r/EPA
             United States
             Environmental Protection
             Agency
             Off ice Of
             The Administrator
             (A-101F6)
171-R-92-002
February 1992
Pollution Prevention In
Delaware, Maryland, And
West Virginia
            #90-6801
            A Survey Of
            Industrial Facilities
                                           Printed on Recycled Pap*

-------

-------
              POLLUTION PREVENTION IN
     DELAWARE, MARYLAND, AND WEST VIRGINIA

               A Survey of Industrial Facilities
                           by

                     J. David Yeager
               A report submitted in fulfillment
                 of the requirements for the
National Network for Environmental Management Studies Fellowship
         United States Environmental Protection Agency
                        Region HI
                     Philadelphia, PA
                        May 1991       U.S. Environmental P'^ ASency
                           J           Region 5, Library U
                                       77 West Jackson I:  :
                                       Chicago, IL  60604-35'jj

-------

-------
Yeager, Jay David., POLLUTION PREVENTION IN DELAWARE, MARYLAND, AND
WEST VIRGINIA:  A SURVEY  OF  INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES.  Typed and bound
professional experience project report. 117 pages, 27 figures,'29 tables, 1991.
                                    Abstract

       In order to characterize pollution prevention activities by industrial facilities in EPA
Region ffl, a pollution prevention survey was mailed to all facilities which reported Toxics
Release Inventory data to EPA in 1988. Survey questions covered general ffacility information,
pollution prevention program information, and detailed process, waste generation, and financial
information on pollution prevention projects. While the survey return rate was not high enough
to discern state- or industry-wide trends, it is apparent that facilities across a wide variety of
industrial classifications have implemented projects to decrease their waste generation through
source reduction techniques. The most commonly reported source reduction method was on-site
recycling. Most reported pollution prevention programs were initiated in order to reduce waste
disposal costs.
Author's name in full: Jay David Yeager.
Candidate for the degree of: Master of Science.
Date: May 1991
Major Professor: Richard J. McClimans.
Department:  Environmental and Resource Engineering.
State University of New York,
College of Environmental Science and Forestry.
Syracuse, New York.
Signature of Major Professor:	

-------

-------
                           DISCLAIMER

This report was furnished to the  U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency by  the student identified  on the  cover  page,  under a National
Network for Environmental Management  Studies  fellowship.

The contents are essentially as  received from the  author.  The
opinions, findings,  and conclusions  expressed are  those  of the author
and  not necessarily  those of the  U.S. Environmental  Protection
Agency.  Mention,  if any, of company, process, or product names is
not to be considered as an endorsement  by the U.S. Environmental
Protection  Agency.

-------

-------
                           CONTENTS

                                                         Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS     	  i
LISTOFTABLES      	  ii
LIST OFFIGURES      	  "i
CHAPTER
     1. INTRODUCTION    	  1
     2. METHODOLOGY    	  7
     3. RESULTS: DELAWARE	11
     4. RESULTS: MARYLAND		19
     5. RESULTS: WEST VIRGINIA     	27
     6. COMBINED RESULTS: DE, MD, WV     	35
     7. POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDIES     	44
REFERENCES      	58
APPENDICES
     A. SAMPLE SURVEY VEHICLE AND COVER LETTER     	59
     B. POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY DESCRIPTIONS      ...  67
VTTA        	'	117

-------

-------
                            ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

      To James Hemby at EPA Region HI, for his knowledgeable guidance and boundless
support throughout this project

      To Richard McClimans at SUNY-ESF, academic advisor, for his friendly and
enthusiastic support during my time at Syracuse.

      To professors John Felleman, Robert Hennigan, James Karp, and James Nakas, for
their service on my academic steering committee.

      And, finally, to the corporate representatives who volunteered their time to provide the
information in this report

-------

-------
                              LIST OF TABLES
             **   '                                  r
                                                                       Page

 1.    2-1   Manufacturing SIC Codes, 20-39     	  8
 2.    3-1   Delaware: Responses from 57 Facilities	 12
 3.    3-2   Delaware: Scope of Pollution Prevention Programs      	14
 4.    3-3   Delaware: Pollution Prevention Program Initiation	 15
 5.    3-4   Delaware: Reason for Pollution Prevention Program      	16
 6.    3-5   Delaware: Pollution Prevention Method      	17
 7.    4-1   Maryland: Responses from 199 Facilities        	20
 8.    4-2   Maryland: Scope of Pollution Prevention Programs       	22
 9.    4-3   Maryland: Pollution Prevention Program Initiation       	23
10.    4-4   Maryland: Reason for Pollution Prevention Program      	24
11.    4-5   Maryland: Pollution Prevention Method       	26
12.    5-1   West Virginia: Responses from 57 Facilities       	28
13.    5-2   West Virginia: Scope of Pollution Prevention Programs       	30
14.    5-3   West Virginia: Pollution Prevention Program Initiation       	31
15.    5-4   West Virginia: Reason for Pollution Prevention Program       	32
16.    5-5   West Virginia: Pollution Prevention Method       	34
17.    6-1   DE, MD, WV: Responses from 360 Facilities        	37
18.    6-2   DE.MD.WV: Scope of Pollution Prevention Programs        	39
19.    6-3   DE, MD.WV: Pollution Prevention Program Initiation       	40
20.    6-4   DE, MD.WV: Reason for Pollution Prevention Program      	41
21.    6-5   DE, MD, WV: Pollution Prevention Method       	43
22.    7-1   Quantity of Wastes Reduced, by State      	45
23.    7-2   Case Studies, Average Reductions, by SIC	47
24.    7-3   Quantity of Wastes Reduced, by SIC       	48
25.    7-4   Quantity of Wastes Reduced, by Method      '	50
26.    7-5   Quantity of Wastes Reduced, by Reason      	51
27.    7-6   Wastes Reduced, from 48 Case Studies       	54
28.    7-7   Average Costs, by Method (43 Case Studies)      		56
29.    7-8   Average Savings, by Method (43 Case Studies)       	57

-------

-------
                                                                                    Ill
                              LIST OF FIGURES
                                                                       Page

 1.    3-1   Delaware: Responses from 57 Facilities        	12
 2.    3-2   Delaware Facilities Contacted and Completed Surveys, by SIC       ... 13
 3.    3-3   Delaware: Scope of Pollution Prevention Programs      	14
 4.    3-4   Delaware: Pollution Prevention Program Initiation       	15
 5.    3-5   Delaware: Preferred Pollution Prevention Reason       	16
 6.    3-6   Delaware: Preferred Pollution Prevention Method       	17
 7.    4-1   Maryland: Responses from 199 Facilities	20
 8.    4-2   Maryland Facilities Contacted and Completed Surveys, by SIC       ... 21
 9.    4-3   Maryland: Scope of Pollution Prevention Programs       	22
10.    4-4   Maryland: Pollution Prevention Program Initiation       	23
11.    4-5   Maryland: Preferred Pollution Prevention Reason       	24
12.    4-6   Maryland: Preferred Pollution Prevention Method      	26
13.    5-1   West Virginia: Responses from 104 Facilities        	28
14.    5-2   West Virginia Facilities Contacted and Completed Surveys, by SIC    ..29
15.    5-3   West Virginia: Scope of Pollution Prevention Programs      	30
16.    5-4   West Virginia: Pollution Prevention Program Initiation       	31
17.    5-5   West Virginia: Preferred Pollution Prevention Reason       	32
18.    5-6   West Virginia: Preferred Pollution Prevention Method       	34
19.    6-1   DE,MD,WV: Responses from 360 Facilities       	36
20.    6-2   DE, MD, WV Facilities Contacted and Completed Surveys, by SIC    . . 38
21.    6-3   DE.MD.WV: Scope of Pollution Prevention Programs       	39
22.    6-4   DE, MD, WV: Pollution Prevention Program Initiation       	40
23.    6-5   DE.MD.WV: Preferred Pollution Prevention Reason      	41
24.    6-6  DE, MD, WV: Preferred Pollution Prevention Method      	43
25.    7-1   Pollution Prevention Case Studies, by SIC      	46
26.    7-2  Pollution Prevention Case Studies, by Method       	49
27.    7-3   Pollution Prevention Case Studies, by Reason       	52

-------

-------
                                 CHAPTER 1

                              INTRODUCTION

       This project was undertaken in the summer and fall of 1990 with the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region ED Office of Pollution Prevention. It was
initiated through the Agency's National Network for Environmental Management Studies
(NNEMS) program, a fellowship program designed to involve graduate and doctoral level
students in priority environmental science, policy, and management projects within EPA.
Specifically, this report was prepared in response to NNEMS research question # 90-6801:

          What types of specific activities are industries in EPA Region III doing
       to prevent pollution, in particular, recycling  and waste minimization
       efforts?

EPA Region III includes Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and
the District of Columbia.
       The information provided in this report was gathered through a survey of industrial
facilities from three Region ffl states: Delaware, Maryland, and West Virginia; it represents
the first portion of a larger project to characterize pollution prevention activity throughout
the entire region.

                   Pollution Prevention and Source Reduction

       "Pollution prevention", as an environmental protection strategy, focuses on efforts
to reduce the amount and/or toxicity of pollutants before they are generated.  It represents a
fundamentally different approach from the end-of-pipe ^'pollution control" strategies which
have historically dominated U.S. environmental  policy.  Pollution control efforts have
successfully reduced many point source discharges of pollutants and yielded marked gains
in environmental quality over the past twenty years, but acute problems associated with
modem industrial society's generation of wastes persist Significant quantities of wastes
continue to be  released into air, land, and water; according to EPA's Toxics Release
Inventory data, for example, more than 4.5 billion pounds of chemical wastes were
released directly into air, land, or water in 1988 (EPA, 1990).  In light of such facts the

-------
 consensus~opinion is that, despite past progress, traditional pollution control methods are
 not enough to keep up with growing environmental challenges stemming from continued
 chemical proliferation and increased scientific knowledge regarding the health and
 environmental consequences of pollution.  The attention of environmentalists, policy
 makers, and industrial managers alike has shifted from the end of the pipeline to  the
 original source of pollutant generation, and pollution prevention has emerged as  the
 cornerstone of a more effective strategy for responding to contemporary environmental
 problems.

       The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), in its 20th Annual Report, presented
 the key aspects of the pollution prevention philosophy:


          Pollution   Prevention  means the reduction  or  elimination of
           pollutants at their source so that waste is not generated; it contrasts with
           "end-of-pipe", "collect -and-contain", or "release-and-dilute" controls
           designed to treat or control releases and waste already generated.

           Pollution Prevention emphasizes the efficient,  and therefore more
          profitable, use of material and energy resources; it contrasts with the
          costly treatment of resource wastes that  often  are byproducts of
          inefficient use of materials or energy.

          Pollution Prevention reduces the total amount  of pollutants in the
          environment; it does not  simply shift them from one environmental
          medium to  another, as so many pollution control strategies do (CEQ.
          1990).


In an industrial setting, pollution prevention is primarily accomplished through "source
reduction", defined by Congress as


       -  Any practice which

         -  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

         -  reduces the hazards to public health and the environment associated
             with the release of such substances, pollutants, or contaminants.

-------
          "Source reduction" does not include any practice which alters the
        " physical, chemical, or biological characteristics or the volume of a
          hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant through a process or
          activity which itself is not integral to and necessary for the production of
          a product or the providing of a service.

          "Source  reduction" includes: in-process recycling; equipment .or
          technology modifications; process or procedure modifications; reform or
          redesign of products; substitution of raw materials; or improvements in
          housekeeping, maintenance,  training or inventory control (Pollution
          Prevention Act of 1990).


The six general  approaches to source reduction listed in the definition above are described
here in greater detail. Each will not be applicable in all industrial situations, and they are
often used in combination to attain the most suitable pollution prevention scheme for a
particular process or situation:


       In-process recycling  Valuable materials can be recovered and saved
          by introducing collection systems and/or closed loops within processes
          to facilitate on-site recycling of compounds that would otherwise be
          discarded as wastes.

       Equipment  or technology modifications - In some cases, production
          equipment may be altered, or new equipment may be introduced to
          increase efficiency or optimize raw material use.

       Process or procedure modifications  In some cases, processes may
          be altered so as to be less chemical-  or waste-intensive.

       Reform or  redesign of products -  Manufacturers can also  prevent
          pollution by redesigning end products so they are less hazardous and
          their production is less chemical-intensive.
                                                t
       Substitution of raw materials - Source reduction can be accomplished
          by substituting for a toxic substance a chemical that is less toxic or non-
          toxic. This is  sometimes referred to as "toxics use reduction".
                                                                          /
       Improved housekeeping  This refers to better process management to
          minimize leaks, spills, vaporization, mixture errors, and bad production
          runs, all of which result in misused raw materials that must be discarded
          as wastes.   Tighter inventory controls, preventative equipment
          maintenance, and employee training can help ensure proper handling of
          materials, discourage wasteful practices,  and significantly reduce a
          firm's waste stream.

-------
       The terms "pollution prevention" and "source reduction" are used throughout this
 report in keeping with the definitions above. Most pollution prevention strategies applied
 in industrial settings will fall into one of the six general categories which constitute source
 reduction.  Pollution prevention could conceivably take other forms, however, and is not
 limited only to source reduction methods.
       The inclusion of off-site recycling among pollution prevention methods has been a
 controversial issue. At the time this study was undertaken, off-site recycling was included
 in EPA's Pollution Prevention Policy as a second preference  to  source reduction.
 Consequently* it was  included in this project for consideration as a possible  pollution
 prevention method.  Since that time, passage of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 has
 excluded off-site recycling from the definition of pollution prevention. In this report, off-
 site recycling is included in the analysis, acknowledging however that it does not constitute
 pollution prevention or source reduction as these terms are currently defined.
                                                t
                      EPA'S Pollution Prevention Prnf ram

      There are presently no regulations requiring  industry  to reduce its volume or
 toxicity of wastes to any quantitatively-derived level.  Consequently,  EPA has been
pursuing pollution prevention as a voluntary program.  In January, 1989 the Agency issued
its Pollution Prevention Policy Statement, creating a multi-media Office of Pollution
Prevention to work with the Agency's media-specific program offices. Key components of
the EPA program include:

         The development of institutional  structures within each of EPA's media-
          specific and regional offices to insure that the pollution prevention
          philosophy is incorporated into every feasible aspect of internal
          decisionmaking and planning;
         The support of state and local pollution prevention programs...One of
          EPA's primary goals is to help states develop their own pollution
          prevention programs;

         The development of an outreach program targeted at state and local
          governments, industry, and consumers;

-------
        - The creation of incentives and elimination of barriers to pollution
          prevention;
          The development of a multi-media clearinghouse to provide educational
          and technical information; and
          The collection, dissemination, and analysis of data for the purpose of
          evaluating national progress in multi-media pollution prevention (EPA,
          1989).

This project is in accord with EPA's goals of collecting and disseminating information and
supporting the development of state pollution prevention programs.

                                     Goals

       This report is concerned with the application of pollution prevention/source
reduction techniques by industrial facilities in Delaware, Maryland, and West Virginia, with
particular regard to (1) the extent to which pollution prevention is being practiced, (2) the
particular ways the general methods presented here are being applied to specific industrial
processes, and (3) the level of effectiveness with which manufacturers have reduced their
waste streams by practicing pollution prevention. It is a first cut attempt at understanding
the industrial pollution  prevention activity  that is transpiring, qualitatively as well as
quantitatively.  It is concerned also with the industrial community's vision of pollution
prevention and attitudes towards pollution prevention, reasons for industrial waste-related
decisionmaking, and the significance of pollution prevention activities in industrial
operations.  Additionally, this report provides example of particular methods by which
pollution prevention has been achieved in a variety of industrial settings.

                                   Limitations

       The information reported here is illustrative of the types and nature of industrial
pollution prevention activity currently underway in Delaware, Maryland, and West
Virginia. It would be difficult, given the low response rate, to draw broad sweeping
conclusions regarding the overall level of pollution prevention activity in those states or
EPA Region m. A response rate of 8.1 % precludes the possibility of drawing statistically

-------
 significant conclusions from the data for any state, industrial classification, or for the
 Region as a whole.  Nonetheless, the information gathered from active Region m facilities
 may be useful in encouraging others to pursue pollution prevention. Additionally, the case
 studies included here may be valuable tools for transfer of pollution prevention technology
 to other facilities with similar processes.
       All of the information presented in this report was provided vouluntarily by the
 surveyed facilities.  It has not been otherwise verified
                                                 t
                                     Outline

       This remainder of this report describes in detail the results of a survey project
concerning the pollution prevention activities of manufacturing facilities in Delaware,
Maryland, and West Virginia.  Chapter two describes the methodology used in carrying out
the study. Chapters three, four, and five present the results of the attitudinal portion of the
survey for Delaware, Maryland, and West Virginia respectively.  Chapter six presents an
aggregate analysis of these results for the three states combined.  Chapter seven is  a
detailed analysis of pollution prevention case studies provided by the surveyed facilities.
Appendix A contains a sample copy of the survey and cover letter.  Appendix B is  a
compendium of pollution prevention case studies reported by industrial facilities.

-------
                                 CHAPTER 2

                              METHODOLOGY

                                    Scope

       The information presented in this report covers three of the states in EPA Region
m--Delaware, Maryland, and West Virginia.  It represents the first portion of a larger
project to characterize pollution prevention activity throughout the entire Region. The three
states characterized in this report were chosen as a starting point because of their small size
relative to the two larger states in the Region, Pennsylvania and Virginia.  Beginning with
these smaller states made the study sample more manageable in size and allowed an
opportunity to reevaluate the methodology before expanding the project to include the larger
states.
       Data were gathered through a survey of industrial facilities in each of the three
states.  A copy of the survey was mailed to each industrial facility in the three states which
reported Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data to EPA in 1988.

                         The Toxics Release Inventory

       The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is a national database of information on toxic
pollution by manufacturing industries.  It is maintained by EPA's Office of Pesticides and
Toxic Substances (OPTS) pursuant to the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-
                                                t
Know  Act (EPCRA)  of October, 1986, also known  as Title  III of the Superfund
Amendments. All data reported to TRI is, by law, accessible to the public. At the time of
this study, the most recent TRI data available  was from 1988.  For 1988, TRI reporting
requirements covered 302 individual toxic chemicals and 20 categories of chemical
compounds and applied to releases of these chemicals by manufacturing facilities in the 50
states,  the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana
Islands, and the U.S.Virgin Islands.  Manufacturing facilities are those operating within the
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 20 through 39.  The SIC code is an
industrial classification system used by the Department of Commerce for classification of

-------
   JjWe 2-1.  Manufacturing SIC  Codes, 20-39.  (EPA, September 1990)
     20    Food and Kindred Products
     21    Tobacco Products
     22    Textile Mill Products
     23    Apparel and Other Finished Products made from Fabrics and Other Similar
            Materials
     24    Lumber and Wood Products, Except Furniture
     25    Furniture and Fixtures
     26    Paper and Allied Products
     27  .. Printing, Publishing, and Allied Industries
     28    Chemicals and Allied Products
     29 .   Petroleum Refining and Related Industries
     30    Rubber and Miscellaneous Plastic Products
     31    Leather and Leather Products
     32    Stone, Clay, Glass, and Concrete Products
     33    Primary Metal Industries
     34    Fabricated Metal Products, Except Machinery and Transportation Equioment
     35    Industrial and Commercial Machinery and Computer Equipment
     36    Electronic and Other Electrical Equipment and Components, Except
            Computer Equipment
     37    Transportation Equipment
     38    Measuring, Analyzing, and Controlling Instruments; Photographic, Medical,
            and Optical Goods; Watches and Clocks
     39    Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries
economic activity. The SIC codes and industries covered by TRI reporting requirements
are presented in Table 2-1.

       Manufacturing facilities within SIC codes  20-39 which met the following

conditions were required to report to TRI in 1988:


          They were engaged in general manufacturing activities;
          They produced, imported, or processed 50,000 pounds or more of any
          of the 322 TRI chemicals or they used in any other manner 10,000
          pounds or more of a TRI chemical; and
          They employed the equivalent of ten or more full-time employees (EPA,
          1990).


       Delaware, Maryland, and West  Virginia facilities which reported to TRI in 1988

served as the sample for the present study. As of July 1990, 57 Delaware facilities, 199

-------
Maryland" facilities, and 104 West Virginia facilities had submitted TRI forms for the
reporting year 1988.  These 360 facilities were used as the sample for the pollution
prevention survey.  It is important to note that pollution prevention is not limited to the
manufacturing sector (SIC codes 20-39), and that by limiting the scope to TRI facilities,
this study deals only with one portion of the whole realm of applicability of pollution
prevention. Additionally, it is unlikely that all facilities which were required to file TRI
reports complied with the law, and therefore the study sample did not necessarily include
                                               i
all firms meeting the threshold requirements for TRI reporting.  A study done for EPA
estimated that for 1987, the first year of TRI reporting, only 65.8 percent of facilities
nationwide which should have reported actually did so (EPA, 1990).

                              Survey Methodology

       Between July and October 1990, a survey and cover letter were mailed to each of
the 360 facilities.  (See Appendix A for a sample copy of the survey and cover letter.)
Addresses, SIC codes, technical contact information, and telephone numbers for each
facility were taken from the TRI database for use in the survey mailing. Follow-up phone
calls were made to to each facility to verify survey receipt and to encourage compliance.
When a facility had not received a survey, or it was discovered that address or contact
information was incorrect, a new survey was mailed out to the updated address or contact
for that facility. All facilities were asked to complete and return the survey within one
month of its receipt
       The survey was six pages long, containing one page of instructions and three
separate sections  for providing information.   It was designed to cover all aspects of
industrial pollution prevention, including the reduction  of both  hazardous and  non-
hazardous wastes.  The survey and cover letter are presented in Appendix A.
       Section I,  "General Company  Information",  was  designed to  gather  basic
information on the facility: company name, address, four-digit SIC code, parent company,
chief products/outputs, number of employees, annual sales  (most recent year), contact
name and position, and telephone number.
       Section n, "Company General Pollution Prevention Information", was designed to
gather information on a facility's overall approach, reasoning, and philosophy regarding

-------
 pollution prevention. Questions dealt with the nature and scope of the facility's pollution
 prevention efforts, if any, including starting date, source of program initiation, reason for
 the program, most important pollution prevention method(s) used, and a general
 description of the program.  Facilities were also encouraged to attach additional descriptive
 information or relevant company literature.
       Section m, "Pollution Prevention Processes", was designed to gather detailed
 information on specific pollution prevention techniques being used at the facility.  Each
 facility was asked to copy and complete this two-page section for each example of pollution
 prevention currently employed in their operations.  The questions were designed to gather
 specific, detailed descriptions of normal facility processes, pollution prevention techniques
 applied, quantity of waste(s) reduced (historical and most recent year) for the process,
 costs  and savings from implementation of the pollution prevention project, and the
reason(s) why the  particular process was targeted for application of pollution prevention
technology.  This section provided the "case studies" of pollution prevention activity
described in this report and presented in Appendix B.

-------
                                                                                   11

                                 CHAPTERS

                           RESULTS: DELAWARE

                                  Responses

       A survey was mailed to 57 facilities in Delaware, all of the TRI reporters from that
state for 1988.  The Chemical industry had the highest number of facilities contacted, with
24 (42.1 percent of total), followed by the Food industry with eight (14.0 percent) and the
Plastics industry (SIC 30) with seven (12.3 percent). The SIC distribution of Delaware
firms contacted is presented in Table 3-1 and Figure 3-2.
       Of the  57 Delaware facilities contacted, seven (12.3 percent) completed and
returned the survey, three (5.3 percent) claimed it was not applicable to their facility, and
10 (17.5 percent) declined participation in the survey project. Thirty-seven facilities (64.9
percent) provided no response of any kind.  These responses are summarized in Figure 3-
1.

                              Completed Surveys

       The remainder of this chapter is based on results gathered from the seven completed
                                                f
surveys returned from Delaware facilities.  The seven facilities completing  the survey
represented six different SIC codes; two (28.6 percent) were from the Chemical industry
(SIC 28), while there were one each (14.3 percent) from the Printing (SIC 27), Plastics
(SIC 30), Glass (SIC 32), Primary Metals (SIC 33), and Instruments (SIC 38) industries.
(See Table 3-1 and Figure 3-2.) The seven facilities which completed the survey ranged in
size from 65 to 500  employees, with annual  sales ranging from $16.5 million to $950
million annually.

-------
Table
3-L Delaware: Responses
from 57
Facilities.
11 t 1 * 1 NOT I 1
CU 1; CONTACTED jCOMPLETEDUpPLICABLd DECLINED 1
1 1 1 1 1
20
21
2 ?
2.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
TOT.
8
 o
2
0
0
0
. 3
2
24
2
7
0
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
0
57
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
o
5
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
o
o
0
0
10
^B^ ^_^^__
NO 1
RESPONSE!
6
v/
0
1
o
o
o
3
1
15
* *j
1
A
4
o
\j
0
\j
o
\J
2
1
1
A
2
A*
o
0
37
   37(64.9%)
                                 10(17.6%)
COMPLETED SURVEY
NOT APPLICABLE
DECLINED PARTICIPATION
NO RESPONSE
Figure 3-1.  Delaware:   Responses from 57 Facilities

-------
                                                                              13
        30
    u
    I
    M      ,
    w  -    1
    Ex,
    O
        10-
                                        FACILITIES CONTACTED
                                        COMPLETED SURVEYS
                j	U
Q
111   mml    I  m
           20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
                               SIC CODE
 Figure 3-2.  Delaware Facilities Contacted And Completed Surveys, By SIC
              Company General Pollution Prevention Information:
                      Responses From Survey Section n

Scope  of  Pollution Prevention Programs

       Six of the seven facilities answered the question regarding the scope of their
pollution prevention programs.  Of those, three (42.9  percent)  had company-wide
programs in place, and two (28.6 percent) had programs at their individual facility only.
One facility (14.3 percent) reported some isolated pollution prevention efforts at their
individual facility, but no formal program. (See Table 3-2 and Figure 3-3.)

-------
    Table 3-2.  Delaware:  Scope of Pollution  Prevention Programs
   * -, ^f^^t,  *   '*       -%               *                *.

     EXTENT OF PROGRAM                 NUMBER      PERCENT

     COMPANY-WIDE PROGRAM IN PLACE                3               42 9
     INDIVIDUAL FACILITY PROGRAM                   2               286
     SOME IMMVIDUAL FACILITY EFFORTS               1               14'3
     PROGRAM PLANNED, NOT IMPLEMENTED            0               00
     NO POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM              0               00
     NO INFORMATION                                i               14'3

     TOTALS                                        7              10Q1
          1 (14.3%)        	

                  '       ^
                                     3 (42.9%)
             ^^^^^^^^^^^*fs^^*^^^.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^m
     \ (14.3%)

                        X^^^^^^~             COMPANY-WIDE PROGRAM

                                                  INDIV. FACILITY PROGRAM

                                                  SOME IND. FACIL. EFFORTS

                                                  NO INFORMATION
 Figure 3-3.  Delaware:  Scope of Pollution  Prevention  Programs.
Program  Tnifiatinn
      Six of the seven facilities responded to the question regarding the initiation of their

pollution prevention programs. Three (42.9 percent) reported that their programs were

initiated by corporate top-level management; two (28.6 percent)  reported that their

programs were initiated by plant engineers; one facility (14.3 percent) reponed that its

program was initiated by mid-level management (See Table 3-3 and Figure 3-4.)

-------
Table 3-3. Delaware: Pollution
I , JfHP8""' '" ^ " -*" "
\ PROGRAM INITIATION
1- - "**
TOP-LEVEL MANAGEMENT
MID-LEVEL MANAGEMENT
PLANT ENGINEER
PLANT EMPLOYEE
OTHER
NO INFORMATION
TOTALS
Prevention Program Initiation.
1
1 NUMBER
1 
3
1
2
0
0
1
7
II
PERCENT

42.9
14.3
28.6
0.0
0.0
14.3
100.1
     1 (14.3 %)
  2 (28.6 %)
                                   3 (42.9 %)
                            1 (14.3 %)
TOP MANAGEMENT
MID-LEVEL MANAGEMENT
PLANT ENGINEER
NO INFORMATION
 Figure 3-4.   Delaware:  Pollution Prevention Program Initiation.
Reason for Pollution  Prevention Program

       In question ni.4 facilities were asked to rank nine categories of possible reasons for
their pollution prevention programs in order of their importance to them (1 = most
important, 9 = least important) Six of the seven facilities provided rankings.  The
rankings for each reason were averaged across the six survey forms. The highest ranked
reason was "Reduction of waste treatment/disposal costs" with an average rank of 2.08;
"Company environmental  image" was second  with an  average rank  of 3.33;

-------
Table 3-4. Delaware: Reason
r I
RED. OF WASTE TREATMENT/
DISPOSAL COSTS
CO. ENVIRONMENTAL IMAGE
ENVIRONMENTAL REGS.
OTHER PROCESS COST RED.
INTERNAL WASTE AUDIT
TRI REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY
PRODUCT DISCONTINUATION
CUSTOMER REQUEST
NO INFORMATION
TOTALS
for Pollution
AVERAGE)
RANK fc
f -, f f. f
2.08
3.33
3.67
3.92
4.75
5.42
6.17
7.67
8.00
	
	
Prevention
f
'REFERRED
4
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
7
Program
PERCENT
57.1
0.0
28.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.3
100.0
       1 (14.3%)
     4(57.1%)
                            2(28.6%)
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS
WASTE DISPOSAL COSTS
NO INFORMATION
Figure 3-5.  Delaware:  Preferred Pollution Prevention  Reason.

-------
                                                                             17
Table -3-5. Delaware: Pollution Prevention Method.
17 | AVERAGE! # 1
MIOTOS 1 RANK |pREirERKEI>|
EQUIPMENTAECHNOLOGY
MODIFICATIONS
PROCESS MODIFICATIONS
RECYCLING/REUSE ON-SITE
RAW MATERIALS SUBSTrTUTION
RECYCLING/REUSE OFF-SITE
EMPLOYEE TRAINING
IMPROVED HOUSEKEEPING
PRODUCT REFORMULATION
NO INFORMATION
TOTALS
3.00
3.67
3.92
4.08
4.17
5.42
5.75
6.00

	
1
1
2
1
1
0
0
0
1
7
PERCENT
14.3
14.3
28.6
14.3
14.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.3
100.1
            1 (14.3 %)
   1 (14.3 %)
      1 (14.3^%)
1 (14.3 %)
                                    2 (28.6 %)
                        1 (14.3 %)
              RAW MATERIALS SUBSTITUTION
              ON-SITE RECYCLING
              PROCESS MODIFICATION
              TECHNOLOGY MODIFICATION
              OFF-SITE RECYCLING
              NO INFORMATION
Figure 3-6.   Delaware:  Preferred Pollution Prevention  Method.

-------
 "Environmental regulatory requirements" was third with an average rank of 3.67.
       "Reduction of waste treatment/disposal costs" received the most #1 rankings with
 four (57.1 percent).  Two facilities (28.6 percent) reported "Environmental regulatory
 requirements" as the most important reason behind their pollution prevention programs.
 This information is summarized in Table 3-4 and Figure 3-5.

 Pollution Prevention Method

       In question III.5 facilities were asked to rank eight categories of pollution
 prevention methods in order of importance to their operations (1 = most important, 9 =
 least important) Six of the seven facilities provided complete rankings. The rankings for
 each method were averaged across the six survey forms. The highest ranked method was
 "Equipment/technology modifications" with an average rank of 3.00; "Process procedure
 modifications was second with an average rank of 3.67; "Recycling/reuse on-site" was
 third with an average rank of 3.92.
       "Recycling/reuse on-site" received the most #1 rankings with two (28.6 percent).
 "Substitution  of   raw   materials",   "Process   procedure   modifications",
 "Equipment/technology modifications", and "Recycling/reuse off-site" each received one
(14.3 percent) #1 ranking. (See Table 3-5 and Figure 3-6.)

-------
                                                                                   19

                                 CHAPTER 4

                           RESULTS: MARYLAND

                                  Responses
                                  ^M^M^Ma^MMM     >

       A survey was mailed to 199 facilities in Maryland, all of the TRI reporters from that
state for 1988.  The Chemical  industry (SIC 28) had the highest number of facilities
contacted, with 53 (26.6 percent of total), followed by the Food industry (SIC 20) with 32
(16.1 percent) and the Fabricated Metals industry (SIC 34) with 25 (12.6 percent).  The
SIC distribution of Maryland firms contacted is presented in Table 4-1 and Figure 4-2.
       Of the 199 Maryland facilities contacted, nine (4.5 percent) completed and returned
the survey. This was the lowest positive response rate of the three states.  Nine facilities
(4.5 percent) declined participation in the survey project, and 181 (91.0 percent) provided
no response of any kind. These responses are summarized in Figure 4-1.

                              Completed Surveys

       The remainder of this chapter is based on results gathered from the nine completed
surveys returned from Maryland facilities. The  nine facilities completing the survey
represented  five different SIC codes, including two (22.2 percent) apiece from the
Chemical industry (SIC 28), Fabricated Metals industry (SIC 34), Machinery industry
(SIC 36), and Electronics industry (SIC 36).  One completed survey (11.1 percent) was
from the Primary Metals industry (SIC 33). (See Table 4-1 and Figure 4-2.) The nine
facilities which completed the survey ranged in size from 50 to 500 employees, with annual
sales ranging from $500,000 to $100 million annually.

-------
Table 4.
1*1
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 ,
28
29 .
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
TOT.
1. Maryland: Responses from 199 Facilities.
tAV}-^ - s A  t m
fe>- * 1 * NOT
fCfONTACtED (COMPLETEDUPPLICABLld
L> 1 1 1
. 32
0
3
0
8
1
5
4
53
 3
9
1
7
10
25
5
15
13
3
2
199
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
2
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 NO 1
DECLINED! RESPONSE!
i
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
9
31
0
3
0
8
1
4
3
47
3
9
1
7
9
23
3
13
12
2
2
181
                     9 (4.5 %)
                          9(4.5%)
                                             |  COMPLETED SURVEY

                                             H  DECLINED PARTICIPATION

                              181 (91.0 %)     , D  NO RESPONSE
Figure 4-1.   Maryland:  Responses from 199 Facilities.

-------
                                                                       21
        60
        50-
    Cfl
    S   40-
    b,
        30
        20
        10
                .LI
i
                                         FAdLITIES CONTACTED
                                         COMPLETED SURVEYS
           2021 22232425262728293031 32333435363738 39
                                SIC CODE
Figure 4-2.  Maryland Facilities Contacted & Completed  Surveys, By SIC


             Company General Pollution Prevention Information:
                    Responses From Survey Section n

Scope of Pollution Prevention Programs

      All nine facilities answered the question regarding the scope of their pollution
prevention programs. Of those, six (66.7 percent) had company-wide programs in place,
two (22.2 percent) had some individual facility efforts, but no formal program. One
facility (11.1 percent) reponed that it had an individual facility in place. (See Table 4-2 and
Figure 4-3.).

-------
   Table 4-2.   Maryland:  Scope of Pollution  Prevention Programs.

              OF PROGRAM             1   mJMBBfc    I  PERCENT
    COMPANY-WIDE PROGRAM IN PLACE
    INDIVIDUAL FACILITY PROGRAM
    SOME INDIVIDUAL FACILITY EFFORTS
    PROGRAM PLANNED, NOT IMPLEMENTED
    NO POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM
    NO INFORMATION
6
1
2
0
0
0
66.7
11.1
22.2
 0.0
 0.0
 0.0
    TOTALS
                                                                 100.0
         2 (222 %)
    1(11.1%)
                                    (66.7 %)
                                                  COMPANY-WIDE PROGRAM

                                                  INDIV. FACILITY PROGRAM

                                                  SOME IND. FACIL. EFFORTS
 Figure 4-3.   Maryland:  Scope of Pollution Prevention Programs.
Program Initiation
      All nine facilities responded to the question regarding the initiation of their pollution
prevention programs. Seven (77.8 percent) reported that cheir programs were initiated by
corporate top-level management; one (11.1 percent) reported that their program was
initiated by mid-level management; one facility (11.1 percent) reported that its program was
initiated by plant engineers.  (See Table 4-3 and Figure 4-4.)

-------
                                                                               23
  Table 4-3.  Maryland:  Pollution Prevention Program Initiation.

   PROGRAM INITIATION              I   NUMBER
    TOP-LEVEL MANAGEMENT
    MID-LEVEL MANAGEMENT
    PLANT ENGINEER
    PLANT EMPLOYEE
    OTHER
    NO INFORMATION
7
1
1
0
0
0
PERCENT I


    77.8
    11.1
    11.1
     0.0
     0.0
     0.0
    TOTALS
                                                                 100.0
                                       (77.8 %)
                                                   TOP MANAGEMENT

                                                   MID-LEVEL MANAGEMENT

                                                   PLANT ENGINEER
 Figure 4-4.  Maryland:  Pollution Prevention Program Initiation.
Reason for Pollution Prevention Program
      In question ni.4 facilities were asked to rank nine categories of possible reasons for
their pollution prevention programs in order of their importance to them (1 =^most
important, 9  least important.) Eight of the nine facilities provided complete rankings.
The rankings for each reason were averaged across the eight survey forms. The highest
ranked reason was "Reduction of waste treatment/disposal costs" with an average rank of
1.50; "Environmental regulatory requirements" was second with an average rank of 3.00;
"Other process cost reduction" was third with an average rank of 3.56.

-------
Table 4-4. Maryland: Reason
l1!!^. ' 1
RED. OF WASTE TREATMENT/
DISPOSAL COSTS
ENVIRONMENTAL REGS.
OTHER PROCESS COST RED.
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY
CO. ENVIRONMENTAL IMAGE
TRI REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
INTERNAL WASTE AUDIT
CUSTOMER REQUEST
PRODUCT DISCONTINUATION
NO INFORMATION
TOTALS
for Pollution Prevention
AVERAGE!
RANK
1.50
3.00
3.56
4.25
4.94
6.00
6.00
7.69
8.06
	

Program.
*
PREFERRED! PERCENT
6
1
0
0
0
1
0
t
0
0
1
9
66.7
11.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
nil
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
	 100.0
         1(11.1%)
   6(66.7%)
                           2 (22.2 %)
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS
WASTE DISPOSAL COSTS
TRI REPORTING
Figure 4-5.  Maryland:  Preferred Pollution Prevention  Reason.

-------
       "Reduction of waste treatment/disposal costs" received the most #1 rankings with
six (66.7 percent).  One facility (11.1  percent) reported "Environmental regulatory
requirements" as the most important reason behind its pollution prevention  program;
Another cited "TRI reporting requirements" as its most important reason. This information
is summarized in Table 4-4 and Figure 4-5.

Pollution Prevention Method

       In question III.5 facilities were asked to rank eight categories of  pollution
prevention methods in order of importance to their operations (1 = most important, 9 =
least important) Eight of the nine facilities provided complete rankings. The rankings for
each method were averaged across the eight survey forms. The highest ranked method was
"Recycling/reuse on-site" with an average rank of 2.94; "Improved housekeeping" and
"Employee training" were second, each with an average rank of 3.63.
       "Recycling/reuse on-site" received the most #1 rankings with four (44.4 percent).
"Substitution of raw materials" and "Employee training" each  received two #1 rankings
(22.2 percent).  (See Table 4-5 and Figure 4-6.)

-------
Table 4-5. Maryland: Pollution Prevention
1* LSir^''^ * - I AVERAGE!
METHOB 1 RANK fo
^M- *"  1*
v -WXvXvX- -w ' .- -El
RECYCLING/REUSE ON-SITE 2.94
EMPLOYEE TRAINING
IMPROVED HOUSEKEEPING
PROCESS MODIFICATIONS
RAW.MATERIALS SUBSTITUTION
EQUIPMENt/TECHNOLOGY
MODIFICATIONS
RECYCLING/REUSE OFF-SITE
PRODUCT REFORMULATION
NO INFORMATION
TOTALS
3.63
3.63
4.06
4.56
5.00
5.69
6.50
	
	
Method.
* 1
REFERRED!
4
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
9
PERCENT 1
44.4
22.2
0.0
0.0
22.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
99.9
                              3(33.3%)
                                            RAW MATERIALS SUBSTITUTION
                                            EMPLOYEE TRAINING
                        2 (22.2 %)         
                                          ON-SITE RECYCLING
Figure 4-6.  Maryland:  Preferred Pollution Prevention Method.

-------
                                                                                  27

        ..                        CHAPTERS

                         RESULTS: WEST VIRGINIA
                                               
                                  Responses

       A survey was mailed to 104 facilities in West Virginia, all of the TRI reporters from
that state for 1988. The Chemical industry had the highest number of facilities contacted,
with 40 (38.5 percent of total), followed by the Fabricated Metals industry with 11 (10.6
percent). The Glass industry (SIC 30) and Primary Metals industry (SIC 33) each had 10
facilities contacted (9.6 percent).  The SIC distribution of West Virginia firms contacted is
presented in Table 5-1 and Figure 5-2.
       Of the 104 West  Virginia facilities contacted, 13 (12.5 percent) completed and
returned the survey, the highest response rate of the three states.  Five facilities (4.8
percent) claimed it was not applicable to their facility, and 21 (20.2 percent) declined
participation in the survey project. Sixty-five facilities (62.5 percent) provided no response
of any kind.  These responses are summarized in Figure 5-1.
                                               t
                              Completed Surveys

       The remainder of this chapter is based on results gathered from the 13 completed
surveys returned from West Virginia facilities. The 13 facilities completing the survey
represented six different SIC codes; eight (61.5 percent) were from the Chemical industry
(SIC 28), while there were one each (7.7 percent) from the Plastics (SIC 30), Glass (SIC
32), Fabricated Metals (SIC 33), Electronics (SIC 36), and Transportation (SIC 37)
industries. (See Table 5-1 and Figure 5-2.) The 13 facilities which completed the survey
ranged in size'from 40 to 1408 employees, with annual sales ranging from $20 million to
$565 million annually.

-------
Table -5-1. West Virginia: Responses from 104 Facilities.
14* r '** * i * i NOT i i NO i
U*M C0NTACTEI* JCOMPLETEDUPPLICABLEJ DECLINED 1 RESPONSE
v*hf  f  j 1 1
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 ,
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
TOT.
. 6
0
0
0
4
1
0
1
40
2
5
2
10
10
11
4
4
3
0
1
104
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
13
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
o
o
3
o
o
0
9
0
1
0
3
1
1
2
0
1
0
0
21
4
o
o
o
1
1
o
o
22
1
3
2
6
9
9
2
3
1
0
1
65
  65 (615 %)
                           13 (12.5 %)
                                  5 (4.8 %)
                                  21 (20.2 %)
COMPLETED SURVEY
NOT APPLICABLE
DECLINED PARTICIPATION
NO RESPONSE
Figure 5-1.   West Virginia:   Responses from-104 Facilities.

-------
                                                                  29
      40
  c/3
  S  30
  H
  C
      20
      10
                                H  FACiLrnES CONTACTED
                                fj  COMPLETED SURVEYS
                  1
-    li.Hl
ILL
         20 21 2223 24 25 26 2728293031 32 333435 363738 39
                            SIC CODE
Figure 5-2.  W. Virginia Facilities Contacted & Completed Surveys, By SIC
           Company General Pollution Prevention Information:
                   Responses From Survey Section n

Scone of Pollution Prevention Programs

      Twelve of the 13 facilities answered the question regarding the scope of their
pollution prevention programs. Of those, 11 (84.6 percent) had company-wide programs
in place. One facility (7.7 percent) reported that their program had been planned, but not
yet implemented. (See Table 5-2 and Figure 5-3.)

-------
               West  Virginia:  Scope of Pollution Prevention  Programs.

              OF PROGRAM             I   NUMBER   |  PERCENT
     COMPANY-WIDE PROGRAM IN PLACE
     INDIVIDUAL FACILITY PROGRAM
     SOME INDIVIDUAL FACILITY EFFORTS
     PROGRAM PLANNED, NOT IMPLEMENTED
     NO POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM
     NO INFORMATION
   11
   0
   0
   1
   0
   1
84.6
 0.0
 0.0
 7.7
 0.0
 7.7
     TOTALS
                                                  13
                 100.0
           1 (7.7 %)

      1 (7-7 %)
                               11(84.6%)
COMPANY-WIDE PROGRAM

PLANNED, NOT IMPLEMENTED

NO INFORMATION
 Figure 5-3.   West Virginia:  Scope of Pollution Prevention Programs.
Program Initiation


      Twelve of the 13 facilities responded to the question regarding the initiation of their
pollution prevention programs. Eight (61.5 percent) reported that their programs were
initiated by corporate top-level management; three (23.1 percent) reported that their
programs were initiated by mid-level management; one facility (7.7 percent) reported that
its program was initiated by plant engineers. (See Table 5-3 and Figure 5-4.)

-------
                                                                               31
  Table "5-3.  West Virginia:  Pollution Prevention Program Initiation.
         r^^~  , ,^,v-~   - j, , ^,-^a  v,
         fRAMUstlTIATlON              1  NUMBER    I  PERCENT
TOP-LEVEL MANAGEMENT
MID-LEVEL MANAGEMENT
PLANT ENGINEER
PLANT EMPLOYEE
OTHER
NO INFORMATION
   8
   3
   1
   0
   0
   1
                                                                  6 1 .5
                                                                  23.1
                                                                  7.7
                                                                  0.0
                                                                  0.0
                                                                  7.7
TOTALS
   13
                                                                 100.0
               1(7.7%)
        1 (7-7 %)
    3 (23 1 %)
                                    8(61.5%)
TOP MANAGEMENT

MID-LEVEL MANAGEMENT

PLANT ENGINEER

NO INFORMATION
 Figure 5-4.  West Virginia:   Pollution Prevention Program Initiation.
Reason for Pollution Prevention Proram
      In question ffl.4 facilities were asked to rank nine categories of possible reasons for
their pollution prevention programs in order of their importance to them (1 = most
important, 9 = least important) Eleven of the 13 facilities provided complete rankings.
The rankings for each reason were averaged across the 1 1 survey forms.  The highest
ranked reason was "Reduction of waste treatment/disposal costs" with an average rank of
2.00; "Environmental regulatory requirements" was second with an average rank of 2.56;
"Company environmental image" was third with an average rank of 3.78.

-------
Table 3-4. West Virginia: Reason for Pollution Prevention Program
|.tm.X.v^i>>K;.:.>w.w.v...-...................v.._.,.._._.J. 	 . 	 ..,,,. 	  - O *""
*i5w | AVERAGE! *
"rgs801? 1 RANK PREFERRED PERCENT
'-.'<&*. , , i I I
RED. OF WASTE TREATMENT/
DISPOSAL COSTS
ENVIRONMENTAL REGS.
CO. ENVIRONMENTAL IMAGE
OTHER PROCESS COST RED.
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY
TRI REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
INTERNAL WASTE AUDIT
PRODUCT DISCONTINUATION
CUSTOMER REQUEST
OTHER
NO INFORMATION
TOTALS
2.00
2.56
3.78
4.50
4.56
5.67
5.72
7.83
8.39
	
	
	
4
*
3
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
2
13
30.8
23.1
7.7
0.0
7.7
0.0
7.7
0.0
0.0
7.7
15.4
100.1
       2 (15.4 %)
                          3 (23.1 %)
                           4 (30.8 %)
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS
WASTE DISPOSAL COSTS
WASTE AUDIT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMAGE
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY
OTHER
NO INFORMATION
Figure 5-5.  West Virginia:  Preferred Pollution  Prevention Reason.

-------
                                                                                   33
       "Reduction of waste treatment/disposal costs" received the most #1 rankings with
four (30.8 percent).  Two facilities (15.4 percent) reported "Environmental regulatory
requirements" as the most important reason behind their pollution prevention programs.
"Waste audit", "Company environmental image", and "Occupational safety" each received
one #1 ranking (7.7 percent). This information is summarized in Table 5-4 and Rgure 5-5.

Pollution Prevention  Method

       In question ni.5 facilities  were asked to  rank  eight categories  of  pollution
prevention methods in order of importance to their operations (1 = most important, 9 =
least important)  Eleven of the 13 facilities provided complete rankings. The rankings for
each method were averaged across the 11 survey forms. The highest ranked method was
"Raw materials substitution" with an average rank of 2.89; "Recycling/reuse on-site" was
second with an average rank of 3.06; "Employee training" was third with an average rank
of 3.44.  (See Table 5-5.)
       "Recycling/reuse on-site" received the most #1 rankings with four (30.8 percent).
"Substitution of raw  materials" received three #1 rankings (23.1 percent)., "Employee
training", "Equipment/technology modifications", "Recycling/reuse off-site", and "Other"
each received one (7.7 percent) #1 ranking.  The facility which listed "Other"  cited all eight
methods as being equally important to their operations. (See Table 5-5 and Figure 5-6.)

-------
Table 5-5. West Virginia: Pollution Prevention Method.
I'^TftSWW* f, " f

RAW MATERIALS SUBSTITUTION
RECYCLING/REUSE ON-SITE
EMPLOYEE TRAINING
EQUIPMENT/TECHNOLOGY
MODIFICATIONS
PROCESS MODIFICATIONS
IMPROVED HOUSEKEEPING
RECYCLING/REUSE OFF-SITE
PRODUCT REFORMULATION
NO INFORMATION
TOTALS
AVERAGE
RANK
2.89
3.06
3.44
4.00
4.72
5.11
6.00
6.78
	
	
* 1
PREFERRED!
3
9
4
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
9
PERCENT
33.3
44.4
11.1
11.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
99.9
         2 (15.4 %)
    1 (7.7 %)
                           3 (23.1 %)
                                1 (7.7 %)
                     4(30.7%)
|  RAW MATERIALS SUBSTITUTION
B  EMPLOYEE TRAINING
H  ON-SITE RECYCLING
0  TECHNOLOGY MODIFICATION
g  OFF-SITE RECYCLING
QJ  OTHER
       INFORMATION
Figure 5-6.  West Virginia:  Preferred Pollution Prevention Method.

-------
                                                                                   35

                                 CHAPTER 6

                     COMBINED RESULTS: DE, MD, WV
                                                *
                                   Responses

       Surveys were mailed to a total of 360 facilities in Delaware, Maryland, and West
Virginia, all of the TRI reporters from those states for 1988. The Chemical industry (SIC
28) had the highest number of facilities contacted,  with 117 (32.5 percent of total),
followed by the Food industry (SIC 20) with 46 (12.8 percent), and the Fabricated Metals
industry (SIC 34) with 38 facilities contacted (10.6 percent).  The SIC distribution of all
firms contacted is presented in Table 6-1 and Figure 6-2.
       Of the 360 facilities contacted, 29 (8.1 percent) completed and returned the survey,
eight (2.0 percent)  claimed it was not applicable to their facility, and 40 (11.1 percent)
declined participation  in the survey project. No response of any kind was received from
283 facilities (78.6 percent). These survey responses are summarized in Figure 6-1.
       The inclusion of requests for detailed quantitative waste reduction and financial
information in the present survey may have had a negative effect on the response rate.
Several of the facilities which declined participation cited  concerns over proprietary
operation and financial information; some expressed concern over the potential end uses of
voluntary information released to a regulatory agency. Others cited a lack of staff time  and
resources necessary  to compile the requested information  as their  reason for  not
participating.
       The overall response rate of 8.1. percent is similar to the response rate for voluntary
reporting of waste minimization information to EPA's Toxics Release  Inventory.  For
1988,9.8 percent of facilities nationwide which reported to TRI included voluntary reports
of their waste minimization activities.  These optional reports include information on
quantity of waste reduced, method employed, and the reason for the action.
       In contrast, survey projects not requesting detailed quantitative information have
realized higher positive response rates. A nationwide survey conducted by the Office of
Technology Assessment in 1986, requesting no specific process, waste generation, or
financial information had a 70.2 response rate (OTA, 1986).  Similarly, a 1987 survey of

-------
 hazardous waste generators in Tennessee, requesting only non-specific attitudinal
 responses, had a positive response rate of 68.4 percent (Barkenbus and Barkenbus, 1989).

                              Completed Surveys
                                                
        The remainder of this chapter is based on results gathered from the 29 completed
 surveys.  It is clear from these surveys received that there is an understanding of pollution
 prevention concepts throughout the industrial community, and that facilities across a broad
 range of industrial sectors have implemented pollution prevention projects as part of their
 normal operations. The 29 facilities which completed the survey represented 10 different
 SIC codes: The largest number of respondents came from the Chemical industry (SIC 28)
 with 12 (41.4 percent), while there were three each (10.3 percent) from the Fabricated
 Metals (SIC 33) and Electronics (SIC 36) industries. (See Table 6-1 and Figure 6-2.)  The
29 facilities which completed the survey ranged in size from 40 to 1408 employees, with
annual sales ranging from $500,000 to $950 million.
                             29(8.1%)
                                  (2.2%)
     283(78.6%)
                                     40(11.1%)
|  COMPLETED SURVEY
n  NOT APPLICABLE
|  DECLINED PARTICIPATION
0  NO RESPONSE
Figure 6-1.  DE, MD,  WV: Responses from 360 Facilities.

-------
                                                                                37
Table ~6-
1
I
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 ,
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
TOT.
1. DE, MD, WV: Responses from 360 Facilities.
t v.vw. sv . 4 . \ \ -iV. <*" "  "*"   " '  " . % "^ "^ 1
\m--- f ; 1 t I NOT I I , NO I
ONTACTED JCOMPLETEDUPPLICABLEI DECLINED I RESPONSE!
fe '*.";, 'II 1 I 1
. 46
0
5
0
12
2
8
7
117
7
21
3
18
21
38
10
20
18
4
3
360
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
12
0
2
0
2
2
3
2
3
1
1
0
29
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
3
0
1
0
3
0
1
1
18
1
2
0
3
1
1
2
0
2
1
0
40
41
0
4
0
9
2
7
4
84
5
16
3
13
18
34
6
17
15
2
3
283
              Company General Pollution Prevention Information:
                       Responses From Survey Section n
Scone of Pollution  Prevention Programs
      Twenty-seven of the 29 facilities answered the question regarding the scope of their
pollution prevention programs. Their responses indicate that the facilities which completed
the survey were all among those actively pursuing pollution prevention.  None of the 27
respondents reported that they had no pollution prevention program in place. The majority
(69.0 percent) had company-wide programs in place.  Three (10.3  percent) reported
programs at their individual facility only, three (10.3 percent) reported some isolated
pollution prevention efforts at their individual facility, but no formal  program, and one

-------
         120
        100
     CA  80
     u
     fib

     
         60
         40
         20
                                        FACTLrTIES CONTACTED
                                        COMPLETED SURVEYS
                                   jJjJilll
            2021 22232425262728293031 3233343536373839
                               SIC CODE
 Figure 6-2.  Facilities Contacted & Completed Surveys, By SIC Code.
                                           t

facility (3.4 percent) reported that its program had been planned, but not yet implemented.
(See Table 6-2 and Figure 6-3.)
Program Initiation
      Twenty-seven of the 29 facilities responded to the question regarding the initiation
of their pollution prevention programs. A large majority (18, or 62.1 percent) reported that
their programs were initiated by corporate top-level management; five (17.2 percent)
reported that their programs were initiated by mid-level management; four facilities (13.8
percent) reported that their programs were initiated by plant engineers. (See Table 6-3 and
Figure 6-4.)

-------
Table 6-2. DE, MD, WV: Scope of
M'%'^X^^^^^^^::i!^-'J*' *^ r 
 ^''^sfipp^
I EXTENT OF PROGRAM
COMPANY-WIDE PROGRAM IN PLACE
INDIVIDUAL FACILITY PROGRAM
SOME INDIVIDUAL FACILITY EFFORTS
PROGRAM PLANNED, NOT IMPLEMENTED
NO POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM
NO INFORMATION
TOTALS
Pollution Prevention

'
NUMBER
20
3
3
1
0
2
29
Programs.

'
PERCENT
69.0
10.3
10.3
3.5
0.0
6.9
100.0











                2 (6.9 %)
         1 (3.5 %)
    3 (10.3 %)
   3 (10.3 %)
                                   20(69.0%)
COMPANY-WIDE PROGRAM
INDW. FACILITY PROGRAM
SOME IND. FACIL. EFFORTS
PLANNED, NOT IMPLEMENTED
NO INFORMATION
 Figure 6-3.  DE,  MD, WV:  Scope of Pollution Prevention Programs.
Reason for Pollution Prevention Program
       In question m.4 facilities were asked to rank nine categories of possible reasons for
their pollution prevention programs in order  of their importance to them (1 = most
important, 9 = least important.) Twenty-three of the 29 facilities provided rankings. The
rankings for each reason were averaged across the 23 survey forms. The highest ranked
reason was "Reduction of waste treatment/disposal costs" with an average rank of 1.85;
"Environmental regulatory requirements" was second with an average rank of 3.00; "Other
process cost reduction" was third with an average rank of 4.02.

-------
Table 6-3. DE, MD, WV: Pollution
I % Siii&ijit' ^y''" %
r^^i&M irafATiojf
TOP-LEVEL MANAGEMENT
MID-LEVEL MANAGEMENT
PLANT ENGINEER
PLANT EMPLOYEE
OTHER
NO INFORMATION
TOTALS
Prevention Program
1% ,, -
NUMBER
18
5
4
0
0
2
29
Initiation.
1" \
PERCENT 1
62 1
17.2
13.8
0.0
0.0
6.9
100.0
                   : (6.9 %)
        4 (13.8 %)
      5 (17.2 %)
18 (62.1 %)
               TOP MANAGEMENT
               MID-LEVEL MANAGEMENT
               PLANT ENGINEER
               NO INFORMATION
 Figure 6-4.  DE, MD,  WV:  Pollution  Preventin  Program Initiation.
       Financial and regulatory considerations provided the most common impetus for
facilities' pollution prevention programs.  "Reduction of waste treatment/disposal costs"
was cited by 14 (48.3 percent) of facilities as the most important reason underlying their
pollution prevention efforts, whiled "Environmental regulatory requirements" was cited by
seven facilities (24.1 percent). "Company-initiated review/waste audit",  "Company
environmental image", "TRI reporting requirements", "Occupational safety", and "Other"
each received one #1 ranking. This information is summarized in Table 6-4 and Figure 6-
5.

-------
                                                                          41
Table 6-4. DE, MD, WV: Reason for Pollution Prevention Program.
1 iSorfr - ~ I
1 >,><^\ " ' :
RED. OF WASTE TREATMENT/
DISPOSAL COSTS
ENVIRONMENTAL REGS.
OTHER PROCESS COST RED.
CO. ENVIRONMENTAL IMAGE
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY
INTERNAL WASTE AUDIT
TRI REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
CUSTOMER REQUEST
PRODUCT DISCONTINUATION
OTHER
NO INFORMATION
TOTALS
[AVER AGE 1
1 RANK [PR
i 1

1.85
3.00
4.02
4.07
4.87
5.57
5.72
7.83
8.09
	
_
	
#
EFERRE
'

14
7
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
3
29
01 PERCENT 1
 

48.3
24.1
0.0
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
0.0
0.0
3.5
10.3
100.2
                            7 (24.1 %)
   14 (48.3 %)
B  ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS
B  WASTE DISPOSAL COSTS
B  WASTE AUDIT-
ED  ENVIRONMENTAL IMAGE
B  TRI REPORTING
B  OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY
H  OTHER
r   NO INFORMATION
Figure 6-5.  DE, MD, WV:  Preferred Pollution Prevention Reason.

-------
 Pollution Prevention Method                  .

       In question ffl.5 facilities were  asked to rank eight categories of pollution
 prevention methods in order of importance to their operations (1 = most important, 9 =
 least important)  Twenty-three of the 29 facilities provided rankings.  The rankings for
 each method were averaged across the 23 survey forms.  The highest ranked method was
 "Recycling/reuse on-site" with an average rank of 3.24; "Raw materials substitution" was
 second with an average rank of 3.78; "Employee training" was third with an average rank
 of 4.02.
       "Recycling/reuse on-site" received the most #1 rankings with 10 (34.5 percent).
 "Substitution of raw  materials"  received six #1 rankings (20.7 percent); "Employee
 training" received three (10.3 percent); "Equipment/technology modifications" received two
 (6.7 percent);  "Recycling/reuse off-site", and "Process  procedure modifications" each
received one #1 ranking (3.4 percent).  "Product reformulation" was the least popular
pollution prevention method, indicating some concern by manufacturers that this option
could potentially jeopardize product quality. (See Table 6-5 and Figure 6-6.)

-------
                                                                           43
Table -6-5. DE, MD, WV: Pol
I MSTTBOD I
RECYCLING/REUSE ON-SITE
RAW MATERIALS SUBSTITUTION
EMPLOYEE TRAINING
EQUTPMENT/TECHNOLOGY
MODIFICATIONS
PROCESS MODIFICATIONS
IMPROVED HOUSEKEEPING
RECYCLING/REUSE OFF-SITE
PRODUCT REFORMULATION
OTHER
NO INFORMATION
TOTALS
lution Prevention Method.
AVERAGE! f 1
RANK [PREFERRED 1
3.24
3.78
4.02
4.09
4.22
4.76
5.41
6.48
	
	
	
10
7
3
2
1
0
2
0
1
3
29
PERCENT
34.5
24.1
10.3
6.9
3.5
0.0
6.9
0.0
3.5
10.3
100.0
 1 (3.5%)
    10(34.5%)
                            7(24.1%)
                                3 (10.3 %)
RAW MATERIALS SUBSTITUTION
EMPLOYEE TRAINING
ON-SITE RECYCLING
PROCESS MODIFICATION
TECHNOLOGY MODIFICATION
OFF-SITE RECYCLING
                       /
OTHER
NO INFORMATION
Figure 6-6.  DE, MD, WV:  Preferred Pollution Prevention Method.

-------
                                  CHAPTER?

                  POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDIES
                                                t
                               State Distrihii
       Twenty-four of the 29 facilities which completed the survey submitted a total of 48
pollution prevention case studies, reported on Section m of the survey form. These case
studies are presented in Appendix B. The waste reduction figures presented in this section
are absolute reductions, representing the difference between wastes produced before and
after implementation of the pollution prevention project.  The percentages expressed
represent the quantity of wastes reduced as a portion of the quantity of wastes potentially
generated.  Historical waste reduction figures represent reductions  realized since
implementation of the pollution prevention project;  Most recent year figures represent
reductions realized over the most recent 12-month period, 1989-1990.
       The 24 facilities and 48 case studies were distributed between the three states as
shown in Table 7-1. West Virginia facilities reported the largest number of case studies,
and the largest absolute reduction in quantity of wastes generated. Eight West Virginia
facilities contributed a total of 26 case studies detailing their pollution prevention efforts.
Historical waste reductions for these processes (reductions since time of implementation)
were 5,429,431,660 pounds, representing an 84.6 percent decline in the quantity of wastes
generated. Over the most recent yearly period, 1989-1990, the same processes accounted
for a reduction of 1,209,442,844 pounds of waste products, an 84.5 percent decline in
waste generation.  One West Virginia facility reported a high percentage reduction for a
particularly large  quantity of its process wastewater. Throwing that example out, the
remaining 25 West Virginia case  studies accounted for considerably lower historical
reductions: 29,441,660 pounds, or 45.3 percent reduction in quantity of wastes generated.
Similarly, the figures for the most recent year were  lower without this one case study:
9,442,844 pounds, or a 47.1 % reduction.
      Maryland facilities reported the second highest amount of absolute reductions.
Nine Maryland facilities contributed a total of 1 1 case studies. Their total waste reductions
since the pollution prevention projects were implemented amounted to  1,028,023,817

-------
                                                                                      45
  Table 7-1.  Quantity  of Wastes Reduced,  by State.
    DELAWARE     7
    MARYLAND     9
    W. VIRGINIA *   8
            11
            11
            26
           (25)
              8,989,574
           1,028,023,817
           5,429,431,660
            (29,431,660)
 74.6
 45.3
 84.6
(45.3)
   5,445,493    66.0
 718,791,277    40.7
1,209,442,844    84.5
  (9,442344)  (47.1)
    TOTALS*
24
 48        6,466,445,051     74.4   1,933,679,614   60.3
(47)       (1,066,445,051)    (45.6)   (733,679,614)  (40.9)
 * Figures in parentheses represent totals excepting one case study with a particularly large historical reduction of
   5.4 billion pounds (85.0 %), 1.2 billion pounds (85.0 %) in the most recent year.
pounds, a 45.3 % overall reduction.  In the most recent year, 1989-90, reductions from
these projects  totalled 718,791,277, a 40.7  percent reduction in quantity of wastes
generated for that period.
       Seven Delaware facilities contributed  a total of 11 case studies. The historical
quantity of wastes reduced for these 11 forms  was 8,989,574 pounds, which represented
an overall 74.6 percent reduction since implementation of the projects. In the most recent
year these 11 pollution prevention applications accounted for reductions of 5,445,493
pounds of wastes, a 66.0 percent reduction over that time period.
       In sum, the 48 case study forms completed by surveyed facilities accounted for
historical reductions of 6,466,445,051 pounds of wastes, a 74.4 % reduction. Over the
most recent yearly period, 1989-90, those same processes accounted  for reductions of
1,933,679,614-pounds of wastes, a 60.3 % decline in quantity generated

                              Industrial Distribution
       The distribution of case studies across SIC categories is shown in Figure 7-1.
Chemical facilities (SIC 28) reported 22 pollution prevention case studies, the largest

-------
                   6(12.5%)     1(2-1%)
                                         22(45.8%)                  27
                                                                   28
         6 (12,5
                                                                 D  34
                                                                 n  35
                                                                 g  36

                              3(625%)                           Q  38
  Figure 7-1.  Pollution Prevention Case Studies, by  SIC.
 number from any one industry. The large number of Chemical industry case studies (45.8
 % of total) reflects the fact that Chemical facilities made up the largest portion of the survey
 sample (32.5 %) and respondents (41.4 %).  Chemical facilities also comprised the largest
 portion of nationwide TRI reporters:  19.4 percent of facilities and 28.3 percent of all
 optional waste minimization forms  submitted  (EPA, 1990).   Case studies from the
 Chemical industry accounted for 1,058,099,129 pounds of wastes reduced, a 45.3 %
 reduction over the history of the pollution prevention projects. For the most recent yearly
 period, 1989-90, Chemical facilities reported reductions of 732,500,632 pounds of wastes,
 for a 40.9 percent reduction.
       Absolute reductions in the Chemical industry were second to those reported in the
 Glass industry (SIC 32).  Three Glass industry case studies accounted for historical
 reductions of 5,400,314,300 pounds, an 85.0 percent reduction.  This large quantity was
 due to a particularly large reduction of "process water" from one facility. Putting that
 example aside, total reductions from Glass  facilities totalled 314,300 pounds, for a 71.0
percent reduction. In the most recent yearly period, Glass facilities reported reductions of
 1,200,303,100 pounds, an 85.0 percent decline in their waste generation for the processes
reported. (See Table 7-2.)

-------
                                                                                              47
Table 3-2, Quantity of Wastes Reduced, by SIC.
illlll^MH^^mii^^
BJB"jf8E8H^^^^^^^^Biw8E^^^^^^^^^^^^F^^^^^ vFW^niiir 8C ^SrJwBStllillHoiiilMHiiKsK
20 ' 0
21 0
22 0
23 0
24 0
25 0
26 0
27 ' 1
28 22
29 ' 0
30 0
31 0
32* 3
(2)
33 3
34 4
35 2
36 6
37 1
38 6
39 0
TOTALS 48
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
3,600,000 92.0
1,058,099,029 45.3
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
5,400,314,300 85.0 '
(314,300) (71.0)
260,939 99.5
3,926,933 82.1
126,350 81.2
95,700 95.8
4,000 10.0
17.800 56.5
0 0.0
6,466,445,051 74.4
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
52,800 43.0
732,500,632 40.9
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
1,200,303,100 85.0
(303,100) (70.2)
965 43.0
656,247 93.9
126,350 81.2
22,420 90.6
4,000 10.0
13,100 51.9
0 0.0
1,933,679,614 60.3
 * Figures in parentheses represent totals excepting one case study with a particularly large historical reduction of
   5.4 billion pounds (85.0 %), 1.2 billion pounds (85.0 %) in the most recent year.
       Historically, the largest average quantity of waste reduced per case study also
came from the Glass industry, due to the one especially large quantity reduction from
one case study. Excepting that example, the largest average historical reductions were
in the Chemical industry with 22 case studies averaging '48,095,410 pounds of
wastes reduced over the lifetime of the projects. (See Table 7-3.)

-------
Table 7-3.
^aBmBM
tgggjjlJSJiflJl^^^^^^^^^^^gg
pm^ff
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 '
27 -
28 '
29
30
31
32*

33
34
35
36
37
38
39
TOTALS

Case
m(mv!g|flfll||B^^S
sSgSgS^KRHH
piii
46
0
5
0
12
2
8
7
117
7
21
3
18

21
38
10
20
18
4
3
360

Studies, Average
^K^S^S^i^g^^Stt^^^B^^^^^^^^
^Eilffly^ffiSaB^Em^Wl'1!
B8SS33Si^w^ww^^K:^ggfflHH8BSSSS*CT!
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
12
0
2
0
2

2
3
2
3
1
1
0
29

Reductions,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
7
0
0
0
1

2
3
2
3
1
1
0
21

by SIC.
5**yjga5f^SSBBSS8B|
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
22
0
0
0
3
(2)
3
4
2
6
1
6
0
48
(47)

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.600,000
48,095.410
0
0
0
1,800,104,767
(157.150)
86.980
981.733
63,175
15.950
4,000
2,967
0
134,717,605
(22,690320)
* Figures in parentheses represent totals excepting one case study with a particularly large historical reduction of
  5.4 billion pounds (8S.O %), 1.2 billion pounds (85.0 %) in the most recent year.
                           Pollution Prevention Methods
       "Recycling/reuse on-site"  was the most frequently cited pollution prevention
method (16 case study forms). These 16 examples accounted for historical reductions of
6,394,206,285 pounds, a 75.5 percent reduction in quantity of wastes generated.  This
was the largest absolute quantity reduction of any pollution prevention method reported. In
the most recent year, 1989-90,  "Recycling/reuse on-site"  accounted for reductions of
1,905,699,685 pounds, a 60.7 percent decline in the quantity of wastes generated.

-------
Excepting the particularly large quantities reduced from one case study (5.4 billion pounds
historically, 1.2 billion pounds in the most recent year), "Recycling/reuse on-site" still
accounted for the largest absolute quantity reductions of,any method.
       "Equipment/technology modifications" was cited on  11  case study forms,
accounting for historical reductions of 63,478,123 pounds (30.9 percent), and 23,258,352
(41.9 percent) pounds reduced in the most recent year.  "Substitution of raw materials",
cited on nine case study forms, accounted for historical reductions of 499,250 pounds
(37.1 percent), and 179,650 (83.2 percent) pounds reduced in the most recent year.
       Two  pollution   prevention  methods,   "Employee  training"  and
"Reformulation/redesign of product" were not  mentioned on any of the 48 case study
forms.  The distribution of case studies by method is shown in Table 7-4 and Figure 7-2.
       In the 1988 TRI waste minimization forms, "Recycling/reuse on-site" was only the
second most prevalent method employed by facilities nationwide (cited on 17.4 percent of
all forms), behind "Improved housekeeping", cited on 20.6 percent of all forms submitted.
"Process procedure modifications" and "Equipment/technology modifications" were cited
on 14.2 percent and 12.0 percent of 1988 TRI waste minimization forms respectively in the
                                                
optional nationwide reporting  (EPA, 1990).
               3 (6.25 %)
                              9 (18.8 %)
   11(22.9%)
     8 (16.7 %)
                                      1 (2.1 %)
                               16(333%)
RAW MATERIALS SUBSTITUTION
IMPROVED HOUSEKEEPING
RECYCLING/REUSE ON-SITE
PROCESS MODIFICATION
EQUIPMENT MODIFICATION
RECYCLING/REUSE OFF-SITE
 Figure 7-2.   Pollution Prevention  Case Studies, by  Method.

-------
Table 7*4. Quantity of Wastes Reduced
(^^^BBBi
, by Method.

IIKP;< : ^V^^tSJfPr^OT
RAW MATERIALS
suBSTrrunoN 9
IMPROVED
HOUSEKEEPING 1

EMPLQYEE
TRAINING 0
RECYCLING/
REUSE ON-SITE * 16
15
PROCESS
MODIFICATION 8
EQUIPMENT
MODIFICATION 11
PRODUCT
REFORMULATION 0
RECYCLING/
REUSE OFF-SITE 3
OTHER 0
TOTALS 48

499,250

2,560


0

6,394,206,285
(994,206,285)

7,644,533

63,478,123

0

614,300
0
6,466,445,051

37.1

40.0
*

0.0

75.5
(47.0)

38.7

30.9

0.0

82.7
0.0
74.4

179,650

1,280


0

1,905,699,685
(705,699,685)

4,137,547

23,258,352

0

403,100
0
1,933,679,614

83.2

40.0


0.0

60.7
(40.8)

53.5

41.9

0.0

75.8
0.0
60.3
* 
-------
                                                                                       51
  Table  7-5.   Quantity of Wastes Reduced,  by Reason.
   TO REDUCE
   PRODUCTION
   COSTS *
 15
(14)
   TO INCREASE
   PRODUCTIVITY

   TO IMPROVE
   PRODUCT QUALITY

   VOLUME OF
   WASTE PRODUCTS

   TOXICTTYOF
   WASTE PRODUCTS

   OTHER
 16


 13

  1
6,316.124,150
(916,124,150)
  129,000,000


       9,400


   11,866,661


   9,443,840

       1,000
 75.2
(44.8)
 48.5


 75.0


 69.7


 91.6

 15.0
1,879,981,230
(679,981,230)
  45,500,000


       4,700


   8,060,444


     132,240

       1,000
 60.6
(40.2)
 50.0


 75.0


 64.6


 39.3

 15.0
   TOTALS
 48    6.466,445.051
                  74.4    1.933,679.614
                           60.3
* Figures in parentheses represent totals excepting one case study with a particularly large historical reduction of
  5.4 billion pounds (85.0 %), 1.2 billion pounds (85.0 %) in the most recent year.
Pollution prevention projects citing "Reduction of production costs" still accounted for the

largest absolute quantity reductions of any method.
       The reasons cited least often were 'To increase productivity and/or efficiency" (two
forms) and 'To improve product quality (one form).  The distribution of case studies by
reason is presented in Table 7-5 and Figure 7-3.

-------
     13 (27.1 %)
                    1 (2.1 %)
                               15(31.3%)
   16(33.3%)
                                 2 (42 %)
                               1 (2.1 %)
|  TO REDUCE PRODUCTION COSTS
  TO INCREASE PRODUCTIVITY
H  TO IMPROVE PRODUCT QUALITY
0  VOLUME OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)
|  TOXICTTY OF WASTE PRODUCES)
D    OTHER
     
 Figure 7-3.  Pollution Prevention Case  Studies, by Reason.
                             Wastes Reduced
       The 48 case study forms provided by Region HI facilities reported 56 separate
 reductions covering 43 different waste materials.  Some pollution prevention projects
 achieved reductions of two or more different waste materials, accounting for the higher
 number of reductions (56)  than case studies (48).  Facilities used varying levels of
 specificity in referring to their waste materials.  Some reporters used specific chemical
 names to  identify their waste products;  16 of the 43 wastes were referred to by their
 specific names. Of these 16, 12 were TRI compounds. The total quantity reduced for
 these wastes was 8,827,368  pounds, with 2,169,487 pounds reduced in the most recent
 year. Some facilities used EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers to identify their wastes (e.g.
 "D008n, "K073", etc.).  These identifiers pertain to waste categories defined under the
 Resource Conservation and  Recovery Act (RCRA); they may refer to particular waste
 products or broad categories of wastes.  Eight of the 43 wastes were reported as such, with
 total reductions of 6,719,140 (617,742 in the most recent year). The majority of wastes
 (24 of the 43) were reported under generic headings (e.g.  "waste solvents", "process
water", etc.).  These also had the largest quantity of absolute reductions, 6,450,909,767
overall and 1,930,889,309 in the most recent year. (See Table 7-6.)

-------
                                                                                   53

                               Specific Chemicals
                                                t
       Chlorine, cited on two forms, accounted for the greatest absolute reduction of any .
of the specific chemicals reported.  Total reduction of chlorine was 5,849,000 pounds
(91.7 percent), while chlorine reductions for the most recent year,  1989-1990, were
76,400 pounds (35.2 percent).
       Dichloromethane was the specific chemical cited on the largest number of forms
(three).  Dichloromethane reductions totalled 47,565 pounds (84.9 percent), with a 5,649
pound reduction (51.0 percent) attributed to  the most recent yearly period. (See Table 7-
6.)

                            EPA Hazardous Wastes

       The EPA hazardous waste numbers reported and their definitions are shown in
Table 7-5. The largest reduction of any EPA Hazardous Waste was for K062 (spent pickle
liquor from the Steel  industry, SIC 33.) One facility reported a 100 percent reduction of
K062 totalling 3,600,000 pounds reduced, including 600,000 pounds in the most recent
year. (See Table 7-6.)

                            Generic Waste Categories

       In this category, the type of waste material most often cited was "waste solvents"
(four forms). The four reported reductions  of "waste solvents" amounted to 12,112,500
pounds, for a 28.6 percent reduction. 4,905,500 pounds were reduced in the most recent
year, a decline in "waste solvent" generation of 42.2 percent. The largest quantity of any
waste reduced was for "process water".  One facility reported a reduction of 5.4 billion
pounds (85.0 percent) of "process water" due to an on-site recycling operation.  In the
most recent year the same operation accounted for a 1.2 billion pound reduction^ (85.0
percent) of "process water". (See Table 7-6.)

-------
Table 1-6. Wastes Reduced, from 48 Case Studies.
SPECIFIC CHEMICALS
1.1.1 TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1.1 TRICHLOROETHYLENE
ACETONE
BENZENE
CHLORIDE
CHLORINE
DICHLOROMETHANE
FREON 113 
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
SODIUM HYDROXIDE
PERCHLOROETHYLENE
POTASSIUM CYANIDE
SODIUM CYANIDE
SULFUR DIOXIDE
TOLUENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
SUBTOTALS
EPA HAZARDOUS WASTES
D001 - IGNTTABLE WASTES
D002 - CORROSIVE WASTES
D007- CHROMIUM
D008-LEAD
F001 - HALOGENATED SOLVENTS
F006 - ELECTROPLATING SLUDGES
K062 - SPENT PICKLE LIQUOR
K073 - CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS
SUBTOTALS
GENERIC WASTES
ACID WASTES
AIR EMISSIONS
AIRPARTICULATE
IGNTTABLE LIQUID
LEAD/COAL MIXTURE
MINERAL SPIRITS
PAINTS
SOLID
SPENT CARBON
SPENT CATALYST
SPENT CAUSTIC
SPENT DESSICANTS
SPENT RAW MATERIAL
TOWER BOTTOMS
TRASH/CARDBOARD
WASTE SOLVENTS
WATER - PROCESS WATER
WATER - STORMWATER
WATER - WASTEWATER
SUBTOTALS
TOTALS

PMO
|iii
BWWHKfcWHl
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
18

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
1
1
2
29
56


19.933 34
21.200 100
9.400 75
658.700 70
300,000 100
5,849,400 92
47.565 85
80.000 100
17.120 96
220,000 41
35.000 100
2,700 100
1.000 20
1,448,000 55
1,000 15
116,350 81
8,827.368 79

2.000 83
10.000 100
2.400.000 100
272,000 19
1.140 100
4,000 10
3,600.000 100
430,000 100
6.719.140 88

125,000,000 50
11,030 6
60,800 97
2.560 40
259.974 100
3.700 80
1,800 100
5.955.000 57
306,400 87
2.500,000 10
4,000,000 100
40,000 100
340,000 68
50.000,000 30
300,000 70
12.128.400 29
5.400.000.000 85
325.000.000 100
525.000.103 35
6.450.909.767 74
6,466.456.275 74

lia
20.647
0
4,700
27,500
300,000
76,400
5.469
8,000
17,120
105.600
35.000
2,700
1.000
1.448.000
1,000
116,350
2.169.486

2,000
IO.OOO
0
600
1,140
4,000
6oo!ooo
0
617.740

42,000,000
11,030
37,800
uoo
0
3,700
1,800
5,955.000
102,800
600,000
776,280
13.000
170.000
16.000.000
300.000
4.918.000
1.200.000,000
135.000.000
525,000.098
1.930.889.308
1.933.676.534


34
100
75
39
100
35
51
100
96
25
100
100
20
55
15
81
55

83
OJ
100
100
19
100
10
100
100
94

50
6
97
40
100
80
100
57
70
10
100
100
68
40
70
42
85
100
35
60
60

-------
                                                                                     55
                  Pollution Prevention Costs and Savings

       Forty-three of the 48 case study forms provided information on costs and savings
related to the implementation of particular pollution prevention projects.  Cost information
included startup costs plus costs associated with one year of operation; similarly, savings
figures were based on one year of operation. Total costs for the 43 projects added up to
$150,704,175.  Total savings realized were $176,134,384. Twenty-two (51.2 percent) of
the 43 case studies providing financial information reported Total savings greater than Total
costs over a one year period. For those 22, the average surplus of savings over costs was
$2,191,547. Eighteen of the 43 (41.9 percent) reported Total costs greater than Total
savings,  with an average difference of $1,807,821.  Three of the 43 case studies with
financial information reported Total savings exactly equal to Total costs.
       Total costs and savings were averaged for each pollution prevention method. Only
"Equipment/technology modifications" had average Total costs greater than Total savings.
                                      Costs
       Costs for each case study were broken down into three categories:  Capital costs,
Operation & Maintenance costs (yearly), and Other costs (yearly). For the 43 case studies
with cost information, Capital costs ranged from $0 to $100 million. The average Capital
costs were $3,174,202.  Yearly Operation & Maintenance costs ranged between $0 and
$12 million, with an average of $322,698.  Other costs ranged between $0 and $165,000,
with an average of $7,849 for the 43 case studies. These three cost figures  were summed
to determine Total costs, which represent the capital costs plus the costs of one year of
operation for each project  Total costs for the 43 case studies ranged from $0 to $112
million, with an average of $3,504,749.
       Costs were averaged for each of the  pollution prevention methods.  The least
expensive method was "Process procedure modifications" (six case studies), with average
Total costs of $83. The most expensive method was  "Recycling/reuse on-site" (15 case
studies), with average Total costs of $9,705,587 for each project.  "Recycling/reuse on-
site" had the highest Capital costs and the highest Operation and Maintenance costs of any
method. (See Table 7-7.)

-------
   Table 7-7.   Average  Costs,  by Method (43  Case Studies).
    RAW MATERIALS
    SUBSTITUTION

    IMPROVED
    HOUSEKEEPING

    EMPLOYEE
    TRAINING

    RECYCLING/
    REUSE ON-SITE

    PROCESS
    MODIFICATION

    EQUIPMENT
    MODIFICATION
 15
11
    PRODUCT
    REFORMULATION   0

    RECYCLING/
    REUSE OFF-SITE    3

    OTHER            0
             $207      $4,929      $2,114
                0       1,700
                                  10.180
                                                         455
8,826,700      869,040


     83           0


 371,202      70,909


      000


   1,667       8,067      55,000

      000
  $7,250


   1,700


      0


9,705,920


      83


 442,566


      0


  64,734

      0
    TOTALS
43
                              3,174,202    $322,698     $7,849      $3,504,749
                                   Savings


       Savings for each pollution prevention case study were broken down into three
categories: Waste Disposal savings (yearly), Raw Materials savings (yearly), and Other
savings (yearly).  For the 43 case study forms providing savings information, Waste
Disposal savings ranged from $0 to $79 million.  Average Waste Disposal savings were
$1,886,087.  Raw Materials savings ranged from $0 to $87 million, with an average of
$2,209,341. Other savings ranged from $0 to $20,000, with an average of $721. These

-------
                                                                                 57
  Table" 7-8.   Average  Savings, by Method (43 Case  Studies).
    RAW MATERIALS
    SUBSTITUTION

    IMPROVED
    HOUSEKEEPING

    EMPLOYEE
    TRAINING

    RECYCLING/
    REUSE ON-SITE

    PROCESS
    MODIFICATION

    EQUIPMENT
    MODIFICATION
15
11
    PRODUCT
    REFORMULATION   0

    RECYCLING/
    REUSE OFF-SITE    3

    OTHER            0
   $ 6,257      $ 6,649


    7,000           0


        0           0


 5346,008    6.052,420
                  f

    62,000      151,013


    15,800      294,795


                   0
               0


          105,000

               0
                6,667

                   0
                                    $0
2,000
  91


   0


   0

   0
 $ 12,906


    7,000


       0


11,400,428


  213,013


  310,686


       0


  111,667

       0
    TOTALS
43
$ 1,886,087  $ 2,209,341
$ 721      $ 4,102,659
three savings figures were summed to determine Total savings, representing the savings
from one year of operation for each pollution prevention project  Total savings for the 43
                                               t
case studies ranged from $0 to $156 million, with an average of $4,096,149.
       Savings figures were averaged for each of the eight pollution prevention methods.

The greatest savings were realized from "Recycling/reuse on-site" (15 case studies), with

average Total savings of $11,400,428.  The lowest levels of Total savings were realized

with "Improved housekeeping"  (one  case study, average Total savings $7,000) and

"Substitution of raw materials" (seven case studies, average Total savings $12,906).  (See

Table 7-8.)

-------
                               REFERENCES


 Baikenbus, Jack N. and Belgin D. Barkenbus, 1989. "Industrial Response to a Waste
    Minimization Survey in Tennessee", Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association
    Volume 39, Number 7, pp. 921-926.

 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 1990. "Environmental Quality:  Twentieth
    Annual Report", (Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President).

 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1989.  "Pollution Prevention Policy Statement",
    Federal Register 54:6 (January 26,1989).

 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, 1990.
    'Toxics in the Community: National and Local Perspectives", (Washington, DC: U.S.
    Government Printing Office).

 Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), U.S. Congress, September 1986.  "Serious
    Reduction of Hazardous Waste: For Pollution Prevention and Industrial Efficiency",
    OTA-ITE-317 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office).

Pollution Prevention Act of 1990.

-------
             APPENDIX A
SAMPLE SURVEY VEHICLE AND COVER LETTER

-------

-------
                                                                                       60
       1*1990              ** SAMPLE  COVER  LETTER  **


Plant Manager
Industrial Facility
P.O. Box 1234
Boomtown, WV  00000

Dear Mr. Manager

  I am writing to request information for a graduate research project  I am a student at State
University of New York-College of Environmental Science and Forestry, and am particularly
interested in the field of pollution prevention and hazardous waste minimization. Part of my
masters thesis project is to gain an overview of the current state of pollution prevention
activities in West Virginia and to identify successful examples of pollution prevention within
the state. 'Additionally, I hope to identify untapped opportunities through which West Virginia
industries may gain from pollution prevention.  My research is being sponsored by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region III.

  I would greatly appreciate your company's input for this project  Enclosed is a short form
which I  am asking you to complete and return to me by September 1, 1990.  It should be
completed by an environmental engineer or other manager familiar with your firm's
environmental affairs. Part I is for general information on your company.  Part II is for
information on particular processes and specific  applications of pollution prevention
technology.  Please copy and complete Part II  for each pollution prevention project
underway at your facility.  This detailed information is critical to the success of my  research
project  Part III is for general information regarding your company's pollution  prevention
efforts.

  I would also appreciate if you could send along any company literature or other information
you may have on pollution prevention and/or hazardous waste minimization in your industry.
Please send all materials to:

        J. David Yeager - 3ES43             (215)-597-9343
        U.S. E.P.A. Region III
        841  Chestnut Building
        Philadelphia, PA 19107

I will be calling you within the next two weeks to follow up on this initial contact Please feel
free to  call me at the above number If you have any questions. Thank you in advance for
your time and assistance with this study.

Sincerely yours,
 J. David Yeager
 enclosures

-------

-------
                                                                                       61


                                         **  SAMPLE SURVEY  **
                                                  7

ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER OR PLANT MANAGER:

       The purpose of this study is to determine the current level of pollution prevention
activities across the state and across different industrial sectors, as well as to identify
successful applications of pollution prevention technology.

       The term 'pollution prevention1  deals primarily with source reduction.  Source
reduction is the prevention of pollution  through the mufti-media reduction of pollutants at the
source.  Source reduction may be accomplished through input substitution, improved
housekeeping, on-site closed loop recycling, process modification, and product reformulation.
Additionally, pollution prevention may be accomplished through environmental sound
recycling or participation in  a waste exchange program.

       For the purposes of this form, "pollution prevention1 refers to any efforts taken to
minimize at the source the amount of wastes generated which must be managed, disposed
of, or released into the environment. It does not include pollution control measures (e.g.
smokestack scrubbers, etc.) which are designed to manage wastes which have already been
generated.

       Part I  is for general company information.

       Part II is for general information regarding your company's overall pollution
prevention program and philosophy.

       Part III is for specific information on particular pollution prevention processes within
your facility.  Please copy the blank form and complete for each  separate pollution
prevention example within your facility.
       Thank you for your time and assistance with this study.

-------
 I, General. Company Information
 1) Company Name:
 2) Address:	
3) SIC code:	      4) Parent Company:
5) Chief Products/Outputs:	
6) # of Employees:	
7) Annual Sales; Year	$:
8) Your Name:	
9) Position:	
10) Telephone:
       ******************************************************

-------
                                                                                           63
II. Company General Pollution Prevention Information
1) Check the options below that best describe your company's pollution prevention efforts:
       	Company-wide pollution prevention program in place.
       	Individual facility poll. prev. program in place.
       	Some pollution prevention efforts at individual
            ' facility level.
       	 Pollution prevention efforts planned but not yet
              implemented.
       	No pollution prevention efforts underway or planned.
2) How long has your pollution prevention program been in place?
              Since (Month/Year):	/	
3) Who initiated the program?
       	Corporate top-level management.
       	Mid-level management.
       	Plant engineer or technical person.
       	Plant employee.
       	Other (please specify).	
4) What has been the impetus for your company's pollution
  prevention efforts?  Please rank the following in order of
  importance:
        	Environmental Regulatory requirements.
        	Reduction of waste treatment/disposal costs, or
              potential future waste-related liabilities.
        	Other process cost reduction (e.g., reduced use of
              feedstocks).
        	Company-initiated review/waste audit
        	Interest in improving company's environmental image.
        	Toxics Release Inventory reporting requirements.
        	Occupational safety.
        	Customer request
        	Discontinuation of product line.
        	Other(please describe).	

-------
 5) With regard to your company's pollution prevention activities
   to date, please rank the following broad approaches in order
   of their importance:

        	Substitution of raw materials (i.e. non-toxics for
               toxics).

        	Improved housekeeping or inventory control.

        	Employee training.

        	Recycling/reuse on-site.

        	Process procedure modifications.

        	EquipmentAechnology modifications.

        __,	Reformulation/redesign of product.

        	Recycling/reuse off-site or participation in waste
               exchange program.

        	Other pollution prevention technique (please describe).
7) Briefly describe further your company's pollution prevention
  program; include history, structure, goals, impediments, and
  general philosophy.  Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary.

-------
                                                                                                            65
III. Pollution Prevention Processes

 PIMM UM [pplii of B* hMt to diicilhi Mdi pvttculv pollution fnntnton tKhnlqu* employ** * your facility.  UM  Mpcrat* ihMt for MCTI
     whr ponutton prwnoon MchnlquM r*v bMn lmptanrtd. B M xeff)e  poMlbte regarding procMi OMWlpoon, fM(Moclten tltorta ww Into ltoot)

         Type of              | Total          | Total           |
         Waste(s)             | IDS. reduced |  %  reduced   |
         1. _ I _ I _ I

         2. _ | _ | _ I

         3. _ | _ | _ I

         4.        ___ I _ I _ Ll
4)  Quantity of wastes reduced, most recent year:
         On ttiie eeetton, DIMM ilinMii* your wMte raduoboneet no** YMTTY p^ted tor which you torn d*ta,
         noting Ow raiwanl pvtod to OOMM 1.)

         Period             | Type  of      |              I
         (Yearl to Year2)  j waste(s)      |  Ubs. red.   |  % reduced
         	1	1	1	
                             I	I	I	:	

                             I	I	I	

                             I	I	I	

-------
 5) Pollution prevention technique(s) applied:
        	Substitution of raw materials).
        	Improved housekeeping or inventory control.
        	Recycling/reuse on-site.
        	Process procedure modification.
        	Equipment/technology modification.
        	Reformulation/redesign of product
        	Recycling/reuse off-site or waste exchange.
        	Other (please describe below).
 6) Describe particular technique employed:	
7 a) Costs:                   b) Savings:
    Capital costs:  $	    Waste disposal:   $
    Oper. & maim: 	    Reduced feedstocks:
    Other costs:     	    Other savings:
    Total costs:    $	    Total savings:     $   .
8) Payback period for investment:      -      months.
9) Why was this particular process targetted for pollution
  prevention? Check the most appropriate and describe if
  necessary. .
       	To reduce production costs.
       	To increase productivity and/or efficiency.
       	To improve product quality.
       	Volume of waste produces).
       	Toxicity of waste product(s).
       	Other (please describe).    	

-------
                                                    67





                 APPENDIX B '






POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY DESCRIPTIONS

-------
 POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE  STUDY  #   1

 SIC  CODE  :   27

 PRODUCTS  :   Flexible packaging film,  flexographic printing

 OPERATION:   Flexographic printing on  plastic  film

       The printing  process uses solvents  (n-propyl alcohol
     n-propyl acetate, ethyl alcohol) as a carrier of the
     ink  pigment.  When a  printing  job is completed, the
     individual printing decks must be cleaned using above
     solvents, leaving waste composed of "dirty" solvents.

 POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD:  Recycling/reuse on-site

     -  "Dirty" solvents remaining after cleanup of printing
     decks are distilled in-house to  be used  for future
   -  cleanups.  The  "sludge" remaining is sent to an
     off-site recycler who uses it  in a fuel-blending
     program for fueling concrete kilns.

WASTE REDUCED:  "dirty" solvents

                          QUANTITY  (LBS.)      PERCENT
     HISTORICAL       :        3600000           92
     MOST RECENT YEAR :          52800           43

COSTS & SAVINGS:


     COSTS                         .   SAVINGS
     CAPITAL       :  100000000       WASTE DISP.:   79000000
     OPER. & MAINT.:   12000000       RAW MAT.   :   87000000
     OTHER         :          o       OTHER      :          0

     TOTAL         :  112000000       TOTAL      :  156000000

POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON :  TO REDUCE PRODUCTION COSTS

-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY |  2

SIC CODE :   28

PRODUCTS :   Pharmaceuticals

OPERATION:   Quality Assurance Lab Testing

       The QA labs perform various tests and assays .on the
     raw materials and products from the production
     processes.  Many of these tests require organic
     solvents.  The waste solvents that are generated are
     collected into 55-gallon drums and disposed of as
     hazardous waste.


POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD:  Process procedure modification

       The procedures within the QA labs are routinely
     reviewed for waste minimization.  New procedures from
     the R & D labs are also reviewed before being
     implemented.  This review targets not only reducing the
     solvent waste but also substituting less toxic solvents
     for the laboratory tests.

WASTE REDUCED:  Alcohol waste solvent

                          QUANTITY  (LBS.)      PERCENT
     HISTORICAL        :            400            2
     MOST RECENT YEAR  :            800            13

WASTE REDUCED:  Non-halogenated waste solvent

                          QUANTITY (LBS.)      PERCENT
     HISTORICAL       :           2000            13
     MOST RECENT  YEAR  :            400             8
                                   *
WASTE  REDUCED:  Halogenated waste

                           QUANTITY  (LBS.)       PERCENT
      HISTORICAL       :            3100            32
      MOST RECENT YEAR :            1300            41

 COSTS & SAVINGS:

      COSTS                           SAVINGS
      CAPITAL       :           0       WASTE DISP.:        1000
      OPER.  & MAINT.:           0       RAW MAT.    :           0
      OTHER         :           0       OTHER      :           0

      TOTAL         :           0       TOTAL      :           0

 POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON :  TOXICITY OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)

-------
 POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY #  3
                                   t
 sic CODE :   28

 PRODUCTS :   Chlorine,  Caustic soda, Caustic  Potash,  Hydrogen

 OPERATION:   Continuous manufacturing

       Raw materials:  salt, water,  electricity.
       Electrolysis  of brine  to produce chlorine,  NaOH,  KOH,
     and H2.  Processing  units to purify  for shipment.

 POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD:   Equipment/technology modificati

       Solid waste - Installed dewatering system to  recover
      liquids and concentrate  solids.
       Process changes to operation made  for air and water.

 WASTE REDUCED:  Solid

                           QUANTITY  (LBS.)      PERCENT

      HISTORICAL        :         5365000           68
      MOST RECENT YEAR  :         5365000           68

 WASTE REDUCED:  Air

                           QUANTITY  (LBS.)      PERCENT

      HISTORICAL        :             206           ~1
      MOST RECENT YEAR  :           11030             6

WASTE REDUCED:  Water

                           QUANTITY  (LBS.)      PERCENT

     HISTORICAL        :            103             i
     MOST RECENT YEAR  :             98             1

COSTS & SAVINGS:

     COSTS                            SAVINGS

     CAPITAL       :     1200000       WASTE DISP.:          0
     OPER. & MAINT.:      200000       RAW MAT.   :          o
     OTHER         :           o   .   OTHER      :          o

     TOTAL         :     1400000       TOTAL      :    '      0

POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON :  VOLUME OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)

-------
                                                             71

POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY #  4

SIC CODE :   28

PRODUCTS :   LINEAR ALKYLBENZENE, SODIUM TOLUENE/XYLENE SULFONATES

OPERATION:   FACILITY SURFACE RUNOFF

       Surface runoff (stormwater) 'is collected and .used as
     plant process water to reduce purchased city water and
     eliminate plant effluent to the river.

POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD:  RECYCLING/REUSE ON-SITE

       .The plant's stormwater is pumped into a 2 million
     gallon tank.  The water is recycled to plant processes
     to reduce purchased city water and the cost of
     installing a stormwater treatment system.
WASTE REDUCED:  STORMWATER
                          QUANTITY  (LBS.)
                       PERCENT
HISTORICAL :
MOST RECENT YEAR :
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS
CAPITAL :
OPER. & MAINT. :
OTHER :
325000000
135000000


1100000
50000
0
100
100

SAVINGS
WASTE DISP.:
RAW MAT. :
OTHER :



0
0
10000
     TOTAL
1150000
                                      TOTAL
10000
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON  : TO REDUCE  PRODUCTION COSTS

-------
POLLUTION  PREVENTION  CASE STUDY  f   5

SIC CODE  :   28


PRODUCTS  :   LINEAR ALKYLBENZENE, SODIUM TOLUENE/XYLENE SULFO*

OPERATION:   WASTEWATER TREATMENT


       Treated wastewater is recycled to plant processes to
     reduce  purchases of city water and minimize effluent to
     the city sewer
     system.


POLLUTION  PREVENTION METHOD:  RECYCLING/REUSE ON-SITE

       Treated wastewater is recycled back into plant
    ' processes.
WASTE REDUCED:  WASTEWATER
                          QUANTITY (LBS.)
PERCENT
HISTORICAL :
MOST RECENT YEAR :
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS
CAPITAL :
OPER. & MAINT. :
OTHER :
525000000 35
525000000 35


0
0
0

SAVINGS
WASTE DISP. :
RAW MAT. :
OTHER :


65000
0
20000
     TOTAL         :           0       TOTAL      :      85000


POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON :  TO REDUCE PRODUCTION COSTS

-------
                                                             73

POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY # *6

SIC CODE :   28

PRODUCTS :   LINEAR ALKYLBENZENE, SODIUM TOLUENE/XYLENE SULFONATES

OPERATION:   LAB PRODUCTION FACILITY

       Linear Alkylbenzene (LAB) is synthesized from Benzene
     and C10-14 linear paraffins.  The crude product is
     distilled to produce LAB and various bottom streams.

POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD:  EQUIPMENT/TECHNOLOGY MODIFICATION

       Equipment was installed to reprocess bottom streams
     and recover more product from these streams.

WASTE REDUCED:  TOWER BOTTOMS

                          QUANTITY  (LBS.)      PERCENT
     HISTORICAL        :       50000000           30
     MOST RECENT YEAR  :       16000000           40

WASTE REDUCED:  SPENT  CATALYST

                          QUANTITY  (LBS.)      PERCENT
     HISTORICAL        :        2500000            10
     MOST RECENT YEAR  :          600000            10

COSTS  & SAVINGS:

     COSTS                            SAVINGS
      CAPITAL       :     1450000        WASTE  DISP.:           0
      OPER.  &MAINT.:      500000        RAW MAT.    :     3100000
      OTHER          :           0        OTHER       :           0

      TOTAL          :     1950000        TOTAL       :     3100000

 POLLUTION PREVENTION  REASON :  TO REDUCE PRODUCTION COSTS

-------
 POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY #  7

 SIC CODE :   28

 PRODUCTS :   LINEAR ALKYLBENZENE,  SODIUM TOLUENE/XYLENE SULFO

 OPERATION:   BYPRODUCT HCL PRODUCTION
                                   *

        Byproduct  Hydrogen Chloride gas  is  absorbed to
      produce high grade (35%)  Hydrochloric Acid.   Scrubber
      effluent from this process is recycled to  reduce waste
      acid.

 POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD:   RECYCLING/REUSE ON-SITE

        Recycling  of waste acid (low  strength) to the  HC1
      absorbers to recover the  acid as product.

 WASTE REDUCED:  WASTE ACID

                           QUANTITY (LBS.)       PERCENT
     HISTORICAL        :      125000000           50
     MOST RECENT YEAR  :       42000000           50

COSTS & SAVINGS:

     COSTS                            SAVINGS
     CAPITAL       :     250000       WASTE DISP.:     10000C
     OPER. &MAINT.:       5000       RAW MAT.   :           (
     OTHER         :          o       OTHER      :           (

     TOTAL         :     250000       TOTAL      :     10000C

POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON :  TO INCREASE EFFICIENCY

-------
                                                             75
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY #  8

SIC CODE :   28

PRODUCTS :   Carbofuran & Carbosulfan technical pesticides

OPERATION:   Methylene chloride/carbon recovery

       Methylene chloride is used as a contact coolant in
     the manufacture of Carbofuran.  Most of the DCM is
     recovered and reused by condensing the vapor stream at
     -25 deg. C and -40 deg. C.  Any DCM not condensed will
     be absorbed on activted carbon or emitted through a
     registered emission point.  The spent activated carbon
     is regenerated by thermal regeneration.

POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD:  Process procedure modification

       The reduction in air emissions of DCM and spent
     carbon was achieved by balancing and reducing the
     process and ventilation and gas flows.  This was
     accomplished using existing equipment.

WASTE REDUCED:  Spent Carbon

                          QUANTITY  (LBS.)      PERCENT

     HISTORICAL       :           6400           12
     MOST RECENT YEAR :           2800            6

WASTE REDUCED:  DCM to air

                          QUANTITY  (LBS.)      PERCENT

     HISTORICAL       :             400           58
     MOST RECENT YEAR :             304           51
                                   t
COSTS & SAVINGS:

     COSTS                            SAVINGS

     CAPITAL       :           0       WASTE DISP.:        8200
     OPER. & MAINT.:           0       RAW MAT.    :           0
     OTHER          :           0       OTHER      :           0

     TOTAL          :           0       TOTAL      :        8200

POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON :  VOLUME OF  WASTE  PRODUCT(S)

-------
 POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY #  9

 SIC CODE :   28

 PRODUCTS :   Carbofuran & Carbosulfan technical  pesticides

 OPERATION:   Caustic scrubbers  to abate  air  emissions.

        The  Carbofuran process  vent  stream and reactor  area
      ventilation air is routed through  two  caustic  scrubbers
      to abate air emissions.   As a  result,  sodium carbonate
      concentration increases due to scrubbing carbon dioxide
      from ventilation air and  NaOH  concentration due to
      evaporation must be controlled by  purging  these
      scrubbers.

 POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD:   Recycling/reuse on-site

        The  plant currently operates two caustic scrubbers
      for abatement of air emissions.  Caustic solution is
      purged due  to high sodium carbonate levels.  The  other
      scrubber is purged due to higft NaOH concentration.  The
      first  scrubber is  now purged to eliminate  Na2C03.
      Caustic  from the second scrubber is now used for  make
      up  in  the second scrubber rather than discarded as
      wastewater.

WASTE REDUCED:   NaOH

                           QUANTITY  (LBS.)       PERCENT
     HISTORICAL       :         220000           41
     MOST RECENT YEAR :         108600           25

COSTS & SAVINGS:

     COSTS                            SAVINGS
     CAPITAL       :        2000       WASTE DISP.:        2200
     OPER. & MAINT.:           0       RAW MAT.   :       16000
     OTHER         :           o       OTHER      :           o

     TOTAL         :        2000       TOTAL      :       18200
                                  t
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON :  VOLUME OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)

-------
                                                             77

POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY #  10

SIC 60DE :   28

PRODUCTS :   Methylene chloride, chloroform,  methyl chloride,  CC14

OPERATION:   Vapor scrubbing of hydrogen chloride and chlorine

       Equipment depressuring for normal maintenance and
     emergency scrubbing of hydrogen chloride and chlorine
     in 15% sodium hydroxide solution.  Catalytic
     decomposition system was installed in 1986, eliminating
     the need to dispose of spent caustic solution as a
     hazardous waste.

POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD:  Equipment/technology modification

       Utilization of catalysts to prevent formation of
     sodium hypochlorite solution so that neutralization and
     organic stripping can be done in-plant versus off-site
     disposal.

WASTE REDUCED:  Spent Caustic

                          QUANTITY (LBS.)      PERCENT
HISTORICAL :
MOST RECENT YEAR :

COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS
CAPITAL :
OPER. & MAINT. :
OTHER :
4000000 100
776280 100
t

SAVINGS
400000 WASTE DISP. :
10000 RAW MAT. :
5000 OTHER :





165000
0
0
     TOTAL          :     415000       TOTAL       :     165000

POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON  : TO REDUCE PRODUCTION COSTS

-------
POLLUTION  PREVENTION CASE STUDY  #   11

SIC CODE  :   28

PRODUCTS  :   Methylene chloride,  chloroform, methyl chloride,

OPERATION:   Product scrubbing

       Activated carbon is used  in product purification.  In
     1986
     spent carbon was initially  sent off-site for
     reactivation.
     However, it must be noted that; spent carbon is
     classified as
     a hazardous waste even if it is reactivated and
    ,returned for
     reuse and not disposal.

POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD:  Recycling/reuse off-site

       Off-site reactivation of  spent carbon.

WASTE REDUCED:  Spent Carbon

                          QUANTITY  (LBS.)      PERCENT
     HISTORICAL       :         300000          100
     MOST RECENT YEAR :         100000          100

COSTS & SAVINGS:

     COSTS                            SAVINGS
     CAPITAL       :          0       WASTE DISP.:     255000
     OPER. & MAINT.:      10000       RAW MAT.   :      20000
     OTHER         :     165000    '   OTHER      :          0
     TOTAL         :      175000       TOTAL      :     235000

POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : TO REDUCE PRODUCTION COSTS

-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY I  12

sic CODE :   28

PRODUCTS :   Methylene chloride, chloroform, methyl chloride, CC14

OPERATION:   Product scrubbing and drying

       A variety of dessicants are used for product.drying
     arid impurities removal.  In 1986 non-recyclable
     desiccants were replaced with regenerable drying
     agents.

POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD:  Substitution of raw materials

       Substitution of non-regenerable agents with material
     that is regenerable.
WASTE REDUCED:  Spent desiccants

                          QUANTITY'(LBS.)
PERCENT
HISTORICAL :
MOST RECENT YEAR :
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS
CAPITAL :
OPER. & MAINT.:
OTHER :
40000 100
13000 100

SAVINGS
0 WASTE DISP. :
30000 RAW MAT. :
0 OTHER :



34000
0
0
     TOTAL          :      30000       TOTAL       :      34000

POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON  : TO REDUCE PRODUCTION COSTS

-------
 POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY #  13

 SIC CODE :   28

 PRODUCTS :   Chlorine,  caustic,  chlorinated organics

 OPERATION:   Chlorine Manufacture

        Chlorine and caustic are produced  by the  electrolysis
      of brine.   The wet chlorine gas  is cooled,  dried,
      compressed,  and liquified.

 POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD:  Recycling/reuse  on-site

      K073,  D008 - Cell materials modified to eliminate waste
      source.
      Chlorine  in  water - Replaced direct  control cooling of
      chlorine  to  non-contact heat exchangers.  Installed a
      vacuum stripper to recover and recycle chlorine for
      streams containing chlorine.

      Chlorine  in  air - Eliminated a stripper vent tothe
      atmosphere.   Added additional refrigeration capacity to
      the  til gas  recovery unit.

WASTE REDUCED:  K073 organics

                          QUANTITY'(LBS.)      PERCENT
     HISTORICAL        :         430000          100
     MOST RECENT YEAR  :              o            0


WASTE REDUCED:  DO08 Lead Sludge


                          QUANTITY (LBS.)      PERCENT
     HISTORICAL       :        2400000          100
     MOST RECENT YEAR :              0            0


WASTE REDUCED:  Chlorine in water


                          QUANTITY (LBS.)      PERCENT
     HISTORICAL       :        4362200           90
     MOST RECENT YEAR :          69200           33


WASTE REDUCED:  K073 organics


                          QUANTITY (LBS.)      PERCENT
     HISTORICAL       :         430000          100
     MOST RECENT YEAR :              0            0

-------
                                                              81

POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY #  13 ,  PAGE TWO

COSTS & SAVINGS:

     COSTS                            SAVINGS
     CAPITAL       :    26000000       WASTE DISP.:     627000
     OPER. & MAINT.:           0       RAW MAT.   :     120000
     OTHER         :           0       OTHER      :          0
   .  TOTAL         :   26000000       TOTAL      :     747000

POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON :  TOXICITY OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)

-------
 POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY #  14

 SIC CODE :   28

 PRODUCTS :   Chlorine,  caustic,  chlorinated  organics

 OPERATION:   Adhesive dispense system

        An MDI-based adhesive is dispensed for bonding
      automotive  glass assemblies via six robotic dispense
      systems.  Methyl ethyl ketone  (MEK) is used as the
      system flush  solvent.  The systems are flushed at
      shutdowns to  remove  catalyzed materials from the mixing
      chamber.

 POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD:  Recycling/reuse on-site

        .The  MEK solvent flush of the  dispense system results
      in a waste  product with a  content of approximately  70%
      MEK and 30% adhesive.  A 5 gallon distillation system
      was purchased to  distill and recover the MEK portion of
      the waste.  The unit is operated daily with the
      previous  day's waste material.  The recovered MEK is
      then returned to  the system for reuse.  All still
      bottoms,  which are about 10% MEK, are  then stored for
      disposal  by incineration.   Also aiding our decrease in
      MEK usage was a change in  plant operation from having
      one 30  minute lunch  break  in which the entire plant was
      shutdown  to two 20 minute  relieved breaks spaced
      equally through the  shift.   This effectively eliminated
      one shutdown  per  shift and  halved our  generation of
      MEK/adhesive  waste.

WASTE REDUCED:   Methyl  ethyl ketone

                          QUANTITY (LBS.)       PERCENT
     HISTORICAL       :          17120           96
     MOST RECENT YEAR :          17120           96


COSTS & SAVINGS:
                                  

     COSTS                            SAVINGS
     CAPITAL       :       3500       WASTE DISP.:      12925
     OPER. & MAINT.:        600       RAW MAT.   :      10300
     OTHER         :          0       OTHER      :          o

     TOTAL         :       4100       TOTAL      :      23225

POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON :  VOLUME OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)

-------
                                                              83
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY #  15



SIC CODE :  28
                                   *

PRODUCTS :  Chlorine, caustic, chlorinated organics


OPERATION:  Equipment degreasing


       Compressor parts and miscellaneous machinery .are

     solvent cleaned as part of maintenance procedures.


POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD:  Substitution of raw materials


       Changed to waste petroleum naptha for cleaning parts.



WASTE REDUCED:  1,1,1 Trichloroethylene


                          QUANTITY (LBS.)      PERCENT
HISTORICAL :
MOST RECENT YEAR :
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS
CAPITAL :
OPER. & MAINT.:
OTHER :
21200 100
0 0

SAVINGS
0 WASTE DISP. :
4500 RAW MAT. :
0 OTHER :



4000
0
0
     TOTAL         :       4500       TOTAL      :       4000



POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : TOXICITY OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)

-------
 POLLUTION PREVENTION  CASE  STUDY  #   16

 SIC CODE  :   28

 PRODUCTS  :   Chlorine, caustic, chlorinated organics

 OPERATION:   Chlorinated benzenes plant

       .Benzene  is chlorinated to produce mono- and di-
     chlorobenzenes.  These are separated through
     distillation and crystallization and then shipped to
     customers.

 POLLUTION PREVENTION  METHOD:  Equipment/technology modificat:

     1. Eliminated sample  bottles, now using chromatograph
     and  sample
       . ports.
     2. Installed magnetic and double-seal pumps.
     3. Installed refrigerated vent scrubber.
     4. Eliminated tanks.
     5. Installed leak resistant valves.

WASTE REDUCED:  Benzene emissions

                           QUANTITY  (LBS.)      PERCENT
     HISTORICAL       :         658700           70
     MOST RECENT YEAR :          27500           39

COSTS & SAVINGS:

     COSTS                            SAVINGS
     CAPITAL       :     100000       WASTE DISP.:          (
     OPER. &MAINT.:      20000       RAW MAT.   :      75001
     OTHER         :          0       OTHER      :          (
     TOTAL         :     340000       TOTAL      :      7500(

POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : TOXICITY OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)

-------
                                                             85

POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY #  17

SIC CODE :  28

PRODUCTS :  Chlorine, caustic, chlorinated organics

OPERATION:  Methylene Chloride Loss Reduction

       Methylene chloride is used as a heat transfer fluid.

POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD:  Equipment/technology modification

       Equipment improvement - Teflon plug cocks have been
     used to replace gate valves.  Installed double-sealed
     pumps with barrier fluids.
WASTE REDUCED:  Methylene chloride
     .                              
                          QUANTITY (LBS.)
                     PERCENT
HISTORICAL :
MOST RECENT YEAR :
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS
CAPITAL :
OPER. & MAINT. :
OTHER :
46200 87
4200 51

SAVINGS
0 WASTE DISP. :
50000 RAW MAT. :
0 OTHER :



0
1750
0
     TOTAL
50000
                                      TOTAL
1750
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON  : TOXICITY OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)

-------
 POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY I  18

 SIC CODE :   28

 PRODUCTS :   Chlorine,  caustic,  chlorinated organics

 OPERATION:   Sulfur recovery unit

       .Sulfur recovery unit converts  hydrogen  sulfide
      by-product  into sulfur for recycle to the process.

 POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD:  Recycling/reuse  on-site

       Installed additional recovery  bed  (3rd) and installed
      improved catalyst in all three beds.

 WASTE REDUCED:   S02  to air

                           QUANTITY  (LBS.)      PERCENT
     HISTORICAL        :        1448000           55
     MOST RECENT YEAR  :        1448000           55

COSTS & SAVINGS:

     COSTS                         '   SAVINGS
     CAPITAL       :    1300000       WASTE DISP.:          0
     OPER. & MAINT.:          0       RAW MAT.   :      30000
     OTHER         :          o       OTHER      :          0

     TOTAL         :    1300000       TOTAL      :      30000

POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON :  VOLUME OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)

-------
                                                             87
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY I  19

SIC CODE :  28

PRODUCTS :  Chlorine, caustic, chlorinated organics

OPERATION:  Calcium Hypochlorite Plant

       Calcium hypochlorite is produced from lime, chlorine,
     and caustic.  Product is dried, milled, and packaged
   .  for sale.

POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD:  Recycling/reuse on-site

       .Installed a baghouse to recover and recycle
     exctremely small particle product that had been
    - escaping.

WASTE REDUCED:  Non-hazardous solid

                          QUANTITY  (LBS.)      PERCENT

     HISTORICAL       :         590000           23
     MOST RECENT YEAR :         590000           23

WASTE REDUCED:  Air particulate

                          QUANTITY  (LBS.)      PERCENT

     HISTORICAL       :          60800           97
     MOST RECENT YEAR :          37800           97
                                   I
COSTS  & SAVINGS:

     COSTS                            SAVINGS

     CAPITAL        :    2260000       WASTE DISP.:           0
     OPER. & MAINT.:     390000       RAW MAT.    :    1296000
     OTHER          :     152700       OTHER       :           0

     TOTAL          :    2802700       TOTAL       :    1296000

POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON  : TO REDUCE  PRODUCTION COSTS

-------
 POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY f   20

 SIC CODE :   28

 PRODUCTS :   Chlorine,  caustic,  chlorinated organics

 OPERATION:   Development  Brine Recycle

       Salt  is dissolved from the strata located
      approximately  7000  feet below  ground surface  nd used
      for production of chlorine and caustic.


 POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD:  Equipment/technology modificati

       When  a new well is drilled the cavity must be
      devweloped unitl  it becomes large enough to produce
    .  high strength  brine.  In the past this weak salt brine
      has  been sewered.   Equipment was purchased to allow
      reinjection of this brine  at 1000 psig into another
      cavity  where it will reach the required strength.

WASTE REDUCED:  Chloride

                          QUANTITY  (LBS.)      PERCENT
     HISTORICAL       :         300000          100
     MOST RECENT YEAR :         300000          100

COSTS & SAVINGS:

     COSTS                            SAVINGS
     CAPITAL       :     100000       WASTE DISP.:          0
     OPER. & MAINT.:          0       RAW MAT.   :       4000
     OTHER         :          o       OTHER      :          o

     TOTAL         :     100000       TOTAL      :       4000

POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON :  VOLUME OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)

-------
                                                             89
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY #  21
                                  t

SIC CODE :   28

PRODUCTS :   Silicons products

OPERATION:   Silicons production

       Batch chemical reaction in manufacture of silicons


POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD:  Process modification

       Change in process technology allows chemical reaction
     to run safely and efficiently without reaction solvent
     used in older
    ' technology.
WASTE REDUCED:  Solvent
                          QUANTITY (LBS.)
PERCENT
HISTORICAL :
MOST RECENT YEAR :
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS
CAPITAL :
OPER. & MAINT.:
OTHER :
4000000 25
3500000 50
SAVINGS
0 WASTE DISP. :
0 RAW MAT. :
0 OTHER :

360000
880000
0
     TOTAL          :          0       TOTAL       :    1240000

POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON  : TO INCREASE EFFICIENCY

-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY  #  22

SIC CODE :  28

PRODUCTS :  Silicone products

OPERATION:  Solvent recovery

       Solvents used in cleaning of reaction systems between
     runs.

POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD:  Recycling/reuse on-site

       Waste Toluene reaction solvent distilled to recover
     Toluene of acceptable quality for use in cleaning
     reaction systems between campaigns of similar products
     in batch reaction systems.

WASTE REDUCED:  Waste solvents (to incineration)

                          QUANTITY (LBS.)      PERCENT
HISTORICAL :
MOST RECENT YEAR :
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS
CAPITAL :
OPER. & MAINT. :
OTHER
4500000 20
1350000 30
SAVINGS
90000 WASTE DISP. :
450000 . RAW MAT. :
0 OTHER :

36000<
99000(
     TOTAL         :     540000       TOTAL      :    135000(

POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON :  TO REDUCE PRODUCTION COSTS

-------
                                                             91

POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY #  23

SIC CODE :  28

PRODUCTS :  Silicone products

OPERATION:  Chemical reaction

       Chemical manufacturing process which takes place in
     reactor vessel.

POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD:  Equipment/technology modification

       Reactor was modified to provide additional residence
     time and obtain more complete reaction.  This resulted
     in a reduced volume of volatile raw material fed and
     less waste of same raw material.
WASTE REDUCED:  Spent raw material

                          QUANTITY (LBS.)
PERCENT
HISTORICAL :
MOST RECENT YEAR :
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS
CAPITAL :
OPER. & MAINT.t
OTHER :
340000 68
170000 68

SAVINGS
250000 WASTE DISP. :
0 RAW MAT. :
0 OTHER :



0
42500
0
     TOTAL         :     250000       TOTAL      :      42500

POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : VOLUME OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)

-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY  #  *24

SIC CODE  :  32

PRODUCTS  :  Science and consumer glass products

OPERATION:  Trash disposal

       Trash disposal for entire plant.

POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD:  Recycling/reuse off-site

       We used to send all loose trash, including cardboard,
     to the landfill.  We now compact it at a 4:1 compaction
     rate and recycle all corrugated cardboard, which is/was
     70% of all our trash.

WASTE REDUCED:  Trash/cardboard

                          QUANTITY (LBS.)      PERCENT
     HISTORICAL       :         300000           70
     MOST RECENT YEAR :         300000           70

COSTS & SAVINGS:

     COSTS                            SAVINGS
     CAPITAL       :       5000       WASTE DISP.:      60001
     OPER. & MAINT.:      13000       RAW MAT.   :          |
     OTHER         :          o       OTHER      :          <
     TOTAL         :      18000       TOTAL      :      6000(

POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON :  TO REDUCE PRODUCTION COSTS

-------
                                                             93
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY #  25

SIC CODE :   32

PRODUCTS :   Science and consumer glass products

OPERATION:   Glass forming

       Water is used for cooling all hot glass tanks, all
     air compressors, and all vacuum pumps.

POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD:  Recycling/reuse on-site

       Systems installed for recirculation and cooling of
     process water, including a total of six cooling towers.

WASTE REDUCED:  Process water

                          QUANTITY (LBS.)      PERCENT
     HISTORICAL       :      5400000000           85
     MOST RECENT YEAR :      1200000000           85

COSTS & SAVINGS:

     COSTS                            SAVINGS
     CAPITAL       :     575000       WASTE DISP.:          0
     OPER. & MAINT.:      50000       RAW MAT.   :    1300000
     OTHER         :          0    '   OTHER      :          0
     TOTAL         :     625000       TOTAL       :    1300000

POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : TO REDUCE PRODUCTION COSTS

-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY  f   26

SIC CODE :   32

PRODUCTS :   Science and consumer glass products

OPERATION:   Painting and cleanup

       .Painting is done throughout  the plant.  Solvents are
     used in many areas of the plant for cleaning of
     machinery, paint cleanup, etc.

POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD:  Recycling/reuse off-site

       Scrap paint and solvents  use'd to be thrown away as
    , trash;  they are now saved and  recycled off-site.
WASTE REDUCED:  Solvents
     HISTORICAL       :
     MOST RECENT YEAR :

WASTE REDUCED:  Paints
     HISTORICAL       :
     MOST RECENT YEAR :

COSTS & SAVINGS:

     COSTS
QUANTITY (LBS.)

       12500
        2700
QUANTITY (LBS.)

        1800
         400
         PERCENT

          100
          100
         PERCENT

          100
          100
                                      SAVINGS
     CAPITAL       :
     OPER. & MAINT.:
     OTHER         :
    0
 1200
    0
WASTE DISP.:
RAW MAT.   :
OTHER      :
0
0
0
     TOTAL
 1200
TOTAL
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : TOXICITY OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)

-------
                                                             95
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY #  27
SIC CODE :   33
PRODUCTS :   Wrapped electronic wire
OPERATION:   Carbon filter system for Methylene Chloride emissions
       All air emissions of Methylene Chloride will.be put
     through a carbon filter system and reclaimed.  This
     will prevent pollution of atmosphere with Methylene
     Chloride.
POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD:  Recycling/reuse on-site
       All emissions of Methylene Cloride throughout the
    ' plant will come to one stack containing the carbon
     absorption system.
WASTE REDUCED:
                          QUANTITY'(LBS.)
PERCENT
HISTORICAL :
MOST RECENT YEAR :
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS
CAPITAL : 600000
OPER. & MAINT.: 85000
OTHER : 0
0 0
0 0

SAVINGS
WASTE DISP. :
RAW MAT. :
OTHER :



0
0
0
     TOTAL          :     685000       TOTAL       :
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON  : TOXICITY OF WASTE  PRODUCT(S)

-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY #  28

SIC CODE :  33

PRODUCTS :  Wrapped electronic wire

OPERATION:  Paint manufacturing

       .Methylene chloride is mixed with powder and made into
     paint.  Paint is applied to a surface and leftover
     paint is distilled to remove the methylene chloride.

POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD:  Recycling/reuse on-site

       Installed a methylene chloride reclamation system in
    , 1986.  Installed a second reclamation system in 1987
     with piping and storage capacity.

WASTE REDUCED:  Methylene chloride still bottoms

                          QUANTITY (LBS.)      PERCENT
     HISTORICAL       :            965           43
     MOST RECENT YEAR :            965           43

COSTS & SAVINGS:

     COSTS                            SAVINGS
     CAPITAL       :     200000       WASTE DISP.:
     OPER. & MAINT.:       5000       RAW MAT.   :
     OTHER         :          o       OTHER      :
     TOTAL         :     205000       TOTAL      :           <

POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON :  VOLUME OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)

-------
                                                              97
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY #  29

SIC CODE :   33

PRODUCTS :   WELDED WIRE MESH, DRAWN WIRE, GALVANIZED WIRE

OPERATION:   LOW-CARBON STEEL CONTINUOUS WIRE GALVANIZING

       Low-Carbon steel wire ranging from 1/16" to 3/8" in
     diameter is annealed, quenched, cleaned with HC1,
     rinsed, fluxed with Ammonium Chloride, and coated with
     molten Zinc.

POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD:  EQUIP*MENT/TECHNOLOGY MODIFICATION

       Replaced molten lead annealing furnace with fluidized
    ' bed annealing furnace.

WASTE REDUCED:  LEAD/COAL MIXTURE

                          QUANTITY  (LBS.)      PERCENT
HISTORICAL :
MOST RECENT YEAR :
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS
CAPITAL :
OPER. & MAINT.:
OTHER :
259974 100
0 0

SAVINGS
500000 WASTE DISP. :
0 RAW MAT. :
0 OTHER :



0
0
0
     TOTAL          :          0       TOTAL       :

POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON  : VOLUME OF WASTE  PRODUCT(S)

-------
 POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY  f   30


 SIC  CODE  :   34


 PRODUCTS  :   CUTLERY


 OPERATION:   AQUEOUS  DEGREASER
POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD:  SUBSTITUTION OF RAW MATERIALS


       Replaced Perchloroethylene with aqueous-based liquid
     soap.
WASTE REDUCED:  PERCHLOROETHYLENE


                          QUANTITY  (LBS.)
PERCENT
HISTORICAL :
MOST RECENT YEAR :
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS
CAPITAL :
OPER. & MAINT. :
OTHER :
35tOOO 100
35*000 100

SAVINGS
150 WASTE DISP. :
0 RAW MAT. :
0 OTHER :



C
C
C
     TOTAL
                                      TOTAL
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON :  TO REDUCE PRODUCTION COSTS

-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY #  31

SIC CODE :  34

PRODUCTS :  SCREW MACHINE PRODUCTS,

OPERATION:  DECREASING

       Parts are brought to degreaser from machines and
     washed to remove oil and cuttings.

POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD:  PROCESS MODIFICATION

       Installed freeboard chilling systems, solvent
     recovery still, modified cover, stopped removal of
     solvent from tank, stopped unnecessary cleaning
    'operations, and solvent is disposed of by fuel
     blending.

WASTE REDUCED:  1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE

                          QUANTITY  (LBS.)      PERCENT
HISTORICAL :
MOST RECENT YEAR :
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS
CAPITAL :
OPER. & MAINT. :
OTHER :
19933 34
20647 34
*
SAVINGS
500 WASTE DISP.:
0 RAW MAT. :
0 OTHER :



0
6777
0
     TOTAL          :         500        TOTAL      :        6777

POLLUTION PREVENTION  REASON  : VOLUME  OF WASTE  PRODUCT(S)

-------
 POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY #  32

 SIC CODE :   34

 PRODUCTS :   Non-powered lawn and garden tools

 OPERATION:   Painting

        Parts painted before  assembly.

 POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD:   Substitution  of raw materials

      1.   Purchase  outside-manufactured  subassemblies
      prepainted.
      2.   Employee  awareness.
      3.   Transfer  of prepainting Ames Plant 1 subassemblies
      from an
          inefficient dip  system to  an electrostatic system
      at  Ames
          Plant 2.
      4.   Conversion  of  lead/chrome-base paints to
      lead/chrome-free
          where feasible.
      5.   Conversion  of  steel parts  requiring
      painting/plating to
          plastic where  feasible.

      *Records  are  not maintained on a per part/unit basis to
      substantiate  befor/after waste association and off-spec
      paint that ends  up as waste.

WASTE REDUCED:  D002

                          QUANTITY  (LBS.)      PERCENT
     HISTORICAL       :         272000           25
     MOST RECENT YEAR :            600           19

WASTE REDUCED:  0008,0007,0002,0001,FO05

                        .  QUANTITY (LBS.)      PERCENT
     HISTORICAL       :              0            0
     MOST RECENT YEAR :              0            0


POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON :  VOLUME OF WASTE PRODUCT

-------
                                                             101
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY I  33

SIC CODE :   34

PRODUCTS :   Non-powered lawn and garden tools

OPERATION:   Metal finishing prior to painting

       In-house pickling was eliminated and replaced with
     grit/shot blast cleaning.

POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD:  Process procedure modification

       In-house pickling was eliminated and replaced with
     grit/shot blast cleaning.

WASTE REDUCED:  K062

                          QUANTITY,(LBS.)      PERCENT
     HISTORICAL       :        3600000          100
     MOST RECENT YEAR :         600000          100
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : VOLUME OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)

-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY  #  34

SIC CODE :  35

PRODUCTS :  ROTORY COMPRESSORS FOR WINDOW AIR CONDITIONERS

OPERATION:  DECREASING COMPRESSOR PUMP PARTS

       Barren Blakesly degreaser is used to degrease
     cdmpressor pump parts before assembly.

POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD:  SUBSTITUTION OF RAW MATERIALS

       Stopped using Trichlorofluoromethane, (1)
     substituting water-based cleaners wherever possible,
     and (2) using 1,1,1-Trichloroethane and charcoal
    'filters where necessary.  1,1,1-TCE is restilled for
     maximum use.

WASTE REDUCED:  TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE

                          QUANTITY (LBS.)      PERCENT
     HISTORICAL       :         116350           81
     MOST RECENT YEAR :         116350           81

                                   ff

POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : TO REDUCE PRODUCTION COSTS

-------
                                                             103
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY #  35

SIC CODE :   35

PRODUCTS :   CORRUGATED FINISHING MACHINERY FOR THE BOX INDUSTRY

OPERATION:   PAINTING



POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD:  RECYCLING/REUSE ON-SITE

       Waste paint solvent is distilled and reused, greatly
     reducing waste by-products.  Solvents are distilled
     on-site.  Clean solvent is returned to the process.
     Still bottoms are shipped out as a hazardous waste.

WASTE REDUCED:  WASTE PAINT SOLVENT

                          QUANTITY (LBS.)      PERCENT
     HISTORICAL       :          10000           83
     MOST RECENT YEAR :          10000           83
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : VOLUME OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)

-------
POLLUTION  PREVENTION  CASE  STUDY  f   36

SIC CODE  :   36

PRODUCTS  :   MICROCHIPS, SEMICONDUCTOR MATERIALS

OPERATION:   HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL PACKAGING

       Collect two waste streams  (waste Isopropyl Alcohol
     and Photoresist) in 55-gallon  drums rather than lab
     packing.

POLLUTION  PREVENTION METHOD:  IMPROVED HOUSEKEEPING

     Collect waste Isopropyl Alcohol and Photoresists in
     separate 55-gallon drums to be reclaimed.

WASTE REDUCED:  IGNITIABLE LIQUID  .

                          QUANTITY  (LBS.)      PERCENT
HISTORICAL :
MOST RECENT YEAR :
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS
CAPITAL :
OPER. & MAINT. :
OTHER :



0
1700
0
2560 40
1280 40

SAVINGS
WASTE DISP. :
RAW MAT. :
OTHER :



7000
0
0
     TOTAL         :        1700       TOTAL      :       7000

POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON :  VOLUME OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)

-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY #  37

SIC CODE :   36

PRODUCTS :   CERAMIC-TO-METAL SEALS, GLASS-TO-METAL SEALS

OPERATION:   PARTS CLEANING/DEGREASING

       Freon solvent used to clean/degrease parts in vapor
     degrease is distilled and recycled to the process.

POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD:  RECYCLING/REUSE ON-SITE

       Solvent distillation.

WASTE REDUCED:  FREON

                          QUANTITY  (LBS.) .     PERCENT
     HISTORICAL
     MOST RECENT YEAR

COSTS & SAVINGS:

     COSTS
      80000
       8000
          100
          100
           SAVINGS
                                                             105
     CAPITAL        :
     OPER. & MAINT.:
     OTHER          :
6000
   0
   0
WASTE DISP.:
RAW MAT.   :
OTHER      :
 2000
24000
    0
     TOTAL
6000
                                      TOTAL
                             26000
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON  : TO REDUCE  PRODUCTION COSTS

-------
 POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY #  38

 SIC CODE :   36


 PRODUCTS :   Electrical  metal  raceways and  fittings

 OPERATION:   Paint dipping system


       Metal parts are  placed on a  hanger  and  dipped  in  a
      tank of solvent-based paint containing  lead  and
      chromium.


 POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD:   Substitution of  raw materials

       The process is the same.   The  new paint is a lead-
      and chromium-free  water-based  paint that  dries at a
     -lower temperature.   Also, the  drip pan  drains the paint
      back into the tank.


 WASTE REDUCED:  D001, D007 &  D008


                          QUANTITY  (LBS.)       PERCENT
HISTORICAL :
MOST RECENT YEAR :
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS
CAPITAL
OPER. & MAINT.:
OTHER
0 0
0 0

SAVINGS
0 WASTE DISP. ;
0 . RAW MAT. :
1200 OTHER :



1000
3542
0
     TOTAL         :        1200       TOTAL      :       4542


POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON :  TOXICITY OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)

-------
                                                             107
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY I  39

SIC CODE :   36

PRODUCTS :   Electrical metal raceways and fittings

OPERATION:   Coating brass parts with lacquer

       Polished brass and aluminum parts were spray-rcoated
     with a laquer in order to prevent corrosion
     (discoloration).

POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD:  Process procedure modification

       It was determined that a protective coating was not
     required for polished aluminum parts.  Estimated
    ' reduction in volume is 80%.
WASTE REDUCED:  DO01
                          QUANTITY  (LBS.)
PERCENT
HISTORICAL :
MOST RECENT YEAR :
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS
CAPITAL :
OPER. & MAINT. :
OTHER :
2000 83
2000 83
SAVINGS
0 WASTE DISP. :
0 RAW MAT. :
0 OTHER :

1500
16300
0
     TOTAL          :           0       TOTAL       :       17800

POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON  :  TO REDUCE  PRODUCTION  COSTS

-------
 POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY #  40
                                   t
 SIC C*ODE :   36

 PRODUCTS :   Electrical  metal  raceways and fittings

 OPERATION:   Paint  dipping system -  Department  1500

       Metal tubers  are placed  on a rack  and dipped  in  a
      tank of water-based paint  containing lead and chromium.

 POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD:  Substitution of  raw  materials

       The process is the same.   However,  the  new  paint is
      chromium- and lead-free  and bakes at 280  deg. F instead
      of  350  deg. F.

 WASTE REDUCED:  D007  &  D008

                           QUANTITY  (LBS.)       PERCENT
     HISTORICAL        :          10000          100
     MOST RECENT YEAR  :          10000          100

COSTS & SAVINGS:

     CSTS                            SAVINGS
     CAPITAL       :          o       WASTE DISP.:       3000
     OPER. &MAINT.:          0       RAW MAT.   :      43000
     OTHER         :      13600       OTHER      :          0

     TOTAL         :      13600       TOTAL      :      46000

POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON :  TOXICITY OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)

-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY #  41

SIC CODE :   36

PRODUCTS :   Electrical metal raceways and fittings

OPERATION:   Metal degreasing

       Metal parts are placed on a danger and moved through
     a'trichloroethylene degreaser.

POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD:  Equipment modifications

       The trichloroethylene vapor degreaser was replaced
     with a hot water spray using an Oakite 86M.

WASTE REDUCED:  F001

                          QUANTITY (LBS.)      PERCENT
     HISTORICAL       :           1140          100
     MOST RECENT YEAR :           1140          100

COSTS & SAVINGS:

     COSTS                            SAVINGS
     CAPITAL       :      73225       WASTE DISP.:        600
     OPER. & MAINT.:          0       RAW MAT.    :      19490
     OTHER         :          0       OTHER       :       1000
     TOTAL          :      73225       TOTAL       :      21090

POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON  : TOXICITY OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)

-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY  #  42

SIC CODE :  37


PRODUCTS :  Overhaul & repair of small aircraft engines

OPERATION:  Electroplating of metals


       Plating processes which use copper, silver, chrome,
     tin, and cadmium.


POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD:  Process procedure modification

       This system has been on line since 1988.  We have
     gained operating experience since that time which
     allows us to operate more efficiently.



WASTE REDUCED:  Waste sludge F006


                          QUANTITY (LBS.)      PERCENT
     HISTORICAL       :           4000           10
     MOST RECENT YEAR :           4000           10



POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON :  VOLUME OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)

-------
                                                             Ill
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY #  '43

SIC CODE :   38

PRODUCTS :   Dental sundry products

OPERATION:   Tubing

       Vinyl silicons products are taken from the bulk state
     and filled into tubes.

POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD:  Substitution of raw materials

       Toluene was used as a cleaning agent for the tubing
     equipment.  Stoddard Solvent was substituted for
     Toluene due to its higher flash point.  With the higher
     flash point we are able to reuse the solvent.
       This was done to improve occupational safety and to
     allow for reuse.
WASTE REDUCED:  Toluene
                          QUANTITY .(LBS.)
         PERCENT
HISTORICAL :
MOST RECENT YEAR :
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS
CAPITAL :
OPER. & MAINT. :
OTHER :
1000 15
1000 15

SAVINGS
800 WASTE DISP. :
0 RAW MAT. :
0 OTHER :



300
0
0
     TOTAL          :        800

POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : OTHER
TOTAL
300

-------
                                                             1
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY #  44
SIC CODE :  38
PRODUCTS :  Dental sundry products
OPERATION:  Machine shop - Cleaning of metalworking machines
       Cleaning of metalworking machines.
POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD:  Substitution of raw materials
       Metalworking machines require routine cleanouts.  We
     switched from a hazardous degreaser to a biodegradable
     water-based cleaner for equipment cleanout.
WASTE REDUCED:  Mineral spirits
                          QUANTITY (LBS.)
                   PERCENT
HISTORICAL :
MOST RECENT YEAR :
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS
CAPITAL :
OPER. & MAINT. :
OTHER :
3700 80
3700 80

SAVINGS
500 WASTE DISP. :
0 RAW MAT. :
0  OTHER :



1500
0
0
     TOTAL
500
TOTAL
                                                         1500
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON :  TOXICITY OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)

-------
                                                             113
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY #  45

SIC CODE :   38

PRODUCTS :   Dental sundry products

OPERATION:   Ground glass preparation

       Silanation of ground glass.

POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD:  Process procedure modification

       Glass silanation technique was changed.  The old
     method was a wet silanation procedure using Acetone as
     the diluent.  The new method i's a dry silanation
     technique with the use of no solvents.
WASTE REDUCED:  Acetone
                          QUANTITY (LBS.)
         PERCENT
HISTORICAL :
MOST RECENT YEAR :
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS
CAPITAL :
OPER. & MAINT. :
OTHER :
9400 75
4700 75
SAVINGS
0 WASTE DISP. :
0 RAW MAT. :
0 OTHER :

2500
3000
0
     TOTAL
TOTAL
                                                         5500
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : TO IMPROVE PRODUCT QUALITY

-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY #  46

SIC CODE :  38

PRODUCTS :  Dental sundry products

OPERATION:  Polymer washing

       Methanol is used as a solvent in a polymer washing
     operation.

POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD:  Recycling/reuse on-site

       We are in the start-up phase of a distillation
     operation to recover the spent methanol.  Thie
     recovered methanol will be reused in the original
    ' processes.  We hope to see a 50% reduction in the waste
     stream when fully implemented.  This represents a
     reduction of 35,000 pounds per year.  Savings are
     projected at $21,000/year.
WASTE REDUCED:  Methanol
                          QUANTITY (LBS.)
PERCENT
HISTORICAL :
MOST RECENT YEAR :
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS
CAPITAL : 14000
OPER. & MAINT. : 0
OTHER : 0
0 0
0 0

SAVINGS
WASTE DISP. :
RAW MAT. :
OTHER :



21000
0
0
     TOTAL         :       14000       TOTAL      :       21000

POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON :  VOLUME OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)

-------
                                                             115

POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY #  47

SIC CODE :   38

PRODUCTS :   Dental sundry products

OPERATION:   Copper plating

       Copper plating of metal parts.


POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD:  Equipment modification

       The copper plating bath was removed from service and
     replaced with a non-cyanide bath which performs the
     same function.  The new bath has not been in place long
    -enough to evaluate any waste reductions.  Any wastes
     generated from this process will be lower in toxicity
     than those generated from the old method.

WASTE REDUCED:  Copper Cyanide

                          QUANTITY (LBS.)      PERCENT
     HISTORICAL       :              0            0
     MOST RECENT YEAR :              0            0

WASTE REDUCED:  Potassium Cyanide
                                   t

                          QUANTITY (LBS.)      PERCENT
     HISTORICAL       :              0            0
     MOST RECENT YEAR :              0            0

COSTS & SAVINGS:

     COSTS                            SAVINGS
     CAPITAL       :      10000       WASTE DISP.:          0
     OPER. & MAINT.:          0       RAW MAT.   :          0
     OTHER         :          0       OTHER      :          0
     TOTAL         :      10000       TOTAL       :

POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : TOXICITY OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)

-------
 POLLUTION  PREVENTION  CASE  STUDY  #   48

 SIC  CODE  :   38

 PRODUCTS  :   Dental sundry  products

 OPERATION:   Metal plating

       .Plating of metal parts.


 POLLUTION  PREVENTION  METHOD:  Process modification

       Through discussions with our supplier of plating bath
     chemicals we learned  new techniques to prolong bath
     . life.   Our old methods involved removing and replacing
     all of  the fluid on a routine basis.  New procedures
   .  allow us to recharge  the bath and call for much less
     frequent replacement.

WASTE REDUCED:  Sodium Cyanide

                           QUANTITY  (LBS.)      PERCENT
     HISTORICAL       :           1000           20
     MOST RECENT YEAR :           1000           20

WASTE REDUCED:  Potassium Cyanide

                          QUANTITY (LBS.)      PERCENT
     HISTORICAL       :           2700          100
     MOST RECENT YEAR :           2700          100

COSTS & SAVINGS:
                                  
     COSTS                            SAVINGS
     CAPITAL       :          0       WASTE DISP.:       7000
     OPER. & MAINT.:          0       RAW MAT.   :          0
     OTHER         :          0       OTHER      :          0
     TOTAL         :          0       TOTAL      :       7000

POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : TOXICITY OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)

-------