOx emissions requirements and regulations;
Readily available from a large number of vendors;
Effectively controls thermal NOx.
On package water tube boilers, if the water tubes are run on all four
walls, the tubes may have to be bent to allow for the installation of a
LNB;
May require a small amount of flue gas recirculation (FGR) to meet RACT
(Reasonably Available Control Technology) or BACT (Best Available
Control Technology); and
Slight reduction of turn down ratio
Retrofit of LNB requires removal of the existing burner and installation of
the LNB.
Economic
Analysis:
Two 8.37 MM Btu/hr package boilers at Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS)
Miramar's Brig were retrofitted with dual fuel LNBs (natural gas and number 2
oil), flue gas recirculation, and other additional changes. The cost of retrofitting a
single boiler with a LNB was estimated at $24,000 (1992 dollars). No
operating or maintenance problems have been identified. Note that turndown
ratios are often lessened with LNBs. It is important to realize that each boiler
has its own unique operating characteristics. Boilers of the same size and same
equipment may have different operating requirements and combustion
12-6-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
properties, therefore, each boiler should be economically evaluated for LNB on
an individual basis.
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for Low - NOx Burners:
Capital Cost for Equipment/Process:
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process:
$0
$24,000
Does Not
Payback
NSN/MSDS:
Product
Low-NOx burner
NSN
None Identified
Unit Size
Cost
Approval
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Vendors:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Marine Corps:
Mr. Bob Humphrey
Marine Corps Air Station Miramar
Attn: NAVCOM BRIG Miramar
Facility Eng Code OTA
P.O. Box 452135 San Diego, CA 92145-2135
Phone: (619) 537-7079 DSN: (619) 577-7079
Fax:(619) 537-7173
E-mail: bHumphrevs@SD.NAVY.MIL
The following is a partial list of companies supplying flue gas recirculation
equipment for boilers. This list is not meant to be a complete, other suppliers of
this type of equipment may be available.
Coen Company, Inc.
1510 Tanforan Ave.
Woodland, CA 95776
Phone: (916) 661-2128 Fax: (916) 668-2171
Key Contact: Mr. Wayne Wieszczyk
12-6-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Tampella Power Corporation
2600 Reach Road
P.O. Box 3308
Williamsport, PA 17701-0308
Phone: (717) 326-3361 Fax: (717) 327-3121
Key Contact: Mr. Dick Sechrist
Sources: Evaluation of Air Pollution Control Technologies for Industrial Boilers, prepared by
HSC/YAL, December 1995. Steam: Its Generation and Use, The Babcock & Wilcox
Company, 40th edition, 1992. Vendor information from Coen, Inc., Combustion
Specialties, Inc., and Tampella Power Corporation. NOx Control Technology Data
Source Book, EPA-600/2-91-029, NTISPB91-217364. Evaluation and Costing of NOx
Controls for Existing Utility Boilers, EPA-453/2-92-010.
12-6-4
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
FLUE GAS RECIRCULATION FOR REDUCTION OF NITROGEN OXIDES
(NOx) EMISSIONS IN INDUSTRIAL BOILERS
Revision 6/99
Process Code: Navy and Marine Corps: SR-10-03; Air Force: FA03; Army: NA
Usage List: Navy: High; Air Force: High; Army: High; Marine Corps: High
Alternative for: Normal combustion practices
Compliance Areas: Medium
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents: None
Overview: Flue gas recirculation (FGR) significantly reduces nitrogen oxides (NOx)
emissions (up to 60 percent) in industrial boilers by recirculating a portion of the
boiler flue gas (up to 20 percent) into the main combustion chamber. This
process reduces the peak combustion temperature and lowers the percentage
of oxygen in the combustion air/flue gas mixture; thus retarding the formation of
NOx caused by high flame temperatures (thermal NOx).
Nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions are a significant pervasive pollutant that
causes a wide variety of diseases, contributes to ozone and smog formation,
causes 20 to 30 percent of acid rain, and is the basis for visibility problems
because of the formation of aerosols. Thermal NOx is produced from the
oxidation of nitrogen (TSfc) at temperatures above 1500ฐF. Thermal NOx is the
primary source of NOx formation from natural gas and distillate oils because
these fuels are generally lower or devoid of nitrogen. Fuel NOx, on the other
hand, results from oxidation of nitrogen organically bound in the fuel. Therefore,
FGR is not very effective on boilers which use fuels containing large amounts of
fuel bound nitrogen.
Department of Defense (DoD) installations have large numbers of single burner
water tube and fire tube package boilers that supply steam and hot water to the
installation. These boilers range in size from 0.4 million British thermal unit (Btu)
per hour (MMBtu/hr) to 250 MMBtu/hr. The majority of these boilers are old,
less than 50 MMBtu/hr, package boilers that lack any pollution control devices.
This equipment is the major source of nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions at most
military installations.
To modify an existing boiler, ducting must be run from the stack to the boiler air
supply fan. Space limitations can make routing new ductwork difficult and
costly. More powerful fans, oxygen monitors, and airflow controllers are usually
required.
12-7-1
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Compliance
Benefit:
The use of FOR decreases the amount of NOX formation at the facility and
therefore may help facilities meet state RACT or BACT (40 CFR 52)
requirements. Additionally, this technology may help facilities meet standards of
performance for industrial-commercial-institutional steam generating units in 40
CFR 60, Subpart Db. A decrease in a facility's NOX emissions may decrease
the possibility that a facility will meet the NOX emission threshold for an air
permit under 40 CFR 70 and 71.
The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as a general
guideline and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance
benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g. the amount of
workload involved.
Materials
Compatibility:
Safety and
Health:
Benefits:
Disadvantages:
FGR can almost always be used safely and effectively with existing burner
hardware. FGR works particularly well with boilers which use clean fuels (e.g..
natural gas, kerosene, distillate oils). Any change in boiler configuration or
operation should be checked to ensure that no flame impingement or other
adverse change in operation occurs.
No significant changes in safety or health issues should result from the
installation and implementation of FGR. Consult your local industrial health
specialist, your local health and safely personnel, and the appropriate material
safety data sheet (MSDS) prior to implementing this technology.
Typically costs less to implement than low NOx burners;
In most situations, would be sufficient to satisfy state NOx RACT
(Reasonably Available Control Technology) regulations or other NOx
emissions requirements;
Provides potential for emission reduction credits; and
Provides potential for increased boiler flexibility.
May cause space limitations for recirculation ducts, fans, and additional
air ports;
May require additional energy to run the recirculation fans;
Oxygen concentration must remain above 17 percent; and
Requires additional controls and instruments to control air flow over the
desired operating range.
12-7-2
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Economic
Analysis:
Two 8.37 MM Btu/hr package #2 oil fired boilers at Marine Corps Air Station
(MCAS) Miramar's Brig were retrofitted with a new FGR system and low-
NOx burners, resulting in average NOx emissions of 130 parts per million (ppm)
or 0.16 Ib/MMBtu at full load when burning #2 oil. No adverse combustion
conditions or boiler operating problems were encountered. However, the boiler
efficiency dropped from 92 percent to about 89.5 percent. The cost attributed
to retrofitting one boiler with ductwork, controls, and an uprated fan motor was
$20,000 (1992 dollars).
Each boiler has its own unique operating characteristics. Boilers of the same size
and same equipment may have different operating requirements and combustion
properties. Each boiler should be economically evaluated for FGR on an
individual basis.
The $20,000 cost included substantial effort on pre- and post-retrofit testing of
NOx emissions and combustion conditions and the purchase and installation of
oxygen (02) and carbon monoxide (CO) instrumentation. Additional operation
and maintenance (O&M) costs associated with the system are expected to be
minimal. The dampers and the ductwork provided should present no additional
operating costs and require only minimal maintenance. Any instrumentation and
controls supplied will require the usual periodic calibration and repair associated
with those devices. The annual operating cost for maintenance will probably
decreased because of the increased reliability of the new equipment. Fuel costs
increased due to the drop in efficiency by [((92-89.5)792) x fuel use of 159,350
gallons] or 4330 gallons or about $4,330.
Implementation of a FGR system is not likely to result in an economic benefit,
indeed it is typically very expensive. However, if regulations change or there is a
need to obtain NOx reductions, it is among the first alternatives that should be
considered as it is often cheaper than many other alternatives.
Economic Analysis Summary
Annual Savings for FGR System: -$4,330
Capital Cost for Equipment/Process: $20,000
Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: Does not payback
NSN/MSDS:
Product
FGR Equipment
NSN
None Identified
Unit Size
Cost
12-7-:
-------
JOINT SERVICE POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY DATA SHEET
Approval
Authority:
Points of
Contact:
Vendors:
Sources:
Approval is controlled locally and should be implemented only after engineering
approval has been granted. Major claimant approval is not required.
Marine Corps:
Mr. Bob Humphrey
Marine Corps Air Station Miramar
Attn: NAVCOM BRIG Miramar
Facility Eng Code OTA
P.O. Box 452135
San Diego, CA 92145-2135
Phone: (619) 537-7079
DSN: (619) 577-7079
Fax:(619) 537-7173
E-mail: bHumphrevs@SD.NAVY.MIL
The following is a partial list of companies supplying flue gas recirculation
equipment. This list is not meant to be a complete, other suppliers of this type of
equipment may exist.
Gordon-Piatt Energy Group, Inc.
P.O. Box 650
Winfield, Kansas 67156-0650
Phone:(316)221-4770
Fax:(316)221-6289
Key Contact: Mr. Dan Christenson
Energy Technology Consultants, Inc.
A Division of Woodward-Clyde Consultants
One Northwood Plaza
7600 West Tidwell, Suite 600
Houston, Texas 77040
Phone: (713) 690-0700
Fax: (713) 744-9053
Key Contact: Mr. Steve Wood
Bayard de Volo, Nick, Energy Technology Consultants, Inc., December 11, 1995
correspondence to John R. Guerra, Brooks Air Force Base, TX.
Evaluation of Air Pollution Control Technologies for Industrial Boilers, prepared by
HSC/YAL, December 1995.
Steam: Its Generation and Use, The Babcock & Wilcox Company, 40' edition, 1992.
NOx Control Technology Data Source Book, EPA-600/2-91-029, NTISPB91-217364.
Evaluation and Costing of NOx Controls for Existing Utility Boilers, EPA-45 3/2-92-010.
12-7-4
------- |