United States
                            Environmental Protection
                    Solid Waste
                    and Emergency Response
         EPA 530-F-97-025
         August 1997
Waste  Minimization:
Increased Profits  and
Charles  H.  Lilly  Company
    $100,000 Investment;
Payback in 1 Year

    Savings in 1} Energy
Use; 2) Staff Hours; and 3)
Disposal Costs

    Changed RCRA
Generator Status from
Large Quantity to Small

   The system paid for itself
within the first year, and has
continued to provide us a
boost every year since then.
 What is the Charles H. Lilly

    Charles H. Lilly Company, in
 Portland, OR, is a major batch for-
 mulator and distributor of herbi-
 cides, insecticides, and fungicides in
 the Pacific Northwest. Its main
 plant generates hazardous waste-
 water when batch formulation tanks
 and transfer lines are cleaned for
 product changeovers. Lilly's waste-
 water contains organic solvents,
 detergents, and pesticides.

 What Did They Accomplish?

    Lilly implemented an on-site
 wastewater reuse process involving
 waste segregation, solvent extrac-
 tion, filtration, wastewater reuse,
 and minimal waste concentrate dis-
 posal. They now reuse approxi-
 mately 95% of their wastewater and
 have cut waste concentrate disposal
 to about 5%. As a result of these
 efforts, Lilly is no longer considered
 a Large Quantity Generator (LQG)
 under the Resource Conservation
 and Recovery Act (RCRA).


    Prior to implementing the pro-
 gram, Lilly produced about 550 gal-
 lons of hazardous wastewater per
 month. Disposal was off-site
through evaporation, solidification,
and incineration.  They now gener-
ate about 30 gallons per month.

   Since inception of the program
in 1989, Lilly also has replaced toxic
constituents (e.g., atrozenes and tri-
ozenes) with ingredients that are
less toxic and achieve the same for-
mulation requirements. Lilly also
implemented a closed-loop system
for non-hazardous wastes and
strives to overcome the need for
storage drums on site. Instead, Lilly
uses items like round-trip contain-
ers, which reduce drum-washing
needs, generate less waste, and
lessen the handling of hazardous

   One additional achievement has
been an increase in company pride
and environmental stewardship
among employees.

Regulatory Relief

   As a result of its efforts, Lilly is
no longer an LQG, and, therefore, is
subject to fewer and less stringent
reporting and recordkeeping
                                                           The Implementation Process

                                                             Four people were key to success-
                                                           ful implementation: the facilities
                                                           manager, the environmental manag-
                                                           er, a chemist, and the equipment

 Waste Minimization: Increased Profits and Productivity
 Charles H. Lilly Company
supplier. The system they put in
place necessitated a change in
employee behavior.  In the past,
approximately 80 hours per week
were required to collect wastes in
drums, and label and separate them
for evaporation. With the newer
system, liquids are simply trans-
ferred directly to influent holding
tanks. A handling job that took 80-
hours per week was reduced  to 20-
25 hours.

   To monitor the effectiveness of
the waste management process, Lilly
used two tools:

    Chemical QA/QC to monitor
     system performance:  Lilly sent
     influent and effluent samples
     to an off-site lab for analysis,

    Cost accounting: focused on
     savings in energy use and in
     disposal costs.

   Once Lilly personnel decided to
implement the process, the project
took about six months to finish.
Lilly continues to use the filtration
system today.

Economics: Costs and

   Lilly paid for this project on its
own.  Funding faced competition
from other projects within the com-
pany, resulting in implementation

   Lilly invested $100,000 in the sol-
vent recycling system. This included
everything:  the system itself, influ-
ent and effluent tanks, carbon filters,
piping, monitoring, and certification
for construction of the secondary
containment system.
   The initial investment for
QA/QC monitoring involved send-
ing samples to an off-site lab for
influent and effluent analysis.
Monitoring costs $2,000 to $3,000 up
front and $100 to $200 per month.

   Savings have occurred in three
areas: energy use, staff hours, and
savings from reduced disposal costs.
During the first year, the waste man-
agement system accrued savings in
these three areas totaling just under
$100,000. This made for a payback
period of about one year.

   Though Lilly continues to enjoy
reduced costs and labor-hour
requirements associated with haz-
ardous waste handling, the savings
resulting from avoided disposal
costs has dropped from levels
achieved during the inaugural year.
This is due largely to the fact that
other hazardous waste reductions
lessen the need for  the filtration sys-
tem. The savings now are approxi-
mately $30,000 to 45,000 per year in
avoided disposal costs and materials

    "The system paid for itself
within the first year, and has
continued to provide us a boost
every year since then." - Nick
Williams, Environmental


   Lilly experienced very few hur-
dles while implementing waste min-
imization.  During construction,
manufacturing was disrupted
briefly. Once installed, the process
required changes in employee
behavior and functions. While oper-
ators faced a learning curve, there
was no resistance from personnel.
In addition, there were no negative
impacts on either the quality or
quantity of products.

Words to the Wise

   Brent Jorgenson, Lilly's former
environmental manager who was
instrumental to the success of this
effort, asserts that companies hoping
to initiate waste minimization pro-
jects should keep an open mind to
all alternatives that might fit that
facility. He claims that, "...while it
may seem easier to take an "off-the-
shelf" system and try to retrofit your
facility, this is probably not the best
approach.  What companies should
do is examine their processes closely
and keep an open mind."

   Jorgenson also recommends
spending time  and  effort up front in
getting management involved.

   Both Jorgenson and Williams
attribute much of their success to
empowering and involving those
people who work "in the trenches."
They are closest to the work, can be
a rich source of ideas, and can pro-
vide valuable input into design and
implementation phases.
For more information about the Waste Minimization National Plan, call (800) 424-9346
or check the World Wide Web at
                                           Reducing Tones m Our Item's Waste