280 likes | 388 Views
Water Usage Reductions At. 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
E N D
Water Usage Reductions At 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 60oF to 120oF • 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 60oF to 120oF • 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