Jump to main content.


Auto Repair and Fleet Maintenance Pollution Prevention

Auto Repair and Fleet Maintenance Quick Finder
Auto Repair & Fleet Maintenance HomeAuto Repair Fact SheetsFleet Maintenance Fact SheetsExecutive Summaries of Selected Studies Aqueous CleaningAlternative Aqueous CleanersWater-Based Repair and Maintenance CleaningWater-Based Parts & Washer Systems How to use materialsHow to order materials

Aqueous Cleaning Demonstration Project

Final Report

Aqueous Cleaning Demonstration Project
City and County of San Francisco
July 1999
Hazardous Waste Management Program
Administrative Service Department

Disclaimer

The mention and demonstration of commercial products, their source, or their use in connection with information reported herein is not to be construed as an actual or implied endorsement or recommendation of such products by the City and County of San Francisco. Identification and selection of commercial aqueous cleaning units for demonstrations was based on the available information at the time of project implementation, and is not intended to be inclusive or to exclude any commercial aqueous cleaning units in the market or in development.

Executive Summary

The City and County of San Francisco Hazardous Waste Management Program (HWMP) is assisting City departments in identifying cost-effective alternatives to petroleum-based solvent part cleaners in an effort to reduce solvent use and waste solvent generation. Under the Aqueous Cleaning Demonstration Project, the HWMP demonstrated aqueous cleaning units in selected City department facilities to determine the viability of replacing solvent cleaning with aqueous cleaning. Between February 1998 and January 1999, 14 different aqueous cleaning units were demonstrated at three Municipal Railway (MUNI) fleet maintenance facilities: the Woods diesel bus maintenance facility, the Green light rail vehicle maintenance facility, and the Potrero electric bus maintenance facility.

This final report discusses the cleaning operations at the MUNI demonstration facilities, the types of aqueous cleaning units available and their applications, the demonstration results, the waste management practices used to handle aqueous cleaning wastes, the costs of aqueous cleaning compared to those of solvent cleaning, and purchasing requirements for the City departments. The conclusions drawn from the demonstration results are summarized below according to performance criteria established for the project.

Overall Conclusions

Aqueous Cleaning Performance

A total of 9 of the 14 aqueous cleaning units demonstrated were identified as meeting the overall performance requirements of MUNI facilities and as being potentially applicable to other City department facilities. These units are listed below according to unit type.

One-page descriptions of these nine units are included at the end of this Executive Summary.

Part Rusting

Despite the use of rust inhibitors in all aqueous cleaning chemistries, rusting would often occur on parts cleaned in sink-top and immersion units. Rusting was prevented, however, by wiping parts dry with a rag immediately after cleaning.

Unit Design

Servicing Requirements

Servicing requirements for aqueous cleaning units were minimal, consisting of water additions, chemical additions, filter changes, and solution replacement. The frequency that these services were required varied according to the type of unit and the magnitude of its use. The range of servicing frequencies experienced during the demonstration, from least frequent to most frequent, were as follows:

Economics

Performing aqueous cleaning with sink-top, immersion, spray cabinet, or ultrasonic units is less costly than performing part cleaning using solvent. The potential annual costs savings estimated from the demonstration project results for each type of unit, including the annualized capital cost of the unit, are summarized below.

Potential Savings from Different Aqueous Cleaner Units

Aqueous Cleaning Unit Implemented
Number of Solvent Units Replaced
Cleaning Application
Potential Annual Savings
Microbial Sink-Top
1
Light-Duty
$852
Immersion
1
Medium-Duty
$425
Spray Cabinet
2
Heavy-Duty
$21,977
Ultrasonic
2
Heavy-Duty
$16,057

Spray cabinets are moderate in capital cost and ultrasonic units are high in capital cost, but both units offer significant cost savings because their large cleaning capacities allow them to replace multiple solvent units and their automated cleaning ability reduces cleaning labor requirements. These cost savings offset capital costs and result in short payback periods

For example, MUNI could realize significant cost savings by converting from solvent to aqueous cleaning. Estimated capital costs, savings, and payback periods for the MUNI Woods, Green, and Potrero facilities to convert to aqueous cleaning by purchasing aqueous cleaning units are summarized in the table below. Because servicing costs vary according to the number of units implemented and servicing frequency, these costs assume MUNI service the units themselves.

Costs and Savings from Full Conversion by MUNI Facilities
 
(Woods) Heavy Duty
(Woods) Preventative Maintenance
Green (Entire Facility)
Potrero (Entire Facility)
Capital Cost
$30,400
$6,100
$39,800
$14,030
Annual Savings
$134,810
$13,270
$226,200
$13,250
Payback Period
< 3 months
< 6 months
< 3 months
1.1 years

 

Waste Generation

Best Aqueous Cleaner Units Demonstrated

Based on the demonstration results, MUNI staff rated nine units as good to excellent in meeting their cleaning needs. These units represent all four aqueous cleaning unit types (sink-top, immersion, spray, and ultrasonic). A 1-page summary describes each units' specifications, demonstration performance results, design, and servicing requirements.

Region 9 Topics and Programs | A-Z Index


Local Navigation


Jump to main content.