EPA/600/2-91/033
WASTE MINIMIZATION OPPORTUNITY ASSESSMENT
A TRUCK ASSEMBLY PLANT
by
Science Applications international Corporation
McLean. Virginia 22102
EPA Contract No. 68-CO-0061, WA 2-05
SAIC Project No. 1-832-03-200-33
Project Officer
Mary Ann Curran
Pollution Prevention Research Branch
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily
reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names
or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
Today's rapidly developing and changing technologies and industrial products and practices
frequently carry with them the increased generation of materials that, if improperly dealt with, can threaten
both public health and the environment. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress
with protecting the Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws,
the agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human
activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. These laws direct the EPA to perform
research to define our environmental problems, measure the impacts, and search for solutions.
The Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory is responsible for planning, implementing, and managing
research, development, and demonstration programs to provide an authoritative, defensible engineering
basis in support of the policies, programs, and regulations of the EPA with respect to drinking water,
wastewater, pesticides, toxic substances, solid and hazardous wastes, and Superfund-reiated activities. This
publication is one of the products of that research and provides a vital communication link between the
researcher and the user community.
The Waste Minimization Branch of the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory has instituted the
Waste Reduction Assessment Program to identify, evaluate and demonstrate waste minimization
opportunities in industrial and commercial operations. This report is a waste minimization assessment of
a truck assembly plant.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
This report summarizes work conducted at a truck assembly plant under the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) Waste Reduction Assessment Program (WRAP) Program. This project was
funded by EPA and conducted in cooperation with the truck assembly plant.
The purposes of the WRAP Program are to identify new technologies and techniques for reducing
wastes from industrial processes used by selected sites and to enhance the adoption of pollution
prevention/waste minimization through technology transfer. New techniques and technologies for reducing
waste generation are identified through waste minimization opportunity assessments and may be further
evaluated through joint research, development, and demonstration projects.
A waste minimization opportunity assessment was performed which identified areas for waste
reduction at a truck assembly plant. The study followed procedures in the EPA Waste Minimization
Opportunity Assessment Manual. Although the facility has made substantial progress to date, opportunities
were identified for further action. This report identifies potential options to achieve further waste minimization
progress.
A number of waste generating processes were initially screened. Detailed technical evaluations were
performed on wastes associated with degreasing of frame rails (chassis); spray painting; and phosphating
of miscellaneous parts (E-Coat). Options identified were as follows: Option 1 - Paint Solids Dewatering
and Water Recycle, Option 2 - Improve Transfer Efficiency, Option 3 - Procedural and Small-Equipment
Changes, Option 4 - Reduce Paint Mix Volume, Option 5 - Minimize Contamination of Degreasing Solvent,
Option 6 - Ion Exchange Recycle of Rinse Waters and Option 7 - E-Coat Line Bath Maintenance. All were
evaluated during the feasibility analysis phase except for Option 3. The study concludes that the best
options appear to be Option 4, Option 5, and Option 2.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Disclaimer ii
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
Tables vli
Figures vlil
Acknowledgements ix
1. Project Overview 1
Purpose 1
Procedures 1
Organization of Report 5
2. Site Description 6
General Description of the Truck Assembly Plant 6
Facilities and Operating Procedures 6
Management and Personnel 6
Production Processes 6
Degreasing of Frame Rails (Chassis) 6
Spray Painting 8
Phosphating of Miscellaneous Parts (E-Coat) 10
Waste Generation and Characterization 10
Degreasing of Frame Rails (Chassis) Wastes 10
Spray Painting Wastes 15
Phosphating of Miscellaneous Parts (E-Coat) Wastes 15
Waste Minimization 17
3. Summary of Assessment Phase 19
Waste Minimization Options 19
Option 1. Belt Filter 21
Option 2. Improved Transfer Efficiency 21
Option 3. Procedural and Small-Equipment Changes 21
Option 4. Paint Mix Volumes (OP-4) 22
Option 5. Solvent Segregation 23
Option 6. Ion Exchange with Recycle of Rinse Waters 23
Option 7. E-Coat Line Bath Maintenance 24
4. Feasibility Analysis Results 25
Summary of Feasibility Analysis Phase 25
Recommendations 25
(continued)
v
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Appendices
A. Planning and Organizational Phase - Worksheet 2 28
B. Assessment Phase - Worksheets 4 to 13 30
C. Feasibility Analysis Phase - Worksheets 14 to 17 91
vi
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 List of Waste Minimization Assessment Worksheets 3
2 Summary of Waste Generation and Disposal Costs at the Truck Assembly Plant 12
3 Process and Wastestream Codes 13
4 Waste Disposal Practices at the Facility for Selected Wastes 14
5 Wastes Generated in 1989 from Spray Painting, Degreasing, and
Phosphating Processes 18
6 Summary of Waste Minimization Assessment Phase 20
7 Summary of Waste Minimization Options 20
8 Summary of Waste Minimization Feasibility Analysis Phase 26
vii
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 The Waste Minimization Assessment Procedure 2
2 Work Row Diagram - Chassis Degreasing 7
3 Work Row Diagram - Spray Painting 9
4 Work Row Diagram - Phosphating (E-Coat) Operation 11
5 Wastestream Diagram of Phosphating (E-Coat) Operation 16
viii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We acknowledge Information provided to us by vendors of equipment and services, and the useful
project guidance and review comments of the EPA Project Officer, Mary Ann Curran. Review comments
were also provided by Lisa M. Brown and James S. Bridges of the EPA's Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.
This report was prepared for EPA's Pollution Prevention Research Branch by George Cushnie and
Susan Roman of Science Applications International Corporation for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Contract No. 68-C8-0061.
ix
-------
SECTION 1
PROJECT OVERVIEW
PURPOSE
The purpose of this project was to develop waste minimization (WM) plans for a truck assembly
facility using the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Waste Minimization Opportunity Assessment
Manual (625/7-88/003). This manual provides a systematic planned procedure for identifying ways to
reduce or eliminate waste.
PROCEDURES
The project was initiated with a survey of the facility. This survey was also used as a starting point
for applying the waste minimization assessment procedures. These procedures consist of four major steps
(Figure 1): 1) Planning and Organization - organization and goal setting; 2) Assessment - careful review
of a facility's operations and wastestreams and the identification and screening of potential options to
minimize waste; 3) Feasibility Analysis - evaluation of the technical and economic feasibility of the options
selected and subsequent ranking of options; and 4) Implementation - procurement, installation,
implementation, and evaluation. This project completed the first three steps of the procedures for various
manufacturing processes used at the facility.
The waste minimization opportunity assessment manual contains a set of 19 worksheets which are
designed to facilitate the WM assessment procedure. Table 1 lists the worksheets, according to the
particular phase of the program in which they are employed, and a brief description of the purpose of the
worksheets. A selected combination of Worksheets 1 through 16 were completed for the wastestreams
during this project and are contained in Appendices A, B and C.
The focus of the waste minimization procedures for this project was on spray painting, degreasing
and phosphating operations.
A waste minimization opportunity assessment was conducted at the truck assembly plant by an
assessment team composed of staff from the facility, EPA personnel, and EPA's contractor, Science
Applications International Corporation (SAIC). The assessment phase of the project was initiated with a
two-day survey conducted by engineers from SAIC. The survey focused on the collection of process and
waste data and the Identification of procedures for waste management. This time period was also used to
interview operators and to solicit waste minimization ideas through brain storming exercises. During the
survey, the assessment team completed many sections for Worksheets 2 through 11.
After completion of the survey, the SAIC team continued to collect data and information from the
facility through telephone contacts. This time period was also used to verify data and to resolve any
informational discrepancies. SAIC then completed the assessment and feasibility analysis phases of the WM
assessment (Worksheets 10 through 16).
1
-------
The recognized need to minknlze waste
PLANNING AND ORGANIZATION
• Get management commitment
• Set overall assessmen! program goals
. Organize assessment program task force
Assessment organization
and commitment to proceed* r
A8SES8MENT PHA8E
' Collect process and facility data
' Prioritize and select assessment targets
' Select people for assessment teams
' Review data and Inspect site
' Generate options
' Screen and select options for further study
Assessment report of
selected options
I
Select new
assessment targets
and reevaluate
previous options
FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS PHASE
• Technical evaluation
• Economic evaluation
• Select options for implementation
Final report Including
recommended options i
IMPLEMENTATION
Justify projects and obtain funding
Installation (equipment)
Implementation (procedure)
Evaiuata performance
Repeat the process
J
Successfully Implemented
waste minimization projects
Figure 1. The Waste Minimization Assessment Procedure
2
-------
TABLE 1. UST OF WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT WORKSHEETS
Phase
Number and Title
Purpose/Remarks
Step 1 -
Planning and Organization
(Section 2)
Step 2 -
Assessment Phase
co
1. Assessment Overview
2. Program Organization
3. Assessment Team Make-up
4. Site Description
5. Personnel
6. Process Information
7. Input Materials Summary
8. Products Summary
9. Individual Wastestream
Characterization
Summarizes the overall procedure.
Records key members in the WMA program task force
and the WM assessment teams. Also records the
relevant organization.
Lists names of assessment team members as well as
duties. Includes a list of potential departments
to consider when selecting the teams.
Lists background information about the facility,
including location, products and operations.
Records Information about the personnel who work in
the area to be assessed.
This is a checklist of useful process information to
look for before starting the assessment.
Records input material information for a specific
production or process area. This includes name,
supplier, hazardous component or properties, cost,
delivery and shelf-life information, and possible
substitutes.
Identifies hazardous components, production rate,
revenues, and other information about products.
Records source, hazard, generation rate, disposal
cost, and method of treatment or disposal for each
wastestream.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 1. (Continued)
Phase
Number and Title
Purpose/Remarks
Step 2 -
Assessment Phase
(continuod)
10. Wastestream Summary
Summarizes all of the information collected for each
wastestream. This sheet is also used to prioritize
wastestreams to assess.
11. Option Generation
Records options proposed during brainstorming or
nominal group technique sessions. Includes the
rationale for proposing each option.
12. Option Description
Describes and summarizes information about a
proposed option. Also notes approval of promising
options.
13. Options Evaluation by
Weighted Sum Method
Used for screening options using the weighted sum
method.
Step 3 -
Feasibility Analysis Phase
14. Technical Feasibility
Detailed checklist for performinga technical evaluation
of a WM option. This worksheet is divided into
sections for equipment-related options, personnel/
procedural-related options, and materials-related
options.
15. Cost Information
Detailed list of capital and operating cost Information
for use in the economic evaluation of an option.
16. Profitability Worksheet #1
Payback Period
Based on the capital and operating cost information
developedfrom Worksheet 15, this worksheet is used
to calculate the payback period.
17. Profitability Worksheet #2
Cash Flow for NPV and IRR
This worksheet is used to develop cash flows for
calculating net present value (NPV) or internal rate of
return (IRR).
Step 4 -
Implementation
18. Project Summary
Summarizes importanttasks to be performed during
the impiementationof an option. This includes
deliverable, responsible person, budget, and schedule.
19. Option Performance
Records material balance information for evaluating
the performance of an implementedoption.
-------
ORGANIZATION OF REPORT
This report contains four sections and three appendices. Section 1 provides an overview of the
project. Section 2 describes the processes surveyed during this project, and the waste management
procedures employed at the facility. Section 3 presents the results of the assessment phase, including the
selection of WM options. Section 4 contains the results of the feasibility analysis phase, including
recommendations. Appendices A, B, and C present the WM worksheets completed for the facility. The
planning and organizational worksheets (2 and 3) are contained in Appendix A. The worksheets applicable
to the assessment phase (4 through 13) are presented in Appendix B. The feasibility analysis worksheets
(14, 15 and 16) are contained in Appendix C.
5
-------
SECTION 2
SITE DESCRIPTION
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE TRUCK ASSEMBLY PLANT
This section contains a description of the site selected for this waste minimization project.
Facilities and Operating Procedures
The facility produces trucks and specializes in custom paint colors and designs. This facility
assembles five different models. The production processes are primarily related to assembly and painting
while the majority of the components of the vehicles are manufactured at other sites.
Production is done on one main assembly line which begins with the chassis (frame rails) and ends
with a ready-to-start truck. Associated assembly/finishing procedures such as cab painting, door assembly,
phosphating of small parts, etc., are done on small assembly lines which incorporate their finished work into
the main assembly line. The assembly line is continuously moving and a tight schedule is required to
produce the specified number of trucks in one 8-hour period.
Management and Personnel
The plant employs over 1,000 people. Production is primarily done on one shift.
PRODUCTION PROCESSES
The various manufacturing activities are located in a concentric manner around the main assembly
line. At the outer ring, raw materials are stored outside of the building near the basic fabrication processes
in which they are used. These processes in turn deliver parts to the assembly lines. The fabrication
processes include cab building, trimming and painting, chassis or frame production, machining, engine
preparation, and hydraulic/pneumatic line preparation (air piping). These lines feed the final assembly line.
The remainder of this section describes the production processes selected for this assessment.
Deoreasing of Frame Rails (Chassis)
The Chassis is degreased in a booth just prior to entering the chassis paint booth. Chlorinated
solvent is sprayed on using a hand held spray wand which enables workers to remove oil and grease from
hard to reach areas. Solvent is also wiped onto easily accessible portions of the chassis using rags dipped
into a bucket of solvent. The solvent along with the oil and grease drips off of the chassis or is blown off
and evaporates from the floor. The chassis then moves into the chassis paint booth. Figure 2 is a work
flow diagram of the degreasing operation.
6
-------
Tyiyw*ty7ff^wy^TT*t?t?7^,|Tpr'i*i,i **t-t—t—i -f »* »^<»twf«» r^i
•"•/•\Ax/»x/»xM»xM»xf»xf^xf*xf^x!»xf»xS»x*'xM^i'xtmxS^^f^,»x,*x,S,^f^f^xSS9^t^W^i^iSiSI^W»x!^fSt^»^'iS,S*S**S,Sf,^K^fS,S,S,^S:
'\*\'\*\''.*\*\*\'\*\'A*\t\'\'\r\.*\S't\.f\.f\.r\t\tKt\i\t\.*\t\t\t\.t\t\/\/\/l/llA/A/lfV^l/^/A7A/A/i/.l/A/l7l^^/t.^/^/^V^.^/l.••..
wAAAvyAA/^
mwntwuplf
MM
Chassis Exits
Degreasing Booth
ana I
Chassis Enters
Decreasing Booth
/>*>/y/y/y/y/y/>/
^ViAaVVvV\V<
S»$Mj
W/a7L\W'A
ttWA>,V.V&
w.vy/.v/.v;
««««
M/aVX/.V.
vr.v •./%>;
wv.v.y
Mil
'.V'A;.vAi\
WMmM
Enters
Paint Booth
MM
Chassis Is
Sprayed Wllh
Solvent
¦i
Chassis Is Wiped
wllh a Rag
Dipped In
Solvent
mm
Figure 2. Work Flow Diagram-Chassis Degreasing
-------
Prior to 1989, the solvent used in the degreasing operation was nonhazardous and no disposal
records were kept. Currently, the solvent used for chassis degreasing is formulated with 90 percent
1,1,1-trichloroethane and 10 percent methylene chloride. Early in 1989, the facility used 100 percent
1,1,1-trichloroethane. The switch in solvents was made for quality reasons.
Sorav Painting
The facility has paint booths dedicated to the painting of cabs, chassis', and for touch-up. The
touch-up booths were not included in this assessment. The other booths are semi-enclosed rooms with
downdraft water pit systems for capturing paint overspray.
The cab paint booths operate with painters working in each booth. Cabs are wheeled into the paint
booths on carts that are moved by the automatic mechanism in the floor. They are then painted with two
coats of paint. Cabs are automatically wheeled out of the booth and dried in a paint booth oven where the
temperature is controlled to protect the fiberglass and plastic.
The chassis paint booth operates with painters. The frame rails (chassis) are wheeled into the paint
booth. They are then painted on all sides. The chassis is then dried in a paint booth oven where the
temperature is controlled to protect the fiberglass and plastic.
Figure 3 is a work flow diagram of the spray painting process.
The facility converted from conventional solvent paints to high solid paints on all trucks in 1989. This
includes most primers and top coats for cabs and chassis paints. The decision to use high solids paints
was based on the need to meet standards for volatile organic carbon (VOC) air emissions. The present
permit limits the plant to 154 tons of VOC emissions per year.
Most of the paints used at this facility are solvent-based plural (two component) systems (an
exception is the interior cab booth which uses a non-solvent paint). Single component solvent paints cannot
be used on most of the truck assemblies because of the high usage of plastics and fiberglass in fabrication
of the parts (mainly cabs). The single component paints, which are used widely in the automotive industry,
require greater application temperatures which can damage the fiberglass and plastic parts.
The facility is in the process of converting from the "hot potting" method of component mixing (i.e.,
the two paint components are premixed in the spray painting pot) to use of equipment which allows the
catalyst component to be injected and mixed at the gun during application. Paints mixed with the hot
potting method have a pot life of approximately 3 hours at 72°F. With the catalyst injection system the
paints have an indefinite lifespan. The leftover paint can therefore be used at a later time for touchup work.
At present, the chassis booth and two cab booths are using the injection mixing.
All spray painting equipment used at the facility is the air assisted airless type. The guns in the
chassis booth have been converted to high volume-low pressure guns. They operate at approximately 11
psi. Locks have been placed on the air regulators to prevent operators from using a higher pressure. The
result of using lower pressures is a smaller quantity of paint overspray. The guns used in cab painting also
have been modified. The painting pressures were reduced from 60 psi to 40 psi by installing new air caps.
All paints are heated to reduce viscosity, which also allows for use of lower air pressures.
8
-------
CABS AND CHASSIS
SPRAY PAINTING
IMRON
POLYURETHANE
ENAMEL
OVEN
PAINTED CABS AND CHASSIS
Figure 3. Work Flow Diagram-Spray Painting
-------
Phosphatina of Miscellaneous Parts (E-Coati
An automated phosphating (conversion coating) process and electro-coat painting (E-Coat) is
employed for small and medium sized steel parts. This line consists of several processing and rinsing steps.
Parts are attached to an overhead conveyor belt with hooks. They are then positioned above the process
tanks by the operator who manually controls the movement of the conveyor belt. The tanks are then lifted
up to the parts to immerse them in solutions. The parts are immersed for several minutes and then the
tanks are lowered. Parts are allowed to drip over the tanks for several minutes and then are moved on to
the next process tank. After the last step (E-Coat) the conveyor moves the parts through a drying oven and
then returns the parts to the beginning of the line where the operator removes them and they are taken to
the assembly areas. Figure 4 is a work flow diagram of the phosphating process. Tank 1 is an initial
cleaning step which removes oil and grease and other surface contaminants from the parts. Cleaning
improves paint adhesion and corrosion protection. Tank 2 is a hot rinse. Tank 3 contains disodium
phosphate with titanium added as a surface activator. Tank 4 contains the zinc phosphating solution. A
fluoride based chemical is added to this solution to precipitate aluminum and prevent spoiling of the
phosphate bath. A pH adjustment chemical (phosphoric acid) is also added to tank 4. Tank 5 is an ambient
temperature rinse. Tank 6 is a nonchromium sealer. Tank 7 is a deionized water rinse. Tanks 8, 9, and 10
contain the E-coat solution.
WASTE GENERATION AND CHARACTERIZATION
The facility closely tracks the generation of wastes at its facility. Waste data for the years 1987 to
1989 are shown in Table 2. The facility has seen a significant decrease in the overall volume of waste
generated and the associated disposal and transportation costs. The purpose of this project was to develop
waste minimization options that can further reduce the volume of waste generated. This project has focused
on the wastes generated during spray painting, degreasing (chassis) and phosphating (E-Coat) operations.
Table 2 lists eight industrial wastes generated at the plant, five of which are hazardous by EPA
standards.
The production processes and wastestreams were coded during the project to provide a means of
identification throughout the WM assessment. Table 3 provides a description of the code system.
Processes are coded 01 through 03. Wastestreams are coded A through H. Process codes are combined
with waste codes to identify specific wastestreams. The wastes selected for this assessment are listed in
Table 4 and described in the following subsections.
Degreasing of Frame Rails (Chassis) Wastes
The chassis is degreased in a booth prior to entering the chassis paint booth. A chlorinated solvent
is used because of the immediate drying action and VOC emissions. The solvent is both sprayed and wiped
on the chassis. The waste generated during degreasing comes from the wiping process. The rags are
dipped into a bucket of solvent and used to wipe down the chassis. When not in use, the rags are left
soaking in the solvent, which becomes contaminated with oil and grease from the dirty rags and is dumped
into a drum to await disposal. The dirty rags are sent to an industrial laundry (Simco) and are reused at the
facility.
Eariy in 1989, 100 % 1,1,1-trichloroethane was used as the degreasing solvent. During the course
of 1989 a switch to 90 % 1,1,1-trichloroethane/ 10 % methylene chloride solvent was made for quality
reasons. The switch to a combined solvent has increased the disposal cost by a factor of four, while the
quantity of waste solvent generated has increased by a factor of 1.4.
10
-------
Parts are
removed to
assembly areas
OVERHEAD CONVEYOR SYSTEM
recycle line
Rinse
Cleaner
Sealer
Phosphate
Hot
Rinse
Rinse
Activator
Water
Paint
and
Paint
Paint
Tanks are lined
up to the parts
Misc. parts
are hung trom
overhead
conveyor belt
Figure 4. Work Flow Diagram-Phosphating (E-Coat) Operation
-------
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF WASTE GENERATION AND DISPOSAL COSTS
AT THE TRUCK ASSEMBLY PLANT
1987 1968 1989'
Trucks Built 5,845 7,721 8,630
Quantity of Industrial Waste Generated (lb)
Chassis Degreasing
Old Solvent (100% TCA)*
NA
NA
8,510
New Solvent (90% TCA)*
NA
NA
11,700
Spray Painting Wastes
Waste Paint and Still Bottoms*
162,793
173,496
224.360
Detackified Paint Sludge
1,348,725
972,260
523,100
Pretreatment Sludge*
91,440
77,640
96,440
Heavy Drums*
31,600
8,440
0
Undercoating*
NA
NA
3,775
Used Oil
24,920
29,450
37,635
Floor Dry 4 Pigs
NR
NR
8,620
Total
1,659,478
1,261,286
914.140
Normalized Quantity (lb/truck)
Chassis Degreasing
Old Solvent (100% TCA)*
NA
NA
1.0
New Solvent (90% TCA)"
NA
NA
1.4
Spray Painting Wastes
Waste Palnl and Still Bottoms*
27.9
22.5
26.0
Detackified Paint Sludge
230.7
125.9
60.6
Pretreatment Sludge*
15.6
10.1
11.2
Heavy Drums*
5.4
1.1
0.0
Undercoating*
NA
NA
0.4
Used Oil
4.3
3.8
4.4
Floor Dry & Pigs
NR
NR
1.0
Total
2B3.9
163.4
105.9
Disposal & Transportation Costs ($)
Chassis Degreasing
Old Solvent (100% TCA)*
NA
NA
$2,087
New Solvent (90% TCA)*
NA
NA
$8,644
Spray Painting Wastes
Waste Paint and Still Bottoms*
$81,103
$56,074
$14,552
Detackified Paint Sludge
$37,166
$28,219
$16,647
Pretreatment Sludge'
$11,279
$17,743
$12,338
Heavy Drums*
$50,513
$11,430
$0
Undercoating*
NA
NA
$2,879
Used Oil
$1,430
$1,106
$165
Floor Dry & Pigs
NR
NR
$8,644
Total Cost for Industrial Wastes
$181,491
$114,573
$60,688
Total Cost of Hazardous Waste Only
$142,895
$85,247
$40,501
Normalized Cost (J/truck)
Chassis Degreasing
Old Solvent (100% TCA)*
NA
NA
$0.24
New Solvent (90% TCA)"
NA
NA
$1.00
Spray Painting Wastes
Waste Paint and Still Bottoms*
$13.88
$7.25
$1.69
Detackified Paint Sludge
$6.36
$3.65
$1.93
Pretreatment Sludge'
$1.93
$2.30
$1.43
Heavy Drums*
$8.64
$1.48
$0.00
Undercoating*
NA
NA
$0.33
Used Oil
$0.24
$0.14
$0.02
Floor Dry 1 Pigs
NR
NR
$0.39
Total Cost of all Industrial Wastes
$31.05
$14.84
$7.03
Hazardous Waste Cost
$24.45
$1104
$4.69
* Hazardous Wastes By EPA Standards.
' 1989 data are estimated.
NA - Not Applicable
NR • Not Reported
12
-------
TABLE 3. PROCESS AND WASTESTREAM CODES
Process Process Code
Spray Painting 01
Degreasing 02
Phosphating (E-Coat) 03
Waste Type Waste Code
Waste Paint - Liquid A
Waste Paint - Solid B
Detacklfied Paint C
Paint Booth Water D
Degreasing Solvent E
Rinse Waters F
Spent Process Solutions (Cleaner, Activator and Sealer) G
Phosphate Bath and Tank Bottoms H
13
-------
TABLE 4. WASTE DISPOSAL PRACTICES AT THE FACILITY FOR SELECTED WASTES
Process
Wastestream (Code)
RCRA Regulatory
Classification
Disposal
Frequency
Disposal Practice
Spray Painting
Degreasing of
Frame Rails
(Chassis)
Phosphating of
Misc. Part (E-Coats)
Waste Paint - Liquid
(01-A)
Waste Paint - Solid
(01-B)
Detackified Paint
(01-C)
Paint Booth Water
(01-D)
Degreasing Solvent
(02-E)
Spent Process Solutions
(Cleaner, Activator &
Sealer) (03-G)
Rinse Waters
(03-F)
Phosphate Bath and
Tank Bottoms (03-H)
Flammable Waste UN 1993
F003/F005
Flammable Waste UN 1993
F003/F005
None
None
F001/F002/D006/D007
None
None
None
90 Days
90 Days
4 to 6 Weeks
Daily
90 Days
2 Weeks
Daily
Annually
Fuel Blending at Cement
Kiln Facility
Incineration at Commercial
TSDF
CommercialTSDF
Onsite Pretreatment;
POTW*
Fuel Blending at Ecolotec-
A Division of Stout
Environmental
Onsite Pretreatment;
POTW*
Onsite Pretreatment;
POTW*
Commercial TSDF-Tricil
Environmental
* Onsite pretreatmentproducesa sludge which is sent to a hazardous waste landfill. The treated water is discharged to a publicly
owned treatment works (POTW).
-------
Spray Painting Wastes
The two major spray painting processes Include the painting of cabs and frame rails (chassis). The
wastes generated during spray painting operations include: paint waste (liquid and solid), detackified paint,
and paint booth water. A description of each waste follows.
Paint wastes include: 1) unused spray paint (approximately one-third of total), and 2) still bottoms
from the distillation of cleanout solvent (approximately two-thirds of total). Paint is prepared daily in the
paint mix room, where colors are added, and then taken to the cab paint booths for use. Unused spray
paint is returned to the paint mix room and placed into drums to which 5 gal of ethyl alcohol was previously
added. The ethyl alcohol neutralizes the paint catalyst. The solution is constantly agitated to prevent
solidification of the paint solids. This material is shipped offsite to a fuel blending operation at a cost of $20
per drum. Previously, the unused spray paint was allowed to harden in the drum. This material was
incinerated at a cost of $450 per drum. This change in disposal practice is reflected in the annual costs of
disposal.
The still bottoms are generated from the operation of a recovery still. Wash solvent (Solvent 2506)
is used to clean out the paint guns and lines when switching from one paint color to another. The dirty
wash solvent is pumped to an onsite distillation unit to be distilled for reuse. Generally, 350 to 400 gal of
dirty solvent is distilled each day. This generates still bottoms at a rate of 1 to 2 drums per day. The
volume of waste solvent generated has decreased during the past several years. This is due primarily to
a change in the cleanout process. Previously the paint line was placed into the solvent container and
pumped through at 14 oz/min. With the new system, solvent is Introduced at 60 psi and air Is injected. The
air improves the efficiency of the cleanout process and reduces the volume of solvent required. From 1987
to 1989 the cost of disposal of paint wastes and still bottoms has decreased 82% (Table 2), although the
quantity of these wastes during that time period actually increased.
The detackified paint waste is the residual paint overspray which accumulates in the water reservoirs
of the downdraft water booths. The paint booths are equipped with water curtains to collect paint overspray.
Hydrocyclones are used at several of the booths to remove a portion of the paint solids each day. Each
hydrocyclone generates 1/4 to 1 drum of detackified paint waste (20% solids) each day. A portion of the
paint booth water (3,000 gal) is discharged daily to the onsite pretreatment system. Approximately every
4 to 6 weeks the detackified paint that has accumulated in the pits of each paint booth is pumped to a tank
truck. These cleanouts generate a relatively wet (10% solids) paint sludge.
The water in the paint booth reservoirs is treated chemically to cause the detacklfication of the paint
and to improve the operation of the system. The chemical treatment includes: 1) pH control (9.0 to 9.5),
2) addition of a cationic polymer and aluminum chloride to detackify the paint, 3) a foam controlling agent
containing mineral oil to prevent foam from reaching electrical connections at the system pumps, and 4) a
biocide to prevent the growth of bacteria which cause odors.
Phosphatina of Miscellaneous Parts (E-Coat) Wastes
The E-Coat process generates wastes in the form of spent process solutions, contaminated rinse
waters and tank bottoms. Figure 5 illustrates the wastestreams generated and their disposal frequency for
the E-Coat process.
15
-------
Discharged to
Pretrealment Room
daily (03-F)
Direction ot Work Flow
Betz HPC60
Betz HPC80
Betz Permatreat 400
Betz Permatreat 650
Dl Water
City Water
Betz Chem Seal 760
City Water
Betz
Actiprep 700
Betz Kleen 135
Betz Solv 101
/ \
recycle
line
Pumped to Tank Truck
once/year along with
tank bottoms from annual
clean-out (03-H)
Discharged to
Pretreatment Room
biweekly (03-G)
Hot
Rinse
Sealer
Rinse
Rinse
Phosphate
Cleaner
Activator
Water
Paint
and
Paint
Paint
Figure 5. Wastestream Diagram of Phosphating (E-Coat) Operation
-------
Contaminated rinse waters from tanks 2, 5, and 7 are discharged continuously during use to the
pretreatment unit. Spent process solutions (Cleaner, Activator and Sealer) are drained and discharged to
pretreatment every two weeks. Annually, ail of the tanks in the E-Coat line are cleaned. This is done by
pumping the tanks to temporary storage and removing the tank bottoms to a tank truck. The phosphate
bath is hauled away with the tank bottoms during the annual cleaning.
Pretreatment sludge is generated by operation of the wastewater treatment system which treats
wastewater from the paint booths and the phosphating/E-coat line. The system is a ferric chloride/caustic
soda flocculation/precipitation process. Sludge from the clarification step is dewatered on a filter press to
approximately 35% solids. The sludge (F019 RCRA waste) is sent to a hazardous waste landfill for disposal
in bulk shipments. The treatment system generates approximately 10 to 12 tons of sludge every 90 days.
WASTE MINIMIZATION
The processes selected for this assessment, along with their wastestreams are summarized in
Table 4. Current waste minimization techniques and waste disposal practices have enabled them to
decrease both the volume of wastes and costs of waste disposal (Table 2) for their facility. The present
methods of waste management used are presented in this section.
The quantities of wastes generated in 1989 for the spray painting, degreasing and phosphating
operations are listed in Table 5 along with their associated disposal costs. Where the facility was unable
to supply specific numbers, quantities were estimated on the basis of waste generation data collected during
this assessment. In general, this facility sends smaller quantities of hazardous waste off-site than many other
facilities with similar production levels. The waste disposal cost per truck produced in 1989 was
approximately $7.03 which is a significant reduction from the cost of $31.05 per truck in 1987.
This facility has made major strides in waste minimization over the past two years. These efforts
have focused on the following areas:
• Changes in paint formulation
• Changes in spray painting equipment
• Implementing operator controls and training
• Changing painting system cleanup procedures and equipment
• Adding dewatering units to spray paint booths
• Improving paint booth reservoir chemistry for detackifying overspray
• Reducing waste paint generation by minimizing the volumes mixed.
The next section of this report will focus on ways that waste generation can be further reduced.
17
-------
TABLE 5. WASTES GENERATED IN 1989 FROM SPRAY PAINTING, DEGREASING
AND PHOSPHATING PROCESSES
Wastestream
Stream
Code
Annual
Generation
Unit Cost
for Disposal
Disposal
Cost*
Waste Paint - Liquid
(includes still bottoms
from distillation unit)
01-A
213,142 lb
$.027/lb
$5,821
Waste Paint - Solid
01-B
11,218 lb
$.778
$8,731
Detackified Paint
01-C
523,000 lb
$.032/lb
$16,647
Paint Booth Water
Degreasing Solvent
Rinse Waters
Spent Process Solutions
(Cleaner, Activator
and Sealer)
01-D
02-E
03-F
03-G
780,000 gal
20,210 lb
510,000 gal
43,680 gal
$2.20/1,000 gal1"
$0.53/lb
$2.20/1,000 galf
$2.20/1,000 galf
$1,716
$10,731
$1,122
$96
Phosphate Bath and
Tank Bottoms
03-H
2,780 gal
$.24/gal
$667
Total Disposal Cost
for Selected Wastes
$45,531
* Disposal costs include, where applicable, the onsite chemical treatment costs,
transportation costs, and offsite treatment/disposal costs.
f These wastewaters are sent to the pretreatment system and then discharged to the
POTW. The pretreatment process also generates a sludge from the treatment of these
waters that is sent to a hazardous waste landfill.
18
-------
SECTION 3
SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT PHASE
The assessment phase of the waste minimization procedure includes data collection, selection of
target areas, data review, and options generation and screening. The applicable worksheets are 4 through
13 (Appendix B). Table 6 lists the 8 wastestreams that were included in this assessment. The volume,
characteristics, raw material costs and applicable waste minimization options are shown for each
wastestream. The waste minimization options were developed jointly by the assessment team.
The WM screening process consists of a relative comparison of WM options using standard criteria
presented in the WM Assessment Manual. This screening exercise is presented on Worksheet 13 and the
results are summarized on Table 7. The criteria Include various measures of waste minimization Impacts
relating to safety, cost, ease of implementation, and other relevant factors. Scores for individual WM options
are determined by multiplying a weight factor, W, (1 to 10) for each criteria by a score (1 to 10) or measure
(termed R-value) for how well each WM option satisfies each criteria (Score = RxW). Then, the scores for
each WM option are summed over all criteria to produce a single score for each WM option. As Indicated
in Table 7, the scores for the identified options range from 348 to 487.
The weighted values (W) for each criteria were based on the goals of the waste minimization
program. The measures for each option (R-value) were estimated by the assessment team. Where possible,
these estimates were quantified (e.g., costs) and converted to R-values. For other measures, which could
not be quantified, the R-values were estimated by the assessment team members through data review and
discussion.
The result of the assessment phase was the selection of seven waste minimization options for further
evaluation in the feasibility analysis phase (Section 4).
This section contains general descriptions of waste minimization technologies that are applicable
to most truck assembly facilities. It also contains a description of the specific waste minimization options
that were identified and evaluated during the assessment phase.
WASTE MINIMIZATION OPTIONS
The option generation step of the project (Worksheet 11) identified seven options that were
considered to be potentially applicable. Options 1 and 6 relate to the use of water conservation measures
with respect to paint booth water and rinse waters. Options 2 through 4 involve the reduction of waste paint
generation using specialized equipment and monitoring procedures. Option 5 involves the reduction of
waste solvent by avoiding contamination of fresh solvent. Option 7 involves the recycling of process
solutions. Each of the seven options is briefly described in this section.
19
-------
TABLE 6. SUMMARY OF WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT PHASE
Process/Wastestream Name/ID
Annual Waste
Quantity
Value of Input
Materials, $/yr.
WM Options
Spray Painting/Waste Paint - Liquid/01-A
213,142 lb
$929,360
2, 3,4
Spray Painting/Waste Paint - Solid/01 -B
12,280 lb
$58,897
2, 3, 4
Spray Painting/Detackified Paint/01-C
523,100 lb
$125,444
1. 2
Spray Painting/Paint Booth Water/01-D
780,000 gal
$939
1,2
Degreasing/Degreasing Solvent/02-E
20,210 lb
$12,116
5
Phosphating/Rinse Waters/03-F
510,000 gal
$614
6
Spent Process Solutions (Cleaner, Activator
and Sealer)/03-G
43,680 gal
$6383
7
Phosphating/Phosphate Bath and Tank
Bottoms/03-H
2,780 gal
$2,333
--
TABLE 7. SUMMARY OF WASTE MINIMIZATION OPTIONS
Waste Minimization Option
Waste Option
Applicable
Wastestreams
WM Option
Screening Score
Belt Filter
1
01 -C, 01-D
348
Transfer Efficiency
2
01-C, 01-D
423
Procedural/Small Equipment Changes
3
01-A, 01-B
377
Reduce Paint Mix Volumes
4
01-A, 01-B
462
Maintain Solvent Segregation
5
02-E
487
Ion Exchange/Recycle of Rinse Waters
6
03-F
387
E-Coat Line - Bath Maintenance
7
03-G
373
20
-------
Option 1 - Paint Solids Dewaterinq and Water Recycle
Detackified paint that has built-up In the paint booth reservoirs over a period of four to six weeks
is pumped directly to a tank truck and hauled to a disposal site. The detackified paint has a high water
content (up to 95%) which increases disposal costs that are based solely on volume. The dewatering of
this detackified paint can significantly reduce the cost of disposal by reducing the volume of waste sent to
disposal. Further, recycling of the booth water will reduce water usage and extend the period between
required draining and cleaning of the booths, thus reducing production downtime and booth chemical
usage.
The dewatering process can be accomplished with the use of a belt filter (see Appendix C for cost
information). The belt filter is an automatic gravity filtration system that typically uses a disposable fabric
as the filter media. The detackified paint will be pumped from the paint booth to the belt filter. The fabric
media filters out the paint solids and other debris while the water passing through is recycled to the paint
booth reservoir. The detackified paint is rolled off of the filter into a drum to await disposal.
Belt filters are available with different filter areas to obtain the desired flow rate. Fabric media is
chosen according to the type of filtration desired.
Option 2 - Improve Transfer Efficiency
Transfer efficiency refers to the percentage of paint that leaves the paint gun and is actually
deposited on the part's surface. A higher transfer efficiency means more paint is reaching the finished part.
Two types of spray painting equipment that have high transfer efficiencies are high volume-Jow pressure
(HVLP) (up to 90% efficiency) and electrostatic (up to 75% efficiency). The facility currently uses HVLP in
their chassis paint booth (11 psi) and have obtained a transfer efficiency of approximately 50%. The cab
painting equipment is air assisted airiess. Previously, it was operated at 60 psi. By modifying the air caps,
the facility has reduced operating pressure to 40 psi and have achieved improved transfer efficiency. It is
unclear whether further increases in efficiency are technically feasible for cab painting. It may, however, be
possible to further increase chassis painting efficiency by installing electrostatic spray painting. The facility
has done some preliminary tests at the plant with electrostatic spray painting and achieved positive results.
This change was therefore evaluated under this option. An improved transfer efficiency would decrease raw
material costs, decrease the volume of paint solids resulting from overspray, decrease paint booth
maintenance, and reduce VOC emissions.
Option 3 - Procedural and Small-Equipment Changes
The facility is currently investigating a variety of procedural and smali-equipment changes which will
improve their waste minimization efforts for the spray painting operations. The following is a discussion of
each change.
Shipping Unused Paint With the Finished Truck-
Small volumes (<1 gal) of unused paint are generated from the cab painting operation. Many of
the cabs are custom painted and the unused paint is usually not immediately reusable and therefore is
discarded. This change involves packaging the unused paint in a suitable container and shipping it with the
truck for later use by the customer for needed touch-ups. Before implementation, regulatory constraints
governing this option will be evaluated.
21
-------
Adjusting the Production Schedules to Reduce Color Changes-
After painting each truck cab, the painting system must be cleaned out unless the same color is
used for the subsequent truck. At present, some consideration is given to the painting sequence when the
overall production schedule is developed. However, some improvement is still possible. This change
involves giving greater consideration to the painting sequence. This change is considered valid since the
waste generation rate from painting is so closely tied to the number of clean-outs. Further, this is the only
process whose waste generation rate is related to the production sequence.
Installation of Control and Monitoring Devices and Alarms on Painting Systems-
The transfer efficiencies of the spray painting operations are operator dependent and are partly
related to the air pressures used. High pressures generally reduce the transfer efficiency and therefore
increase waste generation. Operators of spray painting equipment often use higher than necessary air
pressures because the higher pressures reduce painting time. This change involves the use of: 1) controls
on the painting system to reduce the maximum air pressure level, 2) digital displays of the air pressure being
used which are visible by the foremen, and 3) high pressure alarms. These equipment changes will provide
greater control over the painting operation.
Another device that could be used is a microprocessor control for paint flow. These devices closely
control the flow rate of paint and can be expected to increase transfer efficiency.
One alternative to these changes is the use of robot painting systems. Such systems are used
extensively by automobile manufacturers. However, their application is questionable because of the lower
production rale and the wide range of cab designs. Also robot systems are relatively expensive and their
use cannot be economically Justified by the savings from potential waste generation.
Painting Details Over Background Colors-
Many of the trucks produced are custom painted. The painting designs often include details such
as stripes. Currently, when stripes are ordered, the cab is entirely painted with the color of the stripe. The
stripe Is then masked and the cab Is repainted with the general or "background" color. This procedure
is used because it requires less masking, which is labor intensive.
Changing this procedure by reversing the sequence would significantly reduce the volume of paint
sprayed and therefore the waste produced by overspray. The higher masking costs may be justified when
considering both the raw material costs for paint and the disposal costs for related wastes.
Option 4 - Reduce Paint Mix Volume
Paints for cab painting are custom mixed using an automated device in the paint mix room and
given to the painters prior to the painting of each cab. The volume of paint mixed is recorded in a computer
data base by the operator in the paint mix room. The volume of paint mixed depends on: 1) the truck
models which vary in painted area, and 2) the type of paint, since coverage varies between paints. After
painting Is completed, the painters return the unused paint to the mix room where it is discharged into
drums. The unused volume is recorded in the data base. A review of the data base indicates that the
average unused portion of paint can be reduced.
Option 4 involves more extensive use of the painting data base to reduce paint mix volumes and
resultant waste paint volumes. This can be accomplished by using the computer software to generate
statistical analyses of paint mix and waste volumes for different truck models and paint types.
Implementation of this option is expected to reduce raw material costs (paint) and waste disposal
costs (unused paint).
22
-------
Option 5 - Minimize Contamination of Decreasing Solvent
This option involves a minor equipment and a procedural change to prevent the contamination of
solvent during the wiping process used to degrease frame rails (chassis). Currently, operators use solvent
soaked rags which are rinsed and stored in the solvent container (bucket). When the solvent in the bucket
becomes overly contaminated with oil, grease, and dirt, it is discarded into a drum to await disposal.
To reduce the volume of solvent discarded, the solvent bucket should be eliminated. The bucket
should be replaced with a container that delivers a volume of solvent by hand pumping and has a secure
lid to prevent the operators from rinsing rags in the fresh solvent. Once used, the rags should be wrung-out
over a waste solvent container and fresh solvent would then be pumped onto the rag.
This option may require that the rags are changed more frequently, because the rinsing step
currently used would no longer be available. These rags are currently recycled through an industrial laundry,
and therefore additional wastes are not expected from this practice.
Option 6 - Ion Exchange with Recycle of Rinse Waters
The zinc phosphate/E-Coat line consists of several processing and rinsing steps. There are three
rinse tanks: one hot rinse, one ambient temperature rinse, and one distilled water (Dl water) rinse. The
rinse tanks are fed on a continuous basis and discharged to a sewer line that conveys the wastewater to
the pretreatment system. At the pretreatment system, the wastewater is combined with paint booth water
and is chemically treated. The resultant sludge is considered a listed hazardous waste (F019 - waste water
treatment sludge from chemical conversion coating) by the State regulatory agency. Spent chemicals from
the phosphate line are also discharged to the pretreatment system, with the exception of the phosphate
solution which is hauled to disposal.
This option involves the use of an ion exchange (anion and cation columns) recycle system. The
rinse waters discharged to the sewer would be treated by the system and recycled to the phosphating line
on a continuous basis.
The system would reduce water use by recycling. The system may also reduce the volume of
sludge generated by the pretreatment system. The pretreatment process currently includes the use of ferric
chloride in the flocculation/precipitation system. Ferric chloride is occasionally used in systems where metal
complexes are present as a result of phosphating chemicals. It is also applicable to oily wastes such as
those discharged from paint booth reservoirs. Use of the ferric chloride results in high sludge volumes since
the iron is precipitated as hydroxide. The ion exchange system may reduce the use of ferric chloride by
1) breaking the phosphate complex and 2) by reducing the hydraulic loading of the pretreatment system.
The heavy metals, such as zinc, will be retained on the cation column and the anions such as phosphate,
will be retained on the anion column. The regenerant from the cation column will contain regulated metals
and would require pretreatment before discharge. The regenerant from the anion column may not contain
any regulated pollutants and it may be possible to discharge it following simple neutralization, thus
eliminating it from the treatment process.
Prior to implementing this option, the facility should conduct treatability tests to select the optimal
ion exchange resins and to determine its impact on the ferric chloride requirements.
23
-------
Option 7 - E-Coat Line Bath Maintenance
The process solutions contained in tanks 1 (cleaner), 3 (surface activator), and 6 (non-chromium
sealer) are discarded approximately every two weeks and reformulated with fresh chemicals. The discarded
solutions are drained to the treatment system. Concentrated wastewaters such as these can be expected
to require a significant volume of chemical reagents for treatment and result in high sludge volumes. This
option involves the use of filtration devices to remove undissolved contaminants and maintain the solution
in working condition for an extended time period.
24
-------
SECTION 4
FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS RESULTS
SUMMARY OF FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS PHASE
The purpose of the feasibility analysis phase is to prepare a technical and economic evaluation of
the WM options and to select options for implementation.
The technical feasibility evaluation initially determines the nature of the WM options, either
equipment-related, personnel/procedure-related, or materials-related. For each of the three types of WM
options, specific information and data are required. For equipment-related options, the information
requirements relate to the state of the technology, availability of equipment, performance specifications,
testing, space and utilities, production effects, and training. For personnel/ procedure-related options the
required information relates to training and operating instruction changes. For materials-related options, the
required information relates to production impacts, storage and handling, training and testing.
The WM options evaluated during this project include five equipment-related options, one
personnel/procedure-related option, and one materials-related option. The technical evaluation for each
option is detailed on Worksheet 14.
The economic feasibility evaluation includes a cost analysis of both capital and operating costs.
Capital costs include equipment, materials, utility connections, site preparation, installation, engineering,
start-up, and training.
The operating costs include increases and decreases (cost savings) of utilities, disposal fees, raw
materials, labor, and revenues from recovered products. Insurance and liabilities costs were not included
in the operating cost calculation, since these costs were undetermined during the project. Also, onsite
handling costs which are usually very significant were not included. Therefore, the projected savings that
were calculated during this project, understate the actual potential savings.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The technical and economic results of the feasibility analysis phase are summarized in Table 8. This
table indicates for each option, the total capital investment, the net operating cost savings and the payback
period (total capital investment/net operating cost savings).
To further evaluate the relative benefits of each option, the options have been ranked (1 for the best
to 7 for the worst) with respect to the net operating cost savings and the payback period. These rankings
were then summed for each option and compared among all options and a final ranking was determined
(1 for the best to 7 for the worst). These comparisons are shown in the final column in Table 8. Using these
two criteria heavily weights the evaluation in terms of annual cost savings since both criteria contain annual
costs factors. Other techniques for comparing options may also be valid. Worksheet 17 (Appendix C) is
an alternative method, which calculates profitability based on cash flow.
25
-------
TABLE 8. SUMMARY OF WASTE MINIMIZATION FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS PHASE
Net Op.
Waste
Capital
Cost
Payback
Rank Low
Minimization
Invest-
Savings
Period
to High
Process & Wastestream
Option
Nature of WM Option
ment ($)
(S/y)
(yr)
(1-6)
Spray painting:
Waste paint (01-A, 01-B)
2
Improve transfer efficiency
27,456
152,698
0.2
2
3
Procedural/small-equip.
Unk.*
Unk.*
Unk.*
NA
4
Reduce paint mix volumes
2,725
26,315
0.1
1
Detackified paint (01-C)
1
Paint solids dewatering
11,151
14,998
0.7
4
2
Improve transfer efficiency
—
Paint booth water (01-D)
1
Paint solids dewatering
—
2
Improve transfer efficiency
—
—
—
—
Degreasing of frame rails
(Chassis):
Degreasing solvent (02E)
5
Minimizesolvent
contamination
466
17,219
<0.1
2
Phosphating of misc. parts
(E-Coat)
Rinse waters (03F)
6
Ion exchange recycle
45,500
19,311
2.4
4
Spent process solutions
7
Bath maintenance
13,200
3,332
4.0
6
(cleaner, activator and
sealer)(03-G)
* The investment and projected savings for the procedural/small-equipment changes (Option 3) were not determined during the feasibility analysis phase. However, the
majority of minimization techniques which make up this option are expected to be Implemented by the facility.
-------
The relative comparison used in this study indicates that the best options appear to be: Option
4-reducing paint mix volumes through closer control, Option 5-minimizing solvent contamination by using
a different working container and procedures and Option 2-improving transfer efficiency by installing
electrostatic painting in the chassis booth. Two options ranked with moderately good scores: Option
1-dewatering paint solids and recycling the booth waters and chemicals and Option 6-using ion exchange
to recycle the phosphate/E-coat rinse waters. Option 7-bath maintenance on the phosphate/E-coat line
ranked last; however, it is still within a reasonable range. Option 3-procedural and small equipment changes
for painting was not evaluated during the feasibility analysis phase because the costs and savings could not
be projected at this time. The Option 3 waste minimization techniques however appear to be technically
and economically viable.
Some testing is needed before implementation of several of the options. For Option 1, testing
should focus on determining if recycle can significantly reduce booth chemical use. A conservative
assumption was made during the analysis that a 10% reduction is possible. For Option 2, the facility should
contact electrostatic paint equipment suppliers and request an on-site demonstration. For Option 6, bench
scale testing and possibly pilot scale testing is needed to determine the most suitable ion exchange resins.
Testing is also needed to evaluate the impact of recycle on the current pretreatment process since a
significant portion of the savings projected for this option relate to a reduction of treatment reagent use and
sludge generation. Bath maintenance (Option 7) can be evaluated using simple cartridge filtration devices
to remove solids from one of the process tanks (e.g., tank 1).
27
-------
Appendix A
Planning and Organizational Phase
Worksheet 2
28
-------
FIRM
SAIC
WASTE P1IKIHIIATI0N ASSESSMENT
PREPARED QY
S. Roman
SITE
PROC. UNIT/OPER.
CHECKED BY
5. Cushnle
DATE-INITIAL
02/09/90
DATE-REVISED
04/16/90
PRDJ. NO.
I-832-0J-942-02
SHEET 1 OF 1 | , P^E,
WORKSHEET
2
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION
EPA
FUNCTION
NAME
LOCATION
TELEPHONE
Program Monofler
Mary Ann Curran
tPA/ORD, Cincinnati, OH
(513) 569-7B37
SIla Coordinator
Ass»s«m»nt Taam
George Cushnfe
SAIC, ricLean, VA
(703) 734-4397
29
-------
Appendix B
Assessment Phas
Worksheets 4 to
30
-------
FIRM
SAIC
WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED BV
S. Roman
SITE
PRQC. UNIT/OPER.
Spren Palntlnq
CHECKED DV
G Cuehms
DATE-INITIAL
01/03/90
DATE-REVISED
04/I7/9C
PROJ. ND.
1-632-03-942-02
SHEET 1 OF 1 1 PAGE
1 1 DF 3
WORKSHEET
4
SITE DESCRIPTION
v^EPA
Firm:
Plant: Assembly Plant
Deportment: Production
Areo: Paint
Street Address:
Citu:
Stole/Zip
Telsphone:
liolor Prpducts:
Trucks
SIC CodBS:
3713
EPA Generator Number:
Major Unit or:
Product or:
OperotlonB:
Sorau Painting of trvck cabs and frame rails
Personnel,
Cab Painting
frame Rail (Chassis) Painting
flaus/week
Facilities/Equipment Age:
Spray painting booths: 16 years
hMdrocuclonas 1 uear (ftudrocuclones are In use on two of the paint booths)
31
-------
FIRM
SA1C
WA5TE niNimZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED BY
S. Roman
SITE
PROC. UNIT/OPER.
E-C0Bt
CHECKED BY
G. CushnU
DATE-INITIAL
01/03/90
DATE-REVISED
04/17/90
PROJ. NO.
1-932-03-942-02
SHEET 1 OF 1 | 2 P*GfE 3
WORKSHEET
4
SITE DESCRIPTION
<*EPA
Firm:
Plant: Assembly Plant
Department: Fabrication
Area: Fabrication
Street Address:
CI tu
State/Zip
Telephone:
flalor Products:
Trucks
SIC Codes:
3713
EPA Generator Number:
Major Unit or:
Product or:
Operations:
Automated phosnhatlng process and electro-coat for small and medium sized truck parts
Personnel:
daus/week:
Facilities/Equipment Ape:
- coat process tanks; 16 uears
32
-------
FIRM
SAIC
WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED BY
S Roman
SITE
PROC. UNIT/OPER.
Degreeslng of FromB Rolls (Chassis)
CHECKED BY
g. cutnmt
DATE-INITIAL
01/03/90
DATE-REVISED
04/17/90
PROJ. NO.
)-B32-03-9'52-02
SHEET1DP1 |3
WORKSHEET
4
SITE DESCRIPTION
®EPA
Firm:
Plant: Asssmbly Plant
Deportment; Production
Area: Paint
Street Address:
City:
State/Zip
Telephone:
rial or Products:
Trucks
SIC Codes:
3713
EPA Generator Number:
Major Unit or:
Product or:
Operations:
Depressing nf frame rails (chasls)
Personnel:
daus/waak
Facilities/Equipment Ape:
Deoraaslno booth. 16 pears
33
-------
?irm
SA1C
WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED BY
S- Ronar
SITE
CHECKED BY
5 Cusrn'e
DATE-INITIAL
C2/09/90
DATE-REVISED
03/09/90
PROJ. NO.
1 -832-03-942-02
SHEET 1 OF 1 | P^Eg
WORKSHEET
7
INPUT MATERIALS
SUMMARY
&EPA
Attribute
Description (I)
Stream No.
Stream No.
Stream No.
F03"l Cc^fc'
1 Name/ID
Betz Dctac 021
Betz Detac 942
Betz Foam Tro! 2544
2 Source/Supplier
Betz letchem
Betz Mctcnem
Betz Metchem
3
N/A
N7A
N/A
4
N/A
N/A
N/A
5
N/A
N/A
N/A
6 Component/Attribute of Concern
PotMsiur". hya-wuaf/soaiir-
Aijmri-jn CllerhydroxiOt
Mineral Oil
7 Annual Consumption Rate
N/A
N/A
N/A
8 Overall
19,425 *
47.160 -
7,600 *
9 ComponenUs) of Concern
N/A
N/A
N/A
10
N/A
N/A
N/A
' 1 Purchase Price, S ner
J 46/"
$ 1.32/*
$1.14/*
' 20veral1 Annual Cost
18.936.00
$62,251. OC
$8,664.00
13
N/A
N/A
N/A
1 ^Delivery Mode (2)
Shuttle Tark
Shuttle Tank
Truck
'3Ship. Container Size & Type (3)
Tank
Tank
55 gal arum
1 6Storage node (4)
Outdoor
Outdoor
Warehcus
1 ^Transfer Mode (5)
Pump
Pu*np
Ton-leader
,aEmpty Container Dlsp./Mangt. (6)
Return to supplier
Return to supplier
Sold for reuse
l9Sheir Lire
6 months
6 months
6 montns
20Suppl1er Would :
N/A
N/A
N/A
21 Accecpt Expired Material (Y/N)
Y
Y
Y
22 Accept Shipping Containers (Y/N)
Y
Y
N
23 Revise Expiration Date (Y/N)
Y
Y
Y
24Acceptabie Substitute(s), if any
N/A
N/A
N/A
25Alternate Suppller(s)
N/A
N/A
N/A
1. Stream numbers should correspond to those used on process Dow diagrams.
2. e.g., pipeline, tank car, lOObbl. tank truck, truck, etc.
3. e.g., 55 aal. drum, 100 10. paper baa, tank, etc.
1 e.g., outdoor, warehouse, underground, aboveground, etc.
5. e.g., pump, rorkllft, pneumatic transport, conveyor, etc.
6 e.g., crush and landfill, clean and recycle, return to supplier, etc.
34
-------
FIRM
SAIC
WASTE hlNimZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED BY
S. Roman
SITE
CHECKED BY
G Cushrtu
DATE-INITIAL
02/09/90
DATE-REVISED
04/23/90
PROJ. NO.
1-832-03-942-02
SHEET 1 OF 1 |2 P^Eg
WORKSHEET
7
INPUT MATERIALS
SUMMARY
SVEPA
Attribute
Dsscrlotlon (1)
Stream No.
Stream No.
Stream No.
' Nome/ID
BBtz Sllmlclfle C-31
(mron polgcritrtin* Ensmtl
Solvent 2506
2 Source/Supplier
Betz Metchem
£ i du Pont u h»riW(i & Co
One)
Chemcantral
3
N/A
N/A
N/A
4
N/A
N/A
N/A
5
443
N/A
N/A
6 Component/Attribute or Concern
Oooseyt0iM*,!0in«
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Teiuitflt'Aettoftf/Ncmn
ACfUtl/!*ODrWy! e'sohol
7 Annual Consumption Rate
N/A
N/A
N/A
8 Overall
160 "
42.000 gal.
73,709 gal.
9 ComponBnt(e) or Concern
N/A
N/A
N/A
10
N/A
N/A
N/A
1 1 Purchase Price, $ osr
$6.60/*
$40/gal
$1.61/gel
l20verell Annual Cost
J 1,056 00
$1,680,000
$36,254
13
N/A
N/A
N/A
' ^Delivery Mods (2)
Truck
Truck
Tank Truck
1 5Shlp. Container Size & Type (3)
5 gal. poll
55 e«l flrvmt. 5 Q«i l |s'
Ctrl
N/A
' 6Storage Mods (4)
Warehouse
Warehouse
ADDvi-grojnd itorec* tank
l7Trensrer Mode (5)
Hand carried
By hand or ton-loader
Pump
,eEmptu Contslnsr Dlsp./ManQt. (6)
Crush end landrill
Sold forrMMi w cruin* Landfill
Recycle
1 9Sheir Lira
6 months
6 months
N/A
205uppl1er Would;
N/A
N/A
N/A
21 Accicpt Expired Material (V/N)
V
N/A
N/A
22 Accept Shipping Containers (V/N)
N
N
N/A
23 Revise Expiration Date (V/N>
V
N/A
N/A
¦^Acceptable Substttute(s), If enu
N/A
N/A
N/A
25Altsrnats Suppller(s)
N/A
N/A
N/A
1. Stream numbers should correspond to those used on process flow diagrams.
2. e.g., pipeline, tank car, 10Obbl. tank truck, truck,
3. s.q.. 55 aal. drum. 100 lb. paper baa. tank. etc.
4. e.g., outdoor, warehouse, underground, eboveground,
5. e.g., pump, forkflft, pneumatic transport, conveyor,
6. e.g.. crush and landfill, clean and recycle, return to supplier.
35
-------
FIRM
SAIC
WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED BY
S. Romen
SITE
CHICKED B¥
G Cuihnlt
DATE-INITIAL
02/09/90
DATE-REVISED
04/23/90
PRQJ. NO.
1-B32-03-B42-02
8H EFT 1 OF 1 |3
V^EPA
Attribute
Deecrlptlan CI J
Straam No.
Straam No.
Straam No.
' Name/ID
City watir
2 Source/Supplier
3
N/A
4
N/A
5
N/A
6 CBmponant/AttrlbuU of Cancim
pH 10
7 Annual Contumplton Rata
120,000 gal./mont
8 Overall
1,440,000 gal.
9 Component(a) of Concern
N/A
10
N/A
' Ipurchaaa Prtca. t oar
190/100 ftJ
120vera11 Annual Coat
SI, 730.00
13
N/A
I^OaHveni Modi (2)
Flpalln#
' Ssiilp. Container stza & Tgpa (3)
N/A
• 'storage node £4)
N/A
17Tranafar fioda (S)
Flpalina
'•Empty Contalnar Dlep./Mengl. (B)
N/A
"Shelf life
N/A
20Supptler Would:
N/A
21 Aeceept EKptrad notarial (V/N)
N/A
22 Accept BFlipping Contalnara
N/A
24Aeceptabta Eubetttuta(i). If anu
N/A
25Allamata GuppllaKe)
N/A
1. Stream numbare should correspond to thoee used on procid flow dtsgramt.
2. a.g.. pipeline, tank car. lOObbl. tank truck, truck,
3. a.a.. 55 obI, drum. 100 lb. naoer ban. tank. ate.
4. a.Q., outdoor, warehouee, underground, aboveground,
5. a.g.. pump, forkUft, pneumatic transport, conveyor,
fi. a.g., cruah and landfill, clean and recycle, raturn to aupplfar.
f INPUT MATERiALS
SUMMARY
36
-------
-IRC,
5A1C
WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED BY
S. Soman
SITE
CHECKED BY
G CvjSMit
DATE-INITIAL
02/09/90
DATE-REVISED
03/09/90
PROJ. NO.
t-832-03-9^2-02
SHEET 1 OF 1 \A
&EPA
Attribute
Description (1)
Stream No.
Clfjrpi-
Streati No.
Clpznp-
Stream No.
1 Name/ID
Betz kleen 128
Betz solv. - 101
Betz HPC BC
2 Source/Supplier
Bet; letcnem
BetZ Metchem
Betz Mctchcm
3
N/A
N/A
N/A
4
N/A
N/A
N/A
5
N/A
N/A
N/A
6 Component/Attribute of Concern
So31jt car&onatr lefasod'um
pyroriCSOtllP
4Mto*yiaif3 fi'.fy
aicortoi/r.on-ion-c
Ammonium fluoride
7 Annual Consumption Rate
N/A
N/A
N/A
8 Overall
1,340 *
920 *
490 *
9 Component(s) of Concern
N/A
N/A
N/A
10
N/A
N/A
N/A
1 1 Purchase Prlr.e, t per
SI.19/*
SI.51/*
S2.64/*
1 20verall Annual Cost
SI,595.00
S 1.389.00
Si.294.00
13
N/A
N/A
N/A
' ^Delivery node (2)
Truck
Truck
'ruck
,5ShlD. Container Size & Type (3)
Fiber conta'per
55 qa'. arum
55 qal. Crum
1 ^Storage Mode (4)
Incoor
Indoor
Indoor
'^Transfer Mode (5)
By hand
Purri)
PiffTip
,aEmpty Container Dlsp./Mangt. (6)
Crush ana lancfil!
Sold for reuse
5o!C for reuse
l9Shelf Life
6 months
6 months
6 months
20Suppller Would :
N/A
N/A
N/A
2 ' Accecst Expired Material (Y/N)
Y
Y
Y
22 Accept Shipping Containers (Y/N)
N
N
N
23 Revise Expiration Date (Y/N)
Y
Y
Y
24Acceptable Substitute(s), if any
N/A
N/A
N/A
25Alternate Sgppller(s)
N/A
N/A
N/A
1. Stream numbers should correspond to those used on process flow diagrams.
2 e.g., pipeline, tank car, lOObbl. tank truck, truck, etc.
3. e.g., 55 gal. drum. 100 lb. paper baa. tank, etc.
4. e.g., outdoor, warehouse, underground, aboveground, etc.
5. e.g., pump, forkllft, pneumatic transport, conveyor, etc.
6. e.g., crush and landfill, clean and recycle, return to supplier, etc.
tNPUT MATERIALS
SUMMARY
37
-------
FIRM
3AIC
WASTE niNir.lZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED BY
S. Reman
SITE
CHECKED BY
G CuSlfVf
DATE-INITIAL
02/09/SC
DATE-REVISED
03/09/90
PROJ. NO.
1 -632-C3-942-C2
SHEET 1 OF 1 |5
&EPA
Attribute
Description (1)
Stream No.
7inr
Stream No.
Stream No.
rca'lin
1 Name/ID
Betz pcrnrat-cat 4CC
Betz HPC 60
Betz criemseal 760
2 Source/Supplier
Betz rietcherr
Betz letchem
Betz retchenr
3
N/A
N/A
N/A
4
N/A
N/A
N/A
5
N/A
N/A
N/A
6 Component/Attribute or Concern
snospno'ic acia
Scaur fyC-ox.Ce
proiD'cri:
3cic/-?nof'na'Cimmf
7 Annua; Consumption Rate
N/A
N/A
n/a
® Overall
625 *
0 *
1,440 *
9 Component(s) of Concern
N/A
N/A
N/A
10
N/A
N/A
N/A
1 1 Purchase Price, 1 Der
$1.12/*
$.60/'
J 1.15/*
120verail Annual Cost
$700.00
$0.00
$1,656.00
13
N/A
N/A
N/A
1 ^Delivery node (2)
Truck
Truck
Truck
,5Ship. Container Size & Type (3)
55 gal. Orurr,
55 qal arum
55 qa' arunr
'6Storage node (4)
Inaccr
InCoor
Ir.aoor
1 7Transfer Mode (5)
Pump
Pump
Pump
'®Empty Container Disp./Mangt. (6)
Sold for reuse
Sole for reuse
Sold for reuse
,9Shelf Lite
6 months
6 months
6 rrortns
20Suppller Would :
N/A
N/A
N/A
21 Accecpt Expired Material (Y/NJ
Y
V
Y
22 Accept Shipping Containers (Y/N)
N
N
N
23 Revise Expiration Date (Y/N)
Y
Y
Y
^Acceptable Substitute(s). if any
N/A
N/A
N/A
25Alternate 5uppl1er(s)
N/A
N/A
N/A
1. Stream numbers should correspond to those used on process flow diagrams.
2. e.g., pipeline, tank car, lOObbl. tank truck, truck, etc.
3. e.g., 55 qal. drum. 100 lb. paper baa, tank, etc.
4. e.g., outdoor, warehouse, underground, aboveground, etc.
5. e.g., pump, forkllft, pneumatic transport, conveyor, etc.
6. e.g., crush and landfill, clean and recycle, return to supplier, etc.
INPUT MATERIALS
V SUMMARY
38
-------
FIRM
SAIC
WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED BY
5 Reman
SITE
CHECKED BY
0 Cvsnnie
DATE-INITIAL
02/09/90
DATE-REVI5ED
03/09/90
PROJ. NC.
r-032-O3-942-C2
SHEET 1 OF 1 |6 P^Eg
WORKSHEET
7
INPUT MATERIALS
. SUMMARY
&EPA
Attribute
Description (1)
Stream No.
Stream No.
aeiastr^r.?
Stream No.
Csrrc«ic^ 'rhinites
1 Name/ID
Betz Actlprec 700
Betz HPC 18
Betz Permatreat 650
2 Source/Supplier
Betz Metchem
Betz "letchem
Betz Metcherrv
3
N/A
N/A
N/A
4
N/A
N/A
N/A
5
N/A
N/A
N/A
6 Component/Attribute of Concern
Discdtum orosphate
Phosphoric ac:c
SoCIuti Nitrite
7 Annual Consumption Rate
\/A
N/A
N/A
8 Overall
500 *
360 '
565 *
^ Component(s) or Concern
N/A
N/A
N/A
10
N/A
N/A
N/A
1 1 Purchase Price, t aer
$3 38/-
SI.13/'
$.60/*
12 Overall Annual Cost
$1,690 CO
S407.0C
$399 00
13
N/A
N/A
N/A
1 ^Delivery Mode (2)
Truck
Truck
Truck
'5Sh1p. Container Size fc Type (3)
Fiber container
55 gal. drum
55 ga'. orurr
' 6 Storage Mode (4)
Indoor
Indoor
Indoor
' 7Transrer Mode (5)
By hand
Pump
Pump
leEmpty Container Disp./Manot (6)
Crush anc land' 151
Sold ror reuse
So'd for reuse
1 ^Shelf Life
6 months
6 months
6 months
205uppller Would ;
N/A
N/A
N/A
2 ' Accecpt Expired Material CY/Ni
Y
Y
Y
22 Accept Shipping Containers (Y/N)
N
N
N
23 Revise Expiration Date
-------
FIRM
SAIC
WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED BV
S. Roman
SITE
CHECKED BV
G. Cuinnu
DATE-INITIAL
02/09/90
DATE-REVISZD
04/23/90
PROJ. NO.
1-632-03-942-02
SHEET 1 OF 1 |? P^E0
WORKSHEET
7
INPUT MATERIALS
SUMMARY
VfrEPA
Attribute
Dsscr1ot1on (1)
Stream No. Istraem No.
Stream No.
' Name/ID
Cllg Water |
2 Source/Supplier
MunTC-ipal Water Snurre
3
N/A
4
N/A
5
N/A
6 Component/Attribute oT Concern
pH 10
7 Annual Consumption Rate
200 0ol/doy
6 Overall
510,000 gal
9 Component^) of Concern
N/A
1 0
N/A
' ' Purchase Price. S oar
t.90/l00ft!3)
,20verall Annuel Cost
$614.00
13
N/A
l4Del1v«ru nods (2)
Pipeline
1 5Shlp. Contelnsr Size 8. Type (3)
N/A
'^Storage Hods (4)
N/A
1 7Transfsr Mode (5)
Pipeline
I0Empty Contelnsr Dtsp./Mangt. (6)
N/A
' 'shelf Llfs
N/A
20Suppiler would;
N/A
21 Accecpt Expired Material (Y/N)
N/A
22 Accept Shipping Containers (Y/N)
N/A
23 Revise Expiration Date (Y/N)
N/A
24Accsptable Substltuts(s). if any
N/A
25Altsrnats Suppller(s)
N/A
1. Stream numbers should correspond to those used on process flow diagrams.
2. e.g., pipeline, tank cor, 10Obbl. tank truck, truck,
3. e.o.. 55 aal. drum. 100 lb. oaoer baa. tank. etc.
4. e.o„ outdoor, warehouse, underground, abovaground,
5. e.g., pump, forkllft, pneumatic transport, conveyor,
6. e.g., crush and landfill, clean and recycle, return to supplier,
40
-------
FIRM
SAIC
WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED
S. Roman
SITE
CHECKED
6 Cuthnit
DATE-INITIAL
02/09/90
DATE-REVISED
04/23/90
PROJ. NO.
1-B32-03-942-02
SHEET 1 Of 1 |0 P^Eb
WORKSHEET
7
INPUT MATERIALS
SUMtlARV
SyEPA
Attribute
Deacrtotlon (t)
Stream No.
Stream No.
Stream No.
1 Name/ID
K tpacial blend
2 Source/Supplier
Calvary Chemical Co.
3
N/A
4
N/A
5
N/A
6 Component/Attribute of Concern
I.I.I tdchlofMlMnc invthylani
chlflUdi
7 Annual Consumption Rate
275 ool^week
8 Overall
14,000 gal-
9 Component!*) of Concern
N/A
10
N/A
I IPurchase Price. S oer oal.
$5 OO/gol
'^Overall Annual Cost
$70,000
13
N/A
'^Delivery Mode (2)
Truck
,5Shlp. Container Size & Type (3)
55 oal. drum
' Storage Mode (4)
Hiza'doui w»»t» atoriga arts
1 ?Tranefer llodB (5)
Tan-loaoer
"®Emptu Container Dtep./Mangt. (6)
Solo for reuse
' ®Shelf Life
N/A
20Supp11er Would;
N/A
2' Accecpt Expired Material (Y/N)
N/A
22 Accept Shtpplnu Contelnere (Y/N)
N
23 Revise Expiration Date (V/N)
N/A
^Acceptable subetltutete). If any
N/A
25AUernate Suppltir(e)
N/A
1. Stream numbers should correspond to those used on process flow diagrams.
2. e.g., pIpaltnB, tank car, lOObbl. tank truck, truck,
3. s.o.. 55 aal. drum. 100 lb. paper boo. tank. ate.
4. e.g., outdoor, warehouse, underground, aboveground,
5. e.g., pump, forkllft, pneumatic transport, conveyor,
6. e.g., crush and landfill, clean and recycle, return to supplier.
41
-------
FIRM
5AIC
WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED BY
S Rot an
SITE
PROC. UNIT/OPER.
Ssray Pairt'.ng
CHECKED BY
j Cusfime
DATE-INITIAL
C2/C9/90
DATE-REVISED
03/C9/Q0
PROJ. NO
1-832-03-942-02
SHEET 1 OF 4 I , pAGE
I i of a
W0RK5HEET
9a
INDIVIDUAL WASTE STREAM
CHARACTERIZATION
<®-EPA
Waste Stream Name/ID: Waste Paln'.-Ltgjld Stream Number 0! -A
Process Unit/Operation So-av Painting
2. Waste Characteristics (attach additional sheets with composition data)
~ gas liquid ~ solid ~ mixed phase
Density, 1b/cu ft Heating Value, Btu/lb
Viscosity/Consistency
pH Flash Point X Water
3. Waste Leaves Process as:
~ air emission ~ wastewater ~ solid waste hazardous waste
A. Occurrence
~ continuous
discrete
discharge triggered by ~ chemical analysis
H other (describe) wn
-------
FIRM
SAIC
WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED DY
S. Roman
SITE
PROC. UNIT/OPER.
Sprou Pairtna
CHECKED DY
C cuthnl#
DATE-INITIAL
02/09/90
DATE-REVISED
04/23/90
PROJ. NO.
1-832-03-942-02
SHEET 2 of 4 | PAG£
|l OF 6
WORKSHEET
9b
INOIVlDUAL WASTE STREAM
CHARACTERIZATION
*>EPA
(oontlnuvd)
Waste Stream WastB Palnt-Llauld
6. Waste Orlalns/Sources
Fill out this worksheet to Identtfg thB origin of the waste. If the waste Is a
mlxtura of wasta strsams, rill out a sheet for tach of ths Individual waste
streams.
Is the waste mixed with other wastes? Q Ves H No
Describe how the waste Is generated.
Point Is prspflrsd floMy In th6Mlpoint mlK room ontf toKsn to tfi6 csb point &pQth§i__Ap^^—
leftcver paint from the cab paint booths is returnee to the oalnt mix room anfl Placed In a
drum for waste paint. The frame rail (chassis) paint booth has o bulk sorau sustem for
black paint which should produce no waste paint However, when a chassis is painted any
other color the paint Is prepared in the oalnt mix room and anu left over oalnt Is out in a
drum in the chassis oalnt booth The paint is kept liquid with the addition of elhanol
which neutralizes the catalust In the oalnt.
Example: Formation and removal of en underslrable compound, removal of an
unconverted Input material, depletion of a key component (e.g.,
drag-out), equipment cleaning waste, obsolete Input material,
spoiled batch end production run, spill or leak cleanup, evaporative
1066, breathing or venting lo6ses, etc.
43
-------
FIRM
SAIC
WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED BV
S Romai
SITE
PROC. UNIT/OPER.
Spray Painting
CHECKED BY
3 CLShri f
Date-initial
02/0S/9C
DATE-REVI5ED
Q3/09/9C
PROJ. NO.
1 -832-03-Q42-C2
SHEET 3 of 4 1 , PACE .
I i of e
WORKSHEET
9c
INDIVIDUAL WASTE STREAM
CHARACTERIZATION
(continued)
V>EPA
Waste Stream Waste Palnt-LUjid
Management Method
Leaves site In:
I~1 bulk
l~l roll oTf bins
El 55 gal drums
~ otner (describe)
Disposal Frequency Fve-v SO days
Applicable Regulations R'RA
Regulatory Classification -lan-nani? waqtp i.'MQcn
r303/FC05
Managed
Recycling
~
~
~
~
~
~
onslte E3 °ffslte
commercial T5DF _
own T5DF
other (describe) Cement Kiln Facility
direct use/re-use
energy recovery
redistilled
Fuel blend-no
other (describe)
reclaimed material returned to site?
~ Yes E3 No 63 used by others
residue yield
residue disposal/
repository
44
-------
FIRM
5
-------
FIRM
5AIC
waste minimization assessment
PREPARED BY
5. Roman
51TF
PROC. UNIT/OPER.
Spray Painting
CHECKED BY
G CuSftn:*
DATE-INITIAL
02/05/90
DATE-REVISED
03/05/90
PROJ. NO.
1 -632-03-942-02
SHEET 1 OF 4 1 , pA6E
1 1 OF 8
WORKSHEET
9a
INDIVIDUAL WASTE STREAM
CHARACTER 12 AT f ON
4>epa
1. Waste Stream Name/ID:
Waste Paint-Solid
Stream Number 0 I -9
Process Unit/Operation So-av Palntinn
Waste Characteristics (attach additional sheets with composition data)
~ gas ~ liquid H so'ld C] mixed phase
Density, ib/cu ft
Heating Value, Btu/lb
Viscosity/Consistency
pH Flash Point
I! Wate-
Waste Leaves Process as:
~ air emission ~ wastewater
Occurrence
~ continuous
solid waste
hazardous waste
discrete
discharge triggered t>y ~ chemical analysis
1X1 other (describe) ETctv.na of wast; Pa -t - noma a-jr.
Type: gj periodic length of period: 90 davs
pq sporadic (Irregular occurance)
l~1 non-recurrent
5. Generation Rate
Annual
Maximum
Average
Frequency
Batch Size
per year
per
per
batches per
Average _
.Range
46
-------
FIRM
SAIC
WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED B¥
S Roman
SITE
PROC. UNIT/OFER.
Sirm PriUno
CHECKED BV
C CutlHi
DATE-INITIAL
02/09/90
DATE-REVISED
04/23/90
PROJ. NO.
1-832-03-542-02
SHEET 2 Of 4 1 p*GE
1 1 OF 8
WORKSHEET
INDIVIDUAL WASTE STREAM
CHARACTERIZATION
(continued)
Wests Stream Waste Palrt-Salia
VVEPA
8. Wast* Orlaln#/Sourcsi
Fill out this worksheet to Identify the origin of the waste. if the waste Is a
mixture of waste streams, fill out a aheit for sech of the Individual waste
streams.
Is the waste mixed with other wastes? Q Ves K No
Describe how the waste 1e psnerated.
.Waste oaint from the cat) paint booths and the chassis paint booth le stored In 55 oal.
drums to await disposal These drums are oumoed Into e tank truck. Any sotlflcd oelnt In
the bottom of the drums is scrapped out end consolidated Into another 55 pal drum for
d! SDOSftl
Example: Formation and removal of an underslrable compound, removal of an
unconverted Input material, depletion of a key component (e.g.,
drag-out), equipment cleaning waste, obsolete input material,
epolled batch and production run, spill or leak cleanup, evaporative
loss, breathing or venting tosses, etc.
47
-------
FIRM
SAIC
WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED BY
S Roman
SITE
PROC. UNIT/OPER.
Sc"iv caw.it;
CHECKED BY
Q Cusnni*
DATE-INITIAL
02/C9/Q0
DATE-REVISED
03/09/90
PROJ. NO.
1-832-03-942-02
SHEET 3 or « | , PAGE 0
WORKSHEET
9c
INDIVIDUAL WASTE STREAM
CHARACTERIZATION
4>epa
(continued)
Waste Stream wastp Paint-soM*
Management Method
Leaves site In:
~ bulk
~ roll off bins .
55 gal drums
|~| other (describe)
Disposal Frequency Every 90 davs
Applicable Regulations RCRA
Regulatory Classification F?a-nmah'e waste 'JNI Q93
F033/-005
Managed
Recycling
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
onslte offslte
commercial TSDF _
own TSDF
other (describe) _
direct use/re-use
energy recovery
redistilled
other (describe)
reclaimed material returned to site?
~ Yes ~ No O used others
residue yield
residue disposal/
repository
48
-------
FIRM
SAIC
WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED BY
5. Roman
SITE
PROC. UNIT/OPER.
Sprav Painting
CHECKED BY
5 Ctsr-nit
DATE-INITIAL
02/09/90
DATE-REVISED
03/09/90
PROJ. NO.
1-632-03-942-02
SHEET 4 Of 4 |, PAGEb
W0RK5HEET
9d
INOIV!DUAL' WASTE STREAM
CHARACTERIZATION
4yEPA
(continued)
Waste Stream Waste Paint-SoUd
7. Management Method (continued)
Treatment
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
biological
oxidation/reduction
Incineration
pH adjustment
precipitation
solidification
other (describe)
resldje disposal/repository
landrill
pond
lagaon
deep well
ocean
other (describe)
Costs as of Jan 1990
(quarter and year)
Cost Element:
Unit Price Reference/Source
| Ontltc Storage and Handling
$0 00
2 Pr«trMtm«nl
$0 00
3 Contatnar
$0 00
4 Transportation Fta
$50.OC
per 55 gal, o-urn
CDHPGIi: Ftt
$300.00
per 55 gal, d-um
5 Local Taxas
$0 00
7 s:«t« Tax
$0.00
8 Ffdcral Tax
$0 00
Total Olsposi: Cost
$350.00
5pectfy units, $/ d-ur
49
-------
FIRM
SAIC
WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED BY
S. Roman
SITE
PROC. UNIT/OPER.
Spray Pa nting
CHECKED BY
0 Cushn e
DATE-INITIAL
02/09/90
DATE-REVISED
03/09/90
PROJ. NO
1-832-03-942-02
SHEET 1 OF 4 I PAGE
1 i of e
WORKSHEET
9a
INDIVIDUAL WASTE STREAM:
CHARACTERIZATION
wEPA
I. Waste Stream Nanne/ID;
Process Unit/Operation
Detackif'ed Paint
Stream Number 01 -C
Saray Painting
2
Waste Characteristics (attach additional sheets with composition data)
~ gas ~ liquid ~ solid g] mixed phase
Density, Ib/cu ft
Heating Value, Btu/lb
Viscosity/Consistency
pH Flash Point
X Water
Waste Leaves Process as:
~ air emission El wastewater ~ solid waste
A. Occurrence
~ continuous
53 discrete
I~1 hazardous waste
discharge triggered by Q chemical analysis
Type: |5
129 other (describe) As needed
periodic length of period: A to 6 wee;
-------
FIRM
5AIC
WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED BV
S. Roman
SITE
PROC. UNIT/OPER.
Sprou Pamtlnc
CHECKED DV
C. Cu«*r>'f
DATE-INITIAL
02/09/90
DATE-REVISED
04/23/90
PROJ. NO.
1-632-03-942-02
SHEET 2 Of 4 I . pAGE
| 1 OF 6
WORKSHEET
9b
INDIVIDUAL WASTE STREAM
CHARACTERIZATION
(continued)
Waste Stream Datacklflad Paint
4>epa
6. Waste Orlalns/Sources
Fill out thl6 worksheet to Identtfg the origin of the waste. If the waste Is a
mixture of waete itrsami, fill out a sheet for each of the Individual waste
streams.
Is the waste mixed with othsr wastes? ~ Ves Kl No
Describe how the waste is generated.
The cab paint booths and the chassis paint booth have a water curtain to
collect paint overspray. Each booth has its ovm pit for the collection
of the water, and detackification of the pair.t. A paint sludge builds up
in the pits and is collected on an as is needed basis.
Example: Formation and removal of an undersfrable compound, removal of an
unconverted Input material, depletion of a key component (e.g.,
drag-out), equipment cleaning waste, obsolete Input material,
spoiled batch and production run, spill or leak cleanup, evaporative
loss, breathing or venting losses, etc.
51
-------
FIRM
SAIC
WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED BY
S. Roman
SITE
PROC. UNIT/OPER.
Sc-«u Ptin'.i^s
CHECKED BY
0 Cgliiit
DATE-INITIAL
02/09/90
DATE-REVISED
04/23/90
PROJ. NO
1-632-03-942-02
SHEET 3 Of 4 |, PABEb
WORKSHEET
9c
INDIVIDUAL WASTE STREAM
CHARACTERIZATION
<>EPA
(continued)
Waste Stream Detacklfleg Paint
7. Management Method
leaves sits
E3 bulk
D roll off _
n 35 gal drum*.
1""1 other (describe).
Disposal Freouencu Everu 4 to 6 weeks
Applicable Regulations Cltu & Federal for metals content, temperature dH and oil
Regulatory Classification None
Managed q onslte ^ offelte
H commercial TSDF
~ own TSDF
D other (describe)
O direct uee/re-uee _
|~1 energy recovery _
~ redistilled
Recycling
1""1 other (deecrlbe)
reclaimed materiel returned to site?
~ Ves ~ No ~ u*.r._u«
residue yield
residue dleposal/
repository
52
-------
FIRM
SAIC
WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED BY
S. Romar
SITE
PROC. UNIT/OPER.
Scray Punting
CHECKED BY
0 Cu5""iie
DATE-INITIAL
02/09/90
DATE-REVISED
03/09/90
PROJ NO.
1-632-03-942-02
SHEET A Of A 1 , PACE „
1 1 OF S
WORKSHEET
9d
INDIVIDUAL WASTE STREAM
CHARACTERIZATION
(continued)
<*EPA
Waste Stream Detaccined Pa'nt
7. Management Method (continued)
Treatment
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
biological
oxidation/reduction
Incineration
pH adjustment
precipitation
solidification
other (describe)
residue disposal/repository
~ landfill
[~| pond
~ lagoon
I~1 deep well
~ ocean
~ other (describe)
Costs as of Jan 1990
(quarter and year)
Cost Element:
Unit Price Reference/Source
| Omit* Storagt mo Handling
$0.00
2 Pratraalmant
10 00
3 Cwitaintr
$0.00
A Transportation Ft«
$0.00
5Ditpo>ai F»t
$0.24
per gallon includes fansportat'on costs
6 Local Taxai
$0.00
7Stata Tax
$0.00
QFiflsra? Tax
$0.00
Total Disposal Cost
$0.24
Specify units, $/ gallon
53
-------
FIRM
SAIC
WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED BV
S. Rcmen
SITE
PRDC. UNIT/DPER.
Sorsu Parting
CHECKED BV
G Cujfinit
DATE-INITIAL
02/09/90
DATE-REVISED
04/23/90
PRDJ. ND.
1-032-03-942-02
SHEET 1 OF 4 I PAGE
| 1 OF B
WORKSHEET
9 Q
INDIVIDUAL WASTE STREAM
CHARACTERIZATION
OEPA
Waste Stream Name/ID: Pelnt Booth Water Stream Number Dl-D
Process Unit/Operation Soraii Painting
2. Wests Characterlstlcs(attech additional iheet6 with comoosttton data)
~ gas Kl liquid ~ solid ~ mixed pha6S
Density, Ib/cu ft Heating Value, Btu/lb
Viscosity/Consistency
pH Flash Point %
Wa6te Leaves Process as:
Qelr emleston E3 wastewater LD solid waste O hazardous wait*
Occurrence
I~1 continuous
B] discrete
discharge triggered by Q chamlcal analysis
E3 other (describe) Dperaior discretion
Type: g periodic length of period: Dallu
I | sporadic (Irregular occurence)
|~) non-recurrent
Generation Rate
Annual — per year
Maximum pgr
Average per
Freguency batches per
Batch Size Average Range
54
-------
FIRM
SAIC
waste minimization assessment
PREPARED BY
S. Roman
SITE
PRDC. UNIT/OPER.
Sc«u Pomtirc
CHECKED BY
G Cj»hnt«
DATE-INITIAL
02/09/90
DATE-REVISED
04/23/90
PROJ NO.
1 -032-03-942-02
SHEET 2 Of 4 1 pAGE
1 1 OF 6
WORKSHEET
INDIVIDUAL WASTE STREAM
CHARACTERIZATION
(continued)
Waste Stream Paint Booth Water
^EPA
6. Watts Ortglns/Sourees
Fill out thls worksheet to Identify the origin of the waste. If the wa6te Is a
mixture of waste streams, fill out a sheet for each of the Individual waste
streams.
Is the waste mixed with other wastes? H Ves Q No
Describe how the waste Is generated.
The cab paint booths and the chassis paint booth each have a water curra-in
to collect paint overspray. I':ie water becomes contaminated with the
oversprayed paint and solvent.
Example: Formation and removal of an underslrable compound, removal of an
unconverted Input material, depletion of a key component (e.g..
drag-out), equipment cleaning waste, obsolete Input material,
spoiled betch and production run, spill or leek cleanup, evaporative
loss, breathing or venting loeses, etc.
55
-------
FIRM
SAIC
WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED BY
S RcTar
SITE
PROC. UNI7/0PER.
S?-"3y 3alr:ifc
CHECKED BY
tj Cusi™*
DATE-INITIAL
02/C9/30
DATE-REVISED
03/09/90
PROJ. NO.
1 -832-03-942-02
SHEET 3 Of 4 | , PAGE g
WORKSHEET
9c
tNDJ VfDUAL V/ASTE STREAM
CHARACTERIZATION
(continued)
4>epa
Waste Stream Pa~rt Rnotn Water
Management Method
Leaves site In:
~ bulk
n roll off bins
~ 55 gal drums
other (describe) Throunh sloe
Disposal Frequency
^3llv
Applicable Regulations C'tv & =ede-ai regulations on petals. terrperature. jm and oil
Regulatory Classification
Managed
Recycling
^ onsite ~ offstte
~
~
~
commercial TSDF
own TSDF
other (describe)
~ direct use/re-use
1~1 energy recovery
l~1 redistilled
other (describe)
reclaimed material returned to site?
~ Yes ~ No ~ used by others
residue yield
residue disposal/
repository
56
-------
FIRM
5AIC
WASTE niNIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED BY
5 Rcnan
51TE
PROC. UNIT/OPER.
Sors/ Pa;-:ng
CHECKED BY
0 Cu»fwi»
DATE-INITIAL
32/09/90
DATE-REVISED
03/09/90
PROJ. NO
1 -632-03-942-02
SHEET 4 of 4 |, PA6Eg
W0RK5HEET
9d
INDi VIDUAL WASTE STREAM
CHARACTERIZATION
(continueo)
&EPA
Waste Stream Paint Booth Water
7. Management Method (continued)
Treatment
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
biological
oxidation/reduction
Incineration
pH adjustment
precipitation Fe-rlr chloride/caustic soda system
solidification
other (describe) Hltsr press
residue disposal/repository
landfill Th? sludge is sent to a TSDr
pond
lagoon
deep well
ocean
other (describe) The wa'.e water Is discharged to a PCTW via a
Pemn-t to Discharge
Costs as of Jan. 1990 (quarter and year)
Cost Element:
Unit Price
Reference/Source
} OniUt Storigt aid Handling
$0.00
2 Pntriitmtnt
JO.00
3 Container
$0 00
A Transportation Ft#
$0.00
5 Otipota) Fat
$1.65
per I00rt(3) sewer charge
6 Local Taxaa
$0 00
7 5tata Tan
$0 00
0 Fadaral Tax
$0.00
Tota; Qitooiai Cost
$ 1 65
Specify units, M
57
-------
FIRM
SAIC
WA5TE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED BV
S. Roman
SITE
PROC. UNIT/OPER.
0«cr«erns SoW»M
CHECKED BV
0. Cg«hrn
DATE-INITIAL
02/09/90
DATE-REVISED
04/23/90
PROJ. HO
1-632-03-942-02
SHEET 10F4 I pABE
I 1 OF 6
WORKSHEET
9a
INDIVIDUAL WASTE STREAM
CHARACTERIZATION
<>EPA
1. Waete Stream Name/ID: PBgreasIno Solvent Stream Number 02-E
Process Unit/Operation Dgoreaslno of Frame Ralls (Chassis)
2. Waste Characteristics (attach additional sheets with comoosltlon data)
~ gas Kl liquid D solid O mixed phase
Density, Ib/cu ft Heating Value, Btu/1 b
Viscosity/Consistency
pH Flash Point X
3. Waste Leaves Process as:
Qatr omission O wastewater D solid waste H hazardous wests
4. Occurrence
~ continuous
Kl discrete
discharge triggered by ~ chsmlcel eneiysu.
other (describe) As needed
tUPb: |g pgrlodlc length of period:
l~l sporadic [irregular occurence)
~ non-recurrent
5. Beneratlon Rate
Annual per gear
Maximum pgr
Average pgr
Frequency batches psr
Batch Size Average Range
58
-------
FIRM
SAIC
WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED BY
S. Roman
SITE
PRDC. UNIT/OPER.
0«c'«e»!na Ssivint
CHECKED BV
G Culbntl
DATE-INITIAL
02/09/90
DATE-REVISED
04/23/90
PRDJ NO
1-632-05-942-02
SHEET 2 Of 4 1 PAGE
| 1 OF 6
WORKSHEET
9b
INDIVIDUAL WASTE STREAM
CHARACTERIZATION ;
&EPA
(continued)
Waste Stream Decreasing Solvent
6. Wests Orlalns/Sourcss
Fill out this worksheet to 1 dsnttfy the origin of the wasts. If the wasts Is a
mixture of waits streams, fill out a ahsat for aach of ths Individual waste
streams.
Is the wa6te mixed with other wastes? Q Vss H No
Describe how the waste is gsnerated.
The chassis Is decreased In a booth lust prior to entering the chassis paint booth. A
chlorinated solvent Is used because nf the Immediate drying action ana VOCs. The
solvent 1 s both soraued and wiped on to the chassis. The waste comas from the wlotno
process. Raas are dipped Into buckets of solvent and used to wine down the chassis. The
solvent in the bucket becomes contaminated with the dtrtu raos that are dlcoBd
repeatedlu Into the bucket.
Example: Formation and removal of an underslrable compound, removal of an
unconverted Input material, depletion of a keg component (e.g.,
drag-out), equipment cleaning waste, obsolete Input material,
spoiled batch and production run, spill or leak cleanup, evaporative
loss, breathing or venting lossss, etc.
59
-------
FIRM
SAIC
waste minimization assessment
PREPARED BV
S. Romen
SITE
PROC. UNIT/OPER.
DtQrMflnc Solwf^t
CHECKED BV
C. Cwthft't
DATE-INITIAL
02/05/90
DATE-REVISED
04/23/90
PROJ. NO.
1-032-03-942-02
SHEET 3 Of 4 1 PAGE
| 1 OF 0
WORKSHEET
9c
INDIVIDUAL WASTE STREAM
CHARACTERIZATION
VS'EPA
(continued)
Wosta StraBm Decreasing Solvent
7. ManagemBnt Method
Leaves Bile
~ bulk
~ roll off
SI 53 gel drums.
~ other (describe).
Disposal Frequency Everj 90 deus
Applicable Regulations RCRA
Regulatory Classification F001/F002/D006/D007
Managed q orelte K! offelte
C] commerclol TSDF
Recycling
~ own TSDF
C] other (describe)
n direct uee/re-use
[~| energy recovery fnwirmn»m
n radlstl Had
~ other (describe)
reclaimed material returned to site?
~ Ves H No ~ Ub."u.-I,.w
residue yield
residue disposal/
repository
60
-------
FIRM
SAIC
WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED DV
S. Romen
SITE
PROC. UNIT/OPER.
Solvent
CHECKED BY
0 Cu»»pi»
DATE-INITIAL
02/09/90
DATE-REVISED
04/23/90
PROJ. NO.
1-832-03-942-02
SHEET4 0f4 |, PAGE0
WORKSHEET
9d
INDIVIDUAL WASTE STREAM
CHARACTERIZATION
VVEPA
(contlnusd)
Wests Strsam Denreaslna Solvent
7.
Management Method (continued)
T reatment
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
biological
oxidation/reduction
Incineration
pH adjustment
preclpttellon _
8 o 11 dl f 1 celt on_
other (describe)
residue disposal/repository
landfill
pond
lBBOon
deep
ocean
othBr (describe)
Costs as of Jan. 1990
(Quarter and user)
Co6l Element:
Unit Price Reference/Source
j OnaUa Store?! end Hireling
$0.00
2 Pratriafnant
$0.00
3 Conlilntr
$0.00
4TraniDortotton Fn
$31.50
for pick-up end transport from I to 10 drums
5 Disposal Ftt
$450.00
per drum
5 local Tana*
$0.00
7 StlU Tin
$0.00
0 FHtr«t Tm
$0.00
Total Dlipcitl Coil
$461.50
Specify units, $/ drum
61
-------
FIRM
SA!C
WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED BY
S. Roman
SITE
PROC. UNIT/OPER.
E-Co«t
CHECKED BY
3 CuSPr'f
DATE-INITIAL
02/09/9C
DATE-REVISED
03/39/9C
PROJ. NO
1 -832-03-942-C2
SHEET 1 OF 4 1 P*9E q
| 1 OF o
WORKSHEET
9a
INDIVIDUAL WASTE STREAM
CHARACTERIZATION :
4>epa
I. Waste Stream Name/ID: R'nse waters
Process Unit/Operation g-Coat
Stream Number 03-F
2. Waste Characteristics (attach additional sheets with composition data)
~ gas E3 liquid D solid ~ mixed phase
Density, lb/cu ft
Heating Value, Btu/lb
Viscosity/Consistency
pH Flasn Point
X Water
3. Waste Leaves Process as:
~ air emission g] wastewater Q solid waste
A. Occurrence
I I continuous
~ discrete
~
hazardous waste
discharge triggered by
Type: |5
~ chemical analysts
129 other (describe) Cherrical Sj''d-jp
periodic length of period; Da'lv
~
~
Generation Rate
Annual
Maximum
Average
Frequency
Batch Size
sporadic (Irregular occurence)
non-recurrent
51Q.C3Q ga\ per year
per
per
batches per
Average _
.Range
62
-------
FIRM
SAIC
WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED BY
S. Roman
SITE
PROC. UNIT/DPER.
E-Cee;
CHECKED BY
G
DATE-INITIAL
02/09/90
DATE-REVISED
04/23/90
PROJ. NO.
1-832-03-942-02
SHEET 2 Of 4 1 , PAGE
1 1 OF 0
WORKSHEET
9b
INDIVIDUAL WASTE STREAM
CHARACTERIZATION
4vEPA
(continutd)
Waste Stream RlnsB Waters
6. Watts Orlntni/Sourci*
Fill out this worksheet to Identify the ortgln of the waste. If the waste Ib a
mixture of wests streams, fill out a sheet for each of the Individual waste
streams.
Is the waste mixed with other wastes? E] [H No
Describe how the waste Is generated.
The E-Coet process Is a series of 10 die tanks. Tanks 2.5 and 7 contain rlnsewaters.
Tank 7 Is made up of PI water and Is recycled to tank 5 which Is made un af city water
and PI water. Tank 2 contains only cltu water Tanks 2 and 5 are continuous overflow
rinses and are discharged to the Plants waste treatment sustem
Example: Formation and removal of an underslrable compound, removal of an
unconverted input material, depletion of a keg component (e.g.,
drag-out), equipment cleaning waste, obsolete input material,
spoiled batch and production run, spill or leak cleanup, evaporative
loss, breathing or venting losses, etc.
63
-------
FIRM
SAfC
WASTE MIKinilATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED Bi
S, Roman
SITE
PROC. UNIT/DPER.
I-Co.t
CHECKED BV
B
DATE-iNITIAl
02/09/90
DATE-REVISED
04/23/90
PROJ. NO.
1-832-03-942-02
SHEET 3 of 4 | ( p*GE ^
WORKSHEET
9e
INDIVIDUAL WASTE STREAM
.CHARACTERIZATION
V>EPA
{continued)
Waits Stream Rtnse Waters
Management Method
Leaves site
~ bulk
n roll off ______
~ 55 gal drums
El other tdgserlbe) Through sewer Dice
Disposal Frequency Dslly
Applicable Regulations Cltu end Fefleral regulations on metal content. temperature.
aN and oil
Regulatory Classification None
Menaced g] ongUB Q 0ffC|te
O commercial TSDF
Recycling
D own TSDF
E3 other (describe) Fretreatmant on-etle
S3 direct use/re-use Tank 7 Is recycled to Tank 5
[~l anerou recovery
Q redistilled
O other (describe)
reclaimed material returned to elte?
~ Vm ~ No ~
reeldue yield
reeldye dleposal/
repository
64
-------
FiRn
SAIC
WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED BY
S. Romar
SITE
PROC. UNIT/OPER.
l-Coi:
CHECKED BY
G. Cwshr.if
DATE-INITIAL
02/09/90
DATE-REVISED
03/09/90
PROJ NO.
1 -032-03-942-02
6HEETepa
Waste Stream Rinse Waters
7. Management Method (continued)
Treatment
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
biological
oxidation/reduction
Incineration
pH adjustment
precipitation car-t- Chinrmp/
solidification
'a.wHc Soda Bvsr.em
other (describe)
residue disposal/repository
landfill The sludge Is sent to a hazardous waste landfll
pond
lagoon _
deep wel
ocean _
other (describe) Wastewater is riisrnaroed to the PQTW via a
Permit to Discharge
Costs as of Jan 1990
(quarter and year)
Cost Element:
Unit Price Reference/Source
| Oniltt Storapi and Handling
$0.00
2 Pr»ir»»tmtnt
$0.00
3 Container
$0.00
A Tranwortitton Fti
$0.00
5 Dlapoiai ft#
J 1.65
per 100rt:3> of water discharged
5 Local Taxti
$0.00
7 Stall Tax
$0.00
$F»atri] Tlx
$0.00
Totil OI1POMI Cost
$1.65
Specify units, $/
65
-------
FIRM
SAIC
WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED BY
S. Roma-i
SITE
PROC. UNIT/OPER.
CHECKED BY
3.
DATE-INITIAL
C2/0Q/90
DATE-REVISED
03/09/90
PROJ. NO.
1 -632-03-942-02
BHEET 1 OF 4 | , PAGE
| 1 OF 8
WORKSHEET
9a
IND1VI DUAL WASTE STREAM
CHARACTERIZATION
&EPA
1. Waste Stream Name/ID:
Process Tanks 1.3.6
Stream Number 03-G
Process Unit/Operation F-Coat
Waste Characteristics (attach additional sheets with composition data)
~ gas H liquid n solid ~ mixed phase
Density, Ib/cu ft
Heating value, Btu/lb
Viscosity/Consistency
pH Flash Point
* Water
Waste Leaves Process as:
~ air emission El wastewater ~ solid waste
Occurrence
~ continuous
^ discrete
~ hazardous waste
discharge triggered by ~ chemical analysis
09 other (describe) Operator discretion
periodic length of period: 2 weeks
Type: gg
~ sporadic (irregular occurance)
I~1 non-recurrent
5. Generation Rate
Annual
Maximum
Average
Frequency
Batch Size
43.fif)0 gal pep yggr
per
per
batches per
Average _
.Range
66
-------
FIRM
SAIC
WASTE niNiniZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED BY
S. RoT.an
SITE
PROC. UNIT/OPER.
E-Coot
CHECKED BV
5 Cy»hn'#
DATE-INITIAL
02/09/90
DATE-REV 15ED
04/23/90
PROJ. NO.
1 -032-03-942-02
SHEET 2 Of A I PAGE
| 1 OF 0
WORKSHEET
9b
INDIVIDUAL WASTE STREAM
CHARACTERIZATION
<*EPA
6.
(continued)
Waste Stream ProcessTanks t.3.6
Watts onalns/Sourcss
Fill out this worksheet to Identify the origin of the waste. If the waste Is a
mixture of wast* streams, fill out a sheet for each of ths Individual waste
streams.
Is the wa&ts mixed with other wastes? 13 Ves ~ No
Describe how the waste Is generated.
The solution In the process tanks 1.3. and 6 becomes contemlnated with oil & dirt from
parts being dipped in them. Dropout from Intermediate rinses dilutes the solutions end
theu need to be replenished.
Example: Formation and removal of an underslrebls compound, removal of an
unconverted input material, depletion of a key component (e.g.,
drag-out), equipment cleaning waste, obsolets Input material,
spoiled batch and production run, spill or leak cleanup, evaporative
1066, breathing or venting lo&&e6, etc.
67
-------
FIRM
SAIC
WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED BY
S Roman
SITE
PROC. UNIT/OPER.
t-COBt
CHECKED BY
G Ci;snn'f
3ATE-INITIAL
02/09/90
DATE-REVI5ED
03/09/90
PROJ. NO
1 -832-03-942-02
SHEET 3 Of A I . PA(3E Q
I i of e
W0RK5HEET
9c
1NDIVIDUAL WASTE STREAM
CHARACTERIZATION
(continues)
wEPA
Waste Stream P-ocess Tan.
-------
FIRM
SA!C
WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED BY
S Roman
SITE
PROC. UNIT/OPER.
E-Cca!
CHECKED BY
3 Ctshn-t
DATE-INITIAL
02/09/90
DATE-REVISED
03/09/90
PROJ. NO.
1 -632-03-942-02
SHEET A Of A 1 , PAeE .
| 1 OF e
WORKSHEET
9d
INDIVIDUAL WASTE STREAM
J CHARACTERIZATION
(continued)
-------
FIRM
SAIC
WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED BY
£ Rorrai
SITE
PROC. UNIT/OPER.
L-Cost
CHECKED BY
j Cusbme
DATE-INITIAL
02/09/90
DATE-REVISED
C-3/09/90
PROJ. NO.
1-832-03-9-32-02
SHEET 1 OF 4 1 P*GE
1 OF
WORKSHEET
9a
INDIVIDUAL WASTE STREAM
CHARACTERIZATION
3-EPA
Waste Stream Name/ID:
Process Unit/Operation
Bfith & 12PK
Battorrs
C-Coat
Stream Number C3-H
2.
Waste Characteristics (attach additional sheets with composition data!
~ gas ~ liquid ~ solid mixed phase
Density, Ib/cu ft
Heating Value, Btu/lb
Viscosity/Consistency
pH _2_0 Flash Point
X Water
Waste Leaves Process as:
l~l air emission Q wastewater O solid waste
Occurrence
~ continuous
Kl discrete
hazardous waste
discharge triggered by ~ chemical analysis
Type:
~
~
El Other (describe) Qpe-ato- discretion
periodic length of period: 1 vear
sporadic (Irregular occurance)
non-recurrent
5. Generation Rate
Annual
Maximum
Average
Frequency
Batch Size
2.780 oai
per year
per
per
batches per
Average _
.Range
70
-------
FIRM
SAIC
WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED BV
S. Roman
SITE
PROC. UNIT/QPER.
E-:oot
CHECKED BV
G Cu»hn »
DATE-INITIAL
02/09/90
DATE-REV1SED
04/23/90
PROJ. NO.
1-832-03-942-02
SHEET 2 Of 4 I PAQE
1 OF
WORKSHEET
9b
JNDiVIDUAL WASTE STREAM
CHARACTERIZATION
*>EPA
(continued)
WBBts stream .Phosphate Bath & Tank Bottoms
6. Wasts Orlalna/Sourcat
Fill out this worksheet to Identify the origin of the wbeIb. If IhB waste ts a
mixture of waste streams, fill out e sheet for sech of the Individual waste
streams.
Is the waste mixed with other wastas? ~ Vbs 18 No
Describe how the waste Is gsnerated.
The oualUu of the phosphate bath Is maintained throughout the uecr with the addition of
cherilcals The entire hath Is renlnr.ed eveni one to twn years or us needed at the
operators discretion. This waste Is usuellu mixed with the sludoe from the tank bottoms
in the E-Coet Sustem. All of the tanks In the E-Coet sustem are cleaned once oer uear.
Example: Formation and removal of an underslrabls compound, removal of an
unconverted Input material, depletion of a key component (e.g.,
drag-out), equipment cleaning wasta, obsolete Input material,
spoiled batch and production run, spill or laak cleanup, Bvaporatlvs
loss, breathing or venting Iossbs, etc.
71
-------
FIRM
5AIC
WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED BY
S Romzi
SITE
PROC. UNIT/OPER.
:-Coat
CHECKED BY
j Ci.srin P
DATE-INITIAL
02/09/9C
DATE-REVISED
03/09/90
PROJ. NO
1 -532-03-942-C2
SHEET 3 of A
PAGE
OF
WORKSHEET
9c
INDIVIDUAL WASTE STREAM
CHARACTERS ATtON
(continued)
^EPA
Waste Stream Phonhate Bath k Tank Bnttnrrs
7. Management Method
Leaves site in:
~ bulk
D roll off Dins
~ 55 gal drums
B other (describe) tai< trjck
Disposal Frequency Once per vea-
Applicable Regulations RCRA
Regulatory Classification
:019
Managed
Recycling
~
B
~
~
~
~
~
~
onslte K) offs1te
commercial T5DF 7
own T5Dr
other (describe)
Fnvironnental
direct use/re-use
energy recovery
redistilled
other (describe)
reclaimed material returned to site?
~ Yes ~ No ~ used by others
residue yield
residue disposal/
repository
72
-------
FIRM
5AIC
WA5TE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED BY
S Reman
SITE
PROC. UNIT/OPER.
E-Cee*.
CHECKED BY
G Cjs--nie
DATE-INITIAL
02/03/90
DATE-REVISED
C3/09/9C
PROJ. NO.
1 -832-03-942-02
SHEET A Of A | PACE
I °F
WORKSHEET
9d
INDI VIDUAL WASTE! STREAM
CHARACTERIZATION
(continued)
<>EPA
Waste Stream Pnosonate Bat-n & -an< Bottoms
7. Management Method (continued)
Treatment
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
biological
oxidation/reduction
incineration
pH adjustment
precipitation
solidification
other (describe)
residue disposal/repository
landfill
pond
lagoon
deep well
ocean
other (describe)
Costs as of Jan 1990
(quarter and year)
Cost Element;
Unit Price Reference/Source
| Onsitt Storag# nfl Handling
$0.00
2 Pratrtatmant
$0.00
3 Contafnar
$0.00
4 TrMiportitioft Faa
$0-00
5 Disposal Faa
SO. 74
per gal includes transportation fee
5 Local Taxas
SO.00
7 Slate Tan
SO.00
8F»d«ral Tax
SO.00
Iota; Pi»po»jl Coit
SO 24
Specify units, $/ jg]_
73
-------
FIRM
3AIC
WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED B¥
S. ftemen
SITE
PRQC. UNIT/DPER.
Spre^PeiMirq
CHECKED BY
E. CuthftK
DATE-INITIAL
DATE-REVISED
PROJ. NO.
SHEET 1 OF 1 |
PAGE
92/09/09
04/23/90
1"032-05-942-02
1 OF 4
[
WORKSHEET
10
WASTE STREAM SUMMARY
VVEPA
Attribute
Description (1)
Stream No.
O'-A
Stream No.
01-9
Stream No.
or-c
1 Waits Name/ID
Waste Patni-Liquid
Wast# Point - Solid
Detackified Point
2Source/Orlgm
Spray Paint Booth
Spray Paint Booth
Spray Paint Booth
3Componenl/or Propartu of Concsrn
N/A
N/A
N/A
^Annual Generation Rats, unlit:
N/A
N/A
N/A
5 0 vara 11
213.142 *
11,218"
523,100 *
6 Component(e) of Concsrn
N/A
N/A
N/A
7
N/A
N/A
N/A
eCost Bf Disposal
N/A
N/A
N/A
9 Unit Cost, $ psr:
$1,250/5000 gal.
$350/55 gal.
1.24/flal,
'0 Overall (per gear)
$5,821.00
$6,731.00
$16,647.00
1 1
N/A
N/A
N/A
12 Hi'.hod of Menagement (2)
Off-site recycle
Off-site Incineration
Commercial TSDF
13
Priority Ratine Criteria (3)
Rsiativs
Wt (Wl
Rating
iv\ *
RxW
Rating
ft^ *
RxW
*W
RxW
Ragulalory Compliance
10.0
9.0
90.0
9.0
90.0
7.0
70.0
Treatment/Dliposal Cost
9.0
0.3
2.7
8.0
72.0
1.0
9.0
Potential Liability
10.0
9.0
90.0
6.0
80.0
7.0
70.0
Wests Quantttu Generated
7.0
0.3
2.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
5.6
Waste Hazard
0.0
10.0
BO.O
9.0
72.0
7,0
56.0
Safity Hazard
60
10.0
60.0
8.0
48.0
7.0
42.0
Minimization Potsntial
5.0
9.0
45.0
2.0
10.0
6.0
40.0
Pct»nti«i to Rtmovt Bottl«n»ck
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pottntui Byproeuet R»59v»ry
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Sum of Priority Scores
KRxW)
369.8
KRkW)
372.1
KRxW)
292.6
Priority Rank
2
2
4
Notsi;
t. Strsam numbers should correspond to thoss used on process flow diagrams.
2. Fur example, sanitary landfill, heiardoue wasla landfill, oneite recycle, Inclnarellon.
combustion with heat recovery, distillation, dswaterlng. ate,
3. Rata seen straem tn aach catsgoru on a scale from o (none) to to (high).
74
-------
FIRM
SAIC
WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED BY
5 Ren an
SITE
PROC. UNIT/OPER.
Sl>#av Pai"t'nq
CHECKED BY
6 Cts.irle
DATE-iNITIAL
02/09/09
DATE-REVISED
03/09/90
PROJ. nc.
I-5J2-03-942-02
SHEET 1 OF 1 1 , PAGE _
1 ' OF 4
WORKSHEET
10
WA5TE STREAM SUMMARY
<>EPA
Attribute
Descrlotlon (1)
Stream No,
01-3
Stream No.
Stream No.
1 Waste Name/ID
Paint Bootn water
2Source/Orl(j1n
Spray Pamt Bcotn
^Component/or Property of Concern
N/A
^Annual Generation Rate, units:
N/A
5 Overall
780,ICO gal.
6 Component(s) of Concern
N/A
7
N/A
®Cost of Disposal
N/A
9 Unit Cost, } per:
$1.65/100 ftC3)
10 Overall (per year)
$96,279.00
1 1
N/A
' 2 Method of Management C2)
POTW iJSC"
13
Priority Rating Criteria (3)
Heiative
wt rwi
Rating
(R)
RxW
Hating
(R)
RxW
Rating
(Rr
RxW
Regulatory Compliance
10.0
4.0
40.0
Treatment/Disposal Cost
9.0
1.0
9 0
Potential Liability
0.0
5.0
50.0
waste Quantity Generated
7.0
1 0.0
70 0
Waste Hazard
8.0
4 0
32 0
Safety Hazard
6.0
2 0
12.0
Minimization Potential
5.0
1 CO
50.0
Potential to Remove Bottleneck
C.O
0.0
0 0
Po:eriti»i Byproduct Recovery
0.0
0.0
0.0
Sum of Priority Scores
KRxW)
253.C
I(RxW)
S(RxW)
Priority Rank
3
Notes:
1. Stream numbers should correspond to those used on process flow diagrams.
2. For example, sanitary landfill, hazardous waste landfill, onslte recycle, incineration.,
combustion with heat recovery, distillation, dewaterlng, etc.
3. Rate each stream tn each category on a scale from 0 (none) to 10 (high!.
75
-------
FIRM
WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED BY
5A.IC
5 Rofar
SITE
PRCC. UNIT/OPER.
CHECKED BY
Spray Palnrm;
6 Cjsnne
DATE-INITIAL
DATE-REVI5ED
PROJ. NO.
SHEET 1 OF 1 1 , PAGE „
02/09/09
03/09/90
:-632-03-942-02
| 1 OF 4
&EPA
Attribute
Descriptor (i)
Stream No.
02-E
Stream No.
Stream No.
1 Waste Name/ID
Degreasing Solvent
2Source/Orlg1n
DecrwvQ of frane fcan*.
^Component/or Property of Concern
N/A
4Annual Generation Rate, units:
N/A
5 Overall
20,2 10 *
6 Component(s) of Concern
N/A
7
N/A
3Cost of Disposal
N/A
3 Unit Cost, t per
J.25/* (IOC)
10 overall (per year)
$ 74/* (90/10)
1 1
N/A
12 Method of Management (2)
Off-s'le recycle
13
Priority Rating Criteria (3)
Relative
Rating
rm
RxW
Rating
(R)
RxW
Rating
(R)*
RxW
Regulatory Compliance
10.0
'0.0
100.0
Treatment/Disposal Cost
9.0
10.0
90.0
Potential Liability
10.0
9.0
90.0
waste Quantity Generated
7.0
0.0
0 2
Waste Hazard
0 C
1C.0
©
O
o
Safety Hazard
6.0
9.0
54.0
Minimization Potential
50
4.0
20.0
Potential to Remove Bottleneck
0.0
0.0
0.0
fotentul Byoroouct Recovery
0.0
0.0
0.0
Sum of Priority Scores
I(RxW)
434 2
KRxW)
:(RxW)
Priority Rank
1
WASTE STREAM SUMMARY
Notes:
1. Stream numbers should correspond to those used on process flow diagrams.
2. For example, sanitary landfill, hazardous waste landfill, onsite recycle, Incineration,
combustion with heat recovery, distillation, dewaterlng, etc.
3. Rate each stream In each category on a scale from 0 (none) to 10 (high).
76
-------
FIRM
waste minimization assessment
PREPARED BY
SA1C
5 ROl-31-
SITE
PRCC. UNIT/OPER.
CHECKED BY
Scray pjintmj
S Cjsh.ve
DATE-INITIAL
DATE-REVISED
PROJ. NO.
SHEET 1 OF 1 1 , PACE _
52/09/09
03/09/90
I-8J2-03-947-02
1 1 OF A
WORKSHEET
10
WASTE STREAM SUMMARY
&EPA
Attribute
Description (1)
Stream No.
OJ-F
5tream No
03-6
Stream No.
03-H
1 waste Name/ID
Rinse Waters
Process Tanks 1,3,6
Phosphate Bath
2Source/Orlgln
Dip Tarxs
Dip Tanks
D:P Tanks
'Component/or Property of Concern
N/A
N/A
N/A
4 Annual Generation Rate, units:
N/A
N/A
N/A
5 Overall
510,0C0 qa;.
43,660 gal.
2,730 qa\
6 Component(s) or Concern
N/A
N/A
N/A
7
N/A
N/A
N/A
8Cost of Disposal
N/A
N/A
N/A
9 Unit Cost. 3 pen
J 1.65/ I00ft(3)
Jl.65/I00rt(3>
J.24/53'.
10 Overall (per year)
J62.944.00
J5.39I.0C
J667.C0
1 t
N/A
N/A
N/A
12 Method of Management (2)
Pre-trea:mert onsite
Pre-treatment ons'te
corrmerclal TSDF
13
& POTW
& POTW
Priority Rating Criteria (3)
Relative
Wt (W1
Hating
-------
FIRM
SAIC
WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED BY
S. Roman
SITE
PROC. UNIT/OPER.
Ssretl 'tiv.'xo
CHECKED BY
0- Cushnie
DATE-INITIAL
O t/03/90
DATE-REVISED
04/17/90
PROJ. NO.
1-832-03-942-09
SHEET 1 OF 1 | ,
WORKSHEET
1 1
OPTION GENERATION
EPA
Inform:!
Masting formal (e.g., bralnetormlnfl, nominal group technique):
Meeting Coordinator: G. Cushnie
Meeting Participants.
The Truck Assembly Plant. - EPA Contractor - SAIC, Chemical Supplier - Betz Metcheir,
LIST SUGGESTED OPTIONS
RATIONALE / REMARKS ON OPTION
l. in-houi* fl»w«unno or th» oitecktnto oo'fU with r«ctcle
cf the wetsr:
1. Reduces volume of iludge sent to the landfill
2. Sludge dryers
2. Reduces volume of sludge sent to the landfill
3. Inject paint catalyst as paint is sprayed
3. Recently Implemented In one of the cab paint
booths, keeps unused paint liquid so it can be used
later
4. Ship leftover paint (custom colors) with the
4. Customers often request touch-up paint/must
finished truck
meet DOT regulations for shipping
5. Electrostatic Spray System t
.5 Increases transfer efficiency and reduces over-
sDrey/Preliminary testlne of this type of equipment
has already been done increases price
of spray guns end requires a power peck for each
painter
6. Vapor-lnjection-Curing
7.Change painting procedures so that custom
7. Reduces VOCs, reduces amount of paint used/
78
-------
FIRM
SAIC
WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED BV
S. Roman
SITE
PROC. UNIT/OPER.
Ssrag p«irvnq (continues)
CHECKED By
G- Cushnie
DATE-INITIAL
01/03/90
DATE-REVISED
04/17/90
PROJ. NO.
1-032-03-942-09
SHEET 1 OF 1 | 2 p*«4
WORKSHEET
1 1
OPTION GENERATION
&EPA
Meeting format (e.g.. brainstorming, nominal group technique): informal
Maetlng Coordinator: G Cushnie
Meeting Participants:
The Truck Assembly Plant - EPA Contractor - SATC. Chemcial Supplier - Bet; hetchem
LIST SUGGESTED OPTIONS
RATIONALE / REMARKS ON OPTION
designs don't reouire the entire port to be
Increase masking time
pointed the color of o stripe or design first
before the melnceb color is pointed over it
9. Install lock regulators on spray painting guns-
9. Lower air pressure reduces the amount of peint
oversprey/Sprey guns in the Chesis Peint Booth
currently have lock regulators
10. Closer regulation of paint mixed versus paint
idr the paint mixed in the paint mix
sprayed
room is returned unsprayed/closer tracking and
careful estimating can reduce this
11. Monitor painting schedule to minimize wosh
11. Painting has soma control over its schedule and
sprayed
further monitoring can decrease washout
12. Robotics
12. Problems with "Orange Peal' on finished paint
coat
13. Belt filter to dewater paint sludge end recycle
water back to the paint booth
79
-------
FIRM
SAIC
WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED BY
S. Roman
SITE
PROC. UNIT/OPER.
Dtcrifli'na or Fromt Pain - CnauU
CHECKED DV
B. Cushnie
DATE-INITIAL
02/09/90
DATE-REVISED
04/23/90
PROJ. NO.
1-832-03-942-00
SHEET 1 OF 1 | 3 P*BfE4
WORKSHEET
1 1
OPTION GENERATION
<>EPA
Meeting format (e.g., brainstorming, nominal group technique):
Informal
Meeting Coordinator: G Cushnie
Meeting Participants:
The Truck Assemblv Plant - EPA Contractor - SAIC
LIST SUGGESTED OPTIONS
RATIONALE 1 REMARKS ON OPTION
1. Use Spray system to degreose entire chassis and
1 Produces no waste solvent or dirty rags/increases
omit wiping with rags
VOC emissions and the amount of solvent used
Increases.
2. Segregate rags and solvent
2 Solvent will remain unccntamlnated and won't need
to be disposed of as frequently thus decreasing the
amount of solvent sent to disposal and the amount used.
3. Install a stilt to recover the spent solvent
3. Expensive; would require labor permits: etc. and
volume of solvent gernerated doesn't warrant its
installation.
4 Change type of solvent used
4. Current solvent produces the desired cleaning
QUOlil|j.
5. New rail washer
5. Reduces the amount of oil & grease on the chassis
thus reducing the amoun of solvent used.
80-
-------
FIRM
SAIC
WASTE niNtniZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED BY
S. Roman
SITE
PRQC. UNIT/OPER.
D»3i*#e#1nq of Framt Poll* - ChBitii
CHECKED BV
G Cushnie
DATE-INITIAL
02/09/90
DATE-REVISED
04/23/90
PROJ. ND.
1-832-03-942-00
SHEET 1 OF 1 j3 PAqGfE4
WORKSHEET
1 1
OPTION GENERATION
^EPA
hasting format (e.g., brainstorming, nominal group technique):
Uniting Coordinator: G. Cushnie
Informal
Meeting Participants:
The Truck Assembly Plant - EPA Contractor - SAIC, Chemical Supplier ¦ Betz Metchem
LIST SUGGESTED OPTIONS
RATIONALE / REMARKS ON OPTION
1. lONexchange/ recycle of rinse waters
1. Reduces sludge volume sent off-site and amount of
water used
2. Phosphate Bath Maintenance
2. Bath can last from 3-5 years if maintained
properly thus significantly decreasing row materials
used as well as amount sent to disposal.
3. Oil skimmers/filters
3 Remove oil ana dirt build-up In tne process lenks
and extends the life of the chemicals in the tank.
81
-------
-IRM
5AIC
WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED BY
5. 3cman
SITE
PRCC. UNIT/OPEB.
5p-av Panting
CHECKED BY
G Cusnnie
DATE-INITIAL
02/09/90
DATE-REVISED
03/'9/91
PROJ. NO.
1 -832-C3-9-12-02
SHEET 1 OF 1 I , PAGE _
| I OF 7
WORKSHEET
12
OPTION DESCRIPTION
Option Name: Belt Fi'ter fOP-1 >
Briefly Describe the Option:
Tms oofc-i invo'ves the dewatenno of Jetacofied paint with the use o" a belt filter
he detacK'f led
P3'.nt w Ds frwrri cit s the D2ih» Sijflse *5 n 2 dE yH*—
wale- is renvrlerl tc the na-rt. front-
' 1 5??SS; WT. V ,tp.g
Waste Stream(s) Affected:
Input MateriaKs) Affected:
Citv wa:e- '
Product(s) Affected:
None
Indicate Type: [^J Source Reduction
Equipment-Related Change
l~l Personnel/Procedure-Related Change
I I Materials-Related Change
Recycling/Reuse
K1 Onslte Material Reused for Original Purpose
| | Offslte Q Material Reused for Lower Quality Purpose
I | Material Sold
I I Material Burned for Heat Recovery
Orlgnally Proposed By: The truck asse-nbiy p'ant Date: Qi/30/90
Reviewed By: 5AIC Date: 01 /'8/90
Approved for Study? yes no, By:
Reason for Acceptance or Rejection
82
-------
FIRM
SAIC
WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED BY
S. Roman
SITE
PRDC. UNIT/OPER.
Sorau Painting
CHECKED BY
G. Cushnie
DATE-INITIAL
02/09/90
DATE-REVISED
04/24/90
PROJ. NO.
1-332-03-942-02
SHEET 1 OF 1 1 „ PACE
12 OF 7
WORKSHEET
1 2
OPTION DESCRIPTION
^EPA
Option Noma: Improved Transfer Efficiency (OP-2)
Briefly Describe the Option:
Currently the cab point booths hove g transfer efficiency of Booroximotely 35% ond the chassis
paint booth has a transfer efficiency of approximately 501. The transfer efficiencu con be
Increosed uo to 75-90% bu switching to HVLP or electrostatic sorau oaintino.
Waste Streom(s) Affected:
01-C.01-D
Input MaterlaUs) Affected:
¦Eflm.t
Product(e) Affected:
Npflfi
Indicate Type: Source Reduction
Kl Equipment-Related Change
I~1 Personnel/Procedure-Related Change
I I Materials-Related Change
I | Recycling/Reuse
| | Onsite EH Material Reused for Original Purpose
| | Offslte Q Material Reused lor Lower Quality Purpose
n Material Sold
I I Material Burned lor Heat Recovery
iSAl£ Date: 01/04/90
Drlgnally Proposed By:
Reviewed By:
Approved for Studu? .
SAir
Date: 01/1B/90
.yes
no, Bu:
Reeeon for Acceptance or Rejection
83
-------
FIRM
SAIC
WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED BY
S Roman
SITE
PROC. UNIT/OPER.
Soray Painting
CHECKED BY
G Cushnie
DATE-INITIAL
02/09/90
DATE-REVISED
03/16/91
PROJ. NO
1-632-03-942-C2
SHEET 1 OF 1 1 , PA6E
1 3 OF 7
WORKSHEET
12
OPTION DESCRIPTION
^EPA
Option Name: Procedural/Sma'i Eou-oment Changes (QP-3)
Briefly Describe the Option:
Tne facli'tv is currently invnticaitna a variety af p-jcufcrgl ara small eampnent ennan >r:r win streamline :r.tv
waste nvrvrrirat'or, procedures ""hese Include
sniaoino unmea o»irt witn tne rwsnea rue*
c aa'ustina tie painting scneauie
'nsiallma McV.ew pressure alarm;
'nstamna g C'Cta1 gtsnlav o' V cressure
c calit st-lpes ara aestois oye- the Eackarouna color
¦nstamra n-in-eompute-s tc eneeir '
-------
FIRPI
5AIC
WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED BY
5 Roman
SITE
?R0C. UNIT/OPER.
5p-ay Painting
CHECKED BY
G Cushme
DATE-INITIAL
07/09/90
DATE-REVISED
03/18/91
PROJ. NO.
1 -832-03-942-02
SHEET 1 OF 1 I „ PAGE _
I 4 OF 7
WORKSHEET
12
OPTION DESCRIPTION
OEPA
Option Name: Paint Mx Vohimes fOP--"-)
Briefly Describe the Option:
Paint's prepared daily >n tie pa'nt m:x room and is taken to the ca5 paint booths Any -eft ove- na-nt
is returned l.o the part thx room for use at a 'ate- date. The facility has developed a track-no system to
determine -enable estimates on the amount of paint required to pant a oarticuia- model This is done
bv measuring tie volumes of pant mixed as well as the volume of namt returned ta the mix room This
estimating process can 0e refined with carefyi monitonna of these track-n? reco-ds wh:cn will reduce
costs for raw materials and disposal
Waste Stream(s) Affected:
01-A. Ol-B
Input MateriaKs) Affected:
Paint
Product(s) Affected
None
Indicate Type: Q Source Reduction
[~l Equipment-Related Change
Personnel/Procedure-Related Change
l~l Materials-Related Change
|~~1 Recycling/Reuse
[~| Onslte CD Maler,aI Reused for Original Purpose
Offslte Q Material Reused for Lower Quality Purpose
~ Material Sold
|~~1 Material Burned for Heat Recovery
Orlgnally Proposed By: The truck assembly olant/SAlC Date: 01 /04/90
Reviewed By: £&!£ Date: 01 / 1 S/90
Approved Tor Study? yes no, By:
Reason for Acceptance or Rejection
85
-------
FIRM
SAIC
WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED BY
S. Roman
SITE
PROC. UNIT/OPER.
Sorau Pslntlna
CHECKED BY
G. Cushnie
DATE-INITIAL
02/09/90
DATE-REVISED
04/24/90
PROJ. NO.
1-832-03-942-02
SHEET 1 OF 1 1 „ PAGE
I 5 OF 7
WORKSHEET
12
OPTION DESCRIPTION
VJfEPA
Option Nome: Solvent Segregation fOP-5)
Briefly Describe the Option:
This option Involves the segregation of rags soiled with oil anfl grease from uncontaminated
solvent Ths raas will be kept in a separate container and dipped into the solvent lust orlor to
use. When not in use theu will remain In e container with other raos not soakino in e container
of solvent
Waste StreamU) Affected:
.22zl
Input MatertaKs) Affected:
Deoreasino Solvent
Product(s) Affected:
None
Indicate Type:
~
Source Reduction
l~l Equipment-Related Change
E3 Personnel/Procedure-Related Change
l~l Materials-Related Change
~
Recycling/Reuse
f~| Onslte O Material Reused for Original Purpose
I | Offslte Q Material Reused for Lower Quality Purpose
I I Material Sold
I I Material Burned for Heat Recovery
Orlflnally Proposed By: SAIC Date: 01/04/90
Reviewed By: .SMC Date: 01/1R/90
Approved for Study? yes no, By:
Reason for Acceptance or Rejection
86
-------
FIRM
5AIC
WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED BV
S. Roman
SITE
PROC. UN1T/OPER.
Scran Paintinc
CHECKED BY
G. Cushnie
DATE-INITIAL
02/09/90
DATE-REVISED
04/24/90
PROJ. NO.
1-832-03-S42-02
SHEET 1 OF 1 1 , PAGE _
I 6 OF 7
WORKSHEET
12
OPTION DESCRIPTION
<>EPA
Option Name: Ion Exhanpe/Recycle of Rtnse Weters COP-6)
Briefly Describe the Option:
This potion involves the Installation of ion exchange equipment to recucle the rinse weters
generated on the ohosphate/E-Coat line The recycle of these waters will reduce water use and
reduce the hydraulic loadiny of the pretreatment system. A smaller flow rate to the treatment
sustem mci- reduce chemical use and sludge production.
Weete Strsem(e) Affected:
Input Materlal(s) Affected:
.Mp.n?
Product(e) Affected:
None
Indicate Type: Q Source Reduction
El Equipment-Related Change
I I Personnel/Procedure-Related Change
I~1 Materials-Related Change
E3 Recycling/Reuse
53 Onsite SI Material Reused for Original Purpose
I") Offslte Q Material Reused for Lower Quality Purpose
~ Material Sold
I~1 Material Burned for Heat Recovery
Orignally Proposed By: Dote:
RBViewBd By: Date.
Approved for Study? yes no, By:
Reason for Acceptance or Rejection
87
-------
FIRM
SAIC
WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED BY
S. Roman
SITE
PRDC. UNIT/OPER.
Spray Palntinq
CHECKED BY
6. Cushnte
DATE-INITIAL
02/09/90
DATE-REVISED
04/24/90
PRDJ. NO.
1-E32-03-942-02
SHEET 1 OF 1 I , PaGE „
I 7 OF 7
WORKSHEET
12
OPTION DESCRIPTION
<&EPA
Option NamB: E-Coat Line Bath Maintenance (OP-7)
Brliflu Describe th« Option:
This option involves the purchase of equipment to maintain the process solutions on the
Dhosahate lins (tanks 1 3 Bnr16V The enuinmBit is basically filtration units which will
remove solids and oils contributed to the baths from the parts and the shoo atmosphere
Waste Stream(s) Affected:
03-G 03-H
Input tlaterlal(s) Affected:
Product(8) Affected:
None
Indicate Type:
~
Source Reduction
E3 Equipment-Related Change
I I Personnel/Procedure-Related Change
I I Materials-Related Change
~
Recycling/Reuse
| | Onsite O Material Reused for Original Purpose
| | Offslte Q Material Reused for Lower Quality Purpose
I | Material Sold
l~~l Material Burned for Heat Recovery
Orlonallu Proposed By: SAIC Date: 1/90
Reviewed By: SAIC Date: 2/90
Approved lor Study? yes no, Bu:
Reason for Acceptance or Rejection
88
-------
FIRM
SAIC
WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED DV
S. Roman
SITE
1
PROC. UNIT/OPER.
CHECKED DV
G. Cushnle
DATE-INITIAL IDATE-REVISED
01/03/90 lo4/24/90
PROJ. NO.
1-032-03-942-02
SHEET 1 OF 1 j f P^E2
WORKSHEET
13
OPT{ON GENERATION
S&EPA
Criteria
Weight
(W)
Options Rating (R)
•1 Ootlon
OP-1
•2 Option
OP-2
•3 Option
OP-3
*4 Option
OP-4
•3 Option
OP-5
R
R X W
R
R X W
R
R X W
R
R X W
R
R X W
Reduction In wests'* hazard
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.6
£.6
i.b
2.0
1.0
2.0
Raductlon of treatment/disposal coat*
5.0
5.0
25.0
8.0
40.0
5.0
25.0
7.0
35.0
7.0
35.0
Raductlon of safety hazard
7.0
1.0
7.0
4.0
28.0
1.0
7.0
1.0
7.0
1.0
7.0
Raductlon of Input material cost*
9.0
1.0
9.0
7.0
63.0
3.0
27.0
7.0
63.0
6.0
54.0
Extant of current use In Industry
10.0
8.0
80.0
8.0
80.0
5.0
50.0
5.0
50.0
5.0
50.0
Effect on product quality (no affect=IO)
10.0
10.0
100.0
10.0
100.0
10.0
100.0
10.0
100.0
10.0
100.0
Low capital cost
8.0
5.0
40.0
2.0
16.0
4.0
32.0
8.0
64.0
9.0
72.0
Low O&M cost
8.0
5.0
40.0
8.0
64.0
8.0
64.0
7.0
56.0
9.0
72.0
Short tmptsmentetlon period
5.0
5.0
25.0
3.0
15.0
7.0
35.0
10.0
50.0
10.0
50.0
Ease of Implementation
5.0
4.0
20.0
3.0
15.0
8.0
40.0
8.0
40.0
10.0
50.0
Final
Evaluation
Sum of Weighted Ratings 2 (R X W)
340.0
423.0
382.0
467.0
492.0
Option Ranking
7
3
5
2
1
Feasibility Analysis Scheduled for (date)
-------
FIRM
SAIC
WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
PREPARED BY
S. Roman
SITE
PROC. UNIT/OPER.
CHECKED BY
G. Cushnte
DATE-INITIAL
01/03/90
DATE-REVISED
04/24/90
PROJ. NO.
1-032-03-942-02
SHEET 1 OF 1
PAGE
I OF 2
WORKSHEET
13
OPTION GENERATION
&EPA
Criteria
Weight
(W)
Optlone Rating (R)
•1 Ootlon
OP-6
*2 Option
OP-7
*3 Option
*4 Option
*3 Option
R
R X W
R
R X W
R
R X W
R
R X W
R
R X W
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
Reduction of treetment/dleposal coste
5.0
5.0
25.0
5.0
25.0
Reduction of safety hazard
7.0
1.0
7.0
1.0
7.0
Reduction of Input material coete
9.0
5.0
45.0
5.0
45.0
Extent of current uee In Industry
10.0
8.0
80.0
6.0
60.0
Effect on product qualttu (no effects to)
10.0
9.0
90.0
8.0
80.0
Low cepttol cost
8.0
4.0
32.0
5.0
40.0
Low O&M cost
8.0
7.0
56.0
8.0
64.0
Short Implementation period
5.0
4.0
20.0
5.0
25.0
Ease of Implementation
5.0
6.0
30.0
5.0
25.0
Final
Evaluation
Sum of Weighted Ratlnga 2 (R X W)
307.0
373.0
Option Ranking
4
6
Feasibility Analysis Scheduled for (date)
-------
Appendix C
Feasibility Analysis Phase
Worksheets 14 to 17
91
-------
Firm
SAIC
Waste Minimization Assessment
Prepared By s. Roman
Sim
1
0
1
$
Checked Bv G- Cushnie
Date
1/3/90
1
Pmj Nn 1-832-03-942-02
Sheet _1_ of _g_ Page i of 6
WORKSHEET
14a
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
oEPA
WM Option Description Belt Filter (OP-I)
1. Nature of WM Option 0 Equipment-Related
~ Personnel/Procedure-Related
' i Materials-Related
2. H the option appeari technically feasible, state your rationale for thle. Belt filters have
been used in similar applications to dewater detackified paint that has
accumulated in the paint booth.
Is further analysis required? Q Yes EH No. If yes, continue with this
worksheet, if not, skip to worksheet 15.
3. Equipment • Related Option
Equipment available commerclaBy?
Demonstrated commercially?
In similar application?
Successfully?
Describe dosest industrial analog Similar spray painting operations.
IES
NO
~
~
0
~
~
~
~
Describe status Of development Fully Developed and Commercialized.
Prospective Vendor
Working Installallon(s)
Contact Person(s)
Date Contacted 1.
Serfilco
Dan Cooper
2-6-90
Hydro-Seperation Systmes
Roy Lister
2-6-90
1. Also attach fined out phone conversation notes, Installation visit report etc.
92
-------
SAIC
Firm
Site
riatft 1/3/90
Waste Minimization Assessment
Proc/uruvOper. • • i_
Prrij Nn 1-832-03-942-02
Prepared By S. Roman
Checked By
G. Cushnie
Sheet 2 of 6 Page
ol
WORKSHEET
14b
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
&EPA
(continued)
WM Option Description
Belt Filter (OP-1)
3. Equipment-Related Option (continued)
Performance Information required (describe parameters): The following information is required:
minimum and maxlmun flow rates and percent solids achievable. This data can be
generated by sending a representative sample of the wet sludge to an experiment
vendor for testing.
Scaleup Information required (describe): N0WE
Testing Required: CD yes ED no
Scale: CD bench CD pilot D
Test unit available? O yes CD no
Test Parameters (list)
Number of test runs: :
Amount of matertaKs) required:
Testing to be conducted: CD In-plant
~
Facility/Product Constraints:
Space Requirements Approximately 20 ft? (5.5' x 3.5')
Possible locations Within facility Unit will be used every 4 to 6 weeks when, the
detackified paint is pumped out of the paint booth. During use it should be located
where the paint sludge is being pumped from the booth. When not in use it can be
stored on-site, wherever space is availabteiflr left in place if convenient.
93
-------
Firm .
Site
Date
SAIC
1
Wuta Minimization Assessment
Proc Unit/Oper
Proj. No. 1-832-03-942-0?
Prepared By s. Roman
Checked By c. Cushnic
Sheet _3_ of _£_ Page ot
WORKSHEET
14c
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
WM Option Description
(oontimMM)
Belt Filter (OP-1)
2. Equipment-Related Option (continued)
Utility Requirement*-.
Electric Power
(B^cfiESTpaint)
Cooling Water
Volts (AC or DC) 115/1/6o kw
Flow 10-45flpm Pressure -
Quality (tap, demln, etc.)
Flow Pressure -
Temp, in
Coolant/Heat Transfer Fluid —
Steam
Temp. In .
Duty
Pressure
Duty
Temp. Out
Temp. Out
Tamp.
_ Row
&EPA
JJl.
Fuel
Plant Air.
hart Gaa.
Type.
Flow.
Duty-
Flow.
Flow.
Estimated delivery time (after award of winwn) 4 to 6 weeks
Estimated Installation tfrne a.
Installation dates
Estimated production downtime—"m»- ciwumn
Will production be otherwise affected? Explain the effect and impact on production. —
Will product quality be affected? Explain the effect on quality.
94
-------
Finn SAIC
Site
n,.. 1/3/90
Wast* Minimization Assessment
Proc Unft/Oper. '
Proj No. 1-832-03-942-02
Prepared By s. Roman
Checked By g. Cushnie
Sheet 4 o( _6_ Paje
WORKSHEET I
14d I
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
«>EPA
WM Option Description
Belt Filter (OP-1)
3. Equipment-Related Option (continued)
Will modmcatlont to work flow or production procedures be required? Explain. PetacKlfi?
-------
Frm SAIC
Waste Minimization Assessment
-Wri(TMTr1lt/rf|SflI
Prepared By s. Roman
Situ
Checked Bv G- Cushnie
n*. 1/3/90
Pmj Nn i _aT)-m-94?-n?
Sheet 5 of 6 Page of
WORKSHEET
14e
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
(oonttnuad)
WM Option Description Sell FtH" (QP-1)
3. Equipment-Related Option (continued)
<&EPA
The drum used to collect
Describe any additional storage or material handling requirements..
the filter media vill . need to be removed wher. filled and replaced with a
new drum.
Describe any additional laboratory or analytical requirements, one
4. Personnel/Procedure-Related Changes (skip to worksheet 15a)
Affected Departments/Areas
Training Requirements
Operating Instruction Changes. Describe responsible departments.
5. Materials-Related Changes (Nate: If substantial changes In equipment are required, then handla the
option as an equipment-related one.) ll> ita
Has the new material been demonstrated commercially? ~ ~
In a similar application? ~ ~
Successfully? ~ ~
Describe closest application
96
-------
Firm
Site
SAIC
Date m/QO
Waste Minimization Assessment
¦ -fwe. uwoper
Prof. Mo 1-832-03-942-02
Prepared By
Checked By
Sheel 1 of 6
S. Roman
G. Cushnie
Page
of
WORKSHEET
15a
COST INFORMATION
oEPA
WM Option rwxrrtptlnn Belt Filter
CAPITAL COSTS • Include all costs as appropriate. TOTALS
E Purchased Process Equipment
Price (fob factory) 7.176 (complete filter sv stem)
Taxes, freight, Insurance 630 .oo
Delivered equipment cost 7,606.61
Price for initial Spare Parts Inventory J s? .60=;
CD Estimated Materials Cost
piping Assume 20 percent of equipment
Electrical
Instruments
Structural
InsulailorVPIplng
$1,521
~ Estimated Costs lor utility Connections and New Utility Systems
Electricity
Steam
Cooling Water
Process Water
Refrigeration
Fuel (Gas or Oil)
Plant Air
Inert Cat
G3 Estimated Costs for Additional Equipment
Storage & Maierial Handling 55_gaiion drums - use
recycled drums
Laboratory/Analytical
Other
~ Site Preparation
(Demolition, arte clearing, etc.)
Q Estimated Installation Coat*
Vendor
Contractor
In-hOUM Staff 3 workers for B hrs @13 Hr. S 312
97
-------
Firm saic
Site
1/3/90
Waaia MlnbnizHlon AmwMm
Pmr llnH/npur Spray Painting
PmJ. No. 1-832-93-9^2-92
Prapvvd By S. Roman
Chacked By c. cushnie
Stoet 2 o< 6 Paga o(
WORKSHEET
15b
COST INFORMATION
«>EPA
CAPITAL COSTS (Com.)
H Engineering and Procuramant Coat* (In-houaa It outside)
TOTALS
Planning
Engineering
Procurement
Consuttante
~ Start-up Coaia
Vandor
Contractor
In-houaa
ABSume 207. of equipment costs
.521
$0
CH Training Costa
CD Parmlttlng Coata
Feea
In-houaa 8taH Coata
O In Rial Charge ot Catalyata and Chamlcala
JQ_
so
lum ft.
kam #2.
$o
Q Working Capital [Raw Malarial*, Product, Inventory, Matarlala and Supptai (not ebewfient cpedned)].
Digposa-Fabric media $192./200 yd. roll
¦am«2
Rem *3.
torn #4.
~ Eslbnatad Salvage Value flf any)
98
-------
Firm SAIC
SHe
Dale 1/3/90
Waste Minimization Assessment
Proc:uiwopef."^_
Proj. No.
1-832-03-9A2-02
Prepared By s. Romar.
Checked By r,. CuEhnie
Sheet 3 of 6 Page o)
WORKSHEET
15c
COST INFORMATION
v>EPA
CAPITAL COST SUMMARY
Cost Item
Cost
Purchased Process Equipment
Materials
Utility Connections
n
Additional Equipment
0
Site Preparation
0
Installation
321
Engineering and Procurement
1,521
Start-up Cost
0
Training Costa
0
Permitting Costs
0
InHlsl Chargs of Catalysts snd Chemicals
0
Fixed Capital Investment
$10,959
Working Capital
192
Total Capital Investment
11,151
Salvage Value
99
-------
Firm SAic
Site
Date —i/j/90
Watt* Minimization Assessment
Proc. UnK/Oper.
Proj. No. 1-832-03-942-02
Prepared By S. Roman
Checked By r. r.,cK„,-.
Sheet _4_ of _6_ Page of
WORKSHEET
15d
COST INFORMATION
$EPA
0 Estimated Decrease (or Increase) In tMIIHlei
Utility
Unit Cost
(per unit
Decreae* (or Inereaee) In Quantity
Unit per time
Total Decreae* (or IncrMu)
S per time
Electricity
$.08/kv-hr
(239 KV. HR/YR)
($19/yr)
Steam
Cooling Procese
Prooeee Water
Refrigeration
Fuel (Oae or Oil)
Plant Air
Inert Air
INCREMENTAL OPERATING COSTS • Include all relevant operating savings. Estimate these costs on an incre-
mental basis (i.e., as decreases or increases over existing costs).
0 BASS FOR COSTS Annual_* Quarterly Monthly Dally Other
~ Estimated Disposal Coat Saving
Assumes : 1.) In TSDF F*M $5.978 (includes Trans.)
of sludge is frofeeriasAmstataf«mandTa»s
pic cleanout, 2.)
107. Bolids for Decrease In Transportation Costs
wet sludge, and Decrease m Onstt*Treatment and Handling
3.) 35Z solids for
devatered a ludgeD*01'**4*P*nnlttlng, Reporting and Recordkeeping
Total Decrease In Disposal Costa $5,97t
Estimated Doctbbm In Raw Matsrtals Consumption
Material*
Unit Cost
$par unit
Reduction In Quantity
Units per time
Decrease In Cost
$ par time
Citv Water
S7.70/K Giil
7RO If r.al
<1 71A
Booth Chemicals (SEE WS 7)
SBn.907 Yr.
107.
sj^noi
Total
>9.807
Assumes 501 reduction of booth water and
10% reduction of booth chemicals
100
-------
Finn
Sits
Date i/a/90
Waste Minimization Assessment
Pfoc. UnA/Oper
ProJ. NO. 1-B32-03-942-02
Prepared By s. Reman
Checked By c. Cuahnie
Sheet J5_ of _6_ Page 01
WORKSHEET
15e
COST INFORMATION
SEPA
~
Estimated Decrease (or Increase) In Ancillary Catalysis and Chemicals
Cataly it/Chemical
Unit Co at
S per unit
DecreiM (or IncrtaM) In Quantity
Unit per time
Total Decraiie (or tncraiu)
$ par lima
~ Estimated Decrease (or Increase) In Operating Costs and Maintenance Labor Costs
(Include cost ot supervision, benefits artd burden).
0 Estimated Dtcraast (or Incrtau) In Operating and Maintenance Supplies and Costs.
Disposa- Fabric Media - 4 rolls (3 S192 *= $76B
~
Estimated Decrease (or Increase) In Insurance and Liability Costs (explain).
HI) Estimated Decrease (or Increase) In Other Operating Costs (explain).
INCREMENTAL REVENUES
| | Estimated Incremental Revenues from an Increase (or Decrease) In Production or Marketable
By-products (explain).
101
-------
SAIC
Firm
Site
natp 1/3/90
Waste Minimization Assessment
"Pftc: urm/cper
Proj. No.
1-932-03-942-02
Prepared By s. Roman
Checked By C. Cushnie
Sheet 6 ot 6 Page ol
WORKSHEET
15 f
COST INFORMATION
Sepa
INCREMENTAL OPERATING COST AND REVENUE SUMMARY (ANNUAL BASIS)
Decreases In Operating Cost or Increaaea In Revenue ire Positive.
Increase* In Operating Coat or Decrease m Revenue are Negative.
Operating Cost/Revenue Item
t per year
Decrease In Disposal Cost
S S.978
Decrease In Raw Materials Cost
$ 9,807
Decrease (or Increase) In utilities Cost
n<)>
Decrease (or Increase) In Catalysts and Chemicals
$ o
Decrease (or Increase) In 0 & M Labor Costs
s n
Decrease (or Increase) In 0 & M Supplies Costs
- (768)
Decrease (or Increase) In Insurance/Liabilities Costs
$ 0
Decrease (or increase) in Other Operating Costs
S n
Increments! Revenues from Increased (Decreased) Production
$ o
Incremental Revenues from Marketable By-producta
5 n
Net Operating Cost Savings
S14.998
102
-------
Firm SAIC
Site
Dale wwon
Waata Minimization Assaismint
Pioc LWt/Oper
Pro) No. i-gjp-pj-wa.aa
Prepared By s. Roman
Checked By r. rnctin-j*
Sheet _1_ ol J_ Page ol
WORKSHEET
16
PROFITABILITY WORKSHEET# 1
PAYBACK PERIOD
&EPA
Belt Filter (OP-1)
Total Capital Investment (J) (from Worksheet 15c) $11.151
Annual Nat Operating Coat Saving! ($ par yaar) (from Wortcahaat isn $14.998
Total Capital Invaatmant
Payback Period [In yaara) ¦
Annual Nat Operating coat Saving*
0. 7 year
103
-------
Firm SAIC
Wsste Mlnbnlzatlon Assessment
pmr llnlt/ftfw
Prepared By * *n„,„
Silo
Checked By c. Cushnie
Data 1/1/qn
Pmj No l
Sheet JL of _£_ Page 2 o) 6
WORKSHEET
14a
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
Sepa
WM Option Description Transfer Efficiency (OP-2)
1. Nature of WM Option
a Equlpmsm-Reiated
~ P*rsonrMl/Proc*dur»-R*Lat*d
n MatertBls-Related
2. If the option appears technically feasible, stste your rational*i for this. This proposed option
includes equipment that is used for similar purposes in industry
Is further analysis required? IO Yes No. If yes, continue with this
worksheet. If not, skip to worksheet 15.
3. Equipment - Related Option
YES HQ
Equipment available commercially? 0 ~
Demonsirated commercially? 0 1 !
In similar application? Q uJ
Successfully? H 0
Descrfee Closest industrial analog Similar gprav painting operations
Describe status Ot development Fully developed and commercialized.
Prospective Vendor
Working Installations)
Contact Person(s)
Date Contacted 1.
70V24<>-inm
n.
1 /Qf>
1. Also attach fined out phone conversation notes, Installation visit report, etc.
104
-------
Firm saic
Site
~ate 1/3/90
Waste Minimization Assessment
Proc. Unit/Oper..
Proj. NO. 1-832-03-9^2-02
Prepared By S. Roman
Checked By r.
Sheet J_ ol Paje
o<
WORKSHEET
14b
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
(oonUnuM)
<8-EPA
WM Option Description
Pf f-i i-icnry f DP- t 1
3. Equipment-Related Option (continued)
Performance Information required (describeparameters): spray transfer efficiencies and
effectiveness of coverage.
Sea la Lip Information required (describe): N0KE
Tesilng Required: Q yes EH no
Scale: D bench EH pilot 0 _ —Hamortt at 1 on
Test unit available? dl ye* ~ no
Test Parameters (list)
Number ot test runs:
Amount ot materials) required:
Testing to be conducted: 0 bvplant
~
Facility/Product Constraints:
Space Requirements Paint booths may require some enlargement .
Possible locallona within facility Paint Spr_y Booths
105
-------
Firm SA.I C
Site
Date i/a/90
Wast* Minimization Asm urn* nt
Proc. Untt/Oper
Proj. No. 1-832-01-942-0?
prepared By S. Roman
Checked By C. Cushnie
Sheet _2_ of Page of
WORKSHEET
14c
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
WM Option Description
(c
Transfer Efficiency (OP-2)
2. Equipment-Related Option (continued)
Utility Requirements: (All utilities as existing)
Electric Power Volts (AC or DC) kW.
Process Water Flow Pressure.
Quality (tap, demln, etc.)
Flow Pressure.
Cooling Watar
Temp. In
Coolant/Heat Transfer Fluid —
Temp. Out.
Steam
Temp. In .
Duty
Pressure
Duty
Temp. Out.
Temp.
_ Flow
Sepa
Fuel Type Flow_
Duty.
Plant Air Flow
Inert Gas Flow
Estimated delivery time (after award of contract)^
Estimated Installation time I week
Installation preferrablv during annual plant shut down:
Estimated production downtime 1-2 days
win production be otherwise affected? Explain the effect and Impact on production, no
will product quality be affected? Explain the effect on quality. -52.
106
-------
WORKSHEET
14d
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
SAIC
Prpc. Unit/Oper
p^| no. 1-832-03-942-02
Wast* Minimization Assessment
Prepared By s. w,n
Checked By
Sheet 4 of 6 Page
WM Option Description
(BOfttiAiMd)
Transfer Efficiency (OP-2)
3. Equipment-Related Option (continued)
WIN modification* to work flow or production procedures be required? Explain..
Operator and maintenance training requirements
Number of people to be trained —tzlh.
123 Onslte
D Off she
Duration or training 8 hours
Describe catalyst, chemicals, replacement parts, or other supplies required.
Item
Rate or Frequency
of Replacement
Supplier, Address
Does the option meet government and company safety and health requirements?
ED Yea ED No Explain . to be determined
How Is service handled (maintenance and technical aaalstance)? Explain Nnt determined.
What Warranties are Offered? Will vary by manufacturer
107
-------
Firm —sail—
Site
Date 1/3/90
Waste Minimization Assessment
Proc UnH/Oper.
Proj. No.
Prepared By s. Ronan
Checked By G. Cushnie
Sheet 5 of 6 Page
of
WORKSHEET
14e
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
WM Option Description.
(eonUfMMd}
Transfer Efficiency (OP-2)
x>EPA
3. Equipment-Related Option (continued)
Describe any additional storage or malerlal handling requirements. N0WE
Describe any additional laboratory or analytical requirements. ndkf
4. Personnel/Procedur»-Retated Changes t skip to worksheet 15a)
ANected Departmenls/Areas
Training Requirements
Operating Instruction Changes. Describe responsible departments.
5. Materials-Related Changes (Note: It substantial changes In equipment ant required, then handle the
option as an equlprpem-related one.) In Nil
Has the new material been demonstrated commercially? ~ ~
m a similar application? ~ ~
Successfully? ~ ~
Describe closest application. __
108
-------
Firm epa
WM Option Description Tramftr Efficiency {QP~?)
CAPrTAL COST5 - Include all costs as appropriate. TOTALS
Purchased Process Equipment
Price (fob lactory) w>u guns, pnwr park
Taxes, freight, Insurance
Delivered equipment cost
Price lor initial Spare Parts Inventory ss oon
~ Estimated Materials Cost
Piping see addition2l equipment below
Electrical
Instruments
Structural
Insulatlon/Plping
O Estimated Costs for Utility Connections and New Utility Systems
Electricity
Steam
Cooling Water
Process Water
Refrigeration
Fuel (Gas or OD)
Plant Air
Inert Gaa
CD Estimated Costs lor Additional Equipment
Storage & Material Handling
Laboratory/Analytical
Other
Site Preparation Paint Booth reconstruction si s fffln
(Demolition, atte dealing, ate.)
| | Estimated Installation Coats
Vendor
Contractor
ln-house Staff
iuy
-------
Firm SAIC
Site —
Dale 1/3/90
Wast* Minimization Aa
Proc. llnlt/Oper
essment
Pro). No. i-R^?-o3-ai,ia.Q3
Prepared By
Checked By g
Sheet 2 of 6
-S.—Br>man
finshnip
Page of
WORKSHEET
15b
COST INFORMATION
vvEPA
CAPITAL COSTS (Cont.)
F] Engineering and Procurement Costa (ln-house & outside)
Planning
Engineering
Procurement
Consultants
~ Start-up Costs
Vendor
Contractor
In-house
Assume 207o of eouipraent
and reconstruction costs
Assume 107. of equipment and
"—i - -T-r-—— - *¦"
reconstruction costs.
totals
$ 4,000
$2,000
S Training Coata
~ Permitting Costs
Fiea
In-house staff Costs
CH Initial Charge of Catalysta and Chemlcala
Itemfi.
Item #2.
14 MF>; Y RHni.r $13 Hn.i
<1 I'M
J Q_
_$ Q_
O Working Capital |Raw Materials, Product, Inventory. Materials and Supplies (not elsewhere specified)].
Rem *1 -
Rem *2.
Rem #3.
Rem #4.
d Estimated Salvage Value (1' any)
110
-------
Firm SAlc
Sile
Wast* Minimization Assessment
Option 2
p®r. Unit/Oper
Dale 173/90
Proj. No.
1-832-03-942-02
Prepared By s. Roman
Checked By C. Cushr.ie
Sheet el _6_ Paoe ol
WORKSHEET
15c
COST INFORMATION
«>EPA
CAPITAL COST SUMMARY
Cost nam
Cost
Purchased Process Equipment
S5.000
Materials
0
Utility Connections
0
Additional Equipment
0
Site Preparation
515.000
Installation
0
Engineering and Procurement
4,000
Start-up Cost
2,000
Training Costs
1,456
Permitting Costs
Initial Charge of Catalysts and Chemicals
Fixed Capital Investment
527,456
Working Capital
Total Capital Investment
527,456
Sahrage Value
111
-------
Ffem .
Site .
Date.
SAIC
1/3//90
Wast* Minimization Assessment
Proc. Unlt/Oper
Proj. NO. 1-632-03-942-02
Prepared By s. pnman
Checked By c- cushnie
Sheet ±_ of J>_ Page of
WORKSHEET
15d
COST INFORMATION
&EPA
O Estimated Decrease (or Increase) In Utilities No significant; cose changes expected
Utility
Unit Cod
tpar unS
Decreaae (or Increase) In Quantity
Unit par time
Total Dacraaaa (or Increaaa)
S par time
Electricity
Steam
Cooling Process
Proeaaa Water
Refrigeration
Fuel (Oae or Oil)
Plant Air
Inert Air
INCREMENTAL OPERATING COSTS - include all relevant operating savings Estimate these costs on an incre-
mental basis (i.e., as decreases or Increases over existing costs).
EH BASIS FOR COSTS Annual _X Quarterly Monthly Dally Other
~ Estimated Disposal cost Saving
..ssume that 30X Decreaae In TSDF Fees $1'*98
f painting is Decrease In State Fees end Taxes
rone rails and that
i 30% efficiency Decrease In Transportation Costs
ncrease for f ramoOecrease In Onalte Treatment and Handling
ails will be
¦chieved. Decrease in Permitting, Reporting and Recordkeeping
Total Decrease In Disposal Costa Si ,498
GD Estimated Decrease In Raw Materials Consumption
Materials
Unit Cost
< per unit
Reduction In Quantity
Units per time
Decrease In Cost
$ per time
3 7RH pfiv
S1S1.200/vr
112
-------
Firm SAIf
Waste Minimization Assessment
Proc linft/Opar
Prepared By
SHa
Checked Bv
Dflln
Pmj kn
Sheet 5 o) 6 Page of
WORKSHEET
15e
COST INFORMATION
tc5r5$nu55>
SEPA
~
Estimated Decrease (or Increase) In Ancillary Catalysts and Chemicals
Cat* >y at/Chemical
Unit Coat
t per unit
Dannu (er Inert as*) In Quantity
Una par time
Total Daeraaaa (or Incraaaa)
S par time
ED Estimated Decrease (or Increase) In Operating Costs and Maintenance Labor Costs
(Include cost of supervision, benefits and burden).
~
Estimated Decrease (or Increase) In Operating and Maintenance Supplies and Costs.
~
Estimated Decrease (or Increase) In Insurance and Liability Costs (explain).
~ Estimated Decrease (or Increase) In Other Operating Costs (explain).
INCREMENTAL REVENUES
Estimated Incremental Revenues trom an Increase (or Decrease) in Production or Marketable
By-praducta (explain).
~
113
-------
Firm SAIC
Site
Date _Ii 3./.9Q
Waste Minimization Assessment
Proc. UnH/Opef
PfOJ. NO. 1-832-03-942-02
Prepared By s. Roman
Checked B^-_ Cushn ie
Sheet J_ of _6 Page _
of
WORKSHEET
15 f
COST INFORMATION
&EPA
(MnlbMMd)
MCREMENTAL OPERATING COST AND REVENUE SUMMARY (ANNUAL BASIS}
Decreases In Operating Cost or Increases In Revenue are Positive.
Increases In Operating Coat or Decrease in Revenue are Negative,
Operating CosfRevenue Hem
$ per year
Decrease In Disposal Coat
S 1,498
Decrease In Raw Materials Cost
151.200
Decrease (or Increase) In Utilities Cost
0
Decrease (or increase} In Catalysts and Chemicals
0
Decrease (or Increase) In O & M Labor Costs
0
Decrease (or Increase) In 0 & M Supplies Costa
0
Decrease (or Increase) In Insurance/Liabilities Costs
0
Decrease (or Increase) In Other Operating Costs
0
Increments! Revenues from increased (Decreased) Production
0
Incremental Revenues Irom Marketable By-products
17
Net Operating Cost Ssvlngs
$ 152,698
114
-------
Firm SAIC
Site
Wast* Minimization Assessment
Date 1/3/9Q
-PWcrWrtt/Oper
Pro). No. 1-832-03-942-02
Prepared By s. Roaan
Checked By G. Cushnie
Sheet _1_ of J_ Paoe of
Option 2
WORKSHEET
16
PROFITABILITY WORKSHEET# 1
PAYBACK PERIOD
Sepa
Improved Transfer Efficiency (OP-2)
Total Capital investment ($) (from Worksheet 15c) $27 '45fe
Annual Net Operating Cost Savings ($ per year) (from Worksheet I5n si"i?,6
-------
Ftrm SAIC
Site
Date .
1/3/90
Waste Minimization Assessment
Wdfc^'BniWJ^r. Spray Painting
Prepared By g
Roman
Pro). No. 1-832--03-W.2-Q2
Checked By G. Cushnie
Sheet 1 of JL Page ot
WORKSHEET
14a
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
Sepa
WM Option Description
Paint Mix Volume (OP-&)
1. Nature of WM Option
0 Equlpmem-Related
Personnel/Procedure-Related
~ Materia la-Relat ad
2. If the option appears technically feasible, state your rationale for this. The facility is current
tracking paint mixed volumes versus paint sprayed volumes and has achieved an
average of 1.3 quarts of paint wasted per truck due to over cixing. Continued
monitoring should be abe to decrease this to less than one quart.
Is further analysis required? 0 Yes O No. If yes, continue with this
worksheet. If not, skip to worksheet 15.
3. Equipment • Related Option (Not applicable-skip to worksheet 14e)
Equipment available commercially?
Demonstrated commercially?
In similar application?
Successfully?
Describe dosest industrial analog
XES
~
~
~
~
HQ
~
~
~
~
Describe status ot development
Prospective Vendor
Working Installatlon(s)
Contact Person(s)
Dale Contacted 1.
1. Also attach fined out phone conversation notes, Installation visit report, etc.
116
-------
Firm SAIC
Waste Minimization Assessment
Pmr LmirfipRr --
Prepared By s. Roman
Situ
Checked By G. Cushnie
Data 1/3/90
Pmi Nn 1-832-03-9^2-02
Steel 5 of 6 Page of
WORKSHEET
14e
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
WM Option Description.
foontinuM)
Paint Mix Volumes (OP-4)
v>EPA
3. Equipment-Related Option (continued)
Describe arty additional storage or malarial handling requirements..
Describe any additional laboratory or analytical requirements.
4. Personnel/Procedure-Related Changes
Affected Departments/Areas Production Dept. / Paint Areas - personnel working in
the paint mix room.
Training Requirements Personnel in the paint mix room are currently monitoring
the volume of paint vasted due to over mixing and estimating the specific volume
of paint needed for a particular model. The cstiaates will improve with time with
a reduction in the amount of paint wasted due to overmlxing.
Operating Instruction Changes. Describe responsible departments. None
Malertals-Related Changes (Note: If substantial changes In equipment ere required, then handle the
option as an equipment-related one.) (skip to worksheet 15a) In Ha
Has the new materiel been demonstrated commercially? ~ ~
In a similar application? ~ ~
Successfully? ~ ~
Describe closest application
117
-------
Finn SAIC
Waste Minimization Assessment
Pinr 1 InH/Dpnr
Prepared By s. Roman
Sho
Checked Bv r.
nald 1/3/90
pmi Kin 1-832-03-9^2-02
Sheet J_ of Ji_ Page of
WORKSHEET
15a
COST INFORMATION
&EPA
WM Option Description
Point Mix Volune (OP-M
CAPrTAL COSTS • Include all costs as appropriate.
~ Purchased Procesa Equipment
Price (fob factory) __
Taxes, freight, Insurance _
Delivered equipment cost _
Price tor Initial Spare Parts Inventory
CD Estimated Materials Cost
Piping —
Electrical —
Instruments —
Structural —
Insulal Ion/Piping —
TOTALS
~ Estimated Costs for utility Connections and New Utility Systems
Electricity
Steam
Cooling Waler
Process Waler
Refrigeration
Fuel (Gas or Oil)
Plant Air
Inert Gas
QD Estimated Costs for Additional Equipment
Storage & Material Handling
Laboratory/Analyt leal
Olher
~ Site Preparation
(Demolition, alt* clearing, etc.)
Estimated Installation Costs
Vendor
Contractor
In-house Staff
Scale
Already in use
$500.00
~
118
-------
Fu 111
Site
natft 1/3/90
Wast* Minimization Assessment
Proc. Untt/Oper.
Pm] ^1-632-03-942-02
Prepared By s. Roman
Checked By
Sheet 2 of
G. Cushnie
B_ Page ol
WORKSHEET
15b
COST INFORMATION
«>EPA
CAPITAL COSTS (Cont.)
B Engineering and Procurement Costa (In-house & outside)
Planning
Engineering too Hr.@ $22.oo/hr.
Procurement
Consultants
totals
ft?,?nn
~ Start-up Costa
Vendor
Contractor
In-house
C] Training Coats
[I] Permitting Costs
Fees
In-ho use Staff Costa
CH initial Charge of Catalysts and Chemicals
Itemn
Rem #2
GO Working Capital [Raw Materials, Product, Inventory, Materials and Supplies (nol elsewhere specified)].
Ham #1 Log book to track yqluces
Item *2
Item *3
Item *4 $ 25.00
(yearly supply)
C] Eatlmated Salvage Value (H any) —
119
-------
Firm gtTf.
Sile
Wast* Minimization Assessment
Proc Una/Oper..
Dal, 1/3/90
Proj. No. 1-832-03-9^-2-02
Prepared By s. Roman
Checked By c. Cushnie
Sheet _3__ of _6_ Page of
WORKSHEET
15c
COST INFORMATION
(«onllm—I
v>EPA
CAPITAL COST SUMMARY
Cost Item
Cost
Purchased Process Equipment
S 0
(Materials
s 0
Utility Connections
0
Additional Equipment
s son
Site Preparation
5 0
Installation
S 0
Engineering end Procurement
$ 2 .200
Stari-up Cost
$ 0
Training Costs
$ o
Permitting Costs
$ 0
Initial Charge of Catalysta and Chemicals
$ 0
Fixed Capital Investment
S 7.700
Working Capital
$ 25
Total Capital Investment
C 7,79s
Salvage Value
$ 0
120
-------
Firm SAIC
Waste Mlnbnbatlon Assessment
Pror iinit/Opnr
Prepared By s • Rocan
Sit ft
Checked Bv K. Cushnie
nam 1 mqn
Praj Nn 1-830-03-942-02
Sheet 4 of 6 Page o(
WORKSHEET
15d
COST INFORMATION
"1
«>EPA
0 Estimated Decrease (or Increase) In Utilities
Utility
Unit Com
S per unit
Decraaaa (or Incraiae) In Quantity
Unit par time
Total Dacraaaa (or Incraaaa)
S par tlma
Electricity
$.08/kw-hr
(572 kv-hr 1 yr)
($46.00 1 yr)
Steam
Cooling Procaae
Prooeae Water
Ratrtoeratlon
Fuel (Oat or Oil)
Plant Air
Inert Air
INCREMENTAL OPERATING COSTS - Include an relevant operating savings Estimate these oosts on an incre-
mental basis (I.e., as decreases or Increases over existing costs).
DD BASIS FOR COSTS Annual J: Quarterly Monthly Dally Other
E Estimated Disposal Cost 8aving
Assumes 0.3 qt. Decrease InTSDF Feel S4M-flH_Lin£.ludes trans.)
of paint e
per truck
of paint saved p,,, Juq,
Decrease In Transportation costs
Decrease In Onstte Treatment and Handling
Decrease In Permitting, Reporting and Recordkeeping
Total Decrease In Disposal Costa $/*96 00
I I Estimated Decrease In Raw Materials Consumption
Materials
Unit Cost
$ per unit
Reduction In Quantity
Units per time
Decrease In Cost
S per time
S40.00 eal
$647.25 pa 1b
s? s.Ron. tin
121
-------
Firm SAIC
Waste Minimization Assessment
Pmc IJhH/Dpnr
SH«
Checked By g. Cushnie
Data 1/3/90
Pmj No 1-832-03-942-02
Sheet _5_ of _6_ Page of
WORKSHEET
15e
COST INFORMATION
(cornimMKJ)
$EPA
~
Estimated Decrease (or Increase) In Ancillary Catalysts and Chemicals
CatatyaVChamleal
Unit Ca*t
t par unit
OaoraM* (or IncrMM) In Quantity
Unit per time
Total DacraiM (or IncrMM)
S p*r time
~
Estimated Decrease (or Increase) In Operating Costs and Maintenance Labor Costs
(Include cost or supervision, benefits and burden).
E Estimated Decrease (or Increase) In Operating and Maintenance Supplies and Costs.
Logbooks Mill need to bp purchased at an approximate cost of $25.00 per vear
O Estimated Decrease (or Increase) in Insurance and Liability Costs (explain).
~ Estimated Decrease (or bicrease) In Other Operating Costs (explain).
INCREMENTAL REVENUES
Estimated Incremental Revenues from an Increase (or Decrease) In Production or Marketable
By-products (explain).
~
122
-------
Firm SAIC
Site
nata 1/3/90
Wast* Minimization Assessment
WDC. Uhlt/Oper". :
PTOj. NO. 1-832-03-942-02
Prepared By s. Roman
Checked By G- Cushlne
Sheet 6 of _6_ Page ol
WORKSHEET
15 f
COST INFORMATION
(MMJfMMMl)
oEPA
INCREMENTAL OPERATING COST AND REVENUE SUMMARY (ANNUAL BASIS)
Decreases In Operating Cost or Increases In Revenue ere Positive.
Increases In Operating Cost or Decrease In Revenue are Negative.
Operating Cost/Revenue Item
9 per year
Decrease In Disposal Cost
$ 496
Decrease in Raw Materials Coat
$25,890
Decrease (or Increase) In Utilities Cost
S - (46)
Decrease (or Increase) In Catalysts and Chemicals
s o
Decrease (or Increase) In 0 & M Labor Costs
$ 0
Decrease (or Increase) In 01 M Supplies Costs
$ - (25)
Decrease (or Increase) In Insurance/Liabilities Costs
$ 0
Decraaae (or Increase) In Other Operating Coata
$ 0
Incremental Ravenuea from Increased (Decreased) Production
0
Incremental Revenues from Marketable By-products
$ 0
Net Operating Cost Savings
S?fi US
123
-------
Firm SAI£_
SHe
n*. 1/3/90
Wast* Minimization Assassmant
"P(Cc: Unit/Oper..
Pro|. No. i-m7-m-«?&2-02
Prepared By S. Roman
~G. Cushnie
Checked By
Sfwei J_ of J_ Page ol
WORKSHEET
16
PROFITABILITY WORKSHEET # 1
PAYBACK PERIOD
&EPA
Paint Mix Volumes (OP-4)
Total Capital tnvaatmant ()) (from WorfcahMt 15c) s? 7?s
Annual Nat Opaming Coat Savlnga (S par yaar) (from Worfcshaal 15f) s?f.,~ns
_ . . _ _ . Total Capital Invaatmant
Annual Nat Operating Coat Savlnga " Q-1 Tr
124
-------
Truck - 14-4
Firm _
SA1C
Waata Minimization Aaaesament
Prepared By s. Roman
Sh»
Spray Painting
Date _
1/3/90
Pmi Nn 1-B32-03-942-02
Sheet 1 of 6 Page a of 6
WORKSHEET
14a
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
4>epa
WM Option Description Minimizing Dtgrtagjnz Solvent Waste Volume (OP-5)
1. Nature of WM Option 0 Equipment-Related
~ Personnel/Procedure-Related
~ Malirtals-Refsted
2. H the option appear* tachnlcally taaalbla, atata your rallonala for thla. This option requires
the purchase of new solvent containers and changes to degreasing procedures. The
equipment needed for the option has not yet been identified, but is assumed to exist.
la turthar analyala required? E YaaCZi No. If yaa, continue with thla
workaheet If not, aklp to workaheet IS.
3. Equipment - Related Option
Equipment available comma idaDy?
Demonstrated commercially?
In similar application?
Successfully?
Describe dosest Industrial analog
XES
HQ
~
~
Unknown
~
~
~
~
Unknown
~
~
Descrfee status of development JlLl
Prospective Vendor
Working Installatlon(a)
Contact Peraon(a)
Data Contacted 1
1. Atao attach filled out phone conversation notes, Inatallatlon visit report, ate.
125
-------
Firm SAIC
Waata Minimization Aasassmam
Decreasing of I
Prpc, l.lnit/Opflrlfli]iChfiSK> K '
Prepared By S.Roman
SilA
rdfflck0dBv C. Cushnie
Datp 1/3/90
^3«b03-942-02
Sheet 2 of 6 Page ot
WORKSHEET
14b
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
&EPA
WM Option Description Solvent Segregation (op-??
3. Equlpmant-Rslatad Option (contlnuad)
Parformanca Information raqulrad (dascrtba pa ram atari): n/a
Scalaup Information raqulrad (daacriba): "/a
Tatting Raqulrad: O yaa E no
Scala: CD bancti O P"ot [I]
Tast unit available? O yaa O no
Taat Paramatara (list)
Hum bar of taat runt: nla
Amount of matar1al(a) raqulrad: r,/a
Tasting to bs conduct ad: Q In-plant
~
Facility/Prod net Constraints:
Spaca RaquJramanta No lignificant space requirements.
Poaalbla locations wtthln facility
126
-------
Firm SAIC
Site
Hat*
Wiati Minimization Assessment
Degreasing of Fran
Proc. UnA/Oper. Rails Chassis
Proj. No. 1-832-03-942-02
Prepared By S. Ronan
Checked By g. Cushnie
Sheet _2_ of Page of
WORKSHEET
14c
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
(oMtinuad)
WM Option Description Solvent Sefreeation (OP-5)
2. Equipment-Related Option (continued)
Utility Requirement!: none
Electric Power Volts (AC or DC) -
Process Water Flow
_ kW.
Pressure ¦
Cooling Water
Quality (tap, demin, etc.)
Flow Pressure -
Temp. In
Coolant/Heat Transfer Fluid —
Temp. Out.
Steam
Temp. In .
Duty
Pressure
Duty
Tamp. Out.
Tamp.
_ Flow
&EPA
Fuel Type Row
Duty
Plant Air Flow
Inert Qas Flow
Estimated delivery time (alter award of contract) JiZA
Estimated Installation time —^
Installation data* UlA
Estimated production downtime—none
Will production be otherwise affected? Explain the effect and Impact on production.Production wlu
not be affected.
Will product quality be affected? Explain the effect on quality, fre^ctipn quality will not
be affected.
127
-------
Firm SAIC
waste Minimization Assessment
Degreaiing of Fran
Prrv lilnH/Qp^r JJfliJ.g, s
Prepared By S. Soman
SH«
e
Checked By c. Cushnie
r>»t«
Pml No. 1 .B'12-n^-aAi-no
Sheet ±_ of _fi_ Page of
WORKSHEET
14d
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
{mmnunnad)
Solvent Segregation
®EPA
WM Option DMerlptlon
3. Equlpmeni-ReJsted Option (continued)
WIR modifications to work flow or production proceduree be required? Explain.Minor charges
to procedures will be required, hovever there vill be little impact to the
overall degreasing / painting operation.
Operator and maintenance training requlrementa
Number of people to be trained — 0 Onalta
D Offatte
Duration of training 21 hr.
Dascrlba catalyst, chemicals, replacement parts, or othar supplies required.
Item
Rate or Frequency
ol Replacement
Supplier, Address
None
Does the option meet govsmment and company aalety and health requirements?
0 Yea ~ NO Explain Thfre are no anticipated impacts on the existing
safety and health requirements.
How la service handled (maintenance and technical assistance)? Explain n/a
What wartanUea are offered? —uli
128
-------
Firm SAIH
Waala Mnlmlzallon Assessment
Degressing of Vrtme
Pfry ynH/Op^rRjpt 1 * Chassis
Preoared Bv s. Ronur.
SHa
Checked By G. Cushnle
r>al«
Pm| Mn
Sheet 5 of Page o(
WORKSHEET
14e
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
1—ntinyd)
n>EPA
WM Option Daacrlptlon.
3. Equipment-Related Option (contlnuad)
Describe any additional storage or mats rial handling requlrementa.
None
Deacrlbe any additional laboratory or analytical requirements.
4. Personnel/Procedure-Related Changaa (®kiP to Worksheet 15a)
Affected Depanmentt/Areae
Training Raqulramanta
Operating Instruction Changaa. Daacrlba rasponalbla department*
5. Matarlala-Ralatad Changaa (Nola: 0 aubstarrtlaJ changaa In equipment art required, than handle tha
opiton aa an aqulpmant-ralatad ona.) Nfl
Hai tha new malarial been demonstrated commercially? Q Q
In a similar application? O C
Succaaafully? Q D
Daacrlba cloaesi application..
129
-------
Firm
Site
Date
Wane Minimization Assessment
Degreasing of Fr*
Proc. Unlt/Opef. Ralls Chassis
Mo 1-832-03-942-02
S. Roman
^Prepared By
Checked By C. Cushnit
Sheet 1 of _6_ Page
ol
WORKSHEET
15a
COST INFORMATION
Sepa
WM Option Description.
Same be 14a
CAPITAL COSTS • include all com aa approprtait.
E Purchased Process Equlpmant
Price (fob factory) Ett. « units g SiOQ ea.
Taxes, freight, Insurance
Delivered equipment com
Price for Initial Spare Parte Inventory _
CI Estimated Materlala Coat
Piping
Electrical
Inatrumenta
Structural
maulatlorWPlpIng
JttXL
0 Estimated Costa lor Utility Connections and New Utility Systems
Electricity
Steam
Cooling Water
Process Water
Refrigeration
Fuel (Gaa or Oil)
Plant Air
Inert Gaa
1 I Eattoiated Costa for Additional Equipment
Storage ft Material Handling
Laboratory/Analytical
Other
~ 8Re Preparation
(Demolition, alte clearing, ate.)
|—| Estimated Installation Costa
Vandor
Contractor
In-house Staff
130
-------
Firm SAlC
Sita
Dale
Waste Minimization Assessment
Degreasing of Fraji
Proc. 1 InW/Dpgf Rai 18 Chassis
Pro]. NO. 1-832-03-942-02
Prepared By s. Ropan
Checked By c- ethnic
Sheet 2_ of _6. Page
of
WORKSHEET
15b
COST INFORMATION
®EPA
CAPITAL. COSTS (Cont.) TOTALS
O Engineering and Procurement Costs [In-house ft outside)
Planning
Engineering
Procurement
Consultants
O Start-up Costs
Vendor
Contractor
in-house
0 Training Costs
O Permitting Costs
Fees
In-house staff Costs —0
~ Initial Charge of Catalysts and Chemicals
Item #1
Kemf2 _9
O Working Capital [Raw Materials, Product. Inventory, Materials and Supplies (not elsewhere specified)].
turn 01
#am«2
Kern *3
R«n«4 _ _o
O Estimated Salvage Value (H any) ... !
2 hr @ $23/hr
SM.
_JL
6 operators for IS minutes $20
CP $13/hour
131
-------
SAIC
Firm
Site .
Dale 1/3/90
Wast* Minimization Assessment
Dcgreasing of
Proc. Una/Oper. tuilt Chattlt—
Proj. No. 1-832-03-942-02
Fr,
Prepared By
ame
S. Roman
Checked By
Sheet 3 of 6
G. Cushnie
Page
of
WORKSHEET
15c
COST INFORMATION
Sepa
CAPITAL COST SUMMARY
Cost Rem
Coat
Purchased Process Equipment
$400
Materials
0
Utility Connections
0
Additional Equipment
0
Site Preparation
0
Installation
0
Engineering and Procurement
S 46
Start-up Coat
0
Training Costs
$ 20
Permitting Costs
0
Initial Charge of Catalysts and Chemleale
0
Fixed Capital Investment
$466
Wortclng Capital
0
Total Capital Investment
S46fi
Salvage Value
0
132
-------
Firm SAIC
Site
Da,e 1/3/90
Waste Minimization Asseswnent
Degreasing of jramc
Proc. Unft/Oper Rails Chassis
Pro). NO. 1-832-03-942-02
Prepared By s. Roaan
Checked By G- Cushr.ie
Sheet 4 of _6_ Page
or
WORKSHEET
15d
COST INFORMATION
&EPA
|55nmS53}
~
Estimated Decrease (or Increase) In Utilities
Utility
Unit Coat
Spar unit
Docreaaa (or Increaaa) In Quantity
Unit par tlma
Total Docreaaa (or Incraaaa)
f parti ma
Elactrlclty
Steam
Cooling Proeoaa
Proeoaa Water
Refrigeration
Fuel (Oaa or Oil)
Plant Air
Inert Air
INCREMENTAL OPERATING COSTS ¦ Include all relevant operating savings. Eslimate these costs on an Incre-
mental basis (I.e., as decreases or Increases over existing costs).
C] BASIS FOR COSTS Annual Quarterly Monthly Dally Other
ED Estimated Disposal Cost Saving
Decrease InTSDF Fees S3'219
Decrease In State Fees and Taxes
Decrease In Transportation Coats
Decrease In Onsfie Treatment and Handling
Decrease In Permitting, Reporting and Reconfceeplng $3,219
Total Decrease In Disposal Costa
ED Estimated Decrease In Raw Materials Consumption
Materials
Unit Cost
$ per unit
Reduction In Quantity
Units per time
Decrease In Cost
I per tune
K Special Blend-deRreasinK
$¦; nn/pai
-------
Firm
Waste Minimization Assessment
Pmn llnlt/npar
Prepared By
Kite
Checked Bv
nam
Pmj Nn
Sheet J5_ of _6_ Page of
WORKSHEET
15e
COST INFORMATION
oEPA
(eommuMf)
~
Estimated Decrease (or Increase) In Ancillary Catalysts and Chemicals
Caialyat/Chamlcal
Unit Coal
Spar unit
Dacraaaa (or IncrajM) In Quantity
Unit per lima
Tola) Dacraaaa (or Incraiaa)
Spar time
~ Estimated Decrease (or Increase) in Operating Costs and Maintenance Labor Costs
(Include cost of supervision, benefits and burden).
~
Estimated Decrease (or Increase) In Operating and Maintenance Supplies and Costs.
~ Estimated Decrease (or Increase) in Insurance and Liability Costs (explain).
~ Estimated Decrease (or In crease) In Other Operating Costs (explain).
INCREMENTAL REVENUES
I | Estimated Incremental Revenues from an Increase (or Decrease) In Production or Marketable
By-products (explain).
134
-------
Firm satc
Site
Date 1/3/90
Waits Minimization Assessment
Degreasing of Frame
PrOC. UnH/DpnrKail Chassis
Proj.No.
Prepared By s. Rn„,n
Checked By G. Cushr.ie
Sheet 6 ol 6 Page of
WORKSHEET
15 f
COST INFORMATION
&EPA
(oontiouMO
INCREMENTAL OPERATING COST AND REVENUE SUMMARY (ANNUAL BASIS)
Decrease! In Operating Cost or Increases In Revenue are Positive.
Increases In Operating Cost or Decrease m Revenue are Negative.
Operating Cost/Revenue Item
$ per year
Decrease In Disposal Cost
$ 3,219
Decrease In Raw Materials Cost
514,000
Decrease (or Increase) In Utilities Cost
Decrease (or Increase) In Catalysts and Chemicals
Decrease (or Increase) In 0 a M Labor Costs
Decrease (or Increase) In 0 & M Supplies Coats
Decrease (or Increase) In Insurance/Liabilities Costs
Decrease (or Increase) In Other Operating Co ate
Incremental Revenues from Increased (Decreased} Production
Incremental Revenues from Marketable By-producta
Net Operating Cost Savlnga
$17, 219
135
-------
SAIC
Firm .
Site
Data 1/3/90
Wasu Minimization Aasessmam
Degreasing of Frame
Proc. Untt/Oper. Ralls chassis
Proj. No. 1-832-03-942-02
Prepared By s. Roman
Checked By G- Cushnle
Sheet J_ of _1_ Paje ot
WORKSHEET
16
PROFITABILITY WORKSHEET # 1
PAYBACK PERIOD
«»EPA
Solvent Segregation (OP-5)
Total Capital Invutmant (|) (from Workahaat 15c)
Annual Nat Oparatlng Coat Savlnga (9 par yaar) {from Worfcahaai isn $17,219
Payback Parlod (In yaara) ¦
Total Capital Invaatmant
Annual Nat Operating Coat Savlnga
<. 1 years
136
-------
Firm SAIC
Site
Data 1/3/90
7r"rk '
Wast* Minimization Assessment
Proc. Unit/Oper. E-Coat
Proj. Nn 1-632-03-9^2-02
Prepared By c. Cushnie
Checked By s ¦ Roman
Sheet JL of 6 Page _L of
WORKSHEET
14a
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
Sepa
WM Option Description IPS Exchange with Recycle of Rinse Water (OP-6)
1. Nature of WM Option 0 Equipment-Related
~ Personnel/Procedure-Related
n Materials'Related
2. If the option appears technically feasible, state your rationale for this. 1 on Exchange is
technology that is cocmonly used on metal finishing lines for recycling
rinse waters.
Is further analysis required? 0 YesD No. If yes, continue with this
worksheet. II not, skip to worksheet 15.
3. Equipment - Related Option
Equipment available commercially?
Demonstrated commercially?
In similar application?
Successfully?
Descrfee dosest Industrial analog
applicat ions .
XES
~
0
~
S
110
~
n
~
~
Working systems are in place for the same
Describe status Ol development Fu 1 ly developed and coEmerciallzed
Prospective Vendor
Working Installatlon(s)
Contact Person(s)
Data Contacted 1.
Numerous manufacturers/vendor.
1. Also attach filled out phone conversation notes, Installation visit report, etc.
137
-------
Firm
Site
Date
SAIC
1/3/90
Waste Minimization Assessment
Proc UnifOper E-Coat
Pro). NO. 1-B32-03-942-02
Prepared By g. c«shnii>
Checked By
Sheet 2— of Page
ol
WORKSHEET
14b
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
(eontmuMl)
SEPA
WM Option Description I°n Exchange with Recycle of Rinse Water (OP-6)
3. Equlpmeni-Related Option (continued)
Performance Information required (describe parameters): Bench scale testing is needed to
select the proper ion exchange resir, and to detercine approximate resir capacity.
Also testing is needed to reevaluate the existing chemical precipitation' process to
determine if the iron salts.dosage could be reduced. '
Scaleup Information required (describe): Described above.
Testing Required: 0 yes ~ no
Scale: [3 bench ED pilot EH
Test unit available? Q yes EH no Generally performed by vendor.
Test Parameters (list) Major anion and cations of concern.
Number of test runs: As "geded-
Amount of material(s) required: As needed
Testing to be conducted: EH In-pfsnt
0. Ar vendor ' n far<1il-y
Facility/Product Constraints:
Space Requirements _______ ———
Possible locations Within facility Near existing inn exrhangr equipment in uaBtf
treatment room.
138
-------
Firm SAIC
Waste Minimization Assessment
Proc lJnit/Opor E-Coat
Prepared By g- Cushnie
SI1A
Checked Bv s- Ronan
Dale 1/3/90
Pmi Nr. 1-832-03-942-02
Sheet 3 of 6 Page of
WORKSHEET
14c
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
&EPA
(conllnuM)
WM Option Description Ion Exchange with Recycle of Rinse Water (OP-fe)
2. Equipment-Related Option (continued)
utility Requirements: (Dependent on system selected)
Electric Power
Process Water
Cooling Water
Volts (AC or DC) -
Flow
kW.
Pressure.
Quality (tap, demin, etc.)
Flow Pressure -
Temp. In .
Coolant/Heat Transfer Fluid —
Temp. Out
Steam
Temp. In .
Duty
Pressure.
Duty
Temp. Out
Temp.
_ Flow
Fuel Type Flow.
Duty-
Plant Air Flow
Inert Gas Flow
Estimated delivery time (after award of contract) unknown
Estimated Installation time Generally 2-6 vks
Inatallatlon datea
Estimated production downtime
Will production be otherwise affected? Explain the effect and Impact on productlon.N°Pe expected.
t *
Win product quality be affected? Explain the effect on quality. None expected
139
-------
Firm SAIC
Site
flala 1/3/90
Wast* Minimization Assessment
Proc Un#/Oper. E*Coat
Pro). NO. 1-832-03-942-02
G. Cushnie
Prepared By
Checked By
Sheet A_ of JL Page of
S. Rosian
WORKSHEET
14d
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
oEPA
(continuarf)
WM Option Daaertptlonlon Exchange with Recycle of Rinse W.-itfr fQP-6)
3. Equipment-Related Option (continued)
Will modifications to work flow or production procedures be required? Explain. No
Operator and maintenance training requirements
Number of people to be trained -i2_addi^ianai !Z] Onslte
persons to be trained O Offslte
Duration of training
Describe catalyst, chemicals, replacement parts, or other supplies required.
Item
Rate or Frequency
of Replacement
Supplier, Address
Cartridge Filters
Usually weekly
Nuracrniis
Acid regcnerant
As needed
Numerous
Caustic regeneranl
As needed
Numerous
Does the option meet government and company safety and health requirements?
D Yes D No Explain _ To be determined
How Is service handled (maintenance and technical assistance)? Explain VarlES anong
manufacturers.
What warranties are Offered? Varies among.oanufacturers
140
-------
Sile _
Oate.
EAIC
1/3/90
Waste Minimization Assessment
Proc. Untt/Oper. E- Coa;
Proj. No. 1-832-03-947-02
Prepared By c. Cushnie
Checked By S. Roman
Sheet _5_ ol _E_ Page
(X
WORKSHEET
14e
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
svEPA
Ion
WM Option Description Exchar.ee with Recycle of Rinse Water (OP-6)
3. Equipment-Related Option (continued)
Describe any additional storage or material handling requirements..
System could be
integrated w/ existing IX unit and utilize the same regenerate feed containers.
Describe any additional laboratory or analytical requirements.
4. Personnel/Procedure-Related Changes
Affected Departments/Areas
Training Requirements
Operating Instruction Changes. Describe responsible departments.
5. Materials-Related Changes (Note: It substantial changes In equipment are required, then handle the
option as an equipment-related one.) XMM Ha
Has the new material been demonstrated commercially? ~ ~
In a similar application? ~ ~
Successfully? ~ ~
Describe closest application. —
141
-------
Firm SAIC
Site
Waste Minimization Assessment
Proc Unft/Oper. r-rv.»f
Date
1/3/90
Proj. No.
Prepared By c r„.hn<.
Checked By S. Roman *
Sfwel 1 of 6 Page ot
WORKSHEET
15a
COST INFORMATION
Sepa
Ion
WM Option Description Exchange with Recycle of Rinse Water (OP-6)
CAPITAL COSTS - Include all costs as appropriate. TOTALS
OH Purchased Process Equipment
Price (lOb factory) Est, (installed)
Taxes, freight, Insurance
Delivered equipment cost
Price lor Initial Spare Paris Inventory ^n,nnn
Q Estimated Materials Cost
Piping Assume 20% of Price
Electrical "f rr'l'rc
Instruments
Structural
Insulatlon/Plplng *3,000
~ Estimated Costs for Utility Connections and New utility Systems
Electricity Included above
Steam
Cooling Water
Process Water
Refrigeration
Fuel (Gas or OD)
Plant Air
Inert Gas
CD Estimated Costs tor Additional Equipment
Storage * Material Handling
Laboratory/Analytical
Other
~ Site Preparation
(Demolition, site clearing, etc.)
| | Estimated Installation Costs
Vendor
Contractor
In-house Staff
142
-------
Firm SAXC
Site
Date
1/3/90
Wast* Minimization Asaaaamant
¦ F.-r.nar
Proc. Unit'Oper.
Proj. NO. 1-S32-03-942-02
Prepared By c. cushnie
Checked By S. Roman
loll Page of
WORKSHEET
15b
COST INFORMATION
vvEPA
CAPITAL COSTS (Cont)
DD Engineering and Procurement Costa (ln»hoir» & outside}
Planning Assnmf ?f!7. of pnr«
Engineering
Procurement
Consultenta
~ Start-up Costs
Vendor
Contractor
In-house
6,000
CD Training Costa
O Permitting Costa
Feet
In-house Staff Costa
~ Initial Charge of Catalysts and Chemicals
Hem n
Item #2.
500
I I Working Capital [Raw Materials, Product, inventory, Materials arid Suppiiei (not elsewhere specified)).
Hem #1.
Mam #2,
Nam #3.
Item #4.
~ Estimated Salvage Value (It any)
143'
-------
Firm SAIC
Site
Date
1/3/90
Wast* Minimization Assessment
Proc. Unit/Oper. E"Coat
Proj. No. 1-832-03-942-02
C. Cushnie
Praparad By
Checked By
Sheet 3 of 6 Page of
S. Roman
WORKSHEET
15c
COST INFORMATION
Sepa
CAPITAL COST SUMMARY
Cost Item
Cost
Purchased Process Equipment
830,000
Materials
9,000
Utility Connections
0
Additional Equipment
0
Site Preparation
0
Installation
0
Engineering and Procurement
6.000
Start-up Cost
0
Training Costa
0
Permitting Costs
0
Initial Charge of Catalysts and Chemicals
500
Fixed Capital Investment
s^s.son
Working Capital
0
Total Capital Investment
$45,500
Salvsge Value
0
144
-------
Firm sATr
Site
Data i /von
Wast* Minimization Assessment
Proc. Uni/Oper. £-Coat
Proj.No. i-8t?-nv»47-n7
G. Cusbnie
Prepared By
Checked By
Sheet 4_ ol _6_ Page o(
5. Roman
WORKSHEET
15d
COST INFORMATION
SEPA
EZH Estimated Decrease (or Increase) In Utilities
utnity
Unit Cost
S per unit
Decrsise (or IncresM) In Quantity
Unit per time
Total Deems* (or Increase)
S per time
Electricity
Est imntc
($200)
Stesm
Cooling Process
Process Water
Retrlgerition
Fuel (Qee or Oil)
Plant Air
Inert Air
INCREMENTAL OPERATING COSTS • Include an relevant operating savings. Estimate these costs on an incre-
mental basis (i.e., as decreases or increases over existing costs).
H BASIS FOR COSTS Annual-2 Quarterly Monthly Dally Other
0 Estimated Disposal Cost Saving
Decrease in TSDF Fees S6.169
Assume 50Z
reduction of Decrease inState Feesand Ta*ss
F019 siudee Decrease In Transportation Costs
Decrease In Onslte Treatment and Handling
Decrease In Permitting, Reporting and Recordkeeping
Assume 907. reduciton of water 4, , ,Q
use T E-Coat line Total Decrease In Disposal Costa »bil69
~ Estimated Decrease in Raw Materials Consumption
Materials
Unit Cost
S per unit
Reduction In Quantity
Units per time
Decrease In Cost
(per time
Treatment Chemicals
S18,000/yr
507. reduction
5 3,000/vr
City Water
S3.54/Kgal
1,170 K gal
4,142 hr
Total
S 13,142/vr
145
-------
Firm
Site
Date
SAIC
1/3 ;/90
Wast* Minimization Assessment
E-Coat
Proc. UnlfOper.
Proj. No. 1-832-03-942-02
Prepared By c. Cushnie
Checked By
S. Roman
Sbeel 6 ol 6 Page of
WORKSHEET
15 f
COST INFORMATION
(MMInttMl}
&EPA
INCREMENTAL OPERATING COST AND REVENUE SUMMARY (ANNUAL BASIS)
Decreases In Operating Cost or IncreaaM In Revenue are Positive.
Increases In Operating Cost or Decrease In Revenue are Negative.
Operating Cost/Revenue Item
$ per year
Decrease In Disposal Cost
$6,169
Decrease In Raw Material! Cost
$13,142
Decrease (or Increase) In utilities Cost
(200)
Decrease (or Increase) In Catalyst* and Chemlcala
Decrease (or Increase) In 0 & M Labor Costs
Decrease (or Increase) In 0 & M Suppliea Costa
Decrease (or Increase) In Insurance/Liabilities Costs
Decrease (or Increase) In Other Operating Coats
Incremental Revenue* from Increased (Decreased) Production
Incremental Revenues from Marketable By-product*
Net Operating Cost Savings
$19,311
146
-------
Firm sath
Site
Dale i n/90
Wast* Minimization Assessment
Proc. Unlt/Oper. E'Coat
Pro). No.
Prepared By r,. Cushnie
Checked By S. Roman
Sheel _t_ of _t_ Page of
WORKSHEET
16
PROFITABILITY WORKSHEET # 1
PAYBACK PERIOD
OEPA
Ion Exchange with Recycle of Rinse Water (0P~6)
Total Capital Investment ($) (from Worksheet 15c) $65,500
Annual Nat Operating Coat Savings (9 par year) (from Worksheet I5fl 519,311
Total Capital Investment
Payback Period (In years) m
Annual Nat Operating Cost Savings
2.U
147
-------
Firm SAIC
Waste Minimization Assessment
Pmn llnit/npnr E-Coat
Prepared By r.
Sits
Checked Bv s. Rnm.m
nato 1/3/90
Pmi N* 1-832-03-942-03
Sheet 1 o( 6 Page _6_ of b
WORKSHEET
14a
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
WM Option Description E-Coat Line Bath Maintenance (OP-7)
i. Nature of WM Option
nr
Equipment-Related
I I Personnel/Procedure-Related
~ Materials-Related
2. If the option appears technically feasible, state your rationale for this.
Sepa
Bath maintenance is
often employed on metal finishing lines to extend the useful life of process solution
Is further analysis required? 12L1 Yes No. If yea, continue with this
worksheet II not, skip to worksheet 15.
3. Equipment • Related Option
Equipment available commercially?
Demonstrated commercially?
In similar application?
Successfully?
Describe closest industrial analog Used for identical purpose at many sites.
IES
Ufi
0
~
0
~
~
E
~
Describe status Of development Fully developed and commercialized.
Prospective Vendor
Working Instatlatlon(s)
Contact Person(s)
Date Contacted 1.
Numerous
1. Also attach filled out phone conversation notes, Installation visit report, etc.
148
-------
Firm smc
Site
Date 1/3/90
Waste Minimization Assessment
Proc. UnH/Oper.E-Coat
Proj. NO. 1-832-03-942-03
Prepared By g. cushnie
Checked By S. Rocan
Sheet _2_ of Page
ol
WORKSHEET
14b
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
Sepa
WM Option Description
{CCMttniMd}
E-Coat Line Bath Maintenance (0P-7 )
3. Equipment-Related Option (continued)
Performance Information required (describe parameters):.
The facility should coordinate anv
changes to the E-Coat line with chemical supplier to assure compatibility
with the existing system.
Scaleup Information required (describe):
Testing Required: HH yes ED no
Scale: EH bench EH pilot ED
Test unit available? Q yea EH no
Test Parameters (list)
Number of test runs:
Amount ol material(s) required:
Testing to be conducted: O In-plent
~
Facility/Product Constraints:
Space Requirements
Possible locations within facility
149
-------
Waste Minimization Assessment
Proe Umt/Dpor E-Coat
Prepared By g. Cushnie
Si»«
Checked Bv S" Ron,an
Data 1/1/qn
Pmj No 1-832-03-942-03
Sheet 3 of 6 Page of
WORKSHEET
14c
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
WM Option Description
(continued)
E-Coat Line Bath Maintenance (OP-7)
2. Equipment-Related Option (continued)
Utility Requirements: Dependent on equiptment selected.
Electric Power Volts (AC or DC) kW _
Process Water Flow Pressure _
Cooling Water
Quality (tap, demln, etc.)
Flow Pressure.
Temp. In .
Coolant/Heat Transfer Fluid —
Temp. In .
Duty
Tamp. Out.
Temp. Out.
Steam
Pressure •
Duty
Temp.
_ Flow
&EPA
Fuel
Plant Air.
Inert Gas-
Type.
Flow-
Duty_
Flow .
Flow .
Estimated delivery time (after award of contract)
Estimated Installation tbne
Installation dates
Estimated production downtime
Will production be otherwise affected? Explain the effect and Impact on production.
Will product quality be affected? Explain the effect on quality.
150
-------
WORKSHEET
14d !
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
Firm
Site
Hata 1/3/90
SAIC
Wast* Minimization Assessment
Proc. Unit/Oper.
Proj. Mn 1-832-03-942-03
Prepared By
Checked By
Sheet 4 of 6 Paje of
G. Cuehnie
S. Roman
WM Option Description
(eonunu53)
E-Coat Line Bath Maintenance (OP-7)
3. Equipment-Related Option (continued)
Will modifications to work flow or production procedures be required? Explain. -
Operator and maintenance training requirements
Number ot people to be trained Hon*
CH Onslte
~ Oflshe
Duration ot training
Describe catalyst, chemicals, replacement pans, or other supplies required.
item
Rate or Frequency
of Replacement
Supplier, Address
Filter Cartridge
; As needed
Numerous
Does the option meet government and company safety and health requirements?
D Yes D NO Explain Tr, H.tprnini-H I
How Is service handled (maintenance and technical assistance)? Explain Dependant on
vendor Btlected.
What warranties are Offered? Dependant on vendor aelected.
151
-------
Firm SAIT
Waste Minimization Assessment
Pnor llnlt/Ofw Fi-frV
Prepared By G' Cushnie
She
Checked Bv S. Roman
Daifl 1/1/on
Pmj
Sheet 5 o) 6 Page of
WORKSHEET
14e
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY
WM Option Description E-Coat Line Bath Kainri-nanrp CflP-T^
3. Equipment-Related Option (continued)
v>EPA
Describe any additional storage or material handling requirements Ko signi ficant
changes to current operation.
Describe any additional laboratory or analytical requirements. More frecucnt bath analysis
may be required.
4. PersonneL/Procedure-Relsted Changes
Affected Departments/Areas
Training Requirements
Operating Instruction Changes. Describe responsible departments.
Materials-Related Changes (Note: If substantial changes In equipment are required, then handle the
option as an equipment-related one.) Xta Ho
Has the new material been demonstrated commerdaly? [II ED
In a almllar application? ~ ~
Successfully? ~ ~
Describe closest application
152
-------
Finn .
Site .
Dale.
1/3/90
waste Mintnizailon Assessment
Proc. Unlt/Oper E'Coat
Proj NO. 1-832-03-942-03
Prepared By C. Cushnie
Checked By s. Rom.™
Sheet _1_ of _6_ Page
of
WORKSHEET
15a
COST INFORMATION
&EPA
WM Option Description.
E-Coat Line Bath Maintenance (OP-7)
CAPITAL COSTS ¦ Include all costs ss appropriate.
E Purchased Process Equipment
Price (fob factory) Estimated cost is S2.000
Taxes, freight Insurance per process tank
Delivered equipment cost
Price for Initial Spare Parts Inventory
B Estimated Materials Cost
PIplnQ Assume 207. of price
Electrical
Instruments
Structural
Insulation/Piping
TOTALS
56.0(10
Assume 10S of price
1, S00
CD Estimated Costs lor utility Connections and New Utility Systema
Electricity Assuae 107. r>f priro
Steam
CooBng Water
Process Water
Refrigeration
Fuel (Gas or Oil)
Plant Air
Inert Gas
I I Estimated Costs tor Additional Equipment
Storage & Material Handling
Laboratory/Analytical
Other
~ Site Preparation
(Demolition, site clearing, ate.)
[F] Estimated Installation Costa
Vendor
Contractor
In-housa Staff
Assume 20X of price
<1
153
-------
Pirn sftic
Site
Date 1/3/90
Wast* Minimization ANttSmmt
Proc. Unlt/Oper..
Proj. No.
E-Coat
1-832-03-942-03
G. Cushnie
Prepared By
Checked By s. Roman
Sheet 2_ of J_ Page ot
WORKSHEET
15b
COST INFORMATION
epa
CAPITAL COSTS (Coni) TOTALS
PH Engineering and Procurement Costa (In-housa & outside)
Planning Assume total for E&P is 20?°
_ , of price
Engineering
Procurement
Consultant! JhlSS
~ Start-up Costs
Vendor
Contractor
In-house Assume 207. of price Si >200
D Training Costa
~ Permitting Costs
Fees
bvhouse Staff Costa
O Initial Charge of Catalysts and Chemicals
Hamfl,
Item #2
C3 Working Capital [Raw Materials, Product, Inventory, Materials and Supplies (not elsewhere speciliecflj.
Remtl Asfiiinif 2(17. tit price
lam #2
kernel
MfflN
D Estimated Salvage valua (M any) _n_
154
-------
Firm SAlc
Sfls
nam 1/3/90
Wast* Minimization Assessment
Proc. Unrt'Oper E-gqat
Proj NO. 1-832-03-9^.2-03
Prepared By G. Cushnie
Checked By S. Roman
Sheet 3 of 6 Page ot
WORKSHEET
15c
COST INFORMATION
TSSKlBuJBfp
vvEPA
CAPITAL COST SUMMARY
Cor Hem
Cost
Purchased Process Equipment
$ 6.000
Materials
1.800
UtUlty Connections
600
Additional Equipment
Site Preparation
Installation
1.200
Engineering and Procurement
1,200
Start-up Cost
1,200
Training Costs
Permitting Costa
initial Charge ot Catalysts and Chemical*
Fixed Capital Investment
512,000
Working Capital
1,200
Total Capital Investment
$13,200
Salvage value
s 0
155
-------
Firm .
Site .
Date.
fe/.IC
1/3/90
Waste Minim liailon Assessment
Proc. Unlt/Oper. E-Coat
Proj. NO. 1-832-03-9^.2-03
Prepared By g. Cushnie
„ S. Roman
Checked By
Sheet 4_ of _6_ Page of
WORKSHEET
15d
COST INFORMATION
&EPA
Q Estimated Decrease (or Increase) In utilities
Utility
Unit Cost
9 per unit
Decfesss (or Ineraass) In Quantity
Unit per tlms
Total Decressa (or Inert***)
$ per tlnw
Electricity
Estimated
S200/yr
Steam
Cooling Process
Process Wstsr
Refrigeration
Fuel (Qss or OB)
Plsnl Air
Insrt Air
INCREMENTAL OPERATING COSTS •
CD BASIS FOR COSTS Annual
Include all relevant operating savings. Estimate these costs on an incre-
mental basis (i.e., as decreases or Increases over existing costs).
X
Guarterty
Monthly
Dally
Other-
Assumes 107.
reduction of
KOI9 sludge.
$1,233
GD Estimated Disposal Cost Saving
Decrease In TSDF Fees
Decrease In State Fees and Taxes
Decrease In Transportation Costs
Decrease In Onslte Treatment and Handling
Decrease In Permitting, Reporting and Recordkeeping
Total Decrease In Disposal Costa ?1 < -3 3.
PH Estimated Decrease In Raw Materlata Consumption
Materials
Unit Cost
1 per unit
Reduction In Quantity
Unlta per time
Decrease In Cost
$ per time
Tanks l,3t6,(see ws7)
6,330/yr
307. reduction
$1,899
156
-------
FlrmSAIC
Waste Minimization Assessment
Prrv 1 Init/Opor E-Coat
PreparedBv G- cushnie
Siln
Checked Bv S-R°nar-
Data 1/3/90
Pmf Mb 1*832-03-942-03
Sheel_5_ of _6_ Paga of
WORKSHEET
15e
COST INFORMATION
(conslnyM)
oEPA
u
Estimated Decrease (or Ircraasa) in Ancillary Catalysts and Chemicals
Catily at/Chemical
Unit Cast
t par unit
DtCftkM (or Increaea) In Quantity
Unit par lima
Total Dacraaaa (or Incraaaa)
1 par tlma
~ Estimated Decrease (or Increase) In Operating Costs and (Maintenance Labor Costs
(include cost of supervision, benellts and burden).
I^rrpBspc in r»irr>naigi! labor fnr eflcipment are expected to be balanced by
decreases in labor for refomuiation at the baths.
~
Estimated Decrease (or Incraasa) In Operating and Maintenance Supplies and Costs.
Q Estimated Decrease (or Incraasa) In insurance and Liability Coats (explain).
EH Estimated Decrease (or increase) In Other Operating Coats (explain).
INCREMENTAL REVENUES
PI Estimated Incremental Revenues from an Increase (or Decreaae) In Production or Marketable
By-products (explain).
157
-------
Firm .
Site .
Date .
SAIC
1/3/90
Wast* Minimization Assessment
Proc. Urtft/Oper. E'Coat
Proj. No. 1-632-03-9^.2-03
Prepared By r.. cushnie
Checked By s- Ro!nan
Sheet 6 ol 6 Paoe ot
WORKSHEET
15 f
COST INFORMATION
Sepa
(MnUnua^
INCREMENTAL OPERATING COST AND REVENUE SUMMARY (ANNUAL BASIS)
Decreases In Operating Cost or Increase* In Revenue are Poaltlve.
Increases in Operating Cost or Decrease In Revenue are Negative.
Operating Cost/Revenue Item
S per year
Decrease In Disposal Cost
51,233
Decrease In Raw Materials Cost
SI .899
Decrease (or Increase) In UtllHlea Cost
200
Decrease (or Increase) In Catalysts and Chemicals
Decrease (or Increase) In 0 & M Labor Costs
Decrease (or Increase) In 0 & M Supplies Coste
Decrease (or Increase) In Insurance/Liabilities Costs
Decrease (or Increase) In Other Operating Costs
Incremental Revenues Irom Increased (Decreased) Production
Incremental Revenues from Marketable By-products
S3,332
Net Operating Cost Savings
158
-------
Firm —SATT ¦
Site
Date __W2/90_
Waata Minimization Aaaeaamant
Proc. Unt/Oper.
ProJ. No.
E-Coat
Prepared By c. cushme
Checked By s. Roman
1-832-03-942-03
Sheet _1_ of J_ Page
of
WORKSHEET
16
PROFITABILITY WORKSHEET # 1
PAYBACK PERIOD
&EPA
E-Coat Line Bath Maintenance (OP-7)
Total Capital Irrvaatmam (!) (from Workahaat 15c)
Annual Nat Operating Coat Savlnga (J par yaar) (from Worfcahaat 15f)_lL-3JL2
Payback Period (In yaara), , ™" m
Annual Nat Operating Coat Savlnga 4.0 years
159
-------
SAIC
Firm
Site
Data 2/9/90
Wast* Minimization Assessment
JWt/Oper
Pro). NO. 1-832-03-942-02
Prepared By S. Ronan
Checked By 0. Cushnie
Sheet _1_ of J_ Page ol
WORKSHEET
17
PROFITABILITY WORKSHEET #2
CASH FLOW FOR NPV, IRR
&EPA
Cash income* (such at net operating cost savings and salvage value) are shown as positive.
Cash outlays (such as capital Investments and Increased operating costs) are shown as negative.
Lin*
A Fixed Capital kwaatmant
B ~ Working Capital
C Total Capital Invaatmant
D
Salvage Value1
E
Nal Operating Coata Savlnga
F
• htereet on Loene
Q
¦ Depreciation
H
Taxable Ineoma
1 • bieeme Tax*
J
Aftertax Profit* j
K
~ Depredation
L
• Repayment of Loan Principal
II
- Capital Investment (line C)
N
~ Salvage Value (llna D) |
0 Caah Flew
Cenetr.
Operating' Yaar
P Present Value of Caah Flow
Q Nat Praaanl Valoa (NPV)1
Prevent Worth* (5% discount)
1.0000
0.9524
0.9070
OJUt
04227
0.7835
0.7492
0.7107
04786
(10% dlaeount)
14000
04091
0J2U
0.7513
04S30
0.8209
04645
04132
0.4665
(19%dlaeourrt)
1M00
0.8696
0.7561
04575
0.5716
0.4972
0.4323
04759
04269
(20% dlaeount)
1.0000
04933
04944
osrrr
0.4623
0.4019
04349
05791
04326
(25% dlaeount)
14000
04000
0.6400
04120
0.4096
04277
04621
04097
0.1678
1 Adjust table ea neeeeaary If tha anticipated project IH* la taee than or more than • yeera.
2 Salvage value Includaa acrtp value of equipment plua eaie of wortdng capital mtnua demo-
llllon eeata.
3. Tha workaheet la used for calculating an aftertax eaeh now. For pretu eeeh flow, uaa an Ineoma tax rata of 0%.
4 Tha preaant value of tha caah flow la equal lo tha eaah flow multlpllad by the praaem worth teeter.
5 Tha nat preaant value la tha aum of tha praaem value of the caah flow for that yaar and all of the preceedlng yeara.
6 Tha formula tor tha praaem worth faetor la 1 where n la year* and r la tha dlaeount rata.
(1+0*
7 The Internal rata of return (IRR) la tha dlaeount rate (r) that reeufta In a net praaent value of zero over tha Ufa of tha
project
160
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before comple''
1. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA/600/2-91/038
3
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Waste Minimization Opportunity Assessment: A Class 8
Truck Assembly Plant
5. HEPOHT DATE
21 AUG 91
6. performing organization code
EPA/0RD
7. AUTHORtS)
Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)
a. performing organization report no.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
8400 Westoark Drive
McLean, VA 22102
io. program element no.
11. contract/grant no.
68-C8-0062
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Risk Reduction Enqineerinq Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Aqency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
13. type of report and period covered
project report
14. sponsoring agency code
¦ EPA/600/14
15. supplementary notes
Mary Ann Curran FTS 684-7837 (513) 569-7837
16. ABSTRACT
EPA has developed a systematic approach to identify and emplement options to reduce
or eliminate hazardous waste. The approach is presented in a report entitled, ""Waste
Minimization Opportunity Assessment Manual" (EPA/625/7-88/003). This report describes
theapplication of the waste minimization assessment procedures to a truck assembly
facility in Chil1icothe, Ohio. This facility volunteered to participate in the
project and provided technical support durinq the study.
The relative comparison used in this study indicates that the best options appear
to be: 1) reducing oaint mix volumes through closer control,;'2) minimizing solvent
contamination by usinq a different workinq container and procedures and 3) imnrovinq
transfer efficiency by installinq electrostatic paintinq in the chassis booth. Two
options ranked with moderately good scores: 1) dewatering oaint solids and recycling
the booth waters and chemicals and 2) using ion exchange to recycle the ohosphate/E-
coat rinse water. The option for bath maintenance on the ohosphate/E-coat line ranked
last, however still within a reasonable range. One option which recommended procedural
and small equipment changes for paintinq was not evaluated during the feasibility
analysis phase, because the costs and savings could not be projected at this time. The
associated waste minimization techniques however appear to be technically and economical
viable.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS b. I DE N Tl FIE RS/OPE N E N DE D TE R MS C. COSATI Field/Group
painting, degreasing, coatings waste minimization, waste
reduction, truck manu-
facture, cab assembly
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report) 21. NC . OF PAGES
Unclassified 170
Release to public 20 security class(mspage} 22.price
Unclassified
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rav. 4-77) previous edition 15 obsolete
i
------- |