United States National Risk Management

Environmental Protection Research Laboratory

Agency Cincinnati, OH 45268

Research and Development EPA/600/SR-96/104 September 1996

Life Cycle Assessment for

Chemical Agent Resistant

Coating

Project Summary

Robin Thomas and Duane Tolle

This project was sponsored by the

Department of Defense's Strategic Environmental Research and Development

Program (SERDP) and conducted by

the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency's National Risk Management

Research Laboratory (NRMRL). In support of SERDP's objective to develop

environmental solutions that improve

mission readiness for federal activities,

this report was developed to determine

the optimum materials and equipment

for applying chemical agent resistant

coating (CARC) to vehicles at the Army

Transportation Center at Fort Eustis,

VA. A life cycle assessment (LCA) was

conducted to identify the performance,

cost, and environmental impacts of various combinations of CARC materials

and equipment. The variables for this

study were the primer, thinner, CARC

topcoat, and spray application equipment. Combinations of the variables

were grouped to develop five alternatives. The recommended alternative

would change the existing primer and

application equipment, but retain the

existing thinner and topcoat. This alternative would maintain required performance characteristics, achieve cost

objectives, and result in low environmental impacts in relation to the other

alternatives.

This Project Summary was developed

by EPA’s National Risk Management

Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH,

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

in a separate report of the same title

(see Project Report ordering information at back).

Introduction

A life cycle inventory (LCI) of chemical

agent resistant coating (CARC) operations

was conducted at the U.S. Army’s Transportation Center at Fort Eustis, VA. The

LCI provided a baseline of environmental

and utility data for the production, use,

and disposal of spent CARC and blast

media. These data included the raw materials used, water and energy requirements, atmospheric emissions, liquid

waste, and solid waste streams. The results of this LCI provide the basis for a life

cycle environmental evaluation of CARC

operations at Fort Eustis. The data were

originally presented in units per 1,000 gallons of CARC used, which is slightly less

than the CARC produced and purchased

due to spills, overspray, and discarded

paint. The data were converted to units

per 1,000 ft2

 for the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) and the life cycle improvement assessment (LCImA) to account for the additional CARC required

due to overspray, spills, and discards.

Therefore, the quantities of materials required for the process, and the emissions

released from any process in the CARC

cycle, are expressed relative to a functional unit of 1,000 ft2

 of painted surface.

The scope of the LCIA was limited to

one topcoat (MIL-C-53039A, Hentzen

08605GUZ), one primer (MIL-P-53022B;

Part A, Niles N-1088A and Part B, Niles

N-1088BM), one thinner (MIL-T-81772B,

Chemical Specialists and Development,

Thinner Aircraft Coating), one painting

technique (high volume, low pressure

[HVLP] spray painting), and one depainting

blasting media (aluminum oxide). All of

these, except the thinner, were used at

Fort Eustis (Fort Eustis adds two quarts of

A-A-857B to every five gallons of CARC).

An LCImA was then undertaken, using

the results of the LCIA, to define improvement strategies taking into account such

factors as cost, performance, and environmental considerations.
2

and painting operations, including raw

materials, utilities, labor, supplies, maintenance, plant overhead, waste disposal,

insurance, and regulatory compliance

charges. These costs were estimated

based on the costs incurred at Fort Eustis.

Appropriate factors were applied to convert the usage figures to annual costs

(i.e., 3,096 gallons of CARC multiplied by

the CARC purchase price). Other charges,

such as those incurred to maintain the

facility, plant overhead, etc., were also

estimated using a factoring approach.

Annualized costs equal the annual operating cost plus amortization of the capital investment. The annualized cost is then

divided by the annual quantity of CARC

painted surface to compute costs on a $/

ft2

 basis. The annual surface coated

(619,000 ft2 ) was estimated from the 1993

Fort Eustis CARC paint consumption level

of 3,096 gallons and a calculated CARC

usage rate of 5.0 gal/1,000 ft2

 (200 ft2/

gal).

Life Cycle Improvement

Assessment

Inventory Analysis

Five alternatives were evaluated against

the baseline CARC system (Table 1): (1)

alternative primer with the baseline CARC

topcoat and thinner; (2) substitution of the

turbine HVLP gun against the standard

HVLP gun; (3) alternative primer with the

alternative gun; (4) alternative thinner along

with the baseline topcoat; and (5) alternative thinner and alternative primer with the

baseline gun.

The importance of each individual resource or chemical within each impact

category was determined by multiplying

the equivalency factor times the inventory

value in pounds per functional unit. The

potential environmental impacts associated

with each of the alternatives can be evaluated by comparing the normalized, factored, impact scores for each of the nine

major impact categories.

Economic assessment was made by taking the baseline (Fort Eustis) categories

of fixed capital investment, the annual operating cost, and the annualized cost and

comparing those estimates against the five

alternatives.

A performance evaluation was conducted for the impact assessment, which

included application equipment, primers,

and thinners. Scoring ranks were assigned

for each performance evaluation parameter.

A valuation process was conducted in a

step-wise fashion, beginning with the construction of a hierarchy tree and continuLife Cycle Inventory

In developing the LCI, all of the principal ingredients used to produce the final

products were identified. The specific

chemicals were identified using Material

Safety Data Sheets provided by the manufacturers. Literature research was then

conducted to identify the processes used

to make the principal ingredients and to

identify the raw materials. This process

was repeated until every raw material was

traced back to a fundamental precursor

(i.e., one identified as coming from the

earth as an ore or a petroleum product).

Each process was reviewed to determine

the process inputs and the outputs. Process inputs include raw materials, water,

and energy (i.e., electrical, natural gas [as

fuel], oil, and coal). Outputs include the

end product atmospheric emissions, waterborne waste and solid waste.

Data were obtained through telephone

surveys to manufacturers, published

chemical industry information, and chemical process handbooks. Searches for reports, articles, or other sources of information were undertaken in an attempt to

fill remaining gaps in the data. These

searches sometimes yielded EPA reports,

EPA-contracted reports, or industry trade

magazine articles.

As part of the scoping activity for the

LCIA, it was determined that several of

the chemical components in the CARC

life cycle described in the draft LCI could

be revised to fill in missing data or to

provide more recent data on the manufacturing processes. Chemicals identified as

most important for collection of additional

LCI data were adiponitrile, cobalt chromite

green, hexamethylenediamine, magnesium

ferrite, phosgene, sodium cyanide, and

sodium dichromate. Second tier chemicals included butyl acetate, butyl alcohol,

and methyl isoamyl ketone. Additional

chemicals derived closely from the crude

oil and natural gas refining processes were

not included in this ranked system, because they are part of the crude oil and

natural gas extraction and refining models

incorporated into the inventory model. This

included aromatic 100, carbon monoxide,

hydrogen, and propane.

Emissions for the electrical production,

crude oil refining, and natural gas production were taken from Battelle LCI databases. The electrical production model

calculates pollutant loadings for the national electrical grid based on the fractions of power created from coal, hydrocarbons, nuclear, hydropower, wind, and

other energy sources. The crude oil and

natural gas models included data on many

of the primary refinery chemicals. Emission data from 1993 were cross-referenced

with the 1993 Directory of Chemical Producers to determine the manufacturers of

the chemicals of interest. The directory

also provided production tables, which allowed direct calculation of the emission

rates per pound of product produced for

several chemicals of interest involved in

the process.

Life Cycle Impact Assessment

The LCIA is divided into three phases:

classification, characterization, and valuation. The classification step involved linking or assigning data from the LCI to individual stressor categories within the three

primary stressor categories, which are human health, ecological health, and resource depletion. Stressor/impact chains

were developed by considering the energy, water, and raw material input, along

with the air, water, and solid waste emission output from each life cycle stage,

which were then compared against lists of

potential impacts.

The characterization step involved an

evaluation of the magnitude of potential

impacts caused by individual stressors on

a site-independent basis. An estimation of

the magnitude of impacts for each stressor category was achieved by multiplying

equivalency factors by the quantity of resource or pollutant associated with a functional unit of the CARC process.

The valuation step involved an evaluation of the magnitude of resource depletion impacts associated with the CARC

life cycle. The resources included in the

analysis were water, minerals, gas, oil,

coal, and land. The impacts were evaluated from a time-metric standpoint, which

considers the time to exhaustion of the

resource.

Economic Assessment

The annual cost to paint and depaint

Army vehicles was estimated using a factored estimated approach. Fort Eustis was

selected as the baseline site, because it

typified depainting and painting operations

at a majority of Army bases; therefore, its

plant capacity, staffing, and paint-, primer-,

and abrasive media-usage rates were used

to estimate typical costs.

Capital costs were estimated for

depainting, marking and equipment preparation, and CARC application operations

for a new facility that would be of similar

size and capacity as Fort Eustis. Each

major item was identified, sized, and costs

were determined (using cost files, standard texts, vendor quotes, and recent procurement information) to estimate the total delivered equipment costs.

Operating costs are composed of the

annual costs to operate the depainting
3

Table 1. CARC Systems for Evaluation in LCImA

CARC

Systems CARC Topcoat

Evaluated Topcoata Primerb Thinnerc Spray Gund

1 (Baseline) BC BP BT BG

2 BC AP BT BG

3 BC BP BT AG

4 BC AP BT AG

5 BC BP AT BG

6 BC AP AT BG

aBC = Baseline CARC Topcoat, MIL-C-53039A, Hentzen 08605GUZ-GD,

1-part urethane.

bBP = Baseline Primer, MIL-P-53022, Niles 2-part epoxy, solvent thinned;

AP = Alternative Primer, MIL-P-53030, Deft 2-part epoxy, water

thinned.

cBT = Baseline Thinner, MIL-T-81772B, CSD; AT = Alternative Thinner,

Fed. Std. A-A-857B (used by Fort Eustis, but not evaluated by LCI.

dBG = Baseline Gun, high volume, low pressure (HVLP) spray gun

(thinning of topcoat required); AG = Alternative Gun, turbine HVLP

spray gun with increased transfer efficiency relative to conventional

HVLP gun.

ing with the environmental, cost, and performance weighting, respectively.

Results and Discussion

Results of the impact characterization

and valuation process showed that the

impacts of greatest concern are ozone

depletion (weight = 0.362), acid deposition (weight = 0.219), and global warming

(weight = 0.126). Of secondary concern

(with a combined normalized, weighted,

factored score) were all forms of toxicity,

including human, terrestrial, and aquatic.

Results for the five alternatives evaluated against the baseline CARC system

are summarized in Table 2.

Environmental Impact/Hazard

Characterization

The CARC system with the most (7 out

of 9) low scores (i.e., fewest potential impacts) in each impact category was alternative 3, the alternative primer and alternative spray gun option. Use of the alternative gun decreased the use rates of

topcoat, primer, and thinner, which results

in a reduction of potential environmental

impact in all nine of the impact categories

compared to the baseline. Alternative 3

was also the most attractive option in the

areas of global scale impact categories

(ozone depletion, global warming, and

natural resource use), and regional scale

impact categories (acid deposition and

smog creation). Although alternative 3 was

the most viable option for two (human

health and terrestrial wildlife) of the three

toxicity impact categories (the third being

aquatic toxicity), use of this option was

worse on aquatic toxicity than the baseline

system. Alternatives 2 and 3 rated the

most favorably with regard to local scale

impact of land use.

Economic Assessment

 Estimated fixed capital investments,

annual operating costs, and annualized

costs for each of the five alternative systems as compared to the baseline are

provided in Table 3.

Performance Evaluation

The alternative spray gun (the Can-am

system) had a transfer efficiency of 90%,

which represents an increase in transfer

efficiency of approximately 38% over the

baseline system.

The performance of the two primers

(Baseline: MIL-P-53022, Niles; Alternative:

MIL-P-53030, Deft) were similar, except

that some users have reported poor adhesion using the alternative primer. Since

the alternative primer is water thinnable,

poor adhesion in isolated cases may be

due to environmental factors, such as humidity.

Performance of the two thinners

(Baseline: MIL-T-81772B; Alternative: Federal Standard A-A-857B) varied from user

to user. Environmental effects are suspected to be the reason for the differences between the two. However, the effect of the alternative thinner on the appearance and performance of the topcoat

was noticeable. If the alternative thinner is

found to be unacceptable for use with the

topcoat, it should be considered for use in

the cleaning of process guns and hoses.

Valuation Process

The results of the weighting exercise in

the three major dimensions assigned 65%

of the value to the environmental dimension, 24% to the performance aspects,

and 11% to cost. Since the scoping process assumed that the threshold criteria

would result in alternatives that perform

adequately and do not differ markedly in

cost, the results should be reviewed considering those assumptions. Further tracing the weighting process into the three

major branches indicates that global environmental issues were assigned 32% of

weight, or about half of the overall environmental contribution. Regional and local issues received 20% and 13%, respectively. In the cost branch, O&M costs

were considered approximately three times

as important as capital costs. In the performance branch, the primer was considered the most important factor, with the

thinner and the spray gun receiving about

equal consideration.

Overall Improvement

Assessment Results

The score summaries (lower being preferable) for the assessment results are

shown below in decreasing order:

Baseline 1.191

Alternative Thinner 1.134 (Alternative 4)

Alternative Primer 1.019 (Alternative 1)

Alternative Thinner

 and Primer 1.016 (Alternative 5)

Alternative Gun 1.006 (Alternative 2)

Alternative Primer

 and Gun 0.898 (Alternative 3)

The results indicate that use of the alternative gun makes the largest potential

improvement for an alternative that

changes only a single factor, and in combination with the alternative primer, results in the best CARC option.

Conclusions

Of the five alternatives considered, two

(Alternative 2, the alternative gun; and

Alternative 3, alternative primer used with

the alternative gun) demonstrate the greatest potential for environmental improvement; the remaining three alternatives exhibit slight improvements that are not significant, considering the scope of the study.

When cost and performance are considered along with environmental factors,

Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 emerge as

the preferred alternatives for implementation, but the degree of differentiation relative to the baseline is minor. Alternative 3

is the recommended implementation

choice followed by Alternative 2.
4

The full report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-C4-0020, work

assignment 2-11, to Lockheed Environmental Systems & Technologies Company

through Purchase Order Number 07PPG7

from Lockheed to Battelle, under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Table 2. Results of Alternatives Against Baseline System from the LCImA Inventory Analysis

Results

Alternative Increase Decrease

1 Alternative primer used with the Small increases for fuel, sodium chloride, Small decrease in resource consumption

 baseline CARC topcoat and thinner. chlorine, and the ilmenite and rumenite (electricity, natural gas, steam, water,

from production of TiO2. Slight increases crude oil, refinery gases, oxygen, and

in chlorine and methane. Water discharges minor components). Elimination of

for titanium dioxide, chlorine, and heavy phosphate and zinc ores. Decreases in air

metals (cadmium, lead, and chromium). emissions of CO2, volatile organic

Addition of new chemicals from the compounds, PM, NOx, hydrocarbons, and

production of nitroethane (acetaldehyde, CO. Decreases in ODP, water usage and

methanol, 2-nitropropane, acetone, discharges, including reductions in mobile

acetonitrile, nitric acid, ammonia). ions, sodium, chloride, oil and grease, and

boron. Slight reduction in hazardous solid

waste.

2a Substitution of the turbine HVLP gun None. Decreases noted in resource consumption,

 against the standard (baseline) HVLP energy usage, and emissions.

 gun.

3a Alternative primer with alternative gun. Mixed (both increases and decreases) in Even larger decreases in energy and

emissions from baseline. resource consumption than alternatives

1 and 2. Mixed emissions, but for

those emissions common to the baseline,

overall amounts decreased.

4 Alternative thinner with baseline Slight increase in SOx in air emissions. Decreases in resource and energy demands

 topcoat. for electricity, steam, water, crude oil,

bauxite, air, residual and distillate fuel oils.

Reduced CO2 and hydrocarbons in air

emissions. Decreases in water usage and

discharge rates. Decreases in mobile ions,

chloride, oil, grease, and minor

constituents. Slight decrease in solid

waste.

5 Alternative thinner and alternative Increases in fuel, sodium chloride, chlorine, Decreases in resource and energy

 primer with baseline gun. rumenite, ilmenite (from TiO2 production). consumption in the areas of electricity,

Slight increases in minor organic chemical natural gas, steam, water, crude oil, air,

releases. Increases in heavy metal content and refinery gases. Decreases in major air

for water usage and emissions. Increases emissions in CO2, VOCs, PM, NOx,

in solid wastes from nitroethane hydrocarbons, and CO. Decreases in water

production processes. usage and overall emissions. Decreases in

ODP, solid wastes (except those from the

nitroethane production processes).

Table 3. Summary of Economic Assessment for Each of the Five Alternatives Compared to the Baseline CARC System

Cost Category Baseline Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Fixed Capital 516 516 548 548 516 516

 Investment a

Annual Operating 1,797 a 1,788 a 1,574 a 1,565 a 1,797 a 1,787 a

 Cost 2,903 b 2,888 b 2,542 b 2,928 b 2,901 b 2,885 b

Annualized Cost 1,845 a 1,837 a 1,625 a 1,616 a 1,845 a 1,835 a

2,981 b 2,966 b 2,625 b 2,611b 2,979 b 2,963 b

aNumbers are in thousands of dollars.

bReported as $/l000 ft2.

aPreferred alternatives.
5

Robin Thomas is with Lockheed-Martin Environmental, Las Vegas, NV 89119 and

Duane Tolle is with Battelle Columbus, Columbus, OH 43201.

Kenneth R. Stone and Johnny Springer, Jr., are the EPA Project Officers (see

below).

The complete report, entitled "Life Cycle Assessment for Chemical Agent Resistant

Coating," (Order No. PB96-207378; Cost: $47.00, subject to change) will be

available only from:

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

Telephone: 703-487-4650

The EPA Project Officers can be contacted at:

National Risk Management Research Laboratory

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Cincinnati, OH 45268

United States

Environmental Protection Agency

National Risk Management Research Laboratory (G-72)

Cincinnati, OH 45268

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

EPA/600/SR-96/104

BULK RATE

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

EPA

PERMIT NO. G-35