U.S. ARMY 1 Sustainable Painting Operations for the Total Army Mr. Patrick Taylor Dr. Daniel Verdonik Hughes Associates, Inc. Presented at Joint Services

U.S. ARMY

1

Sustainable Painting Operations for the Total Army

Mr. Patrick TaylorDr. Daniel Verdonik

Hughes Associates, Inc.

Presented atJoint Services Environmental Management Conference & Exhibition

April 14, 2005

2

U.S. ARMY

Solving Environmental Problems for Army Programs

Outline

Approach Risk Mitigation Program Areas

De-Painting Rubber to Metal Bonding CARC and Other Paints Solvents / Cleaners / Thinners Sealants, Adhesives & Miscellaneous Coatings Munitions Coatings

Implementation Conclusion

3

U.S. ARMY


Two Parts of the Equation

Get Funding Provide Solutions

4

U.S. ARMY


Questions…

What Are the Bad Actors?Which Ones Are Easy and Which Are

Hard?Will the Alternatives End Up Costing More

than the Controls?Are there Hidden Implementation Costs to

the PMs? Is this Approach Going to Fail and Force

Me to Install the Controls Anyway?

5

U.S. ARMY


…Answers What Are the Bad Actors?

Over 500 Suspected (Based on MMPP/PPP) Site Visits, Detailed Databases in Hand

Which Ones Are Easy and Which Are Hard? Easy: De-Painting, Non-Munitions Coatings & Sealants Hard: Solvents, Munitions Coatings Potential Alternatives Identified

Will the Alternatives End Up Costing More than the Controls? NO

Are there Hidden Implementation Costs to the PMs? Cost is Major Driver in Downselects Picture Looks Good Overall – PMs Will Be Involved

Is this Approach Going to Fail and Force Me to Install the Controls Anyway? Our Track Record Says NO!

6

U.S. ARMY


Program Areas

Process Area Bad Actors Alternatives Identified

Total Cost

De-Painting 1 18 $XXX

Rubber to Metal Bonding

2 3 $XXX

CARC and Other Paints

22 25 $XXX

Solvents / Cleaners / Thinners

100 350 $XXX

Sealants, Adhesives & Misc. Coatings

400 100 $XXX

Munitions Coatings

33 33 $XXX

Implementation PEO/PM Support

$XXXX

7

U.S. ARMY


Mitigating Risk RDECs Developed Original Program Plans and Estimates Collected Data from Army Industrial Base Facilities

Identified the Bad Actors, How Much, Where, on What Performed Industrial Base Operational Analyses

Prioritized Bad Actors – Easy to Hard Identified Opportunities for EPA Negotiations

Performed Trade Studies Analyzed COTS, GOTS, and the Gaps Estimated Costs of Alternatives and Alternative Approaches Prepared Roadmaps to Implementation (by Industrial Site and by Commodity)

Risk Mitigation Plan Verified RDEC Program Plans and Estimates Work with Vendors & Suppliers Negotiations with EPA RDEC Involvement, PM Implementation No Basic Research or Applied Research

8

U.S. ARMY


De-Painting

Bad Actors – 1 Performed at Depots and Troop Installations Advanced Technology Development: FY03-FY06

Trade Study Identified 34 Potential Alternatives Selected 18 for Performance Evaluation Coordinate Depot Implementation Technology Demonstration at ANAD

Demonstration / Validation: FY06-FY08 Performed at Three Sites: CCAD, LEAD, and ANAD Coordinate PM Approval

Operations & Maintenance 24 Specifications / Documents Identified SOPs, TMs, DMWRs, etc. Will be Modified ANAD High Volume Dip Tank

Two Approaches for ANAD Alternative Materials – Higher RiskHousekeeping and Dip Tank Changes – Low Risk

No Cost Trade-Off – Both Options have Zero Net CostReduced Material Costs More than Cover ChangesCovered Through AWCF/CIP

5% Army Usage15% VOHAPs

9

U.S. ARMY


Rubber to Metal Bonding Bad Actors – 2 Performed Only at RRAD Advanced Technology Development: FY06

Reformulate 2 Existing Adhesives – Change Solvents Evaluate 3 COTS Alternatives Coordinate RRAD Implementation

Demonstration / Validation: FY06-FY07 Conduct Qualification / Validation Testing Support PEO GCS and PEO CS&CSS Approval

Operations & Maintenance 3 Specifications and 5 DMWRs/SOPs

Cost Trade-Off Scrubber: Capital Investment + Annual Maintenance Alternative COTS Materials: Capital Investment +

Higher Annual Material Cost Reformulated Materials: No Cost Difference

10

U.S. ARMY


CARC and Other Paints Bad Actors – 22 Performed Everywhere Except Ammo Plants Aerosols – Expect to be Exempted CARC Family: 9 Specifications – No Cost

Re-Formulated CARC has No Cost Changes New CARC More Durable, More Expensive (~$20/ GL) PM Can Choose Best Option

Non-CARC: 13 Specifications Advanced Technology Development: FY03-FY06

Re-Formulate 5 and Evaluate 20 COTSCoordinate Depot Implementation

Demonstration / Validation: FY06–FY08Downselect and DEM/VAL 13 at DepotsDEM/VAL CARC at 3 Remaining DepotsCoordinate PM Approvals

Operations & Maintenance13 Specifications

Cost Trade-off No Performance Gains – Expect Comparable Cost


11

U.S. ARMY


Solvents / Cleaners / Thinners Bad Actors – 100 Performed Everywhere Trade Study Identified 350 Potential Alternatives with 33

Solvent, 19 Cleaner, and 12 Thinner Specifications) Advanced Technology Development: FY03-FY06

Joint Service Solvent Substitution Methodology Sharing Costs Evaluate 40 – Downselect to 8 for DEM/VAL

Demonstration / Validation: FY06-FY08 DEM/VAL at LEAD, CCAD, ANAD, and TYAD Coordinate PM Approval Transition through TM to Field

Operations & Maintenance Revise 3 Specifications, Develop 1 New Specification Cancel / Inactivate for Army Coating Use 61 Specifications

Cost Trade-Off CCAD Experience – $1M to $2M per Year (Aerospace Rule) Requires Process Relocations New Solvents Generally Cost More Cost Validated During Downselect Working with EPA on Emission Standards / Limits


12

U.S. ARMY


Sealants, Adhesives & Misc. Coatings

Bad Actors 400 out of 1500 Many Low Use – Expect to be Exempted Many Small Container Sizes – Expect to be Exempted

Performed Everywhere Advanced Technology Development: FY04-FY07

ASTM Test Standard Evaluate 100 materials Downselect 60 to 75 for DEM/VAL

Demonstration / Validation: FY06–FY08 Qualification Less Complicated and Smaller Scale DEM/VAL Up to 75 Materials PM Approval Expected for 400 Current Materials

Operations & Maintenance 25 Specification Changes Anticipated

Cost Trade-off Requires Process Relocations New Materials Generally Cost More Cost Validated During Downselect


13

U.S. ARMY


Munition Coatings Bad Actors – 33 Performed at All Plants except 1 Joint Service Requirements – Investigating Shared Cost Delayed Compliance Date for Munitions

Clean Air Act Emissions Reductions in Other Areas Good Performance Demonstrated by the Army in Exceeding

Reductions Gained by Aerospace, Shipbuilding NESHAPs EPA Working with Us – This Program Shows Commitment

Ammunition Coatings Drivers – Throughput & Costs Changes Require Round Qualifications GOCO / AAP Implementation is Intricate

Analyses Identified 33 Different Coatings at AAPs Advanced Technology Development: FY04-FY09

33 Reformulations and Laboratory Validations Demonstration / Validation: FY06-FY10

30 Round Qualifications Operations & Maintenance: FY06-FY11

33 Specification Revisions Drawing / TDP Changes

Coordinating PEO Ammo IB Approval

14

U.S. ARMY


Implementation

Operations & Maintenance funds FY06-FY11 Tied Directly to Non-Munition Areas Non-Specification Document / TDP Changes

99 TMs & TBs Identified Commodity Management

NSNsPrevent Re-Introduction of Bad ActorsReduce Recordkeeping Burden and Costs

RDT&E Management Support: FY06-FY09 Provide Direct Support to PMs & Depots for

Implementation Annual Management Oversight Coordination with EPA

15

U.S. ARMY


Program Areas

20%

45%

5%

Usage

40%350100Solvents / Cleaners / Thinners

40%2522CARC and Other Paints

15%181De-Painting

VOHAP Emissions

Alternatives Identified

Bad Actors

Process Area

30% 5%100400Sealants, Adhesives & Misc. Coatings

16

U.S. ARMY


Without ANAD Methylene Chloride

20%

50%

Usage

50%350100Solvents / Cleaners / Thinners

45%2522CARC and Other Paints

VOHAP Emissions

Alternatives Identified

Bad Actors

Process Area

<1% <1%181De-Painting

30% 5%100400Sealants, Adhesives & Misc. Coatings

17

U.S. ARMY


Bottom Line

Compliance-Driven Option: Install and Operate Controls

$XXXMPollution Prevention Option: Reformulate,

Qualify & Implement Alternatives

$ XXM