Presentation on theme: "Manchester Tank & Equipment Elkhart, IN Steve Jacobson, CHMM Environmental Manager."— Presentation transcript:
Manchester Tank & Equipment Elkhart, IN Steve Jacobson, CHMM Environmental Manager
MTE – Facility Information Location: Elkhart, Indiana Employees: 148 Products: Portable Steel and Aluminum Cylinders Propane, Refrigerant, Chemical, Fire Suppression Processes: Metal Fabrication and Finishing Press Department Welding Shot Blasting Metal Finishing Powder Coating 600,000 to 800,000 Cylinders Annually
MTE – Facility Information (cont.) Permits and Legal Requirements Hazardous Waste (CESQG) Air Permit (FESOP) Particulate Matter Oil Storage (SPCC) Storm Water Permit (SWPPP) Industrial Wastewater Permit (City of Elkhart) National Categorical Pretreatment Standards: Metal Finishing Point Source Category (PSNS)
MTE – Facility Information (cont.) Regulated Pollutants Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Nickel, Silver, Zinc, Cyanide, Total Toxic Organics (TTO) Local Ordinance Pollutants pH, Total Suspended Solids, cBOD5, Ammonia, Total Phosphorus, Fats – Oil - Grease Sampling Requirements (End of Pipe) Bimonthly Reduced to quarterly with 2009 permit renewal!
Where Were We In 2006? A number of environmental impacts had already been addressed VOCs and Hazardous Waste Began full implementation of an Environmental Management System (EMS) in September, 2006 Needed an environmental “Goal” for 2007 One significant environmental aspect that had not been addressed was “water usage” Very busy! Lots of production on two shifts
So Why Pick Water Reduction? 2006 Water & Sewer Bills = $22,505 Only 2% of Utility Costs Relatively low cost to implement Installation performed by maintenance staff Needed better “water balance” information POTW Permit Renewal Corporate Compliance Audit Low Hanging Fruit!
Goal: Reduce Water Consumption by 15% 5,995,621 gallons used in our baseline year (2006) 7.28 gallons used per cylinder 2007 - Action Plan Install process meters at specific locations Leak testing stations, parts washers, cooling towers Facility already had four different City meters Install discharge meters at sump locations Facility had never measured discharge before Start monitoring daily meter readings Use data to identify “true” water needs
Parts Washer Design Washes Soap Lubricant Off Formed Steel Prepares Cylinders For Painting
Parts Washer Cross Section An overhead conveyor takes a cylinder through a series of stages comprised of water or chemical and water. Water, temp. and chemical concentration are controlled with electronic systems
Process Water Installed 6 new meters Pictured is a Neptune Trident T-10 Added a digital display to several meters when the location of the meter made data collection difficult
Discharge Water Signet 2551 Magmeter Signet 8550 Transmitter
Sump Layout The process water from each plant is directed to a sump with a float- activated sump pump. Waste water must remain in contact with Magmeter sensor (use loop, check valve or combination)
Other “Handy” Suggestions Remove the handles from flow control valves (Universal solution from maintenance dept.) Discourages employees, vendors, etc. from increasing flow to fix a temporary problem Add solenoid switches to the flow valves which are interlocked with the main power to a location Very useful when combined with removing handles
How Much Did This Cost? Approximately $3,000 Three sump meters (eventually added a fourth) Six process input meters Used existing labor to install meters Maximum of 10 minutes needed to read meters and update “flow” data each day Installation took one months to complete and trouble- shoot Digital meters require calibration Dial meters purchased had different units displayed (gallons, 100 gallons, cubic feet)
What Does The Data Look Like? What we used to know What we know now
Results 2007 4,733,660 gallons used 1,261,961 gallon reduction 4.8% normalized reduction 6.93 gallons per tank Missed 15% Goal Continue in 2008! 2008 3,149,291 gallons used 1,584,369 gallon reduction 22.3% normalized reduction 5.39 gallons per tank Two Year reduction of 2,846,330 gallons 26% normalized reduction
Results (cont.) Decreased chemical consumption Phosphoric Acid Potassium Hydroxide Decreased natural gas consumption @ four parts washers 3 million fewer gallons of water that need to be heated from 60 degrees to 120 degrees Decreased the number of required sampling events from six to four each year Coincided with permit renewal
Reduction of Chemicals Parts Washers Chemicals 5-Stage Washer Phosphoric Acid Potassium Hydroxide Fluorozirconic Acid 4-Stage Washer Phosphoric Acid Fluorozirconic Acid 2-Stage Washer (no chemical) 2-Stage Washer Potassium Hydroxide Phosphoric Acid Potassium Hydroxide Fluorozirconic Acid Mineral Oil Pre-Cleaner
Reduction of Chemicals (cont.) 2007 to 2008 17,000 pounds less corrosives purchased $26,766 less spent 2008 to 2009 21,452 pounds less corrosives purchased $42,718 less spent
Decreased Natural Gas Usage 2-Year Savings 2,846,330 gallons from 60 o F to 120 o F 1,366 million BTU $10,780 ($7.89 per mmBTU ) Parts washers require heated water to function Per Tank Savings 1.89 gallons per tank from 60 o F to 120 o F 907 BTU $0.0072 per cylinder
Reduced Required Sampling 2004 to 2009 Permit 2009 to 2014 Permit Bimonthly Sampling (6) $200 average per event laboratory fees Preparation of submission COC, signature of responsible official, etc. $1,200 per year plus time Quarterly Sampling Fewer chances for something to go wrong $800 per year plus time
Savings Summary Resources Dollar$ Water 7.3 gallons per cylinder ‘06 5.4 gallons per cylinder ‘08 Reduced annual consumption by almost 3 million gallons Natural Gas Annual reduction of 693 million BTU Chemicals Annual reduction of 15,000 to 20,000 pounds of corrosives Water Reduced water and sewer bills by $3,000 annually Natural Gas Reduced natural gas consumption associated with water heating by $5,390 annually Chemicals Reduced chemical purchases by an average of $28,000 annually Total Average yearly savings: $36,390 Per cylinder savings: $0.05
Of Note Cleaning frequency of washer stages stayed at approximately 3 months We expected this to increase, but it stayed the same. Reducing flow may cause other problems so proceed slowly Quality issues (none yet) NOVs (we had to implement weekly vacuuming of one washer / sump where FOG is a problem) Involve your supplier Training, usage reports, they can be great advocates
Recommend Communicate Results Periodic updates to management and supervisors Lets them know something is being measured! Frequent updates to maintenance staff and supervisors If you know what is “normal”, you typically find problems before operations folks notice. Periodic updates to all employees Keep beating the drum that water conservation is important. That creates a plant full of people looking for wasted resources.
P2 and Water Reduction For MTE, this project began with low expectations (it was low hanging fruit). Expect pleasant surprises if you begin to measure and reduce water consumption. Immediate $aving$ Stop wasting chemicals Reduced risk with handling hazardous materials
P2 and Water Reduction Would we have decreased the flow of water through our processes without this goal? Not likely. Usage was a function of time (rate based) and chemical concentrations chase the water. If we had not set this goal in more prosperous times, we could still be spending $112k on chemicals instead of the $19k we expect to spend this year.
Would Also Suggest Joining Indiana Partners for Pollution Prevention Environmental Stewardship Program (EMS) Both programs help provide validity to your claims of P2 in a sea of green-washing. Both programs require annual reports that will help you identify some of these “unexpected” results.
Questions? Special Thanks To: The Indiana Partners for Pollution Prevention Amercio Chemical