SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “NESHAP”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

4 records

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2000

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) Between NASA Headquarters and MSFC (Marshall Space Flight Center) for NASA Principal Center for Review of Clean Air Regulations

This paper presents a memorandum of agreement on Clean Air Regulations. NASA headquarters (code JE and code M) has asked MSFC to serve as principle center for review of Clean Air Act (CAA) regulations. The purpose of the principle center is to provide centralized support to NASA headquarters for the management and leadership of NASA's CAA regulation review process and to identify the potential impact of proposed CAA reguations on NASA program hardware and supporting facilities. The materials and processes utilized in the manufacture of NASA's programmatic hardware contain HAPs (Hazardous Air Pollutants), VOCs (Volatile Organic Compounds), and ODC (Ozone Depleting Chemicals). This paper is presented in viewgraph form.

Caruso, Salvadore V.↗

NASA NTRS2001

Joint EPA/NASA/USAF Interagency Depainting Study

Environmental regulations such as National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) are drivers for the implementation of environmentally compliant methodologies in the manufacture of aerospace hardware. In 1995, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated the NESHAP for the Aerospace Manufacture and Rework (Aerospace NESHAP) industry. Affected facilities were to be in compliance by September 1998. Several aerospace manufacturing operations are regulated within the Aerospace NESHAP including Depainting operations. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), EPA, and United States Air Force (USAF) combined resources to evaluate the performance of nine alternative depainting processes. The seven alternative depainting processes were: (1) Chemical stripping (non-methylene chloride); (2) Carbon Dioxide Blasting; (3) Xenon Flashlamp; (4) Carbon Dioxide Laser Stripping; (5) Plastic Media Blasting; (6) Sodium Bicarbonate Wet Stripping; and (7) Waterjet Blasting and Wheat Starch Blasting. All epoxy primer and polyurethane top coat system was applied to 2024-T3 clad and non-clad aluminum test specimens. Approximately 200 test specimens were evaluated in this study. Each coupon was subjected to three, four, or five complete depainting cycles. This paper discusses the conclusions from the study including the test protocol, test parameters, and achievable strip rates for the alternative depainting processes. Test data includes immersion corrosion testing, sandwich corrosion testing and hydrogen embrittlement testing for the non-methylene chloride chemical strippers. Additionally, the cumulative effect of the alternative depainting processes on the metallurgical integrity of the test substrate is addressed with the results from tensile and fatigue evaluations.

Clark-Ingram, M.↗

NASA NTRS1997

An Interagency Study of Depainting Techniques

Many popular and widely used paint stripping products now contain methylene chloride as their active ingredient. However, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will critically curb the use of methylene chloride under an aerospace national emission standard for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) within the next 2-1/2 years. An effort is underway to identify and evaluate alternative depainting technologies emphasizing those believed to be both effective and environmentally benign. On behalf of the EPA and in cooperation with the U. S. Air Force (USAF), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is conducting a technical assessment of nine alternative technologies (i.e.: chemical stripping, two CO2 blasting processes, FLASHJET(TM) coating removal, laser stripping, plastic media blasting, sodium bicarbonate wet stripping, high-pressure water stripping, and wheat starch blasting). These depainting processes represent five removal method categories, namely abrasive, impact, cryogenic, thermal, and/or molecular bonding dissociation. This paper discusses the test plan and parameters for this interagency study. Several thicknesses of clad and non-clad aluminum substrates were used to prepare test specimens, which have been cut, cleaned, painted, and environmentally aged. Each depainting process has been assigned a specimen lot, which is now undergoing an initial strip cycle. Metallurgical impacts will be determined after these specimens complete five cycles of preparation and stripping.

Cook, B.↗

NASA NTRS2000

EPA/NASA/USAF Depainting Effort Concludes

The final report contains strip rate data from all of the methods, lessons learned during processing, metallurgical evaluations of the panels, and summaries of corrosion and hydrogen embrittlement studies. Any changes in surface roughness, fatigue and tensile properties, and crack detectability are noted in the report. No process was singled out above the others, as companies should consider equipment and operational costs when complying with the Aerospace NESHAP (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants) and new OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) regulations.

Finckenor, Miria M.↗