1. Cost/Benefit Analysis Conducted at Landing Gear Repair Facility Analysis conducted by Concurrent Technologies Corporation using Environmental Cost Accounting Methodology Tasking by Joint Group on Pollution Prevention Joint Group on Pollution Prevention

2. Process Flow for Hard Chrome Plate

3. Process Flow for HVOF Coating

4. Data Collection Site visit conducted to collect data and conduct interviews with plating engineers, plating supervisors, chemists, and other relevant employees Site visit conducted to collect data and conduct interviews with plating engineers, plating supervisors, chemists, and other relevant employees Where available, material usage rates and costs, labor hours, and waste treatment and disposal costs were identified Where available, material usage rates and costs, labor hours, and waste treatment and disposal costs were identified ESOH costs were also obtained where available, or estimated ESOH costs were also obtained where available, or estimated Facility overhauls approximately 500 main landing gear (LG) pistons, 250 nose LG pistons and 250 nose LG cylinders annually Facility overhauls approximately 500 main landing gear (LG) pistons, 250 nose LG pistons and 250 nose LG cylinders annually Determined that average hard chrome plating thickness for repaired components is 0.010” Determined that average hard chrome plating thickness for repaired components is 0.010”

5. Typical Areas on Main Landing Gear for Transitioning to HVOF Thermal Spray

6. Main Assumptions Associated With Transition to HVOF Thermal Spray If HVOF implemented, two chrome plating tanks and one chrome stripping tank could be shut down If HVOF implemented, two chrome plating tanks and one chrome stripping tank could be shut down HVOF would be applied to same thickness as chrome HVOF would be applied to same thickness as chrome WC/17Co powder costs would be $32 per pound WC/17Co powder costs would be $32 per pound HVOF spraying rate would be 10 pounds per hour with deposit efficiency of 50% HVOF spraying rate would be 10 pounds per hour with deposit efficiency of 50% On average, one HVOF cell could process one LG in 40 minutes On average, one HVOF cell could process one LG in 40 minutes Hourly labor rates per person same for HVOF as for chrome Hourly labor rates per person same for HVOF as for chrome Approximately 88% of total surface area currently chrome plated could be transitioned to HVOF Approximately 88% of total surface area currently chrome plated could be transitioned to HVOF Average turn-around-time for LG components coated with HVOF would be approximately five days less than the average for chrome-plated components Average turn-around-time for LG components coated with HVOF would be approximately five days less than the average for chrome-plated components CBA does not assume increased lifetime for components CBA does not assume increased lifetime for components

7. Estimated Annual Operating Cost Avoidance for LG Facility Changing to HVOF Labor$113,540 Materials$ 75,520 Utilities$ 11,390 Waste Disposal$ 2,900 Reduce TAT$ 32,880 TOTAL$236,230 TAT = turnaround time Based on 1250 total components processed per year and 1700 square inches coated