CASE STUDY # 100
1. Headline: Good housekeeping reduces wastes in a aviation,
industrial and seaport complex.
2. Background: See below.
3. Cleaner Production Principle: Good housekeeping improved
operating procedures
4. Description of Cleaner Production Application: The waste
audit investigated the feasible options for reducing the
volume of solvent used and disposed. There are over 100
solvent end use points on the base. Four of ten stations
were audited in detail since these stations represented a
fair cross section of the activities that occur. For the
four stations, a total of 36 source reduction options were
considered. Several options were investigated in further
detail these included: use of closed tanks and increasing
the cleaning efficiency by increasing the degree of
agitation; increasing cleaning efficiency by employing a
two-step counter-current cleaning sequence; reclaiming
solvent from spent 1,1,1-TCE by using the degreaser as a
still; and continuous filtering of stripper solutions.
Material/Energy Balance and Substitutions
FEEDSTOCKS: Spent
solvents from degreasing parts
and paint stripping.
WASTES: Spent
solvents
MEDIUM: Solvents
5. Economics
CAPITAL COST:
$600-$6,820
MONTHS TO RECOVER: 7-97
DIRECT COST:
$220-$2,770/year
6. Advantages:
FEEDSTOCK REDUCTION: 33-64%
WASTE PRODUCTION: 50-75%
reduction
IMPACT: The
option presented will reduce the
virgin solvent requirements and
reduce the volume of disposed
spent solvents.
7. Constraints: No information provided.
8. Contact and Citation:
"Waste Minimization Audit Report - Case Studies of Solvent
Waste from Parts Cleaning and from Electronic Capacitor
Manufacturing Operations," Hazardous Waste Engineering
Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development,
U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio, Page 29.
Name and Location of Company
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
United States
c/o Harry Freeman
9. Keywords: United States, USA, transport, good
housekeeping, solvent, cleaning, degreasing, TCE,
filtration, ISIC 4582.
10. Reviewer's Comments: This case study was originally
abstracted for the United States Environmental Protection
Agency's Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse.
It underwent a UNEP IE funded technical review in 1994 for
quality and completeness. It was edited for the ICPIC
diskette by UNEP IE in July 1995.
(DOCNO: UNEP01.52 101-008-B-016)