Read Microsoft Word - Thesis USB.doc text version

POLLUTION PREVENTION SOLUTIONS FOR SMALL MANUFACTURERS: A MICROBREWERY CASE STUDY

A Master's Thesis Presented to the Faculty of California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, California

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Civil and Environmental Engineering with a specialization in Environmental Engineering: Pollution Prevention

By Donna M. Di Gangi

July 18, 2005

AUTHORIZATION FOR REPRODUCTION

I hereby grant permission for the reproduction of this thesis in its entirety or any of its parts, without further authorization, provided acknowledgement is made to the author(s) and advisor(s).

Donna M. Di Gangi __________________________

Date: _____________________

ii

MASTER'S THESIS APPROVAL

TITLE: POLLUTION PREVENTION SOLUTIONS FOR SMALL MANUFACTURERS: A MICROBREWERY CASE STUDY

AUTHOR: DONNA M. DI GANGI

DATE SUBMITTED: JULY 18, 2005

THESIS COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

Dr. Yarrow Nelson, Chair

________________________ Date: _______________

Dr. Harold Cota

________________________ Date: _______________

Dr. Andrew Kean

________________________ Date: _______________

iii

ABSTRACT POLLUTION PREVENTION SOLUTIONS FOR SMALL MANUFACTURERS: A MICROBREWERY CASE STUDY DONNA M. DI GANGI An industrial Pollution Prevention Opportunity Assessment (P2OA) is a highly advantageous method for reducing humanity's impact on the environment.

Manufacturers of all sizes can lessen their impact on the environment using this tool; however, a typical systematic, comprehensive P2OA is potentially too rigid and costly for the small business to undertake, rendering the process ineffective for small-scale manufacturers. Thus, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the P2OA process with application to the small manufacturer.

The assessment process developed and applied in this study differed from a typical P2OA approach in that prescribed guidelines were intentionally not followed and a pollution prevention program was not established prior to assessment. This study was thus

differentiated from a previous small business P2OA study by Betsch (1997), who systematically applied the assessment portion of the pollution prevention guideline developed by the U.S. Department of Energy, to small businesses. In contrast, in this study the process was developed as part of the study.

Through a case study of a microbrewery, it was determined that a dynamic, tailored approach that speaks directly to the manufacturer's concerns can result in environmentally positive and profitable changes, without a significant investment. The overall approach to the brewery was successful and the study revealed winning methods, such as employing a personal approach and paying particular attention to the business'

iv

operational style, that can be applied to other small business P2OA's. The process resulted in implementation of opportunities and interest by the brewery for the continued application of pollution prevention techniques. The brewery indicated that several

opportunities found in the assessment were likely to be implemented or have been implemented, such as the opportunity to use a blower in lieu of compressed air for bottle drying, to reduce energy consumption. Aside from those opportunities, the brewery was provided with a variety of other opportunities, such as the reuse of caustic soda and the use of thermal energy storage for refrigeration. Further, they were advised to decide which of the other opportunities they find advantageous to evaluate further.

The discovery and implementation of feasible opportunities resulting from this thesis demonstrated assessment success. The study's pollution prevention approach was

evaluated for its merit and shortcomings and recommendations were provided for use in future assessments. The lessons learned from this assessment are applicable to begin understanding small business needs and how to achieve results when performing small manufacturer P2OA's.

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to extend a special thanks to:

Dr. Yarrow Nelson for his dedication, guidance and inspiration in the field of pollution prevention.

Dr. Harold Cota for his support, advice and the invaluable lessons he taught me throughout the years.

Dr. Andrew Kean for his support, advice and technical assistance.

Firestone Walker Brewery for their wholehearted support of the project, with a special thanks to Matt, Jim and all of the brewery staff who helped make this experience successful and enjoyable.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................. ix LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ x INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 3 2.1 P2 Opportunity Assessment...................................................................................... 4 2.2 Environmental Benefits of P2OA ............................................................................. 4 2.2.1 Energy ................................................................................................................ 5 2.2.2 Water.................................................................................................................. 5 2.2.3 Chemicals........................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Life Cycle Assessment and P2OA............................................................................ 6 2.4 The P2OA Process .................................................................................................... 7 2.5 P2OA in Manufacturing............................................................................................ 9 2.6 Small Businesses P2OA Approach......................................................................... 13 2.7 Breweries ................................................................................................................ 17 2.7.1 Brewing Process............................................................................................... 17 2.7.2 Brewery P2 Opportunities................................................................................ 20 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 24 3.1 Business Selection .................................................................................................. 24 3.2 Approaching Manufacturer..................................................................................... 25 3.3 Assessment Approach............................................................................................. 26 3.4 Assessment Performance and Ranking................................................................... 27 3.5 Discussion and Feedback........................................................................................ 28

vii

3.6 Process Flow ........................................................................................................... 28 3.7 Process Participants ................................................................................................ 30 RESULTS ......................................................................................................................... 31 4.1 Opportunity Assessment ......................................................................................... 32 4.2 Opportunity Evaluation........................................................................................... 32 4.3 Opportunity Ranking and Recommendation .......................................................... 52 4.4 Environmental Improvement Marketing................................................................. 56 4.5 Additional Opportunities and Recommendations................................................... 56 4.6 Brewery Feedback .................................................................................................. 58 DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................... 60 5.1 Company Selection and Initial Discussion ............................................................. 60 5.2 Assessment.............................................................................................................. 61 5.3 Rating and Ranking................................................................................................. 64 5.4 Interview Results .................................................................................................... 67 5.5 Method Comparison................................................................................................ 67 5.6 Recommended Approach........................................................................................ 72 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................... 73 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 76 Appendix A: Derivation of Leak Equation....................................................................... 78

viii

LIST OF TABLES Table 1 - Simplified P2OA Rating...................................................................................... 8 Table 2 ­ P2 Opportunities and Payback Periods for Brewing Process Modifications.... 21 Table 3 ­ P2 Opportunities and Payback Periods............................................................. 22 Table 4 ­ Energy Use Breakdown for Breweries ............................................................. 23 Table 5 ­ Methodology Steps and Participants................................................................. 30 Table 6 - Opportunities Identified..................................................................................... 32 Table 7 - Detailed Analysis of Effects for Vacuum Pump Water..................................... 38 Table 8 - Comparison of Solar Systems ........................................................................... 40 Table 9 - Detailed Analysis for Solar Power .................................................................... 41 Table 10 - Operating Cost for Small Compressor ............................................................ 46 Table 11 - Performance Data Load Characteristics .......................................................... 46 Table 12 ­ Operating Costs for Large Compressor .......................................................... 47 Table 13 - Leak Test Pressure Change ............................................................................. 48 Table 14 - Estimated Hourly Compressed Air System Leak Costs .................................. 50 Table 15 - Estimated Annual Compressed Air System Leak Costs.................................. 50 Table 16 - P2 Opportunity Matrix .................................................................................... 54 Table 17 - P2 Decision Matrix.......................................................................................... 55 Table 18 - Additional P2 Opportunities............................................................................ 57

ix

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 ­ Life Cycle Assessment ...................................................................................... 6 Figure 2 ­ P2OA Activity Flow Chart.............................................................................. 11 Figure 3 ­ P2OA Small Business Flow ............................................................................ 16 Figure 4 ­ Brewing Process Flow..................................................................................... 18 Figure 5 ­ General P2OA Process Flow ........................................................................... 29 Figure 6 ­ Cost of Cleaning Comparison ......................................................................... 34 Figure 7 ­ Vacuum Pump and Motor ............................................................................... 36 Figure 8 ­ Piping Schematic ............................................................................................. 44 Figure 9 ­ Method Comparison ........................................................................................ 68 Figure 10 ­ Condensed Thesis Method ............................................................................ 72

x

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Industrial pollution prevention is a proactive approach to product and process design. It is intended to minimize humanity's effect on the environment by reducing environmental impacts of a product or process throughout the product life cycle. Pollution prevention (P2) techniques can be applied by manufacturers to identify the potential for waste minimization, energy and raw material usage reduction, and replacement of materials with safer, more environmentally friendly alternatives (Bishop, 2000). The techniques, when applied appropriately, provide the manufacturer with more efficient and environmentally friendly products and processes often resulting in cost savings.

P2 Opportunity Assessment, also known as P2OA or PPOA, is a common P2 technique and a basis for meeting pollution prevention goals. P2OA supports many potential rewards, since it identifies areas for environmental improvement (U.S. Marine Corps, 2000). Understanding how to adjust P2OA methods to particular business circumstances is critical to ensure successful industrial pollution prevention efforts. Industry is diverse, with variation in areas such as production volumes, available capital, and modus operandi, which modifies the definition of an ideal and applicable P2OA process. A small manufacturer is no exception. Small manufacturers in general can be evaluated for P2OA methodology that works best within the commonalities of this sector.

Small manufacturers who would generally have limited expendable resources and a somewhat informal operational style must overcome barriers to a successful P2OA. A highly structured approach to small business P2OA, such as the one used in a master's

1

thesis study by Betsch (1997), tends to be lengthy, which can set an immediate barrier to receptiveness of the process. Other approaches, such as the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency's (EPA) "Facility Pollution Prevention Guide" (1992), include establishment of a formal P2 program prior to assessment. Is it reasonable for a small manufacturer to adopt a formal P2 program? Do they have the resources to perform assessments? Ultimately, what are the best approaches to P2OA for a small manufacturer to obtain the highest value for the resources expended on P2?

Betsch's (1997) study demonstrated that a particular methodology could be made applicable to small manufacturers. An abridged version of the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) P2 program was used as the basis for the assessments in Betsch's (1997) study. In contrast, the P2OA process in this thesis was developed particularly to suit small manufacturers. It differs from the Betsch's process, as it does not necessarily adhere to the methods used in formal guidelines such as the aforementioned DOE program. The process for this thesis was intended to produce viable alternatives to a highly structured P2OA approach, for small businesses.

A case study was performed at a microbrewery in California, to consider these questions and understand some of the difficulties that could arise in the P2OA process. The brewery was considered a small manufacturer, with its less than 100 employees and its "hands-on" management style. Assessment at the brewery was performed using a P2OA approach modified and tailored to the needs of the business. The research was used to help understand and define tactics that facilitate or inhibit application of P2 assessment practices in the small business environment.

2

CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND

The U.S. Government's stance on P2 formally began with the "Pollution Prevention Act of 1990" (U.S. 42CFR, 1990), promulgated by the EPA. The National policy statement of the act is "to prevent or reduce pollution at its source whenever feasible" (EPA, 1990). The Act defines its "intent to promote source reduction and collect data on source reduction and recycling". The Act thus has provisions for providing matching funds to eligible businesses pursuing P2 projects and for providing references, referrals and documents to facilitate P2 activities (EPA, 1990). The Act requires businesses that are otherwise required to file a toxic chemical release form also to file a toxic reduction and recycling report (EPA, 1990).

Pollution prevention is defined by the Act as "the use of materials, processes, or practices that reduce the use of hazardous materials, energy, water, or other resources and practices that protect natural resources through conservation or more efficient use" (U.S. 42CFR, 1990). According to the Act, the term ''source reduction'', a key to pollution prevention, means: any practice which - (i) reduces the amount of any hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant entering any waste stream or otherwise released into the environment (including fugitive emissions) prior to recycling, treatment, or disposal; and (ii) reduces the hazards to public health and the environment associated with the release of such substances, pollutants, or contaminants. The term includes equipment or technology modifications, process or procedure modifications, reformulation or redesign of products, substitution of raw materials, and improvements in housekeeping, maintenance, training, or inventory control (U.S. 42CFR, 1990).

3

Part of the intent of the Act is to decrease industry's reliance on end-of-pipe treatment and encourage source reduction (Bishop, 2000). The question then becomes, how can this best be accomplished? 2.1 P2 Opportunity Assessment A P2 Opportunity Assessment (P2OA) proactively helps identify process or product changes that can prevent pollution. The process requires the identification of

opportunities that may be environmentally advantageous for a company to implement. Data for these opportunities are gathered and assessed, and factors, such as costs and environmental impacts are weighed for decision-making purposes.

Implementation of the projects that prove beneficial can lead to reduced environmental impacts, hazardous materials quantities, and regulatory burdens and increased production efficiency (EPA, 1992). Advertisement of P2 projects implemented by the company may result in an improved company image and enhanced product marketability. Waste may equate to inefficiency in the manufacturing environment. Since P2OA is an integral part of process improvement to reduce waste, changes from the P2OA process may improve manufacturing efficiency and subsequently increase profits. 2.2 Environmental Benefits of P2OA Pollution prevention's primary goal is to reduce the impact of manufacturing on the environment. The environmental benefits of a P2 opportunity depend on the nature of the improvement. Impacts from energy, water and chemical usage provide a general

understanding of the environmental factors typically assessed. The common effects in these areas are described by category.

4

2.2.1 Energy Reduction in energy usage reduces fossil fuel consumption and air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions. Power plants emit the criteria pollutants, CO, NOx, SOx, PM, and O3, defined in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (U.S. 40CFR, 1990) and toxic pollutants such as mercury. Power plant emissions in the U.S. average 1.35 pounds of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour (kWh) (DOE & EPA, 2000), thus for every kWh saved, 1.35 pounds less of the gas is emitted and the environmental impact is reduced. Additionally, energy usage at off-peak periods has the advantage of lowering power plant demand at peak times, which minimizes start-up of off-line utilities and the need to build additional power plants due to peak demands. 2.2.2 Water Reduction in the use of water not only saves water, but it saves the energy and chemicals required to produce and deliver the water. Water savings also reduces wastewater

effluent volumes and the energy and chemicals used in the wastewater treatment process, when the water is not consumed in the manufacturing process. 2.2.3 Chemicals Chemical manufacturing involves a variety of production processes and utilizes various and potentially hazardous raw materials. Reduction in the use of chemicals saves the energy and raw materials input into the production process, along with the energy associated with the transportation of the chemicals and the treatment and disposal of manufacturing waste.

5

2.3 Life Cycle Assessment and P2OA Life cycle assessment (LCA) was formally initiated by the U.S. Department of Energy, in the 1960's to 1970's (Bishop, 2000). LCA is a method of analyzing the environmental effects of "any given activity, from the initial gathering of raw material from the earth until the point at which all residuals are returned to the earth" (Bishop, 2000). The stages of a product's life cycle range from the extraction and processing of raw materials, through manufacturing, packaging and marketing of the product, to the use and disposal of the product. Figure 1 depicts these product life cycle stages.

Figure 1 ­ Life Cycle Assessment (UNEP, 2005)

The information gathered in a complete LCA provides the extensive information necessary to know the full environmental effects of providing a product. The results are useful as a means to compare and evaluate product and process options. A complete LCA, however, is an expensive, complex and labor-intensive process, costing tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars to perform (Bishop, 2000). Practically, a complete LCA 6

is not the easiest or necessarily the most economical method of preventing pollution, especially for a small manufacturer.

P2OA's tend to be less complex than a full life-cycle analysis providing the practicality that LCA's cannot. P2OA's offer a snapshot of the primary environmental effects

surrounding the process of interest and incorporate some of the environmental analysis techniques used in an LCA process. When it is necessary to know all the environmental impacts before and after the process of interest, an LCA would provide answers through all the product stages (see Figure 1). LCA, however, would not be the first approach to assessing environmental impacts if they can otherwise be effectively quantified within the boundaries of interest. Ideally, the P2OA process captures just enough environmental and other information to determine if an opportunity is viable. LCA thus becomes a support to the P2OA process when analyzing the environmental portion of the assessment, providing answers within a defined boundary or portion of the product life cycle. P2OA can be successful in instituting significant environmental improvements with a good return on investment. Conversely, LCA may or may not lead to significant environmental opportunities, but rather a detailed description of the environmental effects of each product and process stage. 2.4 The P2OA Process P2OA identifies P2 opportunities, evaluates them, and compares them, as a means to identify favorable projects to pursue. Based on a combination of P2 literature (Pojasek, 1998; EPA, 1992; U.S. Marine Corps, 2000), the P2OA process is structurally defined. The process ideally starts with agreement by management to support the objectives and

7

implementation of a formal P2 program. Next, a team is chartered with performing the P2OA and developing a plan. The team begins the evaluation, reviews the company's processes and products for potential opportunities and involves others as necessary. Team members determine the costs and benefits for each opportunity, from which they develop a decision matrix to rank and compare alternatives. The decision matrix is the summary of the evaluation process and leads to project implementation or rejection of projects. The evaluation matrix can also be used to determine if an opportunity is expected to provide sufficient advantages to justify additional analysis.

The decision matrix and ratings are the resultant outcome of the assessment. As an example, a simplified decision matrix is shown in Table 1. The matrix compares two alternatives, applying a ranking scale from one to five, with five denoting the most positive impacts for the listed criteria. In this example, the total score for the options indicates that switching to Chemical A would provide the most benefit because of its higher overall score. Switching to Chemical B would not provide as much benefit, as its score is lower than Chemical A's. Table 1 - Simplified P2OA Rating

Switch to Switch to Criteria Chemical A Chemical B Cost 4 2 Health and Safety 5 3 Environmental Impacts 3 5 Feasibility 4 1 Total 16 11 Scale: 5 is most positive; 1 is least positive

The ratings in the matrix become the basic guide to decision-making, while the depth and accuracy of the underlying assessment details define the accuracy and applicability of individual ratings. The assessment factors are generally chosen because of their

8

importance to the business goals and relation to the environmental impacts. Each factor may vary in importance, so ratings that account for the degree of importance offer comparable assessment totals. Based on the author's professional experience with similar rating methods, variability in rating is generally less prevalent when the same team members rate each opportunity. Rating results help lead to company decisions on where to invest efforts. Review of the detailed assessment can solidify the agreement to pursue or not pursue an opportunity. 2.5 P2OA in Manufacturing Manufacturers of all sizes can benefit from P2OA's that use a matrix rating approach to decision-making and that investigate their processes sufficiently to create a useful matrix. The literature is rich with methods to perform P2OA assessments, to assist the manufacturer. The methods incorporate multiple and well defined steps on how to perform an assessment. Guidelines, such as the comprehensive "Environmental Project Planning Guide", developed by the U.S. Marine Corps (2000), or EPA's "Facility Pollution Prevention Guide" (1992) can be used to perform a systematic and thorough P2OA. Such literature offers a straightforward, logical approach to assessment.

These and other guides encompass a similar list of steps, which require establishment of a pollution prevention program before beginning assessment. EPA's (1992) guide "is intended to help small-to-medium-sized production facilities develop broad-based, multimedia pollution prevention programs". The EPA states that companies are in the best position to judge how to develop a program that fits their circumstances and that following the steps in the guide leads to a sound P2 program (EPA 1992). The EPA

9

(1992) provides a flow chart of general activities needed to implement a program and perform P2OA's (see Figure 2).

Using the terminology and structure of EPA's flow chart, the first step common to P2 guides is "Establishment of a Pollution Prevention Program". The step is basic in

concept, yet it is not necessarily simplistic. The first part of establishing the program involves obtaining executive level support. Management support obstacles can be

minimized with top-level commitment to a P2 program.

Obtaining management support is theoretically simple, yet the effort required to obtain true support is often significant. Based on the author's professional involvement in corporate-wide initiatives, such as implementation of ISO 9000 based quality systems, obtaining executive support can be the most difficult part of program implementation. Suggested reasons for the lack of support include:

1. Lack of clarity about the benefits of the program 2. Absence of solid cost figures related to potential benefits 3. Expected low margin of return on investment 4. No connection between the program and marketing advantages 5. Financial restraints for non-essential activities 6. Perceived importance of numerous other priorities 7. Lack of strong middle management or in-house expertise to propose the concept

10

Figure 2 ­ P2OA Activity Flow Chart (EPA, 1992)

11

The next two steps of the establishment stage are the development of a policy statement and building of consensus. Again, based upon the author's business experience, these tasks can be formidable, even with executive management support. The policy statement comes from top-level management and consensus building requires demonstration of commitment by the management. The reason for difficulty in these tasks is often due to management's passive, rather than active, support of the program.

Part of P2 program establishment is the organization of the program and performance of a preliminary assessment. These activities, usually led by the person or persons initiating the idea of pollution prevention, can help minimize reasons for lack of support by upper management while providing useful information for the next stage of the process. At some level, in all successful programs, a team of one or many is formed, assessments are started and evaluated, and management agrees to the concept.

After reaching a consensus on P2 policy, execution of the assessment plan can begin. The final stage is progress measurement. Unfortunately, for many programs, such as the aforementioned ISO 9000 based quality systems, the act of measuring progress is generally neglected. The step is essential to evaluating the program's success, which in turn is essential to confirmed acceptance of the program's merits. After measuring progress, the flow chart loops back to performing a detailed assessment. Completion of all steps is anticipated to lead to continuation of the P2 program.

The order of assessment activities is clearly prescribed in guidebooks.

The guides

provide questions to ask in each stage, along with numerous worksheets and checklists to use in the process. The complexity and volume of guidance documentation is extensive

12

and may be more than a typical manufacturer would be willing to review, when not already committed to P2. 2.6 Small Businesses P2OA Approach Literature guidelines for P2OA's appear to focus on a comprehensive process geared toward companies that agree to invest time and effort into a formal pollution prevention program. Such a comprehensive approach could prove too costly for the small

manufacturer and may require significant staff involvement, the time for which is often too valuable to spare. The thorough, systematic processes of the guidebooks suggest that they will develop a good P2 program, yet the process may appear to be daunting and may generate resistance, especially from the perspective of the small manufacturer.

Performing steps sequentially and to the level of detail expressed by the guidebooks may go against the grain of a small company with its freedom of operational style, rendering the comprehensive, formal guides obsolete, even though the guidebooks do not preclude use by small businesses. The author's professional experience demonstrates that

companies with relaxed operational styles tend to resist structured or intensive attempts at change.

In a small business, although management may be more receptive to hearing about such a program, the need for management support is essential for successful P2 program implementation. If the business does not pursue a formal P2 program but only pursues P2OA, it is still necessary to have management support to perform a P2OA. Lack of support is not the only obstacle. A potentially hidden obstacle is management support that is not wholehearted. In this case, when the executive staff reaches only a partial

13

agreement, the program has the potential to be rescinded or deferred indefinitely to meet other priorities.

For large and small businesses alike, technological and economic feasibility are important factors to consider. For a large, well-established corporation, large capital outlays are potentially feasible. Economic feasibility is an especially important consideration for a small manufacturing facility, as they are not likely to have expendable capital to await a return on their investment. Many high dollar projects are unreasonable and the P2OA process itself can be cost prohibitive, if not tailored to small business needs. Smaller manufacturers may not have the resources available to develop a formal program outside daily operations. They may simply not implement pollution prevention improvements or implement ad-hoc improvements that arise during daily activities, with or without a good understanding of the impacts or the justification for making the change. The conflict of a highly structured approach in a less structured working environment may not result in good acceptance of the P2OA process or provide the most useful information per dollar spent for the assessment. A modified approach of identifying obviously beneficial

opportunities with direct, hands-on assistance from the management team, workforce, and vendors may better suit the smaller firm.

The U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) adaptation of the master's thesis entitled "Pollution Prevention Program: Applications for Small Business" (Betsch, 1997) follows a modified approach to the DOE's standard P2 process for small businesses. The

methods originally developed by the DOE for larger businesses are tailored to assess small businesses, in the Betsch thesis. According to Betsch's (1997) study, the DOE

14

wanted to know whether their P2OA guidebook was successful for use in a small business environment. The study found that the DOE's P2 process was adaptable and effective at taking small businesses from environmental compliance to environmental competitiveness.

Initially, the DOE's large manufacturer P2OA process was adopted from EPA's P2OA format (Betsch, 1997), making it similar to the EPA method previously described. Betsch's thesis is distinguished from DOE's large manufacturer approach by limiting the process to the P2OA portions of the P2 program at the assessed facilities. The P2OA process used by Betsch is a formal approach, as charted in Figure 3, and includes the use of preset worksheets to follow during assessment and document assessment findings.

The proposed research method in this thesis differs from Betsch's (1997) focus. Betsch developed a formal assessment method more tailored to the needs of the small business, yet still encompassing adherence to a particular flow of events and documentation methods. In contrast, the study herein focuses on the free flow of events to see what approaches lead to effective progress toward pollution prevention, rather than applying a particular process strategy. Further, Betsch's (1997) process began with identification of priority waste streams, whereas this process began with P2 discussion and identification of the needs and expectations of the business. Overall, this study focused on simplified, integrated application of the process with business needs as a top priority, using only the portions of P2OA that are necessary to produce useful results with minimal burden on the small manufacturer.

15

Identify Priority Waste Streams Select an Activity for Further Study Identify P2OA Team Members Walk Through Facility and Gather Activity Inputs and Outputs Brainstorm Possible P2 Opportunities

Select New Assessment Activities and/or Re-Evaluate Previous Options

File for Reference

Select P2 Opportunities for Further Evaluation Yes Research Opportunities

No

Calculate: Waste Reduction and/or Energy Savings Annual Cost Savings Implementation Cost and Payback

Select Opportunities for Implementation Repeat the Process Yes Prepare Final Summary with Recommended Options

No

Obtain Funding Yes Implement P2 Opportunties

No

Figure 3 ­ P2OA Small Business Flow (Betsch, 1997) 16

Pojasek (1998) argues that an assessment approach to P2 does not preclude continued P2 efforts and that a systems approach is necessary to provide these efforts. Even though a systems approach may provide the long-term benefits of a P2 program, attempts to establish a P2 program in lieu of a direct assessment may preclude all P2 efforts due to the perception of a higher level of commitment to a program than to an assessment. It is expected that in a small business, due in part to immersion of the management in the process, that P2 efforts will continue if the P2OA's were successful. The effects of a P2OA assessment towards establishing a P2 program, although noteworthy, are beyond the scope of this study. 2.7 Breweries The case-study assessment for the P2OA of this study was performed at a microbrewery. The basics of the microbrewing process are described below, along with P2 history for breweries. 2.7.1 Brewing Process Brewing processes are thoroughly described in literature, such as in those found in "Technology Brewing and Malting", by Wolfgang Kunze (1996). The general process flow is shown in Figure 4 and a general description follows, beginning with milling.

17

Figure 4 ­ Brewing Process Flow (Galitsky et. al., 2003 from United Nations Industrial Development Organization)

18

Process Overview (Kunze, 1996; Galitsky et. al., 2003) 1. Milling involves processing grain through a wet or dry process to provide a good yield of preferred characteristics from the grain. 2. Mashing is performed primarily by heating grain with water to produce a high yield of distinctive sweet wort. 3. Lauter Tun processing separates the wort from the mash. 4. Wort processing sterilizes and stops the enzymatic processing of the beer to cultivate the desired color and flavor. The boiling process is considered the most intensive energy use in the brewing process. Hop and wort filtering occurs as needed and the wort is cooled, using a refrigerant material. 5. Fermentation adds yeast to the cooled wort to metabolize fermentable sugars generating alcohol and carbon dioxide, a 3 to 10 day process. Cooling is

generally necessary in this process because heat is generated by yeast metabolism. Beer is transferred to a tank for aging. 6. Carbonation is added to the beer at this stage. 7. Filtration removes solids from the beer to maintain quality and consistency. 8. Filling requires clean bottles, cans or kegs into which the beer is injected and capped. 9. Pasteurization kills microorganisms, generally prior to filling, although other methods are available to ensure the absence of microorganisms. 10. Labeling and packaging is the final step prior to shipment.

19

2.7.2 Brewery P2 Opportunities The brewing process utilizes water, energy and chemicals. The process consumes

approximately 8.5 to 13.5 gallons of water for every gallon of beer produced (Kunze, 1996). Wastewater with a biochemical oxygen demand requiring treatment is also

produced. Energy is used to run the brewhouse and bottling line, including the energy required for lighting, air compression, refrigeration, heating, conveyors, actuators, pumps, and various other tools. Chemicals are primarily used as disinfectants, as

cleaning solutions, and for water and wastewater treatment processes. The environmental impacts from use of these resources can provide multiple opportunities for improvement.

The brewing industry has been previously evaluated for P2 opportunities. One of these evaluations from the literature provides a list of opportunities and their approximate payback periods for the brewing process, as shown in Tables 2 and 3 (Golitsky et. al., 2003). Others can specifically be found in the literature, in such documents as "Pollution Prevention Diagnostic Assessment Brewery Final Report" (U.S. Agency for International Development., 1997) and in the "Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook ­ Brewery" (World Bank, 1998).

Energy use breakdown for breweries is shown in Table 4, again from Golitsky et.al. (2003). Table 4 indicates that refrigeration and machine drive costs comprise the majority of energy costs. In an opportunity assessment, these are promising areas to consider for reducing energy consumption.

20

Table 2 ­ P2 Opportunities and Payback Periods for Brewing Process Modifications (Galitsky et. al., 2003)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Payback period may be longer Payback period depends on systems used currently and could be shorter Payback period depends on makeup/exhaust airflow, weather conditions and electricity rates Small water pump size and low cost of purchased CO2 would create a longer payback period Payback periods based on a retrofit (cited Anheuser-Busch, 2001).

21

Table 3 ­ P2 Opportunities and Payback Periods (Galitsky et. al., 2003)

1. Payback period depends on tuning conditions of existing systems 2. Payback periods may be longer 3. Payback periods depend on existing conditions 4. Savings depend on how often the motor is run at less than full speed 5. Payback period varies depending on purging of the system before and how careful the operators performed pump outs (cited Anheuser-Busch, 2001).

22

Table 4 ­ Energy Use Breakdown for Breweries (Galitsky et. al., 2003)

Overall, established P2 opportunities for breweries along with those found during the brewery assessment for this thesis are good potential bases for beginning a brewery P2OA. Additionally, literature from other industries, for equipment such as air

compression and refrigeration, can provide ideas for small manufacturing or brewery assessment.

23

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY

The methodology for this study was derived considering the premise that a simplified P2OA approach, as opposed to the comprehensive approach found in the standard guidebooks, would be sensible to apply in a small manufacturer setting. Contrary to guidebook recommendations, a P2 program was not established before the P2OA was performed. Standard assessment flows were not intentionally followed and worksheets from the guidebooks were not incorporated. Concepts from guidebooks were applied when they facilitated assessment and did not detract from the general approach. Particular attention was paid to small business needs throughout the process.

The author of this thesis was also the assessor and contact to the business partner. The assessor's background comprised of an environmental engineering degree, a quality assurance degree, and quality management experience, along with extensive manufacturing process, product, and marketing experience in small, medium, and large manufacturing operations. The assessor also had basic P2OA training, through a These factors were considered conducive to

graduate study course on the topic.

performing the assessment and ensuring a good understanding of the business' needs as they arose during the process. 3.1 Business Selection The focus was to apply P2 assessment procedures to a relatively small manufacturing operation, defined as a facility with fewer than 100 employees whose management team performs regular, hands-on activities in production and is well versed in the production

24

process. The facility also would not have a formal P2 program or dedicated P2 staff and would operate within a relatively flexible work environment. Manufacturers in the State of California were considered for the case study. The ideal manufacturer was a willing business, near the University, with a variety of P2 opportunities. Companies were

selected for initial contact based on the author's general impression of the company's ability to meet the criteria. The ability to meet the criteria was evaluated during the contact. Once the facility was chosen, particular aspects of the assessment were derived and tailored to the selected business. 3.2 Approaching Manufacturer The approach was to contact various businesses by telephone to find one willing to meet about the project. The content for initial interaction was prepared in advance. It included a brief introduction as a graduate student, the basic pollution prevention concept, the merits of P2OA, and mention of the assessor's previous manufacturing experience.

Plans for the meeting were set after successful initial contact. The meeting consisted of discussion about the project and a written, short presentation on the following topics: 1. Definition of pollution prevention 2. P2 assessments and expected outcomes 3. Example of an assessment 4. Project timeline The presentation laid the framework for the process, in which the company was informed of the overall project scope and their role throughout the process, which was to participate in review of the manufacturing process, be available for questions, and review

25

and rank the opportunities. It was also explained that the impact on their operations would be minimal and activities would be performed over a 6-month period. The goal of the meeting was to emphasize the use of cost-benefit analysis for decision-making, discover and address small business needs and concerns, and attain agreement to proceed. 3.3 Assessment Approach The goal of the P2OA was to see what really works for a small business. The main question to be answered was how an impact could be made in a small business with the least amount of assessment cost and disruption to operations, while promoting evaluation and implementation of P2 opportunities.

A simple approach was utilized, focusing on obvious improvements or improvements with short returns and somewhat definitive payback assurance. Extensive process

mapping was expected to be too complex and anything more in-depth than a highly abridged LCA, too broad. Cost analysis was limited to simple financial calculations. Impact analysis was limited to inputs for manufacturing, marketing, and packaging processes, which were considered direct impacts of the facility. Readily identifiable aspects beyond these boundaries were discussed where appropriate.

The overall approach was to investigative and identify potential techniques a small manufacturer would find useful. The P2OA was led by the assessor, calling upon process expertise offered by the manufacturer's personnel and management. Management was expected to be the assessor's primary company contact and facilitator.

26

3.4 Assessment Performance and Ranking The level of detail used to quantify or qualify effects of an opportunity varied for each assessment. Opportunities were analyzed to reveal information concerning the functional level of detail required for decision-making. Detail included qualification and

quantification of capital costs, operating costs, and environmental improvements, along with marketing, quality and operational impacts.

A listing of P2 opportunities was developed by reviewing processes with employees. No particular assessment format was used, as the intent was to adapt the format during the process to achieve the best results. The practices employed were dynamic and developed as the project progressed within the 6-month timeframe. Opportunities were listed in a table format along with their associated environmental impacts. Information related to each opportunity was gathered by the assessor and discussed as necessary with company management, staff, distributors, and vendors.

A matrix rating approach was used for decision-making. The rating matrix developed from the opportunities, weighed each criterion on a 5-point scale, with five denoting the most positive impact. Criteria were suggested by the assessor and negotiated with the management. The assessor described the results of the analysis and the rating process, and the manufacturer performed the ratings with some assistance from the assessor. A final assessment report was provided to the company's management for reference.

27

3.5 Discussion and Feedback P2OA results were discussed further to assist with questions about P2OA and opportunity implementation. Additionally, an exit interview with the management was performed to obtain feedback on the P2OA process, using the following questions: 1. What did you think about the initial approach to the project? 2. What was the most frustrating part of the project? 3. Do you feel that the rankings are solid? If not, what would make them more solid? 4. What are the top benefits the assessment brings to your company? 5. Would you like to perform future assessments? 6. Do you find these improvements profitable to your business? Would you be willing to pay for a P2 service as long as the overall results were profitable? 7. Do you foresee increasing your tolerable payback periods and why? 8. Do you think you will encourage P2 activities from the staff after this experience? 3.6 Process Flow The assessment process flow, based on the methodology, is charted in Figure 5. The first four steps in the flowchart encompass the approach to the manufacturer to attain agreement to proceed with a P2OA. If the company does not agree to proceed, yet is willing to discuss the idea further, additional information may be presented to achieve agreement. The next four steps are part of the assessment approach, which are repeated as necessary to culminate into the assessment report. After the report is generated, assessment results are discussed and opportunities are rated. Finally, discussion and feedback about the process is made and the final report delivered to the company.

28

Figure 5 ­ General P2OA Process Flow

29

3.7 Process Participants The methodology steps involved one or more of the following participants: the assessor, company management, company staff, and distributors or vendors, as marked in Table 5. The assessor performed all of the activities. The company's management and staff were involved in several stages and the distributors/vendors for the company were utilized during the information gathering stage.

Table 5 ­ Methodology Steps and Participants

Step 3.1 Business Selection 3.2 Approaching Manufacturer 3.3 Assessment Approach - Define Approach - Assessment Plan 3.4 Assessment - Opportunity Identification - Information Gathering - Analysis - Report - Discussion and Ranking X X X X X X X X * X X * X X X X Assessor X X X X Company Management Company Distributors/ Staff Vendors

3.5 Discussion and Feedback X X Legend: X denotes activity by the participant for the step. *Minor involvement with the process step.

30

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS

The small manufacturer that was chosen for evaluation is a micro-brewing facility located in California. Annually, the facility produces approximately 7 million bottles of beer and employs less than 100 people. Brewery management enjoys a hands-on approach to manufacturing.

The facility was selected for the assessor's interest in the industry, its variety of manufacturing processes, the company's prior relationship to the University, and ultimately the company's support of the project. The brewery's manufacturing processes allowed for examination of distinct pollution prevention opportunities, including processes that utilize water, energy, chemicals, organic materials and several methods of water and effluent treatment. The brewery was the first choice for evaluation they were very receptive to the project and P2 in general. After this successful find, no alternate companies were contacted.

Review of brewery processes revealed that the brewery had already incorporated various pollution prevention measures. Examples of these existing P2 strategies included: 1. Brewer's grain and excess yeast sent to a local farmer for feed and other uses 2. Insulated piping systems 3. Natural lighting 4. Variable speed pumps 5. Heat exchangers

31

New P2 opportunities were identified during this assessment and evaluated. The results of the assessment consist of the P2 opportunities, analysis and ranking of the opportunities, and recommendations to the brewery, which are described below. 4.1 Opportunity Assessment Review of brewery processes generated eight opportunities focused on process inputs, even though opportunities focused on waste reduction were identifiable. The titles of the opportunities are listed in Table 5 along with their potential for environmental improvement. The item number assigned in the table corresponds to the opportunity number referenced in the descriptions and evaluations that follow. The items in Table 6 are not in any order of importance.

Table 6 - Opportunities Identified

Opportunity CIP* with low volume, high pressure heads 2 Use recycled paper for packaging 3 Vacuum pump water recirculation or reuse 4 Solar power installation 5 Eliminate labels on bottle necks 6 Eliminate air compression system leaks 7 Utilize electric or hydraulic tools 8 Isolate compressed air distribution *Clean-in-place Item 1 Environmental Impacts · Lowers water consumption · Lowers effluent flow · Completes paper life cycle · Reduces wood consumption · Lowers water consumption · Lowers effluent flow · Lowers fossil fuel consumption · Reduces paper and ink use · Reduces glue use · Lowers energy consumption · Lowers energy consumption · Lowers energy consumption

4.2 Opportunity Evaluation Overall, production at the case-study facility follows general industry practice and production flow. The two major brewery processes are brewing and bottling.

32

Opportunities involve either one of the major processes or they are general opportunities affecting equipment or a process that supports the entire operation, such as air compression, refrigeration, and water and wastewater treatment. Most opportunities that were evaluated in this assessment involved the bottling line and general operations. The brewhouse operations were evaluated, however major opportunities specific to this area were not addressed because they were too complex or lengthy to evaluate within the scope of this study. Opportunities identified from Table 6 are discussed below.

Opportunity 1: Clean in Place with Low Volume, High Pressure Heads Clean-in-place (CIP) heads are used for tank cleaning operations in the brewhouse. According to Alfa Laval (2005), the manufacturer of Toftejorg CIP heads, rotary jet heads offer lower cleaning costs than rotary spray heads or static spray balls (see Figure 6). The brewery is using Toftejorg brand heads. The heads used are the SaniMagnum and the SaniMidget, which are both rotary spray heads. Rotary spray heads are already considered low volume, high-pressure heads. However, based on Alfa Laval's data shown in Figure 6, improved efficiency may be attainable with rotary jet heads.

The recommendation is to consider rotary jet heads when rotary spray heads need replacement. As the current heads are already in the low volume, high-pressure range, and the brewery is not currently replacing any heads, the cost and efficiency differences between rotary jet head and rotary spray heads were not quantified. It is recommended to contact the company, Alfa Laval, when heads need replacement to quantify the costs and advantages of rotary jet heads over rotary spray heads. The potential replacement for rotary spray heads is the brew kettle version of Toftejorg's TZ-74 rotary jet head.

33

Figure 6 ­ Cost of Cleaning Comparison (Alfa Laval, 2005) Opportunity 2: Use Recycled Paper for Packaging Use of recycled paper for packaging helps environmentally by reducing wood consumption and the impacts of processes used to refine the wood for paper pulp. The brewery has been using recycled corrugated cartons, since its inception. At the time the assessment began, the brewery was not using interior paperboard packaging made from recycled paper. As of March 2005, the brewery began using recycled paper for its paperboard packaging, with no additional cost for the change. The effect of this study towards the change to recycled paperboard is unknown to brewery staff.

Bottle labels are not made from recycled materials. However, investigation revealed that due to the high quality paper required for the labels, recycled content labels are not available and/or are cost prohibitive. Further, the assessor estimates the environmental

34

impact of the labels to be relatively minor compared to the packaging, due to the smaller quantity of paper used. Increased sales for environmentally responsible packaging may be a benefit of using more recycled materials. It is recommended to label packaging with recycling statements, such as recycled content percentage and percent post-consumer recycled content, to inform consumers of the environmentally responsible packaging.

Opportunity 3: Vacuum Pump Water Recirculation or Reuse The vacuum pump is used to create a vacuum to remove oxygen from the bottles during the bottle filling process. Air is first evacuated from the bottles by the vacuum pump. Carbon dioxide gas, which is introduced into the bottles to ensure maximum oxygen depletion, is subsequently evacuated by the pump. The vacuum pump requires a flow of cooling water to reduce gas temperature to allow formation of the vacuum.

The water used to operate the pump and the evacuated gases exit the pump as a liquid-gas mixture. The mixture enters into the gas-liquid separator in which the gas rises above the liquid and separates from it. The gas exits the pipe at the top of the separator and the water (liquid) discharges to the floor drain. (See Figure 7 for a picture of the pump, gas/liquid separator, and motor.) Several measurements of water flow were taken by collecting water for a period measured by a stopwatch and measuring the volume of the water collected within that time. The tests demonstrated that the water drains from the separator at a flow rate of 4-6 gal/min. The discarded water was determined to be an opportunity for improvement in terms of water consumption and a contributor to the wastewater flow. Options evaluated to reduce water usage included full recirculation, partial recirculation or recovery of water for reuse elsewhere in the brewery.

35

According to the pump manufacturer, water temperature is the single-most important factor affecting pump performance (Brindisi, 2005). Raising the water temperature

affects pump performance and compromises the vacuum and the pump will cease to pull the required vacuum if the water temperature is too high. When the pressure immediately before the pump is 0 pounds per square inch (psig), the pump takes in only as much water as it needs. The brewery's operating pressure is set at the optimal pressure for flow control. A lower water temperature decreases flow (Brindisi, 2005), yet water-cooling is not recommended as it requires refrigerant energy. Foam sometimes exits the pump instead of water, making all options difficult without a tank to ensure consistency in water flow.

Gas/Liquid Separator Motor

Gas

Pump

Water

Figure 7 ­ Vacuum Pump and Motor

36

Based on the part number, the pump was determined to be a cast iron pump with a bronze impeller (Brindisi, 2005). Carbon dioxide is evacuated from the filling machine by the vacuum pump and combines with the water flowing through the pump. The carbonic acid formed by this process would corrode the interior of the pump and recirculation system. The carbonic acid and water temperature issues along with the capital equipment and operating costs generate a payback period of greater than 3 years for partial or full recirculation (Brindisi, 2005). When the pump needs replacement, the manufacturer suggests purchasing a stainless steel pump and the full recirculation option.

Corrosion problems from the carbonic acid would need to be addressed for a water reuse option. The water would require treatment to raise the pH and ensure contaminants and foam evacuated from the bottle filler are removed to provide a consistent and desirable water quality. Water through the pump only contacts the pump metal (no grease) adding no additional contamination if the water is reused. Stainless steel piping and a holding tank is recommended for reuse to prevent corrosion and provide a consistent water quality and a pump is needed to deliver the water.

It costs the brewery approximately $0.16/gal·hr for water use and wastewater discharge, estimated from their water and sewer bill. At that rate, the annual savings to recover four to six gallons of water per minute is approximately $339 to $508, based on a 10 hr/day, 3 day/week, and 52 week/year operation period. The cost for piping, a holding tank, a pump and water conditioning is expected to exceed the annual savings from water reduction. An estimate of $300 for a small, standard pump to deliver the water was provided by the vacuum pump manufacturer (Brindisi, 2005). It is expected that the

37

piping, holding tank and other parts such as valves, in combination with a pump, will exceed the annual six gal/min. savings of $508.

A detailed analysis of the three options discussed is shown in Table 7. Water reuse does not appear to be a viable option. Reuse is expected to have a payback period of at least one year, and therefore it is recommended to consider partial or full recirculation, as the manufacturer suggested, when the pump needs replacement. Table 7 - Detailed Analysis of Effects for Vacuum Pump Water

Aspect

Product Quality Operational Impact Employee hours Scheduling Other No effect No effect Poor vacuum Corrosion Foam No effect No effect Poor vacuum Corrosion Foam No effect No effect Use for the water Corrosion Foam

Partial Recirculation

No effect

Full Recirculation

No effect

Reuse

No effect

Product Marketing Environmental Perception Other Environmental Effects Water Usage Wastewater Treatment Wastewater sludge Energy Usage Chemical Usage Air Pollutants Greenhouse Gases Solid Waste Regulatory Permits Regulatory Perception Reduced 50% Reduced 50% Minimal effect Pump, heat exchanger Acid removal Increase at utility Increase at utility N/A N/A Some benefit possible Reduced 100% Reduced 100% Minimal effect Pump, heat exchanger Acid removal Increase at utility Increase at utility N/A N/A Some benefit possible Reduced 100% Reduced 100% Minimal effect Pump Acid removal Increase at utility Increase at utility N/A N/A Some benefit possible Cumulative effect No effect Cumulative effect No effect Cumulative effect No effect

Costs Capital (total) Pump, heat exchanger, piping, coolant Water savings, pumping cost, cooling costs >3 Pump, heat exchanger, piping, coolant Water savings, pumping cost, cooling costs >3 Tank, pump, piping Water savings versus pump costs 1

Annual Operating (savings) Payback Period (years)

38

Opportunity 4: Solar Power Installation The brewery was considering a specific quote from Renewable Energy Concepts, Inc. (REC) for the use of solar energy, prior to the P2 assessment. The solar system would generate a portion of the brewery's electric requirements and would be directly connected to the power transmission lines already feeding the brewery. REC provided a solar power quotation and analysis to the brewery in 2004. The quote analyzed two possible systems. The first assessment is for a 54,242-watt system with an annual estimated production of 88,221 kWh of energy per year (REC, 2004). REC estimates this to be 12% of the brewery's total electrical energy usage. Electric rates used for REC's analysis are based on the brewery's rate schedule from their utility company in 2004.

Based on a 25-year system life and a capital cost of $230,929, REC estimates a cost of $0.051 per kWh for solar power generation. The system has a payback period of eight years (REC, 2004). Over 20 years, the system is expected to return $242,962 to the brewery in utility energy savings for an internal rate of return of 12% over 20 years (REC, 2004). Information for the second system, an 18,537-watt system, and the cost detail for the first system, are shown in Table 8, in which the two systems are compared. Warranties for both systems are identical.

The REC report discusses how the shading from solar panels may be beneficial for refrigeration systems or other systems inside the building that would benefit from lower temperatures (REC, 2004). Depending on the location of the panels, the brewery may benefit with its chiller and air compression systems and general comfort in the building

39

during the summer months (REC, 2004). The potential energy savings from shading by the panels is expected to be comparatively negligible.

Table 8 - Comparison of Solar Systems (REC, 2004)

Factor System Size (Watts) Power Production (kWh/year) % of Brewery's Electricity Usage Design Life of System (years) Purchase Price of System ($) Annual Operating Costs ($) Cost of Solar Power ($/kWh) Payback Period (years) Internal Rate of Return (% over 20 yrs.) Financial Return ($ over 20 years) System 1 54,242 88,221 12 25 230,929 366 0.051 8 12 242,962 System 2 18,537 30,546 4 25 87,252 133 0.056 9 11 80,332

REC (2004) cites other benefits for having the system, which includes a reduction of risk from electric price increases and the ability to market as the first on-site solar electric powered brewery in the United States. Green marketing aspects in REC's (2004) report include product distinction from competition and national recognition for renewable energy generation, such as the recognition the Silk Soy Milk producers received from the EPA. The report (REC, 2004) described the "green energy" logo that may be available for use with solar power and considered the brewery's use of solar power as a natural fit with the company's commitment to environmental responsibility (REC 2004).

REC's analysis was evaluated and determined to be reasonable and detailed. It delineates appropriate factors used to determine the system requirements, costs and investment returns. The analysis accounted for financial aspects, such as utility company rebates and expected energy rate increases. For purposes of deciding if either solar option is feasible,

40

REC's analysis provides a rational basis for the decision. If one of the options proves feasible, it is recommended that the figures be rechecked and underlying calculations justified. A quote from an alternate vendor is recommended for comparative purposes. A detailed analysis of the impacts of the two solar power options is provided in Table 9. Table 9 - Detailed Analysis for Solar Power

Aspect

Product Quality Operational Impact Employee hours Scheduling Other Product Marketing Environmental Perception Other Environmental Effects Water Usage Wastewater Treatment Wastewater sludge Fossil Fuel Use* Chemical Usage Air Pollutants Greenhouse Gases Solid Waste Regulatory Permits Regulatory Perception Costs Capital 20 year financial return Payback Period (years)

System 1

None

System 2

None

None None None

None None None

Environmental Responsibility Some Competitive Advantage

Environmental Responsibility Some Competitive Advantage

Reduced at Utility Reduced at Utility None to brewery 12% reduction None to brewery Reduced at Utility Reduced at Utility None to brewery None to brewery Possibly some benefit

Reduced at Utility Reduced at Utility None to brewery 4% reduction None to brewery Reduced at Utility Reduced at Utility None to brewery None to brewery Possibly some benefit

230,929 242,962 8

87,252 80,332 9

*From REC (2004)

Opportunity 5: Eliminate Labels on Bottle Necks Labels are glued to the body of the bottle for all products. According to the brewery's 12-month forecast, body labels total around 7 million. Around half of these products also have an additional label glued to the bottle neck, amounting to approximately 3.5 million neck labels.

41

Neck labels cost $3.49 for 1000 labels. Using the exact figures from the 12-month forecast, the annual cost of neck labels is $11,104 for in-house brands of beer and $1659 for other brands. The total annual cost of neck labels is $12,763.

The brewery's 12-month forecast for glue cost is $7215. Assuming neck labels use onefourth of the glue that a body label does, then bottles with neck labels would use five parts of glue as opposed to four parts of glue on bottles without neck labels. Using this ratio, approximately one-ninth of the glue used is for neck labels, resulting in an annual cost of approximately $800 for neck label glue. The cost savings for glue is thus minor compared to the cost of the actual labels.

Environmentally, labels and glue have impacts due to the production and delivery of the labels and glue. For the glue, casein production, water, energy and transportation are the main environmental impacts. For the labels, use of paper pulp, water, chemicals, inks, energy and transportation are the main environmental impacts.

It was observed that attaching neck labels takes longer to stabilize on the bottling line than do body labels. It is recommended that difficulties with neck labeling be analyzed further to determine if substantial down time occurs from neck labeling.

Marketing is the number one reason cited by brewery management as the reason for the neck labels, and a strong consideration for keeping them. Overall, it is recommended that the marketing advantages be compared with the cost savings and environmental impacts, to determine if neck labels should be eliminated.

42

Opportunities 6, 7 & 8: Air Compression The brewery's air compression system was evaluated for leaks, use of non-pneumatic tools, and capability to isolate sections of the system.

Compressed Air System Overview The brewery operates two air compressors. One is a large, high-efficiency rotary screw compressor and the other is a small reciprocating compressor. The compressors operate as needed, to supply compressed air to brewery production processes at a supply system pressure of 110 pounds per square inch (psi).

Compressed air is generated by the compressors and sent through an air treatment system. After treatment, the air enters a storage tank, which feeds a distribution pipe with a valve a few feet from the tank. The valve in the closed position isolates the air supply system from the distribution system. The distribution system piping branches to the bottling line and then continues on to the brewhouse. Between the bottling line and brewhouse, a valve in the distribution system can be placed in the closed position to isolate the air delivery to the bottling line from the brewhouse (see Figure 8).

The large compressor generally operates to maintain system pressure and runs at full or partial load. The large compressor can meet the all of the plant's demand and operates at the load required to meet the demand. The small compressor is run independent of and instead of the large compressor. It does not have variable load capability. The small compressor is operated alone when the demand is low, as it is potentially less expensive to run than the large compressor at partial load.

43

Figure 8 ­ Piping Schematic Operating Costs Energy costs to operate the compressors are calculated as shown in Equation 1.

Cost($) = (bhp) x (0.746) x (# of operating hours) x ($/kWh) x (% time) x (% full load bhp) (Eq. 1) , Motor efficiency

(U.S. Department of Energy, 2004) where: bhp ­ motor full-load brake horsepower 0.746 ­ kilowatts per horsepower % time ­ percentage of time running at this operating level % full load bhp ­ bhp as percentage of full-load bhp at this operating level Motor Efficiency ­ motor efficiency at this operating level.

44

The % time, from Equation 1, equals 100% and the number of operating hours equals one when considering cost on a per operating hour basis. For cost per operating hour, Equation 1 becomes: Cost($) (bhp) x (0.746) x ($/kWh) x (% full load bhp) = (Eq. 2) hr Motor efficiency Equation 2 is used to calculate hourly costs.

According to Kissock (2005), it is reasonable to assume a compressor generates approximately 4.2 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm) of compressed air per hp. This amounts to a generation of 210 scfm (12,600 scf/hour) for the 50 hp large compressor at full load and 31.5 scfm (1890 scf/hour) for the 7.5 hp small compressor.

Equation 3 is used to calculate costs per one thousand standard cubic feet (scf) of air generated (UE Systems, 2005).

Cost($) 0.746 x ($/kWh) x 1000 = (Eq. 3) 1000 scf Motor efficiency x 60 x 4.2 where:

0.746 ­kilowatts per horsepower 1000 ­ conversion from scf to 1000 scf Motor Efficiency ­ motor efficiency at this operating level 60 ­ minutes per hour 4.2 ­ standard cubic feet per minute per bhp.

Electrical energy costs to the brewery of $0.16/kWh in the summer months of May to October and $0.11/kWh in the winter months of November to April are estimated based on historical rates and used to calculate hourly costs. Rates were estimated based on the brewery's rate schedule, Schedule A10 (PG&E, 2005), with rates per kilowatt-hours (kWh). Rates fluctuate but are approximately $0.16/kWh in the summer months and $0.11/kWh in the winter months (PG&E 2005), including demand charge estimates.

45

Small Air Compressor

The small air compressor is rated at 7.5 HP and 89.5% efficiency, according to the equipment nameplate. Either the compressor is turned on, drawing full power, or it is not operating. Based on rated horsepower and efficiency, the operating costs, during summer and winter months, for the small compressor, at full load (drawing full power) are shown in Table 10, calculated using Equations 2 and 3.

Table 10 - Operating Cost for Small Compressor

Cost Per Hour for Small Compressor Rate Scheme Summer ($0.16/kWh) Winter (0.11/kWh) Load 100% 100% $/hr $1.00 $0.69 $/1000 scf $0.53 $0.36

Large Air Compressor

The large air compressor is rated at 50 HP, according to the equipment nameplate. Table 11 gives the manufacturer's motor efficiency ratings as a function of load. The loading on the compressor can thus be used in conjunction with efficiency for the load, to calculate the operating costs of the compressor.

Table 11 - Performance Data Load Characteristics (Baldor Electric Company 2005)

Load Characteristics - Tested % of Rated Load Power Factor Efficiency Speed (rpm) Line Amperes 25 53 91.5 1795 24.9 50 73 94.4 1790 34.3 75 82 94.9 1784 45.8 100 85 94.7 1778 58.3 125 87 94.3 1773 71.7 150 87 93.6 1765 86.0

Based on performance load characteristics, the operating costs for the large compressor at various loads are estimated in Table 12, for summer and winter electric rates. The

46

calculations were performed using Equation 2 and the efficiencies for each load from Table 11.

Table 12 ­ Operating Costs for Large Compressor

Cost Per Hour for Large Compressor Rate Scheme Summer ($0.16/kWh) Winter (0.11/kWh) Summer ($0.16/kWh) Winter (0.11/kWh) Summer ($0.16/kWh) Winter (0.11/kWh) Summer ($0.16/kWh) Winter (0.11/kWh) Summer ($0.16/kWh) Winter (0.11/kWh) Load 100% 100% 75% 75% 50% 50% 25% 25% 10% 10%

1 1

$/hr $6.30 $4.33 $4.72 $3.24 $3.16 $2.17 $1.63 $1.12 $0.65 $0.45

2 2

$/1000 scf $0.50 $0.34 $0.50 $0.34 $0.50 $0.34 $0.52 $0.36 -

1. Efficiency estimates not provided by the manufacturer for this load. 2. Estimated using the loading percentage and an efficiency rating of 91.5%. Actual costs may vary. Costs are expected to be higher due to a likely lower efficiency rating.

Energy Use and Cost Limitations

Actual energy usage and operating costs will differ from calculations for air compression, since it is necessary to determine the average operating hours of the compression system for the time period of interest, e.g. per month, to determine the total operating costs of the small or large compressor. In addition, for the large compressor the percentage of time at each particular load is needed.

Other factors increase the cost and energy requirements of generating compressed air, thus increasing the cost and energy benefits of an improvement. For instance, the fan on the large air compressor and the air treatment system also require energy to run and add to the total cost per hour or per cubic foot of compressed air. For simplification in this assessment, only the air compressor motor horsepower was used.

47

Leaks (Opportunity 6)

Leaks in an air compression system are evident if a pressure change in the system is observed when the system is closed, while there is no demand on the system and the air compressor is not operating. The air compression system at the brewery was tested for leaks based on a pressure change using the following test protocol: 1. Bring the air storage tank and distribution lines to full operating pressure. 2. Ensure the valve entering the air compressor is closed. 3. Ensure the valve to the distribution system is open. 4. Ensure all delivery points are closed and there is no demand on the system. 5. Monitor the pressure gage on the air storage tank for a pressure drop for 1 hour. 6. A drop in pressure from initial reading of the pressure gage within the hour indicates leakage in the system.

The test yielded the measurements shown in Table 13. The drop in pressure over time indicated that the system is leaking, which equates to energy loss due to the loss of compressed air. A quantitative value for energy loss, due to leaks, was not

experimentally determined; however, quantifying the cost of leaks will assist in making repair decisions.

Table 13 - Leak Test Pressure Change

Time (minutes) 0 20 37 Pressure (psig) 110 75 55

Another test was used to determine the estimated cost of leaks. The test was performed using the following protocol:

48

1. Bring the air storage tank and distribution lines to full operating pressure. 2. Ensure the valve entering the air compressor is open. 3. Ensure the valve to the distribution system is open. 4. Ensure all delivery points are closed and there are no demands on the system. 5. Observe the compressor's load gage to determine percent loading. During the test, the compressor ran at low loads to compensate for the leaks in the system and the compressor's load gage was observed to read around 10%. The load information gathered from the test is useful for analysis and the overall cost to support leaks can be estimated based on a 10% load. Table 12 indicated a cost of $0.65/hour at summer rates for a 10% load. The power required to maintain pressure and subsequently the

operational cost of leaks are likely higher since efficiency ratings are likely to be lower than the 91.5% used for the 10% load hourly cost calculation. Therefore, a cost of approximately $0.65 per hour is a general, yet potentially low estimate that indicates benefit from fixing leaks. Assuming a 12-hour per day, 5 day/week, and 52 week/year operation of the compressor system (3120 hours) the cost of leaks is estimated at $2028 annually.

The benefits of repairing individual leaks can be determined using standard leak flow rate estimates. Table 13 provides estimated leakage rates at 100 psig (Kissock, 2005). The leakage rates assume a 70ºF temperature and a pressure of 100 psig (see Appendix A). These assumptions are reasonable for the brewery system for cost and leakage estimation. A 70ºF temperature is a good standard basis and pressure in the distribution lines is likely closer to 100 psi than the 110 psi system gage pressure, due to losses during distribution.

49

Equation 4 (derived from UE Systems, 2005) provides the calculation of cost per hour for leaks. Cost($) Cost $ × 1000 scf Leak Rate scf 60min = (Eq. 4) hr 1000scf min hr Using Equation 4 and an approximate cost of $0.50 per 1000 scf, the hourly cost of various size leaks is shown in Table 14. Large leaks can be very costly.

Table 14 - Estimated Hourly Compressed Air System Leak Costs

Equivalent Hole Diameter

1/64 " 1/32 " 1/16 " 1/8 " 1/4 " 3/8 "

Leakage Rate* scfm

0.25 0.99 3.96 15.86 63.44 142.74

$/hour Summer Rates

0.008 0.03 0.12 0.48 1.90 4.28

$/hour Winter Rates

0.005 0.02 0.08 0.32 1.29 2.91

*Leakage rates from Kissock (2005)

Annual costs for the brewery are calculated by multiplying hourly costs by hours of operation. Assuming a 12-hour per day, 5 day per week, and 52 week per year operation of the compressor system (3120 hours) the annual cost of leaks is estimated in Table 15.

Table 15 - Estimated Annual Compressed Air System Leak Costs

Equivalent Hole Diameter

1/64 " 1/32 " 1/16 " 1/8 " 1/4 " 3/8 "

Leakage Rate* scfm

0.25 0.99 3.96 15.86 63.44 142.74

$/year Summer Rates

25 94 374 1498 5928 13354

$/year Winter Rates

16 62 250 998 4025 9079

*Leakage rates from Kissock (2005)

Leaks may or may not be minimal in cost to detect or repair. Look for large, loud leaks and compare size estimate of the leak with the cost to repair. Ultrasonic leak detection can be used to quantify the size of a leak.

50

Use Electric or Hydraulic Tools (Opportunity 7)

PG&E (1997) reports that <20% of the energy input to a compressed air system is available for use at the pneumatic tool or process. Therefore, at least 80 percent of the energy used to create the compressed air is lost. PG&E (1997) recommends the use of hydraulic or electric tools or high-volume, low-pressure blowers instead. Operating costs would be lowered for energy usage on electric versus pneumatic tools, due to energy losses during air delivery and energy losses from converting electricity to compressed air.

Hand held pneumatic tools, such as the stapler found in the brewery, tend to be lighter than electric tools (PG&E, 1997). Considering repetitive motion injury or user comfort, pneumatic tools are superior. The only hand held tool found during the assessment in the brewery was the stapler, and it is not recommended to replace it with an electric version.

Bottle drying may benefit from high-volume, low-pressure blowers or the use of fans, instead of compressed air. Brewhouse valves may be better actuated with electrical actuators than pneumatic. Electric tools tend to have a higher upfront expense (Mandel 2000), but significantly lower operating costs (PG&E, 1997).

It is recommended to consider electric or even hydraulic alternatives when valves require replacement. Electrical safety would need to be considered in wet areas. The differential cost of the tool would need to be compared against operating cost savings to determine payback periods. Environmentally, energy would be saved using non-pneumatic tools.

51

Isolate Compressed Air Distribution (Opportunity 8)

A valve on the line connecting the compressed air distribution system from the bottling line to the brewhouse can be opened or closed (see Figure 8). In the closed position, the brewhouse would not receive a supply of compressed air, eliminating effects from leaks in the distribution system beyond the valve into the brewhouse. The recommendation is to close the valve to the brewhouse when only bottling is running. Also, consider reconfiguring the compressed air distribution system to supply compressed air to the brewhouse and bottling line separately. Potential advantages to the separation include delivery of air straight to each section at the required pressure reducing pipe losses and effects from leaks.

4.3 Opportunity Ranking and Recommendation

An opportunity matrix for the eight opportunities evaluated is shown in Table 16. The matrix summaries each opportunity, which includes a list of environmental impacts, approximate implementation costs and estimates of the financial savings the opportunities could provide.

Ranking categories were decided by the assessor and deemed acceptable to the brewery. Numerical rankings were set by the assessor and brewery management with five (5) being the most positive or best and one (1) being the least positive or worst score. It was agreed that a rating of three (3) would indicate a neutral effect on the parameter. With this method of ranking, opportunities with the highest overall score are the ones to potentially pursue or at least evaluate further. The ranking for the eight opportunities was

52

performed by brewery management with the assistance of the assessor. Ranking results are shown in Table 17.

Based on the ratings shown in Table 17, the opportunities with the highest rankings were: 1. Use of a blower for bottle drying (Opportunity 7) ­ total score 23 2. Install System 2 from the solar power options (Opportunity 4) ­ total score 22 3. Eliminate labels on bottle necks (Opportunity 5) ­ total score 22 4. Use recycled paper for cartons and paperboard (Opportunity 2) ­ total score 21 5. Install Solar Power System 1 (Opportunity 4) ­ total score 21 6. Isolate compressed air distribution to brewhouse from the bottling line (Opportunity 8) ­ total score 21 It is recommended that these higher ranked items be considered first for implementation, followed by consideration of the lower ranked opportunities. The opportunities for the use of recycled paper for labels and vacuum pump water recirculation or reuse scored low and are therefore less attractive to pursue.

53

Table 16 - P2 Opportunity Matrix

Item 1 2 Opportunity CIP with low volume, high pressure heads Use recycled paper for packaging Environmental Impacts · Lowers water consumption · Lowers effluent flow · Completes paper life cycle · Reduces wood consumption · Lowers water consumption · Lowers effluent flow · Lowers fossil fuel consumption · Reduces paper and ink use · Reduces glue use · Lowers energy consumption · Lowers energy consumption · Lowers energy consumption Cost to implement · Potentially higher cost for nozzles · Negligible for corrugated and paperboard · Potentially high for labels · High compared to water use reduction · System 1 - $230K · System 2 - $87K · Negligible · Varies by cost of detection and repair · Varies by cost of tool and compressed air · Negligible Financial savings · Reduced water and wastewater costs · Supply dependent

3 4

Vacuum pump water recirculation or reuse Solar power installation

· One to three year payback · System 1 ­ 12% 20 year IRR totaling $243K over 20 years · System 2 - 11% 20 year IRR totaling $80K over 20 years · Label Cost · Glue Cost · Downtime Cost · Varies by cost of detection and repair · Varies by cost of tool and compressed air · Varies by losses in the section

5 6 7 8

Eliminate labels on bottle necks Eliminate air compression system leaks Utilize electric or hydraulic tools Isolate compressed air distribution

54

Table 17 - P2 Decision Matrix

Item Opportunity Product Quality Ease to Implement Operational Impact Product Marketing Environmental Effects Costs Total

1

CIP with low volume, high pressure heads

3

4

4

3

4

2

20

2

Use recycled paper for packaging Cartons and paperboard 3 Labels 2 Vacuum Pump Water Recirculation or Reuse Full recirculation 3 Partial recirculation 3 Reuse 3 Solar power installation

3 3 2 2 1

3 1 2 2 2

4 4 3 3 3

5 4 4 3.5 5

3 2 2 2 3

21 16 16 15.5 17

3

4

System 1 System 2 Eliminate labels on bottle necks Air compression leaks

3 3 2 3

3 4 5 1

3 3 5 3

5 5 2 3

5 4 4 5

2 3 4 5

21 22 22 20

5 6

7

Utilize electric or hydraulic tools Bottle drying 4 Other tools/valves 3 Isolate compressed air distribution Isolate with valve 3 Reconfigure distribution 3

3 3 4 2

5 3 3 3

3 3 3 3

5 5 5 5

3 2 3 2

23 19 21 18

8

Scale: 5 is most positive (best); 1 is least positive (worst)

55

4.4 Environmental Improvement Marketing

Aside from implementing projects based on rankings and analysis, it is recommended that the environmental improvements and environmentally friendly practices of the brewery be marketed. Following is a partial list of environmental marketing aspects based on current or potential practices. · Natural lighting for production · Insulated piping and refrigeration · Recycle spent grains to farmers · Recycled packaging, including containers and labels · Casein (milk protein) glues for labels · Solar power · Optimize energy usage for air compression system · Evaluation for pollution prevention opportunities

4.5 Additional Opportunities and Recommendations

Table 18 lists additional P2 opportunities that were not evaluated beyond the information found in the table, nor were they ranked. Although the opportunities are not sufficient in detail to rank effectively, their significance should not be overlooked ­ they were simply not evaluated to a level where their merit can be assessed.

It is recommended that additional opportunities be chosen from Table 18 and evaluated to see if they are attractive to the brewery. The opportunities can then be assessed in a manner similar to that performed in this assessment, utilizing vendors and P2 consultants as needed to assist. 56

Table 18 - Additional P2 Opportunities

Opportunity

Use recycled glass for bottles Use additional heat exchangers Refrigeration system improvements, e.g. thermal energy storage, water cooling Use additional variable frequency drives Use low volume, high pressure nozzles for hoses Use of 480V power instead of 230V for certain equipment Optimize water generation for the water quality required Capture waste heat from air compressor Relocate inlet air source to air compressor dryer Reuse caustic soda Optimize chlorine dioxide use Reuse final rinse water as initial rinse water Changing rate scheme for one or both electric meters Evening production Decrease start-up and shut down frequency for bottling line (run longer)

Potential Environmental Impacts

· Lowers energy consumption · Lowers raw material use · Completes life cycle of glass · Lower energy consumption · Lowers energy consumption

Factors and Comments

· Cost for bottles could be higher · Consistency of bottle quality · Lower energy costs · Heat exchanger capital · Medium to high capital · Lower energy costs · Lower energy costs · Nozzle costs · Applicability to cleaning operation · Lower energy costs · Equipment capital · Analysis and research costs · Equipment changes · Piping rerouting · Lower energy costs · Improved air quality · Ability to operate during hot weather · Lower chemical costs · Lower chemical costs · Tank, piping, programming costs · CIP programming capability · Lower energy costs with off-peak rates · Advantage if use thermal energy storage · Off-peak electric rates · Employees · Lighting · Chemical, water and wastewater, energy costs · Employees · Production planning

· Lower energy consumption · Lowers water consumption · Lowers effluent flow · Lower energy consumption · Lower treatment process requirements, including energy, chemical use, waste generation · Lower energy consumption · Lower energy consumption · Lower chemical consumption · Lower chemical consumption · Lower water consumption and wastewater effluent · None, except if operate at off-peak · Power plant demand lowered (off-peak) · Lowers lubricant, chemical, and water consumption · Lowers energy consumption for non-productive time

57

4.6 Brewery Feedback

An exit interview was performed by the assessor immediately after the process. The interviewee was the brewmaster, who was the main management representative during the evaluation process. The questions and summary of the corresponding answers follow.

1. What did you think about the initial approach to the project?

The initial approach was positive and there was nothing to lose with the proposed plan. Additionally, the brewery did not have time in-house to perform an assessment. They were convinced by the meeting that the project would be good.

2. What was the most frustrating part of the project?

Familiarizing the assessor with the process was the most frustrating part of the process. It took a reasonable amount of time, approximately 15 hours over several weeks. It would have been preferred to have an assessor familiar with the business or to have the training occur over a period of days instead of weeks.

3. Do you feel that the rankings are solid? If not, what would make them more solid?

The rankings are pretty solid. The ones with the highest scores make sense and there is nothing to improve regarding the ranking system.

4. What are the top benefits the assessment brings to your company?

The assessment brings operational savings. Awareness of marketing benefits from P2 is heightened.

58

5. Would you like to perform future assessments?

Yes, absolutely.

6. Do you find these improvements profitable to your business? Would you be willing to pay for a P2 service as long as the overall results were profitable?

Certain improvements are profitable. The brewery is willing to pay for a P2 service and sees a future in the P2 business.

7. Do you foresee increasing your tolerable payback periods and why?

It depends on the operational impact in addition to cost. A slower payback can be justified with operational improvements.

8. Do you think you will encourage P2 activities from the staff after this experience?

Yes, the brewmaster will encourage P2 activities and use the approach when setting annual goals. Goals are normally set on ease of implementation, efficiency and higher quality. The P2 approach offers a more organized method for analysis of options.

59

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION

The P2OA process for the brewery resulted in multiple findings about performing P2OA's with a small manufacturer. The relationship of the results to project expectations and published literature are discussed below, as are recommendations for approaching small manufacturers and facilitating the process.

5.1 Company Selection and Initial Discussion

The P2 research for this thesis began with selection of a company for the case study. The brewery was approached with the project via telephone to arrange a personal meeting. In contrast, the Betsch (1997) study had utilized intensive, non-personal marketing methods, such as flyers and formal presentations, to recruit potential companies to assess, which did not result in a good response rate. Betsch also provided personal explanations about the project to businesses, which were well received and resulted in a significantly higher response rate. Similarly, the personal approach that was used to contact the brewery proved successful. It seems that from both Betsch's and this thesis' study that a small business responds well to personal interaction.

Explanation to the brewery's management of what the assessment would require and its expected outcomes were beneficial to the process. The explanation helped eliminate difficulties in attaining management support for the project and staff cooperation. Concerns about the burden on the staff were addressed by explaining that the impact on the staff would be minimal, the assessor would primarily gather only necessary information from employees, and otherwise the processes would be assessed

60

independently. Since a small business can be greatly affected by employee distractions, an independent assessment method is recommended.

Assuring the company that the goal of P2 is not to find regulatory problems alleviated some concerns about the process. A company may be meeting regulatory requirements, as the brewery was, yet they may also be afraid of generating new requirements or increasing regulatory scrutiny. As the assessment progressed, it became apparent that environmental improvements might actually improve regulatory relationships, the potential for which can be explained to a manufacture during initial meetings.

5.2 Assessment

The assessment proceeded with the intent of determining how to make the most impact to the business, in the shortest time, with the least disruption to operations. A spontaneous approach was followed throughout the assessment to meet schedules of brewery personnel and to flow with the brewery's modus operandi. Over a period of several weeks, the assessor spent approximately 15 hours learning about the brewhouse, bottling operations, and equipment supporting the entire facility. The assessor led the process and manufacturing personnel provided process expertise as needed. Overall, disruption to normal workflow was minimal with this approach. However, the brewmaster stated in the interview that the learning curve of the assessor took time and was a source of frustration. Therefore, use of an assessor who is experienced in the industry being assessed may be beneficial to customer relationships.

The assessor's extensive manufacturing background and thorough understanding of marketing and business cost considerations assisted with the assessment. Being well

61

versed in environmental issues and engineering and having some experience performing P2OA's was also beneficial to assessment results. However, more experience with

brewing equipment would have likely led to even better opportunities at a faster pace. Continued work with the brewery would also speed the process and would likely result in better opportunities, since the assessor would be more familiar with the company's processes, needs and expectations. Consideration of the particular expertise of the

assessor is important to minimize hourly costs for an assessment.

For this thesis, the time for work on the assessment was spent when it was convenient for the assessor and the brewery and as often as needed. Normally, it is not likely that the assessor would have the luxury of such a flexible schedule. On an hourly basis, it would not be practical to have this type of schedule; therefore, project timelines would require more specific estimates than the 6-month timeframe given to the brewery.

Development of options for many of the opportunities was a joint effort between brewery staff and the assessor. Review of processes with staff stimulated ideas about

opportunities, both from the assessor and the staff. Opportunities otherwise likely not to be noticed were found in this joint effort. It was extremely helpful having the employees discuss the process with the assessor and validate the underlying assumptions. After some initial opportunities were identified, the brewery voiced which areas were of the most concern, citing air compression and vacuum pump water usage as two of them. The assessor could also see that improvements in these areas should prove beneficial or at least eliminate the need to contemplate changes to these processes. Listening to the brewery's concerns and utilizing in-house expertise and opinions of brewery staff

62

improved the assessment pace and the quality of assessment results, which benefits a manufacturer with scarce resources.

One set of opportunities was particularly difficult for the assessor to analyze, which was the Air Compression Opportunities 6, 7 and 8. The analyses took weeks to perform and many hours of research since the assessor was unfamiliar with the equipment. For the air compression opportunities, the assessor only consulted with a project advisor and brewery staff. If other experts were integrated in the process, it is estimated that the evaluation would have taken significantly less time and effort. The assessor assumed that a manufacturing and engineering background would be highly conducive for analyzing opportunities in a variety of industries. Although this may be true, the time required to learn the specifics of unfamiliar processes could prove too costly for the small manufacturer.

Vendor involvement was solicited for a quote on retrofitting the vacuum pump with partial or full recirculation of the process water. The vendor information would have facilitated the evaluation of pump options, but the vendor did not follow-up causing delay of the project and frustration for the assessor. Eventually, the manufacturer of the pump was contacted and was responsive, answering the questions necessary to evaluate the pump options.

The individual opportunities, for which expertise lacks, would have been easier to pursue with a vendor or distributor with a good standing relationship with the brewery. A full service distributor may be able to provide evaluations of various systems free of charge; however, it is questionable whether their approach would be unbiased and lead to the

63

most environmentally sound and feasible options.

Overall, the experience with the

brewery highlights the need to involve appropriate parties to reduce the gaps in expertise, preferably early in the process to minimize analysis time.

5.3 Rating and Ranking

After assessments were complete, the brewmaster began rating the opportunities. Joint discussion between the brewmaster and assessor was necessary so the brewery could consistently determine ratings and fully understand the process.

Some additional details were discovered during the rating process. For instance, at the rating meeting it was revealed that the pneumatic system for bottle drying air had already been replaced with a 7-1/2 hp blower several weeks earlier (see Air Compression Opportunity 7). Its use demonstrated product quality and operational improvement and a reduction in operating costs, since bottles dried more effectively with the blower causing the labels to easily and securely adhere to the bottle. The change was made prior to formal review of all factors pertaining to the opportunity that were discovered in the assessment. At the time of the change, the brewery knew that more effective drying would occur with the blower than with compressed air and that use of a blower is generally less expensive than providing compressed air. In conjunction with the

brewery's comprehensive understanding of the bottle drying process and experience with the equipment involved with the change, the written evidence discussed during ranking confirmed the merits of the opportunity.

Also during the rating process, the brewmaster revealed that using recycled paper for labeling would cause significant negative operational impacts. This demonstrates the

64

criticality of inherent knowledge and staff involvement. Staff involvement in the process also helps the staff "own" the process. Based on the author's manufacturing experience, ownership of a process is critical to future success of a program initiative such as P2. Involvement of staff in the process also trains them on the methods, leaving them more likely to uphold the process if it is perceived to be valuable.

Ratings were very easy to assign using the details of the assessment. The ease of applying ratings is believed to mean that the assessment details were sufficient to result in reasonable decisions about the projects. Simple financial calculations were all that

proved necessary for decision-making. The brewmaster readily understood the analyses and exhibited logical justification for the assignment of ratings.

The brewmaster was not surprised by the rating totals based on the review of assessment results. However, the brewmaster was surprised about the comparative rankings based on what had been anticipated for some of the options prior to review of assessment findings. The disparity in expected versus actual results indicates the one of the values of assessment. Some opportunities did not show benefits outweighing disadvantages;

however, it was good to know empirically that they were not reasonable opportunities so more effort is not expended contemplating a change or implementing changes blindly, both of which place an unnecessary burden on the manufacturer.

The brewmaster indicated that the totals and rankings were solid, implying that the information presented was perceived as solid. The rating matrix for use in decisionmaking is not a perfect method for determining whether to implement a project. The matrix provides only a summary, with the use of numerical rankings that may lose sight

65

of the underlying details. Therefore, the matrix is a guide and the details need to be considered to confirm the merits of an opportunity prior to implementation.

The brewmaster's responses to the process indicated a strong interest in P2OA and the understanding of the results and benefits of this type of assessment. In particular, the brewmaster became enthused about the marketing advantages revealed during the review of the opportunities. The direct responsibility given to brewery management to provide rankings enhanced support for implementation, since the decisions were made, and thus owned, by the brewery and not the assessor.

Improvements that were made prior to completion of the assessment indicate that change can happen quickly at a small manufacturer. Implementing options before assessment is complete signifies immersion of the staff in the P2OA process. As mentioned previously, the brewery implemented bottle drying with a blower instead of continuing the use of compressed air for drying. The brewery had thought it might be a good idea

operationally to modify the bottle drying process. Since the opportunity was indicated by the assessor during a walk-through, the brewery's idea resurfaced and installation proceeded soon thereafter. These changes prior to ranking demonstrate that adherence to a formal process flow is not the only effective way to incorporate P2 improvements.

Prior to review of assessment findings, the brewery did not consider the opportunity that eliminates neck labeling as an option because it reduces brand identification and the other marketing benefits attributed to the labels. The cost savings revealed in the evaluation of this opportunity were significant. Operational and environmental impacts were also quite positive. Now that the cost, operational and environmental impact factors demonstrated a

66

strong, positive influence, it is expected that the opportunity will undergo further review by the brewery.

5.4 Interview Results

The results of the interview with the brewery, regarding the assessment process, were very positive overall and the approach was successful in propagating change. The handson work of the assessor with the staff, involvement of brewery management, and the general rapport between the assessor and employees are factors believed to contribute to the assessment's success.

Because of the assessment experience, the brewery intends to evaluate future projects using methods learned in the process. The belief is that the brewmaster will demonstrate the merits of P2OA, leading to additional acceptance by brewery owners, to encourage implementation of improvements and growth of a P2 program.

5.5 Method Comparison

Figure 9 provides a side-by-side comparison of the process flows for the EPA method, from Figure 2, and the general process flow used in this thesis, from Figure 5. The method used in this thesis is referred to as the "Simplified Small Business P2OA Method" (Simplified Method).

67

EPA Method (1992)

Establish the Pollution Prevention Program Executive Level Decision Policy Statement Consensus Building

Simplified Small Business P2OA Method

Discuss P2OA with Company

Organize Program Name Task Force State Goals

Identify Business Needs

Indicate Project Scope and Company's Role Address Company Concerns

Do Preliminary Assessment Collect Data Review Sites Establish Priorities

New Presentation

Yes

Write Program Plan Consider External Groups Define Objectives Identify Potential Obstacles Develop Schedule

Company Agrees to P2OA?

Yes

No

Company Will Discuss Further?

Do Detailed Assessment Name Assessment Team ($) Review Data and Site ($) Organize and Document Information

Define Approach and Prepare Plan

Define Pollution Prevention Options Propose Options Screen Options

Opportunity Identification

Information Gathering

Do Feasibility Analysis Technical Environmental Economic

Opportunity Analysis

No

Write Assessment Report

Report

Implement the Plan Select Projects Obtain Funding Install

Discuss and Rate Opportunities

Measure Progress Acquire data Analyze Results

Discuss Results and P2 Process

Deliver Report

Maintain Pollution Prevention Program

End Process

Figure 9 ­Comparison of Simplified Small Business P2OA Method to EPA Method

68

The first goal in each process is to gain agreement to perform a P2OA; however, the approach to attain agreement is different in the two methods. The Simplified Method establishes agreement through informal, interactive discussion of the P2OA process with the company while the EPA method establishes agreement as part of a broader pollution prevention program. The EPA method also requires performance of a preliminary

assessment to gain agreement for P2OA and the Simplified Method does not. The Simplified Method was successful in obtaining agreement to proceed, without a preliminary assessment or establishment of a P2 program. The method is thus more direct than the EPA method regarding P2OA and agreement to perform an assessment is expected to require less effort than it would using the EPA method. In the brewery assessment, this part took approximately one hour, which is expected to require significantly less than the time it would have taken to establish a P2 program as the EPA suggests.

After attaining agreement to proceed with P2OA, the assessment approach and plan is developed in both methods. The only differences are that the EPA method requires a preliminary assessment prior to plan development and the assessment plan is a part of a larger program plan. It took approximately three hours to develop the plan for the brewery assessment and it is expected that the assessment portion of the EPA's "Program Plan" would take about the same time to create. It is primarily EPA's "Program Plan" that would increase the overall time required for the planning stage.

Following plan development, the assessment process begins. Both methods result in an assessment report, yet the steps to producing the report differ. In the Simplified Method,

69

three steps are involved: opportunity identification, information gathering, and opportunity analysis. This flow allows for repeated performance of the steps as necessary to obtain the desired results. In the EPA method, a detailed assessment is performed, which includes defining the assessment team and reviewing data from the preliminary assessment. In contrast, the Simplified Method integrates team definition into the

agreement phase of the process and analyzes assessment data in the step called "Opportunity Analysis". Assessment is thereby accomplished at one time. The EPA method then proposes the options found in the preliminary assessment, in the step called "Define Pollution Prevention Options", and completes the opportunity analysis in the step called "Do Feasibility Analysis". The time spent on the preliminary assessment in the EPA method should reduce the time required to perform the EPA's detailed assessment. However, the EPA flowchart does not delineate the extent of detail for analysis and the forms to be used during assessment, both of which are comprehensive and may lengthen the process.

The "Writing the Assessment Report" step and part of the "Implement the Plan" step, in the EPA method, include review of the opportunities for their merit. Part of the "Report" and "Discuss Results and P2 Process" steps in the Simplified Method include the same type of review. Both methods are similar in content and expected to require the same amount of time. Plan implementation is a required step of the EPA method, whereas no specific implementation plan is required in the Simplified Method, but rather implementation plans are discussed in a closing meeting and it is up to the company to follow through with their intent to implement selected opportunities. Progress is

measured during the "Measure Progress" step of the EPA method, whereas evaluation for

70

improvement of future assessments is made as part of the "Discuss Results and P2 Process" step of the Simplified Method. The final step of EPA's method is to maintain the P2 program, whereas the Simplified Method does not have this focus, yet it is desirable to have positive P2OA results from the method so that the company takes the initiative to continue the practice.

Betsch's process flow from Figure 3 can also be compared to the simplified small business and EPA methods. Steps to obtain agreement to perform a P2OA are not included in Betsch's flow, as they are in the simplified small business and the EPA methods. The first five steps of Betsch's process correlate with EPA's "Preliminary Assessment" through "Define Pollution Prevention Options" steps and the Simplified Method's "Define Approach and Prepare Plan" and "Opportunity Identification" steps. The "Research Opportunities" and "Calculate" steps of Betsch's method are aligned with the EPA's "Do Feasibility Analysis" step and the Simplified Method's "Information Gathering" and "Opportunity Analysis" steps. Finally, Betsch's method ends with

obtaining funding and implementing opportunities, whereas in the Simplified Method facts are presented, implementation plans are discussed, and progress is measured in the closing meeting. Overall, Betsch's process flow fundamentally differs from the

Simplified Method, in the sense that it is not focused on attaining agreement to proceed with a P2OA. Attaining agreement is the step that can lay the foundation for obtaining high-quality results from of an assessment process, while alleviating the burden on the manufacturer during the process. The process flow also does not depict the formality and detail of the assessment process, which is based on extensive methods used in the DOE's process, developed from the EPA Method (Betsch 1997).

71

5.6 Recommended Approach

Overall, the methods used in this thesis are more straightforward and less intensive than typical methods, yet they provide multiple opportunities for improvement. As discussed previously, a process that is perceived as daunting, such as those found in comprehensive guidelines, may preclude P2 efforts. A condensed flow chart of the thesis method, as shown in Figure 10, along with a short process description, the participants required for each step, and personal interaction with the company may prove successful in generating interest in P2OA. Therefore, this simplified presentation of the process may encourage the P2OA process, whereas presentation of a lengthy guideline may not.

Figure 10 ­ Condensed Simplified Small Business P2OA Method 72

CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSIONS

Pollution prevention analysis in a small operation can yield a significant amount of opportunities, which can be evaluated effectively using an informal approach. It has been demonstrated, with improvements to environmental impacts, marketing, operations and cost savings that small businesses can benefit from applying the P2OA techniques from this study. An informal assessment, such as the one developed herein, that precludes the establishment of a P2 program, may result in the absence of such a program. Yet, even without a program, P2OA's may continue to be led by the company once the advantages of assessment have been demonstrated.

In this study, the assessor explained the merits of P2 in the initial meeting, so that the company had reason to pursue P2OA. The assessor also performed the assessment free of charge. Typically, assessment by an assessor would not be free and the company may not be as receptive to the idea as the brewery was. The company would somehow have to discover the merits of P2OA's and then assume the costs of assessment. The concern now becomes how to initiate the process with a small business, so that P2OA can occur. One suggestion is to present the recommended approach described in the discussion section, to help encourage a company to perform assessments.

The study shows that assistance from outside parties proves to be necessary and preferential when expertise is not solid in-house. Hiring consultants or requesting vendor support, to help calculate the costs and savings are ways to obtain assistance. For the

73

small company, vendors can be a considerably useful source for evaluation. Additionally, an assessor can provide P2OA leadership and review vendor proposals, similar to REC's solar power proposal reviewed for the brewery in this assessment. Such review can evaluate the validity of a proposal and generate an analysis format that will assist the manufacturer with weighing the pros and cons.

The depth of information and cost analysis methods found in this study can be modeled for any small-scale industry. Simple financial calculations are useful as a tool to assess potential projects, although before committing to a project further financial analysis may be necessary, especially when the decision is significantly affected by financial aspects such as amortization, internal rates of return, inflation, or depreciation. Concern over these types of financial aspects became apparent when reviewing REC's solar power proposal, which included a very detailed analysis applying various financial factors, for a large capital outlay. When the payback period is short and the financial risk is low, a simple analysis can be considered sufficient for decision-making, whereas high-risk projects or lengthy payback periods warrant further analysis of the option.

Since large capital expenditures that do not have a short payback may be difficult to justify, upfront determination of what the small business considers reasonable would save time otherwise wasted on elaborate evaluations. Elaborate evaluations can be undertaken when the business has successfully incorporated opportunities, expectantly helping to provide cash flow for analysis and high capital expenditures.

74

Overall, management's commitment to the process permits it to be successful in proceeding from concept to implementation. Although there is no guarantee of continued P2 assessment, P2OA success is attainable using an abridged process, without requiring significant investment. Despite the lack of a specific step designed to promote a

pollution prevention program, success with P2OA may ultimately lead to the establishment of a viable P2 program in a small business.

75

REFERENCES

Alfa Laval. (2005). Cost/benefits of using Toftejorg equipment in the brewing industry. Retrieved February 22, 2005 from http://www.toftejorg.com/ Anheuser-Busch Companies. Environmental, health, and safety report 2003. Retrieved January 15, 2005, from http://www.abehsreport.com/docs/envperformance.html Baldor Electric Company. (2005). Product Information for EM 4115T. Retrieved April 9, 2005, from http://www.baldor.com/products Betsch, M. (1997). The U.S. Department of Energy Pollution Prevention Program: applications for small business, HNF-MR-0540 Rev.0. U.S. Department of Energy. Bishop, P. (2000). Pollution prevention: fundamentals and practice. Singapore: McGraw Hill. Brindisi, Bob. Sterling Pumps. Personal interview May 2, 2005. Department of Energy & Environmental Protection Agency. (2000). Carbon dioxide emissions from the generation of electric power in the United States. Washington, D.C. Retrieved May 1, 2005 from http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/ page/co2_report/co2emiss.pdf E-Plant Engineer. (2005). Compressed Air. Retrieved April 20, 2005 from http://www.eplantengineer.com/ library/compressed airsystems.shtml Galitsky, C., Martin, N., Worrell, E. & Lehman, B. (2003). Energy efficiency improvement and cost saving opportunities for breweries. Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Environmental Energy Technologies Division, LBNL-50934. Berkeley: University of California. Kissock, J. Compressed air systems: fix leaks. Retrieved April 10, 2005, from University of Dayton website: http://www.engr.udayton.edu/faculty/jkissock/http/IAC/ DocumentsCompAir_FixLeaks.doc Kunze, W. (1996). Technology Brewing and Malting. Berlin, Germany: Verlagsabteilung Mandel, R. (2000). Where the actuation is. Engineers Digest. Retrieved May 3, 2005 from http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BIM/is_9_28/ai_65909734 Optimum Utility Systems. (2005). Utility systems optimization and cost reduction for manufacturing and processing. Retrieved March 31, 2005, from http://www. optimumus.com/ways.htm

76

PG&E. (1997). Efficiency improvements in industrial compressed air systems. Energy Efficiency Information© Industrial Compressed Air Systems. PG&E. (2005). Current electric rates. Retrieved April 9, 2005, from http://www.pge.com/rates/tariffs/electric.shtml#COMMERCIAL Pojasek, R. (1998). Practical Pollution Prevention - P2 assessments: what are they good for? Pollution Prevention Review, August 1998. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Renewable Energy Concepts, Inc. (2004). Vendor Quote. System quotation and analysis: photovoltaic power system. Temptek. (2003). Reasons for selecting a water-cooled or air-cooled condenser. Retrieved January 29, 2005, from http://www.temptek.com/portablechillers /watervsair.html UE Systems, Inc. (2005). Compressed Air Ultrasonic Leak Detection Guide. Retrieved April 10, 2005, from http://www.uesystems.com/energypages/Compressed %20Air%20Guide.pdf#search='S.A.%20moss%20compressed%20air UNEP Production and Consumption Branch. Environmental Management Tools. Retrieved April 1, 2005, from http://www.unepie.org/pc/pc/tools/lca.htm U.S. Agency for International Development. (1997). Pollution prevention diagnostic assessment brewery final report. Office of Environment and Natural Resources Bureau for Global Programs. Environmental Pollution Prevention Project (EP3) Project Number 936-5559. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. (1990). 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. Title 40: Protection of Environment, Chapter I, Subtitle C. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. (1990). Pollution Prevention. Title 42: The public health and welfare, Chapter 133. U.S. Department of Energy. (2004). Compressed Air Tip Sheet #1. Office of Industrial Technologies, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. DOE/GO-102000-0986. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1992). Facility pollution prevention guide. Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/R-92/088. U.S. Marine Corps. (2000). Environmental project planning guide. Department of the Navy. Washington, D.C. World Bank Group. (1998). Breweries. Pollution prevention and abatement handbook 1998: toward cleaner production, pp. 272-274. Washington, D.C.

77

Appendix A: Derivation of Leak Equation

Kissock (2005) states, "to estimate leakage rates from leaks at 100 psig, estimate the diameter of the leak and then use the following table." The values in this table were computed from the S.A. Moss equation (Kissock, 2005).

Equivalent Hole Diameter Leakage Rate scfm 1/64 " 0.25 1/32 " 0.99 1/16 " 3.96 1/8 " 15.86 1/4 " 63.44 3/8 " 142.74 (Kissock, 2005 from Compressed Air Systems, DOE/CS/40520-T2 1984) S.A. Moss Equation (Kissock, 2005 from Ingersoll-Rand Condensed Air Power Data, 1998) W = 0.5303 x A x C x P / T (R) where: C = the flow coefficient with 0.97 for a smooth edged hole and C = 0.61 for a sharp edged orifice. W = discharge area in lb/s A = area of orifice in sq. in. P = upstream total pressure in lbs. per sq. in. absolute T = temperature in Rankine The equation can be modified to show air leakage in standard cubic feet per minute at T = 70 F = 530 R and the density of air at 70 F is 0.7494 lb/ft3 such that: V (scfm) = 0.5303 x / 4 x [D (in)]2 x 0.61 x P (psia) / [ 530( R) x 0.07494 lb/ft3] x 60 s/min V (scfm) = 8.8356 x [D (in)]2 x P (psia)

78

Information

Microsoft Word - Thesis USB.doc

88 pages

Report File (DMCA)

Our content is added by our users. We aim to remove reported files within 1 working day. Please use this link to notify us:

Report this file as copyright or inappropriate

481485


You might also be interested in

BETA
Bamboo Construction Technology
Microsoft Word - k SCHEME NEtworkinG.doc
ISO 14040