Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Connecticut Technical Assistance Program
WASTE MINIMIZATION AUDIT
Performed for
Sargent Manufacturing Company 100 Sargent Drive
New Haven, CT 06511
Performed by
PACE, Incorporated 100 Marshall Drive
Warrendale, PA 15086
July 1990
Connecticut Hazardous Waste Management Service 900 Asylum Avenue Suite 360
Hartford, Connecticut 06105-1904 203-244-2007
T H E A S S U R A N C E O F i l U A L l T Y
J u l y 5, 1990
Ms. R i t a Lomasney Connect icut Hazardous Waste Management Serv ice S u i t e 360 900 Asylum Avenue Har t fo rd , CT 06105-1904
Dear Ms. Lomasney,
Please f i n d enclosed, one copy o f t he Waste M in im iza t i on Aud i t f o r Sargent Manufactur ing Company.
We are submi t t i ng t h i s Aud i t r e p o r t t o you on b e h a l f o f Sargent Manufactur ing Company. We have a l so enclosed t h r e e copies o f F igures 2 and 3 f o r your use.
I f you should have any quest ions o r comments concerning the Aud i t , p lease f e e l f r e e t o con tac t me o r M r . Gary Gionet a t Sargent Manufactur ing.
S i ncere l y ,
J e f f r e y S . Holmes, P.E. Senior Environmental Engineer
JSH : ka r
cc: M r . Gary Gionet - Sargent Manufactur ing M r . Roger Dhonau - PACE - P i t t sbu rgh Region
1 8 1 Thorn Hill Road Offices: Minneapolis, Minnesota tos Angeles, California An Equal Opportunity Employer Warrendale. PA 1 5 0 8 6 . 7 5 2 7 Tampa, Florida Charlotte, North Carolina TEL: 4 1 2 - 7 7 2 . 1 2 1 4 Iowa City, Iowa Asheville, North Carolina
4 1 2 . 7 7 2 . 1 3 9 0 San Francisco, California N e w York. N e w York FAX: 4 1 2 . 7 7 2 . 1 3 6 0 Kansas City, Missouri Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
TABLE OF CONTENTS Paae
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................... 1
2.0 AUDIT SUMMARY .................................................. 4 2.1 Pre-Audit Overview ........................................ 4 2.2 On-Site Inspection ........................................ 4
3.0 PRODUCTION PROCESS DESCRIPTIONS AND WASTE GENERATION ........... 5 3.1 Electroplating ............................................ 5
3.1.1 Barrel Plating .................................. 5 3.1.2 Rack Plating .................................... 7 3.1.3 Miscellaneous Manual Plating Operations ......... 10
3.3 Parts Degreasing .......................................... 14 3.2 Parts Washing and Tumbling ................................ 12
3.4 Painting and Coating Operations ........................... 15 3.5 Parts Manufacturing and Machining ......................... 16
5.b ASSESSMENT OF WASTE MINIMIZATION OPPORTUNITIES ................. 26 5.1 Electroplating ............................................ 26 5.2 Alkaline Cleaners ......................................... 27 5.3 Non-Process Water Conservation ............................ 34 5.4 Miscellaneous Areas ....................................... 34
4.0 STATUS OF CURRENT WASTE MINIMIZATION PROGRAM ................... 23
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ 40 6.1 Electroplating ............................................ 40 6.2 Alkaline Cleaners ......................................... 44 6.3 Non-Process Water Conservation ............................ 45 6.4 Miscellaneous Areas ....................................... 47 6.5 Conclusions ............................................... 47
1 TABLES G
Table 1 . Process Operation and Waste Stream Summary ............... Table 2 . Waste Minimization Project List .......................... Table 3 . Electroplating Waste Minimization Alternative Screening .. Table 4 . Alkaline Cleaner Waste Minimization Alternative Screening Table 5 . Non-Process Cooling Water Waste Minimization A1 ternative
Screening ................................................ Table 6 . Miscellaneous Area Waste Minimization Alternative
Screening ................................................ Table 7 . Economic Feasibility o f Electroplating Alternatives ...... Table 8 . Further Alternative Investigation ........................ Table Table 10 . Economic Feasibility o f Miscellaneous Areas .............. 9 . Economic Feasibility of Non-Process Water Alternatives ...
18 23 28 33
35
38 41 42 46 48
I
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Pre-Audit Information Attachment 8 - Detailed Cost Sumnary
FTGtlRES Figure 1 . Faci 1 i ty Layout Map.. .................................... Figure 2 . Room Arrangement . Plating Area... .......................
2 6 9 figure 3 . Room Arrangement . Plating Area. .........................
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Sargent Manufacturing Company, 1 ocated i n New Haven, Connecticut, i s a
manufacturer of architectural hardware including locks, door closers and
latches. The company began operations at the New Haven site in 1964.
Sargent’s manufacturing operations include; drilling, tapping,
blanking, stamping, broaching, parts washing, organic and mineral solvent
cleaning, electroplating, painting, lacquer coating, buffing and assembly.
A facility layout drawing is included in Figure 1. As a result o f
manufacturing activities, the company generates a significant amount of
hazardous waste, regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), as well as non-hazardous wastes and wastewaters regulated under the
Clean Water Act(CWA). All these wastes require careful management in the
form of treatment and/or disposal. Due to the increasing intensity of
envi ronmental regul ati on of their manufacturing faci 1 it i es, concern over
their waste generation activities, and increasing costs for treatment and
disposal of these wastes, Sargent Manufacturing initiated an informal waste
minimization program in 1985. A formal and greatly expanded program was
developed in 1988, which led to the development and implementation of their
Waste Minimization Plan in December, 1988.
-
i -
In efforts to further reduce volume and toxicity of these wastes,
Sargent Manufacturing applied for a matching challenge grant from the
Connecticut Hazardous Waste Management Service in the Fall of 1989. The
grant, awarded in December of 1989, was based on a Waste Minimization Audit
proposed by Lancy Environmental Services Company (ESC), now PACE, Inc,
1
i" a 0 Y I ..
I I
t
2
I
The purpose o f the audit was to identify ways to cost effectively reduce
waste generation, waste treatment and disposal. The scope of work included an
in-depth investigation of production processes, evaluation of waste reduction
opportunities, and identification of cost effective or potentially cost
effective ways to reduce waste volume and toxicity.
This audit report provides a summary of the primary waste generating
processes, associated materials utilized in each process, and wastes
generated. A summary of the December 1988 Waste Minimization Plan is
provided and progress to date addressed. Assessment o f target reduction
areas, application of technologies to each target area and an economic
evaluation of each cost effective alternative are also provided. i
3
This section of the report discusses audit preparation and the on-site
inspection of the Sargent facility.
2.1 PRE-AUDIT OVERVIEW
Lancy ESC’s Project Manager conducted a pre-audit review o f existing
facility information to identify target waste generating areas that would be
subjected to in-depth evaluation during the on-site inspection.
obtained and reviewed prior to the on-site inspection included:
Information
o Process flow diagrams and schematics o Hazardous and non-hazardous waste manifest summaries o Reports containing detailed process information
o Environmental Discharge Permits o Waste Analysis data and toxicity information
o Decembet 1988 Waste Minimization Plan
After reviewing this information, a list of target waste generating
areas was compiled. This list included the process area where the waste is
generated, waste source and description, and quantity of waste generated in
1988 and 1989. In addition to this list, an agenda was prepared, audit
checklist developed identifying needs and questions to resolve during the
on-site inspection, and a waste minimization opportunity summary prepared.
These items were submitted to Sargent management for review prior to the on-
site inspection. These items are included as Attachment A.
2.2 ON-SITE INSPECTION
A team of two Lancy ESC engineers conducted the on-site inspection of
Sargent on March 7, 8, and 9, 1990. During the inspection, all production
processes generating wastes were examined. Current waste hand1 ing practices
were scrutinized, a detailed record’s review was conducted, and all missing
information and questions identified on the audit checklist obtained or
answered.
4
3.0 PRODUCTION PROCESS DESCRIPTIONS AND WASTE GENERATION
The following is a brief summary of specific processes examined during
the audit and the waste generated from these processes. Table 1 lists
specific wastes generated from each process, quantities generated in 1988 and
1989, treatment and/or disposal method of wastes generated, and raw materials
comprising the wastes.
3.1 ELECTROPLATING
Sargent performs three types of electroplating operations using six
different plating metals in various combinations. Each type of plating
operation is discussed below. I -
3.1.1 Barrel P1 a t i nq
Barrel plating is a type of electroplating which is performed in
barrels made of polyethylene. It is most commonly used on small parts
such as screws,- plates, locks, lock cylinders and keys. Sargent
maintains an automated
bronze on
(brown ant
barrel line which plates nickel, chromium, and
steel parts. The line also contains an a Mi-Tique coating
que finish-d p coating) station.
The barrel line is shown on Figure 2 and is designated by tank
numbers 113-140. The line is comprised of plating tanks containing
plating baths, alkaline cleaner baths to remove oil from machined parts,
acid baths for parts preparation prior to plating, and rinse tanks for
water washing between operations. All rinse water is supplied by the
City of New Haven public water system. Rinse water is discharged to
Sargent’s waste water treatment system for pH adjustment and removal of
5
I
heavy metals prior to discharge to New Haven Harbor under a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit issued by the
State of Connecticut.
This discharge is designated in the permit as Outfall 001.
Approximately 151,000 gallons/day (gpd) of waste water is discharged
from Sargent's treatment system, a portion of which originates from this
line. Sludges generated from Sargent's waste treatment system are
designated as F006 hazardous waste and hauled off-site for treatment and
ultimate disposal by Environmental Waste Resources (EWR). Spent acid
baths are treated prior to discharge. Spent alkaline cleaners are
discharged to a 7,000 gallon retention tank. EWR, an approved I
commercial waste water treatment facility located in Connecticut, then
routinely removes the waste for off-site treatment as D002/7 hazardous
waste.
Table 1, located on pages 19-23, is a summary of process
operations, waste sources from the process, waste type generated, annual
waste quantity generated, treatment and disposal methods and raw
materials used in the process.
3.1.2 Rack Platinq
The company maintains one manual line and two automated lines
where rack plating is performed on door knobs, door handles, door plates
and door closers. The manual line (hoist line) is depicted in Figure 3,
~ and is designated by tank numbers 74-89. This line is comprised of an
electrocleaner, which is used to remove oil from parts prior to
plating, an acid bath for parts preparation before plating, copper
7
s t r ike ( t h i n p l a t e ) , a nickel p l a t e , bronze p l a t e , and a chrome p l a t e .
Several running rinse tanks a r e a l s o p a r t of the l i n e and a r e used f o r
p a r t s washing between steps. All rinse waters , ac id and c l e a n e r ba ths ,
once t r e a t e d , a r e d ischarged t o New Haven Harbor through NPDES
Out fa l l 001. Sludges genera ted from waste t r e a t e d a r e t r e a t e d and
disposed o f by EWR, a s F006 hazardous waste.
The f i r s t automatic p l a t i n g line i s the Udyl i te l ine, r u n by
computer, f o r nickel and chrome p l a t i n g o f steel p a r t s . Figure 3 shows
this l ine , w h i c h i s des igna ted by t ank numbers 47-69. This l i n e
con ta ins a l k a l i n e soak c l e a n e r s f o r o i l removal p r i o r t o p l a t i n g , ac id
d i p tanks f o r further p a r t s p repa ra t ion p r i o r t o p l a t i n g , b r i g h t and i
d u l l nickel p l a t i n g ba ths and a hexavalent chromium p l a t i n g bath.
The nickel p l a t i n g bath i s followed by a bath recovery system
c a l l e d an e l e c t r o d i a l y s e s process . The spent ba th i s concent ra ted i n a
tank , p u r i f i e d i n the e l e c t r o d i a l y s i s u n i t , and r e tu rned t o the nickel
p l a t i n g bath. Waste waters genera ted from th i s l i ne and spent a c i d s a r e
a l s o t r e a t e d o n - s i t e p r i o r t o d i scha rge through NPDES O u t f a l l 001.
Sludges genera ted from waste water t rea tment a r e t r e a t e d and d isposed o f
as F006 hazardous waste by EWR.
Unlike the a l k a l i n e c l e a n e r s used i n o t h e r p l a t i n g o p e r a t i o n s , the
soak a l k a l i n e c l e a n e r s do not con ta in emuls i fy ing agen t s , a r e
biodegradable , and when spent, a r e t r a n s f e r r e d t o a 2,700 g a l l o n
r e t e n t i o n tank f o r c o n t r o l l e d d i scha rge t o the New Haven sewage
t rea tment plant(STP). These c l e a n e r s r e p r e s e n t a p o r t i o n of a 500
ga l lon lday d i scha rge t o sewer, permi t ted by the C i ty o f New Haven.
8
The second automated line is a zinc plating line called the Baker
zinc automatic line. This line is comprised of a zinc cyanide plating
bath, an a1 kaline electrocleaner, biodegradable soak cleaner, acid dip
tank for parts preparation, running rinse tanks between operations and a
clear chromate bath for corrosion protection following zinc plating.
This line is shown on Figure 3 and is designated by tank numbers 32-46.
All rinse waters and the spent acid bath are discharged through NPDES
Outfall 001 following treatment. S1 udges generated from waste treatment
are treated and disposed of as F006 hazardous waste, by EWR.
The spent soak cleaner is also discharged to the 2,700 gallon
biodegradable cleaners holding tank, used for spent soak cleaners from i
the Udylite plating line, and conveyed to the New Haven SIP. Spent
electrocleaner is transferred to the 7,000 gallon holding tank for off-
site treatment as hazardous waste by EWR.
See Table 1, located on pages 19-23, for specific details on rack
plating waste streams, quantities and composition.
3.1.3 Miscellaneous Manual Platins ODerations
Sargent maintains several small plating and coating operations in
addition to a small parts stripping area which are discussed below.
The 10-B line is where parts are given a dark brown antique
(Mi-Tique dip) finish. The 20-0 line utilizes a black antique finish
(Mi-Tique dip). These areas are designated by tank numbers 1-13 and 25-
27 on Figure 3 . Both lines use the same cleaner and rinse tanks. All
rinse water is supplied by the City of New Haven, conveyed to Sargent’s
10
I
. .. i
waste water treatment facility and discharged to New Haven Harbor under
NPDES Outfall 001. Spent alkaline cleaners are discharged to the 7,000
gallon retention tank for off-site treatment as hazardous waste by EWR.
Spent acidic solutions are conveyed to Sargent’s batch acid treatment
system prior to discharge to New Haven Harbor under Outfall 001.
Sludges generated from waste water treatment are treated and disposed o f
off-site, as F006 hazardous waste, by EWR.
The ”still” area i s comprised of a copper strike, bronze cyanide
plating bath, acid bath for parts preparation and alkaline cleaner for
oil removal from parts. Several running rinse tanks are provided for
washing parts between steps. The still area is shown on Figure 3 as
tank numbers 14-19. Door knobs and handles are plated here prior to the
I
appl i cat i on of a 1 acquer f i ni sh.
Rinse waters are discharged to the New Haven STP following
treatment in Sargent’s waste water treatment facility. Spent a1 kaline
cleaner is discharged to the 7,000 gallon retention tank and spent acid
to batch acid treatment, prior to discharge through Outfall 001.
A small stripping area for rejected nickel and chrome plated parts
is located on Figure 3 and is designated by tank numbers 70-73. The
alkaline strip, when spent, is discharged to the 7,000 gallon retention
tank. The spent acid strip is conveyed to the batch acid treatment tank
and then discharged to Outfall 001. Rinse waters used following the
strip operation are discharged to the pH adjustment sump, conveyed to
the settling basin and then to New Haven Harbor through Outfall 001.
11
I
The main p a r t s s t r i p p i n g a r e a i s l o c a t e d on Figure 2 and i s
des igna ted by ' t ank numbers 90-96 and 107-112. Any p a r t s r e j e c t e d f o r
improper p l a t i n g , improper l acque r ing o r parts damaged dur ing hand1 ing ,
a r e s e n t t o the s t r ip a r e a f o r f inish removal and a r e then r e p l a t e d
and/or lacquered . This a r e a has two t anks t h a t con ta in methylene
c h l o r i d e , f o r removal o f l acque r f inish, two a c i d str ip ba ths and a
sodium cyanide bath f o r smut ( d i r t - d i s c o l o r a t i o n ) removal. Cold and
ho t water rinse o p e r a t i o n s a1 so occur between s t r i p p i n g ope ra t ions .
Rinse waters a r e d ischarged t o the pH adjustment sump and
u l t i m a t e l y t o the Harbor through Outfal l 001. Spent s t r i p s o l u t i o n s a r e
mani fes ted o f f - s i t e a s hazardous waste . Spent methylene c h l o r i d e i s
sent t o EWR f o r s o l v e n t rec lamat ion . Spent a c i d and cyanide s o l u t i o n s
are sent t o EWR f o r t rea tment as hazardous waste .
See Table 1 f o r specific d e t a i l s on waste streams, q u a n t i t i e s , and
composi t ion.
3.2 PARTS WASHING AND TUMBLING
After p a r t s a r e manufactured and machined, t hey a r e sub jec t ed t o a
washing ope ra t ion us ing va r ious a l k a l i n e c l e a n e r s t o remove d i r t , o i l and
s c a l e p r i o r t o p l a t i n g o r coa t ing . Sargent main ta ins two l a r g e p a r t s washers
and one small p a r t s washing a rea .
The Department 37 washer i s used t o c l ean cast i ron hydrau l i c door
c l o s e r units p r i o r t o pa in t ing o r powder coa t ing . The washing ope ra t ion
c o n s i s t s of a s e r i e s o f hot a l k a l i n e c l e a n e r ba ths , fol lowed by a r i n s i n g
process . Spent a l k a l i n e c l e a n e r s a r e d ischarged t o the 7,000 g a l l o n
r e t e n t i o n tank l o c a t e d i n the p l a t i n g a rea f o r o f f - s i t e t r ea tmen t a s
12
I
hazardous waste (D002/7). Rinse water is discharged to the pH adjustment
sump and the settling tank prior to discharge through Outfall 001. Sludge
generated from waste treatment is further treated and disposed of as F006
hazardous waste by EWR.
The Department 02 washer is utilized for the majority of Sargent's parts
cleaning. This washing operation consists of a series of a1 kal ine cleaner
baths using a biodegradable cleaner, followed by a series of rinses. The
spent cleaner is conveyed to the 2,700 gallon retention tank where it is
discharged under permit at a rate o f 500 gallons/day to the New Haven STP.
In addition to these waste streams, approximately 5 drums/year o f hazardous
waste containing lead (D008) is removed from the washer tanks. This waste is
-
i -
manifested to EWR for landfill disposal.
Three small washers are located in Department 13. This operation is
similar to that in Department 02 except on a much smaller scale. - -
Sargent also maintains a tumbling operation adjacent to the plating
area as shown on Figure 2. Smaller parts, namely keys, are deburred in
rotating and vibrating tumbling machines. The tumbling is done with water,
alkaline detergent, ceramic and other synthetic media. All spent wash water '
and any overflows are conveyed to the New Haven STP.
for a portion of a 30,000 gpd process water discharge.
This discharge accounts
See Table 1 for specific waste streams generated, quantities, and raw
materials comprising these wastes.
13
3.3 PARTS DEGREASING
There are three parts degreasing areas at the Sargent facility:
Department 21; Department 30; and maintenance. Degreasing is necessary to
remove oil from manufactured parts prior to painting, coating, or plating
operations.
Department 21 utilizes a conveyor type vapor degreaser containing
l,l, 1-trichloroethane. Sargent generates approximately 1,000 gallons o f
spent solvent still bottoms from this department each year. The still
bottoms are generated from a recovery still used to reclaim and reuse the
l,l,l-trichloroethane on-site. Hubbard Hall receives the still bottoms as i
FOOl hazardous waste and reclaims the solvent.
The Department 30 operation is quite small and utilizes Chlorothane,
which contains l,l,l-trichloroethane. Brass and some steel internal parts
(pins) used in the company locks are dipped in a very small container of
chlorothane for oil and grease removal. The spent solvent is manifested off-
site as hazardous waste F002, for reclamation by Hubbard Hall.
The maintenance department maintains two Safety K1 een parts washers,
which utilize petroleum Naphtha for degreasing parts. The Safety Kleen units
are self-contained and once the solvent is no longer functional, the Safety
Kleen company replaces the small drums of spent solvent with fresh solvent.
The spent solvent is manifested by Sargent as hazardous waste (D001) to
Safety K1 een for recl amat i on.
See Table 1 for specific details on waste streams, quantities, and
materials contained in the wastes.
14
3.4 PAINTING AND COATING OPERATIONS
Sargent main ta ins severa l d i f f e r e n t t ypes o f p a i n t i n g and coa t ing
ope ra t ions , inc luding two p a i n t booths, two l acque r c o a t i n g booths and a
powder coa t ing ope ra t ion . Department 37 i s a p a i n t i n g a r e a where enamel
based p a i n t s and l acque r a r e used a s a p r o t e c t i v e and d e c o r a t i v e f inish on
p l a s t i c p a r t s and c a s t i r o n hydrau l i c door c l o s e r p a r t s .
A small hand-spray l acque r booth i s used t o c o a t p l a s t i c parts. The
only waste genera ted from t h i s ope ra t ion i s a small amount o f f l u s h i n g
so lven t (methylene c h l o r i d e ) f o r p e r i o d i c c l ean ing of spray guns. This waste
s o l v e n t i s manifested o f f - s i t e a s F002, 3 , and 5 t o EWR f o r rec lamat ion . i
The l a r g e r p a i n t booth i n Department 37 i s used f o r p a i n t i n g hydrau l i c
door c l o s e r p a r t s and some p l a s t i c p a r t s . Waste mater i a1 s genera ted inc lude ,
spen t f lu sh ing so lven t (xylene, t o luene , methylene c h l o r i d e ) and p a i n t
f i l t e r s from overspray c o l l e c t i o n .
Sargent mani fes t s spent s o l v e n t s a s FOOZ, 3 , and 5 o f f - s i t e , t o EWR f o r
rec lamat ion . The p a i n t f i l t e r s a r e drummed and manifested o f f - s i t e a s
hazardous waste D001, t o Clean Harbors f o r i n c i n e r a t i o n .
Department 21 i s the l acque r c o a t i n g a r e a . Sargent main ta ins an
automated 1 acquer 1 ine where door knobs and hand1 es a r e conveyed i n t o a spray
booth and then t o a dry ing oven. Wastes genera ted inc lude a l acque r s ludge ,
spent f i l t e r s from the v e n t i l a t i o n system, and spent f l u s h i n g s o l v e n t used t o
c lean spray l i n e s . The l acque r
Connecticut r egu la t ed waste (CR05)
Spent f l ushing so lven t i s manifested
s ludge i s manifested o f f - s i t e a s a
f o r dewater ing and l a n d f i l l i n g by EWR.
o f f - s i t e a s hazardous waste ( F O O Z ) , f o r
15
I
reclamation by EWR and spent filters manifested off-site as hazardous waste
D001, to Clean Harbors for incineration.
A powder coating booth is located in Department 39. This operation was
installed in 1988, to reduce the amount of enamel based paint wastes and
emissions of volatile organics. This operation imparts a dry powder onto
door handles and associated parts using electricity. Wastes generated from
this operation include a small amount of incinerator ash from the air
pollution control equipment afterburner and waste water from the parts washer
used as a cleaning step prior to powder coating.
i
The incinerator ash has been tested for hazardous waste characteristics
and appears to be non-hazardous. Sargent intends to ship the ash off-site
as residual waste to a local landfill.
Wash waters contain an alkaline detergent to clean the parts, followed
by a rinsing process using either city water for steel parts, or deionized
water for brass parts. Deionized rinse water is counter flowed in a two
stage rinsing process for brass only, prior to discharge. Final water rinse
tanks are equipped with overflows that discharge to the New Haven STP.
See Table 1 for specific details on waste streams, quantity generated,
and materi a1 composition of the wastes.
3.5 PARTS MANUFACTURING AND MACHINING
As stated before, Sargent conducts numerous machining, stamping and
forming operations to manufacture its products. In the course of these
operations, machine coolants and lubricants are used, which eventually become
16
laden with metal chips and shavings, dirt and/or oil. The coolants and
lubricants are recirculated and filtered to prolong their useful life,
however, eventually must be replaced. Sargent generates hazardous and non-
hazardous waste oi 1 s and cool ants.
The non-hazardous water soluble oil and coolant are manifested off-site
as Connecticut regulated wastes (CR03), to National Oil for reclamation. The
hazardous oil is generated from equipment maintenance activities and
consists primarily of hydraulic oil. The remainder of the hazardous oil is
generated from parts washers and other machines where lubricating oil has
been contaminated with lead from the parts themselves. Sargent manifests the
hazardous waste hydraulic oil off-site as DO01 and lead contaminated oil as
-
i -
0008, for reclamation by EWR.
Sargent also generates non-contact cooling water which is used for
internal cooling of compressors, the vapor degreaser, and the induction
heating machines. T h e non-contact cooling water is supplied by the City of
New Haven and is discharged through Outfall 002 under Sargent’s NPDES permit.
This discharge is permitted up to maximum of 108,000 gallons/day, however,
current activities generate only 40,000 - 50,000 gallons/day.
Table 1 is presented on the following pages and represents a summary of
all Sargent’s production processes, the waste description, type, and waste
quantities generated in 1988 and 1989 from these processes, chemical
substances comprising the waste, storage or disposal method for the waste and
the name of facility handling the waste stream.
17
PR
OC
ESS
OPE
RA
TIO
N A
NIi
Ifi’
AST
E STREAM SUMMARY
Pro
duct
ion
Pro
cess
Fac
ilit
y O
pera
tion
or
D
escr
ipti
on
Was
te
Was
te
Tre
atm
ent
and/
or
Was
te T
ype
1988
lQ8Q
And
Met
hod
and
Qua
ntit
y Q
uant
ity
Stor
age
Fac
ilit
y R
aw M
ater
ials
C
ompr
isin
g W
aste
Solld
and
Lia
uld
Was
tes
Dep
t. 37
Was
her,
Bq
el.
and
Man
ual E
lect
ropl
atin
g
Bar
rel,
Rac
k an
d M
anua
l E
lect
ropl
atin
g. T
reat
ed
Rin
se w
ater
s, B
atch
Tre
at-
men
t Sys
tem
Em
uent
Bar
rel,
Rac
k an
d M
anua
l E
lect
ropl
atin
g (C
hrom
e C
onta
inin
g W
nse
wat
ers)
Bar
rel.
Ibck
and
Man
ual
Ele
ctro
plat
lng
(Nlc
kel
Con
tain
lng
Rin
se w
ater
s)
Ele
ctro
plat
ing
Are
as
Spe
nt A
lkal
lne
Cle
aner
s 75
.910
Gal
s. -Do07
I
Slud
ge fm
m T
reat
men
t of
Ele
ctro
plat
lng
Was
te
Wat
ers
- FO
O6
44.3
94 G
als.
Slud
ge fr
om I
nteg
rate
d 83
94 G
als.
C
hrom
e I a
nd I1
Tre
atm
ent
Tan
ks -
F0
6
Slud
ge fr
om In
tegr
ated
2543 G
als.
N
lcke
l Tre
atm
ent T
ank
- M
x)6
Floo
r Sw
eepl
ngs
wO
2/3-
3569
Pds
. DOO1.
wo
2/3
. D
OO
7-20
Pds
. D
OO
7, an
d D
O07
18
Chr
ome
Plat
lng
Are
a Sp
ent
Plat
lng
Bat
h-
900
Pds.
D
m7
89.2
80 G
als
Phys
ical
and
Che
mlc
al
Sodl
um H
ydro
xide
T
reat
men
t-Sl
udge
Lan
dfill
ed
Env
iron
men
tal W
aste
R
esou
rces
, Inc
. (EW
R)
40.1
00 G
als.
P
hysi
cd a
nd C
hem
lcal
Su
lfur
ic A
cid.
Hyd
roch
lori
c T
reat
men
t-Sl
udge
Lan
dfill
ed
Add
. Sod
lum
Cya
nlde
. Nlc
kel
Pota
ssiu
m C
yani
de. C
hrom
ic
Acl
d. C
oppe
r, T
in. P
otas
slum
H
ydro
xlde
. Sod
lum
Hyd
roxi
de
0
Chl
orld
e. Z
inc
Cya
nlde
.
\
5016
Gal
s.
Phys
lcal
and
Che
mlc
al
Chr
omic
Acl
d. S
ulfa
te
Tre
atm
ent-
Slud
ge L
andf
illed
IE
WR
)
----
Ph
ysic
al a
nd C
hem
lcal
N
lcke
l Sul
fate
, Nlc
kel
Chl
orld
e.
Tre
atm
ent-
Slud
ge L
andf
illed
B
oric
Aci
d OEW
Do01- l
o00 Pd
s.
Che
mlc
al F
lxat
lon-
Lan
dfill
Su
lfur
ic A
cld.
Hyd
roch
lori
c w
o2/3
-336
0 w
s. 0
A
cld,
Sod
lum
Cya
nide
, Nlc
kel
DO
O2/
7-62
5 Pd
s.
wO
7/8-
4000
Pds.
Chl
orid
e. Z
lnc
Cya
nide
. Pot
assi
um
Cya
nide
. Chr
omic
Acl
d. C
oppe
r, T
ln. P
otas
slum
Hyd
roxi
de,
Sodi
um H
ydro
xide
Phys
lcal
and
Che
mlc
al
Tre
atm
ent S
ludg
e L
andf
illed
C
hrom
ic A
cid,
Sul
fate
IEw
R)
18
TABLE 1 C
ON
T'D
Pro
duct
ion
Pro
cess
D
escr
ipti
on
Was
te
Was
te
Tre
atm
ent
and/
or
Raw
Mat
eria
ls
Fac
ilit
y O
pera
tion
W
aste
Typ
e 19
88
1989
A
nd M
etho
d W
aste
or
and
Qua
ntit
y Q
uant
ity
Stor
age
Fac
ilit
y C
omp
risi
ng
Man
ual
Rac
k E
lect
ropl
atin
g
Man
ual
Rac
k E
lect
ropl
atin
g
Bar
rel a
nd M
anua
l E
lect
ropl
atln
g
Par
ts S
trlp
ping
Are
a
Par
ts S
trlp
plng
Are
a
10B
MI-
Tiqu
e
Nlc
kel P
latin
g A
reas
Lac
quer
Str
lppi
ng A
rea
Spe
nt C
oppe
r 16
5 G
als.
and
150
0 Pd
s.
--_-
Fi
xatlo
n-Sl
udee
Lan
dfill
ed
Sodl
um C
vani
de. S
odlu
m
Cya
nide
Bat
h. T
ank
Cle
anou
t and
Bat
h Fi
1 ter
s - F0
07
Spen
t Bra
ss C
yani
de
Bat
h an
d Fi
lters
-FW
7 T
ank
Cle
anou
t
Slud
ge fr
om P
latln
g B
ath
Cle
anou
t-F0
08
Spen
t Sod
ium
C
yani
de S
olut
lon-
F009
Spe
nt N
lcke
l Str
ip
Solu
tion-
DO
08
Floo
r Sw
eepl
ngs-
DO
10
Spen
t N
lcke
l So
lutio
n-
wo
2
Spe
nt C
hlor
inat
ed
Solv
ents
-F00
2. 3, &
5
400
Pds.
165 G
als.
1095
Gal
s.
110
Gal
s.
9 10
Pds
.
55 G
als.
220
Gal
s.
"
0
Car
bona
te. N
aCu(
CN
I3
-_--
Fi
xatlo
n-Sl
udge
Lan
dfill
ed
N~
CU
(CN
)~,
Sodi
um C
yani
de
0
Zin
c C
yani
de, B
rass
Glo
200
Pds.
Fi
xatio
n-Sl
udge
Lan
dflll
ed
Sodi
um ll
ydro
xlde
. Sod
ium
0
Cya
nide
, Zin
c C
yani
de
_--_
C
yani
de D
estr
uctio
n. P
hysi
cal
Sodi
um C
yani
de
and
Che
mlc
al T
reat
men
t, Fi
xatio
n. L
andf
ill
(EW
R)
110
Gal
s.
Phys
lcal
and
Che
mic
al
Sodi
um S
ulfo
nate
, Am
mon
ium
T
reat
men
t-Sl
udge
Lan
dfill
ed
Thi
ocya
nate
, N
lroar
yl S
ulfo
nic
[Em
A
cld.
Am
mon
la. E
thyl
ene
Dia
mln
e
-__-
C
hem
lcal
Fix
atio
n. L
andf
ill
Sele
niou
s A
cld.
Pho
spho
ric
(Em
A
cid.
Cop
per
1450
Gal
s.
Phys
ical
and
Che
mic
al
Nic
kel C
hlor
ide,
Nic
kel S
ulfa
te.
Tre
atm
ent-
Slud
ge L
andf
illed
B
oric
Acl
d [E
wril
55 G
als.
B
lend
ed h
e1
Sour
ce
Met
hyle
ne C
hlor
ide.
Xyl
ene,
[Ew
Tol
uene
, Met
hyl E
thyl
Ket
one
19
TA
BL
l31C
Oh
._
. P
rodu
ctio
n P
roce
ss
Des
crip
tion
W
aste
W
aste
T
reat
men
t an
d/o
r
Fac
ilit
y O
pera
tion
W
aste
Typ
e 19
88
1989
A
nd M
etho
d or
and
Qua
ntit
y Q
uant
ity
Stor
age
Fac
ilit
y R
aw M
ater
ials
C
ompr
isin
g W
aste
Dep
t. 37
Pai
ntln
g A
rea
Dep
t. 37
Pa
lntln
g A
rea
Dep
t. 37
Doo
r C
lose
r D
ebur
ring
Dep
t. 21
L
acqu
er A
rea
Dep
t. 21
and
30
Par
ts C
lean
ing
Dep
t. 21
Laq
uer
Coa
tlng
Are
a
Dep
t. 52
Mai
nten
ance
Dep
t. 52
Mai
nten
ance
Pa
rts
Cle
anin
g
Indu
stri
al B
oile
rs
Dep
t. 3
9 P
owde
r C
oatln
g
Bar
rel
Plat
ing
Are
a
Dep
t. 02
Was
her
Spe
nt T
hinn
er-F
003/
5 Sp
ent T
hinn
er-D
O01
B
ronz
e E
nam
el a
nd
Act
lvat
or-D
O0 1
Spe
nt F
llter
s fr
om P
aint
B
ooth
Spe
nt A
bras
ive
Gla
ss
Bea
ds-C
R05
Lac
quer
and
Wat
er M
ixtu
re
Slud
ge- C
R05
Spe
nt 1
.1.1
-Tri
- ch
loro
etha
ne-F
00 1
Har
dene
d A
ctiv
ator
- Fo
o2
Spe
nt H
ydra
ullc
Oil
from
Pla
nt E
quip
men
t-D
O01
Spen
t Saf
ety
Kle
en
Solv
ent-
DO
0 1
Soot
- D
o07
Inci
nera
tor
Ash
Spe
nt R
ust
Prev
enta
tlve
Oil-
DO
08
Was
te 0
11 fr
om S
klm
mer
- DO08
55 G
als.
55
Gal
s.
495
Pds.
12.3
00 Pds.
4771
Pds
.
5980
Pds
.
1008
Gal
s.
50 w
s.
330
Gal
s.
1440
Pds
.
55 G
als.
_---
55 G
als.
220
Gal
s.
Ble
nded
Fue
l Sou
rce
Xyl
ene.
Tol
uene
, Met
hyl E
thyl
--
--
55 G
als.
(E
w
Ket
one
c
----
Incl
nera
tlon
(C
lean
Har
bors
) Pa
int,
Xyl
ene,
Tol
uene
, Iso
buty
l K
eton
e 52 15
Pds.
5500
Pds
. L
andf
illed
(EW
R)
Abr
aslv
e G
lass
Bea
ds
5800
Pds.
Dew
ater
ing-
Lan
dfill
L
acqu
er C
oatln
g. W
ater
1085
Gal
s.
Rec
lam
atlo
n (H
ubba
rd H
all)
1.1.
1 -T
rich
loro
etha
ne
450
ws.
0
----
B
lend
ed F
uel S
ourc
e M
ethy
lene
Chl
orid
e 0
420
Gal
s.
Rec
lam
atlo
n (E
M)
Hea
vy P
etro
leum
Dls
tllla
te O
il
220
Gal
s.
Solv
ent R
ecla
mat
lon
Petr
oleu
m N
apth
a 78
4 Pds..
(Saf
ety
Kle
en C
orp.
)
_---
L
andf
ill (E
WR
) M
etal
Fln
es. A
sh
250 Pds.
Stor
ed o
n-sl
te In
55
Gal
. T
in. B
ronz
e, A
lum
inum
D
rum
, no
ash
rem
oved
from
Sa
rgen
t's f
acili
ty to
dat
e.
Rec
lam
atio
n (E
WR
) _-
--
Phys
lcal
Tre
atm
ent
Petr
oleu
m D
lstll
late
. Lea
d
110
Gal
s.
Phys
lcal
Tre
atm
ent
Petr
oleu
m D
lstll
late
. Lea
d R
ecla
mat
ion
(EW
R)
20
TA
BL
h 1
CO
NT
'rl
Pro
duct
ion
Pro
cess
D
escr
ipti
on
Was
te
Was
te
Tre
atm
ent
and/
or
or
and
Q
uant
ity
Qua
ntit
y St
orag
e F
acil
ity
Fac
ilit
y O
pera
tion
W
aste
Typ
e 19
88
1989
A
nd M
etho
d
Raw
Mat
eria
ls
Com
pri
sin
g W
aste
Ele
ctri
cal
Tra
nsfo
rmer
s C
apac
ltor
s
Dep
t. 37
01
1 R
eclr
cula
tlon
Tan
k
Was
te W
ater
Dls
char
ees
Plat
ing,
Cle
anln
g an
d W
ashi
ng o
f Par
ts
Facl
llty
Man
ufac
turi
ng
Equ
ipm
ent
Dep
t. 02.
13.3
9 an
d T
umbl
ing
Are
a
Indu
stri
al B
oile
rs
Dep
t. 0
2 W
ashe
r, U
dyllt
e Pl
attn
g Ll
ne, B
aker
Z
inc
Aut
o Pl
atin
g Li
ne
C\lr
Em
issi
ons
Rac
k, B
arre
l and
Man
ual
Ele
c tro
plat
lng
PCB
Oil-
CR
Ol
85 P
ds.
1350
Pds
. In
cine
ratl
on
(Cle
an H
arbo
rs)
Oil
Lad
en S
peed
l-D
ry-
1000
Pds.
CR
05
----
L
andf
ill
Poly
chlo
rina
ted
Blp
heny
ls
Wat
er S
olub
le 0
11
Proc
ess
Was
te W
ater
38 M
illlo
n G
als.
38 M
llllo
n G
als.
D
lsch
arge
d D
lrec
tly to
New
T
reat
ed W
aste
Wat
er
Hav
en H
arbo
r und
er N
PDES
O
utfa
ll 00
1
Clty
Wat
er fo
r Non
- 15
Mill
ion
Gal
s.
15 M
illio
n G
als.
D
lsch
arge
d D
irect
ly to
New
W
ater
C
onta
ct C
oolln
g H
aven
Har
bor u
nder
NPD
ES
Out
fall
002
Rin
se w
ater
s an
d 7.
5 M
illio
n G
als.
7.
5 M
llllo
n G
als.
D
isch
arge
d to
Clty
of N
ew
Wat
er, D
eter
gent
, Pot
assi
um
Was
h w
ater
s H
aven
SP
H
ydro
xide
Ste
am B
low
dow
n-
1.6
Mlll
lon
Gal
s.
1.6
Mlll
lon
Gal
s D
lsch
arge
d D
lrect
ly to
New
W
ater
, Sul
furi
c A
cld.
Cor
rosl
on
Clty
Wat
er
Hav
en H
arbo
r und
er N
PDES
In
hibi
tor
Blo
degr
adab
le C
lean
er
125.
000 G
als.
125.
000 G
als
Dls
char
ged
from
270
0 G
al.
Pota
sslu
m I
lydr
oxld
e R
inse
wat
ers,
Out
fall
003
Ret
entlo
n T
ank
to N
ew H
aven
ST
P
Chr
ome
Com
poun
ds-
Est
. 250
Pds
. Es
t. 25
0 Pd
s.
NO
ne
Poin
t Sou
rce
and
Fugl
tlve
Air
Em
lssl
ons
Chr
omic
Aci
d. C
hrom
ates
21
TA
BL
E 1 C
ON
T'D
Pro
duct
ion
Pro
cess
D
escr
ipti
on
Fac
ilit
y O
pera
tion
W
aste
Typ
e or
and
Was
te
Was
te
Tre
atm
ent
and/
or
Qu
an
tity
Q
uant
ity
Stor
age
Fac
ilit
y 19
88
1989
A
nd M
etho
d
Raw
Mat
eria
ls
Com
pris
ing
Was
te
Rac
k, B
arre
l and
Man
ual
Ele
ctro
plat
lng
Rac
k, B
arre
l and
Man
ual
Ele
ctro
plat
lng
Rac
k an
d B
arre
l E
lect
ropl
atln
g
Rac
k, B
arre
l and
Man
ual
Ele
ctro
plat
lng,
Dep
t. 37
Was
her
Dep
t. 37 a
nd S
trip
plng
A
rea
Stri
ppln
g A
rea
Aut
omat
lc B
arre
l Pl
atin
g
Aut
omat
ic B
arre
l Pl
atln
g.
MI-
Tiq
ue A
rea
Zin
c C
ompo
unds
- Po
int S
ourc
e an
d Fu
gitlv
e A
Ir E
mls
slon
s
Cya
nlde
Com
poun
ds-
Poln
t Sou
rce
and
Fugi
tive
Air
Em
lssl
ons
Nic
kel
Com
poun
ds-
Poin
t Source
and
Fugl
tlve
Alr
Em
lssl
ons
Sodl
um H
ydro
xide
- Po
lnt Source
and
Fugl
tlve
Air
Em
lssl
ons
Met
hyle
ne C
hlor
lde-
Po
int S
ourc
e an
d Fu
gitiv
e A
ir E
mis
sion
s
Nitr
ic A
dd-
Poln
t Sou
rce
and
Fugi
tlve
Alr
Em
issi
ons
Hyd
roch
lori
c A
cld-
Po
lnt S
ourc
e an
d Fu
gitiv
e A
lr E
mls
slon
s
Sulf
uric
Aci
d-
Fugl
tive
Alr
Em
lssl
ons
Est
. 250 Pd
s. I
Est
. 250 Pds.
Est
. 250 Pds.
Est
. 250 Pds.
Est
. 250 W
s.
Est
. 250 Pds.
Est
. 250 P
ds.
Est
. 250 Pds.
Est
. 250 W
s.
NU
X
Est
. 250 W
s.
Non
e
Est
. 250 Pds.
Nal
e
Est
. 250 Pds.
1 N
m
Est
. 250 W
s.
Est
. 250 Ws.
NOt-le
Est
. 250 Pds.
Nol
le
Est 250Pds.
NO
ne
Zin
c C
yani
de
Zln
c C
yanl
de. S
odiu
m C
yani
de.
Pota
ssiu
m C
yani
de
Nlc
kel S
ulfa
te,
Nic
kel C
hlor
ide
Sodl
um H
ydro
xide
Met
hyle
ne C
hlor
lde
Nltr
lc A
cld
Hyd
roch
lorl
c A
cld
Sulf
uric
Acl
d
22
4.0 STATUS OF CURRENT WASTE UINIMIZATION PROGRAM
Sargent Manufacturing Company prepared a Waste M in im iza t i on Plan i n
Sargent’s commitment t o t h i s p lan was r e i n f o r c e d w i th t h e December o f 1988.
format ion o f a committee t o oversee and implement t h e program.
The Waste M in im iza t i on Plan was developed w i t h th ree o b j e c t i v e s i n mind;
1) reduce t h e volume o f F006 sludge generated by 25% annual ly ; 2) reduce t h e
volume o f a l k a l i n e c leaner waste (0007) by 25% annual ly; and, 3) reduce t h e
t o x i c i t y o f waste water discharged t o New Haven Harbor t o e l minate use o f
t he r e t e n t i o n tank ( c l a r i f i e r ) by year’s end 1989. i
I n o rder t o meet these ob jec t ives , 12 s p e c i f i c i tems were ta rge ted f o r
ac t ion . Th is l i s t o f i tems i s o u t l i n e d below i n Table 2. ,I
Project
1. S e l f Aud i t
2 . Reduce Process Rinse Water
TABLE 2 WASTE MINIMIZATION PROJECT LIST
3. Repair N icke l E l e c t r o - d i a l y s i s U n i t
4 . Reduce Consumption o f Bath So lu t i ons
5. Environmental Aud i t
6. Remove Retent ion Tank
7. Replace Retent ion Tank
8 . Nicke l Recovery
Benefits
Low cos t , common sense improvements.
Reduce sludge (F006) and he lp make poss ib le removal o f r e t e n t i o n tank.
Reduce F006.
Reduce chemical cos ts and F006.
I d e n t i f y w a s t e m i n i m i z a t i o n o p p o r t u n i t i e s and r e g u l a t o r y compliance d e f i c i e n c i e s .
E l im ina te p o t e n t i a l tank c losure .
E l im ina te p o t e n t i a l tank c losure .
Reduce F006 and salvage n i c k e l .
23
TABLE 2 CONTINUED
BENEFITS
9. Cleaner Filtration Reduce DO07 disposal and cleaner cost.
10. Investigate Cyanide Reduce F006 toxicity. P1 ati ng (bronze, brass, copper zi nc) a1 ternat i ves
11. Chrome Plating Major reduction of F006 volume and toxi city .
12. Dewater sludge Reduce F006.
The waste minimization committee, formed by various key employees from
Sargent, met monthly to discuss strategies and implementation o f the above
projects. The emphasis was on use of in-house labor to perform related 1
repairs and modifications to existing electroplating related process
equipment. Quarterly status reports were prepared following the committee
meetings and distributed to management.
The committee’s first meeting was held on December 21, 1988. Monthly
meetings were held through February of 1990. The following is a brief
summary of Sargent’s progress towards the established objectives.
o Repaired electrodialysis (E.D.) unit for nickel plating bath purification and reuse in plating tanks.
o Installation of dwell timers on automatic Baker zinc line and Udylite line to reduce solution drag-out.
o Enlarged holes in plating barrels for increased drainage of baths. Reduction o f solution drag-out.
o Conversion of multiple rinse tanks in Udylite plating line to counter flow rinse system.
o Modification of Baker zinc plating racks to allow better drainage from plated parts to reduce drag-out.
24
o Investigation of chromium plating bath substitute. A proposal for necessary plating room modifications and additions has been submitted to Sargent management. No action has been taken at this point.
o Acquisition of Connecticut Hazardous Waste Management Services matching grant money to conduct third party waste minimization audit.
It has been determined by the committee that they have exhausted all in-
house efforts on low cost waste minimization alternatives and modifications.
In summary, based on 1988 and 1989 waste generation, no noticeable
reduction in overall hazardous waste was noted. There was, however, a
reduction in the quantity of F006 generated, on the order of 20 percent. It
is not known whether this reduction was the direct result of Sargent’s waste
minimization activities, as no production based data or specific department
by department water use data are available.
-
i -
25
5.0 ASSESSMENT OF WASTE MINIMIZATION OPPORTUNITIES
The following section discusses areas at Sargent Manufacturing where
waste minimization techniques and implementation of specific production
related modifications and additions may result in the cost effective
reduction of wastes generated and/or waste toxicity.
This section is divided into four parts; electroplating, alkaline
cleaners, non-process water conservation, and mi scell aneous areas. Each i s
discussed briefly and alternatives provided in tabular form along with an
implementation feasibility rating based on; rough estimates of initial
capital costs, operation and maintenance costs, benefits, and drawbacks of
each alternative.
i
Section 6.0 of this audit report discusses selection of recommended
alternatives, including; estimated capital costs, percent waste reduction,
monthly operating costs, monthly cost savings and payback period. Areas
requiring further assessment are a1 so discussed and recommendations for
evaluation provided.
operations, it was determined that numerous areas exist for
application of waste minimization techniques. The intention of this
to focus on relatively low cost items involving expenditures
5.1 ELECTROPLATING
As a result of the in-depth review of Sargent's electroplating
possible
audit was
ess than
1st items although
speci f i c water use
and waste
$50,000. The feasibility of several high capital c
evaluated, is not known at this time due to lack of
information and detailed department by department chemica
generation volumes. These are discussed briefly in this section and
addressed in Section 6.0. Table 3 lists potential waste minimization
alternatives and associated implementation feasibilities.
5.2 ALKALINE CLEANERS
Sargent currently util izes a1 kal ine cleaners that contain emulsifiers
and alkaline cleaners that do not. These emulsifiers are used to suspend
dirt, oil and grease contained within the cleaner solution rather than
allowing these materials to separate and float freely to the top of the
bath. Sargent's cleaners are current
different treatment schemes on-site. i
To complicate this issue, Sargent
soluble and immiscible oi 1 s. Water so
y segregated and hand ed by two
Manufacturing also util izes water
uble oils mix with water, whereas
immiscible oils do not. Depending on the type of alkaline cleaner used and
the type of oil used during manufacture of certain parts, numerous different,
yet similar wastes are generated.
In order to properly evaluate the cost effectiveness of waste
minimization technologies, a great deal of experimentation with different
types of cleaners and o i l s may be necessary. The most feasible alternatives
include the consolidation of cleaners and oils to reduce the number of
different mixtures to allow for application of waste minimization techniques.
Table 4 provides a summary of possible alternatives that can be
employed to potentially minimize waste production.
27
substitution of
zin
c plating baths with
non-cyanide
bat
hs (Zincate).
Substitution of
hexavdlent ~
um
plating baths with
trivalent
chro
miu
m baths
in t
anks
35
ard
67.
Reduction in plating
bat
h chemical ccanposition.
Electrolytic r
ecov
ery
of brass, zinc -or
capper frum existing
plating baths.
Ion
exch
arge coupled
with electrolytic
recu
very
for copper
and tin.
High
Toxicity reduction,
lwer chemical
costs.
Toxicity reduction,
lower
was
te
tmatm2nt c
ost
sby
elimination of
chrane I treatment
syst
em=
Hi*
High
Re
Cw
d m
etal
s g
e"
W for off-
site sale or use,
on-site reuse as
anod
es, reduction
in rinse w
ater
con t
amin
ants
.
Reclamation of
metals, reduction
of con taminants
in rinse waters.
High
. Difficult prooess
control, plating
may be brittle.
Additional w
aste
treatment system
will be required.
product quality
0-
1 -
pro
cess
control,
exp
ase
s associated with
tank
deamtamhation and
bath disposal.
product quality
-1 -
bath chemistry
controls.
1- aperating
costs,stream s
egre
gati
on
will mst likely be
required.
1
- apesatirrs
1
aosts, mainteMnae
may
be extensive.
28
Evaporative recovery
of h
igh
concentration
hexavalent c
hmni
um
plating solutions,
in conjunction with
cation e
xch
ang
e.
Vapor Deposition
(electrostatic plating)
chrcpnium, nickel.
Fu1 time operation
of e1ectrod.l 'alysis unit
for nickel drag-out
repm
cess
ing a
nd installation
of new valves for
tank
76.
Reduction of floor spills
thm
ugh implementation
of preventive maintenance
Program-
Inrrease dwell times
on Udylite line to
min
imiz
e drag-out loss
f" tank 4
7.
Install still
rin
se tank between tanks
47
and
69 on Udylite line.
RE
LATIV
E*
-
CnS
T
Moderate
High
Law
Law
Law
Lrcrw
Reu
se of plating
solution,
reduction of
rinse water
con t
amin
ants
.
Greatly reduced
&emical
costs,
wastes disposdl
gre
atl
y -
costs.
Reduced chemical
-1 -
waste disposal
cost
s, reduction
of rinse water
con t
amin
ants
.
Rt3
3Uce
d ch
emic
al
-, -
waste treatment
and disposal
costs.
Reduced chemical
costs, lwerwaste
treatment and
disposal costs.
Reduced chemical
Costs, lwerwaste
treatment and
disposal c
usts
.
Increased operating
--, -
process control.
c
High capital costs,
product quality
concerns,
sho
rtte
rm
lifespan of plate.
Poo
r durability.
Incr
ease
d Operating
-1
oper
ator
intmsive, piping
connections
nece
ssar
y.
Developmt of
inspection program
and routine maintenanoe
schekle.
-* RA!rI
NG
2 1
3 3
Reduced production
1
rate.
Pruductquality
conc
erns
.
cost of new
tank
2 installation and dawn
time for installation.
29
con
vert multiple running rinse tan
ks in
to counter
current rinse tanks or still rinses.
Tanks 42-44,
88-89 and 132-133.
Install timers on air agitation units on plating rin
ses in manual
rack line tanks or use manual shut-offs w
hen not in use.
Install additional air agitation units on plating rinse tanks for chratle I
and c
3ra
re I1 tanks.
Installation of additional spray rinses on aukmated plating line tanks 64, 115, 118 and 132.
Institute use of deionized water for plating bath m
ake-up and rinse water for Baker zinc line,udylite line M
or
manual hoist line.
ImJ Reduction in
production disruptions, 2
drag-out, reduced Suality
waste tra
- and
corlcerns. disposal costs, possible reuse of plating solutions from co
nce
ntra
tes.
ImJ R
educed water of tim
ers. consuption. Iteduced electricity.
ImJ
Reduction in proctuction
drag-art, - disruptions,
waste treatmerrt in
rxeasein
ard disposal costs.
pwer costs.
Reduced w
ater Additional
consumption, PiPins arrarrgements
rectucedchemical
requ-andccnputer -, -
CcnPIuter P- waste treatment
modifications. and disposal costs.
Mc3derate
Reduction in Installation of
"1
costs by
deionized water extending bath life.
system.
2
2
30
R-=Y of nickel and chrcanium
slldsp
..: from
integ
raw
Lancy
treatment system
s.
1- parts
rack maintenance activ
ities.
Moderate R
educed waste
High transportation
disposal costs. custs to
reclaim
facility o
r addition of equipw
nt will be
required for on-site
reclaim.
I .,
Reduued chemical
Increase in
custs, extension rack maintenance
of plating bath life. labor.
m
Implem
ent use of flm
m
restricters on a
ll rinse
water tanks, specifically Baker zinc and u
dy
lite lin
es to "
ize
rinse
water use. In
stall solenoid values to
shut off water
supply when au
taMtic lin
es a
re not running.
Replace drain b
oard
s on Lm
I
install d
rain boards on
tanks 130 and 131,
tanks 141-143, 9-13,
and 20-26.
Install additiona
rinse tanks fo
r use as counter current rinses to
minim
ize plating bath drag-out.
High
REduced waste
product q
uality
treatm
ent and m-.
disp
osal costs,
reduced water consunption.
I
Rd
uced
waste
tma
tme
nt and
disp
osal cost.
Reduced w
aste tm
atmn
t and disposal costs, reduction in rinse water con taminants.
Aurhase of drain boards.
Considerable
md
if ication to
existing plating lin
es, long-term
disruptions to
operations.
2 3 1
31
Elkhation of parts
stripping areas.
Institute
trac
king
system
for reject parts to
minimize r
ejec
ts at the
sow
ce.
Mod
erat
e R
educ
ed c
hem
ical
parts
-, re
duce
d
disposal c
ost
s.
waste treatmalt
and disposal costs,
incr
ease
in product
quality control may
/
result.
La4
Substitution of methylene
La4
chloride with Envirostrip
700 for
par
ts stripping.
Installation of ion exchange
H+g
h unit folluwed by electrolytic
recovery of nickel.
Installation of "an
Dialysis nickel
recu
very
S
ySt€
!lIl.
Reduced
ch?m
i.cal
NOne
-, -
was
te treatmalt
and disposal c
ost
s,
incr
ease
inp
rod
uct
quality control may
result.
Reduced
was
te
corw=erns m
er
disposal costs.
stripping effect-
tiveness.
Re
du
d waste
High capital costs,
disposal -,
maintenance intensive.
off
-site reclamation
of nickel or m
ite
reuse as anodes.
1
3
€?am
very
of nickel
Not a
pm
en
tec
hnol
ogy,
1
was
tetr
eaix
enta
nd
extensive maintenance,
and disposal costs.
drag-out,
reduce
d
P- Suality
-/
high
design and
installation costs.
*WV
J3W
LR
?iT
ING
: 3 - Cost effective, h
mw
er f
urt
her
investigation may be
mce
ssaq and altemative
scop
e re
duce
d.
1 - Not Feasible,
2 - Fossibly cost effective, h
wev
er additional information required,
32
Substitute non-biodegrad-
able cleaners for
par
ts
02 and 13 and htall
ultrafiltration system.
was
hers
in Departments
Discontinue use of
emlsifiers in
Department 37
was
her
and plating
man
electro-
cleanerbaths.
Install
additional gravity
separation s
yste
m.
Installation of an
ultrafiltration
system for Department 37
was
her and applicable
plating "I cleaner baths.
Installation of ultra-
filtration s
yste
m for
plating
mom
electro-
cleaner
bath
s and
conversion of soak
cleaner baths on Udylite
line (tanks 58, 59, and
61) and barrel plating
line (
tank
129) to cleaners
using emiLsifiers.
RE
lxm
WY
a3
6.r
High
Moderate
High
Bl3
"s
prolong cleaner
life, reduction
in waste
generation.
Reduction
in h
azar
dous
W
as
te
generation.
prolong cleaner
life, reduction
in h
azaK
da.ls
w
aste
genera-
tion.
Prolollg cleaner
life, reduction
in hazardous
was
te generation.
prablems.
Process control
prab
lern
s, product
suality
a-
1
addition of
treatment equipnent.
Process control
problems, product
quality
conc
erns
, addition of
treatmnt equipnent.
.
Addition of
equiprrent, piping
charrges, P-
control prablems.
Addition of
equipnent,
PiPins changes,
process Control
1 2 2
2
*-R?W
ING:
1 - Not Feasible,
3 - C
ost
effective, haever,
furt
her investigation and design information m
ay be -.
2 -
€bssibly
Cos
t effective, haever, additional information
rec
pk
d,
33
5.3 NON-PROCESS WATER CONSERVATION
Sargent Manufacturing utilizes water, purchased from the City o f New
Haven, throughout its manufacturing operations for cooling purposes. Two
separate areas were investigated for possible waste minimization
opportunities.
The industrial boiler is used in part to generate heat, to in turn heat
the plating bath tanks (plating solutions). A steam condensate is generated
in the piping system that i s currently discharged to the floor spill
treatment system. Several hundred gallons of steam condensate may be
discharged every day. The steam condensate could be recirculated back into
the boiler. i
The second waste minimization opportunity is non-contact cooling water.
’ Sargent presently discharges non-contact cooling water on a once through
basis via NPDES outfall 002. Approximately 40,000 to 50,000 gpd is
discharged.
Table 5 provides a summary of alternatives that can be employed to
potentially minimize waste generation and conserve water.
5.4 MISCELLANEOUS AREAS
There are four areas that were identified at Sargent Manufacturing that
do not fall under any of the previous areas discussed. These are evaluated
below for possible waste minimization opportunities.
Sargent currently maintains an outdoor drum storage area that is used to
In addition to waste storage, store both hazardous and non-hazardous wastes.
34
Install
recirculation
system for steam
condensate.
Installation of
cooling tower
for nonmntact
cooling water
recirculation.
-
mm
FEra
mXs
LmJ
Water
conservation,
reduction in
waste treatmmt
and disposal costs.
High
Installation of
LmJ
distribution system
from boiler
rocn
n cc
pnpr
esso
rs
to fire storage
tank
fo
r reuse.
***Installation of
LmJ
distribution system
from vapor
degreaser to rinse
tan
ks in stripping
area.
Water
conservation,
reduction in
NPD
FS di-e.
Water
conservation,
reduction in
NpDEs discharge.
Water
conservation,
reduction in
New
Haven S
rp
discharge.
Boiler
corrosion
CO
I-K
Xrn
S.
c High capital
cost.
2 1
Pipe installation
3 -e, PL
mrP
installat ion
required.
Pipe installation
3 =e, PLm
rP
instal lation
required.
*FlE" 00
6T
: Liclw - $0 to $5,000,
Mod
erat
e - $
5,0
00
to $30,000, High- Over $30,000.
*-RAT
ING:
effective, h
aev
er,
furt
her
investigation and design information may be n
eces
sary
. 1 -
Not Feasible, 2 - Possibly cost effective,
haw
ever
additional infonnation required,
3 - C
ost
**%argent
has already implemented this item.
35
Sargent presently maintains open-top scrap metal storage roll -off boxes in
this area. The scrap metal is periodically collected by scrap dealers. The
area is underlain by a concrete pad and is surrounded on two sides by
drainage channels that were originally designed as a spill control measure.
The channels drain into a sump, which serves as spill containment. The sump
has a capacity of 2,000 gallons.
The storage area is, however, exposed, and unfortunately collects rain
water that falls on the concrete surface. The open top roll-off boxes also
collect rain water, which in turn leaks out and due to contact with the oil
coated scrap metal, yields an oily discharge. Sargent Manufacturing
currently generates approximately 2,000 gallons/month of oil contaminated
rain water in this sump. This water is manifested off-site as a Connecticut
-
- i
regulated waste - CR03.
The second area of concern is the tumbling operations. Tumbling occurs
in the plating area- and util izes a great deal of city water. Sargent
util izes several different types of tumblers including SWICO's, ul tramatic,
and rolling barrels, all using a mild detergent cleaner mixed with water.
Approximately 30,000 gpd of water is generated from tumbling.
The third area where waste minimization opportunities exist is
associated with painting operations. Sargent currently util izes a powder
coating technique as well as solvent based paints. Sargent installed the
powder coating line in 1988. This is a dry electrostatic painting operation
which generates very little waste. Only a few different colors are currently
36
used. No solvents are necessary to clean the process lines between color
changes. Approximately 50% of Sargent's painting is accomplished by powder
coating .
The fourth area involves a concept to promote waste minimization rather
than an actual process change. Sargent Manufacturing has established a Waste
Minimization Committee involving various department managers, however, has
not carried the process down to the employees themselves.
The following table (Table 6) provides a listing of waste minimization
a1 ternatives related to the four areas discussed above. The alternatives are
evaluated using a generalized cost of implementation, the potential benefits 'I
and drawbacks associated with each alternative, and an overall ranking of
each alternative as to its potential for waste minimization. Y
37
Pruvide covers for
seal roll-offs to
prevent leakage and
connect
sump
into
NPD
ES
discharqe .
JdlQf f boxes,
provide
cove
rs for
rOllQff
boxes,
Seal rOllQffS
t0
prevent leakage
an
dco
nn
ect
sum
p
into
sanitary
sew
er.
Pruvide
cove
rs for
KOllQff
boxes,
Seal rOllQffS
t0
prevent leakage
ard
conn
ect sump into
stom
sew
er system.
Change w
er to
dry
tunbling.
Moderate
Elimination or
reduction in
sump sampling
and analysis.
I
Moderate
Elimination or
reduction in
slmq> sampling
and analysis.
Elimination or
reduction in
analysis.
sump sampling
Red
uce water
consuption.
May result in permit
violations, permit
modification
reqyired, construction
of s
ewer
line.
May result in permit
violations, permit
mdif
ication
required, wnstruction
of s
ewer
line.
I
Fennit modification
may be required, a"ction
of s
ewer
line.
product quality may
deteriorate, solid w
aste
may be generated if
new
media used (corn cabs).
1 1
3 1
38
Provide
wat
er
line connections
to rolling barrels
with on/off valves.
Reduction in use
of solvent based
pai
nts
by
~c
-s-
ing powder coating
line use.
Ehplayee waste
minimization
incentive
prog
ram
deve
l-t
. Employee waste
minimization
training and
awareness
prog
ram
. Example: Using
co
rre
ct
parts rack to minimize
plating solution drag-out. M
cder
ate
LLm
l?ed
uce
wat
er
consumption.
New
pip
ing will be required.
Hazardous waste
reduction,
Oreduction in
employee e
w?=
ure
to c
hem
ical
s.
New ideas on w
aste
minimization may be
=I?-,
cost
Savi
IXJs
to sargent.
New ideas on waste
minimization may be
exp
ress
ed, cost
savings to Saryat.
will require experimentation
with n
ew p
mde
r coatings,
may involve
new
equipnent.
None
NOne
am!: LL~
- $0 to
$5
,00
0, Moderate -
$5,
000 to $30,000, Hi@
- Over $30,000
3 2 3 3
** O
VER
AlX
RA
TJeJ
G:
3 - cost effective,
hmev
er,
furt
her
investigation and design infoxmation may be n
eces
sary
. 1 - Not Feasible, 2 - Possibly cost effective,
huw
ever
, additional information n
eed
d,
39
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on data gathered during the audit process and observations made
during the on-si te inspection of Sargent’s manufacturing operations,
a1 ternatives were selected and evaluated through a screening process. These
alternatives were addressed in the previous section of the audit report.
This section of the report provides a more detailed evaluation of these
alternatives (alternatives identified in Section 5.0 as cost-effective in
Tables 3-6) to confirm their feasibility for implementation. Alternatives
with a payback period of 3 years or less are recommended for implementation.
In addition, rrumerous other alternatives were evaluated and may be
cost -effective provided additional information i s obtained through
monitoring devices and small scale pilot studies. Recommendations are
provided in this section regarding further evaluation o f these alternatives.
6.1 ELECTROPLATING
A total of twenty-six alternatives were selected for initial screening
in Section 5, to evaluate their feasibility for implementation.. O f these
twenty-six alternatives, six appeared to be cost-effective and were chosen
for detailed cost evaluation. Eight additional alternatives were selected
for possible implementation, however, additional design information and
pilot testing is required prior to their implementation.
A detailed cost breakdown o f the s i x selected alternatives is provided
in Table 7.
40
-
Nic
kel
drag
-out
(T
anks
48, 76
ans 123)
Fu
ll t
ime operation
of
----
----
---
elec
tro
dia
lysi
s u
nit
an
d in
stal
lati
on
of
new
val
ves
to p
rovi
de
conv
enie
nt a
cceS
s of
tank
tank
76.
$400
$215
22 M
onth
s
Bak
er zinc and
Inst
all
flo
w r
estr
icto
rs and
Ud
yli
te l
ine
rinse
tanks.
wat
er l
ines
. so
len
oid
val
ves
on rinse
Chro
me p
late
tanks 13,
23, and
130, M
itiq
ue
tanks 130
and 131.
Inst
all
ta
nk
9,
sulf
uri
c ac
id
dra
in b
oard
s on
tanks 9-13,
dip
tank 12,
cyan
ide
20-26, and 141-143.
trea
tmen
t ta
nk
21,
and
rinse
wat
er t
anks
.
Rep
lace
drain boards
on
3.6
x lo6
gall
ons/
year
$1020
of c
ity
water.
23
,00
0 g
allo
ns/y
ear
$490
fm
n f
loo
r sp
ill
trea
tmen
t sy
stem
.
chro
me
trea
tmen
t ta
nk
s In
stal
lati
on
of
air
1100 pounds
of
chem
ical
$7000
116.
trea
tmen
t tanks.
25,34,65,66,86,87
ard
ag
itat
ion
un
its
on d
rag-
out/
-.
Lea
k-
valv
es,
pum
p D
evel
op i
nspe
ctio
n pr
ogra
m
1 x 106
gall
ons/
year
$2
940
seal
s, f
ault
y d
rain
ard
mut
ine
mai
ntx?
mne
of water,
150,
000
gall
ons/
b
oar
ds,
sp
ills
pr
ogra
m for p
lati
ng
area.
year
in
sew
er discharge,
duri
ng p
lati
ng
. 60
0 pounds of
pX
Ch
aSed
ch
emic
als.
Str
ipp
hq
are
as.
(Tan
ks
Inst
itu
te t
rack
ing system
10%
red
ud
ion
in
71-73 and 90-96).
for reject p
art
s.
strippirq
chem
ical
s and
Red
uce
num
ber of
reje
ct
pa
rts a
rd s
trip
pin
g a
rea u
se.
reduct
ion i
n en
ploy
ee
non-
prod
uctiv
e labor hours.
$515
5 2.5
Mon
ths
$1917
3 M
onth
s
$134
2 5t
Yea
rs
$954
3
Yea
rs
$5000
$6530
9 M
onth
s
41
Of the s i x alternatives subjected to the detailed cost review, f i v e are
recommended for implementation. See Attachment B for a summary of capital
costs and annual savings for each alternative.
Eight additional ai ternatives are recommended for further evaluation to
determine their feasibility. No specific cost data were evaluated, however,
each alternative is addressed below in Table 8, with recommendations for
additional investigation provided.
TABLE 8 FURTHER ALTERNATIVE INVESTIGATION
Waste Source
Copper, brass and zinc cyanide.
i
Nickel and chromium treatment tanks.
Baker Zinc and Udyl ite 1 ine.
Influent water to Baker zinc line, Udyl ite 1 ine and/or manual hoist line.
Minimization Alternative
Recl amati on o f copper, brass, and zinc.
Reclamation of nickel and chromium.
Reduce water consumption by using spray rinses thus minimizing solution drag-out.
Extension o f plating bath life by using deionized water for bath make-up. Better rinsing, should deionized water be used, thereby reducing drag-out.
42
Recomnendati ons For Furthey Evaluation
Contact suppliers o f electrolytic recovery units for unit lease or rental with option to purchase. Three separate units will likely be required, one for each metal. Install test units on individual tanks to evaluate removal effi- ciency to determine cost- effectiveness.
Contact nickel and chromium r e c l a i m f a c i l i t i e s (INMETCO) for pricing and c o n t r a c t information. Eval uate waste exchange opportunities for use of waste in a product by another manufacturer.
Installation of individual water meters for rinses or monitoring o f specific tank flows to determine potential cost savings should spray rinses be instal 1 ed.
Eval uate influent water quality and install flow monitors associated with rinse tanks to access feasibility of D.I. system.
TABLE 8 (Continued) FURTHER ALTERNATIVE INVESTIGATION
Waste Source
Methylene c h l o r i d e s t r i p tanks 91 and 92.
Nickel drag-out from in tegrated n i cke l treatment tank 47.
Baker z inc cyanide bath, manual rack I
l i n e t r i v a l e n t chrome solut ion, automat i c ba r re l 1 i ne t r i v a l e n t chrome solut ion.
Nickel drag-out.
Once de ta i 1 ed
Minimizat ion A l t e r n a t i v e
Reduced waste t o x i c i t y and reduced waste disposal costs.
I n s t a l l s t i l l r i n s e tank f o r recovery o f spent so lut ion.
Convert mu1 ti p l e running r i n s e tanks t o counter f low r inses and/or s t i l l r i n s e process.
I n s t a l l a t i o n o f i o n exchange u n i t fo l lowed by e l e c t r o l y t i c recovery f o r o f f - s i t e rec la im o r on -s i t e reuse.
Recommendations For Fur ther Eva1 u a t i on
Contact chemical suppl iers and conduct small scale t e s t i n g w i t h E n v i r o s t r i p 700 t o evaluate feas i b i 1 i ty o f chemical subs t i t u t i on .
Devel opmen t o f product i on da ta f o r U d y l i t e l i n e , drag-out l oss rate, and f l o o r sp i 11 waste treatment f requency t o determine cost - e f f e c t i veness o f s t i 1 1 r i n s e tank.
Ins t a l 1 a t i on o f i nd i v i dual f low meters on running r i n s e tanks, laboratory analysis o f metal concen- t r a t i o n s i n r i n s e tanks t o d e t ermi ne cost - e f f e c t i v e - ness o f conversion. Bench scale t e s t i n g o f Baker z inc r i n s e tank counter current r i n s e process t o evaluate cost-ef fect iveness.
Contact suppl i es o f i on exchange and evaporative recovery u n i t s f o r lease o r r e n t a l w i t h op t i on t o pur- chase. I n s t a l l t e s t u n i t s t o evaluate e f f i c i e n c y o f system and monitor mater ia l usage and p o t e n t i a l cost savings t o determine feas i - b i 1 i ty .
informat ion on water use, chemical cost savings, waste
reduct ion p o t e n t i a l and c a p i t a l costs o f p o t e n t i a l equipment are evaluated, a
payback per iod can be ca lcu lated f o r these a l te rna t i ves . I f values on the
order o f 3 years o r less are rea l ized, i t i s recommended t h a t these
a l te rna t i ves be implemented.
43
6.2 ALKALINE CLEANERS
A total of four alternatives were selected for initial screening to
evaluate their feasibility for implementation. Of these four alternatives,
none appear to be cost-effective, as insufficient information regarding
specific cleaner bath substitutions and possible effects on product quality
are unknown.
Three o f the alternatives may be feasible pending acquisition o f
additional data and actual pilot scale testing.
-
It is recommended that cleaner bath dump frequencies be further
evaluated. The feasibility of consolidating either biodegradable or non-
biodegradable cleaners to reduce the number of different cleaners used in
manufacturing operations should also be investigated further. Sargent
presently utilizes 6 different types of cleaners in the electroplating area
a1 one.
3 -
- -
Suppliers representing Hubbard Hall and Enbond should be contacted to
conduct pilot scale testing of indivi-dual cleaner baths (concentrating
initially on the larger tanks with greater dump frequencies) to verify their
affects on product quality. It is suggested that the following tanks be
selected for initial testing; tank 37, 500 gals/month generated, tanks 58,
59 and 61, 180, 900 and 500 gals/month generated respectively, tank 39, 300
gal s/month generated, tank 84, 300 gal s/month generated.
If it is possible to consolidate cleaners into all biodegradable types,
an additional gravity separation tank system with oil skimmers will be
required. Should a1 kaline cleaners containing emulsifiers be substituted
44
I for biodegradeable cleaners. an ultrafiltration system would most 1 ikely be
cost effective. Costs of the various cleaners will also be required to
properly evaluate these a1 ternatives. It is recommended that suppliers of
ultrafiltration systems and efficient gravity separation systems be
contacted for equipment rental or lease to evaluate efficiencies of the
treatment systems and to determine potential chemical and waste disposal cost
savings should cleaner consoi idation appear feasible.
6.3 NON-PROCESS WATER CONSERVATION
A total of four alternatives were selected for initial screening to
evaluate their feasibility for implementation. Two alternatives appear to
be cost-effective and were chosen for detailed cost evaluation. One
additional alternative was selected for possible implementation, however,
additional design information and specific flow data are needed to fully
access this alternative. A detailed cost breakdown of the two selected
alternatives is provided i n Table 9.
i
Both a1 ternatives subjected to the detailed cost review are recommended
for implementati.on. See Attachment B for a summary of capital costs and
annual savings for both a1 ternatives.
The installation of a recirculation system, for steam condensate
generated by the boiler, may be feasible, however, the amount o f steam
condensate generated for possible reuse is unknown. A great deal of concern
exists as to the possible contamination o f steam condensate with plating
baths drawn into the heating system through line leaks. An evaluation of the
collection system required to convey condensate from various areas i n the
4 5
Boiler room
Installation o
f water
compressor non-contact recirculation system
cooling water.
fm boiler room to
fire water storage t
ank.
3.75 x 106 gallons/
$4600
$5,275 10.5
Mon
ths
year o
f city wa-.
*Vapor d
egn
aser
Reuse of d
egre
iser
cooling
3.75 x 106 gallons/
$4600
non-contact
cool
ing
water.
water
for use as rinse
water
for
tank
s 90 and 93.
year
of city water.
$5,275 10.5 Months
went has already implemented this item.
46
manufacturing facility back to the boiler for reuse must be undertaken.
Costs for the collection system may be prohibitive based on the volume of
water actually recovered f o r reuse.
6.4 MISCELLANEOUS AREAS
A total of eight alternatives were selected f o r initial screening t o
evaluate their feasibility for implementation. Four a1 ternatives appeared t o
be cost-effective and were chosen for detailed cost breakdown. One
additional a1 ternative was selected for possible implementation pending
further investigation. The detailed cost breakdown o f the four selected
alternatives is provided in Table 10.
Of the four alternatives subjected to the detailed cost review, three
are recommended f o r implementation as payback periods are less than three
years. See Attachment B for a summary of capital costs and annual savings
for these alternatives.
One additional alternative, reduction in solvent based paint usage, is
recommended for further evaluation. Sargent should continue to evaluate and
experiment with additional powder coatings to continue to reduce, i f not
eliminate the use of solvent based paints. Manufacturers o f powder coating
should be contacted and pilot studies conducted with possible a1 ternative
coatings .
6.5 CONCLUSIONS
Sargent Manufacturing has initiated its own waste minimization program
and has implemented low cost practical waste minimization procedures. The
company has exhausted its efforts along these guide1 ines and pursued further
waste minimization a1 ternatives through this waste minimization audit.
Through this audit, a total of ten additional waste minimization options are
47
Was
te oil
frum
scr
ap
metal
Imll
Qff
bo
xes.
m
er ard
seal
roll-offs,
conn
ecti
on of sump into
ston
n s
ewer
system.
City w
ater
in tumbling Provide
wat
er line connections
area
. directly to rolling barrels.
?hro
ugho
ut facility.
Employee incentive p
rogr
am f
or
was
te minimization alternatives
shou
ld they be i
mplemented.
-out
facility.
mloyee
tr
ain
ing
and awareness
P-0
1 Year
18 , 000 gallons/
$11,650
$11,
805
Ye=
(azo 3
)
360,000 gallons/
$2 , 400
$555
4.3
Yea
rs
year
of city w
ater
.
$908
2.2
Years
200,000 gallons/
$2 , 000
year
of city w
ater
, 300 pounds of process
chemicals/year , ard
150,000 gallons/year
dis
char
ge to
sew
er.
$9250
2 Years
1/2% of utilities,
$19,000
was
te, and
wat
er usage.
48
recommended that will reduce quantities of waste generated, toxicity of
waste streams, and conserve resources. These alternatives should be
prioritized as to cost savings realized and implemented as soon as possible.
It is imperative that Sargent continue to hold monthly meetings of the
waste minimization committee to assure the recommended a1 ternatives are
implemented in a timely fashion. The Waste Minimization Committee should
continue to further investigate the twelve a1 ternatives identified in this
section of the audit report for further investigation. Alternatives that may
not be cost-effective today may become cost-effective should waste disposal
costs increase, permit 1 imitations reduced, etc. Additional grant monies are
ai 1 able from the Connecticut Hazardous Waste Management Service to pursue
the twelve alternatives that may be cost-effective. An application should be
I
submitted for pilot testing programs and additional monitoring of
. manufacturing processes to further assess these alternatives.
More specific data is needed pertaining to; water usage of various
plating lines and individual rinse tanks, production based information
related to plating operations and reject parts, waste generation rates,
chemical usage, efficiency rates of various treatment equipment, resin types
for use as ion exchange media and other capital costs from potential vendors.
The feasibility of all alternatives is based on existing estimated
chemical costs, waste disposal costs, estimated water use, cost of
electricity, etc. Should transportation and disposal costs for the wastes
generated by Sargent increase, uti1 i ty costs increase and/or chemical costs
increase significantly in the future, a1 ternatives determined to be non-
cost-effective in this report should be re-evaluated.
49
Sargent Manufacturing, through implementation o f the a l te rna t i ves
recommended as cos t -e f fec t i ve and f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f a l t e rna t i ves
recommended as poss ib ly cos t -e f fec t i ve , w i l l reduce the q u a n t i t i e s o f waste
and waste waters generated on-si te, r e s u l t i n g i n cost savings f o r the
company and f u r t h e r p r o t e c t i o n o f the environment.
Although the in format ion i n t h i s document has been funded whol ly o r i n
p a r t by the Connecticut Hazardous Waste Management Service (Service), i t may
no t necessar i ly r e f l e c t t he view o f the Service and no o f f i c i a l endorsement
should be i n fe r red .
50
ATTACHMENT A
Ilavl-mrch 7. 1990
8:OO - 8:30 a.m. Kick-off meetin3 w i t h apprapriate sargent personrael t o review a g m , s a p and objectives of project - hard out list of waste streams for review.
8:30 - 9:00 a.m. D i s c u s s briefly items needed during site v i s i t , o r shortly -, and arrange for work location in plant. .
9:00 - 1O:OO a.m. D i s c u s S status of current waste " i za t ion program and
1O:OO - 5 : O O p.m. , Plant inspection-survey. Review of p l a t h q area, process operations and associated waste handling activit ies. Follow thmugh errtire prucess f m r a w materials t o point of waste(s) generation.
y reports-
8:OO - 8:30 a.m. Brief meeting w i t h Sargent to review objectives for the day. Possible question and/or answer period.
8:30 - 5:OO p.m. -Continue plant inspection of plating process areas and associated waste generation - handling activit ies. Survey of degreasing and solvent usage areas and associated waste handling activities. Survey- inspection of other emission sources, i.e., stacks, vents, as w e l l as areaS of hazardous o i l generation.
8:OO - 12:OO p.m. " p l e t i o n of on-site audit survey, ovenriew of any areas needing further attention.
1:OO - 3:OO p.m. Wrapup meeting w i t h Sargent personnel. Possible question ard answer period.
JH:alr
SARGENT MANUFACTURING
WASTE !lINIUIZATION AUDIT CHECKLIST
1.
2.
3. Get lab analysis reports for discharge to sewer for biodegradable
Get monthly waste minimization reports and quarterly status reports as specified in 12/21/88 plan.
Is drum storage area still in use for greater than 90-day storage?
cleaners. P e m i t status.
4. Review waste minimization project list in 12/21/88 plan with key Sargent personnel.
5. Graphical data in Waste Minimization Plan shows waste 'reduction for consecutive years. What were production rates or volume produced by departments in plant. Get production data.
6. Verify pounds and/or gallons in 1988 data on my waste stream summary list. Some streams show both.
7. Get names of TSD facilities used for waste treatment or disposal of hazardous wastes and method of treatment or disposal. Also need this information for non-hazardous wastes.
8. Get copies of Air Registrations and/or verify list I have from powder coati ng area.
9.
10. Is a breakdown available on percentage o f discharge from rack versus
11. Get blanks filled in on my waste stream summary sheet and questions so
Get water use data for production departments.
barrel plating or tank by tank.
noted, answered.
12. Spend a good deal of time going over materials in process tanks in plating. Get material inventory for several years if possible for plating tank additions and frequencies. This will shed light on evaporative losses and drag-out losses, leaks, spills, etc.
Also need criteria for which additions must be made and when baths or dead rinses are spent.
13. Get waste stream codes listed in 1988 waste summary in Waste Minimization Plan.
14. Need to get costs for city water, electricity, some materials used in process tanks, TSD facility costs.
We will need specifics for some operations. I will prepare specific list during or shortly after on-site assessment.
15. Attempt to do material balances using substances used in plating versus waste water and sludge generated.
16. Tier 11, Form R for SARA,1988 and 1989 Generator Reports, NPDES DMR’s, Connecticut correspondence and grant information.
Alk
alin
e C
lean
ers
& O
il
7000
Ga
l S
tora
ge
DO
07-L
iqui
d 75
,800
Gal
s.
Tan
k
Cle
anou
t A
lkal
ine
Cle
aner
s S
tora
ge
Tan
k 11
0 G
als.
Pla
tin
g A
rea
Str
ipp
ing
, P
lati
ng
, R
inse
wat
ers
(non
-cya
nide
) C
hrum
atin
g
Pla
tin
g A
rea
Rin
sew
a ter
Brass, B
rOnz
e, Z
inc
FOO
6-44
,394
G
als.
E
" q
an
ide
copper
Aci
ds
Bat
ch
2250
Gal
Hol
ding
Tan
k
Flo
or
Sp
ill
Bat
ch
2250 G
al H
oldi
ng T
ank
Hex
Chr
ome
(inte
gra
ted)
Tre
atm
ent
FOO
6-Sl
udge
-
8394
Gal
s.
Clo
sed
Loo
p
Nic
kel
Chlo
ride
(inte
gra
ted)
Flo
or Sweepings
Tre
atm
ent
Tan
k F
006-
Slu
dge
- 25
43 G
als.
Clo
sed
Lmp
Gen
eral
Pla
nt?
D
OO
2/3-
Solid
-356
9 Ws.
chrome T
rE&
nent
? D
OO
7-20
0 pds
Copper
Cy
anid
e(b
arre
1 0
nly)
Spe
nt Bath
FOO
7-16
5 G
al~
.-1
50
0 Ws.
Brass
Cya
nide
(bar
re1
on
ly)
Spe
nt Bath
F00
7-S
olid
- 4
00 Ws.
Zin
c C
yani
de
spen
t Bath
F00
8-L
iqui
d - 1
65 G
als.
Bro
nze
Cya
nide
(barr
el
only
) Sp
ent Bath
FOO
7/8-
Liq
uid
0 G
als.
Bio
degr
adab
le C
lean
ers
2700
Ga
l R
eten
tion
S
anit
ary
to
NH STP-500
GPD
. Tank
Nickel Strip
spent
Bat
h Liquid-Db08
- 110 Gals.
Barrel and R
ack
Nickel Solution
W02-55 Gals.
Lin
e Pro
cess
Tank Filters?
Sol
ven
t G
ener
ati<
m p
ctiv
itie
s
Paint Stripping
Chl
orin
ated
spent
-Par
ts Cleaning
solvents
lacquer Coating
spent Thinner
spent
Thi
nner
Lac
quer
Painting
Har
dene
d Activator
F002,3,5-220 Gals.
M)03/5-55 Gals.
WO1-55 Gals.
FOO1-1008 Gals.
FOO2-50 WS.
c
Was
lEw
ater
SG
ener
dL
Non
mn
tact
Cooling Water City Water,
108,000
@-"
DES
002
Well Water?
Boiler Blowdm
Boilers
4,320
gpd-
"DE
S 003
Process Wastewater
-te=,
30,000 g
pd -Sanitary to
Cleaners, etc.
NHm
Fr
um Plating,mling
Wastewater
Sanitary to NH S
TP
Media
?
Page 2
6
Was
te O
il S
trea
m#2
0253
Lac
quer
Pai
ntin
g Booth
Mai
nteM
nce parts
Cle
anin
g
Pai
nt
Booth
L
acqu
er c
oatin
g
TLrm
blin
g o
r P
aint
ing
-Lac
quer
Bo
iler
Roa
m
Me
r coatin
g
R3w
de.r
coat
ing?
Han
dTbO
lAre
a
Was
te Stream
#208
04
Tra
ns f o
rmer
s-ca
paci
ties
Arc
xi
#E
81
9
Skimmer
on Bio-
WO
1-33
0 G
als.
deg
radab
le Cleaner
Ret
enti
on T
ank
Fil
ters
fm
m Booth
W01
-Sol
id-1
2,30
0 @
%s
Dis
cont
inue
d?
Saf
ety C
lean
W
O1-
Sol
id-2
70
Ws.
Bh
leu
m N
apth
a W
01-S
olid
-250
W
s.
WO
1-S
olid
-920
R
ls.
Lac
quer
Slu
dge
5980
Rls
- no
n-ha
zard
aus
Gla
ss Beads
CR
O5-
4771
W
s.
Abr
asiv
e
soot
W
O7-
55 Gals.
Incinerator
Ash
? ?
Bro
nze
Mic
otha
ne -1
WO
l-22
0 Gals.
Bro
nze
Act
ivat
or
WO
1-27
5 G
als.
Liq
uid
Was
te
WO
8-55
G
als
Was
te O
il &
Slu
dge
WO
8-22
0 Gals.
pcB o
il
CR
O1-
85 W
.
Was
te O
il S
ludg
e N
On-
haZ
ardc
Kls
-306
0 Gals.
J?ag
e 3
6 '3
Ei t h
Y 4
mer
coat
ins
Spra
y Washer A
(s
teel)
S
pray
Washer B (steel)
Spr
ay Washer
A
(bra
ss)
Spray Washer B (
bra
ss)
Water
Dry
Off
Oven
mer Bake O
ven
Wurr-Off O
ven
stea
m only
Wat
er/t
kteq
ent get
WE
steam only
Wat
er/D
eteq
ent get
ED
6
stea
m o
nly
W
ater
/Det
erge
nt get MSDS
Ste
am onl
y W
ater
/Det
eqen
t get
KIX
; Water
Vap
or
c
R3l
yest
er u
reth
ane
canbustion Products
on
ly
Same as above
Residual A
sh
Quantity U
nkno
wn
F’ag
e 5
SARGENT MANUFACTURING
WASTE MINIMIZATION AUDIT OPPORTUNITY SUmARY
Rack and Barrel Plat inq
1. Drain boards t o reduce drag-out.
2. Longer dwell times on automatic l i n e s and manual operations t o reduce ba th loss .
3. Pay a t t en t ion t o f l o o r s p i l l s and tank overflows, are alarms in place. How frequent does t h i s occur? Treatment in batches, how often. Can t h i s be reduced.
4 . Material subs t i tu t ions , going t o non-cyanide and t r i v a l e n t chrome. Sargent i s going t o switch t o t r i v a l e n t chrome within the next several months.
Spray rinses on pa r t s rather than dipping will reduce r in se water. i - -
5.
6. Dead rinses following p la t ing tanks. Reuse drag-out a s make-up.
7.
’ 8.
Counter current rinses t o reduce bath losses .
How much s t r ipp ing occurs due t o poor qua l i t y control .
Reuse drag-out as makeup.
9. Rinse water t imers f o r running rinses.
10. Bath f i l t e r s . - -
11. Ion exchange columns on various baths. Segregate cyanides f o r zinc, brass, bronze and copper f o r e l e c t r o l y t i c recovery. Nickel and chrome recovery.
12. Modify rack and/or barrel configurations.
13. I n s t i t u t e t i g h t e r process controls t o minimize bath and dead r inse disposal .
14. Increase temperature on baths, b u t i n s t a l l evaporative recovery uni t s for return t o ba ths .
15.
16. I n s t a l l - individual water meters or flow devices on various l i n e s and/or
Use of DI water for make-up.
r i n se tanks t o determine major water use areas f o r possible reduction.
17. Control r i n se water flow ra t e s .
A1 k a l i ne C1 eaners
1. F i l t e r i n g o f cleaners t o prolong l i f e by reducing o i l concentrat ions and impur i t i es .
Sol vent Usaqe
1. I n s t a l l covers on degreasers when no t i n use.
2. Check f o r l o c a t i o n o f heat sources nearby.
3 . El iminate ch lo r i na ted solvent usage.
4. Al low drainage i n tanks.
5. Minimize r i n s i n g i f done.
6. A i r d ry ing r a t h e r than water, i f water used.
7. Increase f r e e board.
8. i
El iminate some degreasers, d i s t r i b u t e workload be t te r .
General Waste Minimizat ion
1. Imp1 ement i ncen t i ve program (bonus, t r i p s , etc. ) f o r empl oyees i f novel ideas are proposed.
ATTACHMENT B
i DETAILED COST SUMMARY
DETAILED COST SUMMARY
Utility Costs
Electricity = $0.85/1000 KWH Natural Gas = $0.58/100 cubic feet City Water = $1.15/100 cubic feet or $0.154/100 gallons Sanitary Sewer Authority = $1.05/100 cubic feet or $0.140/100 gallons
ELECTROPLATING
Waste Source
1) Nickel drag-out (Tanks 48, 76 and 123)
Capital Cost ..........
Annual Cost ........... \
2) Baker Zinc and Udylite Line Rinse Tanks
Capital Cost ..........
Annual. Cost ...........
3) Chrome plate tanks, Mitique tank, acid dip tank, cyanide treatment tank, rinse tanks
Capital Cost ..........
Waste Minimization Alternative
Full -time operation of el ectrodi a1 ys i s unit.
$400 for valves and piping to connect Tank 76 to system.
Increased electricity usage, 353,000 KWH x $0.85/1000 KWH = $300/year. Increased maintenance time, 50 days per year x 1 hour/day x $2O/hour = $1000/year. Drag-out reduction = 5 gallons/day at $5.05/day x 300 dayslyear = $1515/year. Net Savings = $215/year.
Installation of flow restrictors and solenoid valves to reduce rinse water.
17 flow restrictors x $10/each = $170. 17 solenoid valves x $50/each = $850. Total Cost = $1020.
Increased electricity usage, 588,000 KWH x $0.85/1000 KWH = $500/year. Reduced water usage, 0.75 gpm reduction for 17 rinse tanks. Operation based on 960 min./day x 300 dayslyear x $0.154/100 gallons = $5655/year. Net Savings = $5155/year.
Replace old drain boards and install new drain boards.
17 rinse tanks require drain boards x $10/each = $170. Installation cost, 2 days x 8 hourslday x $2O/hour = $320. Total Cost = $490.
1
Annual Cost ...........
4) Chrome treatment tanks
Capital Cost ..........
Annual Cost ...........
5) Leaking valves, pump seals, faulty drain boards, spills
Capital Cost ..........
Annual Cost ...........
6) Stripping Areas
Capital Cost ..........
Reduction in drag-out from tanks would save 1173 chemicals and 20,700 ga water/year. 1173 pounds of chemicals x $ $1760/year.
8 process pounds o f lons o f
.5/pound =
Water' savings of 20,700 gal 1 onslyear x $0.154/100 gallons = $31.90. Reduction in floor spill treatment chemical (NaOH), 250 pounds/year x $0.50/pound = $125/year. Net Savings = $1917/year.
Install air agitation units.
Air agitation units and miscellaneous piping for 7 tanks x $500/tank = 53500. Installation labor o f 25 hours/tank x $20/hour x 7 tanks = $3500. Total Cost = $7000.
1100 pounds of chromic acid/year x $1.22/pound = $1342/year.
Development of inspection program.
Labor to establish program, 49 hours x $60/hour = $2940.
Labor for inspections, 2 hours/week x 50 weeks/year x $20/hour = $2000/year. Reduction in water usage, 1 million gallons/year x $0.154/100 gallons = $1540/year. Reduction i n chemical usage, 600 pounds per year x %2.00/pound = 51200. Reduction in sanitary sewer discharge, 153,000 gallons/year x $0.140/100 gallons = $214. Net Savings = $954/year.
Institute reject parts tracking system and implementation o f findings.
Labor to establish tracking system, $60/hour x 50 hours and $20/hour x 100 hours = $5000.
2
Annual Cost ...........
NON-PROCESS WATER
Waste Source
1 ) B o i l e r room compressor non-contac t c o o l i n g w a t e r
i
C a p i t a l Cost ..........
Annual Cost ...........
2 ) Vapor d e g r e a s e r non-contac t c o o l i n g w a t e r
C a p i t a l Cost ..........
Annual Cost ...........
Cost of annual r e p a i r s = $5000. Labor t o perform r e p a i r s , 1 day/week x 52 weeks lyear x $160/day = $8320. Reduct ion i n chemical usage , 102 g a l l o n s / y e a r o r 850 pounds/year x $l/pound = $ 8 5 0 / y e a r . Labor r e d u c t i o n i n s t r i p p i n g a r e a due t o lower r e j ec t p a r t r a t e , 200 hours per y e a r x $20/hour = $4000/year . Manufactur ing d e p a r t m e n t s 1 a b o r r e d u c t i o n due t o lower r e j ec t p a r t r a t e , 750 h o u r s l y e a r x $20/hour = $15,00O/year. Net Savings = $6530/year .
Waste Minimizat ion A l t e r n a t i v e
I n s t a l l a t i o n o f w a t e r r e c i r c u l a t i o n system.
C e n t r i f u g a l pump = $1000. D i s t r i b u t i o n p i p i n g , 300 f e e t x $ 8 / f o o t = $2400. Labor f o r i n s t a l l a t i o n , 48 hours x $25/hour = $1200. T o t a l Cost = $4600.
I n c r e a s e d e l e c t r i c i t y usage , 588,000 KWH x $0.85/1000 KWH = $500/year . Reduct ion i n w a t e r usage , 12,500 g a l 1 ons lday o r 3 . 7 5 m i l l i o n g a l 1 o n s / y e a r x $0.154/100 gal 1 ons = $5775/year . Net Savings = $5275/year
Reci rcul a t i on of d e g r e a s e r cool i ng w a t e r .
C e n t r i f u g a l pump = $1000. D i s t r i b u t i o n p i p i n g , 300 f e e t x $ 8 / f o o t = $2400. Labor f o r i n s t a l l a t i o n , 48 hours x $25/hour = $1200. T o t a l Cost = $4600.
I n c r e a s e d e l e c t r i c i t y usage , 588,000 KWH x $0.85/1000 KWH = $500/year . Reduct ion i n w a t e r u s a g e , 12,500 g a l 1 ons/day o r 3 . 7 5 m i l l i o n g a l l o n s / y e a r x $0.154/100 g a l l o n s = $5775/year . Net Savings = $5275/year .
3
MISCELLANEOUS AREAS
Waste Source
1) Waste o i l from s c r a p metal r o l l - o f f s
C a p i t a l Cost ..........
Waste Minimizat ion A l t e r n a t i v e
Cover and s e a l r o l l - o f f s , connec t sump i n t o s torm sewer.
C o n s t r u c t i o n o f sewer c o n n e c t i o n , backhoe r e n t a l f o r 8 hours = $600/day. I n s t a l l a t i o n o f 100 fee t o f 8" pipe x $6O/foot = $6000. I n s t a l l a t i o n o f 8" tee f i t t i n g = $50. Di s c h a r g e permi t modi f i c a t i on t o i n c o r p o r a t e new s o u r c e = $500. R o l l - o f f box c o v e r s , 15 r o 1 - o f f s x $300/cover = $4500. T o t a l Cost = $11,650.
Annual Cost ........... Labora tory a n a l y s i s r e d u c t o n , 15 s a m p l e s l y e a r x $67/sample = $1005/year . Reduct ion i n w a s t e d i s p o s a l c o s t f o r
i w a s t e o i l , 18,000 g a l l o n s l y e a r x $0.60/ga l l on = $10,80O/year . Net Savings = $ 1 1 , 8 0 5 / y e a r . ,
2) C i t y w a t e r i n tumbling a r e a I n s t a l 1 w a t e r 1 i nes t o r o l l i n g b a r r e l t u m b l e r s .
C a p i t a l Cost .......... P i p i n g t o r o l l i n g b a r r e l s , 200 f e e t x $ 8 / f o o t = $1600. 4 v a l v e s x $50/each = $200. I n s t a l l a t i o n l a b o r , 24 hours x $25/hour = $600. T o t a l Cost = $2400.-
Annual Cost ........... Reduct ion i n w a t e r usage , 360,000 g a l l o n s / y e a r x $0.154/100 g a l l o n s = $ 5 5 5 /ye a r .
3) All s o u r c e s Development o f emp 1 oyee waste minimiza t ion i n c e n t i v e program.
C a p i t a l Cost .......... Program devel opment , $60/hour x 15 h o u r s = $900. I n i t i a l fund f o r program cash i n c e n t i v e = $1100. T o t a l Cost $2000.
4
Annual Cost ........... Additional incentive cash fund = $800/year. Reduction in water usage, 200,000 gal 1 ons/year x $0.154/100 gal 1 ons = $308/year. Reduction in chemical usage, 300 pounds x $1.5/pound = $450/year. Reduction in sanitary sewer discharge, 150,000 gallonslyear x $0.140/100 gal 1 ons = $210/year. Reduction in waste treatment and disposal costs = $740/year. Net Savings = $908/year.
4 ) All sources
Capital Cost ..........
Annual Cost ...........
Employee training and awareness program.
Develop employee training program, $500/day x 6 days = $3000. Employee training time, 800 employees x $20/hour x 1 hour/employee = $16,000. Total Cost = $19,000.
A 1/2% reduction in utilities, waste generation and water usage. Total = $1.85 million x 1/2% = $9 2 50 /year.
JSHOl3/ s j p
5
