PB92-153ft«H»
AUTOMOTIVE AND HEAVY-DUTY ENGINE COOLANT RECYCLING BY DISTILLATION
Technology Evaluation Report
by
Arun R. Gavaskar, Robert F. Olfenbuttei, and Jody A. Jones
BatteNe
Columbus, Ohio 43201
Contract No. 68-CO-0003
Project Officer
Paul Randall
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
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Ple&e read Instructions on the reverse before ccmpieii- '
1. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA/600/R-92/024
3.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
AUTOMOTIVE AND HEAVY-DUTY ENGINE COOLANT RECYCLING
BY DISTILLATION
Wr^W
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHORIS)
Arun R. Gavaskar, Robert E. Olfenbuttel
Gody A. Jones
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Battelle
505 King Avenue
Columbus, OH 43201
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NC.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-CQ-0Q03
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory-Cin., Ohio
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45258
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Project Reoort
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project Officer: Paul Randall 513/569-7573 FTS: 684-7673
16. ABSTRACT
This evaluation addresses the product quality, waste reduction, and economic issues
involved in recycling automotive and heavy-duty engine coolants for a facility such
as the New Jersey Department of Transportation garage in Ewing, New Jersey. The
specific recycling evaluated is based on the technology of distillation. Coolant
recycling was found to have good potential as a means of waste reduction and cost
saving with a return on investment of greater than 300% in the first year. Product
quality was evaluated by conducting selected performance tests recommended in ASTM
D 3306 and ASTM D 4985 standards, and by chemical characterization of the spent,
recycled, and virgin coolants. A good product quality of the recycled coolant
was also achieved by this unit. Boiling, freezing, and corrosion resistance
functions of the coolant were restored and contaminant levels were considerably
reduced.
17 KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS'*
a. DESCRIPTORS
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATi Field/Group
Automotive engine coolants
Recycling
Distillation
Product quality
Economic analysis
Heavy-duty engine
Coolants
IS. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (Tltii Report)
Unclassified
21. NO^F PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page}
Unclassified
22. FKICE
EFA Perm 2220—1 (Rav. 4—77) previous edition is obsolete ^
-------
NOTICE
This material has been funded wholly or in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) under Contract No. 68-CO-0003 to Battelle. It has been subjected to the Agency's
peer and administrative review and approved for publication as an EPA document. Approval does
not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection or Battelle; ncr does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for
use. This document is intended as advisory guidance only to the vehicle maintenance and repair
industry in developing approaches to waste reduction. Compliance with environmental and
occupational safety and health laws is the responsibility of each individual business and is not the
focus of this document.
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 |EPA) 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,
SupBrfund-related activities, and pollution prevention. This publication is one of the products of
that research and provides a vital communication link between the researcher and the user
community.
This report describes the results of field testing of a distillation process for recycling
automotive and heavy-duty engine coolant. This recycling project supports the emphasis on
reducing generation of hazardous and nonhazardous waste by encouraging study and development
of methods to recover and reuse ethylene glycol coolant.
E. Timothy Oppek, Director
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
This evaluation addresses the product quality, waste reduction, and economic issues
involved in recycling automotive and heavy-duty engine coolants for a facility such as the New
Jersey Department of Transportation garage in Ewing, New Jersey. The specific recycling unit
evaluated is based on the technology of distillation. Coolant recycling was found to have good
potential as a means of waste reduction and cost saving with a return on investment of greater
than 300% in the first year. Product quality was evaluated by conducting selected performance
tests recommended in ASTM D 3306 and ASTM D 4985 standards, and by chemical
characterization of the spent, recycled, and virgin coolants. A good product quality of the recycled
coolant was achieved by this unit. Boiling, freezing, and corrosion resistance functions of the
coolant were restored and contaminant levels were considerably reduced in the coolant.
This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of Contract Number 68-CO-0003, Work
Assignment 0-06, under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This report
covers a period from September 10, 1990 to September 15, 1991, and work was completed as of
September 15, 1991.
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pace
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
LIST OF TABLES vii
LIST OF FIGURES vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS viii
SECTION 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1
1.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES 1
1.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE TECHNOLOGY 2
1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE 4
1.4 SUMMARY OF APPROACH 5
1.4.1 Product Quality Evaluation • 5
1.4.2 Waste Reduction Evaluation 6
1.4.3 Economic Evaluation 6
SECTION 2
PRODUCT QUALITY EVALUATION 7
2.1 ON-SITE TESTING 7
2.1.1 Primary Batches 9
2.1.2 Spiked Batches 11
2.2 PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS 11
2.2.1 Boiling and Freezing Points 11
2.2.2 pH and Corrosivity 13
2.2.3 Corrosion of Cast Aluminum 13
2.2.4 Foaming Tendency 16
2.3 CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION RESULTS 16
2.3.1 Removal of Metal Contaminants 18
2.3.2 Removal of Other Inorganic Contaminants 18
2.3.3 Removal of Organic Contaminants 20
2.3.4 Additive Package Components 23
2.4 PRODUCT QUALITY ASSESSMENT 23
v
-------
SECTION 3
WASTE REDUCTION POTENTIAL 27
3.1 WASTE VOLUME REDUCTION 27
3.2 POLLUTANT REDUCTION 29
3.3 WASTE REDUCTION ASSESSMENT 30
SECTION 4
ECONOMIC EVALUATION 33
4.1 OPERATING COSTS 33
4.2 REVENUE FROM RECYCLED PRODUCT 35
4.3 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 35
4.3.1 Capita! Costs 36
4.3.2 Operating Cost/Revenue 36
4.3.3 Results of Economic Analysis 39
4.4 ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 39
SECTION 5
QUALITY ASSURANCE 43
5.1 ON-SITE TESTING 43
5.2 LABORATORY ANALYSIS FOR COOLANT PERFORMANCE 43
5.3 LABORATORY ANALYSIS FOR CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION 45
5.4 LIMITATIONS AND QUALIFICATIONS 49
SECTION 6
DISCUSSION 50
SECTION 7
REFERENCES 52
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - COOLANT STANDARDS AND MANUFACTURER'S LITERATURE 53
A.I MANUFACTURER'S LITERATURE ON THE RECYCLING UNIT 54
A.2 AUTOMOTIVE COOLANT STANDARDS
(SAE J1034 AND ASTM D 3306-89) 57
APPENDIX B - TESTING AND ANALYSIS 58
B.1 ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION 59
B.2 CORROSIVITY (ASTM D 1384-87) AS MEASURED IN LABORATORY (TRIPLICATE
RESULTS) 60
APPENDIX C - TECHNICAL/FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
62
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 2-1. DESCRIPTION OF THE COOLANT BATCHES RUN ON THE
RECYCLING SYSTEM FOR PRODUCT QUALITY EVALUATION 8
TABLE 2-2. ON-SITE RECYCLING MEASUREMENTS 10
TABLE 2-3. BOILING POINT (ASTM D 1120-89) AND FREEZING POINT
(ASTM D 1177-88) AS MEASURED IN LABORATORY 12
TABLE 2-4. pH (ASTM D 1287-85) AND CORROSIVITY
(ASTM D 1384-87) AS MEASURED IN LABORATORY 14
TABLE 2-5. CORROSION OF CAST ALUMINUM TEST (ASTM 4340-89) RESULTS 15
TAELE 2-6. FOAMING TENDENCY TEST (ASTM D 1881-86) RESULTS 17
TABLE 2-7. CONCENTRATIONS OF METALLIC CONTAMINANTS IN COOLANT 19
TABLE 2-8. CONCENTRATIONS OF INORGANIC CONTAMINANTS IN COOLANT 21
TABLE 2-9. CONCENTRATIONS OF ORGANIC CONSTITUENTS IN COOLANT 22
TABLE 2-10. CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION RESULTS FOR
ADDITIVE COMPONENTS IN COOLANT 24
TAELE 3-1. WASTE REDUCTION POTENTIAL 28
TABLE 3-2. TCLP (TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC LEACHING PROCEDURE)
ANALYSIS OF THE DISTILLATION RESIDUE 31
TABLE 4-1. MAJOR OPERATING COSTS 34
TAELE 4-2. CAPITAL COSTS FOR THE ECONOMICS WORKSHEET 37
TABLE 4-3. ANNUAL OPERATING COST/REVENUE INPUTS TO THE
ECONOMICS WORKSHEET 38
TABLE 4-4. INCREASED ANNUAL REVENUES AND OPERATING SAVINGS
FROM RECYCLING 40
TABLE 4-5. RETURN ON INVESTMENT (ROD 41
TABLE 5-1. LABORATORY QA DATA FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS 44
TABLE 5-2. ACCURACY DATA FOR CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION
AND TCLP TESTING 45
TABLE 5-3. PRECISION DATA FOR CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION 48
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 -1. Coolant Filtration Process 3
Figure 4-1. Summary of ROI for Various Sizes of
Shops Purchasing Coolant 42
vii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Battelfe acknowledge the important
contribution made by William DeStefano of the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection during the course of this study. The New Jersey Department of Transportation is 2lso
acknowledged for providing support for testing this technology.
Jeffrey Davis and Donald GuHIerd of Finish Thompson Inc. arranged the use of the
recycling unit for testing. Dr. John Conville of BASF Corporation reviewed the draft report.
viii
-------
SECTION 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The objective of the Prototype Evaluation Program of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
(NJDEP) is to evaluate, in a typical workplace environment, examples of prototype technologies
that have potential for reducing waste. In general, for each technology to be evaluated, three
issues should be addressed.
First, it must be determined whether the technology is effective. Since waste
reduction technologies usually involve recycling or reusing materials, or using substitute materials
or techniques, it is important to verify that the quality of the recycled product is satisfactory for the
intended purpose. Second, it must be demonstrated that using the technology has a measurable
positive effect on reducing waste. Third, the economics of the new technology must be quantified
and compared with the economics of the existing technology. It should be clear, however, that
improved economics is not the only criterion for the use of the new technology. There may be
justifications other than saving money that would encourage adoption of new operating
approaches. Nonetheless, information about the economic implications of any such potential
change is important.
This evaluation addresses the issues involved in using a particular commercially
available technology offered by a particular manufacturer for automotive and heavy-duty engine
coolant recycling. The recycling unit used in this study is a distillation unit manufactured by Finish
Thompson, Inc. Other recycling units and technologies (with varying capabilities! applicable to the
same wastestream (coolant) are also commercially available.
1.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The goal of this study was to evaluate a technology that could be used to recycle
spent automotive and heavy-duty engine coolant for reuse in cars, trucks, buses, and heavy-duty
vehicles. This study had the following critical objectives:
I
-------
• Evaluate the effectiveness of the coolant recycling unit in generating a coolant that
meets the automotive industry's performance standards
• Evaluate the waste reduction potential of this technology
• Evaluate the cost of recycling versus the cost of current practice (disposal).
In addition to the above critical objectives, an attempt was made to achieve the
following additional objectives:
• Determine the chemical characteristics of the coolant that can affect its corrosivity
and the number of times this coolant can be recycled
• Determine the hszardous/non-hazardous nature of the sidestreams from the
recycling unit.
1.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE TECHNOLOGY
Technologies for recycling spent coolant include simple filtration, chemical filtration,
ion exchange, and distillation. Distillation was selected for this evaluation because it appeared to
have features suitable for regenerating spent coolant to acceptable quality standards. Distillation
seemed better suited to removing dissolved solids, oily contaminants, etc., compared to the other
technologies.
The coolant recycling unit in this study was manufactured by Finish Thompson, Inc.
(FTI), Erie, Pennsylvania. The unit operates on up to 15 gallons of stored spent coolant per batch
(see Appendix A.1 for manufacturer's literature). Spent coolant is poured into the distillation still
(process vessel) through a cup-shaped inlet port (Figure 1-1). One bottle of FTI No-Foam™, a foam
suppressant, is added through the same port to control boiling. The first time the unit is run, five
gallons of FTi Pump Primer™, which is basically pure ethylene glycol, is added to the pump tank on
top of the unit. The primer liquid primes the vacuum pump, which operates by an aspirator effect.
Future runs do not require fresh primer.
The unit is turned on and allowed to operate until water and ethylene glycol are
distilled off into two separate clean drums outside the unit. This may take about 12 to 15 hours
for a full 15-gallon load of spent coolant, depending upon the amount of water present. Water
distills out first at atmospheric pressure. As the temperature rises, the vacuum pump switches on
2
-------
Figure 1 -1. Coolant Distillation Process
3
-------
automatically and starts drawing out the glycol. The vapors are condensed by using tap water as
the heat exchanger fluid. A chiller is available as an option, but was not used in this study. The
ethylene glycol distillate then enters the primer tank and mixes with the primer liquid (virgin
ethylene glycol). Th6 overflow from the primer tank is collected in the "processed glycol" drum.
Distillation continues until 3 gallons of residue are left in the still. At this point, the
unit shuts off automatically. Note that until the 3-gallon residue is drained out (once in five
batches is typical), the unit can process only 12 gallons of additional spent coolant. Each time a
batch is run, this 3-gallon residue becomes more concentrated with contaminants such as oil and
metals.
A measured amount of additive (FTI Engine Coolant Treatment™ in amounts
previously calibrated by FTI) is poured into the processed (distilled) glycol drum befcre the
condensate falls into this drum. As the glycol condensate drips into the drum, it gets mixed with
the additive already there. Once the unit has shut off automatically, the processed ethylene glycol
(including the additive) and the processed (distilled) water are available for preparing a 50:50 mix
of the final recycled coolant when required.
The recommended mode of operation is that the unit be switched on at the end of the
working day, so that the distilled batch is ready the next morning. Once a week, or after every five
batches, the distillation residue is drained by gravity through a drain valve. Once a month, or alter
every twenty batches, the process tank (still) is cleaned by distilling 4 gallons of tap water through
the process cycle.
1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
The New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) vehicle maintenance and
repair facility at Ewing, NJ, was the site of this project. The site houses many of the Department's
functions, including administrative headquarters, sign making, signal installation and repair,
roadway maintenance, and related activities. This facility is responsible for keeping automobiles,
trucks, and motorized highway and roadway maintenance equipment in effective operating
condition. Because of the number of vehicles serviced by the NJDOT garage, approximately 9,000
gallons of spent coolant is generated every year. Currently this coolant is being shipped to a waste
disposal company. For this evaluation, one drum of spent coolant was shipped from NJDOT to the
FTI location in Erie, Pennsylvania for processing.
4
-------
1.4 SUMMARY OF APPROACH
A Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPjF), prepared at the beginning of this study
(Battelie 1991), describes the detailed approach and scientific rationale used to design the recycling
unit evaluation.
1.4.1 Product Quality Evaluation
Virgin (new off-the-shelf) coolant is basically ethylene glycol which, when mixed in a
50:50 solution with water, provides the desired freezing and boiling characteristics for a vehicle's
cooling system. The virgin coolant also contains corrosion inhibitors, foam controllers, and dyes to
reduce corrosion, curb the coolant's foaming tendency, and impart a distinctive color to the
product. During normal operation of the cooling system, the depletion products of these additives
accumulate in the used coolant. The recycling process should remove the residua! additives and
depletion products and replenish the coolant with fresh additives in amounts specified by the
manufacturer.
The used coolant also contains soluble and insoluble contaminants, which are either
corrosion products or accumulated salts from the make-up water. The recycling process should
remove these contaminants and restore the properties of the coolant to acceptable standards.
Product quality testing in this study involved a dual approach. The recycled coolant
was subjected to a series of selected performance tests to evaluate its ability to meet the
performance standards recommended in ASTM D 3306-89 and SAE J1034 (Appendix A.2) for
automotive coolants and ASTM D 4985 and SAE J1941 (Appendix A.2) for heavy-duty coolants.
The spent end recycled coolants were also analyzed to determine the degree to which chemical
contaminants (metals, salts, etc.) were removed.
In addition to running batches of spent coolant (primary batches), test batches in
which one or more characteristics of the coolant were intentionally altered (spiked batches) were
run to test the limits of the recycling process.
5
-------
1.4.2 Waste Reduction Evaluation
The waste reduction potential of this technology was measured in terms of the
projected reduction in the amount of spent coolant generated by NJDOT if this technology were
adopted. The only sidestream from the recycling process itself is the distillation residue, which
was tested for hazardous metals (particularly lead).
1.4.3 Economic Evaluation
The economic analysis includes a comparison of operating costs for the new.
technology (recycling) with the costs for the current practice (disposal). Return on investment and
payback period were also estimated.
6
-------
SECTION 2
PRODUCT QUALITY EVALUATION
Engine coolants are intended to provide protection against boiling, freezing, and
corrosion. Ethylene glycol-based coolants, which are the most common, contain mostly ethylene
glycol, plus corrosion inhibitors (e.g., nitrates, nitrites, phosphates, silicates, molybdates, and
benzoates), antifoam agents, and dyes. These additives are depleted during use and need to be
replenished during recycling to restore the functional properties of the coolant.
A variety of contaminants accumulate in coolants during normal use. Suspended and
dissolved metal particles may be present in the spent coolant as a result of corrosion of coding
system components. Calcium, magnesium, chloride, and sulfate may also accumulate in spent
coolant through the make-up water. Depleted additives are another sGurce of contamination.
These contaminants contribute to increased corrosion and wear, fouling, scaling, and engine
overheating. Ethylene glycol itself may degenerate into organic acids during use, thus lowering the
pH and contributing to corrosion. These contaminants need to be removed during recycling.
The quality of ethylene glycol-based automotive coolant is specified in ASTM D 3306-
89 end SAE J1034 (Appendix A.2). Heavy duty coolant standards are specified in ASTM D 4985
and SAE J1941 (Appendix A.2). These specifications cover the physical, chemical, and
performance characteristics of coolants. The product quality tests conducted in this study were
based on these specifications.
2.1 ON-SITE TESTING
Table 2-1 shows the coolant batches that were run on the recycling system and the
samples that were collected from each batch. The spent coolant samples represent the stored
used coolant before recycling. The recycled coolant samples represent the coolant after exiting the
recycling system. Recycled coolant samples were collected after processing each batch for all
batches that were run. Spent coolant samples were only collected from selected batches as shown
in Table 2-1. Table 2-1 also indicates the source of the each coolant batch.
7
-------
TABLE 2-1. DESCRIPTION OF THE COOLANT BATCHES RUN ON THE
RECYCLING SYSTEM FOR PRODUCT QUALITY EVALUATION
Test
Batch No."
Coolant Batch
Description
Source of
Spent Coolant
Coolant
Samples Collected11
1
Primaryd
NJDOT*
1. Spent
2. Recycled
3. Processed Water
2
Primary"1
NJDOT*
1. Recycled9
3/4°
Salts & Acid
Spiked®
NJDOT*
1. Spiked
2. Recycled
3. Processed Water
5
Frimaryd
Radiator Shop
1. Spent
2. Processed Glycol
* Batches were run simultaneously on different machines.
b Recycled samples were 50:50 processed glycol and processed water, plus additives.
c Batches 3 and 4 were processed as separate batches; but the residues were combined and
reprocessed to get enough volume for sampling.
d Spent coolant as received.
* Spent coolant, to which measured amounts of salts (chloride, sulfate, and bicarbonate),
and glycolic acid were added.
1 New Jersey Department of Transportation garage.
0 No spent coolant sample collected for this batch. The spent coolant used came from the
same source as Batch 1.
8
-------
All batches, except Batch 5, consisted of spent coolant obtained from NJDOT. These
batches represented coolants collected by NJDOT from several of their garages and car pools, and
included coolants from cars, vans, and light- and heavy-duty trucks. Gasoline and diese! engine
coolants were both represented. Batch 5 was spent coolant obtained from a local radiator shop.
The five batches were run in five separate units at the same time.
Batches 3 and 4 were run at less-than-full capacity to conserve time and materials.
Because both units shut off while 3 gallons of residue remained, as they are programmed to do,
there was not enough recycled coolant for sampling from each individual batch. Hence, residue
from Batches 3 and 4 was combined and rerun. This combined batch is henceforth referred to as
Batch 3/4.
2.1.1 Primary Batches
Batches 1, 2, and 5 consisted of spent coolant (as received) without any alterations.
These are referred to as the primary batches. A considerable amount of oil (in a thin film) was
floating in the storage drums because used coolant from diese! engines often contains oily
contaminants and the spent coolant had originally been stored in used motor-oil drums. This oil
had formed a thin layer on top of the coolant. Therefore, when coolant test batches were drawn
from the storage drums into the recycling unit, care was taken not to include this floating layer of
oil. Emulsified (non-floatable) oil may still have been drawn into the test batches.
Table 2-2 shows the volume of all the batches run and amounts of fresh additive
introduced into the recycled coolant. This table also shows the volume of processed ethylene
glycol and water obtained from each run. The processed glycol was mixed with approximately
equal amounts of the processed water from the same run to get the volumes of final recycled
coolant recorded in Table 2-2.
Because Batch 1 was the only batch run at full unit capacity, the entire contents of
one 500-mL additive bottle were introduced into the processed glycol (the recommended method
for typical spent coolant batches). In all other batches, the measured amounts of additive were
introduced in proportion to the volume of processed glycol generated, as recommended by FT1.
9
-------
TABLE 2-2. ON-SITE RECYCLING MEASUREMENTS
Test
Batch
No.
Description
of Batch
Initial Spent
Coolant Volume
(gallons)
Volume of
Processed
Ethylene Glycol"
(gallons)
Volume of
Processed
Water
Total Volume of
Recycled Coolant
(gallons)
Amount of
Additive Addedb
(mL)
1
Primary
15
3.5
8.5
7.0
500d
2
Primary
10
1.3
6.5
2.6
150®
3C
Spiked
9.5
0.6
6.5
1.2
C
O
r*
4°
Spiked
9.5
0
6.5
0
0
5
Primary
10
2.5
5
5
280®
Note that in each test batch (or each test unit), 3 gallons of ethylene glycol and contaminants are retained in the unit as
residue. Subsequent batches on the same units would generate larger proportions of processed glycol and, hence, larger
total amounts of final recycled coolant.
This only includes the FTI Engine Coolant™ additive package.
Batches 3 and 4 were both spiked with salts, water, and glycolic acid and processed separately; but the residues were
combined and redistilled as completed Batch 3/4.
One full bottle (500 mL) was added based on vendor's recommendation.
Calculated amounts based on 60 mL of additive for every 4,000 mL of recycled coolant (glycohwater mix) were added.
Only enough recycled coolant containing additive was mixed as was required to collect samples.
-------
2-1-2 Spiked Batches
In addition to the primary batches, two spiked batches were recycled. The spiked
batches were spent coolant batches that were altered to test the limits of the recycling process.
Batches 3 and 4 were spiked with salts (chloride, sulfate, bicarbonate) and water, as we!! as
glycolic acid. The spiked materials were intended to create an exaggerated corrosive environment,
simulating extreme deteriorating conditions of the coolant.
The salts and water were introduced (spiked) in a manner similar to that recommended
in ASTM Method D 1384 for preparing a test coolant solution with corrosive water. The added
salts and water alter the freezing point of the spent coolant to approximately 0°F. A measured
amount of glycolic acid was added to the spent coolant to simulate a situation in which ethylene
glycol degenerates over time to form organic acids (glycolic, acetic, and formic). These organic
acids are initially neutralized by the alkaline portion of the additive package to form organic salts
(such as sodium glycolate). Once the additive is depleted, the acid continues to build up,
contributing to a lower pH and hence a more corrosive environment.
2.2 PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS
The samples collected during the on-site testing were analyzed in the laboratory for
performance characteristics. The results are described below.
2.2.1 Boiling and Freezing Points
ASTM D 3306 standards for an approximately 50:50 mix of concentrate and distilled
water are 226°F (or higher) boiling point and -34°F (or lower) freezing point. During on-site
testing, the freezing point was adjusted to this level with a hand-held refractometer while adding
the distilled water to the distilled glycol. The samples collected were later tested in the laboratory
according to ASTM D 1120-89 (boiling point) and ASTM D 1177-88 (freezing point). The
laboratory results in Table 2-3 show that in both primary batches, the boiling and freezing points
were in agreement with the recommended standard.
11
-------
TABLE 2-3. BOILING POINT (ASTM D 1120-89) AND FREEZING POINT
(ASTM D 1177-88) AS MEASURED IN LABORATORY
SAE Stsndard for Boiling Point = 226QF or above
SAE Standard for Freezing Point = -34°F or below
Boiling
Freezing
Batch No.
Description
Sample"
Pt. (°F)
Ft.(°F)
1.2
Primary
Spent
221
-11.2
1
Primary
Recycled
227
-35.2
2
Primary
Recycled
226.5
-39.3
¦ Recycled samples were 50:50 distilled glycol and distilled water, plus additives.
12
-------
2.2.2 oH and Corrosivitv
The recommended pH range in SAE J1034 is between 7.5 to 11.0 to minimize the
tendency towards corrosion. As seen in Table 2-4, the fresh additive restored the pH of all batches
to the desired high levels.
Corrosivity test (ASTM D 1384) results and the D 3306 standard (acceptable range for
results) are shown in Table 2-4. Corrosivity is measured in terms of the weight loss of meta! test
specimens exposed to the coolant for two weeks. This test is a screening test only and the results
are significant only to the extent that they fall above or below the acceptable standard. The
recycling process was able to restore the spent coolant to within specifications for both primary
batches. It should be noted that the spent coolant sample was also within the acceptable range of
the corrosivity test. Hence it is difficult to judge the level of improvement effected by the recycling
process on the primary batches.
Spiked Batch 3/4 had been altered to ensure that the coolant was out of acceptable
range for corrosivity. This was confirmed by the results of this test on the spiked coolant sample
(Table 2-4), in which cast iron was out of acceptable range. After recycling, this spiked batch was
restored to well within specifications for all metals, thus establishing the improvement in quality.
2.2.3 Corrosion of Cast Aluminum
ASTM D 4340-89 evaluates the effectiveness of the recycled coolant to inhibit
corrosion of cast aluminum alloys under heat-transfer conditions that may be present in aluminum
cylinder head engines. Corrosivity is measured in terms of the weight loss of an aluminum test
specimen after one week of exposure to the coolant and a heat flux at 275°F and 28 psi. A
coolant causing a weight loss of less than 1 mg/cmz/week is considered acceptable. This test is
more demanding than ASTM D 1384 (discussed in Section 2.2) and is important because of the
growing usage of aluminum instead of cast iron in automotive engines. As seen in Table 2-5, both
primary batches were recycled to within the acceptable range, after starting with a spent coolant
that was out of range. A virgin coolant solution (blank) prepared in tap water (to simulate real
garage conditions) also passed this test. The numerical results are significant only to the extent
that they fall above or below the acceptable standard.
13
-------
TABLE 2-4. pH (ASTM D 1287-85) AND CORROSIVITY (ASTM D 1384-87)
AS MEASURED IN LABORATORY
SAE Standard for pH 7.5 to 11.0 ASTM D 3306 Standard for Corrosion:
(allowable weight loss per specimen)
Copper = 10 mg max Steel = 10 mg max
Solder = 30 mg max Cast Iron = 10 mg max
Brass = 10 mg max Cast Aluminum = 30 mg max
Weight Loss per Specimen (mg)b
Batch No.
Description
Sample"
PH
Copper
Solder
Brass
Steel
C. Iron
C. A|
1,2
Primary
Spent
8.3
0
2
1
0
4
1
1
Primary
Recycled
10.9
0
4
3
1
2
5
2
Primary
Recycled
11.0
0
6
1
0
0
1
Spiked
8.7
0
4
2
0
72
1
3/4
Spiked
Recycled
10.7
0
6
2
0
1
0
5
Primary
Recycled
10.8
0
7
1
0
1
0
" A recycled sample indicates 50:50 processed glycol and processed water, plus additives. No spent sample analyzed for
Batch 5.
b Average of triplicate results. Triplicates reported in Appendix B.2. An MNA" indicates not analyzed.
-------
TABLE 2-5. CORROSION OF CAST ALUMINUM TEST (ASTM 4340-89) RESULTS
SAE Standard: Corrosion rate not greater than 1.0 mg/cm2/week
Batch No.
Description
Sample*
Corrosion Rate
mg/cm2/week
1.2
Primary
Spent
16.8
1
Primary
Recycled
0.8
2
Primary
Recycled
0.9
-
Blank
Virgin
0.9
" A recycled sample indicates 50:50 processed glycol and processed water, plus additives.
15
-------
2.2.4 Foaming Tendency
ASTM D 1881-86 evaluates the tendency of the recycled coolant to foam under
controlled conditions of aeration and temperature. The volume of foam and the time (in seconds)
for foam to break are measured, and should nor be greater than 150 mL and 5 seconds,
respectively.
The spent coolant was first confirmed to be well out of range (Table 2-6). This spent
coolant continued to foam during the period of the test, and no breaking of the foam was
observed. After recycling. Batch 2 was restored to within specifications. However, Batch 1
showed some tendency to foam and was slightly out of acceptable range, although considerable
improvement from the spent coolant was observed. Ensuring that a processed batch receives
appropriate amounts of fresh inhibitor (including anti-foam agents) could present some challenge.
In Batch 1, one bottle (500 mL) of additive was introduced into the processed glycol drum before
the glycol was collected, as recommended by the vendor. This may have caused too much or too
little additive being introduced. In all other batches, additives were added in exact proportion to
the amount of processed glycol generated, after collecting and measuring its volume. Therefore,
no foaming problem was noticed in other batches.
2.3 CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION RESULTS
The physical and chemical requirements for coolant-grade ethylene glycol are given in
ASTM E 1177-87 and ASTM D 3306-89. These are specifications for newly manufactured coolant
and do not provide enough guidance on the quality of recycled coolant. Thus, the desirable level of
removal of many typical contaminants from spent coolant and the way contaminant removal
affects performance is currently a matter of judgment. A chemical characterization of the spent,
virgin, and recycled coolants was conducted to see the relative differences in quality. The
analytical methods used are listed in Appendix B.I.
It should be noted that the five batches processed in this evaluation were run on five
different units, each of which was given a fresh charge of FTi Primer". Because the primer is
essentially pure ethylene glycol, and because distillate vapors are first drawn into the primer liquid
before overflowing into the processed glycol drum, there is a dilution of the distillate in the primer.
Hence, the chemical characterization in this section represents the lowest levels of contaminants
possible in the processed glycol (and recycled coolant) for a given spent coolant.
16
-------
TABLE 2-6. FOAMING TENDENCY TEST (ASTM D 1881-86) RESULTS
SAE Standard: Volume increase not greater than 150 mL
Foam break time not greater than 5 sees
Foam Vol.b
(mL)
Foam Break Time
(sees.)
Batch No.
Description
Sample"
1
2
3
1
2
3
1,2
Primary
Spent
>345
NA
NA
—c
__C
__C
1
Primary
Recycled
185
185
190
8
7
6
2
Primary
Recycled
30
30
40
3
2
4
Recycled sample is 50:50 processed glycol and processed water, plus additives.
"NA" means not analyzed.
Foam continued to build.
-------
2.3.1 Removal of Metal Contaminants
As a result of corrosion of cooling system components, suspended and dissolved
metallic particles accumulate in the spent coolant. These particles have the potential to contribute
to erosion and corrosion. Metals such as calcium and magnesium (from hard water) may also
accumulate in the spent coolant and form scales that affect heat transfer characteristics. Sodium
and potassium are present from residual inhibitor components; and, although these metals are not
direct contributors to corrosion, they contribute to the level of dissolved solids in the coolant.
Table 2-7 provides an idea of the levels of these metals in the spent and recycled
coolants, processed water, processed glycol, and distillation residue. The levels of calcium,
magnesium, iron, and zinc were reduced considerably in the recycled coolant. Recoveries and
precision in analysis of some metals were low due to low analyte levels and matrix interference.
Hence, the capability of the unit to remove metals such as lead and aluminum (which were at low
levels) was hard to judge. Processed water and processed glycol were analyzed separately (before
adding inhibitors) and were found to be virtually free of metal contaminants.
The levels of some metallic contaminants in many spent coolants are higher (indicating
greater deterioration) than the levels found in the NJDOT spent coolant used in this study. It would
be desirable to test this recycling unit on such coolants to evaluate its metals removal capability.
Results in Section 2.3.4 on some other metals (which were present at higher levels) do not indicate
any significant carry over into the recycled coolant.
2.3.2 Removal of Other Inorganic Contaminants
The metallic contaminants discussed above, as well as anionic contaminants such as
chlorides and sulfates, contribute to increased levels of dissolved solids. The dissolved solids levels
of the spent and recycled coolants are given in Table 2-8. Dissolved solids are measured in terms
of those particles that would pass through a 0.45 micron filter. The level of dissolved solids in the
recycled coolant from the primary and spiked batches was considerably reduced. It should be
noted that the levels of dissolved solids in the processed water and processed glycol were much
lower than in the recycled coolant. Adding fresh additive to the processed glycol caused the
dissolved solids level in the recycled coolant to increase slightly.
18
-------
TABLE 2-7. CONCENTRATIONS OF METALLIC CONTAMINANTS IN COOLANT
ppm in Coolantb
Batch
No.
Description
Sample"
Aluminum
Calcium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Zinc
1,2,3/4
Primary
Spent
<0.19
0.46
2.34
0.28
0.34
0.78
2.7
1
Primary
Recycled
0.63
<0.20
0.081
<0.04
2.88
<0.20
0.13
Processed
water
<0.19
<0.20
<0.036
<0.04
<0.2
<0.20
0.062
2
Primary
Recycled
0.88
<0.20
0.32
0.04
1.0
<0.20
0.83
3/4
Spiked
Recycled
1.01
<0.20
0.21
0.63
1.59
<0.20
0.35
5
Primary
Processed
glycol
1.20
<0.20
0.15
0.098
2.9
<0.20
0.29
Recycled sample is 50:50 processed olycol and processed water, plus additives.
In succeeding batchos on the same distillation unit, concentrations in the "recycled" and "processed glycol" streams may
bo slightly higher as the glycol primer in the primer tank starts accumulating contaminants present in the glycol distillate
vapors. This increase is not likely to significantly affect coolant performance (soo Section 2.4 of this report).
-------
No specified standard for dissolved solids is currently available, although one engine
manufacturer (Detroit Diesel, personal communication with S. L. Alexander, 1990) recommends
that they be less than 3 percent of the coolant solution. Both the spent and recycled coolants in
this study were well below this level.
Chloride and sulfate levels (Table 2-8) were considerably reduced in the recycled
coolants. ASTM D 3306 and D 4985 recommend a chloride content of less than 25 ppm in
undiluted virgin coolant. These ASTM standards also suggest that make-up water should net
contain more than 40 ppm of chloride or 100 ppm of sulfate. It could, therefore, be inferred that a
50:50 solution of coolant concentrate and tap wat6r could acceptably have 32 ppm chloride and
50 ppm sulfate. The chlorides in the processed glycol, processed water, and the final recycled
coolant were well below these recommended levels. Even when salts (chloride, sulfate, and
bicarbonate) were spiked into the spent coolant (Batch 3/4), the recycled coolant had very low
levels of salts. In fact, the chloride and sulfate levels in the recycled coolants were lower than the
levels in virgin coolant solution (blank-virgin sample in Table 2-8) prepared with tap water.
2.3.3 Removal of Organic Contaminants
The ability of the recycling unit to remove oil in the stored spent coolant was
evaluated. Oily sludge can deposit on cooling system components, reduce heat transfer, and affect
corrosion. The oil and greas6 analysis of spent and recycled coolants (Table 2-9) showed
considerable reduction in the amount of oil in the recycled coolant. The oil remains in the
distillation residue.
The level of glycolates in the spent and recycled coolants (Table 2-9) was measured
by an ion chromatographic technique. Ethylene glycol in used coolant degenerates over time to
form organic acids (glycolic, acetic, and formic). Initially, these acids are neutralized by the
inhibitor components of the original virgin coolant into organic salts such as glycolates, acetates,
and formates. As the inhibitor depletes, these acids continue to accumulate, reducing pH and
contributing to an increasingly corrosive environment. The effect of organic salts in coolant is
debatable, with opinions varying as to their possible deleterious effect.
Glycolates, acetates, and formates were reduced by recycling to levels comparable to
those in the virgin coolant (blank) sample prepared with tap water. Even when glycolic acid was
spiked into the spent coolant (Batch 3/4), the recycled coolant had relatively low levels of organic
salts.
20
-------
TABLE 2-8. CONCENTRATIONS OF INORGANIC CONTAMINANTS IN COOLANT
Batch
No.
Description
Sample®
ppm in Coolant6,0
Chloride
Sulfate
Total Dissolved
Solids
1.2
Primary
Spent
115
197
14,480
1
Primary
Recycled
Processed
water
3.41
<0.100
5.39
<0.500
5,980
120
2
Primary
Recycled
3.23
5.05
5,280
3/4
Spiked
Recycled
Processed
water
3.65
<0.100
6.29
<0.500
6,220
NA
5
Primary
Spent
Processed
Glycol
37.2
<0.200
217
<1.00
NA
80
--
Blank
Virgin
8.93
15.4
NA
8 A recycled samplo indicates 50:50 processed glycol and processed water, plus additives.
b An "NA" indicates "not analyzed".
0 In succeeding batches on the same distillation unit, concentrations in the "recycled" and "processed
glycol" streams may be slightly higher as the glycol primer in the primer tank starts accumulating
contaminants present in the glycol distillate vapors. This increase is not likely to affoct the coolant
performance significantly (see Section 2.4 of this report).
-------
TABLE 2-9, CONCENTRATIONS OF ORGANIC CONSTITUENTS IN COOLANT
Batch
No.
Description
Sample"
ppm in Coolantb c
Oil and
Grease
Glycolates
Acetates
Formates
1,2
Primary
Spent
105
600
140
180
1
Primary
Recycled
Processed
water
46.5
14.0
4.9
<5.0
34
<5.0
42
<5.0
2
Primary
Recycled
NA
3.2
18
19
3/4
Spiked
Recycled
Processed
water
NA
NA
120
<2.0
64
48
87
8.9
5
Primary
Spent
Processed
Glycol
NA
NA
710
<2.0
75
<2.0
200
5.0
..
Blank
Virgin
NA
25
732
48
a A recycled sample is 50:50 processed glycol and processed water, plus additives. Virgin sample is 50:50 virgin
concentrate and tap water.
b An "NA" indicates "not analyzed".
0 In succeeding batches on the same distillation unit, concentrations in the "recycled" and "processed glycol" streams
may be slightly higher as the glycol primer in the primer tank starts accumulating contaminants present in the glycol
distillato vapors. This increase is not likely to affect the coolant performance significantly (see Section 2.4 of this
report).
-------
2.3.4 Additive Package Components
Table 2-10 indicates that the residuals of the old additive in the spent coolant were
removed during recycling. Both processed water (Batch 1) and processed glycol (Batch 5) had very
low or non-detectable levels of additive components. When fresh additive was added during
recycling, the levels of nitrate, nitrite, boron, silicon, and sodium were raised in the final recycled
coolant. Thus, there is no possibility of the old and new additives clashing. Removal of residual
additives is important especially because NJDOT collects spent coolant from automotive and
heavy-duty vehicles together. Automotive and heavy-duty vehicles often contain different types of
additives, and not removing these residual additives could upset the chemical balance of the
recycled coolant.
The recommendations of automotive manufacturers often vary for their specific
cooling systems. For example, although phosphate inhibitors are acceptable to American and
Japanese car manufacturers, European car manufacturers generally recommend low phosphate
levels in their coolants. In this recycling process, the fresh additive package in the recycled coolant
can be tailored to meet various specifications (such as low phosphate levels) by preparing different
additive packages for different makes of cars.
Blank (virgin) sample results showed that the original virgin coolant contained high
levels of phosphates, which were depleted to the levels found in the spent coolant.
Silicon levels (Table 2-10) were reduced considerably during recycling in the processed
water and processed glycol samples. Silicon levels were raised again in the recycled coolants by
introducing fresh additive (silicates are good corrosion inhibitors for aluminum). Removal of the
residual silicate (from the original additive) is important before adding fresh silicate as a corrosion
inhibitor. If the silicate level increases beyond its solubility in the coolant formulation, silica gel
(commonly called "green goo") is formed. The gel can coat cooling system components, leading to
reduced hest transfer and possible engine overheating.
2.4 PRODUCT QUALITY ASSESSMENT
The recycling unit restored the spent coolant.to acceptable quality for the batches
processed in this evaluation. Boiling and freezing points of the recycled coolant were within
specifications. Corrosion inhibition function was restored, as was evident from the results of the
ASTM D 1384 and 4340 tests. The recycled coolant showed a slight tendency tc foam in one
23
-------
TABLE 2-10. CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION RESULTS FOR ADDITIVE COMPONENTS IN COOLANT
Batch
No.
Description
Sample"
ppm in Coolantb,c
Nitrate
Nitrite
Total
Phosphate
Boron
Potassium
Silicon
Sodium
1.2
Primary
Spent
739
35.9
1,500
245
376
61.0
876
1
Primary
Recycled
Processed
water
321
<0.500
686
2.79
1.85
<0.500
80.8
1.86
1.66
<1.00
231.0
10.6
946
0.38
2
Primary
Recycled
328
680
1.81
75.3
1.56
217.0
940
3/4
Spiked
Recycled
Processed
water
368
.610
705
0.880
2.18
<0.500
84.7
NA
1.46
NA
246.0
NA
944
NA
5
Primary
Spent
Processed
glycol
951
<1.00
18.1
12.4
1,710
<1.00
NA
3.8
NA
<1.00
NA
<9.7
NA
1.64
--
Still
Bottoms
Residue
NA
NA
NA
1,853
4,087
338
8,382
--
Blank
Virgin
<100
6.27
4,940
NA
NA
NA
NA
a A recycled sample is 50:50 procossed glycol and processed water, plus additives. Virgin sample is 50:50 virgin concentrate
used by NJDOT and tap wator.
b An "NA" indicates "not analyzed".
c In succeeding batches on the same distillation unit, concentrations in the "recycled" and "processed glycol" streams may be
slightly higher as the glycol primer in the primer tank starts accumulating contaminants prosent in the glycol distillate vapors.
This increase is not likely to affect the coolant performance significantly (soo Section 2.4 of this report).
-------
instance (Batch 1), hut this could be addressed by properly calibrating the amount of additive
required. The recycling unit is easy to install and operate, and requires no special expertise on the
part of the operator.
The chemical characterization of the various process streams showed a high degree of
contaminant removal. Chlorides and sulfates were reduced to levels lower than those found in
virgin coolant-tap water solutions. Levels of metals and dissolved solids were lowered
considerably. Oil and other organic contaminants (such as glycoiates, acetates, formates) were
reduced. Determination of overall coolant quality is difficult to judge based solely on levels of
particular contaminants because the coolant is an integral product containing a variety of inhibitors
and other additives. The amount and performance of these additives affects to a large extent the
level of contaminants that can be tolerated in the recycled coolant. In this sense, performance
tests (such as ASTM D 1384 and D 4340) may be the best measure of the overall quality of the
coolant for a garage planning to purchase a recycling unit. The recycled coolant fared well in the
selected performance tests conducted in this evaluation.
It should be noted that the recycled coolant tested in this evaluation was obtained
from five batches that were processed in five separate distillation units. In each unit, fresh glycol
primer was loaded into the primer tank. Ethylene glycol distillate vapors from the distillation still
are diluted by this glycol primer before overflowing into the "processed glycol" drum. The
concentration of contaminants in the glycol from the "processed glycol" drum (and hence in the
final recycled coolant) is likely to increase slightly with each successive batch run on the same unit
with the same primer. The upper limit on this increase is determined by the concentration of the
contaminants in the ethylene glycol distillate vapor before it gets mixed with the primer. For
example, the chloride level in Batch 1 recycled sample was 3.41 ppm. This chloride level could
theoretically increase to 8.2 ppm after several batches. At this increased level, the chloride
content of the recycled coolant would still be lower than that in the virgin solution prepared with
tap water (Table 2-8). Hence, the increased levels are not expected to significantly affect the
performance of the coolant. It would be a good adjunct to this study, however, to test the
performance (corrosion tests, foaming, etc.) of recycled coolant over several batches processed on
the same unit.
The basis for comparing the quality of recycled coolants is also important. The
coolants of most cars are changed every 30,000 miles. Many heavy-duty diesel engines may not
have their coolants changed during the first 150,000 miles. However, heavy-duty engine coolants
are often fortified with supplemental coolant additives (SCAJ initially, and after every 15,000 to
25
-------
25,000 miles. Currently (without recycling), coolants are changed either by the drain-and-fill
method or the fiush-and-fill method. In the drain-and-fill method, as much as 40 to 60 percent of
the spent coolant may still remain in the cooling system after draining. After refilling this system
with a 50:50 virgin coolant solution, there may not be much improvement in the quality of this
mixture of old and new coolants. In the flush-snd-fill method, the cooling system is drained and
then flushed with flowing water. Refilling with a virgin coolant solution yields a final coolant
mixture containing lower levels of contaminants than that obtained by drain-and-fill.
Current opinion is divided on whether the basis for comparison for recycled coolants
should be the drain-and-fill quality, the flush-and-fill quality, or, most stringent of all, virgin quality.
Even if virgin quality were to be chosen as the basis for comparison, the quality of make-up water
is still a variable.
The technology evaluated in this study is highly promising in terms of restoring coolant
quality. Further testing could include tests such as cavitation and erosion (ASTM D 2S0SJ,
simulated service corrosion test (ASTM D 2570), and effect on organic finishes (ASTM D 1882).
26
-------
SECTION 3
WASTE REDUCTION POTENTIAL
Waste reduction potential was measured in terms of (a) volume reduction and
(b) pollutant reduction. Volume reduction addresses the gross wastestream (such as spent coolant
and spent filters). Pollutant reduction involves individual pollutants (such as ethylene glycol and
heavy metals) in the gross wastestream. Volume reduction affects environmental resources (e.g.,
landfill space) expended during disposal. Pollutant reduction addresses the specific hazards of
individual pollutants.
3.1 WASTE VOLUME REDUCTION
The waste volume reduction potential of this technology involves the amount of spent
coolant prevented from being disposed of into the environment (e.g., by landfilllng). This was
estimated based on the amount of spent coolant generated by NJDOT per year. Information for
this estimation was obtained from NJDOT's records and other industry sources as specified in this
section. Table 3-1 compares the waste generated as a result of current practice (disposal) to the
.waste estimated to be generated if recycling were effectively implemented by NJDOT.
The various garages that NJDOT operates purchased 4,896 gallons (19,584 quarts)
of virgin coolant concentrate in 1990, according to garage records. Assuming that this volume of
concentrate goes into making a 50:50 solution of coolant in water, the amount of spent coolant
would be expected to be twice the volume of the virgin coolant (or 9,792 gallons). However, some
coolant is unavoidably lost to the environment from leaking hoses, radiators, and water pumps.
This loss could not be quantified because there were no records of what percentage of purchased
coolant was used for merely "topping off" the radiators as opposed to a complete coolant change.
Assuming that 10 percent of spent coolant is lost to the environment, the waste volume reduction
as a result of recycling would be 9,792 gallons, minus approximately 980 gallons, or 8,812
gallons.
27
-------
TABLE 3-1. WASTE REDUCTION POTENTIAL
Wastestream Generated
Amount Per Year
Current Practice"
1. Spent Coolant
8,812 gallons
- ethylene glycol
4,406 gallons
- water
4,406 gallons
- oil
Vsriab!eb
2. Virgin Coolant Containers
4,406
With Recvclino®
1. Distillation Residue
420 gallons
2. Virgin Coolant Containers
770
3. Oil
Variableb
4. Processed Water
Variable®
" Note that some coolant is unavoidably tost to the environment due to leaks in the vehicles'
cooling system.
b If spent coolant is collected and stored in clean containers instead of used motor oi! drums,
this wastestream can be largely avoided.
c Small amount of excess "processed water" not used for making up a 50:50 solution with
the "processed glycol." This excess water can be reused for making up solutions with
virgin coolant concentrate, if required.
28
-------
Since virgin coolant is purchased by NJDOT in 1-gallon plastic containers, a large
number of plastic containers sre disposed of as waste. Recycling these plastic containers could be
a possible source of waste reduction at NJDOT. In addition, recycling the coolant results in a
reduction in the number of virgin coolant containers from over 4,000 to around 770.
With recycling, the discharge of spent coolant to the environment would be reduced to
essentially zero, except for losses as a result of leakage in vehicles. However, other sidestreams of
wast6 are generated during recycling; these are listed in Table 3-1. The main wastestream from
recycling is the distillation residue in the still. Three gallons of residue (sludge) is generated for
every 5 batches processed. Because the first batch is 15 gallons and succeeding batches are 12
gallons each, 3 gallons of residue are generated for every 63 gallons of spent coolant processed.
This means that 420 gallons of residue would be generated annually if 8,812 gallons of spent
coolant were processed.
Some amount of oil (about 1 quart) was skimmed off the top of the spent coolant
storage (55-gal!on) drum. For 8,812 gallons, the amount of oil skimmed off would be
approximately 40 gallons. This oily waste could be avoided to a large extent if NJDOT were to
store its spent coolant in clean drums instead of used motor oil drums.
As seen in Table 2-2, some amount of excess "processed water" will be available after
making a 50:50 solution with "processed glycol." This processed water can be used for making
50:50 solutions with virgin coolant concentrate, if required. Any unused processed water could be
disposed down the municipal drain, if testing shows that it does not contain regulated levels of
volatiles or semi-volatiles and the local sewer district approves.
3.2 POLLUTANT REDUCTION
The measurable pollutant reduction from recycling is a result of the amount of
ethylene glycol prevented from reaching the environment. From the first 15 gallons processed on
the unit, an average of 20% (3 gallons) is recovered as glycol. Rom four subsequent 12-gaIlon
batches (48 gallons total), an average of 47% (23 gallons) is recovered as glycol. Thus for every
63 gallons (five batches) of spent coolant processed, 26 gallons of ethylene glycol are recovered
on average. After processing 8,812 gallons of spent coolant, approximately 3,637 gallons of
glycol per year could be recovered.
29
-------
It should be noted that spent coolant, besides containing ethylene glycol, water, and
additives, also contains other contaminants, such as heavy metals. The mass of these individual
contaminants is not considered part of the pollutant reduction because such contaminants
eventually reach the environment - through the spent coolant as a result of current practice or
through the discarded distillation residue as a result of recycling.
Of interest, however, are the nature and leachable concentrations of the contaminants
in the distillation residue, which affect their method of disposal. A sample of the distillation residue
was collected and analyzed by the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLF) to determine
the type of hazard. The residue sample was collected, not from the residue from the test batches,
but from residue that FTI had previously collected after running five batches on the same unit. The
source of spent coolants that were processed for generating this residue is unknown.
The TCLP results are shown in Table 3-2, along with the regulatory standards for each
TCLP metal in the extract. Arsenic was the cnly TCLF metal detected above regulatory limits in
the extract from the distillation residue. Hence, this distillation residue constitutes a hazardous
waste. However, a generalization about residue disposal is not possible because ths level of TCLP
metals in the residue could vary depending on the levels present in the spent coolant processed. If
analysis shows that none of the metals are above TCLP limits, the residue could be disposed
according to state regulations for oily wastes.
3.3 WASTE REDUCTION ASSESSMENT
Ethylene glycol is considered a hazardous waste in some states. The California
Department of Health Services (DHS) considers ethylene glycol toxic, based on its toxicity to
animals (Section 66696(a)(6], Title 22, California Code of Regulations). DHS has determined that
any waste which contains greater than 33% ethylene glycol is a hazardous waste. Ethylene glycol
biodegrades readily in water (Rowe and Wolf 1982). It is also expected to biocegrade in soil.
However, in water it can deplete some oxygen (BOD5 is 0.47 g oxygen/g of ethylene glycol, Bridie
et al. 1979) and can possibly cause localized fish kills. Ingesting ethylene glycol can bB lethal to
human beings as well (oral human LD50 is 1.56 g/kg, Rowe and Wolf 1982). Hazard data on
coolant formulations containing ethylene glycol and additives are not readily available.
30
-------
TABLE 3-2. TCLP (TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC LEACHING PROCEDURE) ANALYSIS OF THE DISTILLATION RESIDUE
Item
Arsenic
(mg/U
Barium
Img/L)
Cadmium
(mg/L)
Chromium
(mg/Ll
Lead
(mg/L)
Mercury
{mg/L)
Selenium
Img/L)
Silver
Img/LJ
Regulatory Level"
5,0
100.0
1.0
5.0
5.0
0.2
1.0
5.0
Distillation Residue
3.86
<0.11
0,084
0.030
<0.20
<0.05
0.017
<0.56
Bias Corrected1*
6.54
<0,11
0.112
0.027
<0.14
<0.05
0.030
<0.62
" Toxicity Characteristic (TCI Rule, Federal Register, March 29, 1990,
b Based on matrix spike recoveries in Table 5-2 for TCLP metals.
-------
In the past, spent coolant could be dumped down the drain and the local POTW
(publicly owned treatment works) could be expected to bresk the ethylene glycol down as part of
its normal operation. When metals were found in the FOTW sludge, restrictions began to be
applied.
Spent coolant typically contains contaminants such as metals, dissolved solids, and
organic acids. An ASTM subcommittee ID 15.15) was set up to address the issue of recycled
coolants and has prepared frequency profiles (personal communication from Mark Filowitz, Wynn
Oil Co.). These profiles show that over half the passenger cars surveyed had more than 5 ppm
total lead (the regulatory level for defining a waste as RCRA hazardous). Over 50 ppm of total lead
was found in the spent coolant from some cars.
The waste reduction potential of recycling engine coolants depends primarily on the
volume of spent coolant prevented from entering the environment through disposal. Ethylene
glycol can virtually be eliminated as a waste, except through some unavoidable losses in the form
of leaks in a vehicle's cooling system. The waste reduction of individual contaminants (e.g., lead)
in the spent coolant, however, is dependent mainly on the volume of waste containing these
contaminants that has to be disposed of. With recycling, the volume of waste containing these
contaminants can be potentially reduced to a few gallons of distillation residue. Disposing of this
residue would consume much fewer resources (e.g., in terms of space in landfills) than hundreds of
gallons of spent coolant. Coolant recycling, therefore, has great potential for reducing waste.
32
-------
SECTION 4
ECONOMIC EVALUATION
The economic evaluation of this technology involved comparing the cost of recycling
to the cost of the current practice (disposal!.
4.1 OPERATING COSTS
Operating costs for the recycling process were obtained during on-site testing, from
the records kept by NJDOT, and from the manufacturer of the units. Table 4-1 summarizes the
information obtained from these sources.
Costs for the current practice (disposal) include the cost of 55-ga!lon storage drums
for spent coolant, disposal charges, and labor. The amount of spent coolant (8,812 gallons!
generated annually is obtained from Table 3-1. Labor involved in disposal was assumed to be 1
hour/drum. Disposal costs were estimated to be $140/55-gallon drum of spent coolant and
$450/55-gallon drum of distillation residue (if hazardous), based cn the charges cf a local disposal
company in New Jersey. If the distillation residue is analyzed and fGund to be non-hazardous, the
disposal cost for the residue would be approximately $165/55-gallon drum.
Operating costs (Table 4-1) for the recycling option were based on the following
information. All costs were adjusted to an annual basis. The amount of spent coolant generated
annually is about 8,81 2 gallons (Section 3.1). Processing time is approximately 12 hours per batch
of spent coolant and about 5 hours per flush. The capacity of the unit is 15 gallons for the first
batch and 12 gallons for the next four batches, after which the residue is drained and the same
sequence repeated. After every 20 batches processed, the unit is flushed by processing 4 gallons
cf tap water.
The number of batches processed on the unit per year would be approximately 700 for
8,812 gallons of coolant. Thus, 700 bottles each of FTI No Foam™ and FTI Engine Coolant
Treatment™ (additive) would be consumed annually. The water requirement is based on (a)
cooling water required for the condenser (0.5 gallons per minute for 12 hours/batch and 5
hours/flush) and (b) water required for flushing itself (4 gallons/flush).
33
-------
TABLE 4-1. MAJOR OPERATING COSTS
Item
Quantity/yr
Unit Cost, $
i ota! Cost, $/yr
Current Practice
Disposal:
- Coolant
8,812 ga!
$140/
55 ga! drum
22,431
- Drums
160
30
4,800
- Labor (no overheads)
160 hrs
15
2,400.
Total 29,631®
Recvclina
•
No-Foam™
700 bottles
1.86
1,302
FTI Treatment™
700 bottles
8.60
6,020
Water (for condenser, flush)
252,140 gal
.0011
277
Electricity
35,990 kwh
.12
4,31 S
Labor (no overheads)
257 hrs
15/hr
3,855
Residue Disposal
420 gal
$450/
55 gal drum
3,436
Drums
8
30
240
Total 19,449a
* This total does not include maintenance costs or overheads. For complete operating costs, see
Table 4-3 and 4-4.
34
-------
Labcr costs were tracked by noting the operator time required for recycling. Ncte that
the operator does not have to watch the unit all the time. Based on observation of the process, a
typical batch would take approximately 12 hours with actual operator involvement of 20 minutes.
Additionally, operator time is involved for draining the residue (5 minutes! after every five batches,
and for flushing the unit (20 minutes) after every twenty batches. The base labor rate (without
overhead) was assumed to be $15/hr.
Energy costs were estimated from the electricity consumption of the heater for the
distillation unit, which rated at 220 volts, 19 amperes for 12 hours per batch, resulting in a
consumption of 50 kilowatt-hours per batch. Assuming that flushing the unit after every 20
batches involves about 5 hours, there is an additional energy requirement of 21 kilowatt-hours per
flush.
4.2 REVENUE FROM RECYCLED'PRODUCT
If recycling were instituted at NJDOT, the amount of recycled coolant would result in
savings (or revenue) from reduced virgin coolant purchase. The annual volume of recycled coolant
produced (marketable by-product) was obtained (a) from Table 2-2, which shows that during the
first run in each cycle, fGr every 15 gallons of spent coolant processed (based on the three primary
batches only), approximately 6 gallons of recycled coolant were obtained, and (b) on the basis that,
in subsequent runs of each cycle, approximately 11 gallons of recycled coolant would be obtained.
Thus for 8,812 gallons of spent coolant processed per year, 6,994 gallons of recycled coolant
(containing 3,497 gallons of concentrate and 3,497 gallons of water) can potentially be obtained.
NJDOT currently pays $6.20 per gallon for virgin coolant concentrate. Because
recycled coolant is a 50:50 solution, its value includes $6.20 per gallon of concentrate and $0,001
per gallon of water (based on the cost of water in the Ewing area). Annual revenue from the unit
would include 3,497 gallons of concentrate at $6.20 per gallon and 3,497 gallons of water at
$0,001 per gallon, or a total $21,685.
4.3 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
The return on investment and payback period for recycling were calculated based on
the worksheets provided in the Waste Minimization Opportunity Assessment Manual (U.S. EPA
1988).
35
-------
4.3.1
Capital Costs
Table 4-2 provides the capital cost inputs used in the worksheet.
Equipment costs are purchase price ($5,115 including the pump primer), plus 10%
for taxes, shipping, etc.
Installation costs are 4 hours of operator time at $15/hr.
Plant engineering costs are 2 hours of engineer time at $50/hr.
Contingency costs are assumed to be $500.
Working capital is based on one month's supply of FTI No-Foam™ and FTI Engine
Coolant Treatment™.
Start-up costs are based on 2 hours of engineer time and 4 hours of operator time.
100% equity is assumed; that is, NJDOT would not borrow money to buy the unit.
If a loan were taken, the percent debt and interest rate would have been entered
here.
Because NJDOT does not incur taxes, no depreciation period or tax rate are
included.
Escalation (inflation) rate is assumed to be 5 percent.
4.3.2 Operating Cost/Revenue
Table 4-3 provides the operating cost/revenue inputs used.
Raw material costs are based on an annual supply FTI No-Foam™ and FTI Engine
Coolant Treatment™.
Utility costs are based on the energy and water costs in Table 4-1.
Operating labor costs are based on the operating labor costs in Table 4-1.
Operating supply costs are based on the air filters (that have to be changed on the
unit.
Maintenance costs are based on a percentage of capital costs.
36
-------
TABLE 4-2. CAPITAL COSTS FOR THE ECONOMICS WORKSHEET
INPUT
OUTPUT
CAPITAL REQUIREMENT
Capital Cost
Construction Year
1
Capital Cost
Equipment
$5,627
Capital Expenditures
Materials
$0
Equipment
$5,627
Installation
$60
Materials
$0
Plant Engineering
$100
Installation
$60
Contractor/Engineering
$0
Plant Engineering
$100
Permitting Costs
$0
Contractor/Engineering
$0
Contingency
$500
Permitting Costs
$0
Working Capital
$610
Contingency
$500
Start-up Costs
$160
Start-up Costs
$160
Depreciable Capital
$6,447
% Equity
100%
Working Capital
$610
% Debt
0%
Subtotal
$7,057
Interest Rate on Debt, %
0.00%
Interest on Debt
$0
Debt Repayment, years
0
Total Capital Requirement
$7,057
Depreciation period
10
Equity Investment
$7,057
Income Tax Rate, %
0.00%
Debt Principal
$0
Interest on Debt
$0
Escalation Rates, %
5.0%
Total Financing
$7,057
Cost of Capital
15.00%
-------
TABLE 4-3. ANNUAL OPERATING COST/REVENUE INPUTS TO THE ECONOMICS WORKSHEET
Operating Cost/Revenue
Marketable By-products
Operating Labor
Recycled Coolant
$21,685
Operator hrs/batch
1.61
Total $/yr.
$21,685
Batches/year
160
Wage rate, $/hr.
$15.00
Utilities
Water
277
Operating Supplies
10
Electric
$4,576
Total $/yr.
$10
Total $/yr.
$4,853
Raw Materials
Maintenance Costs
No-Foam
$1,302
(% of Capital Costs)
Extender
$6,020
Labor
2.00%
Total, $/yr.
$7,322
Materials
1.00%
Supervision
Waste Disposal Savings
{% of O&M Labor)
10.0%
Offsite Fees, $
$18,995
labor cost, $
$2,400
Overhead Costs
Storage Drums $
$4,560
(% of O&M Labor + Sup«
w.)
Total Disposal Savings
$25,955
Plant Overhead
25.0%
Home Office
0.0%
Labor Burden
28.0%
-------
Overhead costs are based on supervision costs (10% of O&M labor costs), plant
overhead (25% of O&M labor and supervision), and labor burden |2B% of 0&.M
labor and supervision).
Revenue is based on the value of the recycled coolant as discussed in Section 4.2.
4.3.3 Results of Economic Analysis
Tables 4-4 and 4-5 indicate the results of the economic analysis. A return on
investment (ROD greater than 15% (which is the cost of capital) is obtained in the very first year of
recycling. This implies that the payback period for NJDOT is much less than one year. The high
return on investment (over 300% in the first year) occurs because, at the end of th6 very first year
of operation of the unit, disposal costs can be reduced by $27,253 and recycled coolant worth
$22,769 ($21,685 plus 5% inflation in Year 1} is available for re-use. These savings would more
than offset the purchase price of the recycling unit and its operating costs.
Figure 4-1 describes how the ROI varies depending on the amount of spent coolant
generated annually by the user. If a user generates 100 gallons of spent coolant annually, the
initial investment may not be recoverable. A slightly larger generator, with 500 gallons/year of
spent coolant, would have a payback period of approximately seven years (ROI greater than 15%).
The ROI improves as the amount of spent coolant generated becomes larger. The manufacturer
has improved the economics of the technology by reducing the heating energy requirement of the
unit and by eliminating the No Foam™ additive in the 1992 version of this unit (personal
communication from Don Guillard, FTI, 1991).
4.4 ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
Effective coolant recycling has considerable potential for reducing disposal and virgin
coolant purchase costs. Repair shops that generate 500 gallons or more of ccolant may find this
recycling unit most economically beneficial. However, disposal costs can be expected to grow as
more states start regulating spent coolant and even smaller generators may eventually find it
economically attractive to recycle. Also, a valuable resource can be recovered by implementing
coolant recycling.
39
-------
TABLE 4-4. INCREASED ANNUAL REVENUES AND OPERATING SAVINGS FROM RECYCLING
REVENUEAND COST FACTORS
Operating Year Number
1
2
Escalation Factor
1.000
1.050
1.103
INCREASED REVENUES
Increased Production
$0
$0
Marketable By-products
$22,769
$23,908
Annual Revenue
$22,769
$23,908
OPERATINGSAVINGS (Numbersin parenthesesindicatenet expense)"
Raw Materials
($7,688)
($8,073)
Disposal Costs
$27,253
$28,615
Maintenance Labor
($119)
($125)
Maintenance Supplies
($60)
($63)
Operating labor
($4,057)
($4,260)
Operating Supplies
($11)
($11)
Utilities
($5,096)
($5,350)
Supervision
($418)
($439)
Labor Burden
($1,286)
($1,351)
Plant Overhead
($1,149)
($1,206)
Home Office Overhead
$0
$0
Total Operating Savings
$7,370
$7,738
¦ End of the yoar savings (or oxpensns) are listed based on 5% annual inflation.
-------
TABLE 4-5. RETURN ON INVESTMENT (ROI)
RETURN ON INVESTMEN"
Construction Year
1
Operating Year
1
2
Book Value
$6,447
$5,158
$4,126
Depreciation (by straight-lin
3)
$645
$645
Depreciation (by double DB'
$1,289
$1,032
Depreciation
$1,289
$1,032
Cash Flows
Construction Year
1
Operating Year
1
2
Revenues
$22,769
$23,908
+ Operating Savings
$7,370
$7,738
Net Revenues
$30,139
$31,646
- Depreciation
$1,289
$1,032
Taxable Income
$28,849
$30,614
- Income Tax
$0
$0
Profit after Tax
$28,849
$30,614
+ Depreciation
$1,289
$1,032
After-Tax Cash Flow
$30,139
$31,646
Cash Flow for ROI
($7,057)
$30,139
$31,646
Net Present Value
($7,057)
$19,151
$43,079
Return on Investment
327.08%
414.27%
-------
500
8,812 gal i(NJDOT)
Coolant
400-
300-
Coolant -15000 gal
200-
Cpqlant-;2000 gal
100
j. Coolant ° 500 gal
Coolant
100 gal
-100
10
7
8
1
4
5
9
6
Year
Fioure 4-1. Summary of ROI for Various Sizes of Shops Generatino Spent Coolant
-------
SECTION 5
QUALITY ASSURANCE
A Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPjP) was prepared and approved by the EPA
before testing began (Battelle 19911. This QAPjP contains a detailed design fcr conducting this
study. The experimental design, field testing procedures, and laboratory analytical procedures are
covered. The QA objectives outlined in this QAPjP are discussed belcw.
5.1 ON-SITE TESTING
On-site testing was conducted as planned, with the following variations. Two primary
and two spiked batches were planned in the QAPjP. However, one extra batch was processed
(Eatch 5) with spent coolant obtained by FTl from a radiator shop.
Batches 3 and 4 were initially processed in separate units, but neither unit produced
enough distilled glycol to enable sampling. Hence, the contents of the two units were combined
and processed. Only one set of samples was taken from Batches 3 and 4. Batch 5 (extra batch)
was sampled instead.
5.2 LABORATORY ANALYSIS FOR COOLANT PERFORMANCE
All analysis was performed as planned. One additional ASTM D 4340 test was
conducted on the blank-virgin solution (Batch 9) as a comparison.
Table 5-1 describes the QA data on the performance tests. Precision of the corrosivity
test (ASTM D 1384) results was evaluated as requested in the standard method, which says that
triplicate results for a sample that have "a single weight change that appears out of line" should be
considered suspect. The method does not define "out of line." Table 2-4 shows the averages of
triplicate results on each sample. Appendix B.2 shows the actual triplicate values. In most cases,
all triplicates were either above or below the standard (e.g., the copper standard is 10 mg/week).
In some cases, triplicates fell on either side of the standards; but none of the triplicates appeared tG
be "out of line."
43
-------
TABLE 5-1. LABORATORY QA DATA FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS
Parameter
Precision Requirement
for this Study
Duplicate
Results
Precision
Acceptable
Boiling point
Duplicates should not differ from mean by
more than 0.5°F.
227.0, 227.5°F
Yes
Freezing point
Duplicates should not differ from mean by
more than +_ 0.5°F.
-35.2, -35.9°F
Yes
PH
Duplicates should not differ by more than
Jl 0.1.
10.9, 10.9
Yes
Corrosivity
Any one triplicate should not be "out of line"
with the other two.
Triplicates aro
consistent (see
Appendix B.2).
Yes
Foaming Tendency
Any one triplicate result should not be "out
of line" with the other two.
Triplicates are
consistent (see
Table 2-6).
Yes
Corrosion of Aluminum
The two recycled samples should both pass
or both fail.
Both passed.
Yes
-------
5.3 LABORATORY ANALYSIS FOR CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION
All analyses were performed as planned except for the following variations. The anion
analysis (nitrate, nitrite, phosphate, chloride, and sulfate) was preformed by an ion
chromatographic technique (similar to EPA Method 300.0). Ion chromatography is used routinely
by coolant manufacturers to test for anions. The results of this ion chromatographic analysis are
shewn in Section 2. Analysis by ion chromatography determines the concentration of available
inorganic anions, e.g., chloride, sulfate. Colorimetric methods, on the other hand, are usually
preceded by a sample preparation step that involves acid digestion. This step creates the potential
for releasing organic (or otherwise unavailable chloride or sulfate), with the resulting
spectrophotometry method detecting both organic and inorganic forms of chloride as CI". Since
ionic forms of these anions are more important in corrosion or corrosion inhibition, the ion
chromatographic analysis is more appropriate.
The coolant was additionally analyzed for glycolates, acetates, and formates since
some coolant manufacturers expressed concern about its presence in coolant. The initial ion
chromatograhic peak for glycolate using bicarbonate eluant showed a slight shoulder. The eluant
was changed to borate on the recommendation of the instrument manufacturer to get better
resolution of the peak. The shoulder was thereby identified as caused by formates and acetates,
and the glycolate peak was isolated and quantified. The coolant was additionally analyzed for oil
and grease content because oi! was noticed floating in the spent coolant.
Holding times mentioned in the QAPjP for dissolved solids and anions (phosphate,
sulfate, nitrate, and nitrite) were exceeded. However, coolants have s fairly long shelf life and
results are not expected to be affected significantly by exceeding the holding times normally
prescribed for wastewater.
Tables 5-2 and 5-3 list the OA data on accuracy, precision, and method blanks. All
the data in these tables are within the limits specified in the QAPjP, except for the data on some of
the metals analyzed. Due to matrix effects and the very low concentrations of these metals in the
samples, precision and accuracy were out of specified limits. The matrix spike recoveries for
aluminum, copper, lead, zinc, potassium, and sodium were out of range. Duplicate precision was
out of range for aluminum, zinc, boron, lead, and silicon. For the organic salts analysis, a matrix
spike was conducted only for glycolate to demonstrate adequate recovery. Acetates and formates
analysis of the samples was done as an additional piece of information.
45
-------
TABLE 5-2. ACCURACY DATA FOR CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION
AND TCLP TESTING
[Acceptable accuracy is 75-125% recovery,
except TCLP for which 50-150% is acceptable]
Parameter
Sample
No.
Chloride
D0T-S4
8.9
10.0
17.3
84
Sulfate
FTI-R3
6.296
2.5
8.799
100
Aluminum
FTI-S3
<0.19
0.50
0.299
60
Calcium
FTI-S1
0.46
1.00
1.40
94
Copper
FTI-R1
0.081
0.05
0.118
74
Iron
FTI-R1
<0.04
0.20
0.162
81
Lead
FTI-ST
0.34
1.00
0.72
38
Magnesium
FTI-S1
0.78
2.00
2.78
100
Zinc
a
0.03
0.20
0.125
48
Oil and Grease
FTI-Wi
13.5
1065
1121
104
Glycolates
FTI-W3
<2.0
10.0
11.377
114
Nitrate
FT1-W3
0.88
0.5
1.37
98
Nitrite
FTI-W3
0.612
2.5
3.39
111
Phosphate
FTI-W1
<0.5
2.500
2.080
83
Boron
1.39
1.00
2.51
112
Potassium
FTI-W1
<1.0
2.00
1.46
73
Silicon
FTI-N5
<0.10
1.0
1.0
100
Sodium
FTI-N5
1.64
2.00
2.88
62
46
-------
TABLE 5-2. (CONTINUED)
Parameter
Sample
No.
TCLP-Coolsnt
Arsenic
FTI-DR1
<0.007
0.03
0.0176
59
Barium
FTI-DR1
<0.053
1.0
1.038
104
Cadmium
FTI-DR1
0.028
0.02
0.043
75
Chromium
FTI-DR1
0.013
0.02
0.035
110
Lead
FTI-DR1
<0.1
1.00
1.48
148
Mercury
FTI-DR1
<0.01
1.00
0.92
92
Selenium
FTI-DR1
0.0055
0.01
0.0111
57 .
Silver
FTI-DR1
<0.007
0.20
0.018
90
¦ Spike was done on a diluted sample.
b Accuracy = (matrix spike measured) - (regular sample) ^
matrix spike level
47
-------
TABLE 5-3. PRECISION DATA FOR CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION
Parameter
Sample
No.
Regular Sample
(ppml
Duplicate
-------
5.4 LIMITATIONS AND QUALIFICATIONS
Based on the above OA data, the results of the on-site and laboratory testing can be
considered as a valid basis for drawing conclusions about product quality and waste reduction. As
mentioned in Secticn 5.3, metal recoveries and precision were not very good, especially for low
values. In most cases, metal recoveries and precision were poor when the original sample values
were in the < 1 ppm range. At these levels, the analytical variability is not expected to affect the
results of the evaluation.
One limitation of the product quality evaluation is that all five batches were run on five
separate recycling units due to time constraints. It would be desirable to evaluate the technology
further by running five or more batches on the same unit with the same primer to see the
difference in quality of the coolant from the fifth or later batch versus that from the very first
batch. The same performance tests (corrosion, foaming, etc.) could be conducted on the recycled
coolant from the first and fifth batches.
Data for economic analysis were mostly obtained from NJDOT's records. Any
assumptions made are specified so that the readers can adjust them to their own case.
49
-------
SECTION 6
DISCUSSION
This evaluation shows that the potential for waste reduction with automotive coolant
recycling is good. The NJDOT facility where this evaluation was conducted could potentially
reduce spent coolant waste volume from over 8,000 gallons per year to approximately 400 gallons
per year. The recycling unit is easy to install and operate and requires no special expertise on the
part of the operator. The recycled product fared very well in the ASTM performance tests and the
chemical characterijation. Boiling point, freezing point, pH, and corrosion resistance functions of
the coolant were restored to specifications. Levels of metals, salts, and organic contaminants were
considerably reduced in the recycled coolant. The performance of the recycling unit over several
batches processed on the same unit with the same primer was not evaluated but, in general, the
technology looks promising. Recycling was found to be economically viable for the NJDOT facility,
with a return on investment of over 300% in the very first year.
Shops generating as little as 400 to 500 gallons per year of spent coolant would also
find this unit economically attractive. Improvements planned by the manufacturer of this recycling
unit for the year 19S2 include a heating element which draws 15 amperes instead of 19 amperes
(thus lowering energy requirement) and elimination of the anti-foaming (No-Foam™) agent from the
process (personal communication from Don Guillard, FTI, 1991). These improvements are
expected to further reduce operating costs.
One difficulty encountered during evaluation of many recycled products is the lack of
sufficient guidance on quality requirements. Most existing specifications are designed for newly
manufactured products. Such specifications, when they were formulated, did not have to take into
account contaminants that might be found in used products. Therefore, acceptable levels of such
contaminants in the recycled product remain a matter of opinion. However, the technology
evaluated reduced contaminants to levels comparable to those in a virgin coolant solution in tap
water.
50
-------
To issue guidance on recycled coolant quality, ASTM has established a subcommittee
(D 15.15) to set performance standards for recycled car and heavy-duty coolants. This
subcommittee hopes to establish performance standards, as well as physical/chemical
requirements, for recycled coolant based on laboratory data and technical literature (personal
communication from Mark Filowta, Wynn Oil, 1990).
An extensive study of various recycling technologies is being conducted by General
Motors (personal communication from Wayne Bradley, General Motors, 1991). Several other
automotive and heavy-duty engine manufacturers are also beginning to look at recycling. Such
studies involve relatively expensive testing, which may be very costly for small repair shops to
conduct on their own. Some repair shops have already undertaken recycling based on information
provided by vendors to address the increasing cost of disposal. But, in general, initial reaction to
recycling coolants in the automotive industry has been cautious, given the demanding nature of the
application.
Several commercial coolant recycling units are currently available. All recycling units
are based on simple filtration, chemical filtration, ion exchange, distillation, or combinations of
these. Recycling units are either bulk units or single vehicle hcok-up (portable) units. Some
vendors also provide on-site or off-site recycling as a service, charging the generator a fixed fee per
gallon of spent coolant. Some recycling vendors offer limited warranties on their recycled
products.
Substituting propylene glycol for ethylene glycol is also being explored, especially in
Europe. Propylene glycol is similar to ethylene glycol in many ways. However, propylene glycol is
claimed to have lower toxicity, lower biodegradation time, and higher resistance to cavitation
(Dobrovolny 1990). On the other hand, ethylene glycol is claimed to be a better solvent for
corrosion inhibitors, to provide more freeze protection, and to cost less (personal communication
from Dr. John Conville, BASF, 1990).
For further information on waste reduction, see Appendix C for a list of agencies
offering technical and/or financial assistance.
51
-------
SECTION 7
REFERENCES
1. Ecttelle. Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPjP) for an Antifreeze Recycling Study.
Columbus, Ohio, 1991.
2. Bridie, A. L., C. J. M. Wolff, and M. Winter. BOD and COD of Some Petrochemicals. Water
Research, Vol. 13, pp. 627-30, 1979.
3. Dobrovolny, L., Technology Clearinghouse. Waste Minimization for Oil Wastes. In:
Alternative Technologies for the Minimization of Hazardous Wastes, K. Barwick, ed.
Department of Health Services, California, 1990. pp. 32-35.
4. Rowe, V. K. and M. A. Wolf. Glycols. In: Patty's Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology.
G. D. Clayton and F. E. Clayton, eds.. New York, 1982. Vol. 2C, pp. 3821-26.
5. U.S. EPA. Waste Minimization Opportunity Assessment Manual. EPA/625/7-88/003, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1988.
52
-------
APPENDIX A
COOLANT STANDARDS AND MANUFACTURER'S LITERATURE
53
-------
A.I MANUFACTURER'S LITERATURE ON THE RECYCLING UNIT
54
-------
Burn Waste Coolants Into Profits
OUR REVOLUTIONARY TECHNOLOGY MEANS:
n Recovered coolant meets highest purity standards,
n Elimination of waste disposal liabilities.
Make Spent Coolant Pay For Itself!
Engine coolants are primarily a mixture of 50% pure
ethylene glycol End 50% water. As engine coolant is
used within the cooling system, it gradually becomes
contaminated and weakened.
Improper disposal of spent coolant is a violation of the
Clean Water Act. This factor, combined with the rising
costs of new antifreeze and disposal, has forced a search
for an economic and environmental solution ... It's here!
Bed Ethyl: the Coolant Reclaimer.
Clear Advantages:
~ Recover and reuse all of your used engine coolants.
Removes all contaminants, both suspended and dis-
solved.
- Meets all performance and protection specifications
for new coolants.
~ Eliminates used coolant disposal costs and liabilities.
Easily installed in your facility.
r: Self-cleaning, simple to use, and no labor to operate.
Saves money by eliminating the need to purchase new
coolants and reducing high waste disposal costs.
New coolant for just over $1.00 per gallon.
Superior Process...Super Results
Recovery systems that rely on filters cannot remove
dissolved contaminants, particularly hazardous metals.
Fortunately, vacuum distillation removes all suspended
and dissolved contaminants. Utilizing this new technologi-
cal breakthrough, Bad Ethyl does not require you to buy,
replace or dispose o? filters.
FTI Vacuum Distillation Technology
Same process used to manufacture the original coolant.
Full corrosion protection by removing dissolved solids.
• The only coolant recovery process recommended by
major auto and heavy equipment manufacturers.
Exclusive FTI self-cleaning feature means very low
maintenance,
"Distillation: the Difference is Clear"
Simple Operation Makes Money
While You Sleep
Bad Ethyl will not tie up your valuable time or service bays.
Simply pour dirty coolant into Bad Ethyl and push the "On"
button. An automatic shutdown is provided. Run day and
night. If you run it overnight, you wil! have pure concen-
trated engine coolant ready for use In the morning.
Results of
Independent
Laboratory Analysis
of Reclaimed
Coolant
Componanl
Sodium (Na)
Potassium (K|
Phosphorus (P)
Chloride (CD
Suites (S03)
Nil rale (NC3)
Iran (Fs)
Aluminum (AQ
Cepper (Cu)
"Belcre atldtng
csrroslan Intvbitars
Dirty
Coclsni
iEao.ppJ
*;:S80ppJ!j
"370'pjp
|2E0ppW'
jrM PPit
jfe.3 PPE
I Filtered
I Ccolant*
|770 P&j
J 820 p'prg
" 140 jipis
250 pprj!
c
lOpBs
Bae
Elhyi
DisSfled
Coo! an!*
0.1 ppm-
0.1 ppm
0.5 ppm
1 ppm
0.6 ppm
-------
Applications for BAD ETHYL Coolant Reclaimer
Auto Service Centers
Radiator Repair Shops
Truck Stops
Construction Companies
Government Fleets
Auto Dealerships
Service Stations
Heavy Equipment Dealers
Independent Fleet Operators
Military Bases
m
Optional Water Chiller
Accessories
Pfcctsrs"^
VNUWr
NT*
Ceo*
Specifications
Size:
Length 411/i" 104.78 cm
Height: 48%" 12196 cm
Depth: 25%" 63.94 cm
Weight:
390 lbs. 1755 kg
Capacity:
15 gallons 56.85 liters
Distillation Rate:
1 gph 3l7S liters per hour
Process Time:
12 to 14 hours
Electrical
Requirements:
220 volts, single phase, 60 Hz, 19 amps
€-ti
FINISH
THOMPSON
INC.
56
WARNING: The BE-15 Coolant Heclaimer is manufactured to
safely reclaim engine coolants. Attempts to reclaim any other
materials msy cause personal injury and equipment damage.
F90-300A-SF-1C.M
-------
A.2 COOLANT STANDARDS
SAE J 1034. Engine Coolant Concentrate - Ethylene-Glycol Type. Revised July 1988.
Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., Warrendsle, Pennsylvania.
SAE J 1941. Ethylene-Glycol Type Requiring an Initial Charge of Supplemental
Coolant Additive for Heavy-Duty Engines. April 1990. Society of Automotive
Engineers, Inc., Warrendale, Pennsylvania.
ASTM Designation D 3306-89. Standard Specification for Ethylene Glycol Ease
Engine Coolant for Automobile and Light-Duty Service. Annual Book of The American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standards, Volume 15.05.
ASTM Designation D 4985-89. Standard Specification fcr Low Silicate Ethylene
Glycol Base Engine Coolant for Heavy-Duty Engines Requiring an Initial Charge of
Supplemental Coolant Additive (SCA1. Annual Book of The American Society for
Testing end Materials (ASTM) Standards. Volume 15.05.
-------
APPENDIX B
TESTING AND ANALYSIS
58
-------
APPENDIX B.1. ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION
Analyte
Method
Dissolved Solids
Potassium
Calcium
Boron
Silicon
Iron
Aluminum
Copper
Magnesium
Zinc
Lead
Oil and Grease
Chloride
Sulfate
Nitrate
Nitrite
Phosphate
Glycolate
Acetate
Formate
EPA 601.1
EPA 6010
EFA 6010
EPA 6010
EPA 6010
EFA 6010
EPA 6010
EPA 6010
EPA 6010
EPA 6010
EPA 6010
EPA 413.2
Modified EPA 300.0
Modified EPA 300.0
Modified EPA 300.0
Modified EPA 300.0
Modified EPA 300.0
Modified EPA 300.0
Modified EPA 300.0
Modified EPA 300.0
59
-------
APPENDIX B.2. CORROSIVITY (ASTM D 1384-87) AS MEASURED IN LABORATORY (TRIPLICATE RESULTS)
ASTM D 3306 Standard for Corrosion: Copper = 10 mg max Steel = 10 mg max
Solder = 30 mg max Cast Iron = 10 mg max
Brass = 10 mg max Cast Aluminum = 30 mg max
Weight Loss per Specimen (mg)"
Batch No.
Description
Sample
Copper
Solder
Brass
1
Primary
Spent
0
0
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
Recycled
0
0
0
4
4
4
3
1
4
2
Primary
Recycled
0
0
0
6
6
6
1
0
2
3/4
Primary
Spent
0
1
0
6
5
2
2
3
2
Recycled
1
0
-1
6
6
6
2
2
1
5
Primary
Recycled
0
0
1
7
7
7
1
1
1
Averages are shown in Tablo 2-4.
-------
APPENDIX 0,2. (Continued)
ASTM D 3306 Standard for Corrosion: Copper = 10 mg max Steel = 10 mg ma*
Solder = 30 mg max Cast Iron = 10 mg max
Brass = 10 mg max Cast Aluminum = 30 mg max
Weight Loss per Specimen (mo)*
Batch No,
Description
Sample
Steel
Cast Iron
Cast Aluminum
1
Primary
Spent
0
1
0
3
4
5
-1
0
-3
Recycled
1
1
0
0
4
1
-3
-3
•8
2
Primary
Recycled
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
0
0
3/4
Primary
Spent
0
0
0
48
95
73
0
0
-3
Recycled
0
0
0
4
-1
0
0
0
1
S
Primary
Recycled
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
Averages are shown in Table 2-4,
-------
APPENDIX C
TECHNICAL/FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
62
-------
APPENDIX C
TECHNICAL/FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
The following agencies can provide additional information on pollution prevention.
U.S. EPA Pollution Prevention Office
401 M Street S.W. (PM-219)
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 382-4335
U.S. EPA Solid Waste Office
401 M Street SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
(703) 308-8402
U.S. EPA Office of Research & Development
Center for Environmental Research Information
26 Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 569-7562
The following states have programs that offer technical and/or financial assistance in the areas of
pollution prevention {waste reduction).
Alabama
Hazardous Material Management
and Resource
Recovery Program
University of Alabama
P.O. Box 6373
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-6373
(205) 348-8401
Department of Environmental
Management
1751 Federal Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36130
(205) 271-7914
Alaska
Alaska Health Project
Waste Reduction Assistance Program
431 West Seventh Avenue, Suite 101
Anchorage, AK 99501
(907) 276-2864
Arizona
Arizona Department of Economic Planning
and Development
1645 West Jefferson St.
Phoenix, AZ 85007
(602) 255-5705
Arkansas
Arkansas Industrial Development
Commission
One State Capitol Mali
Little Rock, AR 72201
(501) 371-1370
California
Alternative Technology Section
Toxic Substances Control Division
California State Department of
Health Services
714/744 P Street
Sacramento, CA 94234-7320
(916) 324-1807
63
-------
Pollution Prevention Program
San Diego County Department of
Health Services
Hazardous Materials
Management Division
P.O. Box 85261
San Diego, Ca 92186-5261
(619) 338-2215
Colorado
Division of Commerce and
Development Commission
500 State Centennial Building
Denver, CO 80203
(303) 866-2205
Connecticut
Connecticut Hazardous Waste
Management Service
Suite 360
900 Asylum Avenue
Hartford, CT 06105
(203) 244-2007
Connecticut Department of
Economic Development
210 Washington Street
Hartford CT 06106
(203) 566-7196
Delaware
Delaware Dept. of Community Affairs
& Economic Development
630 State College Rd.
Dover, DE 19901
(302) 736-4201
D.C.
U.S. Department of Energy
Conservation and Renewable Energy
Office of Industrial Technologies
Office of Waste Reduction,
Waste Material Management Division
Bruce Crsnford CE-222
Washington D.C. 20585
(202) 586-9496
Pollution Control Financing Staff
Small Business Administration
1441 "L" Street N.W., Room 808
Washington, D.C. 20416
(202) 653-2548
Florida
Waste Reduction Assistance Program
Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation
2600 Blair Stone Road
. Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
(904) 488-0300
Georgia
Hazardous Waste Technical
Assistance Program
Georgia Institute of Technology
Georgia Technica! Research Institute
Environmental Health and Safety Division
O'Keefe Building, Room 027
Atlanta, GA 30332
(404) 894-3806
Environmental Protection Division
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
205 Butler Street S.E. Room 1154
Atlanta, GA 30334
(404) 656-2833
Guam
Solid and Hazardous Waste
Management Program
Guam EPA
IT&.E Harmon Plaza Complex
Unit D-107
130 Rojas Street
Harmon, Guam 96911
(671) 646-8863-5
Hawaii
Department of Planning &
Economic Development
Financial Management and
Assistance Branch
P.O. Box 2359
Honolulu, HI 96813
(808) 548-4617
64
-------
Idaho
IDHW-DEQ
Hazardous Materials Bureau
450 W. State Street
3rd Floor
Bcise, ID 83720
(208) 334-5879
Illinois
Hazardous Waste Research and
Information Center
Illinois Department of Energy and
Natural Resources
One E. Hszelwocd Drive
Champaign, Illinois 61820
(217) 333-8940
Iowa
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Air Quality and Solid Waste
Protection Bureau
Wallace State Office Building
900 East Grand Avenue
Des Moines, IA 50319-0034
(515) 281-8690
Center for Industrial Research and Service
Iowa State University Research Center
Suite 500
2501 N. Loop Drive
Building 1
Ames, IA 50010-8286
(515) 294-3420
Illinois Waste Elimination
Research Center
Pritzker Department of
Environmental Engineering
Illinois Institute of Technology
3201 South Dearborn
Room 103 Alumni Memorial Hall
Chicago, 1L 60616
(312) 567-3535
Indiana
Environmental Management and
Education Program
School of Civil Engineering
Purdue University
2129 Civil Engineering Building
West Lafayette, IN 47907
(317) 494-5036
Indiana Department of
Environmental Management
Office of technical Assistance
P.O. Box 6015
105 South Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015
(317) 232-8172
Waste Management Authority
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Henry A. Wallace Euilding
900 East Grand
Des Moines, IA 50319
(515) 281-8489
Iowa Waste Reduction Center
University of Norther Iowa
75 Biology Research Complex
Cedar Falls, Iowa 50614
(319) 273-2079
Kansas
Bureau of Waste Management
Department of Health and Environment
Forbes Field, Building 730
Topeka, KS 66620
(913) 296-1607
Kentucky
Division of Waste Management
Natural Resources and Environmental
Protection Cabinet
18 Reiliy Road
Frankfort, KY 40601
(502) 564-6716
65
-------
Kentucky Partners
Room 312 Ernst Hail
University of Louisville
Speed Scientific School
Louisville, KY 40292
(502)588-7260
Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality
Office of Solid and Hazardous Waste
P.O. Box 44307
Baton Rouge, LA 70804
(504) 342-1354
Maine
State Planning Office
184 State St.
Augusta, ME 04333
(207) 289-3261
Maryland
Maryland Hazardous Waste
Facilities Siting Board
60 West Street, Suite 200A
Annapolis, MD 21401
1301) 974-3432
Massachusetts
Office of Technical Assistance
Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs
100 Cambridge Street, Room 1904
Boston, MA 02202
(617) 727-3260
Source Reduction Program
Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Quality Engineering
1 Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
(617) 292-5S82
Michigan
Resource Recovery Section
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, Ml 48909
(517) 373-0540
Minnesota
Minnesota Pollution Contrcl Agency
Solid and Hazardous Waste Division
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155
(612) 296-6300
Minnesota Technical
Assistance Program
1313 5th Street S.E. Suite 207
Minneapolis, MN 55414
(612) 627-4646
(800) 247-0015 (in Minnesota)
Mississippi
Waste Reduction &. Minimization Program
Bureau of Pollution control
Department of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 10385
Jackson, Mississippi 39289-0385
(601) 961-5190
Missouri
State Environmental Improvement
and Energy
Resources Agency
P.O. Box 744
. Jefferson City, MO 65102
(314) 751-4919
Waste Management Program
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Jefferson Building, 13th Floor
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102
(314) 751-3176
Nebraska
Land Quality Division
Nebraska Department of Environmental
Control
Box 98922
State House Station
Lincoln, Nebraska 68509-8922
(402) 471-2186
66
-------
Hazardous Waste Section
Nebraska Department of Environmental
Control
P.O. Box 98922
Lincoln, Nebraska 68509-8922
(402) 471-2186
New Jersey
New Jersey Hazardous Waste
Facilities Siting Commission
Room 614
28 West State Street
Trenton, NJ 08608
(60S) 292-1459
(609) 292-1026
Hazardous Waste Advisement Program
Bureau of Regulation and Classification
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection
401 East State Street
Trenton, NJ 08625
(609) 292-8341
Risk Reduction Unit
Office of Science and Research
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection
401 East State Street
Trenton, NJ 08625
(609) 292-8341
New Mexico
Economic Development Department
Bataan Memorial Building
State Capitol Complex
Santa Fe, NM 87503
(505) 827-6207
New York
New York Environmental Facilities
Corporation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12205
(518) 457-4222
North Carolina
Pollution Prevention Pays Program
Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development
P.O. Eox 27687
51 2 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27611
(919) 733-7015
Governor's Waste Management Eoard
P.O. Box 27687
325 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
(919) 733-9020
Technical Assistance Unit
Solid and Hazardous Waste
Management Branch
North Carolina Department of
Human Resources
P.O. Box 2091
306 North Wilmington Street
Raleigh, NC 27602
(919i" 733-2178
North Dakota
North Dakota Economic
Development Commission
Liberty Memorial Building
State Capitol Grounds
Bismarck, ND 58505
(701) 224-2810
Ohio
Division of Solid and Hazardous
Waste Management
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
P.O. Box 1049
1800 Watermark Drive
Columbus, OH 4326S-1049
(614) 644-2917
Oklahoma
Industrial Waste Elimination Program
Oklahoma State Department of Health
P.O. Box 53551
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
(405) 271-7353
67
-------
Oregon
Oregon Hazardous Waste
Reduction Program
Department of Environmental Quality
811 Southwest Sixth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
(503) 229-5913
(800) 452-4011 (in Oregon)
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Technical
Assistance Program
501 F. Orvis Keller Building
University Park, FA 16802
(814) 865-0427
Center of Hazardous Materia! Research
Subsidiary of the University of
Pittsburgh Trust
320 William Pitt Way
Pittsburgh, PA 15238
(412) 826-5320
(800) 334-2467
Puerto Rico
Government of Puerto Rico,
Economic Development Administration
Box 2350
San Juan, PR 00936
(809) 758-4747
Rhode Island
Hazardous Waste Reduction Section
Office of Environmental Management
S3 Park Street
Providence, Rl 02903
(401) 277-3434
(800) 253-2674 (in Rhode Island)
South Carolina
Center for Waste Minimization
Department of Health and
Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
(803) 734-4715
South Dakota
Dept. of State Development
P.O. Box 6000
Pierre, SD 57501
(800) 843-8000
Tennessee
Center for Industrial Services
226 Capitol Bivd.
Building #401
University of Tennessee
Nashville, TN 37219-1804
(615) 242-2456
Bureau of Environment
Tennessee Department of Health
and Environment
150 9th Ave. North
Nashville, Tennessee 37219-5404
(615) 741-3657
Tennessee Hazardous Waste
Minimization Program
Tennessee Department of Economic and
Community Development
Division of Existing Industry Services
7th Floor, 320 6th Ave. North
Nashville, TN 37219
(615) 741-1888
Texas
Texas Economic Development Authority
410 E. Fifth St.
Austin, TX 78701
(512) 472-5059
Utah
Utah Division of Economic Development
6150 State Office Building
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
(801) 533-5325
Vermont
Economic Development Department
Pavilion Office Building
Montpelier, VT 05602
(802) 828-3221
68
-------
Virginia
Office of Policy and Planning
Virginia Department of
Waste Management
11th Floor, Monroe Building
101 North 14th Street
Richmond, VA 23219
(804) 225-2667
Washington
Hazardous Waste Section
Mai! Stop PV-11
Washington Department of Ecology
Olympia, WA 98504-8711
(206) 459-6322
West Virginia
Governor's Office of Economics
and Community Development
Building G, Room B-517
Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
(304) 348-2234
Wisconsin
Bureau of Solid Waste Management
Wisconsin Department of
Natural resources
P.O. Box 7921
101 South Webster Street
Madison, Wl 53707
(608) 267-3763
Wyoming
Solid Waste Management Program
Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality
Herschler Building, 4th Floor,
West Wing
122 West 25th Street
Cheyenne, Wy 82002
(307) 777-7752
------- |