Project Summary

United States

Environmental Protection

Agency

Pollution Prevention Alternatives,

Naval Station Mayport, Florida

National Risk Management

Research Laboratory

Cincinnati, OH 45268

Research and Development

The two reports summarized here

present the results of an investigation

examining pollution prevention alternatives at Naval Station Mayport, located

near Jacksonville Beach, FL. The waste

streams considered were: (1) non-aqueous liquid wastes generated by the Public Works Center - Transportation

(PWC-T) and (2) hazardous and nonhazardous waste rags generated basewide.

The first report, “Pollution Prevention Alternatives for Public Works Center (Transportation) Waste Fluids at

Naval Station Mayport” describes the

different non-aqueous liquids, including solvent for parts cleaning; the pollution prevention alternatives that could

be utilized to reduce the generation of

non-aqueous liquid wastes and the

technical and economic benefits and

problems created by implementation of

each alternative. The second report, “Investigation of Waste Rag Generation at Naval Station Mayport”

recommends five specific pollution prevention alternatives that should be considered for implementation to reduce

or prevent the generation of waste rags.

This Project Summary was developed

by EPA's National Risk Management

Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH,

to announce key findings of the research project that is fully documented

in two separate reports (see Project

Report ordering information at back).

Introduction

Since 1988, EPA’s Waste Reduction

Evaluations at Federal Sites (WREAFS)

Program has identified and promoted pollution prevention opportunities at Federal

facilities, including the Department of Defense (DOD) facilities. The Naval Station

Mayport project was one of a series of

pollution prevention studies conducted under WREAFS. The project was funded by

the DOD Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program

(SERDP).

The purposes of this project were to:

(1) develop a Pollution Prevention Opportunity Assesment (PPOA) for non-aqueous liquid wastes generated by the Public

Works Center - Transportation (PWC-T)

at Naval Station Mayport; and (2) investigate base-wide rag usage at the Naval

Station to reduce the volume and toxicity

of waste rags generated. The results of

the PPOA for the non-aqueous liquid

wastes are presented in the report entitled “Pollution Prevention Alternatives for

Public Works Center (Transportation)

Waste Fluids at Naval Station Mayport."

The results of the waste rag investigation

are reported in a separate report, entitled

“Investigation of Waste Rag Generation at

Naval Station Mayport.” The findings are

summarized here.

Results and Discussion

The mission of Naval Station Mayport is

to provide support services for U.S. Navy

ships and helicopters that operate from

the Mayport, FL Naval facility. The station’s

Public Works Division currently services

671 different pieces of equipment to support approximately 12 ships. This is expected to increase significantly in the future

due to base consolidations. Support equipEPA/600/SR-95/127 August 1995
2

ment includes automobile and truck fleets,

road and light construction equipment, aircraft ground support equipment, and marine support equipment.

Waste Fluids

The non-aqueous liquid wastes that are

generated at the PWC-T are primarily the

result of scheduled and unscheduled maintenance activities. These wastes include

used motor oil, hydraulic fluid, transmission fluid, antifreeze, and waste solvent

from the washing of parts.

While amounts vary according to

workload, purchase records indicate that

2,838 gal of motor oil, 564 gal of hydraulic

fluid, 206 gal of transmission fluid, and

441 gal of antifreeze and approximately

2,640 gal of PD-680 (a petroleum-based,

non-chlorinated solvent) were purchased

by PWC-T in 1993, indicating the approximate amount of waste liquids generated

at the PWC-T. Some small amount may

be lost due to spills.

It is recommended that an oil sampling

and by-pass filtration pilot study be initiated on two large pieces of equipment,

such as a bulldozer and a road grader.

The pilot study is recommended to confirm that the number of motor oil changes,

and hence motor oil usage, can be reduced significantly through implementation of an oil sampling program and

installation of by-pass filtration units on

each piece of equipment. The report also

recommends that an antifreeze recycling

unit be obtained by the PWC-T to evaluate the merits of recycling the spent radiathe by-pass filtration systems identified for

motor oil for a bulldozer, which represents

one of the largest motor oil capacities (48

qt) of any piece of equipment serviced by

the PWC-T. Table 2 presents the alternate case assumptions and resultant

payback associated with installing by-pass

filtration for the bulldozer analysis. The

information is listed alphabetically by vendor.

Waste Rags

Approximately 86,440 lb of non-recycled

hazardous and non-hazardous waste rags

are generated annually as a result of maintenance and repair operations at various

shorecommands and on board ships which

frequent the Naval Station. Five specific

pollution prevention alternatives that should

be considered for implementation by the

Naval Station to reduce or prevent the

generation of waste rags:

1. Better operating practices;

2. Installation of equipment cleaning

stations to remove contaminants

normally removed with rags;

3. Replacement of SERV MART (base

supply store) rags with disposable

wipers;

4. Use of recyclable rags for oil and

grease removal; and

5. Confirmation that used rags are fully

contaminated prior to disposal.

Alternatives 1 and 5 require no additional capital investment, but generate a

reduction in waste. Alternatives 3 and 4

Table 2. Motor Oil By-Pass Filtration Cost/Benefit Analysis: Bulldozer Alternate Case Assumptions

Total Costs

Annual Costs Costs less

revenue)

Vendor Filtration Other Sampling Revenued First Subsequent Payback

Unit Costsb + New (from Yeare Annual (yr)

Costa Filtersc used oil) Costs

Enviro $226 $118.62 $116 $2.64 $457.98 $231.98 1.0

Filtration

Fil-max 463 118.62 69 2.64 647.98 184.98 1.7

Gulf Coast 675 118.62 22 2.64 812.98 137.98 2.1

TF Purifiner 845 118.62 56 2.64 1,016.98 171.98 2.9

a Cost of by-pass filtration unit (including a by-pass filter) plus installation.

b Includes costs for new oil (capacity of 48 qt, one oil change/yr, and new oil cost of $0.69/qt); filter disposal (2 by-pass and one full flow filter/yr at a cost of

$0.50/filter); full flow filter (one new full flow filter/yr at a cost of $20/filter); downtime (for oil change, one oil change/yr, and a downtime cost of $50/hr); and

Labor (1 hr of labor to change the oil, one oil change/yr, and a labor cost of $14/hr)

c Includes vendor-specific costs for replacement filters and $14/yr for sampling oil based on 2 samples/yr at $7/sample.

d Based on 48 qt of used oil/yr sold at $0.055/qt.

e Includes filtration unit cost.

Table 1. Summary of pollution prevention alternatives for waste fluids at the naval station Mayport PWC-T

Source of Alternatives

Waste Stream Identified

Motor Oil Oil Sampling

By-pass Filtration

Synthetic Oils

Hydraulic By-pass Filtration

Fluid Batch Recycling

Transmission By-pass Filtration

Fluid Batch Recycling

Antifreeze Recycling

Parts Automatic Parts

Washing Washer

tor fluid and reducing waste generation.

Finally, the report recommends that an

automatic parts washer be obtained for

testing by the PWC-T to replace the four

parts washing stations used to manually

clean parts with the PD-680 solvent.

These alternatives are recommended

because of their potential to reduce pollution as well as the economic advantages

and cost savings they generate. Table 1

presents each of the pollution prevention

alternatives identified for waste fluids.

In the report, the base case and associated assumptions with current operations

are compared to each pollution prevention alternative. As an example, the report

presents the costs and benefits of each of
3

were estimated to generate a net cost

savings in addition to reducing waste. Use

of disposable wipers is somewhat more

attractive from a cost perspective than

recycling of non-hazardous waste rags,

and because of increased absorbency, the

ratio of contaminate per unit volume is

increased, thus reducing overall generation of rag waste. Alternative 2 is recommended only for high-volume rag use

areas. Note that each alternative is a

proven technology that has already been

implemented by at least one command at

the Naval Station.

The five alternatives identified are recommended for implementation because of

their potential to reduce pollution as well

as the cost savings that they generate.

Table 3 presents the pollution prevention

alternatives identified and the type of rag

that is best suited for implementation.

Table 4 presents a summary of the base

case and alternatives in terms of (1) the

amount (lbs) of waste rags generated, (2)

the capital costs, if any, associated with

implementing the alternatives, and (3) the

annual costs associated with the base case

and each alternative.

Conclusions

Several potential areas for pollution prevention and waste reduction exist at Naval Station Mayport. In the case of waste

fluids (motor oil, hydraulic fluid, transmission fluid, antifreeze, and parts washing

liquids), several alternatives are offered,

but further investigation by on-site personnel is needed to determine which alternative is most appropriate for the Naval

Station. Rag generation could be curtailed

by several methods including: improved

operating practices; installation of equipment cleaning stations to remove contaminants normally removed with rags;

replacement of SERV MART rags with

disposable wipers; use of recyclable rags

for oil and grease removal; and confirmation that used rags are fully contaminated

prior to disposal.

The full reports were submitted in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-D2-00062, Work

Assignment No. 1-32 by Southern Research Institute and Pacific Environmental

Services, Inc. under the sponsorship of

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Table 4. Summary of Base Case and Alternatives on Waste Rag Generation, Capital Costs, and Annual Costs

Type of Rag Scenario Amount of Waste Capital Costs Total Annual

Generated (lb/yr) Costs

Hazardous Base Case 42,750 NA $116,844

Wash Station NA NA NA

Disposable Wipers 4,840 to 7,753 NA 20,701 to 34,079

Recyclable Rags NA NA NA

Non-Hazardous Base Case 43,690 NA 119,414

Wash Station 38,614 21,000 111,259

Disposable Wipers 4,946 to 7,944 NA 21,156 to 34,828

Recyclable Rags 79 NA 48,596

Total (Hazardous Base Case 86,440 NA 236,258

plus nonhazardous) Wash Station 81,364 21,000 228,103

Disposable Wipers 9,786 to 15,697 NA 41,857 to 68,907

Recyclable Rags 42,829 NA 165,440

Table 3. Summary of Pollution Prevention Alternatives for Waste Rag Generation.

Alternative Identified Recommended Rag Notes

Type

Implement better Both hazardous

operating practices and non-hazardous

Use disposable Hazardous Could also be use

wipers* for non-hazardous

Use recyclable Non-hazardous

rags only

Dispose of only Non-hazardous Not recommended

fully contaminated only for hazardous rags

rags

Install equipment Non-hazardous Limit to high volume

cleaning stations only rag use areas
4

Southern Research Institute, Birmingham, AL 35205-5305, and Pacific Environmental Services, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2077 authored the

reports.

N. Theresa T. Hoagland is the EPA Project Officer (see below).

The complete reports, entitled: "Pollution Prevention Alternatives for Public

Works Center (Transportation) Waste Fluids at Naval Station Mayport, FL,"

(Order No. PB95-260386; Cost: $19.50, subject to change); and “Investigation of Waste Rag Generation at Naval Station Mayport,” (Order No.

PB95-260394; Cost: $17.50, subject to change); will be available only

from:

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

Telephone: 703-487-4650

The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:

National Risk Management Research Laboratory

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Cincinnati, OH 45268

BULK RATE

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

EPA

PERMIT No. G-35

United States

Environmental Protection Agency

Technology Transfer and Support Division (CERI)

Cincinnati, OH 45268

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use

$300

EPA/600/SR-95/127