SEMI-SYNTHETIC AND SYNTHETIC COOLANT SUBSTITUTION

Revision Date: 12/03
Process Code: Navy/Marines: IND-010-00; Air Force: RR-01; Army: MTF
Usage List: Navy: Medium; Marines: Medium; Army: Medium; Air Force: Medium
Alternative For: Conventional cutting fluids
Compliance Impact: Medium
Applicable EPCRA Targeted Constituents and CAS Numbers: Dichloromethane (CAS: 75-09-2), 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (CAS: 71-55-6), Trichlorofluoromethane (CAS: 75-69-4), Xylene (CAS: 1330-20-7), Acetone (CAS: 67-64-1), and Spent Halogenated and Non-halogenated Solvents

Overview: Semi-synthetic and synthetic coolants typically have longer useful lives, and thus require fewer changeouts than conventional oil-based cutting fluids. Semi-synthetic and synthetic coolants are also more resistant to problems such as rapid bacterial growth, which is often the reason coolants are disposed of prematurely. At a typical shop, the personnel change cooling fluid when it emits a rancid odor. The odor is caused by anaerobic bacterial growth and does not indicate that the cutting fluid has lost its cooling and lubricating properties. However, the presence of these microorganisms over a period of time can cause coolants to degrade. The resulting adverse condition of the coolant include foul odors, clogged transfer lines, changes in pH, and splitting emulsions. These conditions can affect the quality of the final product.

The coolant is typically removed from the cutting machine's sumps when the odor of the bacterial growth bothers shop personnel. On average, the coolant is removed from the cutting machines every 3 weeks. The time between fluid change is usually 2 to 3 weeks in the summer months, while it is extended to 3 to 4 weeks during the winter. This is due to the variance of temperature and moisture, both of which affect the rate of bacterial growth.

Several DOD facilities have switched to a semi-synthetic coolant with considerable success. Personnel at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in New Hampshire, Code 120, have tested semi-synthetic coolants including Castrol TLS-995 and Blaser SwissLube 400. This effort was conducted as part of a NAVSEA machine shop modernization program to determine cutting fluid pollution prevention alternatives among eight naval shipyards. The results showed that the semi-synthetic coolant had been in use for over 6 months without changeout or experiencing the bacterial growth problems encountered at other facilities which use oil-based coolants. By switching to a semi-synthetic coolant that would last 6 months, an activity can reduce the amount of coolant waste by almost 90%, as evidenced at NADEP Norfolk.

Both synthetic and conventional oil-based coolants may be characterized as hazardous due to the product’s formulation. Waste reduction is achieved as a result of longer service life of synthetic coolants compared to oil-based coolants. Either formulation may be a characteristic hazardous waste. Under 40 CFR Part 279, "Used Oil Management Standards," used oil is defined as oil refined from crude (or any synthetic oil), used as a lubricating, hydraulic, or heat transfer fluid, and has become contaminated through use. Coolants may be managed under these regulatory provision and recycled as opposed to disposed.


Compliance Benefit: The substitution of synthetic and semi-synthetic coolants for conventional coolants may allow for longer intervals between change outs, thereby reducing coolant consumption and waste generation. If the waste is determined to be hazardous, then generating less of it helps facilities meet the requirements of waste reduction under RCRA, 40 CFR 262 and Executive Order 13148, and may also help facilities reduce both their generator status and the number of applicable requirements (i.e., recordkeeping, reporting, inspections, transportation, accumulation time, emergency prevention and preparedness, emergency response) under RCRA, 40 CFR 262. Moreover, since less coolant would need to be stored on site, a facility is less likely to meet the reporting thresholds of SARA Title III (40 CFR 300, 355, 370, and 372). A decrease in coolant stored on site may also put a facility below threshold amounts for the requirement to develop and implement a Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan under 40 CFR 112.

The compliance benefits listed here are only meant to be used as general guidelines and are not meant to be strictly interpreted. Actual compliance benefits will vary depending on the factors involved, e.g., the amount of workload involved.


Materials Compatibility: No materials compatibility issues were identified.



Safety and Health: Mild dermal and eye irritation effects are associated with these compounds. Personal protective equipment should be used. Consult your local industrial health specialist, your local health and safety personnel, and the appropriate MSDS prior to implementing this technology.


Benefits:
  • Reduce coolant waste by as much as 90%.
  • Lower disposal costs.
  • Reduce coolant replacement costs.


Disadvantages:
  • Semi-synthetic and synthetic coolants cost more than oil-based coolants.


Economic Analysis: The extra expenditure in purchasing semi-synthetic and synthetic coolants is offset by the savings incurred from by the reduced frequency of coolant replacement. For this economic analysis, the synthetic cutting fluid prices were provided by DLA and the oil-based cutting fluid prices were obtained through vendors. The labor time for replacement of cutting fluids and recycling data were based on estimates provided by the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard

Assumptions:

  • Spent cutting fluid generation rate for oil-based: 2 gal./hr., 4,212 gal./yr.
  • Labor to replace machine cutting oils is estimated at approximately 2 hours per week.
  • Both oil-based and synthetic cutting fluids are recycled at no cost to the facility.
  • Cost of fresh oil-based cutting fluid: $5.60/gal.
  • Cost of synthetic cutting fluid: $13.90/gallon based on the purchase of 45 or more 55 gallon drums.
  • Use of synthetic reduces amount of coolant waste generated by 85 percent, reduces labor for changing fluid by 85 percent.
  • Labor cost: $30/hr.

Table 1. Annual Operating Cost Comparison of Synthetic and Oil-Based Cutting Fluids

 

Synthetic

Oil-based

Operational Costs:    
Labor: $468 $3,120
Fluid purchases: $8,782 $23,587
Total Operational Costs: $9,250 $26,707
Total Recovered Income: $0 $0
Net Annual Cost/Benefit: $-9,250 $-26,707

Economic Analysis Summary

  • Annual Savings for Synthetic: $17,457
  • Capital Cost for Diversion Equipment/Process: $0
  • Payback Period for Investment in Equipment/Process: Immediate

Click Here to view an Active Spreadsheet for this Economic Analysis and Enter Your Own Values.
To return from the Active Spreadsheet, click the Back arrow on the Tool Bar.


NSN/MSDS:
Product NSN Unit Size Cost MSDS*
Dascool 2003 Cutting Fluid 6850-01-387-4484 55 gal. Drum $764.50 Click me

*There are multiple MSDSs for most NSNs. The MSDS (if shown above) is only meant to serve as an example. To return from the MSDS, click the Back arrow on the Tool Bar.


Approving Authority: Appropriate authority for making process changes should always be sought and obtained prior to procuring or implementing any of the technologies identified herein.


Points of Contact: For more information

Vendors: This is not meant to be a complete list, as there are other manufacturers of this type of equipment.

D. A. Stuart Inc.
4580 Weaver Parkway
Warrenville, IL 60555
Phone: (630) 393-0833
FAX: (630) 393-8888
E-mail: sales@dastuart.net
Service: Manufactures Dascool 2003

Milacron Inc.
2090 Florence Ave.
P.O. Box 63716
Cincinnati, OH 45206-2425
Phone: (513) 487-5000
FAX: (513) 487-5057
URL: http://www.milacron.com/

Spartan Chemical Co., Inc.
1110 Spartan Drive
Maumee, OH 43537-0110
Phone: (800) 537-8990 or (419) 531-5551
FAX: (419) 536-8423
URL: http://www.spartanchemical.com/

Castrol Industrial East Inc.
775 Louis Dr.
Warminster,  PA   18974
Phone: (215) 443-5220 or (800) 464-3070
FAX: (215) 443-7094
URL: http://www.castrolindustrialna.com/

 

Related Links: None


Sources: Vendors, August 2002.