Lean, Energy, and Environment (LE2) Manual

ii

Contact Information

New York State Pollution Prevention Institute (NYSP2I)

Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT)

111 Lomb Memorial Drive

Rochester, New York 14623-5608

Phone: (585) 475-2512

Fax: (585) 475-6610

E-mail: nysp2i@rit.edu

Web: www.nysp2i.rit.edu/le2

iii

Acknowledgements

This project was funded by grants from the New York State Energy Research and

Development Authority (NYSERDA) and from the NYS Department of Environmental

Conservation.

NYSP2I extends thanks to the companies that have participated in LE2 projects to date, and

specifically to those companies that have allowed us to include the outcome of the projects

as case studies in this document. Every project has contributed to greater understanding of

the strengths and limitations of the LE2 approach, and the authors of this manual have

endeavored to capture these points in this manual.

Disclaimer

NYSERDA:

NYSERDA has not reviewed the information contained herein, and the opinions expressed in

this report do not necessarily reflect those of NYSERDA or the State of New York.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation:

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Environmental

Conservation.

iv

Preface

This manual is intended for use by technical assistance providers as well as directly by

companies that are interested in evaluating process improvement opportunities that result in

reduced energy usage, reduced environmental emissions/wastes and overall process

efficiency resulting in operational cost savings.

While the manual is written from the point of view of a technical assistance provider, the

steps outlined and the processes to be followed are directly applicable to

sustainability/environmental health & safety/process improvement professionals within

companies.

v

Table of Contents

Contact Information .............................................................................................................. ii

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................. iii

Disclaimer ........................................................................................................................... iii

Preface ................................................................................................................................ iv

Table of Contents .................................................................................................................. v

Helpful Acronyms ................................................................................................................ vi

1. Introduction....................................................................................................................... 1

2. Key differences from the EPA Toolkits ............................................................................... 2

3. Where to begin?................................................................................................................ 3

The Team ........................................................................................................................... 3

Project Considerations ...................................................................................................... 3

4. LE2 Assessment Steps ....................................................................................................... 4

Screening .......................................................................................................................... 5

Assessment ....................................................................................................................... 6

Feasibility Study ................................................................................................................ 7

Implementation ................................................................................................................. 7

5. Important Factors Influencing Project Success ................................................................... 8

6. Case Studies...................................................................................................................... 8

LE2 Case Study for Ducommun AeroStructures .................................................................. 9

LE2 Case Study for The Gleason Works ........................................................................... 11

Appendix: Example of LE2 Data Intake Form (DIF) ............................................................. 13

vi

Helpful Acronyms

DIF Data Intake Form

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

LE2 Lean Energy and Environment

MEP Manufacturing Extension Partnership

NYSP2I New York State Pollution Prevention Institute

RTDC Regional Technical Development Center

VSM Value Stream Map

1

1. Introduction

The Lean, Energy, and Environment (LE2) methodology was developed by the New York

State Pollution Prevention Institute (NYSP2I) because a need was identified for a tool that

could perform a comprehensive assessment of manufacturing operations and optimize the

process in the three dimensions of process efficiency, energy usage and environmental

impact.

Thus, the LE2 approach is a simplified hybrid of two existing

toolkits created by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

known as “Lean and Environment” and “Lean, Energy &

Climate”. These toolkits use Lean Manufacturing

methodologies in order to identify process improvement

opportunities at companies, while concurrently reducing their

environmental footprint, overall energy use, and greenhouse

gas emissions.

The Lean and Environment toolkit was created to “enable Lean

practitioners to improve both their business performance and

their environmental performance by eliminating environmental

wastes1.” The toolkit explains what an environmental waste is, why organizations should

focus on this type of waste, and how Lean methods can be expanded to include

environmental metrics as well as traditional waste reduction strategies. A few of the

suggestions made to companies include, involving EHS staff on Kaizen events, highlighting

areas of environmental concern within a value stream map, and analyzing the materials used

and wasted during a production process in addition to the time necessary to complete

process steps.

The Lean, Energy & Climate toolkit was created to “assist

organizations in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and energy

use while improving performance through Lean manufacturing

activities2.” The toolkit highlights the potential benefits of

reducing energy and greenhouse gas emissions, how to use

Lean tools such as visual controls and Total Productive

Maintenance to integrate energy considerations into daily

operations, and ways to assess current energy uses in order to

identify reduction opportunities.

1 Lean and Environment Toolkit, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2007:

http://www.epa.gov/lean/environment/toolkits/environment/index.htm

2 Lean, Energy & Climate Toolkit, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2007 (revised

2011): http://www/.epa.gov/lean/environment/toolkits/energy/index.htm

2

The New York State Pollution Prevention Institute (NYSP2I) has integratively implemented a

simplified form of both of these EPA toolkits. Working with key industry sectors such as

Food Manufacturing and Pulp & Paper Manufacturing in New York State, NYSP2I has utilized

the LE2 approach to successfully assist companies to reduce both their environmental

impact and overall energy usage. This has been accomplished through the identification

and implementation of preventative cost-effective solutions to pollution and energy use

related problems. This document defines and discusses the LE2 approach and explains how

companies themselves, as well as technical assistance providers can adopt the use of this

integrated approach. Examples of companies that have benefited from utilizing the LE2

approach are also showcased.

2. Key differences from the EPA Toolkits

As highlighted previously, this manual is a simplified hybrid of the “Lean and Environment”

and “Lean, Energy & Climate” toolkits developed by the EPA. The simplification lies in the

creation of basic process flow maps (block diagrams) in contrast to detailed Value Stream

Maps (a fundamental component of using Lean methods).

Why simplify and hybridize?

The EPA toolkits are a robust and exhaustive resource in performing detailed assessments of

manufacturing operations to identify improvement opportunities at companies. This manual

serves to provide a preliminary stepping stone to utilizing the EPA toolkits by outlining an

approach that does not require expertise in Lean methods, and can be undertaken by

professional staff at companies or technical service providers by taking basic first steps in

developing basic process maps that document baseline conditions of company operations.

By combining the environmental and energy components under one framework, the

outcome of an LE2 assessment draws attention to the relationship between environmental

and energy impacts in manufacturing operations and processes.

How can this manual be used in conjunction with the EPA toolkits?

The LE2 method can serve as a bridge to performing detailed assessments as defined by the

EPA toolkits. Readers are recommended to explore the EPA toolkits after reviewing the

content of this manual and conducting a LE2 assessment.

3

3. Where to begin?

The Team

To execute an LE2 project, a team of qualified individuals needs to be assembled. The goal

of each project is to identify and implement energy reduction strategies and environmental

improvements using a basic process mapping framework, so the participation of a

professional or professionals who have expertise in all of these areas is important. The best

team will incorporate a specialist familiar with the specific manufacturing operation to

create a process map, an environmental expert and a skilled energy professional.

For energy and LE2 projects conducted by NYSP2I in New York State, NYSP2I typically

handles all of the environmental aspects of the project. The Regional Technical

Development Centers (RTDC) (also known as the Manufacturing Extension Partnerships

(MEP)), which are regional centers that assist businesses adopting Lean methods and in

business development, assist with the process mapping part of the assessment. However, an

energy consultant, if needed, may be part of the project team, to provide expertise on the

energy portion of the LE2 project.

Project Considerations

Each project is going to be unique. Not every company is going to have an energy,

environment or process improvement (Lean) project opportunity. The focus of some

projects could be mainly environmental with a small focus on the energy and Lean portion,

or the main focus of the project could be energy with a smaller focus on Lean and

environment. Despite what the main focus of the project is, all three of the components need

to be kept in mind throughout the assessment.

LE2 Team

Environ. Expert

Energy Professional

Process Mapping

Expert

4

The scale in Figure 1 shows an example of how each LE2 assessment may have a unique

emphasis on each of three components. The scale can move between low to high

involvement.

4. LE2 Assessment Steps

There are a set of four basic phases that are followed for most of the LE2 projects shown in

Figure 2. These are 1) Screening; 2) Detailed Assessment; 3) Feasibility Study (Optional)

and 4) Implementation.

Figure 2: LE2 Assessment Steps

First prospective companies are screened to ensure that a viable project opportunity exists.

This step includes baseline data collection on energy usage, material usage, waste

generation, etc. and site visits. Once a company is selected for a LE2 assessment, the

detailed assessment phase begins. In this phase, selected company processes are identified

and evaluated in detail resulting in recommendations that aim to reduce energy, waste and

cost. These recommendations are presented to the company and if needed, a feasibility

study (performed after the detailed assessment) is performed to further assess (through

pilot implementation) the proposed improvements at the client’s site. If the feasibility study

shows that the suggested improvements will be viable, then implementation of the

improvements takes place. Each of these steps is described in more detail below.

Screening

• Preliminary Data Collection

• Site Visit

• Data Evaluation

Detailed Assessment

• Detailed evaluation of process(es)

• Analysis & Research

• Recommendations

Feasibility Study (Optional)

• Pilot or bench-scale evaluation of recommendation(s)

• Data collection & analysis

• Guidance towards Implementation

Implementation

• Funding Assistance

• Project Planning

• Implementation oversight

Lean

Energy

Environment

Low Medium High

Low Medium High

Low Medium High

Figure 1: LE2 Assessment Scale

5

Screening

Data Collection

The first step within the screening phase of a LE2 project involves some preliminary data

collection. This involves completion of a screening questionnaire called the Data Intake

Form (DIF). An example of this form used by NYSP2I with the Pulp and Paper manufacturing

industry can be found in the Appendix. This form asks for high level information regarding

the company and the facility as a whole. Information asked by the form includes:

This form not only provides great screening information, but also acts as a baseline for

comparisons after process improvements have been implemented. Additionally, based on

the potential impact of process improvements and the likelihood of quick implementation,

particular process areas or companies (in the case of a technical assistance provider) can be

selected to work with first.

•Air emissions permits

•Waste water treatment permits

•Toxics chemicals used

•Hazardous and non-hazardous waste levels

•Amount of water used/ waste water generated

•Whether or not they have an environmental management system

Environmental Data

•Amount of electricity used

•Costs of electricity

•Any other charges paid

•Other types of energy sources (natural gas, fuel oil, ect.)

Energy Data

•Number of employees at the facility

•Amount capital the company is willing to invest in possible projects that result from the assessment

•The company’s target return on investment (ROI) time period

Economic data

6

Opportunity Identification

In order to determine which process or part of a process to focus on for the assessment

phase, look for areas or processes that are:

Assessment

Assessment Planning

After the company fills out the Data Intake Form and a particular process or processes have

been identified, the assessment phase begins.

While detailed baseline data is gathered through the DIF, those working on the project will

need more information. In this phase, staff will visit the company’s location and see firsthand

how the pertinent operations work and develop a basic process map.

In some cases an overall process map is created (in instances of documenting the water

usage at the facility). This map looks at the facility as a system and is a critical tool for

documenting and analyzing process inputs and outputs. The creation of the overall process

map builds on the baseline information gathered in the DIF.

After visiting the site and gathering a basic understanding for how overall processes work,

specific data usually needs to be collected (through measurement, estimation or both).

Determining what data will need to be collected and who has the capability to obtain the

data is the final step of assessment planning.

Detailed Assessment

At this phase of the assessment, the facility’s overall process is broken down into specific

focus areas. Once these particular processes are identified, the appropriate data can be

Heavy water users

Waste generating

Energy intensive

Using toxic chemicals

Large amount of non-toxic chemicals

7

collected. A detailed process flow map is created. These detailed maps can cover an entire

process step, or focus on a sub-process that requires more attention.

The project team works to gather information on environmental, energy and process details

concurrently. Once the identified processes clearly represented with data, the team begins

to research opportunities for improvement. Industry best practices are used as a guideline

for implementing process changes. These are practices that have been in place within a

particular industry and have proven to produce results.

Research into innovative technologies is also done at this phase. Some solutions may be

simple, like replacing an old pump with a more efficient, newer model, but other solutions

require technology that is new or isn’t as widely used.

Recommendations

After identifying the areas that need improvement and researching possible solutions, the

team comes up with recommendations for the company. These solutions must adequately

address current process needs and help produce the same or better quality product, while

reducing the amount of energy, waste, or other environmental emission/waste.

A big consideration for any potential recommendation is the cost associated with the

suggested idea. If the idea does not fit within the company’s pre-determined return on

investment (ROI), then the likelihood of that idea being implemented tends to be low. The

goal of the team should be to find environmentally friendly and energy efficient solutions

that work within the cost parameters for that particular company.

Feasibility Study

After the recommendations are reviewed by the company, some of the proposed solutions

will move forward to the feasibility study. If needed, new technologies, processes or

equipment will be tested on a pilot or bench scale, either in the laboratory or on the

manufacturing floor, to confirm that it works with the company’s existing process. Earlier

studies conducted by NYSP2I and its partners are also consulted to determine feasibility.

Data is collected to confirm that new technologies perform better than those originally used.

Much of the baseline data used to compare the technology comes from the screening or

assessment phase of the LE2 process.

Implementation

Once possible solutions have been validated and the team is sure that they will perform as

predicted, then these ideas can be implemented in the existing production process.

Following implementation, process data should be collected in order to qualify actual

savings that were predicted in the assessment phase.

8

5. Important Factors Influencing Project Success

Projects should be selected carefully

A well-documented approach to project selection is very important, especially when

multiple stakeholders are involved. In order to ensure that the companies selected have a

good opportunity for improvement through the LE2 program, the people selecting the

projects should be the ones who will be performing the assessments and are familiar with all

aspects of the LE2 program.

Solid project management is key

Right from the start of a LE2 project, a lead individual or organization should be identified.

Project leaders, contributing consultants, and the company involved all need to be on the

same page regarding the direction the project. After an overall goal is determined, group

members need to establish a shared understanding of the objectives and scope of the

project. Project leaders need to work proactively with the company and consultants to be

sure that the project is moving forward and that all the project goals will be completed.

There are multiple levels of detail

Many times all three aspects of the LE2 approach (Lean, Energy, and Environment) cannot

be met in one single project. In order to do so, more money and time must be invested into

the project. Depending on the budget for the project and the timeline available, companies

might not want to do a full-scale LE2 project. Completing a subset of the assessment may

also be beneficial.

Most of the projects that have been completed by NYSP2I have focused on minimizing

environmental impacts. The energy and Lean aspects are still considered, but are not

researched as in depth as the environmental improvements might be.

6. Case Studies

To date, NYSP2I has worked with 15 companies in New York State. NYSP2I, the RTDCs, and

energy consultants completed a LE2 assessment, at minimum, at each company location.

Key information about the assessment and implementation results for two of these

companies is highlighted below.

9

LE2 Case Study for Ducommun AeroStructures

NYSP2I led a LE2 assessment, with help from CEG and L&S Energy Se rvices, Inc.,

at Ducommun AeroStructures Inc. in Coxsackie, NY. This company is known for

engineering and manufacturing complex contoured aerostructure components

made from Titanium sheet metal for the aerospace industry.

The Team

One of the first points of contact with Ducommun was CEG, the area RTDC. This group

worked with NYSP2I to contract L&S Energy Services, Inc. to help with the energy portion of

the project. All three entities worked together under NYPSP2I’s leadership.

Screening

NYSP2I sent CEG and L&S Energy Services to do an initial screening of Ducommun in order

to see what types of possible projects existed. The results from the walk-through and the

information gathered from the Data Intake Form helped NYSP2I identify specific focus areas

within the plant that would benefit from the LE2 assessment.

Assessment

The assessment investigated electricity savings from innovative use of bulk insulation on Hot

Sizing Presses. The Caustic Soda wash area was also explored for possible electricity

reductions and possible decrease in the hazardous vapors released from the tanks.

It was recommended that Ducommun add flexible sponge insulation around the sizing dies,

a solution with less than 10 months Return on Investment (ROI). Other recommendations

include adding semi-automatic insulated lids to the Caustic Soda Wash tanks and also

replacing the tank liner with a heavy bottom liner. The liner would incorporate heaters

Lean

Energy

Environment

Low Medium High

Low Medium High

Low Medium High

10

embedded in the liner and also makes room for insulation to be installed under the liner.

The ROI for this component should be less than 3.5 years.

Feasibility

Thanks to the L&S engineers, the team was able to put some energy data loggers on the

sizing presses to capture the energy differences associated with the addition of insulation on

the presses. The same data logging was done with the caustic tanks to characterize possible

improvements that could be made after implementing the new liner and lids.

Implementation and Results

Ducommun implemented all of the suggestions put forth by the LE2 team. The sizing presses

now have a sponge-like insulation that can be placed on them. The Caustic Soda tanks are

now larger than the original (to fit all the parts made by Ducommun) and they have been

fitted with lids and a variation of the recommended tank and heater changes.

By implementing the recommended improvements, the following annual reductions were

demonstrated:

$13,093 in electricity costs and 89,068 kWh of electricity on two Hot Sizing Presses

$2,091 in electricity costs and 14,230 kWh of electricity on the Hot Caustic Soda Wash

Tank

Ducommun AeroStructures also realized these benefits:

Larger tank allows increased throughput and accepts longer parts.

Noticeable reduction in room vapors and temperature. More comfortable

environment for workers.

11

LE2 Case Study for The Gleason Works

In partnership with High Tech Rochester (HTR), EMCOR Services, and Leader

Professional Services, NYSP2I led a LE2 assessment at The Gleason Works in

Rochester, NY. Gleason makes machines which are then used to manufacture

gears.

The Team

The combined expertise of process engineers and energy consultants was essential in

properly evaluating the baseline processes at Gleason and also proposing alternative

processes. Of all the team members involved, the representative from the engineering

consulting firm (Leader Professional Services) was in charge of coordinating all the

members.

Screening

This company was looking to improve upon their existing process. The energy consultants,

EMCOR, had begun some basic surveying prior to the LE2 assessment, so that provided

excellent background data. Gleason enlisted NYSP2I, the local RTDC, and other engineering

experts to help them find improvement areas.

The Gleason Works was sent a data intake form in order to collect additional background

information and to help the LE2 team identify what the company’s goals were.

Assessment

The LE2 team went through an overall screening of the location and then narrowed down

Gleason’s needs to two focus areas. The waste water treatment on the metal plating lines and

the exhaust scrubber system were the primary focus for the LE2 project. It was

recommended that Gleason install a Reverse Osmosis system to filter incoming water and

Lean

Energy

Environment

Low Medium High

Low Medium High

Low Medium High

12

deionization (DI) columns at each tank to help regulate the amount of metals and other

impurities before the tank contents are re-cycled. DI columns were also recommended for

the air scrubber system. The columns would purify the water that is flowed through the

scrubber media to help decrease biofilm formation.

Implementation & Results

The recommended technologies were researched further. Data pertaining to Gleason

Works was tabulated to confirm the savings potential. A basic Payback period was

calculated to be 2.5 years (which was within Gleason’s set requirements). The savings

associated with the implemented solutions are as follows:

Annual

Savings

Electric - pumps, blower,

electrodes $4,046

Electric - compressed air $8,881

Sludge Disposal vs. Column

Regeneration -$4,100

Scrubber Maintenance $12,800

Total $21,627

Cost per kWh is $.083 (blended cost)

The proposed RO-DI system was implemented at Gleason Works. The combination of

environmental improvements, including reduction of hazardous sludge waste and reduction

in electricity consumption, resulted in a total annual operating cost savings of $21,627. The

more efficient system also reduces the time needed for maintenance and upkeep, and it is

easier to operate than their previous system.

13

Appendix: Example of LE2 Data Intake Form (DIF)

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22