vEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response
Washington, DC 20460
EPA/530-SW-86-043
October 1986
Solid Waste
Waste Minimization
Issues and Options
Volume III
-------
Waste Minimization Issues and Options
Volume 3: Appendices C through K
Submitted by:
Versar, Inc.
6850 Versar Center
P. 0. Box 1549
Springfield, Virginia 22151
and
Jacobs Engineering Group
251 S. Lake Avenue
Pasadena, California 91101
Submitted to:
Elaine Eby
Office of Solid Waste
Waste Treatment Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
In Response to:
EPA Contract No. 68-01-7053
Work Assignment No. 17
October 1, 1986
-------
DISCLAIMER
This document has been reviewed and approved for publication by the Office
of Solid Waste, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does the
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
-------
LIST OF APPENDICES
C. RECYCLING TECHNOLOGIES AND PRACTICES
C.I Solvent Recycling Technologies
C.2 Halogenated Organics (Nonsolvent) Recycling Technologies
C.3 Metal Recovery Technologies
C.4 Recycling Technologies for Corrosive Wastes
C.5 Cyanides and Other Reactives
C.6 Summary Data on Offsite Recycling Practices
C.7 References
D. NORTHEAST INDUSTRIAL WASTE EXCHANGE'S ON-LINE COMPUTER
SYSTEM
E. CONDUCTING A PROJECT PROFITABILITY ANALYSIS
F. EPA'S DEFINITION OF SOLID WASTE
G. CORRESPONDENCE FROM EPA ON WASTE MINIMIZATION ACTIVITIES
H. COMPILATION OF INDUSTRIAL WASTE REDUCTION CASES
I. EPA'S ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITING POLICY STATEMENT
J. DESCRIPTIONS OF STATE PROGRAMS
J.I California
J.2 Georgia
J.3 Illinois
J.4 Massachusetts
J.5 Minnesota
J.6 New Jersey
J.7 New York
J.8 North Carolina
J.9 Pennsylvania
J.10 Tennessee
J.ll Washington
K. TWO PROPOSED REGULATIONS ON HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT BY TWO COUNTIES IN CALIFORNIA
K.I Sacramento County
K.2 Santa Cruz County
-------
APPENDIX C
RECYCLING TECHNOLOGIES
AND PRACTICES
-------
RECYCLING TECHNOLOGIES AND PRACTICES
C.I Solvent Recycling Technologies
Solvent wastes are recycled by various unit treatment operations, which may be
performed singly or in sequence. These operations are grouped into the following
technology categories: distillation; solids removal; liquid-liquid phase separation;
emulsion/dispersion breaking; dissolved and emulsified organics recovery; and
organics vapor recovery. The recyclable product of the operation may be the
solvent or the isolated contaminants, or both. Applications and limitations of use of
solvent recycling operations are presented in Table C-1 and discussed below.
Distillation
Separation techniques that rely on the boiling point differences of the
components of a liquid waste are called distillations and include pot distillation,
steam distillation, fractional distillation, film evaporation, and drying techniques.
Purification of organic solvents for recycling in process applications usually requires
at least one distillation step to remove wastes^of low volatility. Distillation is the
dominant recycling technology for solvent wastes.
Pot Distillation describes the process of heating liquid indirectly to boiling
in a pot and then recovering by condensation of the vapors that are in
equilibrium with the remaining liquid. Nonvolatile residues removed from
the pot also are reclaimed (e.g., by dryers) for use as fuel or for disposal.
Pot distillation can be performed in a batch or continuous mode of operation
under vacuum or atmospheric pressure. Operation under vacuum enhances
removal of organics from heavy residues.
Pot distillation is effectively used to reclaim halogenated as well as
nonhalogenated solvents from wastes. For example, acetone used as a paint
cleaner is commonly recovered from nonvolatile oils, resins, pigment, etc.,
by pot distillation. The technology is widely used by (offsite) commercial
solvent recovery operations.
C-1
-------
1208s
Table C-l Summary of Recycling Technologies for Solvent Waste Streams
Type of process
Description of technology
Applications
timitations of use
Distillation
Flash distillation
Distillation in which an appreciable
proportion of a liquid is quickly
converted to vapor in such a way that
the final vapor is in equilibrium with
the final liquid (Condensed Chemical
Dictionary 1985). Nonvolatile residues
are removed for fuel reuse or disposal.
Allows for solvent recovery. (Also used for
desalination of sea water.) Widely used.
Solvent must not be thermally
unstable.
Fractional
di st111 ati on
o
i
ro
Distillation in which the product is
collected in a series of separate
components of similar boiling range.
Part of the vapor is condensed, and the
resulting liquid is contacted with
more vapor, usually in a column with
plates or packing (Condensed Chemical
Dictionary 1985).
Allows for recovery of reasonably pure
solvent. Widely used.
Not applicable to azeotropic
mi xtures.
Film evaporation
A set of rotating blades inside a
cylinder moves the waste material so
that the material is evaporated.
Same as above, except less frequently
used.
Same as above. Capital costs are
higher than for other distillation
methods.
Steam di sti1lation
Heating accomplished by steam injected
directly into the solvent.
Distillation at lower temperatures.
Problems with product stability,
corrosion, foaming, and condensate
water di sposal.
Dryers
Dryers achieve removal by distillation
of remaining solvents from heavy vis-
cous organic wastes. Solvent vaporized
off of two horizontal cylindrical drums
heated internally. Solvent vapors are
condensed arid recovered; solids scraped
otl drum and packaged for disposal.
Allows for dry product recovery; frequently
used.
Requires condensation equipment to
recover solvents.
-------
1208s
Table C-l (continued)
Type of process
Description of technology
Applications
Limitations of use
Soli ds removal
Sedinientati on
Fi1tration
o
i
CO
Centrifugation
The settling out by gravity of solid
particles suspended in a liquid
(Condensed Chemical Dictionary 1985).
Oversize and heavy solids drop out
readily on standing.
Separation of suspended solids from a
liquid (or gas) by forcing the mixture
through a porous barrier (Condensed
Chemical Dictionary 1985).
Solids larger than the pore openings
in the filter media are removed.
A separation technique based on the
application of centrifugal force to a
mixture or suspension of materials of
closely similar densitites (Condensed
Chemical Dictionary 1985).
The settling force created by the cen-
trifuge enhances separation of small
particles and less dense solids.
Liquid-liquid phase separation
Decant tank
APf separator
Liquid phases will separate in storage
so that one phase can be pulled off
the top and one off the bottom.
Rate of separation of liquid phases is
increased in an open basin with large
surface area.
Preliminary purification step; allows for
discharge of water contained in waste,
and for recovery of recyclable materials.
This is a widely used technology.
Same as above.
Same as above, except the technology is
less frequently used.
Allows for recovery of spent solvents for
reprocessing. This is a widely used,
inexpensive technology.
Allows for recovery of oily or petroleum-
based materials. This is widely used in
the petroleum industry.
Finely divided solids or emulsified
materials sometimes difficult to
remove by sedimentation or
filtration.
Because of the array of filtration
equipment, costs vary widely.
Power requirements are high, and
operating supervision and maintenance
costs may be high.
Separated nonaqueous liquid will be
saturated with water and may require
further treatment before reuse.
Same as above; also, recovered
materials may contain some tar-like
substances.
-------
1208s
Table C-l (continued)
Type of process
Description of technology
Applications
Limitations of use
Liquid-liquid phase separation (continued)
Ti1 ted plate
separator
The addition of tilted plates
to an open basin further increases
the rate of separation in proportion
to the projected horizontal surface
area.
Same as above. This technology is less
frequently used than the above two
processes.
Separated nonaqueous liquid will
require further processing before
reuse.
Emu1 sion/dispersion breaking
Coalescence
The union of droplets of a liquid to form
a larger droplet, brought about when the
droplets approach one another closely
enough to overcome their individual
surface tensions (Condensed Chemical
Dictionary 1985).
Liquids are pumped through a fine mesh to
which entrained droplets tend to cling;
an oleophilic medium can be used to
enhance attraction of entrained drop-
lets.
Preliminary separation of aqueous-phase waste
to be treated by biological methods
before reuse. This method is infrequently
used.
Some emulsions are difficult to
handle, particularly those containing
surfactants.
Centri f ugation
completely
Used to remove small amounts of water
as well as solids from recovered fuel.
Same as above; also used for recovery
of nonaqueous material.
Fine dispersants may not be
separated by this method.
Chemical
de-emulsi fyi ng
agents
Addition of chemical agents to raise
or lower pH or to change attractive
forces between particles causes some
solvents and oils to separate out of
water into a liquid organic phase.
Same as above; however, it is used only
with emulsions.
Some emulsions may require large
amounts of chemicals. Chemical
emulsifying agents are more expensive
than the air flotation process.
-------
1208s
Table C-l (continued)
Type of process
Description of technology
Appl ications
Limitations of use
Emulsion/dispersion breaking
Air f1otation
Fine organic droplets and/or
particles are removed from water by
introducing air bubbles which
attach themselves to the droplets
and are then carried to the surface
and skimmed.
Same as for centrifugation.
Recovered organics require
considerable processing before they
can be reused.
Dissolved and emulsified organics recovery
Steam or air
st ri ppi ng
o
i
en
Carbon absorption
Waste is pumped to top of a packed
column. Steam or air is fed through
the column from the bottom, picking
up volatile organics. Organics are
recovered from the condensate.
Water with dissolved organics is
pumped through bed of activated
carbons which absorb the organics.
Bed regenerated with steam or
certain solvents to recover organics.
Discharge of treated wastewater; recovery
of stripped materials is also possible.
This is widely used to remove ammonia from
water.
Removes large variety of organics from
wastewater. This is more costly than
steam stripping. It is widely used
to remove trace organics from wastewater.
May cause air emissions problems if
stripped materials are vented to
atmosphere. Limited to use with
volatile materials.
High cost of regenerating the carbon
or incinerating it. Requires trained
operators and close monitoring
for efficient operation. Not
effective on ethylene (Condensed
Chemical Dictionary 1985).
Solvent extraction Water and organic contaminants percolated Allows for recovery of dissolved organics
through a packed column; preselected
solvent, pumped in counter-current,
dissolves the contaminant. Spent
solvent is redistilled leaving organic
waste residue.
from an aqueous solution. Less frequently
used than above two methods.
Solvent losses to water
Need for further processing
to recover materials.
-------
1208s
Table C-l (continued)
Type of process
Description of technology
Applications
Limitations of use
Dissolved and emulfisied organics recovery (continued)
Supercritical fluid
ext ract ion
Mpmbrane separation
i
en
Similar to above, except solvent is
at a temperature above its critical
point so acts as a fluid. C02 is
being tested on this application;
selectively extracts organic solvents
from wastewater.
Highly efficient filtration system. Mem-
brane pore openings are submicron size
(0.0025-0.010 u). Molecules of water
and low molecular weight compounds
pass readily; larger organic molecules
and colloidal particles build up in the
recirculation stream until it can be
used as fuel.
No commercial applications were identified
during this study.
Recovery of some dissolved organics. Membranes
of cellophane, collodion, asbestos fiber, etc.,
are used in waste liquor recovery, desalination,
and electrolysis.
Substantial energy savings over
distillation processes, but
high-pressure operating equipment
is higher in cost than conventional
processing equipment. Requires
trained operators; must be well
designed to prevent explosions.
Membrane technology is higher in cost
than older technology. Fairly costly
compared to other processes.
Organic vapor recovery
Condensation
Solvent vapors recovered by being
fed through a condenser cooler.
Recovery of solvent and reduction of
evaporative losses.
For some materials, condensers
may require refrigeration,
which is expensive.
-------
1208s
Table C-l (continued)
Type of process
Description of technology
Applications
Limitations of use
Organic vapor recovery (continued)
Carbon adsorption
Absorpt i on
Beds of activated carbon are used to
selectively adsorb organic vapors
from gas streams. Spent carbon
regenerated with steam; steam and
concentrated organics are recondensed
and separated.
Gas and liquid streams flow counter-
current to each other; gaseous material
is transferred to the liquid streams.
Removal of organics from air emissions.
Recovery of gaseous organics not easily
confined, such as paint overspray.
Limited use.
Carbon regeneration or inciner-
ation is costly. Process requires
close control and well-trained
operators.
Most organics do not have high
solubility in water. Most
applicable to high-temperature gas
streams.
-------
• Steam Distillation is similar to pot distillation except that heat is supplied
by direct steam injection which reduces the distillation temperature. Steam
distillation is applicable to the recovery of solvents that are water insoluble
(i.e., all water-insoluble nonhalogenated solvents and water-insoluble
halogenated solvents). However, product instability, corrosion, foaming, and
condensate water disposal may cause problems with this process.
One restriction on the use of steam distillation is that the recovered solvent
must have a significant vapor pressure at or below the boiling point with
water. A second restriction is that the substance to be recovered must be
stable under distillation conditions. Despite these two limitations, steam
distillation has been used to recover semi-volatile organics from a variety
of process waste streams in the organic chemicals industry.
• Fractional Distillation is generally used to separate individual components
of waste solvent mixtures in cases where the boiling points of individual
constituents are fairly close to one another. In this process, the feed stream
enters a distillation column which contains plates on packing which provide
a high surface area of vapor-liquid contact. Vapors from the top of the
column are collected and condensed, and a portion of these is returned to
the column.
Boiling point differences among the various constituents strongly affect the
design (i.e., number of stages) of a fractional distillation column. The closer
the boiling points of the compounds being separated, the greater the number
of stages required to achieve efficient separation.
Individual applications of fractional distillation to recovery of solvents from
waste streams include: recovery of acetone from wastewater generated
from printed circuit board cleaning operations; onsite recovery of
isopropanol from wastewaters generated by the organic chemical industry;
and recovery of solvents from aqueous and nonaqueous mixtures in the
specialty organics industry (Versar 1980). A case in point is the separation
and recovery of acetic acid and benzene separately from ternary mixtures
of these compounds with water.
• Azeotropes. Solvents forming azeotropes can also be recovered by
fractional distillation with some modifications (an azeotrope is a liquid
mixture with a constant boiling point; azeotropes exhibit a minimum or
maximum boiling point relative to the boiling points of surrounding mixture
compositions). The most common method to break a binary azetrope is to
add a third component (also called entrainer), which forms a ternary
azeotrope. The ternary azeotrope separates in two layers, one of which is
enriched in one of the feed components. This layer is decanted while the
other layer, containing most of the entrainer, is remtroduced into the
distillation column (i.e., refluxed). For example, water can be removed
from a 95 percent ethanol/5 percent water mixture using azeotropic
distillation with benzene.
C-8
-------
Another method of breaking azeotropes is by changing the pressure of
distillation. The methyl ethyl ketone-water azeotrope, which contains 35
percent water at atmospheric pressure and 50 percent water at 100 psi
pressure, can be broken by distilling the mixture first at atmospheric
pressure and then at a higher pressure.
Viscous wastes, including solvents/resin mixtures, can be recovered using
film evaporation. Wiped- and scraped-film evaporators have a set of
rotating blades housed in a steam-jacketed cylinder. As the waste is
heated, the blades move the material so that heat transfer at the jacket
surface is maintained. The bottom residue must flow to remove it from the
equipment. This technology generally is more expensive to install than
other distillation techniques and is not widely used.
* Dryers handle distillation residues and separate solvents from heavy viscous
organic wastes. The drum consists of two horizontal, internally heated
cylindrical drums that rotate in contact with each other. Viscous solvent
waste is fed into the annulus between the drums; the solvent is vaporized,
and the resins and other nonvolatiles are pressed into a flat sheet as they
pass down between the drums. The solvent vapors are condensed and
recovered, while the solids are scraped off the drum and packaged for
disposal. Drying technologies have potential application to semi-solid,
viscous, nonpumpable, or barely pumpable sludges that currently are
landfilled.
Solids Removal (Liquid-Solid Phase Separation)
03
Elimination of suspended solids is a necessary pretreatment for certain
recycling technologies (e.g., fractional distillation) to reduce fouling. Removal of
fine stabilizing solids, which cause oil/water emulsions, enhances the subsequent
separation of liquid phases. Techniques for the removal of suspended solids from
liquid solvents include sedimentation, filtration, and centrifugation. Filtration or
centrifugation are required for removal of fine particles.
• Sedimentation is accomplished in tanks or holding ponds where heavy solids
fall out of the suspension by gravity.
• Filtration includes any method by which solids larger than the pore openings
of a filter medium are retained by the filter. Specifications and costs of
filter equipment vary widely.
• Centrifugation is commonly used to dewater sludges and to remove oil and
dirt from metal parts. The settling force created by a centrifuge enhances
separation of small and low specific gravity solids. Requirements for
energy, maintenance, and operating supervision may be high.
C-9
-------
Liquid-Liquid Phase Separation
Water-insoluble solvents can be separated from wastewater in one or more
organic liquid phases, and then reclaimed or reused. For example, nitrobenzene and
aniline are separated from the wastewater resulting from aniline production. The
aniline is recycled to the process.
Types of equipment available for liquid-liquid phase separation include decant
tanks, API separators, and tilted-plate separators. API separators enhance the rate
of separation achievable in a decant tank by using an open basin with a large surface
area. The addition of tilted plates to an open basin further increases the rate of
separation in proportion to the horizontal surface area.
Emulsion/Dispersion Breaking
Dispersions of solvent or oil droplets in water or of water droplets in oil can be
separated by the use of a coalescer, centrifuge, or air flotation equipment, or by the
addition of chemical de-emulsifying agents.
• Coalescence. When emulsions are pumped through a fine mesh, oil droplets
will coalesce into large drops that separate readily. Attraction of the oil
droplets can be enhanced by the use of an oleophilic medium.
• Centrifugation can be used to remove small amounts of water (as well as
solids) from recovered fuel. This technology has been applied to the
shipboard removal of oil from ballast water and, by the electric utilities
industry, to separate impurities from spent dielectric fluids processed for
reuse.
• Air Flotation. Oil droplets (or particles) also may be removed from water
by dissolved or diffused air flotation. Air for the process first is dissolved
under pressure in a recycle stream, which then is released directly or
through a fine diffuser into an air flotation tank. The air bubbles become
attached to the droplets or particles, float to the surface, and are skimmed.
Chemical agents often are added to improve flocculation. In petroleum
refineries, dissolved air flotation is commonly used ro remove oil from
oil-in-water emulsions. Recovered oil is recycled to the refinery process
(Jacobs Engineering 1975).
• Chemical De-emulsifying Agents added to liquid wastes raise or lower the
pH of the liquid or change the attractive forces between the particles.
These processes separate solvents and oil from the water phase into a liquid
organic phase.
C-10
-------
Dissolved and Emulsified Organics Recovery
Organics separation techniques such as steam or air stripping, carbon
adsorption, and solvent extraction are generally considered wastewater treatment
methods. The organics that are removed are concentrated and amenable to
recovery.
• Steam Stripping. In steam stripping, steam (or air) fed to the bottom of a
packed column picks up volatile organics from wastes pumped onto the top
of the column. The organic vapors recovered at the top of the column are
condensed, and the organics are recovered from the condensate. This
process is used commonly to remove chlorinated solvents (e.g., methylene
chloride) from wastewater.
• Carbon Adsorption. Wastewaters with dissolved organic solvents in low
concentrations (less than 1 percent) can be pumped through a packed bed of
activated carbon, which preferentially absorbs the solvent. When the carbon
becomes loaded with the solvent, the bed can be regenerated with steam or
another solvent. Although carbon adsorption has been used successfully to
remove low concentrations of halogenated solvents (such as chloroethane,
chloroform, 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,2-dichloroethane, 1,2-dichloropropane,
1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,1,2-trichloroethane, and phenol) from organic
chemical industry wastewaters, the solvents evolved as gases during the
regeneration of the carbon are not recovered for reuse. Instead, the evolved
gases are incinerated (USEPA - Effluent Guidelines Development Document
Organic Chemicals 1981).
• Solvent Extraction. Separation of liquid waste constituents is achieved
more commonly by solvent extraction. The wastewater is mixed with a
solvent that extracts certain components of the waste stream, but is
immiscible with the remainder of the waste. Then the solvent is recovered
and recycled to the process, leaving the residual organic waste.
The principal use of solvent extraction technology is in the organic chemical
industry (USEPA - Effluent Guidelines Development Document - Organic
Chemicals 1981). Phenol from wastewater is commercially recovered by
extraction with isopropyl ether followed by distillation. The recovered
phenol is recycled to the process or sold as a chemical. Solvent extraction
(with water as the solvent) is used to recover water-soluble organics from
halogenated hydrocarbon solvents.
• Supercritical Fluid Extraction is similar to solvent extraction, but uses an
extracting solvent whose temperature has been raised above its critical
point (where it no longer exists as a solid, liquid, or gas, but simply as a
fluid). Critical Fluid Systems Inc, is testing supercritical caroon dioxide
(002), which exhibits unique solvent properties in this range. Super critical
C-ll
-------
C02 selectively extracts organic solvents (e.g., isopropanoi) from
wastewater. Then the C02/solvent mixture is decompressea, allowing the
C02 to vaporize, and leaving the extracted organic solvent residue. Finally,
the vaporized C02 is recompressed above its critical point and recycled to
the process. No commercial applications of supercritical fluid extraction to
recovery of hazardous masks were identified during this study.
• Membrane Separation is accomplished by applying external pressure to one
side of a membrane so that solvent in a liquid wastestream will flow in the
opposite direction. Molecules of water and low molecular weight compounds
readily pass through the membrane, while the larger organic molecules build
up in the recirculation stream, becoming concentrated.
Either ultrafiltration or reverse osmosis can be used to achieve membrane
separation. Ultrafiltration units have membrane openings ranging from
0.0025 to 0.010 micron and operate at about 50 psig. Reverse osmosis units
have smaller membrane openings (0.0005 to 0.0025 micron) than the
ultrafiltration units, but operate at much higher pressures (several hundred
pounds). Ultrafiltration is applied in both onsite and offsite recovery
operations to concentrate waste organics.
Recovery of Organic Vapor from Gaseous Waste Streams
Solvent vapors are recovered from gaseous waste streams by condensation,
carbon adsorption, or absorption into a liquid stream.
• Condensation can be used alone (e.g., to recover volatile solvents from
storage tanks) or in conjunction with such unit operations as distillation,
carbon adsorption, and air or stream stripping. Solvent vapors are recovered
through a condenser cooled by recirculated cooling water, chilled water, or
a refrigerant. The choice of coolant is one of economics and performance
(i.e., adequate volatile organic chemical removal).
• Carbon Adsorption, described previously for liquid-liquid phase separation,
has been used to recover low concentrations of solvent (e.g., acetone) vapors
from gas streams. General application of carbon adsorption technology to
recovery of solvents for reuse has been limited for safety reasons.
Activated carbon can catalyze the decomposition of some organics,
resulting in hot spots and possible bed fires. (However, the technology is
widely used in the organic chemical industry to limit airborne emissions of
toxic vapors.)
• Liquid Phase Absorption is the transfer of a solvent from the gaseous stream
into a liquid stream. Continuous contact of gas and liquid is required. The
C-12
-------
absorption apparatus may be a tower filled with solid packing material, an
empty tower into which the liquid is sprayed and through which the gas
flows, or a tower containing a number of plates for increased surface area.
The gas and liquid streams are maintained in countercurrent flow, thereby
achieving maximum concentration driving force and the highest possible
rate of absorption of gas by the liquid phase. A new absorption process
recovers volatile organic chemical emissions from paint spray booths using
an oil-in-water emulsion. After absorption, the emulsion is separated into
clean water and a solvent-oil rich phase. The water is recycled to the paint
booth, and the solvent-oil rich phase is processed to recover the solvent and
recycle oil to the absorption loop.
C-13
-------
C.2 Haloqenated Orqanics (Nonsolvent) Recycling Technologies
Halogenated organic wastes that are not solvents include the chlorinated
hydrocarbon pesticides and intermediates (e.g., chlorinated phenols, halogenated
aliphatic pesticides, aldrin, and toxaphene); polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); and
other chlorinated organic wastes such as epoxy strippers and still bottom residues
from recovery of halogenated solvents.
Recycling opportunities are generally more restricted for this class of material
for two reasons: (1) some of these wastes, particulary those containing
polyhalogenated aromatics, may be contamined with dioxins, and (2) markets for
some possible products, such as carbon tetrachloride, have been declining sharply in
recent years.
Technologies available for recycling nonsolvent halogenated wastes, either for
reuse or heat recovery, are discussed below. The uses and limitations of each
technology are summarized in Table C-2.
Pesticide Dusts
Halogenated organic pesticides and pesticide intermediates usually are recycled
onsite. Dusts and particulates generated either from product drying during pesticide
manufacture or from blending operations during pesticide formulation are collected
by baghouse filters and recycled to the process.
Pesticide Wastewater
Recycling of wastewater from pesticide production also is practiced commonly
in conjunction with solvent extraction, steam stripping, and distillation operations
(see Table 4-2).
C-14
-------
1208s
Table C-2 Summary of Recycling Technologies for Halogenated Organics Waste Streams
Type of process
Description of technology
Applications
Limitations of Use
Fuel use
Solvent extraction
Halogenated organic wastes are used as
fuel in cement kilns. Energy is
recovered as well as acid gas, which
reacts with free alkali in the cement to
produce a low-alkali cement.
Dimethylformamide (DMF) solvent extracts
PCBs from waste oils; water washing
in second stage to separate out
solvent and leave a PCB concentrate.
Recovers heat during thermal destruction of
organics. Method is widely used.
Process yields a decontaminated oil, which
could be further processed to give a
recyclable product.
o
i
Limitation imposed by maximum halogen
loading per ton of cement. At high
halogen loadings, salts formed by
reaction of acid gases and alkali in
the cement will begin to fuse into a
molten ring. Interferes with
operation of the kiln.
Extraction efficiency depends on
relative solubilities of PCB in DMF
and other media; in some cases, may
not give a completely decontaminated
fluid.
-------
Exhaustive Chiorination
A commercial process that involves high temperature (600° C) and exhaustive
chlorination converts chlorinated hydrocarbon wastes to a salable product, carbon
tetrachloride. This process has been used by Dow Chemical Corporation at their
Freeport, Texas, facility (Versar 1975). However, portions of the process at
Freeport have been discontinued (Chemical Week 1985). Exhaustive chlorination can
be used to convert highly chlorinated still bottoms generated from distillation of
crude halogenated solvents to carbon tetrachloride. Such reclamation operations
also have practiced by Ethyl Corporation and Vulcan Materials (Versar Inc., 1975;
Versar Inc., 1980; personal communication with Mr. John Huguet, Ethyl Corporation,
February 1980).
Reclamation of PCB-Contaminated Waste Oil
Polychlorinated biphenyls can be removed from waste oil by extraction or the
waste oil can be dechlorinated. Both processes are available commercially for
offsite or onsite applications.
• Dechlorination. State-of-the-art dechlorination processes reclaim waste
oils contaminated with PCBs at concentrations between 50 and 10,000 ppm
so that the oil can be reused. These processes use sodium compounds to
dechlorinate the PCB molecules and produce a nonhalogenated organic
compound and a sodium salt. The new processes are patented by PPM,
Acurex, and Sunohio, and are improvements over the original dechlorination
process investigated by Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company. Dechlorination
process equipment is mounted on mobile equipment, which can be brought to
the site of the generator's facility (usually a transformer requiring service).
• Solvent Extraction. Another new process, based on solvent extraction, is
suitable for removing PCBs from waste oil. This process,
dimethylformamide (DMF) extraction, also reduces the volume of PCB
waste by a factor of 10. The steps of the process are: extraction of PCBs
with DMF; extraction with water of the DMF from the DMF-PCB mixture;
and recovery and purification of the DMF by distillation. The ourified DMF
is recycled to the process, and the decontaminated oil can be reused. The
concentrated PCB-containing residue requires disoosal as a hazardous waste.
C-16
-------
Heat Recovery from Halogenated Organic Wastes
Halogenated organic wastes can be incinerated for heat recovery during the
manufacture of other chlorinated organics or in cement kilns. A new process
catalytically destroys the chlorinated hydrocarbon byproducts of vinyl chloride
monomer production and recovers heat and chlorine value without environmental
pollution (Benson 1979). In cement kilns, the temperature and extended residence
time required for adequate calcination of cement ensure efficient destruction of
halogenated organic wastes. In addition to recovering energy value from the waste
during its destruction, the acid gas generated reacts with free alkali in the cement
to produce a low-alkali cement. This product is desirable in a number of market
applications.
The primary limitation to the use of halogenated organic waste in cement kilns
is the maximum halogen loading per ton of cement. Cement kilns typically limit
chlorine content of the waste fuel to a maximum range of 5 to 10 percent, although
a kiln equipped to blend the waste with other fuel prior to burning can handle higher
levels. At high halogen loadings (greater than 10 percent) salts formed by reaction
begin to fuse into a molten ring. The molten salts interfere with proper operation of
the kiln and can cause shutdown if allowed to build up excessively. Also, halogen
acid gases are corrosive to any metal parts of the kiln system (Stoddard et al. 1981).
Recovery of Hydrochloric Acid
Hydrochloric acid is commercially produced through destruction of chlorinated
byproducts or wastes by incineration and subsequent scrubbing of combustion gases
with water. For example, at one facility, chlorinated organic compounds are
incinerated in a high performance burner, and the resulting hydrochloric acid gas is
absorbed in water to produce a 21 percent hydrochloric acid, 79 percent water
azeotropic mixture. A more concentrated acid (35 to 36 percent hydrocnloric acid)
is then produced by extractive distillation (Fox 1972). At two other facilities, over
C-17
-------
90 percent of organic wastes are incinerated and the hydrochloric acid is recovered.
At one plant, the acid is used to neutralize other wastes, and at another plant the
acid is sold as a product.
C-18
-------
C.3 Metal Recovery Technologies
Metal recovery processes can be divided into the following categories,
representing a variety of unit treatment operations: metal concentration, metal
reduction, metal substitution, and agglomeration. Many of the concentration,
reduction, and substitution processes are widely used. Agglomeration techniques,
however, have not been widely employed. Although many metal recovery operations
are performed onsite (for recycling to a manufacturing or finishing process),
commercial offsite recycling facilities also are available (see Offsite Recycling,
Section 4.3 and Appendix C-6).
Agglomeration
Agglomeration is a term describing any process of gathering of small particles
into larger particles, where the small particles still can be identified. Mill scale,
sludges, and dusts generated by various industries (e.g., iron and steel industry) are
agglomerated to be used for their metal values in blast or induction furances.
Agglomeration avoids particulate carryover from furances. The agglomeration
techniques commonly used for waste recycling include low temperature bonding, hot
briquetting, direct reduction, and green balling.
• Low Temperature Bonding. In this process, the waste steam is blended with
a binder and the mixture is formed into pellets by heat and/or pressure.
Low temperature bonding processes differ in the type of binder used (see
Table C-3).
• Hot Briquetting. Some metal wastes can be heated to a temperature
between 1,600°F and 1,800°F in a fluidized bed and pressed into briquettes.
These briquettes are cooled by heat exchange with the feed (Franklin
Associates 1982a). This process is not widely used in the U.S.
• Direct Reduction. Wastes containing metal oxides can be mixed with coke
breeze (coke particles having a diameter smaller than 0.5 inch) from iron
and steel mills and formed into pellets. By a process called direct
reduction, these pellets are preheated on a grate, then reduced (i.e., the
metal oxides in the pellets are coverted to metals) in a rotary kiln, at a
temperature of about 1,100°C, using coke as the reducing agent. The direct
reduction process is used commercially only in Japan (Franklin Associates
1982a).
C-19
-------
Table C-3 Summary of Recycling Technologies for Metals-Bearing Waste Streams
Type of process
Description
Applications
Limitations of Use
Metal concentration processes
Hydrometallurgi cal
processing (leaching)
Metals can be leached out of solids
and sludges by extended contact with
specific acids.
Extraction of metals from
hazardous sludges, brine muds.
Concentration of desirable metals must
be reasonably high (over 5,000 ppm) to
make leaching attractive. Moderate
cost of acids used is an economic
constraint imposing lower limits on
contents of waste to be handled.
Solvent extraction
o
i
r-o
O
Ion exchange
Precipi tation
Chemical reduction
Selective solvents used to extract
and concentrate metal cations from
aqueous solutions such as leachate.
Ion exchange resins are produced
which will selectively remove certain
metal ions but permit others to pass
when wastewater is pumped through
the packed bed.
Metals dissolved in wastewater are
precipitated out of solution by re-
acting them to form insoluble com-
pounds.
Addition of reducing agents to waste
solution containing toxic metals
causes precipitation of elemental
silver and mercury, or the reduction
of Cr+b to Cr*3.
Economically feasible for recovery of
vanadium pentoxide. Evaporation of the
amine solvent leads to recovery of
reasonably pure ammonium vanadate.
Same as above
Same as above; frequently used.
Recovery of silver or mercury
in useable form from wastes. Converts
hazardous CR+" to nonhazardous Cr".
Solvent losses can be a problem with
some volatile solvents. High cost is
not feasible for many metal-bearing
wastes.
Expected life of resins is a concern in
that frequent resin replacement will
make the process more costly.
Poisoning of resin with nonremovable
impurities is also a major concern.
For many applications the process is
costly.
Recovered sludges need further
processing to recover metal values.
Useful only for wastes containing
easily reducible toxic constituents.
-------
Table C-3 (continued)
Type of process
Description
Applications
Limitations of Use
Metal concentration processes (continued)
Crystal 1i zation
Calci nati on
o
ro
Evaporati on
Membrane separation
Adsorption
Solid metal compounds removed from
solution by cooling it, to lower
solubility of metal salts.
Consists of reacting metal-bearing
sludges at high temperatures to drive
off water and other volatiles,
incinerate residual organics,
and oxidize remaining inorganic
compounds including metals.
Concentration for recovery by evapor-
ation. Widely used for chrome rinse
tanks. Also used on rinse water from
other plating operations.
Solids larger than pore openings in
the filter media are removed. The
openings must be smaller to achieve
metal separations than those used in
organi cs.
Similar to ion exchanges in select-
ively removing materials when waste-
water is passed through a column of
adsorptive media. Various natural
materials including redwood bark and
sphagnum moss are in commercial use
for removal of various metals.
Same as above. Used only in limited
cases in which recovered material
is saleable.
Converts waste to oxide that is easily
handled as feedstock by a smelter. Used
only in limited cases.
Allows for recovery of concentrated
solutions.
Allows for recovery of concentrated
solutions. Rarely used because of
higher costs.
Removes metals from wastewaters.
Not frequently used due to higher
costs.
Practiced only for reasonably
concentrated solutions, (i.e., above
20 percent concentration).
Not applicable to wastes containing
arsenic or selenium, which form
volatile oxides.
Energy costs place lower limits on
concentrations to which technology is
applicable. Used only in limited
cases.
Membrane materials must be selected
based on their ability to withstand
degradation by the waste; chromic acid
and high pH cyanide baths have been
particularly difficult streams to treat
with this operation. Rarely used
because of higher costs.
Recovery of metals from adsorbents
such as high surface area clay or
silica is difficult. Not frequently
used due to higher costs.
-------
1420s
Table C-3 (continued)
Type of process
Description
Appli cations
Limitations of Use
Foam f1otati on
Involves air flotation of foams after
addition of polyelectrolyte and ad-
justing pH. Relatively new process -
no commerical installations to date.
MeiaJ reduction and recovery
Effectively removes copper, zinc,
chromium, and lead. Rarely used due to
higher costs.
Raw material to process must be
ore-like. Many waste types
unacceptable as feeds. Rarely used
due to higher costs.
Electrolyte recovery
o
i
ro
ro
Sodium borohydride
Reduction in
Iurnaces
Other reducing
processes
Current passed through electrodes
immersed in the metal solution. Metal
ions migrate to the electrode where
they give up an electron and are
plated out.
Addition of sodium borohydride to
neutral or alkaline solutions of
metals will result in precipitation
of the metallic powders out of
solution.
Recovery of precious metals.
Sludge is mixed with coke or
other reducing agent and heated.
Copper can be removed from electroless
solutions in metallic form by addit-
ion of formaldehyde and raising the
pH. Copper will plate onto steel
in acidic copper baths.
Recovery of mercury from chloralkali
production.
Metal refining
Recovery of material in metallic form.
Process becomes inefficient when
handling dilute solutions
(concentrations below 100 mg/1.)
Process limited to recovering more
noble metals, i.e., precious metals,
nickel, cobalt, copper, and mercury.
Process limited to salts for which
metals are easily formed by reduction
and to neutral or alkaline solutions.
Used in limited cases due to higher
operating costs.
High cost limits this process
to metal refining.
Metal salt must be easily reducible.
This limits process to precious
metals, nickel, cobalt, copper,
and mercury. Value of there covered
material must justify cost of
using the process. Used only in
limited cases due to higher costs.
-------
Table C-3 (continued)
Type of process
Description
Applications
Limitations of Use
Participate and vapor recovery from gases
Participate recovery
Selective adsorbents
o
i
Wet scrubbers
Retorting
Metal substi tution
Fine solid particles, entrained in
baghouses and electrostatic precipi-
tators (used in air pollution control)
are recycled as feed in steel mills,
or as source of trace metals to other
industries.
Adsorbent media are available commer-
cially which selectively tie up
specific metals. Adsorbents can be
regenerated or destroyed to recover
the metals. An example is the
recovery of gold from cyanide-
bearing solutions; gold is adsorbed
from solution onto a resin.
Incineration of the resin produces
gold in useful form.
Vapors and extremely fine particles
can be recovered by wet systems such
as packed scrubbing columns and
impingement plate scrubbers.
Process used to recovery mercury
from sludges; waste is heated in
an oxidizing environment. Mercury
is recovered by condensation.
Closed loop recovery system involving
a replacement reaction between
calcium and salt, added to Na-sludge
in heated reaction vessel.
Reduction of air emissions. Widely used,
chiefly for control of air particulate
emissions from metallurgical industries.
Reduction of air emissions.
Reduction of air emissions.
Recovery of mercury and minimization of
hazardous waste. If retorting is done
properly, residue may be nonhazardous.
Recovery of sodium from waste sludge
in sodium manufacture.
Material recovered is dry; wet material
may be desired. Requires reasonably
dry gas stream for suitable recovery.
Need to regenerate adsorbents or to
dispose of sludges generated by spent
adsorbent purification. Not widely
used due to higher costs.
Need to treat or handle wastewater
generated.
Energy-intensive operation. Value of
recovered mercury may be insufficient
to cover costs unless wastes with high
mercury content are processed.
Only applicable to waste sludges from
elemental sodium production.
-------
1420s
Table C-3 (continued)
Type of process
Description
Appli cations
Limitations of Use
Agglomeration
Low temperature
bonding
Hot briquetting
Di rect reduction
Waste stream mixed with a binder;
briquettes or pellets pressed out,
which are then used as feedstock in
metals operations (steelmaking, iron).
Feed material heated between 1600°F
and 1800°F in fluidized bed, then
pressed into briquettes.
The process mixes, pelletizes, and pre-
heats the waste stream on a grate and
reduces the pellets on a rotary kiln
by making use of the carbon in the
pellets as the reductant.
Allows for reuse of collected particulate
materials.
Same as above.
Some oxide/hydroxide wastes from plating
operations, if kept segregated by metals
could be a useful feedstock for a
smelter using such a process to convert
ore to metal.
Briquettes prepared by this method may
not have desired integrity at elevated
temperatures. Use of waste by metals
procedure is probably preferable to any
onsite use of such a process.
Applicable only to solids with low
vapor pressure at briquetting
temperature. Process is not widely
used.
Useful only with easily reducible
substances (i.e., some metal oxides).
Recovered metal must justify cost.
Process is used as part of smelting
industry to reduce ores to metals.
Shipment of waste to smelter in lieu of
onsite processing is probably preferred.
-------
Green Balling. The green balling process, another agglomeration technique,
recycles baghouse and electrostatic precipitator dust (air pollution control
devices) from electric and open hearth furnaces of the iron and steel
industry. The collected dust is wetted and formed into balls, which then are
fed back into the furnace as a material feedstock.
Particulate and Vapor Recovery from Gases
Metals and metal compounds are recovered from air or gas streams usually as
fine particles; however, more volatile metals (such as mercury, lead, cadmium, and
zinc), which tend to vaporize in high-temperature processes, are recovered from the
vapor phase.
Particulate Recovery. Baghouses, electrostatic precipitators, and wet
scrubbers are used in many industries to capture fine solid particles. These
particles may be recycled to feed streams as in steel mills or may be a
source of trace metals to other industries such as smelters in the nonferrous
metals industries. Cadmium dust generated from cadmium batteries or
pigment plants can be recycled (Versar 1980).
Vapor Recovery. Metal vapors can be recovered by adsorbents that
selectively tie up metals from gas streams. These commercially available
adsorbents are regenerated or destroyed to recover the metals. Metal
vapors also can be recovered by wet systems such as packed scrubbing
columns or impingement plate scrubbers.
The metals recovered by adsorption generally are disposed of rather than
reused (personal communication with Dr. M. Caprini, Modux Corp., 1985).
For example, in the production of phenol mercuric acetate, the process tail
gases are passed through a carbon adsorption column for the removal of
mercury, and the spent carbon (containing the mercury) is sent offsite to
hazardous waste landfills or offsite reclaims.
Retorting. This process is used in the chloralkali industry (SIC 2812) to
recover mercury from mercury-bearing sludges and solid wastes. The waste
is heated in an oxidizing environment. As elemental mercury forms, it
distills from the waste and is collected by condensation. The residues from
the retorting are shipped offsite as hazardous wastes. (Personal
communication with Mr. Paul Tobia, Plant Manager, and Mr. George Gissell,
Plant Environmental Coordinator, Vulcan Materials Inc., July 16, 1985).
C-25
-------
Metal Concentration Processes
There are diverse methods available to concentrate metal compounds from a
bulk solid or liquid into a sludge or solution. Unit operations for concentrating
metals include hydrometallurgical processing (leaching), solvent extraction, ion
exchange, chemical precipitation, calcination, evaporation, membrane separation,
adsorption, and foam flotation. These processes have been developed either to
recycle the metals or to treat the bulk stream to render it nonhazardous. The metal
concentrates formed must be treated further to recover the metals in a usable
(salable) form.
• HydrometaUurqicai Processing. The primary application of hydro-
metallurgical processing (leaching) is for metals recovery from ores, but
leaching technology also has been applied to the extraction of metals from
hazardous sludges. Metals are leached from solids and sludges by extended
contact with inorganic solvents. Then the dissolved metals are recovered by
unit operations such as electrolysis, chemical reduction, or chemical
precipitation followed by filtration, electrolysis, and ion exchange. Solvents
used in hydrometallurgical leaching include sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid,
nitric acid, ammonia, ammonium carbonate, ferric chloride, and sulfur
dioxide (Mehta 1981).
Although the leaching of metals from hazardous sludges is not practiced
widely, one such application is in the removal of mercury from
contaminated brine muds generated from mercury cell chloralkali plants.
Vulcan Materials Inc. (one facility at Port Edwards, Wisconsin) leaches
contaminated muds with sulfuric acid to convert the solids to nonhazardous
gypsum and to recover the mercury. Subsequent treatment of the leaching
solution generates a much reduced volume of mercury-bearing wastes which
is retorted to recover mercury (Personal communication with Mr. P. Tobiz,
Vulcan Materials, 1985).
• Solvent Extraction. Organic solvents can be used similarly to extract and
concentrate metal cations from aqueous or nonaqueous solutions (e.g.,
leachates). Commercial application of organic solvent extraction to
recovery of metals is not common because of the high cost. One exception
is the recovery of vanadium pentoxide from spent sulfuric acid catalysts (at
two plants). The vanadium is leached from the catalysts, then selectively
extracted from aqueous solution with a high molecular weight amine.
Evaporation of the amine solvent leads to recovery of reasonably pure
ammonium vanadate ^personal communication with Dr. T. Hurst,
Kerr-McGee Corp. 1980).
C-26
-------
• Ion Exchange. Ion exchange columns are used extensively in large plating
shops to remove metals such as cadmium, nickel, silver, and gold from
wastewaters (Ploos Van Anstel and Frampton 1977). When metal-bearing
wastewater is pumped through the column, the resins in the column remove
certain metal ions but permit others to pass. The treated wastewater is
recycled to the process as rinse water. The resin is regenerated with strong
acid, which, in turn, is treated to recover the metals before reuse. By
removing dissolved metals from an electroplating bath, the ion exchange
column extends the service life of the bath.
• Precipitation. Toxic metals dissolved in wastewaters can be precipitated by
addition of chemicals, usually lime or caustic soda. This conventional
technology (hydroxide precipitation) has been improved upon by processes
such as sulfide precipitation, which reduce the concentrtion of toxic metals
in the treated wastewater.
One commercial precipitation process removes metals from wastewaters
through addition of a ferrous salt followed by neutralization and air
oxidation. The ferrites formed from this treatment are insoluble over a
wide pH range and easy to separate because of their magnetic properties
and the size of the precipitate crystals. Information on commercial
applications of this process was not available during this study.
Nickel-plating solutions and spent-nickel catalyst are commonly recycled by
the electroplating and inorganics chemical (SIC 2819) industries.
Nickel-plating solutions are reacted with soda ash to precipitate nickel
carbonate, which then is collected and reacted with sulfuric acid to
generate an impure nickel-sulfate solution. This solution is purified from
iron salts by addition of small quantities of sodium sulfide (iron salts are
precipitated as iron sulfide). The solution is next separated from iron
sulfide by filtration and evaporated to recover pure nickel sulfate.
Spent-nickel catalysts, after being dissolved with a mineral acid to form a
nickel salt solution, are treated the same way as the nickel-plating
solutions. This recovery technology is currently used by at least two
manufacturers of plating chemicals, Harshaw-Filtrol (personal communi-
cation with Mr. David Wilson, Manager of Environmental Affairs and Mr.
Fred Kaplan, Business Manager of Industrial Chemical Products Division,
Harshaw-Filtrol, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio, July 16, 1985) and C-P Chemical
(personal communication with Mr. Vincent Krajewski, Director of
Environmental Affairs, C-P Chemical Co., Sewaren, New Jersey, July 16,
1985).
Another precipitation process uses cross-linked starch xanthate as the
•chemical additive. This process has a fast reaction rate and high removal
rates of metals from waste solutions. It reacts rapidly to tie up the metals
and leaves very low levels of most metals in the solution. The floe that
settles rapidly can be dewatered to much lower levels than can be obtained
C-27
-------
with metal hydroxides. Subsequent treatment of the precipitate with acid
releases the metals readily. This process is effective over a pH range from
3 to 11. The U.S. Department of Agriculture holds some patents, but others
are also developing patented or proprietary improvements over this process.
Another application of chemical precipitation is for the recovery of spent
hydrofluoric acid etching solutions at the Conservation Chemical Company,
St. Louis, Missouri, facility. The spent etching solution is neutralized with
potassium hydroxide, converting the heavy metal fluorides present into the
corresponding insoluble hydroxides, which precipitate from the solution.
The resulting potassium fluoride sludges are filtered to remove the
hydroxide sludge which is disposed of (landfilled) as a hazardous waste. The
remaining solution is evaporated to yield technical grade potassium fluoride
for resale. Approximately 2,000 tons per year of this product are produced
by this process (personal communication with H. Kaiser, Conservation
Chemical Company, July 16, 1985).
• Chemical Reduction. In certain instances, chemical reduction is required
prior to precipitation of metals. For example, to precipitate silver or
mercury as metal, a reducing agent is added to the waste solution containing
these metal ions. Hexavalent chromium is reduced to a trivalent state with
a reducing agent such as sodium bisulfide or sodium metabisulfide. The
trivalent chromium can then be precipitated in the form of a hydroxide. It
has been proposed that the hydroxide sludge can be treated with sulfuric
acid to recover chromium sulfate, which can then be used in the leather
tanning industry. Precipitation processes are widely used in the inorganic
chemical, electroplating, and metal-finishing industries.
• Crystallization. Crystallization of metal ions from a waste solution occurs
as the temperature of the solution is lowered. This transformation takes
place because metal compounds have lower solubility at colder
temperatures. Crystallization commonly is used to recover ferrous sulfate
from waste pickle liquors or from sulfate process titanium dioxide waste
acid solutions. The acid is pumped to a crystallizer where the temperature
is maintained at approximately 35° to 40°F to crystallize ferrous sulfate
heptahydrate (FeSO^TH^O) from the solution. Crystallization also is used to
regenerate copper etching baths for reuse. The baths (with hydrogen
peroxide and sulfuric acid) are regenerated by refrigeration and freezing of
the copper sulfate crystals out of the solution.
• Calcination. Calcination drives off water and other volatiles from
metal-bearing sludges by exposure to high (incineration) temperatures. The
residual organics in the sludge are combusted during the process, and any
remaining inorganic compounds (including metals) are oxidized. Leaded tank
bottoms are treated by calcination to recover lead oxide (Stoddard et al.
1981).
C-28
-------
• Evaporation. Evaporation is used to concentrate rinse water from plating
operations (nickel, cadmium, copper, chromium, silver, gold, and zinc),
yielding distilled water and a metal concentrate that are recycled to the
rinse tanks and plating tanks, respectively (Warnke et al. 1977, Bhatiz and
Jump 1977, Elickerr and Lacy 1978, and Caprio et al. 1977). Additional
metal recovery steps may be necessary. For example, solutions from
chromium rinse tanks that are first concentrated by evaporation are passed
through ion exchange columns to recover the chromium that is recycled to
the plating baths.
• Membrane Separation. Membrane separation processes include reverse
osmosis, ultrafiltration, and electrodialysis. The membranes serve as a
medium for separating metals and other dissolved species from water and
small molecular species. In reverse osmosis and ultrafiltration separation
processes, the waste solution is forced through the membrane by pumping.
In electrodialysis, an electrical potential is applied across the membrane,
causing the transport of either cations or anions through the membrane.
Reverse osmosis membranes have smaller pore openings and operate at
higher pressures. Membrane materials must be selected based on their
ability to withstand degradation by (corrosive) wastes. Pretreatment of the
waste is needed to reduce plugging and fouling of the membrane. Reverse
osmosis is frequently applied to the recovery of metals from copper and zinc
plating solutions, silver-bearing photoprocessing solutions (Daignault 1977),
and mixed plating wastes. Ultrafiltration membranes used for organics can
remove suspended, colloidal, and large molecular dissolved solids. This
separation technique can, therefore, serve as a pretreatment for metals.
• Adsorption is similar to ion exchange in selectively removing materials when
wastewater is passed through a column of adsorptive media; however, this
process involves a looser bond between the surface of the media and the
metal being removed. (In ion exchange resins, there is an actual chemical
group replacement in the complex molecular structure of the resin.)
Various natural materials, including redwood bark and sphagnum moss, are
used commercially for adsorbing metals from solution, and synthetic
adsorbents, first commercialized in Japan, are also used in the U.S.
Synthetic adsorbents are regenerated by passing an acid through the
column. Alternatively, the adsorbent may be incinerated, leaving an
ash-metal oxide concentrate.
Foam flotation is a new process, which involves air flotation of foams after
addition of polyelectrolyte and pH adjustment. Foam flotation effectively
removes copper, zinc, chromium, and lead from waste solutions (WPCF
1983). Although the economics of this process are claimed to be favorable
(WPCF 1983), no commercial installations were identified during this report.
C-29
-------
Metals Reduction and Metals Recovery
Metals reduction and recovery operations include electrolytic recovery,
chemical recovery with sodium borohydride, and reduction in metal furnaces and
through other processes. Wastes must be concentrated by one of the methods
described above prior to application of reduction and recovery operations.
• Electrolytic Recovery is the most conventional commercial metals
reduction process, where current is passed through electrodes immersed in
the metal solution. Metal ions migrate to the cathode (negative terminal) to
be reduced to their elemental form (by giving up an electron) and are plated
out. The reaction at the anode (positive terminal) generates oxygen to
complete the oxidation-reduction reaction. The deposited metal can be
peeled off the cathode and sent to a refiner or, if the cathode is made of
stainless steel, it can be directly used as an anode in a plating tank.
Battelle Columbus Laboratories and Rolla Metallurgy Center have developed
an electrolytic process that removes copper from a mixed-metals leachate.
After removal of copper, the chromium and zinc which remain in the
leachate are recovered by roasting. Silver has also been electrolytically
recovered from spent photographic development solutions (Daignault 1977).
• Chemical recovery with Sodium Borohydride. A recently developed process
involves addition of sodium borohydrate to neutral or alkaline solutions of
metals, and precipitation of metals by reduction in their elemental form.
No additional treatment is required except for filtration of the precipitated
metals from the solution. The metals after filtration can be sold directly to
scrap metal dealers.
Chemical recovery with the sodium borohydride process is acquiring wide
acceptance for treatment and recycling of metals in various industries. This
process has been used to recover mercury from chlor-alkali production
wastes, and precious metals from spent photographic fixer and plating
solutions (Business Week 1974, Medding and Lander 1981).
This process has a very low capital requirement, but is relatively high in
operating costs because of the cost of sodium borohydride. The use of this
process is limited to neutral or alkaline solutions, because sodium
borohydride may cause an explosive reaction in acidic solutions (Business
Week 1974).
• Reduction in Furnaces. Metal refiners recover metals directly from certain
sludges in reduction furnaces. This operation is very similar to the recovery
of metals from ores in furnaces.
C-30
-------
The sludge is mixed with a reducing agent (usually coke) and charged into
the furnace. The metallic compound is reduced to the metal, while the coke
is oxidized to carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. The high capital
investment limits application of this technology to metal refiners.
Other Reduction Processes. Other reduction processes are also
commercially available in limited applications. For example, copper can be
removed from alkalone electroless solutions in metallic form by addition of
formaldehyde. Copper can also be removed as metal from acidic copper
baths if steel sheets are placed into the solution. In this application, iron
cations replace copper in the solution.
Metal Substitution and Recovery
A byproduct sludge containing sodium, calcium, and their oxides, results from
the manufacture of sodium metal. The sodium metal is recovered from the sludge
using a closed loop recovery system and returned to the sodium process as usable
finished product (DuPont 1985).
The recovery process involves a replacement reaction between calcium and
salt, which is added to the sludge in a heated reaction vessel. The reaction converts
the calcium into calcium chloride and yields recoverable sodium metal.
The sodium recovery process at DuPont results in approximately 1,100 tons of
usable sodium being recovered per year. Additionally, approximately 1,200 tons of
RCRA hazardous wastes are eliminated per year. The process results in the
generation of 800 tons per year of nonhazardous waste, which is disposed of in an
approved sanitary landfill.
A somewhat different, proprietary process is used at the RMI sodium facility.
There, also, waste sodium-bearing sludge is reprocessed to recover the metal.
Process Substitution
In a few cases, it is possible to substitute the use of a new process to entirely
avoid generation of hazardous waste. The premier case of this situation exists in
C-31
-------
the chloralkali industry. Up until 1980, all high-purity sodium hydroxide was
produced by the mercury-cell process, which generates mercury-bearing solid
wastes. A new process, the membrane cell, has been developed by DuPont. The
process also produces high-grade caustic soda at lower cost than the old
mercury-cell process. In the membrane cell, chlorine is formed at the anode and
sodium ions migrate through a membrane to undergo further electrolytic reaction
with water in the cathode compartment, thus forming sodium hydroxide and
hydrogen. Five membrane cell plants have been built since 1980 in the U.S. All of
them are fairly small and use either evaporated salt or salt recovered for onsite
diaphragm cell operations as feedstock. In April 1985, DuPont announced
construction of a new 1,000 ton-per-day membrane cell plant at Niagara Falls, New
York, to open in mid-1987. According to data supplied by DuPont (personal
communication and material submitted by Dr. John Cooper, Petrochemicals
Department, E. I. duPont de Nemours, Inc., Delaware, October 2, 1985). The plant
design calls for the following features:
• Zero production of hazardous waste;
• Total recycling of spent brines to the brine wells for solution mining of
raw salt material;
• Production of hydrochloric acid from chlorine present in process tail
gases; and
• Total sale of the spent sulfuric acid used in chlorine drying.
The effect of the construction of this new plant on the industry has already
manifested itself. Recently, Olin Corporation (Wall Street Journal, September 27,
1985) announced the closure of their mercury cell plant located in Niagara Falls,
New York, because they do not feel their plant can be competitive with the new
DuPont facility under construction. Should the new facility meet industry
expectations, a further expansion of membrane cell capacity is to be expected. This
may be accompanied by a further decline in the amounts of mercury-bearing
hazardous wastes generated.
C-32
-------
The number of cases in which new process developments have the potential to
eliminate hazardous waste has been small. In cases in which they do occur, such as
for the membrane cell, their effect on future hazardous waste generation may be
substantial.
C-33
-------
C.4 Recycling Technologies for Corrosive Wastes
Corrosive wastes that are recycled include spent acids and alkalis from
chemical manufacture and petroleum refining processes, and also the acid from
spent pickle liquor. Technologies commonly used to recycle corrosive wastes
include thermal decomposition, evaporation, crystallization, ion exchange, and
oxidation. The limitations and uses of each of these technologies are presented in
Table C-4 and discussed below.
Thermal Decomposition
Thermal decomposition is used in the recovery of sulfuric acid from spent acid
sludges to recover ferric chloride from acidic titanium dioxide waste and for the
recovery of hydrochloric acid from spent pickle liquor or halogenated organic
residues.
• Recovery of Sulfuric Acid. Thermal decomposition is widely used in
petroleum refineries to recover concentrated sulfuric acid from spent
alkylating acid sludges contaminated with hydrocarbons and containing
water. The acid sludges are recyucled by spent acid processors in
evaporators at temperatures ranging from 2,000° to 2,300°F. Mixed sulfur
dioxide and water vapors produced from decomposition of the sludge are
passed through a dust collection chamber for particulate collection, a
waste-heat boiler for heat recovery, and a heat exchanger to lower the
temperature to 700°F. The water vapor is removed from the gas by
93 percent acid and the sulfur dioxide is oxidized to sulfur trioxide in the
presence of vanadium catalyst. Finally, the sulfur trioxide gas is scrubbed
with strong acid in an absorption tower to yeild 98 to 99 percent sulfuric
acid (Versar 1980).
• Recovery of Hydrochloric Acid from Pickle Liquor. Iron and steel mills
(SICs 331 and 332) generate a spent pickle liquor (RCRA Code K062^ that
contains approximately 20 percent ferrous chloride and 5 percent
hydrochloric acid. Recovery of the hydrochloric acid by thermal
decomposition could be practiced by many of these facilities.
The first step in the recovery process is the preheating and concentration of
the spent pickle liquor in evaporators. This concentrated solution is
introduced into a hydrolysis reactor. The reactor, operating at
approximately 1470°F to 1830QF, creates an oxidizing environment for the
reaction between ferrous chloride and water. Ferric oxide solids are
produced and precipitate out of the solution.
C-34
-------
Table C-4 Summary of Recycling Technologies for Corrosive Waste Streams
Type of process
Descri ption
Applications
Limitations of Use
Thermal decomposition
Recovery of HC1
Hydrochloric acid containing dissolved
ferrous chloride from pickling is re-
acted with water in the presence of
heat to yield hydrochloric acid and
ferric oxide.
Recovery of HC1 for reuse.
Hydrolysis of FeCl£ requires
a considerable input of energy; iron
oxide becomes a waste, needing disposal.
Use of FeCl2 to produce ferrous/
ferric chlorides for sale, where
viable, is preferred. (Not widely used
due to higher cost.)
Recovery of
CO
en
Evaporation
Concentrated sulfuric acids contamin-
ated by water and hydrocarbons are
burned at high temperatures. Gases
are passed through dust collection
chamber, dried by 93% acid, and
the S(>2 present is oxidized to SOj
in the presence of a vanadium catalyst.
The SOj is scrubbed with acid to
yield 98 to 99% H2S04.
Involves removal of water from the
waste by evaporation leaving a
concentrated solution behind.
Allows for Recovery of sulfuric acid.
Widely used to recover spent sulfuric
acid from refineries.
Recovery of alumina from bauxite;
recovery of sulfuric acid in nitrobenzene
production; concentration of phosphoric
acid (fertilizers) and chromic acid
(plating baths).
Transportation may be a constraint.
The facility regenerating the acid
needs to be nearby to minimize shipping
cost. Process is costly to operate
with small volumes, but economical with
large volumes.
Only applicable to concentration of low-
volatility acids. Will not remove
nonvolatile contaminants. Used only
in selective cases where acids are of
higher value.
-------
1420s
Table C-4 (continued)
Type of process
Description
Incentives
Constraints
Crystal 1i zation (continued)
Recovery of ferric
sul I ate or f erri c
chloride from
pickle 1iquor
Caustic soda from
aluminum etch
o
i
CO
CTi
Ion exchange
Oxi dati on
Solution cooled to induce crystalliza-
tion. Crystals separated from the
acid by centrifugation for disposal
or marketing. Acid returned to the
pickli ng tank.
Caustic soda is recovered by contin-
uously pumping the etchant to a
crystallizing tower, where precipita-
tion occurs in a controlled manner.
Process employs a resin that select-
ively adsorbs acids and rejects
metallic contaminants. The bed is
then flushed with water to displace
the absorbed acid for reuse.
KEL CHLOR® process reacts
HC1 with 02 at 170° to 400°C,
nitric acid catalyst in reaction
system with 2 liquid-gas contactors
with a homogeneous gas-phase reactor
between them. Chlorine purified
by absorption and drying with sulfuric
acid.
Recovery of ferric sulfate or
ferric chloride allows for recovery
of iron salts.
Process removes alumina from the caustic
to then be reconcentrated for reuse.
Regeneration of electroplating,
metal finishing, and fertilizer
manufacturing wastes.
Recovery of chlorine from
hydrochloric acid.
Limited market for recovered iron
sulfate that must compete for markets
with iron sulfate derived as a
byproduct from titanium dioxide
production. Acid not recovered.
Impurities other than aluminum will
not be removed. Not widely used
in the U.S.
Oxidizing agents (acids) may degrade
the ion exchange resins, leading to a
product acid contaminated with
organics. Process is costly and not
widely used.
Application only to waste HC1 that
is gaseous.
-------
Any particulates present in the hydrochloric acid gas from the reactor are
removed in a cyclone. The hydrochloric acid is next cooled and absorbed
with water to form a 20 percent acid solution. Ferric oxide particles
collected from the reactor and cyclones are recycled at the iron and steel
mills.
Although recovery of hydrochloric acid from pickle liquor is a capital-
intensive operation, the value of the recovered acid could be substantial. At
present, however, industry practice is geared toward recovery of iron
chlorides from this waste (K062). This is achieved by reacting the waste
with iron, converting the pickle liquor to an iron chloride solution free of
unreacted HCL. The iron chloride is then marketed. Conservation
Chemical in Gary, Indiana, uses such a process, as do some of the larger
steel companies (personal communication with Mr. Howard Kaiser,
Conservation Chemical, July 16, 1985).
• Recovery of Haloqenated Acids from Halogenated Orqanics. This recovery
operation was discussed previously under recycling of halogenated organics
(Section C.2). It involves incineration of halogenated organics and water
scrubbing of the combustion gases to recover halogenated acids. Because
the intent of the operation is the disposal of halogenated organics by
incineration, any recovered halogenated acid is a byproduct of the process,
with low capital costs and no raw materials costs.
• Recovery of Ferric Chloride from Acidic Titanium Dioxide Wastes. DuPont
recovers about 100,000 tons per year of saleable ferric chloride from the
wastes generated by their chloride process titanium dioxide plant in
Edgemoore, Delaware. The technology used includes partial evaporation of
a highly acidic wastewater stream. Ferric chloride crystallizes from the
concentrated liquor, is recovered, dried, and sold as a solid product.
Use of this technology has provided DuPont with an additional product line
and has saved DuPont the cost of having to neutralize large volumes of
aqueous ferric chloride solutions (personal communication with Mr. John
Cooper, E. I. DuPont du Nemours, Inc., October 2, 1985).
According to DuPont, the technology is constrained in its further application
by limited markets for ferric chloride. The Edgemoore facility presently
produces about 40 percent of the U.S. ferric chloride. This process, in fact,
is not used at other DuPont titanium dioxide plants because of market
lilmitations for ferric chloride. Furthermore, ferric chloride recovered
from titanium dioxide process wastes currently competes with the material
recovered from waste pickle liquor from the steel industry.
C-37
-------
Evaporation
Evaporation involves vaporization of water from a liquid waste that leaves
behind a concentrated solution. Both atmospheric and vacuum evaporators are used
to concentrate corrosive wastes. Atmospheric evaporation can be achieved by
boiling the waste solution or by heating the waste solution (to a temperature below
its boiling point) to enhance the transfer of water from the waste solution into a
sweeping air stream. Evaporation under vacuum is also commonly performed to
remove water at reduced temperatures. Evaporation is applicable only to
concentrated corrosive acids or bases with low volatilities. Examples of corrosives
concentrated by evaporation are sodium hydroxide, phosphoric acid, and chromic
acid. Evaporation is not applicable for volatile corrosives such as hydrochloric acid
and ammonia. Use of evaporation to recover sodium hydroxide for reuse is found in
the aluminum industry (Versar Inc. 1980; USEPA 1979).
• Caustic Soda Concentration by Evaporation. For the recovery of alumina
from bauxite, hot caustic soda (sodium hydroxide) is used to dissolve alumina
as sodium aluminate. After removal of insolubles by filtration and
precipitation of aluminum, the caustic solution is concentrated by
evaporation and the concentrate is reused in the process (USEPA 1979).
• Nitration Acid Recovery by Evaporation. Spent acid containing 70 percent
sulfuric acid is generated from production of nitrobenzene by reacting
benzene with nitric acid in the presence of sulfuric acid. After removal of
organic impurities by stripping, the spent acid is concentrated by
evaporation for reuse in the nitration process (personal communication with
Dr. John Cooper, Petrochemicals Department, E. I. duPont de Nemours,
Inc., Wilmington, Delaware, October 2, 1985).
To avoid the concentration of impurities in the recycle loop, about 5 percent
of the spent acid (after stripping) is purged. This purged acid is sold to the
fertilizer industry as a commodity. An additional 5 percent of the acid
(after stripping) is used to neutralize acidic streams from the plant. Ten
percent fresh acid is added to the recycle stream to replace that which was
purged and used to neutralize the acid.
The economic incentives for reconcentration and reuse are commodity costs
for once-through sulfuric acid, transportation and handling costs, selling
expense for spent acid, and working capital invested in inventories. If the
once-through spent acid were not marketable, the additional cost of
neutralization would increase the incentive to reconcentration and reuse.
C-38
-------
The obstacles to reconcentration and reuse of spent acid are basically
economic. Large investments in equipment and environmental controls are
required, and high maintenance and employee protection (safety) costs are
inherent in the sulfuric acid concentration process.
• Phosphoric Acid Concentration by Evaporation. Phosphoric acid is
concentrated to standard acid strength by evaporation under vacuum. This
is normally practiced in the production of wet-process phosphoric acid in
the fertilizer industry (Versar 1980).
• Chromic Acid Concentration by Evaporation. Evaporation is used to
concentrate chromic acid from plating-rinse tanks from the metal plating
industry. The concentrated solution is then reused in plating baths. This
technology has been proposed for use in its electroplating industry. Its
current degree of use is not known.
Crystallization
Corrosive wastes that are recycled by crystallization include pickle liquors (for
recovery of ferrous sulfate and ferric chloride) and aluminum etch (for recovery of
caustic soda). Acid solutions containing copper also may be regenerated by this
method.
• Recovery of ferrous sulfate from pickle liquors. Iron salts (mainly ferrous
sulfate) are crystallized from pickle solutions to recycle sulfuric acid to
pickling baths in metal finishing processes. Crystallization of iron salts in
pickle liquor can be induced by direct cooling of the solution or by indirect
cooling through the application of a vacuum and the evaporation of water
from the solution. Commercial processes use either direct cooling, indirect
cooling, or combinations of these two techniques in batch or continuous
modes of operation.
For direct cooling, the solution temperature is slowly reduced by 35° to
50°F to crystallize ferrous sulfate heptahydrate (FeSO^ • VH^O) over a period
of 8 to 16 hours. The slurry is then passed to a collection chamber, which
retains the crystals but allows the pickle liquor to pass through an acid
recovery tank. The crystals are washed with water to remove free acid and
then dried by drawing air from the crystal bed. The crystals are either
disposed of or sold, and the pickle liquor is either reused in the pickling
tanks or neutralized and discharged.
C-39
-------
For indirect cooling, the pressure in the crystallizer is reduced to allow
evaporation of water, which in turn cools the liquid and enhances
crystallization of FeSO^ • Th^O. Separation of crystals from the pickle
liquor can be achieved by centrifugation.
Recovery of ferrous sulfate by crystallization is used in large steel mills,
where the capital cost for a package unit is justified by the large volume of
pickle liquor recovered and reused. The ferrous sulfate separated from this
process is of adequate quality for use as a flocculating agent in wastewater
treatment plants. Besides the size of the recovery plant, process economics
are highly dependent on the value of ferrous sulfate recovered, disposal
costs, and availability of a market for ferrous sulfate.
• Recovery of Ferric Chloride from Spent HC1 Pickling Solutions. A
somewhat similar process exists and is used to recover ferric chloride from
spent hydrochloric acid pickling solutions. There, the spent pickle liquor is
reacted with iron to yield a ferric chloride solution free of hydrochloric acid
for sale (Versar 1980).
This process has a limited economic appeal for the metal finishing industry,
which consists of a large number of manufacturers each generating small
amounts of spent pickle liquor. For such small manufacturers,
neutralization and land disposal of wastes appear to be more attractive. In
either case, the process is generally limited to recovery of iron salts.
Reconcentration of the residual acid is energy-intensive and not practiced.
• Recovery of Caustic Soda from Aluminum Etching Solutions. A process
developed by Fuji Sash Industries of Japan for the recovery of caustic soda
(NaOH) from aluminum etching solutions has been commercially available in
the U.S. since about 1980. During aluminum etching, caustic soda reacts
with aluminum to form sodium aluminate (NaAlO.2), which normally tends to
hydrolize, yielding NaOH and AKOH)}, (hydrated alumina or aluminum
hydroxide). To prevent precipitation of A1(OH)3 on the heating coils and
walls of the etching tank, chelating agents, such as sodium gluconate, are
added into the solution.
Caustic soda is recovered by continuously pumping the etchant to a
crystallization tower, where AKOHDj is precipitated in a controlled manner.
The recovered caustic soda is then returned to the etching tank. The
A1(OH)3 crystals withdrawn from the bottom of the crystallizer are
dewatered by means of a centrifuge, and the centrifugate is returned to the
etching tank for reuse.
This recovery operation can reduce caustic soda purchases by 80 percent.
The hydrated alumina crystals produced are equivalent to commercial grade
and can be a source of income provided a market is found. However, this
operation is not widely used in the U.S.
C-4C
-------
Recovery of Sulfuric Acid/Hydrogen Peroxide from Copper-Cleaning
Solutions. Regeneration of an acid solution for copper cleaning is commonly
accomplished by crystallization of copper sulfate and removal of the
crystals. This process is used by printed circuit manufacturers and metal
finishers. The value of the recovered copper salts justifies use of the
process.
Ion Exchange
Ion exchange resins can remove heavy metals and cyanides from acid and base
solutions. The purified solutions can then be reused in the manufacturing process.
The ion exchange technology has found application in regenerating waste solutions
from the electroplating, metal finishing, and fertilizer manufacturing industries.
In this process, the ion exchanger is contacted with the solution containing the
heavy metal or cyanide ion to be removed. When the ion exchanger is exhausted
(i.e., the active sites are partially or completely used up by the ion to be removed),
it is regenerated with a concentrated solution of the ion originally present in the
exchanger. Although this process regenerates a spent acid or base solution, the
undesirable ions present in the original solution are transferred into another solution
(in a more concentrated form) that requires further treatment or disposal.
A recent ion exchange process developed by Eco-Tech Ltd. of Canada
(Pickering, Ontario) purifies acid solutions by ion exchange without producing a
waste regenerant stream. This process uses a resin that selectively removes acids
and rejects metallic contaminants. Metallic salts pass through the resin bed and are
collected. The bed is flushed with water to displace the acid for reuse. This process
has been used in numerous installations since the mid 1970s.
Oxidation
Byproduct hydrogen chloride can be oxidized to produce chlorine via the
Kel-Chlor® Process jointly developed by M. W. Kellogg and DuPont (DuPont, 1985).
The chlorine is then used to produce chlorinated hydrocarbons.
C-41
-------
In the Kel-Chior® Process, the hydrogen chloride is reacted with oxygen at
170°C to 400°C and 15 atm (210 psig) in the presence of a nitric acid
catalyst. The oxidation reaction is:
HN03
2 HC1 + 1/2 02 » C12 + H20
The reaction system utilizes a unique combination of two liquid-gas
contactors with a homogenous gas-phase reactor integrated between them.
Recirculating sulfuric acid removes the heat of reaction and water from the
contactors. The recirculating acid is also used to trap the catalyst, oxides
of nitrogen, between the two contactors. Reducing the pressure on the
sulfuric acid before recycling flashes off the water and removes the
reaction heat.
Chlorine from the second contactor is then purified. The purification
system involves absorption and drying by sulfuric acid, followed by
condensation to produce dry chlorine. Waste hydrochloric acid and chlorine
from vents are recovered by absorption with carbon tetrachloride. The
Kel-Chlor® Process has a 97 percent conversion of hydrochloric acid and
99.7 percent yield. DuPont operates the process at their Corpus Christi,
Texas, facility.
Dow Chemical at Freeport, Texas, reacts byproduct HC1 with magnesium
oxide produced onsite to generate magnesium chloride. This magnesium
chloride is then electrolyzed in the molten state to yield magnesium metal
and chlorine gas. The magnesium metal is sold as a product, and the
chlorine is reused onsite to produce chlorinated organic compounds (Versar
1979).
The DuPont, Mobay, and Dow facilities all generate large volumes of
unsalable byproduct hydrochloric acid. The large volumes of acid generated
justify the costs of installing conversion-to-chlorine technologies (Versar
1989). These technologies probably are unsuited, however, for plants
generating relatively small volumes of waste HC1. Current production
capacities for the three plants are as follows (SRI 1985):
DuPont (Kel-Chior®) 216,000 metric tons/year chlorine
Moby (Electroelytic) 82,000 metric tons/year chlorine
Dow (Magnesium) 343,000 metric tons/year chlorine
C-42
-------
C.5 Cyanides and Other Reactives
Cyanides
Cyanide wastewaters generated from precious metal (e.g., gold, silver)
beneficiation are commonly recycled.
• Gold Beneficiation. In gold beneficiation, the crushed ore is contacted with
a cyanide solution to dissolve gold. The slurry is next filtered to separate
the insolubles from the cyanide solution. Gold from the solution is
recovered by precipitation with zinc dust or by adsorption onto activated
charcoal. Most of the resulting gold-free solution, which contains free
cyanide and cyanide complexes of various metals (e.g., copper, iron, nickel,
zinc, arsenic, antimony, silica), is recycled as a filter cake wastewater to
displace and recover additional gold. The remainder of the gold-free
solution is discharged after treatment.
• Limitations of Recycling Cyanide Solutions. Cyanide solutions from other
industries are not commercially recycled. For example, a study by the
California Department of Health reports that no commercial recycling of
cyanide is practiced in California. The common management practice for
contaminated cyanide rinse waters (with concentrations less than 100 mg/1)
from metal finishing operations is destruction by chemical oxidation before
discharge to municipal treatment plants. The major reason for this practice
is the low cost of fresh cyanide. Land disposal of cyanide wastes is no
longer possible as an option because it was banned by EPA several years ago.
• Potential Recovery Techniques. Techniques that potentially can be used for
recovering and recycling cyanide solutions from metal plating (e.g., zinc,
cadmium, brass, and silver plating) operations include refrigeration/
crystallization, evaporation, ion exchange, and membrane separation
(reverse osmosis or electrodialysis). Among these techniques, refrigeration/
crystallization was proposed and patented by the Department of Defense
(U.S. Patent No. 4,365,481) to recover and recycle cyanide from plating
solutions that contain excessive amounts of sodium carbonate (carbonate to
cyanide weight ratios greater than 6:1). The process involves cooling of the
cyanide plating bath liquid via heat exchange with a cold surface (e.g., a tin
box filled with dry ice and acetone inserted into the liquid) to form sodium
carbonate crystals on the cold surface. With the removal of the cold
surface from the solution, cyanide is freed from sodium carbonate and made
ready for reuse in subsequent plating operations. Although some members
of the electroplating industry have found this patented process to be
promising, they believe that its widespread use is limited because of the
formalities involved in obtaining the necessary permission from the
Department of Defense. The limitation for the other above-mentioned
recovery techniques is mainly economic.
C-43
-------
Reactives
The primary barrier to the recycling of most water-reactive wastes (e.g., most
alkali metals) is technical. In specialized applications of alkali metals, such as
lithium, where high purity is critical (metal hydrides, lithium batteries, etc.),
recycling of purified wastes is impractical because contamination with oxides, dirt,
oil, etc., affects product quality and plugs pumping equipment used for molten
materials. The most common disposal method for water-reactive wastes is
incineration; however, it is expensive (over $25 per pound plus transportation) and is
conducted by only a small number of permitted disposal companies. Available
technologies for recycling reactive wastes are discussed below.
• Ammonium Perchlorate Separation by Filtration - Evaporation. Research is
underway at DOD facilities to investigate the feasibility of recovering and
recycling reactive wastes. For example, at Indian Head Naval Ordance
Station (NOS), recovery and recycling of reactives from a demilitarization
facility is being evaluated. This facility houses equipment that uses high
pressure water to remove propellent (containing ammonium perchlorate,
aluminum, RDX (cyclotrimethylene base trinitramine), HMX
(cyclotetrametaylene tetranitroamine), and HBNQ (high bulk nitro
guanidine) from rocket cases, which are then reused. A screen in the
case-reclamation tank is used to remove large propellant particles. The
effluent from the case-reclamation tank is introduced into a baffled tank
where small particles are settled. The overflow from the baffled tank,
containing approximately 0.3 percent AP (ammonium perchlorate), is
currently discharged through a filter located at the end of the discharge
pipe. Plans are underway to eliminate this discharge. The proposed
operation involves concentration of the ammonium perchlorate solution to
12 percent, evaporation of this concentrated solution, and sale of the
recovered AP (with 10 to 20 percent moisture content) to a contractor.
• Separation of Propellants Constituents by Soiubilites. Research is also
underway at Indian Head NOS to recover RDX and HMX from
demilitarization operations. The technique for separating these propellant
ingredients is based on differences in solubility: ammonium perchlorate and
inorganics are soluble in hot water; RDX is insoluble in water, but soluble in
acetone; HMX is insoluble in water and acetone, but soluble in dimethyl
sulfoxide (DMSO) and dimethyl formamide (DMF). Recovery of HMX from
acetone is possible by evaporation of acetone. Removal of HMX from a
DMSO or DMF solution can be achieved by crystallization followed by
liquid-solid separation. In addition, research programs are being conducted
at the Army Armaments R&D Center (Dover, New Jersey) and National
Research Laboratory (Oak Ridge, Tennessee).
C-44
-------
• Sodium. Waste sodium is recovered from wastes from the Downs Cell
Process for sodium manufacture. The technology used was discussed earlier
under metal recovery (Section C.3). Ventron, a manufacturer of sodium
borohydride, accepts sodium waste for reprocessing by this process to
recover sodium. About 600 tons/year of impure sodium waste are returned
for reprocessing.
• Ignitable Wastes. Recycling of ignitable materials for these materials is
very limited. One case where recycling is documentable is in the production
of elemental phosphorus where phossy wastes are generally retorted to
recover additional phosphorus. The use of retorting technology is common
practice in the phosphorus industry.
• Magnesium. A second case of documented recycling of reactive wastes is
the production of magnesium chemicals from wastes containing low levels of
magnesium at the Mineral Research and Development Corporation,
Harrisburg, North Carolina (personal communication with Mr. J. T. Rose,
Mineral Research and Development Corportion, December 17, 1985). The
company formerly shipped these wastes for disposal but now reuses them to
recover the magnesium values. The recovery process involves digestion of
magnesium in dilute mineral acid to generate solutions of magnesium salts
for agricultural applications.
C-45
-------
C.6 Summary Data on Offsite Recycling Practices
This appendix presents detailed information to supplement the overview of
offsite recycling practices provided in Section 4.3 of the report. Table C-5 lists the
number of recycling, recycling-and-treatment, and treatment-only facilities in each
State. These data support the observation made in Section 4 that recycling
facilities are clustered in the more industrialized States. Table C-6 presents the
distribution of recycling and treatment facilities available to or located in each
State according to the type of treatment process, including solvent recovery,
resource recovery, mobile treatment, PCB services, and thermal treatment
facilities. With the exception of Alaska, which is not served by mobile treatment
facilities, all States are served by at least one facility in each category.
Supplementary information on wastes recycled through waste exchanges is
presented in Tables C-7 and C-8. Table C-7 lists solvent, metal, corrosive,
halogenated organic, and cyanide/reactive wastes by waste exchanges. The wide
range of requested halogenated and nonhalogenated solvents, metals, and corrosive
wastes suggests a market for offsite recycling. The absence of cyanide/reactive
wastes from the lists is consistent with the dominance of onsite recycling of
wastewater treatment sludges from electroplatng operations (F006), the only
cyanide/reactive waste category that is recycled in high volume. Similarly, reuses
for halogenated organic wastes (e.g., pesticides, PCB-contaminated dielectric and
hydraulic fluids) are confined to onsite applications; such wastes are therefore
unlikely to be recycled through waste exchanges.
Table C-8 is a summary of materials recycled through three major waste
exchanges and the associated time period, quantity of waste, value, and distance
each waste was transported for recycling. Although the total volume of waste
recycled is small relative to the total volumes of hazardous waste generated and
recycled during this period, this profile of wastes recycled represents the
establishment of a mechanism for continued recycling of similar types of wastes by
the users of the exchange.
C-45
-------
1125s
Table C-5 Number of Recycling and Treatment Facilities by State
Number of facilities
Recycl
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Cal ifornia
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawai i
Idaho
m inois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carol ina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
ing only
4
0
1
3
25
4
10
3
1
5 •
1
4
20
20
3
4
4
5
1
6
12
7
10
4
18
0
1
1
2
9
0
12
8
0
23
2
3
21
Recycling and
treatment
3
0
3
3
31
1
6
3
3
6
0
1
19
10
0
3
8
6
1
6
8
10
1
1
3
0
2
0
1
12
1
16
4
0
18
3
5
13
Treatment only
1
0
0
0
6
0
5
0
2
2
0
0
6
2
1
0
1
1
0
0
2
7
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
6
0
2
4
0
11
2
0
5
Total
8
0
4
6
62
5
21
6
6
13
1
5
45
32
4
7
13
12
2
12
22
24
11
5
23
0
3
1
3
27
1
30
16
0
52
7
8
39
C-47
-------
1125s
Table C-5 (continued)
Number of facilities
Recycling only
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Puerto Rico
6
4
0
10
15
2
2
4
8
1
5
0
3
Recycling and
treatment
3
6
0
8
21
1
0
3
7
0
4
0
1
Treatment only
0
0
0
2
11
0
0
2
1
0
2
0
0
Total
9
10
0
20
47
3
2
9
16
1
11
0
4
Source: EPA/530-SW-85-019. Aug. 1985 (Draft).
C-48
-------
Table C-6 Scope of Recycling and Treatment Facilities by State
o
States
Alabama
Al aska
Arizona
Arkansas
Cal i forni a
Colorado
Connecti cut
Delaware
D.C.
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
11 1 i noi s
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Loui siana
Mai ne
Maryl and
Massachusetts
Mi chigan
Solvent
Faci 1 i ties
serving
each State
20
-
10
8
17
5
18
9
3
10
14
7
18
12
9
9
12
13
18
13
12
12
recovery
Faci 1 i ties
located
in each State
3
-
3
3
20
4
2
1
-
4
3
-
15
2
1
1
1
-
-
1
3
8
Resource
Facilities
serving
each State
10
-
7
8
7
6
12
13
7
13
14
6
9
13
9
7
14
8
12
14
7
9
recovery
Facil ities
located
in each State
1
-
-
-
9
-
1
1
-
1
2
-
5
1
-
4
1
-
-
-
-
2
Mobile treatment
Facilities Facilities
serving located
each State in each State
13
-
12
12 1
12 6
12
12
12
10
14 3
13 2
12 1
12 1
12
12
12 2
12
12 1
12
12
12
12
PCB
Facil ities
serving
each State
26
1
16
24
16
18
26
26
22
24
25
18
23
23
20
21
27
25
25
25
25
25
services
Faci 1 i ties
located
in each State
1
-
2
1
12
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
4
-
4
2
-
-
2
2
4
Thermal
Faci 1 ities
servi ng
each State
5
-
4
4
6
4
11
11
3
9
10
4
5
11
5
5
12
5
9
11
6
5
treatment
Facil ities
located
in each State
1
-
1
-
4
-
0
-
-
1
1
1
4
1
-
1
2
1
-
1
2
1
-------
1127s
Table C-6 (continued)
States
Mi nnesota
Mi ssi ssi ppi
Mi ssouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshi re
<-rl New Jersey
o
New Mexico
New York
North Carol ina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
llf =h
Solvent
Faci 1 i ties
serving
each State
8
10
14
6
7
6
8
17
2
20
19
2
22
8
4
18
10
13
3
13
12
•3
recovery
Facil i ties
located
in each State
2
1
6
-
2
-
-
7
-
6
3
-
13
2
2
4
1
3
-
2
6
Resource
Facil i ties
serving
each State
10
7
10
8
6
7
12
15
6
15
14
6
15
6
6
15
12
13
7
12
6
f.
recovery
Facil ities
located
in each State
1
-
4
-
-
-
-
5
-
3
4
-
7
-
-
3
-
3
-
1
7
Mobile treatment
Facilities Facilities
serving located
each State in each State
12
13
13 2
12
12
12
12
12 1
12
12
13 1
12
12 5
12
12
12 4
12
13
12
12 2
12 4
n
PCB
Facil ities
serving
each State
26
24
27
16
16
14
25
26
18
31
25
17
24
19
16
26
25
25
18
26
18
1 C-
services
Facilities
located
in each State
3
-
8
-
1
1
1
4
-
5
3
-
12
-
1
4
-
-
-
4
6
Thermal
Facil ities
serving
each State
5
4
5
4
4
4
10
11
4
12
12
4
11
4
4
12
10
11
4
12
4
A
treatment
Faci 1 i ties
located
in each State
2
-
2
-
-
-
-
4
-
1
2
-
2
-
-
1
-
3
-
1
3
-------
Table C-6 (continued)
States
Vermont
Vi rgi nia
Washington
West Vi rginia
Wi sconsi n
Wyomi ng
0
en
Solvent
Facil i ties
servi ng
each State
9
16
7
10
6
3
recovery
Facil i ties
located
in each State
_
1
6
-
6
Resource recoverv
Facilities Facilities
serving located
each State in each State
12
15 5
12 1
13
7
7
Mobile treatment
Facilities Facilities
serving located
each State in each State
12
12 2
12
12
12
12
PCB services
Facilities Facilities
serving located
each State in each State
24
27 4
16 5
25
19 4
15
Thermal
Facilities
serving
each State
10
11
3
11
5
4
treatment
Facil ities
located
in each State
-
6
-
-
1
Source: Environmental Information Ltd. 1984.
-------
1132s
Table C-7 Types of Wastes Listed by Waste Exchanges
Wastes available
Wastes wanted
99% Methyl ethyl ketone, 1% laquer
Aromatic 140 solvent
30-35% acetone, 65-70% water
45% solvent, 45% resin and pigment
10% wax
Orthodichlorobenzene
94% trichlorethylene,
2% methanol, 2% acetone
Toluene diisocyanate residue
Spent halogenated and non-
halogenated solvents
Solvents
Chlorinated and fluonnated hydrocarbons
Ketones
Esters
Alcohols
Aliphatics
Freon
Aromatics
Various solvents, no more than 40%
solids
Pigments
Halogenated solvents
Flammable solvents, chlorinated
solvents, and fluorinated solvents
Zinc hydroxide filter cake
Chrome drag-out solution
Metal-plating sludge
Electrodeless nickel bath
Copper filter cake
Magnesium sludge
Aluminum oxide slag
60-70% Fe; 6% Cr; 3% Ni;
1% Si
Zinc cyanide
Zinc-containing dust from
baghouses and scrubbers
Metals
Alumina, aluminum, and aluminum sludge
Nickel
Tungsten carbide
Copper solutions
Tin residue
Precious metals
Zirconia and zirconium compounds
Residues, grinding, spent catalysts,
sludges, and waste byproducts
containing nonferrous and precious
metals
Corrosives
Sodium hydroxide
Calcium
Sodium nitrite
Acetylene sludge
Hydrochloric acid
Pickle liquors
(FeCl2, or FeS04)
Chromic acid
Sodium hydroxide
Aluminum chloride solution
Sulfuric acid
Alkali equal to 25,000 Ibs/mo NaOH
Spent acids
Spent alkalis
C-52
-------
1132s
Table C-7 (continued)
Wastes available Wastes wanted
Halogenated Organics
Unrinsed pesticide containers No listings found
Cyanides/Reactives
Sodium cyanide solution No listings found
Cyanides; sodium, potassium,
or metal cyanide
Cyanide solution from cyanide
recovery process
Zinc cyanide
C-53
-------
1131s
Table C-8 Summary of Materials Recycled via Three Major Waste Exchanges
o
i
en
Type of
wastes
Waste
exchange
Time
period
Quanti ty
(tonsj(f)
Distance
transported
(miles)
Estimated
value ($)
Acids IMEa
Acids
Hydrochlori c
Phosphori c
Polyphosphoric
Sul furic
Spent sulfuric acid
Isophthalic acid 220
Acetic anhydride
Polyphosphori c
Cupric chloride
Ferric chloride
Various acids
Alkalis
Liquid caustic soda
Sodium nitrite solution
20% sodium sulfide
Sodium sulfide
Other inorganic chemicals IME
Inorganic chemicals NEIWE
Chloroform NEIWE
Other inorganic chemicals NEIWE
Copper sulfate crystals
Potassium cyanide (e)
Liquid bleach
1985
9.6
1985
1983
1983
6/81 - 12/81
28.8
1.6
.11
2,167
20
300
125
25
200 (d)
NEIWEb
NEIWE
NEIWE
NEIWE
NEIWE
NEIWE
NEIWE
NEIWE
NEIWE
NEIWE
NEIWE
IME
NEIWE
NEIWE
NEIWE
NEIWE
1983
1983
1983
1983
6/81 -
6/81 -
6/81 -
2/82 -
2/82 -
2/82 -
2/82 -
1985
1983
1983
2/82 -
2/82 -
12/81
12/81
12/81
2/83
2/83
2/83
2/83
2/83
2/83
18
208
18
750
27
11
31
50
33
675
.3
.0
.3
.0
Unknown
25
2
100
480
24
.2
.1
.0
25
100
850
15
50
-
-
600
600
125
Unknown
_
25
975
275
Unknown
23
40
1
3
15
3
18
15
12
2
35
12
,790
645
80
,000
,647
990
,230
,000
,600
.000
,000
,782
50
,000
,000
,000
(d)
(d)
(d)
11,515 (d)
3,000
840
150
52,000
-------
Table C-8 (continued)
o
i
on
en
Type of Waste
wastes exchange
Solvents
Organ ics/sol vents
Carbon tetrachloride
Ethanol
Lacquer solvent
Mixed solvents
Paint & ink wash solvents
Paint solvents
Phenol
Pol yd i methyl si loxane
Tri chloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Acetone (e)
Solvents (e)
Trichloroethylene (e)
Trichloroethane (e)
Solvents
Ethylene glycol
Solvents
Mixed ethylene glycols
Tri chloroethane
Paint thinner
Trichloroethane
Al cohols
Solvents
Chemicals
I ME
NEIWE
NEIWE
NEIWE
NEIWE
NEIWE
NEIWE
NEIWE
NEIWE
NEIWE
NEIWE
NEIWE
NEIWE
NEIWE
NEIWE
NEIWE
NEIWE
NEIWE
NEIWE
NEIWE
NEIWE
NEIWE
NEIWE
NEIWE
NEIWE
PWE
Time
period
1985
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
1983
6/81 -
6/81 -
6/81 -
6/81 -
6/81 -
6/81 -
6/81 -
6/81 -
6/81 -
2/82 -
2/82 -
2/82 -
2/82 -
1983 -
Quanti ty
(tonsMf)
639.
.
3.
3
9
8
Unknown
12/81
12/81
12/81
12/81
12/81
12/81
12/81
12/81
12/81
2/83
2/83
2/83
2/83
1984
75.
8.
27.
2.
3.
4.
10
3
3
55
5
142
16
3
42
2
0
3
5
3
7
4
2
6
Unknown
210
2476
Oi stance
transported Estimated
(miles) value ($)
-
400
450
200
200
50
175
5
175
375
60
75
125
75
25
250
75
150
Unknown
Unknown
175
75
Unknown
Unknown
_
937,960
15,077
396
400
875
16,000
2,000
20,000
250
3,000
1.500
2,000
208
2,040
None
1,100
10,000
3,000
39,000
Unknown
2,992
14,000
385
Unknown
110,000
482,200
583,489
(d)
(d)
(9)
(h)
-------
1131s
Table C-8 (continued)
o
i
Type of Waste
wastes exchange
Other organic chemicals
Metals and metal sludges
Metals
Metal/metal solutions
Copper oxide
Copper oxide
Copper sul fate
Nickel sludge
Metal/metal sludges
Copper sul fate solution (e)
Metal /metal sludges
Copper sulfate solution
IME
I ME
PWEC
NEIWE
NEIWE
NEIWE
NEIWE
NEIWE
NEIWE
NEIWE
Distance
Time Quantity hauled
period (tons)(f) (miles)
1985 .9
1985 56.9
1983 - 1984 6.9
1983
1983 10.0 1,025
1983 5.0 25
1983 41.7 50
1983 80.0 200
6/81 - 12/81 7 400
2/82 - 2/83 Unknown 150
Estimated
value ($)
1,290 (d)
24,000
1,000 (d)
15,000 (g)
18,602 (h)
5,000
2,400
37,905 (d)
5,000
1,000
400
a IME = Industrial Material Exchange.
h NEIWE = Nbrtheast Industrial Waste Exchange.
c PWE - Piedmont Waste Exchange.
d Unit cost estimate obtained from Chemical Marketing Reporter, May 28, 1984 issue.
e One-time only transaction.
f Formula used was 250 gal/ton.
9 Savings/earnings.
Average Replacement Value (Aggregate).
-------
C.7 References
Benson, J. 1979. Hydrocarbon Processing 59(10): 107-108.
Bhatia, S. and Jump R. 1977. Recovery makes good sense! Environmental Science
and Technology. 11(8):752-755.
Business Week. 1974. Cleanup agent that recovers precious metal. Reprint from
November 2, 1974. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Caprio, C.M., Beasley, D., LaHinger, L. 1977. Reverse osmosis provides reusable
water from electronics waste. Industrial Water Engineering. October 1977. pp.
24-30.
Chemical Week. March 1985.
DuPont. 1985. Descriptive information on processes transmitted by Dr.
John R. Cooper, Manager Environmental Affairs and Occupational Health, duPont,
Wilmington, DE September 25, 1985.
Elicker, L.N. and Lacy, R.W. 1978. Evaporation recovery of chromium plating rinse
water. Finishing Industries. 2(10:28-32,2(12): 13-15.
Franklin Associates. 1982a. Industrial resource recovery practices: metals
smelting and refining. Contract No. 68-01-6000, draft final report for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, Washington, DC.
Jacobs Engineering. 1975. Assessment of hazardous waste practices, petroleum
industry for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste
Management Practices.
Medding, G.L., and Lander, J.A. 1981. Applications for sodium borohydride in
precious metal recovery and recycling. Ventron Division of Thiokol. 150 Andover
Street, Danvers, MA 01923.
Ploos Van Anstel, J.J.A. and Frampton, J.L.. 1977. Converting wastes to raw
materials. Environmental Science and Technology. 1 l(10):956-963.
Stoddard, S.K., David, G.A., Freeman, H.M. 1981. Alternatives to the land disposal
of hazardous waste: an assessment for California. Governor's Office of
Appropriate Technology. Sacramento, California.
USEPA. 1975. Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines, New
Source Performance Standards and Pretreatment Standards for the Fabricated and
Reclaimed Segment of the Rubber Processing Point Source Category.
Environmental Protection Agency, Effluent Guidelines Division, Washington, DC,
April 1974.
C-57
-------
USEPA. 1979. Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines, New
Source Performance Standards and Pretreatment Standards for the Petroleum
Refining Point Source Category. Environmental Protection Agency, Effluent
Guidelines Division, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1981. Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations
Guidelines, New Source Performance Standards and Pretreatment Standards for the
Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Point Source Category. U.S. Environemtnal
Protection Agency, Effluent Guidelines Division, Washington, DC.
Versar Inc. 1975. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices of the
Inorganic Chemicals Industry. Final Report. Contract 68-01-2246. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, Washington, DC.
Versar Inc. 1980. Multimedia assessment/inorganic chemicals industry. Final
Report Contract No. 68-03-2604 for U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste Management
Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Wall Street Journal. September 27, 1985.
Warnke, J.E., Thomas, K.G., Creason, S.C. 1977. Waste water reclamation system
ups productivity, cuts water use. Chemical Engineering. 84(7):75.
Water Pollution Control Federation. 55(9): 1144, September 1983.
C-58
-------
APPENDIX D
NORTHEAST INDUSTRIAL WASTE EXCHANGE'S
ON-LINE COMPUTER SYSTEM
-------
NORTHEAST INDUSTRIAL WASTE EXCHANGE'S
ON-LINE COMPUTER SYSTEM
The Northeast Industrial Waste Exchange (NIWE) functions as a passive
information clearinghouse. Established in 1981 by the Manufacturers Association of
Central New York in cooperation with the Central New York Regional Planning and
Development Board, the nonprofit exchange is co-sponsored and partially funded by
the New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation and by the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency. The information is widely circulated but used
primarily in New York, New Jersey, New England, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Maryland.
Information is distributed in two ways; a Listings Catalog is published quarterly,
and a computerized waste materials listings service is available. Each February,
May, August, and November, a list of "Materials Available" and "Materials Wanted"
is printed and distributed as widely as possible, with current circulation numbering
8,500. A company wishing to have information included in a list may do so for $25
for three issues. The information is also made available on the computerized
listings for the same period of time (Northeast Industrial Waste Exchange, Listings
Catalog, Issue No. 18., November 1985., p. 5).
The computerized service is provided free of charge and is available to anyone
having access to a microcomputer and modem; the Exchange provides the necessary
password. The service is designed to allow immediate access to current
information. Figure D-l provides an example of a search. In this case, the searcher
is looking for a company in New Jersey or New York (EPA Region 2) that wants
recyclable solvents. The inquirer would then notify the exchange of interest in
either of the matches found. The companies listed would then be notified so that
the two parties could negotiate an exchange (personal communication with Lewis
Cutler, NIW, December 18, 1985).
D-l
-------
USER INDICATES —
TYPE OF LISTING,
IN THIS CASE. USER
IS INTERESTED IN
WASTES WANTED
USER INDICATES
DESIRE TO SPECIFY
DESIRE TO SPECIFY
LISTING BY EPA REGION
386 RECORDS
1. Type of Listing
2. Listing Category
3. Listing Code :
4. Material Type
5. State
6. EPA Region
7. Surplus Material :
Display
Up one level
Main level
Exit
Enter selection: 1
Enter Available or Wanted: WANTED
107 RECORDS
INDICATES TOTAL NUMBER
OF LISTINGS CURRENTLY ON
THE SYSTEM
1. Type of Listing
2. Listing Category
3. Listing Code
4. Material Type
5. State
6. EPA Region
7. Surplus Material
Display
Up one level
Main level
Exit
Enter selection: 2
: Wanted
THERE ARE 107
LISTINGS OF
WASTES WANTED
THE LISTING CATEGORY
OPPORTUNITY TO
SPECIFY WASTE
CATEGORY AND
SELECTS 04, WHICH
IS SOLVENTS
01 • Acids
02 - Alkalis
03 • Other inorganic chemical!
04 • Solvents
06 • Oils and Waxes
07 • Plastics, and Rubber
08 • Textile* and Leather
09 • Wood and Paper
10 - Metals and Metal Sludges
11 • Miscellaneous
14 RECORDS
1. Type of Listing Wanted
2. Listing Category Solvent!
3. Listing Code
4. Material Type
6. State
6. EPA Region
7. Surplus Material
Display
Up one tovel
Main level
Exit
THERE ARE 14 LISTINGS
OF SOLVENTS WANTED
• USER THEN REQUESTS
EPA REGION 2
• THERE ARE 2 LISTINGS OF
SOLVENTS WANTED IN
REGION 2
USER REQUESTS
THAT THESE LISTINGS
BE DISPLAYED
LISTINGS ARE
THEN PRINTED,
SHOWING LOCATION
AND TYPE OF SOLVENT.
IF USER IS INTERESTED IN
CONTACTING THE PERSON MAKING
THE LISTING, HE OR SHE MUST
CONTACT NIWE WITH THE
LISTING NUMBERS
Enter two digit EPA Region Code: 02
2 RECORDS
1. Type of Listing Wanted
2. Luting Category Solvents
3. Lining Codes
4. Materiel Type
5. State
6. EPA Region 02
7. Surplus Materiel
Display
Up one level
Main level
Exit
Enter selection: D
SOLVENTS NE: W04-0022
LOCATION: NJ USEPA Region: 02
ALL TYPES FROM UPSTATE NY ONLY. CATERING TO LESS THAN
TDUCKLOAD GENERATORS. BULK/DRUMS
SOLVENTS NE:W04-0023
LOCATION: NJ USEPA Region: 02
WILL PURCHASE SPENT CHLORINATED SOLVENTS FOR RECYCLE AND
RESALE ALSO FLUORINATED SOLVENTS, KEYSTONES. ESTERS,
AND MIXTURES. TRAILER OR TANK TRUCK LOADS NEEDED. BULK.
EAST COAST.
Figure D-1 Sample Output from NIWE Computer Search
D-2
-------
APPENDIX E
CONDUCTING A PROJECT PROFITABILITY ANALYSIS
-------
CONDUCTING A PROJECT PROFITABILITY ANALYSIS
This appendix provides information on how a profitability analysis is conducted
to evaluate investments in waste minimization technology and methods. The crucial
question in making an investment in waste minimization is "How much will it return
to the firm?" To answer this question, a method for evaluating the profitability of
the investment and comparing it to other investment opportunities is required.
The simplest method to use is the payback period. The payback period is
defined as the minimum length of time required to recover the modification cost in
the firm of cash flows to the project, based on total income minus all costs except
depreciation. The formula for quickly estimating the payback period (PBP) is:
PBP = depreciable capital investment
avg. annual profit + avg. annual depreciation
For a waste reduction project, the denominator in the formula would consist of
average annual cost savings plus average annual depreciation. For example, suppose
a waste generator installs a piece of equipment that generates $100,000 per year in
cost savings and depreciation. If the total cost of the equipment was $300,000, then
the payback period is three years. This formula is reliable only for projects that
return consistent amounts from year to year. For projects with a high variation in
annual returns, it is necessary to calculate the cumulative total each year, and
check it against the depreciable capital investment. Payback periods in the range of
three to four years are considered acceptable for low risk investments.
The payback period is a measure of an investment's liquidity (i.e., how fast the
cost is recovered). A short payback period is thus a desirable characteristic.
Selecting a waste reduction project over another investment solely on the basis of
its short payback period may not be wise because another alternative with a longer
payback period may offer a higher return on investment over its assumed economic
E-l
-------
life. The payback period does not measure the profitability of the investment, nor
does it account for the time value of money or for inflation. For these reasons,
many corporations use discounted cash flow methods that take these factors into
account.
The discounted cash flow (DCF) method has two main variants. One of these
variants is the net present value (NPV) method, which recognizes the time value of
money by discounting projected net cash flows to the present. The NPV method is
shown by the formula:
NPV = § (PTCF)i
i=o (1+r)1
where
PTCF = the post tax cash flow
r = the average cost of the capital
n = the assumed life of the project
If the net present value of a project is higher than zero, then the investment is
earning more than the cost of capital and the firm can increase its wealth by
undertaking the project. The other variant of the DCF method is the internal rate
of return (IRR) method, in which a discount rate is found such that the sum of the
present values of future net cash flows, including the initial cost of the investment,
is equal to zero. If this rate, called the internal rate of return, is higher than the
firm's average cost of capital (which is the minimum required rate of return) then
the project is profitable. Typically, the initial cost of implementing a waste
reduction program outweighs the short-term savings in the total cost of hazardous
waste generation. However, by using the DCF method, one can compare the
cumulative effect of the program on the facility's cash flow to the total cost of the
investment. For investments with a low level of risk, a post tax internal rate of
return in the 12 to 15 percent range is frequently acceptable.
The first step in evaluating a waste reduction project is to estimate the future
cash flows the investment will generate. Investments in waste reduction can differ
from other investments in at least two important respects. First, waste reduction is
E-2
-------
often an investment not to generate revenue but to reduce future costs (e.g.,
cleanup, liability insurance, and disposal costs). These cost savings will be reflected
in the project's cash flows. Second, a waste reduction project may offer the
possibility of using an accelerated depreciation schedule, in which case a tax savings
will be realized, which in turn will increase the project's net cash flow.
The main difficulty in estimating project cash flows is that these cash flows
occur in the future, and thus forecasting of future production volumes, tax
requirements, and other related factors becomes necessary. Once the estimates are
made, they should be organized for the analysis. Summary forms can be used to
classify the estimates by category and year. An investment summary form contains
information on fixed and working capital requirements. A sample investment
summary form appears in Figure E-l. A depreciation summary form should show
depreciation amounts relating to each piece or category of equipment (especially if
they are depreciated at different rates) and yearly depreciation amounts. Tax
credits for equipment purchases and writeoffs should also be included. This makes
annual tax savings in the form of depreciation, tax credits, and write-offs readily
available.
A summary form can also be constructed for gross savings from the
investment. A sample gross savings summary form appears in Figure E-2. Cost
impacts should be investigated for the cost categories outlined in Section 5.1.3. Not
all of the costs listed are easily estimated. For example, future cleanup costs (see
Section 5.2.2) are uncertain, as are the costs of pollution liability insurance,
emergency preparedness, and State fees and taxes. Estimation of many cost savings
will involve making assumptions about future regulatory requirements. The trend
has been for these requirements to become more stringent and for waste generation
costs to rise. A conservative estimate of cost savings from the project is obtained
if it is assumed that the firm would incur the present waste generation costs over
the period of time that corresponds to the life of the investment.
E-3
-------
1333s
OUTLAYS
Land
Bui Idings
Equipment
(1) Total capital
Project supplies
Spare parts
Other
(2) Total expenses
Cash
Accounts receivable
Inventories
(3) Subtotal current assets
Accounts payable
Income taxes payable
(4) Subtotal current liabilities
(5) Working capital [(3) - (4)]
TOTAL OUTLAYS [(1) + (2) + (5)]
ANNUAL PERIOD
1
2
3
4
5
Figure E-l Investment Summary
E-4
-------
1357s
AVOIDED COSTS
Disposal fees
Generator fees/taxes
Transport
Storage and handling
Compliance equipment and
pre-disposal treatment
Permit costs
Reporting costs
Manifesting costs
Emergency preparation
and cleanup
Pollution liability
i nsurance
Raw material purchases
GROSS SAVINGS
ANNUAL PERIOD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10.. .n
I
CTI
Figure E-2 Gross Savings Calculation Form
-------
Finally, it is not unusual to vary the financial performance requirements (e.g.,
internal rate of return) of an investment with respect to an identified but
unquantified level of risk. In this manner, it may be appropriate to decrease the
financial performance requirements imposed on investments in waste minimization.
Such adjustments would reflect the potential benefits associated with investments in
waste minimization, in terms of avoided future costs (e.g., cleanup waste transport
and disposal, and pollution liability insurance) which were not quantified and did not
enter the analysis directly. For example, the acceptable payback period may be
increased to five years instead of the more conventional three to four years to
account for the non-inclusion of the hard-to-estimate avoided future costs.
Alternatively, the acceptable internal rate of return may be lowered for the same
reason (i.e., unquantified future cost savings).
Once the depreciation and cost savings have been calculated, a cash flow
summary can be prepared. A sample cash flow summary form appears in
Figure E-3. From gross savings, additional operation costs attributable to the
project, such as extra manhour and energy requirements, are subtracted as are other
cash expenses. These other cash expenses include project start-up costs,
construction start-up, and the cost of off-spec product turned out during project
operation. Annual depreciation and tax credits from the depreciation summary form
are then subtracted to give net profit before taxes.
Cash flow estimates used in investment profitability analysis are generally
presented after taxes. Applying the appropriate tax rate to net profit gives net
profit after taxes. Adding back depreciation and tax credits gives the annual
post-tax cash flow. These cash flows are used to calculate payback period, net
present value, and internal rate of return for the investment.
A discounted cash flow calculation form appears in Figure E-4. Here, time "0"
is the start of the construction period. Discounted cash flow methods require
choosing a reference point in time at which the value of the return generated by the
E-6
-------
1357s
CASH FLOW SUMMARY
Annual production quantity
Net receipts or gross savings
Less: cash operating costs
Less: other cash expenses
Less: depreciation, tax credits
and write-offs
Net profit before taxes
Less: income taxes at %
Net profit after taxes
Add back: depreciation, tax
credits, etc.
POST-TAX CASH FLOW
ANNUAL PERIOD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10. ..n
Figure E-3 Cash Flow Summary
-------
1359s
i
cc
CASH
FLOWS
TRIAL
1
discount
rate
TRIAL
2
di scount
rate
Investment summary
Cash flow summary
Net of all cash flows
Discount factor
Present value
Discount factor
Present value
ANNUAL PERIOD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10. ..n
TRIAL
1
di scount
rate
Discount factor
Present value
Figure E-4 Discounted Cash Flow Summary
-------
investment will be measured. The important thing to remember is that cash
amounts spent or received before time "0" must be escalated (or compounded), and
cash amounts spent or received after time "0" must be discounted to reflect their
proper value at that point in time.
Using the amounts from the investment and cash flow summaries, net cash
flows (post-tax cash flow minus investment) can be entered for each year. To
calculate the net present value of the project, the net cash flows are reduced by
discount factors corresponding to the firm's average cost of capital. The sum of the
discounted cash flows is the net present value of the project. As stated above, a
positive net present value means that the project will increase the wealth of the
firm.
Calculating the internal rate of return (IRR) is more difficult. The unknown to
be solved for is the discount rate that makes the sum of the discounted net cash
flows, including the initial cost of the investment, equal to zero. Finding the proper
discount rate is an iterative process. If a rate produces a sum higher than zero, then
a higher rate must be tried. A number of financial analysis software programs
contain algorithms that greatly simplify this calculation.
Investment projects analyzed using discounted cash flow methods can be
compared only if the reference point — time "0" — is the same for all projects.
For ranking projects, the internal rate of return method is preferred by some
companies because it provides comparable indices, whereas the net present value
method gives cash amounts resulting from different investment commitments.
However, the net present value method can be modified slightly to give a
benefit-to-cost ratio (i.e., the dollar return per dollar invested). Calculating this
ratio for all investment opportunities also yields a set of indices by which projects
can be ranked. In addition, the NPV method allows returns to be summed over a
group of investments because returns are given in current dollar amounts. This is
amenable to the capital budgeting process, where the firm is trying to maximize the
profits obtainable from a fixed pool of funds.
E-9
-------
Other measures can be employed to assess the impacts of investment projects
on firms. For example, contribution analysis can be used to rapidly determine the
effects of changes in manufacturing costs on profitability. These methods are not
substitutes for DCF methods. The objective is always to maximize the present
value of the cash flow that can be generated by the available pool of capital.
E-10
-------
APPENDIX F
EPA'S DEFINITION OF SOLID WASTE
-------
ERA'S DEFINITION OF SOLID WASTE
EPA published a revised version of the definition of solid waste in the
January 4, 1985, Federal Register. The revised definition introduces new tests by
which a substance may be deemed a solid waste and legitimately recycled. In
essence, this revision defines RCRA jurisdiction over materials being recycled to be
determined by what the material is and how it is being recycled.
The definition itself is complicated; as an aid to understanding it, the flow
chart (Figure F-l) provides an overview of the entire definition, with appropriate
references to the position of the regulation. The central concept in this definition
of solid waste is that of throwing something away. If a material is thrown away, it
is a solid waste; if it is not thrown away, it is not a solid waste. The definition
expands the concept of throwing away to include (1) storing or treating the material
if the storing or treating occurs prior to its being thrown away, or (2) certain types
of recycling activities. In the former case, storing or treating the material prior to
recycling may meet the specified specifications for solid waste, while in the latter
case, qualification as a solid waste is dependent upon what the material is and how
it is to be recycled. Thus, certain types of recycling activities may be deemed
throwing away.
Another important aspect of the definition is that although a material may
qualify as a solid waste, any activity associated with it is not automatically subject
to RCRA regulation. A solid waste material would be regulated only if (1) the
material is a hazardous waste and (2) the activity involving the material is subject
to the RCRA hazardous waste management standards. For example, although some
of the various wastes recycled onsite may qualify as solid wastes under the
definition, the actual recycling activity is not regulated under RCRA. If the waste
is stored onsite for more than 90 days prior to recycling, or if it is stored for any
length of time in a surface impoundment or waste pile prior to recycling onsite, then
RCRA regulations would apply to the storage of such waste. In such instances, the
recycling activity would still not be regulated. For wastes that are recycled by
shipping offsite, and which qualify as solid wastes under the definition, the
manifesting requirements of the RCRA regulations would apply. Similarly, if the
F-!
-------
recycling facility stores the wastes as described above, the appropriate RCRA
regulations would apply. There are, however, no current waste management
standards that apply to the recycling practices themselves (40 CFR 261.6 and 266
Subpart C).
Below are brief descriptions of the four major activity areas delineated in the
definition of solid wastes, followed by a discussion of the incentives and constraints
to recycling that the new definition may pose.
I. Major Activity Areas Included in the Definition
The definition states that four types of recycling activities are within EPA's
jurisdiction:
1. Use constituting disposal;
2. Burning waste or waste fuels for energy recovery or using wastes to
produce a fuel;
3. Reclamation; and
4. Speculative accumulation.
These four categories of recycling activities are further divided according to
the type of material involved: spent materials, sludges (listed or characteristic),
byproducts (listed or characteristic), commercial chemical products, or scrap
metal. Table 5-5 of Volume 1 provides a summary of which materials are defined as
solid wastes when handled in the respective activity areas.
A. Use Constituting Disposal
With the exception of commercial chemical products for which land application
is the normal, intended use, all waste materials that are hazardous are defined as
solid wastes when placed on or in the land. An example of a land-applied waste
material that would not be defined as a solid waste is rinsate from pesticide
containers. The rinsate is essentially the same product, and is being applied to the
land in the manner intended for the original product.
F-2
-------
Figure F-1. Flow Chart of EPA's Definition of Solid Waste
F-3
-------
REPRINTED WITH
PERMISSION OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW INSTITUTE
WASHINGTON. DC 2Wt»
Figure F-1. Flow Chart of EPA's Definition of Solid Waste (Concluded)
F-5
-------
As another example, assume that a waste stream is mixed with oil and placed
on the land. If the waste material is a listed or characteristic hazardous waste, it
qualifies as a solid waste under the definition. Because of this classification, the
placement of this material on the land would now be subject to RCRA regulation.
Not all hazardous waste-derived products are subject to regulation, however;
their classification as solid wastes does not imply that they are fully regulated. If
the waste is used to make commercial fertilizer, the application of the fertilizer to
the land is not presently regulated. There are important issues associated with this
example, however, and they are discussed below in further detail.
B. Burning for Energy Recovery
With the exception of waste materials that are commercial chemical products
intended for burning or using as an ingredient in a fuel, hazardous wastes burned for
energy recovery are solid wastes. Although they are considered solid wastes, the
actual burning of the materials is not yet regulated. Eventually there will be limits
imposed on the contaminants for the materials burned in boilers and other energy
recovery devices; a rule to this effect was published in the November 29, 1985,
Federal Register.
Another distinction made by EPA is between burning for material recovery and
burning for energy recovery. If a material is burned as part of a material recovery
process, it would not be considered to be burned as a fuel, provided that the burning
is an integral part of the normal recovery process. If burning is not a normal part of
the operation, EPA will consider the materials to be burned as a fuel and will
regulate such burning accordingly. Also, when both materials and energy are
recovered from burning waste materials, EPA will consider it to be burned as a fuel.
C. Reclamation
The reclamation of a waste refers to the processing or regeneration of that
waste to enable the recovery of a usable product. Materials defined as hazardous
wastes that are reclaimed prior to being recycled are solid wastes, except for
F-7
-------
byproducts and sludges that are hazardous by characteristic, and commercial
chemical products. The definition allows for variances to be made for those
situations in which a minimal amount of processing is needed to complete recovery.
D. Speculative Accumulation
As discussed earlier, storage of a material prior to recycling may be under
RCRA jurisdiction, depending on what the material is and how it is to be recycled.
For those instances in which the material being recycled is otherwise excluded from
the definition of solid waste, it may still qualify if less than 75 percent of the
material is recycled or transferred to another facility within one year. (This
condition does not apply to waste materials that are chemical products.)
A variance from this provision of the definition is allowed if the petitioner can
demonstrate that economic and/or other conditions prevented his or her company
from recycling the required 75 percent.
II. Materials That Are Not Solid Wastes When Recycled
Wastes that are recycled by direct use are usually not defined as solid wastes if
reclamation of the material does not occur prior to, or as a condition of, its being
used. Three situations are specified in the definition in which the direct use of the
waste would exclude it from the solid waste definition:
• The material is used as an ingredient in an industrial process to make a
product;
• It is used as an effective substitute for commercial products; or
• The material is returned to the process from which it was generated, to be
used as a substitute for raw material feedstocks.
For each of the above situations, reclamation must not occur prior to or during
the material's use. Also, if a waste material fails to be excluded from the solid
waste definition for one of the three criteria, it could still be excluded if it qualifies
under the other two. For example, the third condition specifies that a waste
F-E
-------
material must be returned as a substitute for raw material feedstocks to the process
from which it originated. A waste solvent used for degreasing, returned to the same
degreasing operation, would not qualify under the third situation, since it is not
being returned to a production process. It would, however, qualify for exclusion
under the second situation, because it is being used as an effective substitute for a
commercial product and it is not being reclaimed prior to being reused. If it were
spent solvent that must be distilled prior to being reused, it would not be excluded,
since the distillation qualifies as reclamation prior to its reuse. In this case, since it
is not excluded, generators would be required to manifest the waste if it were
shipped offsite. If the material were to be stored onsite for more than 90 days, a
TSDF permit would be required.
The end use of the product in which the waste is incorporated is of extreme
importance in considering whether a material is excluded. For example, use of a
waste material to make fertilizer would define the material as a solid waste (unless
the waste material were a commercial chemical product for which fertilizer
manufacture is an intended use). Since it is incorporated in a product that would be
applied to the land, this would be considered use constituting disposal and would be a
solid waste. Although waste-derived commercial fertilizers are not as yet
regulated, this is still an important consideration for reasons to be discussed below.
III. Incentives and Constraints of the Definition
The definition presents some problems for companies that may wish to recycle.
Some of the p.roblems lie in the companies' misinterpretation of the regulation, in
increased requirements resulting from the definition, and in confusing issues that
may result in disputes with EPA.
A. Effect on Generators
Waste that is defined to be a "solid waste" under the definition is both a
hazardous and solid waste and thus subject to RCRA management standards. As a
result, generators will have to report the quantities of such waste under the
reporting requirements of Section 3310 of RCRA, even if the waste is recycled
F-9
-------
onsite and is not stored for more than 90 days. The notification must state the
location, general description of such activities, and the identified or listed
hazardous waste that the generator handles.
In addition, the definition will result in generators now having to manifest some
wastes shipped offsite that, under the previous set of regulations, were exempt from
such requirements. For example, a spent material (e.g., a spent solvent) is defined
as a solid waste if it is both a hazardous waste and is reclaimed prior to being
recycled. If the generator were to ship the spent material offsite to be reclaimed, a
manifest would be required.
The manifest, in effect, places the generator's name on the waste - a factor
that may cause reluctance to ship wastes offsite to be recycled because of future
liability. Future liability is of concern to most generators since, under the strict,
joint, and several liability provisions of the Superfund law (CERCLA) they may be
liable for the costs of cleanups of leaks or spills that involve their wastes. To
generators who previously did not have to manifest wastes when shipping to
reclaimers, this is a constraint to recycling, since it is not clear to what extent they
may be liable for any future accident or leak.
One advantage of this situation, however, is that the generator has an increased
need to know the reliability of the recycler to which the waste is shipped. Thus, the
definition may achieve a decrease in the number of "sham" recycling operations if
generators take extra care in finding out more about the company doing the
recycling. Smaller companies, however, may not be able to assess the adequacy or
reliability of recyclers. Larger companies such as IBM, for example, conduct audits
of the companies to which they send wastes for recycling. A small company may
not have the expertise available to make such an assessment.
In addition to these concerns, the issues of final product end use and what
constitutes reclaiming also may play a role in affecting a company's decision on
whether or not to recycle. These issues have particular relevance for specific
applications, as discussed below.
F-10
-------
1. Hazardous waste-derived fertilizers. A material that is a hazardous
waste and is used as an ingredient in making fertilizers is a solid waste (unless the
waste is a commercial chemical product for which the normal intended use is land
application). Because the final product is applied to the land, the hazardous
materials incorporated in it are defined as solid wastes. Even though they are
defined as solid wastes, however, hazardous waste-derived fertilizers are not
currently regulated provided the fertilizer is used commercially.
"Commercially" (as it is discussed in the preamble of the January 4, 1985,
Federal Register) has a specific meaning and refers to materials that are sold to the
general public. If the generator uses the material himself, it is not considered
commercial use and a RCRA permit would be required for application of the
material on the land. Discussions with EPA personnel (personal communication with
Matt Straus, U.S. EPA, July 26, 1985) indicate that the reason for this distinction is
the utility of its implementation. Eventually, EPA will be examining the degree to
which all fertilizers should be regulated. At this time, however, EPA feels that it is
not feasible to require that all applicators of fertilizers obtain RCRA permits. The
result of this EPA policy is that only the noncommercial use of hazardous
waste-derived fertilizers will be regulated.
This aspect of the definition and its interpretation has the potential to result in
a constraint to companies with the ability to recycle material for use as ingredients
in fertilizer. How this works as a constraint is shown in the following example
provided by EPA (personal communication with Matt Straus, U.S. EPA, July 26,
1985). A company generates K061 dust which it sells to a fertilizer manufacturing
company. The company adds lime, briquettes it, and sells it to the public. Under
the new definition, this is commercial use and is therefore not regulated. The
company shipping the wastes, however, must manifest them since they are defined
as solid wastes. The company then decides it wants to perform the same operation
in-house that the fertilizer company had performed, namely, adding lime and
briquetting. The company requests that EPA clarify whether application of the
resulting fertilizer product would be regulated.
F-l
-------
In this case, EPA decided that for the generators to perform the same step
in-house and sell the processed material to an intermediary does not qualify as
commercial use. Presumably, distributing directly to the consumer, rather than
through a manufacturer or wholesaler, legitimates its commerciality. Consequently,
a permit would be required for application of the material to the land if the
material were manufactured in-house and not sold directly to the public.
In the above instance, the company initially decided it would be to its benefit to
process the waste material in-house since, under the new definition, shipping offsite
would require manifesting the material now defined as a solid waste. The company
in the example may have seen the possibility of not having to manifest the waste by
processing it onsite, as well as of achieving a return on its investment by marketing
the material itself. EPA's decision in the matter now leaves the company with the
alternative of continuing to ship offsite and manifesting it, or finding a less risky
means of disposal with respect to future liability. Onsite incineration may be a
possibility if (1) the company has a permitted incinerator and (2) the incinerator has
the capacity to handle this waste. As discussed in the section on permitting,
obtaining an incinerator permit is time consuming and would not be an attractive
option.
Another aspect of the waste-derived fertilizer situation is shown by the
following example (personal communication with Matt Straus, U.S. EPA, July 26,
1985): A sludge is reclaimed at a recycling facility to recover zinc. The recycler
ships the zinc to a fertilizer company for use in the manufacture of fertilizer. Since
the fertilizer is applied to the land, the use of zinc as an ingredient in the fertilizer
renders the zinc a solid waste. The zinc must therefore be manifested when shipped
to the fertilizer company. If the zinc were shipped to a paint manufacturing
company, however, it would not be a solid waste, since paints are usually not
products applied to the land.
The example illustrates how the same material (zinc) may be deemed a waste in
one instance and a product in another. Similarly, in the first example, the same
product may be regulated in one instance and not in another. From the standpoint
of regulators, a decline in the amount of waste-derived products applied to the land
F-12
-------
can be seen as beneficial. However, the definition and regulatory scheme presently
do not take into account the equivalency of the waste-derived product to the one
derived from so-called virgin feedstocks. Companies may, therefore, view this as a
disincentive to consider using their waste products for such purposes, and may
instead consider alternatives that could present a potential for environmental
damage, including the option of illegal disposal.
2. Materials used as ingredients in industrial processes. The definition
makes a distinction between materials that are used directly in a process without
reclamation beforehand and materials that must be reclaimed prior to being used.
In addition, if the use of a material as an ingredient in a process results in the
reclamation of that material, it is defined as a solid waste. Similarly, a material
returned to the generating process that is "raw material based" is excluded from the
definition, provided it is not reclaimed beforehand.
For materials that are recycled onsite, these provisions do not constrain such
operations, even if reclamation is conducted prior to use. This is because the
recycling process itself is not currently regulated. Materials shipped offsite, if solid
wastes, are subject to manifesting requirements. Thus, this provision of the solid
waste definition may serve as an incentive to use the waste materials directly in
processes onsite or offsite without prior reclamation. EPA's concern for "sham"
operations dictates in large part the condition that materials not be reclaimed prior
to or during the industrial process to which they are introduced. The difficulty
arises in determining what constitutes reclamation.
An example of a material used as an ingredient in an industrial process but
considered to be "reclaimed" was presented by EPA (personal communication with
Matt Straus, U.S. EPA, July 26, 1985): A company ships spent pickle liquor offsite;
it is mixed with iron and chlorine and evaporated to obtain salable ferric chloride.
Although the pickle liquor is mixed with other materials, and hence is an
"ingredient," the mixing and subsequent evaporation would be considered
reclamation, since pickle liquor normally contains ferric chloride that can be used
directly. The purpose of the reclamation process is to remove the acidity. The
mixing and evaporation is a reclamation step and not solely an ingredient mixing
process. Thus, the company shipping the pickle liquor would have to manifest it.
F-13
-------
From the standpoint of the regulators, the reclamation provision of the
definition is necessary in order to prevent companies from labeling processes as
"ingredient" steps in order to avoid regulation (i.e., shipping wastes unmanifested
offsite for use as an ingredient in another process). There may be an incentive also
in that companies may be encouraged to perform such operations onsite whenever
possible. For companies that cannot accommodate such an onsite operation, this
aspect of the regulation may present a constraint.
The condition that a material be returned to the originating process as
feedstock also creates some confusion. Materials that are used as feedstocks are
essentially being reclaimed. Because they are in somewhat "raw" form, their state
is considered to be more virgin-like than waste-like; thus, the reclamation of the
originating process is viewed as a production process. If a material is used as a
feedstock or ingredient in a nonoriginating or secondary process, however, it is
viewed as a reclamation step. EPA's decision in this matter is again dictated by the
concern for "sham" operations. No consideration is given for the equivalency of the
waste material used in the secondary process to the other "virgin" materials used.
Thus, an emission control dust (baghouse dust) that may be obtained from one
smelter operation used in the same originating operation would not be considered to
be a solid waste. A baghouse dust from another facility, shipped to a smelter for
use in the smelting process, would be deemed to be reclamation and would thus need
to be manifested.
B. Effect on Recyclers
Because many of the wastes shipped to recyclers can now be defined as solid
wastes, the company accepting the wastes for recycling would now be accepting
manifested wastes. Thus, the recycling company's name appears on the manifest. It
is not clear at this time to what extent the recycling company bears liability for
future damages resulting from the waste materials associated with the recycling
operation. For example, a reclaiming operation accepting spent solvent would
generate still bottoms that it may ship offsite for landfilling. Although the
generator shares in the fear that it may have to pay if the recycler goes out of
business, the recycler may fear the same thing: what happens if the generator goes
F-14
-------
out of business? Under the "strict, joint, and several" liability provision of
Superfund, the recycler may be liable as well. There may be some reclaimers who
have not had to worry about this situation, because the wastes they accepted were
previously exempted from the manifesting requirements. They are now in the
position of having to accept a manifested hazardous waste that bears their
company's name on it. The fear of future liability may be viewed by these recyclers
as a constraining factor, and they may decide not to accept the now manifested
wastes that before the revised definition they had processed. If such behavior is
common, the consequence of this reaction will affect generators who may still
choose to ship wastes offsite for recycling, but may be severely limited in their
choices as to where to send it.
As mentioned above, a TSDF permit is not necessary for the reclamation
activity itself. Such a permit is required, however, if the recyclers store any of the
hazardous materials they receive for any amount of time prior to processing it.
Although many reclaiming operations would process the materials directly, there
may still be instances in which substances must be stored prior to processing,
depending on the size of the facility and the volumes it receives. Discussions with
EPA (personal communication with Matt Straus, U.S. EPA, July 26, 1985) indicate
that there may be increased incidents of "disguised" storage, in which recyclers
state that the material contained in a tank is undergoing reclamation. With the
prospect for such claims being made, additional regulations or criteria may then be
necessary to determine what is legitimate reclamation or processing as opposed to
storage. An example of an ambiguous situation is one in which material in a tank is
settled and decanted. The question remains as to whether settling will be
considered a legitimate recovery operation, or whether it will be judged to be
storage, and hence regulated if placed in the tank prior to processing.
C. Effect on Waste Exchanges
Because the end use and recycling method of the waste material must be known
in order to determine whether or not the recycling of such material qualifies it as a
solid waste, the use of material exchanges may diminish considerably. Material
exchanges take physical possession of the waste and broker it to companies that
F-15
-------
could use it. The generator transferring the material to such an exchange would not
know whether the material would qualify as a solid waste (thus requiring
manifesting), unless it were known how the waste is to be recycled and what would
be the end use of the recovered materials.
In the case of information exchanges, there is more likelihood that the ultimate
disposition of the waste could be learned in advance, depending on whether the
exchange is passive or active. In a passive exchange, the generator bears the burden
for contacting the interested party, so that there would be communication between
the parties exchanging the waste. Some active exchanges arrange for the transfer
of the waste, with the identities of the buyer and seller kept confidential. This type
of arm's-length transaction is likely to become less attractive.
IV. Summary and Conclusions
Although the new definition may be needed to prevent abuse of recycling
operations, it may be seen by some companies as discouraging recycling and
resource recovery efforts. Also, the complexity of the definition lends itself to
misinterpretation. This misinterpretation leads to perceptions of constraints that do
not really exist. Section 5.3 of Volume 1 (Organizational and Attitudinal Aspects)
discusses these perceptions and their implication for industry actions in more detail.
The definition at this time contains no mechanism for consideration of
equivalent uses of waste materials. In this regard, the definition may carry with it
some of the inequities and biases possibly inherent in the RCRA statute itself. For
example, RCRA requires that regulations governing the recycling of used oil do not
discourage the recovery or recycling of used oil consistent with the protection of
human health and the environment (Section 3014(a) of RCRA). As a consequence of
this language, proposed regulations relating to the burning and blending of hazardous
wastes as fuels do not require "full" compliance with the manifesting requirements
of RCRA (November 29, 1985 at 50 FR 49231). No such privileges are granted at
this time toward other substances that are recycled. Thus, there appears to be an
inequity in that products and raw materials (as opposed to waste products and spent
materials) that may be every bit as hazardous, if not more hazardous, than
F-16
-------
comparable waste streams, are not required to obtain the same degree of
permitting, tracking, review, and regulation as the waste streams. A tank car
transporting virgin trichloroethane, for example, for use in a process is not subject
to the same degree of manifesting requirements as is a tank car transporting spent
trichloroethane being sent to a solvent recovery facility for reclamation.
On the other hand, byproducts that are used directly in other processes without
additional reclamation are excluded from the definition of solid wastes. Problems,
therefore, center around what is considered to be reclamation. Also, the ultimate
end use of the product in which the waste material is introduced determines whether
it falls under the solid waste definition. As a result, the regulated community may
be more concerned with escaping regulation, even when the opportunity exists to
recycle.
The new definition of hazardous and solid wastes, however, may provide an
additional incentive to onsite recycling, even where it might not otherwise be
economically justified, or where the scale of operation involved may not allow the
fullest reduction in the volume of the waste that must be disposed of after
recovery. Unlike the April 1983 proposal, the final rule classifies wastes in such a
way that, for example, waste solvents sent to recyclers for batch tolling must be
manifested—even when the recovered solvent is being returned to the originating
company. Some recyclers have noted to Versar in interviews that their business
base involves receiving the majority of their gross income (i.e., 80 percent) from a
relatively small number of large companies (comprising about 20 percent of total
customers). For these customers, the fact that wastes recycled offsite face
regulatory requirements that wastes recycled onsite do not face shifts the economic
balance. This shift occurs even where the ability to recycle process residues may
not be as great as that of a larger recycler. Even smaller companies are beginning
to look at the possibility of installing small distilling units, which will leave
relatively large proportions of the waste stream unrecovered. Unfortunately, such
companies are probably considering the short-term costs and liabilities of the
manifesting requirements, and ignoring the likely long-term increasing costs for
disposing of the larger proportion of wastes from the onsite process. (Recyclers in
F-17
-------
California, while agreeing on this impact generally, note that the new Federal
requirement makes no difference there, since manifesting was already required by
the State.)
The definition, in summary, contains both constraints and incentives. It is
perceived mostly as a constraining mechanism, which, in tandem with other aspects
such as liability, siting, and permitting, may contribute to a general attitude against
consideration of certain recycling practices.
F-l
-------
APPENDIX G
CORRESPONDENCE FROM EPA ON WASTE
MINIMIZATION ACTIVITIES
-------
IBCC4.16
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
I WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
'/
MAR i '1985
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Willi am Stough
01 rector
Great Lakes Regional Waste Exchange
3250 Townsend. N.E.
Grand Rapids. Michigan 49505
Dear Mr. Stough .?
It was a pleasure to hear from you and-learn of your
interest in using waste^exchange programs to support the
waste minimization concept of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) Reauthorization.
Where participation in a waste exchange program affects
a generator's efforts to reduce the volume or toxicity of
hazardous waste, such participation may be used to satisfy
Section 3002(b)(l) of RCRA. Participation in a waste exchange
program could also be used as evidence of compliance with
§3002(b)(2), wnich .requires that the generator select the
method of treatment, storage or disposal which minimizes the
threat to human health and the environment.
It is our hope that each year greater volumes of hazardous
waste will be recycled, reclaimed and reused through waste
exchange programs. Achievement of this goal will go a long
way toward meeting the intent of Congress regarding the disposal
of hazardous waste in or on the land.
We appreciate hearing from you. If you have further
questions, please let me knew.
S i nee rely vours
John H. Skinner
D i rector
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
JUL I I 1985
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EME^GEr.C* >=>*S
Mr. R. R. Saulsman, Manager
Energy & Environmental Affairs
The Boeing Company
P. O. Box 3707
Seattle, Washington 98124-2207
Dear Mr. Saulsman:
Thank you for your letter of June 5, 1985, concerning the
waste minimization statement which generators will be required
to sign on the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest (UHWM) effective
September 1, 1985.
As you indicated when you originally spoke to Carolyn Barley
in May, your concern was that Boeing Company employees would be
reluctant to sign this statement because as individuals they do
not have a waste minimization program in place as required by
the statement. Our suggestion in response to your concern was
for the employee signing the statement to include under the
signature line in Item 16 the phrase, "on behalf of The Boeing
Company." You indicated in your letter that this solution is
satisfactory provided that this phrase can be preprinted on
the form. Of course, the individual signing the statement is
responsible for the veracity of the statement, as is the company.
We recognize that preprinting this phrase on the form would
be a more efficient and less time consuming procedure than re-
quiring Boeing employees to write it in by hand. Additionally,
the Agency's March 20, 1985, regulations on the UHWM do not
specifically preclude you from preprinting this phrase on the
form. Therefore, I have no objections to your proposal.
If you have other questions about the waste minimization
statement or the UHWM system, I suggest that you again contact
Carolyn Barley (202-382-2217).
Sincerely yours,
John H. Skinner
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
- ... . _ .
H-I
- - - ' - . 3 5
p „
kirf **
Mr. Peter Ashbrook ~ ;
Head, Hazardous Waste Management ~ ^.^
University of Illinois .. - • --•'-.-- _ * «
317 McKinley Hospital . ' .
1109 South Lincoln Avenue X
Urbana, Illinois 61801 >£
CD y.
vi r
Dear Mr. Ashbrook: " "~" -.-.-_ ... _.. ..... c
: _ — w
9
Thank you for your letter of August 26, 1985, to Lee Thomas »-»
concerning the availability of guidance on implementation of waste 5
minimization practices at the University of Illinois. I am sympa- *g
thetic to the challenge you face in managing a large variety of K>
relatively small quantity wastes that, in total, represent a i
significant quantity. J£
' ' -"j
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984, £
,establish as national policy the minimization of hazardous waste. E
The legislation requires waste minimization considerations to be to
addressed in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) £?
transport manifests* generator reports, and permits. £"
' " • to
The Agency has not developed guidance on waste minimization ^
activities that may be practiced by generators and, at this time, "*£•
does not intend to. Instead, it is hoped that activities such as u\
source reduction and recycling will be explored by individual £,
generators to reduce the volume or quantity and toxicity of the *
hazardous waste generated. . - en
-2
Senate Report No. 284, 98th Congress, 1st Session 66 (1983), £
articulates Congress* intent with regard to the waste minimiza- *>
tion requirements in the HSWA. As this legislative history states, £j
both minimization requirements for the manifest and biennial report £
prefer to a certification by the generator that a program is in **
place to reduce the volume or quantity and toxicity of hazardous H-
waste to the degree determined by the generator to be economically ~
practicable. While the requirement to make this certification is ft
mandatory, the determination of what waste minimization practices 3
are economically practicable are to be made solely by the generator. £,
en
-------
The legislative history makes clear that Congress1 objective in
enacting the requirement for waste minimization certification is
to encourage generators of hazardous waste to voluntarily reduce
the quantity and toxicity of waste generated.
As the legislative history suggests and as the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has stated, generators that recycle wastes
on-site, send their wastes off—site to be recycled or participate
in a waste exchange program are exercising a form'of waste minimi-
zation that may be used to satisfy the waste minimization certifi-
cation requirement, and may certify as such.
In addition to the requirements for waste minimization
certification imposed by the HSWA, the Amendments also require
that a "Report to Congress" be submitted by the EPA by October 1,
1986, assessing the feasibility of establishing waste minimiza-
tion regulations. ". . . ' .r
The Office of Solid Waste (OSW) is undertaking extensive
technical studies on waste minimization practices including
source reduction and recycling in support of the "Report to
Congress. These studies will identify and assess current waste
minimization practices for generators of hazardous waste. These
activities include: good housekeeping practices, source reduction
strategies and recycling opportunities for generators. They will
also identify generic and specific problems associated with the
implementation of waste minimization strategies. In addition, the
studies will assess the potential for further applications of the
identified waste minimization strategies and will evaluate what
steps can be taken to mitigate problems and promote the increased
use of waste minimization. This information, as well as recommenda-
tions for legislative changes or new regulatory intiatives will be
presented in Report to Congress due October 1, 1986. In the
interim, OSW will distribute information regarding specific waste
minimization practices identified through our technical support
studies and technology transfer seminars.
The Agency appreciates your concern with the waste minimization
certification requirement. If you should have any further questions,
please contact James Berlow, Manager of the Treatment, Recycling,
and Reduction Program at (202) 382-7917.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
-------
Mr. williasi Stough
Director
Great Lalie«..aeVio*al Waste Exchange
3250
Grand>*l>T$|^t>l£chfgan 49505
'* %•***»-. *i*>'A.** T ,V**_ i » _ BF
*iA
Dear tfir»
It was a pleasure to hear frost you and learn of your
interest in using waste exchange programs to support the
waste minimization concept of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) Reauthorization.
where participation in a waste exchange program affects
a generator's efforts to reduce the volume or toxicity of
hazardous waste, such participation may be used to satisfy
Section 3002(b)(l) of RCRA. Participation in a waste exchange
program could also be used as evidence of compliance with
$3002(b)(2), which requires that the generator select the
method of treatment, storage or disposal which minimizes the
threat to human health and the environment.
It is our hope that each year greater volumes of hazardous
waste will be recycled, reclaimed and reused through waste
exchange orograns. Achievement of this goal will go a long
way toward meeting the intent of Congress regarding the disposal
of hazardous waste in or on the land.
We appreciate hearing fron you. If you have further
questions, please let me know.
Sincerely yours,
John H. Skinner
Director
Office of Solid waste (WH-562)
WH-563iJThompsoniccz2-8-85t382-4697iCC*s disk4.doc!4
Control ftOSto-015
bee »,lTTy»iJl t«jf ^ir/incom ing
Management Division Directors, Regions I-X
OWPE
REVISED by Steve Levysees2-11-85
Revised by Clem Rastattertcct2-13-85
Required Concurrences:OGCi Mike Cook:elwt2/28/85
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
JUL I I 1985
OFFICE Of
SOLIDWASTE AND EMERGE^C" ^eS
Mr. R. R. Saulsraan, Manager
Energy & Environmental Affairs
The Boeing Company
P. O. Box 3707
Seattle, Washington 98124-2207
Dear Mr. Saulsman:
Thank you for your letter of June 5, 1985, concerning the
waste minimization statement which generators will be required
to sign on the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest (UHWM) effective
September 1, 1985.
As you indicated when you originally spoke to Carolyn Barley
in May, your concern was that Boeing Company employees would be
reluctant to sign this statement because as individuals they do
not have a waste minimization program in place as required by
the statement. Our suggestion in response to your concern was
for the employee signing the statement to include under the
signature line in Item 16 the phrase, "on behalf of The Boeing
Company." You indicated in your letter that this solution is
satisfactory provided that this phrase can be preprinted on
the form. Of course, the individual signing the statement is
responsible for the veracity of the statement, as is the company.
We recognize that preprinting this phrase on the form would
be a more efficient and less time consuming procedure than re-
quiring Boeing employees to write it in by hand. Additionally,
the Agency's March 20, 1985, regulations on the UHWM do not
specifically preclude you from preprinting this phrase on the
form. Therefore, I have no objections to your proposal.
If you have other questions about the waste minimization
statement or the UHWM system, I suggest that you again contact
Carolyn Barley (202-382-2217).
Sincerely yours,
John H. Skinner
**£
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
UNITED
TES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
NCY
5 1985
Ms. Faitb Gavin Kuhn
Executive Director/Editor
National Association of Solvent Pecyclers
1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20036
EC '
I t
Ul •
\ t
o t
en
Tear Ms. Kuhn:
Thank you for your letter of July 19, 1985, requesting
clarification on the types of activities that may be used to
satisfy the waste minimization certification as required by the
Hazardous and Solid ttaste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. In addi-
tion, thank you for the copy of the National Association of
Solvent Recyclers1 (NASR) latest industry brochure and member-
ship list.
The FSftA establish as national policy the minimization of
hazardous waste. The legislation requires waste minimization
considerations to be addressed in the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (PCKA) transport manifests, generator reports, and
permits .
Senate Report No. 284, 98th Congress, 1st Session 66
(1983), articulates Congress' intent with regard to the waste
minimization requirements in the HSViA. As this legislative
history states, both minimization requirements for the manifest
and biennial report refer to a certification by the generator
that a program is in place to reduce the volume or quantity and
toxicity of hazardous waste to the degree determined by the
generator to be economically practicable. While the requirement
to make this certification is mandatory, the determination of
what waste minimization practices are economically practicable
are to be made by the generator. The legislative history makes
clear that Congress1 objective in enacting the requirement for
waste minimization certification is to encourage generators of
hazardous waste to voluntarily reduce the quantity and toxicity
of waste generated.
\
CD n
I r
•S r
2 (t
ra -
D
\ C
QJ
NJ H
CO 3
T> D
rr^
o v
•3 T)
(0 .
.. 7;
CO
M O
I O
vo i-3
-J O
T3 Cfl
i—i
7T O
co tr1
I K
i a
CO !-••
en en
\=
CONCURRENCES
MBOU
RNAME
Wll-bDbA
..E,Eby.....
WH-bt»bA
ansen
WH-565
J Leh
man
A Form 1320-)'(12^-70)
OFFICIAL FILE COPY
-------
As we previously discussed, and as the legislative history
suggests, generators that either recycle wastes on-site or send
their wastes off-site to be recycled are exercising a form of
waste minimization that may be used to satisfy the waste mini-
mization certification requirement, and may certify as such on
the uniforn hazardous waste manifest.
The Agency appreciates FASP's concern with the waste mini-
mization certification requirement. If you have any further
questions, please let TT.P know.
Sincerely,
John h. Skinner
rirector
Office of Solid Waste (V:H-562)
-------
APPENDIX H
COMPILATION OF INDUSTRIAL WASTE REDUCTION CASES
-------
APPENDIX H - Compilation of Industrial Haste Reduction Cases.
Case
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
<
Ref
1
1
1
1
1
1
7 1
8 1
9 1
10 1
Company and
Location
Climax Molybdenum
Co., Leadville,
Colo
United Globe
Corp , Lexington,
N C.
West Point
Pepperell,
Lumberton, N.C.
Rexham Corp. ,
Greensboro, N.C.
Exxon Chemical
America, Linden,
4
SIC
Code
1061
251
266
275
2869
N.J.
Allied Chemical | 2819
Corp. .Metropolis, |
111.
I
Borden Chemical 2869
Co , Fremont,
Calif.
America Euka Co., 2824
Euka, N.C.
Rike11 Laboratory, 2834
Northridge, Calif.
USS Chemicals, 2869
Haverhill, Ohio
Product
Raw molybdenum,
copper, zinc,
iron, manganese
Furniture
Textile dye and
finishing
Specialized
product labels
Solvents, chemical
additives
Chemicals, nuclear
fuel
Urea, phenolic
resins
Nyton yarn
Pharmaceuticals
Phenol, aniline,
Waste Minimization Method Description
Waste Reduction
Percent | Quantity
Installation of interceptor canals to pass runoff |93.2 (Cu)|
water through ion exchange unit. Other separation of |99.9 (Fe)|
heavy metals through coagulative electrolytic |99.9 (Mn)|
processing. |93.4 (Zn)|
|90.3 (Mb) |
|96 4 (Cn)
Incineration of process water waste solids and solvent|95.0l by
wastes to produce steam for use in plant. volume
Establishment of Toxic Chemicals Review Committee.
Substitution of water-borne ink for alcohol/acetone
ink. Distillation to recover n-propyl alcohol from
waste inks for reuse in the process.
Equipment redesign to retain solvents.
Employee stewardship program, where organics are
monitored at different stations.
Recycling of waste calcium fluoride into anhydrous
hydrofluoric acid production at another facility.
Filter rinse and reuse of phenolic resins.
Implementation of 2-stage tank rinsing.
Employee education in waste reduction.
Recycling of solvents using in-house distillation.
Substitution of water-based solvent for organic-based
solvent in tablet coatings.
Control of organic vapors through addition of adsorp-
95.0
80.0
related products | tion unit, scrap condenser, and floating roofs on |(air
1.5
MM Ib/yr
13,000
gal/yr
(solvent)
1.5
MM Ib/yr
(total)
1,000
cu yd/mo
recycled
10,000
gal/yr
24
ton/yr
storage tanks. |em1ssion)|
I
Classification
Treatment
Treatment
Good operating
practice
Process modif.
(recovery/reuse)
Process modif.
Good operating
practice
Recycling
Process modif.
Process modif.
Good operating
practice
Process modif.
Process modif.
Process modif.
Number of
Employees
22,000
150,000
Year
(*)
1982
1975
a1976
1975
a1976
1983
Objective
(*»)
YM
WM
WM
HM.Tech.
WM
WM
WM
YM
WM
Capital
Investment
($ 1,000)
1,500
No change
16
5 - 13
4.300
7.5
I
I
WM
I
Annual Cost
Savings
(J 1,000)
905
15
150
1,000
90
15
175/100
Payback |
Period
<3 yrs
<1 yr
<1 yr
4.5 yrs
1 month
<1 yr
1 month/
18 days
(*) a-after;b:before / (**) WM-waste minimizat1on;Tech-technical improvement;YM:yield maximization
-------
APPENDIX H (continued).
t
~T~
1
ro
Case
No
11
12
13
U
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
4
Ret
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
4
Company and
Location
Industrial and
Agricultural
Chemicals, Inc..
Red Springs, N.C.
ICI Americas, Inc.
Goldsboro, N.C.
Daly-Herring Co. ,
Kinston, N.C.
lexasgulf ,
Saltvllle, Va.
Florida Steel
Corp., Charlotte,
N.C.
Haupaca Foundry,
Haupaca, His.
Stanadyne, Inc.,
Sanford, N.C.
Elkhart Products
D1v., Inc ,
Elkhart, Ind.
Pioneer Metal
Finishing, Inc.,
Frankllnville.N.J
Dec he and Co.,
Mollne, HI.
Hamilton Beach
01v.,Scov1ll,Inc.
Clinton, N.C.
SIC
Code
281
2879
2879
2879
3312
3321
3132
3471
3«71
3520
3530
36
Product
Trace elements
sold to ferti-
lizer Industry
Agricultural RiO
Pesticides
Defluorlnated
phosphate
Steel
Grey & compacted
graphite Iron
casting
Flushing products
Pipe fitting
fabrication
Electroplating
job shop
Farm & construc-
tion equipment
Small appliances
Haste Minimization Method Description
Use of Inorganic chemical wastes fro* other Industries
to process out trace elenents — reduction 1n raw
materials costs.
Etablishment of Environmental Compliance Committee.
Haste stream segregation to prevent cross-contamina-
tion and to allow off-site distillation.
Separation of waste dust streams to allow reuse of
dust.
Closed-loop recycling systen Installed to remove
inorganic fluorides fro* process water discharge
stream.
Resale of collected high-zinc furnace dust instead of
land filling.
Separation of wastewater to reduce amount requiring
treatment to 251.
Combination of equipment installations and revised
operating procedures to reduce sludge volume and
cyanide concentrations from plating operations.
Process redesign for waste reduction in combination
with electrolytic recovery of copper.
Replacement of single-pass continuous treatment system
with closed-loop batch treatment systems.
Formation of a hazardous waste task force.
Comprehensive treatment facility to reclal* and
detoxify selected wastes.
Off-site solvent recycling, plus substitution of
water-based for solvent-based cleaners.
Haste Reduction
Percent Quantity
70.0
46.0
50.0
(sludge)
7700
gal/yr
45,000
Ib/vr
waste dust
280,000
gal/day
182,000
gal/yr
40,000
gal/yr
(sludge)
330.000
«al/yr
38,000
Ib/yr
|(subst'n)
1
Classification
Process nodif.
Good operating
practice
Good operating
practice
(recovery/reuse)
Process nodif.
Recycling/reuse
Good operating
practice
Process nodif.
Good operating
practice
Process modlf.
(recovery/reuse)
Process nod If .
Treatment
Good operating
practice
Treatment
Recycling
Process oodif.
Number of
Employees
Year
(*)
1984
1983
1980
1982
1979
1980
Objective
(**)
YM
HM
HM
MM
HM
HM, Tech.
HM
HM
HM
HM
HM
Capital
Investment
(» 1.000)
No change
Minimal
9.6
No change
60
210
1,900
3.250
Annual Cost
Savings
($ 1,000)
37
11.638
2,000
129.6
20.995
120
52.460
155.750
20.260
*
Payback
Period
Immediate
10 months
1 yr
Immediate
3.5 yrs
0.5 yr
3 yrs
2.5 yrs
5 months
(«) a:after;b:before / (**) HMrwaste i»inim1zation;Tech:technical 1mprovei»ent;YM:y1eld maximization.
-------
APPENDIX H (continued).
in
i
CJ
Case
No
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Ret
\
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Company and
Location
Emerson Electric
Co., Special
Products 01 v.,
Murphy, N.C.
GTE Sylvania,
Chicago, 111.
Data General
Corp., Clayton,
N.C.
3M Corp.,
Columbia. Mo.
Digital Equipment
Corp., Tempe, Ariz.
Modine Manufac-
turing, Trenton,
Mo.
Rexham Corp.,
Hat thews, N.C.
Carolina Power S
Light Co., New
Hill, N.C.
Duke Power Co.
SIC
Code
35
36
3661
3573
3679
367
3679
3711
3861
4911
4911
Product
Metal finishing
Stationery manu-
facture
Electronic tele-
phone switching
equipment
Printed circuit
boards
Microelectronics
Printed wiring
boards
Metal radiators
Laminated and
coated paper,
fi In, foil product
Electric power
Electric power
Waste Minimization Method Description
Equipment installation for waste reduction/elimination
plus a chemical waste management program and an
Incentive progra* for cost reduction or product Ideas
Installation of closed-loop treatment system and elec-
trolytic copper recovery system.
Sale of untreated wastes, process changes to obtain
marketable copper sludge.
Use of alternative cleaning equipment which uses
furnice Instead of hazardous solutions.
Electrolytic recovery of Cu in treatment system, use
of waste from other Industries.
Ion exchange and electrolytic equipment for recovery
of copper.
Solvent segregation, solvent vapor collection and sale,
off-site distillation of solvent for reuse, Incinera-
tion, comprehensive chemical waste management program.
Sale of fly ash and bottom ash for reuse.
Sale of fly ash and bottom ash, PCB Incineration,
waste stream segregation, revised equipment operation.
establlshient of an ongoing waste minimization pro-
gram, reduction of radioactive waste.
Haste Reduction
Percent | Quantity
100.0
solvent
waste oil
ZnCr03
100.0
(process
waste-
water)
100.0
60.0-65.0
(methyl
ethyl
ketone
recovery)
30.0
(max)
95.0
(liquid
rad.
waste)
60.0
68 Ib/dy
(paint
solids)
90 Ib/dy
(plating
add. oil.
caustic)
720 Ib/mo
(solvent)
55 gal/wk
(CuOH
sludge)
400 ton/yr
(landfill
waste)
40,000
Ib/yr
4515
ton/yr
(air
emission)
345,000
ton/yr
(ash)
Classification
>
Process modif .
Good operating
practice
Treatment
Process modif.
(recovery/reuse)
Process modlf.
Recycling
Process modlf.
Process modif.
(Int. recycling)
Process modlf.
(Int. recycling)
Good operating
practice
Recycling/reuse
Recovery/reuse
Good operating
practice
Recycling/reuse
Treatment
Number of
Employees
rear
(*)
a1976
1981
a1976
1979
1979
1979
Objective
('*)
YN. m
MM
HM
HM
YM
HM
NM
YM. HM
YM, HM
Capital
Investment
0 1.000)
874
50
59
27
1.365
Annual Cost
Savings
($ 1.000)
1,800
6
180
15
22
6.184
Payback
Period
1.1-5 yrs
1.5 month
3 yrs
14 months
-------
APPENDIX H (continued).
+ H
Case
Nn
no
31
32
33
3(
35
36
Ref
1
1
1
2
2
2
Company and
Location
3M Corp.,
Columbia, Mo.
PCA International
Inc, . Matthews,
N.C
American Fotokenl
Inc., Elk Grove,
111.
Allied Corp.,
Chemical Sector
(North America)
Amoco Chemicals
Corp., Chicago,
111.
AT&T Technologies
Union, N.J.
SIC
CnAa
uouo
7371
7395
7399
2824
2619
2865
2669
222*
26
3079
366)
Product
Film developing
unit of electro-
nic products div.
Mass portrait
photography
Silver recovered
from films and
fixer solution
Chenkals
Industrial
organic and other
chemicals
Oil and lubricant
additives
Telecommunication
Haste Minimization Method Description
Decanter system for gravity separation of solvent
from water for reuse.
Silver recovery through electrolysis and developer
regeneration through ion exchange.
Centralization of silver recovery processing, improve-
ment In treatment to extract nearly 1001 of silver
from solutions.
Sale of waste hydrochloric add.
Spent catalyst recovery for reuse.
Combination fo hydrofluoric add and calcium fluoride
/lime Into salable product.
Incineration of creosole, waste sludge for heat.
Use of byproduct sulfurlc add as process raw material
Recovery of spent 1,1,1-trichloroethane.
Manufacturing process modification.
Reuse through sale.
Internal recycling.
Incineration of organic waste as supplemental fuel.
Reduction of waste sludge generation.
Distillation of 1,1,1-trichloroethane.
Use of carbon adsorbers to capture solvent emnisslons
for reuse.
Treatment of plating rinse water.
Substitution of two polymers at 70 ppsi Into sludge for
ferric chloride fed at 250-300 ppn at a waste treat-
ment plant.
Refinement of sludge for copper extraction.
Substitution of tin sulfamate for stannous fluoro-
borate for tin plating of copper wire.
Change In testing operation eliminated cable-end
Haste
Percent
(tritium
and boron
release)
70.0
100.0
100.0
10.0
too.o
60.0-70.0
60.0-70.0
90.0-100
70.0-80.0
20.0-30.0
95.0
80.0-95.0
99. Of
100 0
100.0
50.0-75.0
Reduction
Quantity
115.000
troy ounce
silver
2919
gal/dy
5000 NT/yr
Classification
'
Process «od1f.
(Int. recycling)
Process aodif.
Treatment
Treatment
Process modif.
(recovery/reuse)
Recovery/reuse
Process modif.
Recovery/reuse
Treatment
Process «od1f .
Process modlf./
Good operating
practice
Process nod If.
Recovery/reuse
Process nodif.
Treatment
Process modif.
Process modif.
Treatment
Treatment
Process modif.
Process modif.
Process modif.
Number of
Employees
14,000
15,600
365.000
Year
/ 1 \
( l
a1976
b1967
1980
1973
Objective
/**\
(")
VM, HM
MM
YM
YM
YM
HM
Capital
Investment
($ 1.000)
4
No change
Annual Cost
Savings
($ 1,000)
12
6
^ *
Payback
Period
0.25 yr
1 yr
Immediate
(') a:atter;b:before / (") WM:waste minimization;Tech:techn1cal improvement;YM:yield maximization.
-------
APPENDIX H (continued).
o:
i
en
Case
No
37
38
39
40
Ref
2
2
2
2
Company and
Locs t ion
Chevron Chemical
Co., San Francis-
co, Calif.
DON Chemical USA,
Midland, Mich.
Eastman Chemicals
Div., Eastman
Kodak Co..
Kingsport, Tenn.
E.I du Pont de
Nemours & Co..Inc
Wilmington, Del.
SIC
Pnrlo
LOUc
2843
2869
2873
2874
2879
28
3079
3339
28
28
13
29
Product
Agri. chemicals
Fertilizers
Hone I garden
consumer products
Oil/fuel additive
Organic, Inorganic
chemicals
Plastic resins
Non-ferrous metal
Pesticides
Chemicals
Fibers
Plastics
Fibers
Industrial and
consumer products
Polymer products
Agricultural and
Industrial
chemicals
Biomedical
products
Coal
Petroleum product
^ .
Naste Minimization Method Description
cleaning step using t,1,1-tr1chloroethane.
Reformulation/repackaging of damaged containers and
floor sweepings of pesticides.
Reuse of product samples taken during production runs.
Use of fertilizer tank bottom sludges as raw material
for fertilizer.
Recovery of oils.
Triple-rinsing of pesticide drums and return to manu-
facturer.
Solvent production process change.
Wastewater and solvent segregation.
Source control of wastewater.
Rinse solutions fro* equipment cleaning used to make
water-based products.
On-site distillation of solvents.
Reduce frequency of tank cleaning (sludge).
Biologlfcal treatment of phenolic waste to reduce
toxidty.
Substitute returnable pesticide bulk tote bins for
non-returnable drums.
Full range of activities.
Use of liquid waste as feedstock.
Solvent distillation.
Neutralization of liquid waste.
Process change in AON manufacture.
Marketing of landf tiled waste, recycling of off-spec
product.
Filtration of paint sludge, Incineration of liquid.
Pretreatment of waste aluminium oxide for sale to
recycler.
Process change to reduce Incinerator ash.
Sale of waste ferric chloride Instead of ocean dumping
Conversion of waste HC1 into chlorine.
Process modification to reduce load to treatment plant
Naste
Percent
"50.0
64.0
50.0
60.0
13.0,52.0
16. 0
100.0
20.0
99.6
99.0
100.0
50.0
(water)
100.0
90.0
20.0
Deduction
Quantity
300Kton/yr
t
Classification
'
Process modlf.
(int. recycling)
Process modif.
Reuse
Process modif.
Recycling/good
oper. practice
Process todif .
Good oper. prac
Process modif./
good oper. prac
Reclamation
Process modif.
Good oper. prac
Treatment
Good oper. prac
product subst'n
Reuse
Process modif.
Treatment
Process modif.
Reclamation/
process modif.
Treatment
Recycling/
treatment
Process modif.
Recovery/reuse
Reuse
Process modif.
»
Number of
Employees
3,200
30,000
17,000
146.000
>
Year
ft\
(*)
1982
1972
61983
1980
i
Objective
(** \
)
MM
HM
MM
YM
t
Capital
Investment
($ 1,000)
t
Annual Cost
Savings
(t 1.000)
4
Payback
Per i od
(*) a:after;b:before / (»*) HM:waste m1nimizat1on;Tech:techn1cal improvement;YM:y1eld maximization.
-------
APPENDIX H (continued).
Case
No
41
42
43
44
Kef
2
2
2
2
1 ^
Company and SIC
Location Code
Exxon Chemical
Americas, Houston
Tex.
ICI Americas, Inc
Wilmington. Del.
3H Corp. .St. Paul
Minn.
Occidental
Chemical, Niagara
Falls. N.Y.
28
2221
2298
3079
28
28
29
Product
Olefins, aroma-
tics, polyolefins.
elastomers, sol-
vents, special-
ties, oil/fuel
additives
Agri. chemicals
Pharmaceuticals
Petrochemicals
Fibers & textile
chemicals
Security devices
Aerospace compo-
nents
Various
Industrial and
spec'lty chemical
Ourez resins and
molding materials
PVC resins and
fabricated
products
Agricultural
products
Haste Minimization Method Description
Return of distillation residue to process as raw
material.
Neutralization of spent caustics for treatment.
Storage of radioactive waste and reduce hazardous
amount to one half.
Aluminium hydroxide removal from sludge for reclama-
tion.
More selective polymerization technology to reduce
generation of plastic byproduct.
Reformulation of end product to reduce hydrocarbon
waste.
Reduction of carbon/water slurry by dewatering.
Reduction of waste oil by operational optimizations.
Input of waste back into process.
t
Waste Reduction
Percent | Quantity
|4 MMlb/yr
50.0
60.0
65.0
100.0
30.0
40.0
14.0,86.0
312Kgal/yr
|40. 0,75.0)
Sale of waste as feedstok to other process. |14.0,41.0|
New manufacturing processes and techniques.
New procedures
Development of the Pollution Prevention Pays (3P)
program.
*.
Segregation of liquid rafflnsts fron phenol waste.
Incineration of liquid halogenated organlcs.
Sale of co-product waste stream dilutent.
Eliminate use of plastlcizer. Install water separation
equipment to reduce volume and cross-contamination.
Detoxification of solids and contaninated water
through hydrolysis, catalytic oxidation.
Detoxification of sludge from manufacture of
inorganics to reduce chloride content.
Recovery and reuse of solvent.
Improved filtration stage, product recovery from
70.0
52.0
"33.0
"18.0
"7.0
"2.5
"1.8
'1.0
"0.$
f.
Classification
t
Reuse/process
modification
Treatment
Good operating
practice
Process modif.
Process modif.
Process modif./
product subst'n
Treatment
Good operating
practice/pro-
cess modif.
Reuse
Recovery/reuse
Process modif./
good oper. prac
Good operating
practice
Process modif.
(12)
Product reform/
subst'n (9)
Recovery/reuse
Good operating
practice
Treatment
Recovery/reuse
Good operating
practice
Treatment
Treatment
Recovery/reuse
Process modif.
>
Number of
Employees
8,000
8,000
50,000
9,600
Year
(*)
1982
b!984
1975
1919
Objective
(*')
m
HM
KM
t
Capital
Investment
(1 1.000)
Annual Cost
Savings
($ 1,000)
Payback
Period
(*) a:after;b:before / (*') HM:waste minimization;Tech:technical 1mprovement;YM:y
-------
APPENDIX N (continued).
+
Case
No
45
46
47
48
49
Ref
2
2
2
2
2
r
Company and
Location
Olin Corp.,
Stanford, Conn.
Rohm and Haas,
Philadelphia, Pa.
Shell Oil Co..
Houston, Tex.
Union Carbide
Corp., Danbury,
Conn.
Velsicol Chemical
Corp., Chicago,
111.
SIC
Code
26
28
34
28
12
13
28
29
646
10
28
30
36
28
Product
Chemicals
Brass & stainless
strip and mill
products
Acrylic emulsions
Surfactants
Bloc ides
Ion exchange
resins
Electro. & agrl.
chemicals
(etc.)
Fuels i petro-
chemical feed-
stocks, aromatics
Plastic, resins
Agrichemicals
(etc.)
Carbons
Commodity and
specialty chemi-
cals & plastics
Electronics
Hone and auto
products
Industrial gases
Processed metal
ores
Pesticides
Specialty
chemicals
f
Waste Minimization Method Description
sodium chlorate sludge.
Replacement of cyanides, solvent-based paints, raw
material substitutions.
Haste solvents in electronics used for paints manufac-
ture, refinery caustic used tn wood pulping, paint
sludge used as sealant.
(etc.)
Incineration of waste oils, spent solvents, still
bottoms, polymers, and disposable process equipment.
On-site neutralization or pH adjustment, then off-site
biotreatment.
Minimize maintenance using Inorganic add.
Recovery of oil from tanks during cleaning.
Belt pressing and Incineration of blosludge.
Installation of Incinerators In process units.
Use of spent adds as feed for fresh add.
Use of spent caustic for pH control.
Regeneration of catalysts.
Change in operating configuration of biotreatment unit
to reduce sludge generation.
Material substitution to eliminate flammable liquid
gas.
Catalyst Improvement to reduce production of by-
products.
Refrigeration system on process vents to recover
toluene.
I.
Haste Reduction
Percent | Quantity
SO
MM ton/yr
Installation of equipment to recover and recycle spent) 43.0
hypochlorite.
Classification
t
Conservation and recycle improvements for water. |83. 0,97.0)
Process modif.
Reuse
Process modif./
good operating
practice/treat-
ment/recycling
Treatment
Treatment
Good operating
practice/pro-
cess modif.
Recovery/reuse
Treatment
Treatment
Recovery/reuse
Recovery/reuse
Process modif.
Good operating
practice
Process modif.
Process modif.
Recovery/reuse/
process modif.
Process modif.
Process modif.
h
Number of
Employees
17,800
11,911
34,700
51,300
1.600
h
Year
(*)
1983
1983
61976
1981
1978
h
Objective
(**)
m
m
YM
HM
HM
Capital
Investment
($ 1.000)
Annual Cost
Savings
($ 1,000)
t *
Payback
Period
(*) a.after;b:before / (**} HM:waste minimization;Tech:technical 1*provement;YM:yield maximization.
-------
APPENDIX H (continued).
t »
Case
No
f 1
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Ref
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
i
Company and
Location
Model Blue Ribbon
Cleaners
California Elec-
troplating, Los
Angeles, Calif.
Allied Metal
Finishing,
Baltimore, Md.
General Plating,
Detroit, Mich.
Ford Motor Co.,
Sabine, Mich.
Ford Motor Co.,
Sabine, Mich.
Advance Plating
Co., Cleveland,
Ohio
Reliable Plating
Horks, Milwaukee,
His.
Caterpillar
Tractor Co.,
SIC
Code
7216
3471
3471
3471
3471
3471
3471
3471
Product
Dry-cleaning
services
Plating
Plating of parts
Metal plating
Metal plating
Automotive parts
plating
Automotive parts
plating
Plating of nap-
kins, paper towels
and toilet tissue
dispensers
Paint application
Haste Minimization Method Description
Installation of still bottoms reboller and Improved
column Internals
Solvent recovery (distillation) out of liquid waste.
which is Incinerated.
Process change to reduce solvent and water usage.
Reaction of still bottoms to form saleable product.
Collection and separation of equipment cleaning waste.
Use of vent scrubber to recycle HCl, water to process.
Replacement of bearing and seal systems to arrest
leaks from bearing.
Addition of refrigerated solvent recovery system.
Installation of 4 counterflow rinses after each
plating stage, plus spray nozzles to wash drag-out
back into tanks.
Installation of N.S.A reactor.
Installation of tising fill evaporator unit.
Installation of evaporator recovery units.
Installation of 3 evaporator recovery units.
Attachment of Innova Chrome Napper Ion transfer system
to allow closed-loop recovery of chromium.
Attachment of Innova Chrome Napper Ion transfer system
to automatic hoist line.
| Use of water-borne coatings.
(engine)
Waste Reduction
Percent | Quantity
44.0
53.0
100.0
100.0
Cd<1.22ppm
350 Ib/dy
(chromic
80.0-90.0
(Cr)
99.0
(water)
80.0-90.0
(Cr)
99.0
(water)
add
39.4 kg/wk
(H2Cr04)
92 KVdy
Classification
Process modif.
Process modif./
treatment
Process modif.
Recovery/reuse
Good operating
practice
Reuse
Good operating
practice
Recovery/recy-
cling
Process modif.
Process modif.
(recovery/reuse)
Process modif.
(recovery/reuse)
Process modif.
(recovery/reuse)
Process modif.
Process modif.
Process modif.
Process modif.
Number of
Employees
rear
(*)
'
Objective
(**)
^
Capital
Investment
($ 1,000)
Annual Cost
Savings
($ 1.000)
43.620
MOO
Payback
Period
1.5 yrs
00
(') a:after;b:before / (") HN:waste m1n1m1zat1on;Tech:techn1cal 1mprovement;YM:y
-------
APPENDIX H (continued).
f
Case
No
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
4
Ref
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Company and
Location
Mossville, 111.
Flexsteel
Industries,
Dubuque, Iowa
Oshkosh Truck
Corp., Oshkosh,
His.
Fisher 8ody (GM).
Lansing, Mich.
USI Agribusiness,
Atlanta, Ga.
3M Corp.,St Paul,
Minn.
Colorcraft,
Rockford, 111.
Deluxe Motion
Picture Labora-
tories, Hollywood
Calif.
PCA International
Matthews, N.C.
Sweetheart Plas-
tics, Conyers.Ga.
Eastman Chemicals
Kingsport, Tenn.
Goodyear Tire and
Rubber Co.,
1
SIC
Code
3713
3711
2646
3523
3811
7395
7819
7395
3079
Product
Paint application
(furniture)
Assembly of heavy
specialty trucks
Automobile bodies
Poultry-feeding,
egg collection.
environmental
control equipment
Various
Photo finishing
Film processing
Photo finishing
Thermoforned
packaging
Maste Minimization Method Description
Change from conventional air spray to electrostatic
finishing system.
Purification of paint-laden air using water Venturis,
with water then electrostatically treated to remove
floating overspray by skinning.
Shift fron solvent-borne-coating system to electro-
coating, which uses water-bornes .
Shift to powder coating line.
Redesign of spray booth to reduce resin overspray and
recycle overspray back into to process.
Installation of production prototype developer
recycling unit (electrodialysls).
Introduction of ion exchange technology to purify
waste washwater for reuse and recover silver.
Recycle bleaches.
Recover silver from washwater.
Recover heavy metals fron wastewater.
Recycle pre-bath, final bath, paper color developer.
Total water recycle with 3-stage evaporation.
Switch to 2-stage granulator design.
Production of thermoset polyester resins fron used
polyethylene containers.
Recycle of polyethylene bottles economically into
fabric, auto parts, carpeting, home Insulation, etc.
Maste (
Percent
40.0
overspray
80. 0
62.0
(water)
90.0
(Ag)
"100.0
(Ag)
"100.0
(water)
80.0
(scrap
regrind-
Ing)
eduction
Quantity
500 Klb/yr
resin
Classification
Process modif.
Treatment/
process modif.
Process modif.
Process nodlf.
Process modif./
recycling
Process todif.
(int. recycling)
Process nodlf.
(int. recycling)
Process modif.
(int. recycling/
reuse)
Process nodlf.
Reuse
Reuse
Number of
tflip loyees
Year
Objective
r»*\
I /
Capital
(t 1.000)
Annual Cost
(» 1,000)
15
125
50
46
Payback
Period
<2 yrs
(*) a:after;b:before / (»') HM:waste minimization;Tech:technical 1nprovement;¥M:yield maximization.
-------
APPENDIX H (continued).
+
Case
No
70
71
72
73
H
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
Ref
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
^
Company and
Location
Akron, Ohio
Graphic Arts
Technical founda-
tion, Pittsburgh,
Pa.
St. Petersburg
Times, St. Peter-
sburg, Fla.
The Oregonian,
Portland, Oreg.
Milwaukee Journal
and Sentinel,
Milwaukee, His.
Charleston News-
paper, Charleston
H. Va.
Minneapolis Star
and Tribune,
Minneapolis, Minn.
Union Carbide
IBM
Shuford Mills,
Hickory, N.C.
Pierce Industries
Inc.,Nalden, N.Y.
Sealed Power Carp
Muskegon, Mich.
Halstead
Industries,
SIC
rt*rtn
Code
27
27
27
27
27
27
36
2514
3592
3143
Product
Printing
Printed natter
Printed natter
Printed latter
Printed natter
Printed latter
Various
Various
Tape
Metal furniture
Piston rings
Heat-transfer
equipment
Haste Mininizatlon Method Description
Technical plant audits.
In-house waste reduction program.
Introductin of anllox (flexography) Inking device to
reduce newsprint waste.
In-house Ink recycling.
In-house Ink recycling.
Installation of fountain cleaner.
Mandated computer-assisted plant evaluation systens
(to calculate taterial balances).
Use of computer to nonltor continuous solvent Intake
for polishing, lachining, and cleaning operations.
Installation of two carbon adsorption units for
recovery of toluene.
Installation of Detrex free board extension unit and a
powered degreaser cover.
Installation of Detrex free board chillers.
Installation of carbon adsorption systei on contlnous-
use degreaser.
Waste
Percent
2.0
newsprint
25.0
80.0
(Ink)
95.0
efficient
Reduction
Quantity
54,000
gal/yr
3300
gal/dy
45 pp«
under OSHA
Unit of
100
75 pp*
under OSHA
t
Classification
>
Good operating
practice
Good operating
practice
Process lodif.
Process «od1f .
Process lodlf.
Good operating
practice
Good operating
practice
Process nodif.
Process nodlf.
Process nodif.
Process nodif.
t
Nuiber of
Enployees
Year
(* \
*)
Objective
(**)
Capital
Investment
(t 1.000)
(.
Annual Cost
Savings
(> 1,000)
350
2 per day
>25
t »
Payback
Period
4 yrs
I
I—•
o
(*) a:after;b:before / (**) HN:waste mininizat1on;Tech:technical 1nprovenent;YM:y1eld iux1i1zat1on.
-------
APPENDIX H (continued).
Case
Nn
nu
82
83
84
85
86
67
88
89
90
Ref
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
j.
Company and
Locat ion
Scottsboro, Ala
Foremost Screen
Print Plant of
Fieldcrest Mills,
Stokesdale, N.C
Hollytex Carpet
Mills. Inc.,
Southampton, Pa.
J.P. Stevens Co.,
Clemson, S.C.
Spring Mills,
S.C.
Riegel Textile
Co., La France,
S.C.
Lumberton Dyeing
and Finishing Co.
Lumberton, N.C.
Gaston County,
Stanley, N.C.,
Spinners
Processing Co.,
Splndale, N.C.
Adams-Mi 11 is
Hosiery Co., High
Point, N.C.
La France
Industries,
La France, S.C.
SIC
Pnffa
UOue
2261
2262
227
22
22
22
22
226
22
22
Product
Screen printing
of consumer cloth
goods
Carpet
Textiles
Textiles
Textiles
Textiles
Textile dyeing
Textiles
Textiles
Haste Minimization Method Description
Recycling of water after treatment.
.
Recycling of wastewater using carbon adsorption unit,
with incineration of carbon.
Recovery and re-use of PVA size (sizing chemical)
using ultra-filtration technology developed jointly
by Clemson University, J.P. Stevens Co., Gaston
County Dyeing Machine Co. and Union Carbide Corp.,
oil recovery/reuse fro* exhaust.
Installation of Afacor System to recover PVA sizing
chemical.
Installation of ultraflltration plant for complete
recycle of textile wastewater and for heat recovery
(co-funded with USEPA).
Installation of counterflow heat recovery system to
heat process Hater with exhaust and to precipitate
out hydrocarbon pollutants.
Use of low-liquor dyeing technology, which increases
dye efficiency, reduces water consumption, and emits
less polluting wastestream.
Reconstitute and reuse of dye baths an average of 15
times before discharge.
Ultrafiltration technology to achieve closed-cycle
dyeing, ultraflltration concentrates the dye solution
and recycles waste water for reuse.
t
Haste
Percent
80.0
96.0
19.0
(dye)
35.0
chemical
43.0
(water)
ieduction
Quantity
Unit of
100
175,000
gal/dy
1.000
ton/yr
y
Classification
•
Process modif.
Process modif.
Process modif.
(int. recycling)
Process modif.
Process modif.
Process nodif.
Process modif.
Process modif.
(Int. recycling)
Process modif.
^
Number of
Employees
Year
/*\
(*)
Objective
(** \
)
Capital
Investment
($ 1.000)
Annual Cost
Savings
(1 1.000)
3.6 per week
560
+
Payback
Period
5 months
(•) a:after;b:before / (") NM:waste minimization;Tech:techn1cal improvement;YM:y1eld maximization.
-------
APPENDIX H (continued).
f *
Case
No
91
92
93
94
95
96
91
98
4
Kef
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
Company and | SIC
Location Code
Cone Mills,
Greensboro, N.C.
Dan River Textile
Co., Greenville,
S.C.
General Motors
Corp., Narren,
Mich.
Phelps Dodge
Corp., Hidalgo,
N. Mex.
Kennecott,
Garfield, Utah
Ubia. Inc.,
Crankton , R.I.
Ou Pont,
Petrochemicals'
Victoria, lex.
Ou Pont,
Petrochemicals'
Sabine, Tex.
Ou Pont's Cape
fear Plant,
Hilmington. N.C.
22
37
33
33
3411
28
28
28
1
Product
Textiles
Automobiles
Copper
Copper
Electroplating
job shop
Petrochemicals
Petrochemicals
Chemicals
Haste Minimization Method Description
Undergo recycling through redesign of rinse boxes to
counter-current rinse system, dropping amount of
rinsewater and producing concentrated feed for
ultrafHtratlon.
Side-stream separator technology for control of coal-
fired boiler participate emissions.
Replacement of copper smelting using a reverberatory
furnace by the Outokumpu flash smelting process to
facilitate sulfur recovery and energy saving.
Use of the Noranda continous process for copper
smelting to facilitate sulfur and energy saving.
Replacement of counter-current flow rinsing by the
Providence method, which removes the majority of
contaminating dragout In small volume before using a
flowing rinse to reduce wastewater volume and to alow
for recovery of plating solution.
Use of a new process to produce adlponitrile (ADN)
which eliminates one Intermediate to reduce
wastewater.
Recovery and sale of alumina Instead of off-side
disposal.
Distillation of waste materials to recover feed
materials for other processes, burning of distilla-
tion residues for energy.
Reduction in sludge volume using a belt-filter press.
Substitution .of safer solvents and disposal of solvent
on-slte by incineration
Incineration of acid waste, recovery of cobalt for
reformulation as catalyst in dimethyl terephthalate
(DMT) manufacturing process.
Recovery of raw materials from byproduct stream in DMT
manufacture, burning of off-gtses to generate heat.
Haste Reduction
Percent | Quantity
38.0-62.0
94.0
(waste-
water)
50.0
(waste-
water)
80.0
55.6
35.0-40.0
(overall)
400
gal/min
h 1
Classification
h
Process modlf .
Treatment
Process modlf.
Process modif.
Process nodif.
Process modlf.
Recovery/reuse
Recovery
Treatment
Process modif.
Recovery/reuse
Recovery
Number of
Employees
Year
(')
Objective
('«)
Capital
Investment
($ 1,000)
Annual Cost
Savings
(t 1,000)
e 1
Payback
Period
I
I—>
ro
(*) a:after;b:before / ('») HM:naste m1niin1zation;Tech:technical 1mprovement;YM:y1eld maximization.
-------
APPENDIX H (continued).
# — - —
Casa
ftirt
no
9)
100
101
102
103
101
105
ioe
10T
108
109
t
Ref
6
t
(
1
(
7
I
7
7
1
1
t
Conpany and
II rvjit Irvt
LOCfll (On
Monsanto, Baxlty,
6a.
Monsanto,
Anntston, Ala.
Sadlscht Corp.
Allied Corp.
Htrcultt, Inc.
3M, St. Paul.
N1nn.
3M, Magnetic
Materials Re-
sources Olv.,
Cottage Grove,
Minn.
3N, Decorative
Products Olv.,
Nevada, Mo.
3M, Hiker
Laboratories,
Northrldge, Calif.
Rexhan Corp.,
Suiter, S.C.
Southern Coating,
Suiter. S.C.
,
SIC
fft/tm
IvuV
21
217}
21
21
21
27
2ISI
Product
Paper cheetcals
Pesticides
Cheilcels
Cheelcals
Various
Pheriaceutlcels
Printing
Paints, coatings
Matte Nin1«1iat1on Method Description
Sale of sodtui hydroxide as a neutral lier Instead of
disposal.
Recovery of sulfur Mste to be used In parclthlon
Insecticide eanufacture.
Recovery of Hterlali froe Haste, burning of Mste as
boiler fuel.
Sale of by-products Instead of disposal.
Sale of Haste street (sodiw-organic-acid salt streai)
instead of disposal.
Recovery of sulfurlc acid fro* spent scrubbing Mdiue
generated froe other fires.
Recovery of spent solvent* by distillation.
Reeoval of organic! froe) MStevater wing biological
treatient lysttes.
Burning solvent-laden air (SLA) in boilers to recover
energy and reduce Mission level.
Recovery of aMontu* sulfete fnxa vasteMter vhlch is
subsequently processed end sold as ferti liter.
Redesigning pan to reduce the aanunt of coating solu-
tion required and to decrease the pan clean-up tie*.
Replacing solvent-based by e Hater-based Mdlclne
tablet coating to reduce air pollution and shorten
clean-up tie*.
Recovery and sale of solvent vapors for reuse.
Recovery of solvent by distillation nhich Is sub-
sequently used for cleanup.
Haste
Percent
112
•Illton
Ibs sold
in 1911
"100.0
(solvent)
Reduction
Quantity
5. 000.000
Ib/yr
(
Classification
'
Reuse
Recovery/reuse
Recovery
Reuse
Reuse
Recovery
Recovery
Treatment
Reuse/tr*ata*nt
Recovery/reuse
Product subst'n
Recovery/reuse
Recovery/re-
claMtion
i
Nucber of
Employees
>
Year
(ti
•J
'
i
Objective
(Ml
/
Capital
InvastMflt
(t 1.000)
<
Annual Cost
Savings
(t 1.000)
100
1.000
1SS
11
«
Payback
«_., j_j
Par loo
I
I—'
CJ
(•) a:efter;b:before / (•') NM:vaste •In1iizat1on;lech:techn1cal Improvement;YM:y1«ld Mxtiliation.
-------
APPENDIX H (continued).
Case
No
110
111
112
113
114
115
Ref
8
8
8
8
8
8
Company and
Location
Bowling Co., Mt.
Olive, N.C.
Lenoir Minor, Co.,
Lenoir. N.C.
Thiele-Engdahl,
Hinston-Salem,
N.C.
Hestinghouse
Electric Meter
Plant, Raleigh,
N.C.
Celanese Fiber
Operations,
Charlotte, N.C.
Burlington Furni-
ture Co.,
Lexington, N.C.
SIC
Code
2521
27
2893
3825
2823
2824
2521
Product
Hood office fur-
niture
Printing
Solvent-based Ink
Electric meters
Polyester resins
and fibers,
cellulosies.
Hood furniture
Haste Minimization Method Description
Recovery and reuse of spent acetone as thinner.
Burning of spent lacquer for heat recovery.
Recovery of xylene contaminated with paint by pot
distillation.
Rcovery of spent isopropyl acetate by pot distilla-
tion. The solvent Is resued for equipment cleanup.
Recovery of perchloroethylene and Freon IMS degreaser
by distillation.
Recovery of Freon THC and Dowthem solvents by
distillation.
Burning of concentrated MeO-acetone mixture In cement
kilns for heat recovery.
Burning of spent solvents for heat recovery.
Haste
Percent
Reduction
Quantity
Classification
1
Recovery/reuse
Recovery/treat-
ment
Recovery
Recovery/reuse
Recovery
Recovery
Recovery/treat-
ment
ment
Number of
Employees
Year
(ft \
*)
Objective
(** \
**)
Capital
Investment
($ 1.000)
Annual Cost
Savings
(1 1,000)
t 4
Payback
Period
(») a:after;b:before / (**) HM:waste »inii>ization;Tech:techn1cal improvement;YM:yield max1»izat1on.
-------
APPENDIX I
ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITING POLICY STATEMENT
-------
Wednesday
July 9, 1986
Part IV
Environmental
Protection Agency
Environmental Auditing Policy Statement;
Notice
-------
25004
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 1986 / Notices
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[OPPE-FRL-3046-6]
Environmental Auditing Policy
Statement
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final policy statement.
SUMMARY: It is EPA policy to encourage
the use of environmental auditing by
regulated entities to help achieve and
maintain compliance with
environmental laws and regulations, as
well as to help identify and correct
unregulated environmental hazards.
EPA first published this policy as
interim guidance on November 8,1985
(50 FR 46504). Based on comments
received regarding the interim guidance.
the Agency is issuing today's final
policy statement with only minor
changes.
This final policy statement •
specifically:
• Encourages regulated entities to
develop, implement and upgrade
environmental auditing programs;
• Discusses when the Agency may or
may not request audit reports:
• Explains how EPA's inspection and
enforcement activities may respond to
regulated entities' efforts to assure
compliance through auditing;
• Endorses environmental auditing at
federal facilities:
• Encourages state and local
environmental auditing initiatives: and
• Outlines elements of effective audit
programs*
Environmental auditing includes a
variety of compliance assessment
techniques which go beyond those
legally required and are used to identify
actual and potential environmental
problems. Effective environmental
auditing can lead to higher levels of
overall compliance and reduced risk to
human health and the environment. EPA
endorses the practice of environmental
auditing and supports its accelerated
use by regulated entities to help meet
the goals of federal, state and local
environmental requirements. However.
the existence of an auditing program
does not create any defense to. or
otherwise limit, the responsibility of any
regulated entity to comply with
applicable regulatory requirements.
States are encouraged to adopt these
or similar and equally effective policies
in order to advance the use of
environmental auditing on a consistent,
nationwide basis.
DATES: This final policy statement is
effectiv-R July 9.1986.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Leonard Fleckenstein, Office of Policy.
Planning and Evaluation, (202) 382-
2726;
or
Cheryl Wasserman, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance
Monitoring, (202) 382-7550.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITING
POLICY STATEMENT
I. Preamble
On November 8. 1985 EPA published
an Environmental Auditing Policy
Statement effective as interim guidance,
and solicited written comments until
January 7,1986.
Thirteen commenters submitted
written comments. Eight were from
private industry. Two commenters
represented industry trade associations.
One federal agency, one consulting firm
and one law firm also submitted
comments.
Twelve commenters addressed EPA
requests for audit reports. Three
comments per subject were received
regarding inspections, enforcement
response and elements of effective
environmental auditing. One coznmenter
addressed audit provisions as remedies
in enforcement actions, one addressed
environmental auditing at federal
facilities, and one addressed the
relationship of the policy statement to
state or local regulatory agencies.
Comments generally supported both the
concept of a policy statement and the
interim guidance, but raised specific
concerns with respect to particular
language and policy issues in sections of
the guidance.
General Comments
Three commenters found the interim
guidance to be constructive, balanced
and effective at encouraging more and
better environmental auditing.
Another commenter, while
considering the policy on the whole to
be constructive, felt that new and
identifiable auditing "incentives" should
be offered by EPA. Based on earlier
comments received from industry, EPA
believes most companies would not
support or participate in an "incentives-
based" environmental auditing program
with EPA. Moreover, general promises
to forgo inspections or reduce
enforcement responses in exchange for
companies' adoption of environmental
auditing programs—the "incentives"
most frequently mentioned in this
context—are fraught with legal and
policy obstacles.
Several commenters expressed
concern that states or localities might -
use the interim guidance to require
auditing. The Agency disagrees that the
policy statement opens the way for
states and localities to require auditing.
No EPA policy can grant states or
localities any more (or less) authority
than, they already possess. EPA believes
that the interim guidance effectively
encourages voluntary auditing. In fact
Section II.B. of the policy states:
."because audit quality depends to a
large degree on genuine management
commitment to the program and its
objectives, auditing should remain a
voluntary program."
Another commenter suggested that
EPA should not expect an audit to
identify all potential problem areas or
conclude that a problem identified in an
audit reflects normal operations and
procedures. EPA agrees that an audit
report should clearly reflect these
realities and should be written to point
out the audit's limitations. However,
since EPA will not routinely request
audit reports, the Agency does not
believe these concerns raise issues
which need to be addressed in the
policy statement
A second concern expressed by the
same commenter was that EPA should
acknowledge that environmental audits
are only part of a successful
environmental management program
and thus should not be expected to
cover every environmental issue or
solve ail problems. EPA agrees and
accordingly has amended the statement
of purpose which appears at the end of
this preamble.
Yet another commenter thought EPA
should focus on environmental
performance results (compliance or non-
compliance), not on tile processes or
vehicles used to achieve those results. In
general, EPA agrees with this statement
and will continue to focus on
environmental results. However, EPA
also believes that such results can be
improved through Agency efforts to
identify and encourage effective
environmental management practices,
and will continue to encourage such
practices in non-regulatory ways.
A final general comment
recommended that EPA should sponsor
seminars for small businesses on how to
start auditing programs. EPA agrees that
such seminars would be useful.
However, since audit seminars already
are available from several private sector
organizations. EPA does not believe it
should intervene in that market, with the
possible exception of seminars for
government agencies, especially federal
agencies, for which EPA has a broad
mandate under Executive Order 12088 to
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 131 / Wednesday. July 9. 1986 / Notices
23003
provide technical assistance for
environmental compliance.
Requests for Reports
EPA received 12 comments regarding
Agency requests for environmental audit
reports, far more than on any other topic
in the policy statement. One commenter
felt that EPA struck an appropriate
balance between respecting the need for
self-evaluation with some measure of
pr.vacy, and allowing the Agency
enough flexibility of inquiry to
accomplish future statutory missions.
However, most comraenters expressed
concern that the interim guidance did
not go far enough to assuage corporate
fears that EPA will use audit reports for
environmental compliance "witch
hunts." Several commenters suggested
additional specific assurances regarding
the circumstances under which EPA will
request such reports.
One commenter recommended that
EPA request audit reports only "when
the Agency can show the information it
needs to perform its statutory mission
cannot be obtained from the monitoring,
compliance or other data that is
otherwise reportable and/or accessible
to EPA. or where the Government deems
an audit report material to a criminal
investigation." EPA accepts this
recommendation in part. The Agency
believes it would not be in the best
interest of human health and the
environment to commit to making a
"showing" of a compelling information
need before ever requesting an audit
report. While EPA may normally be
willing to do so, the Agency cannot rule
out in advance all circumstances in
which such a showing may not be
possible. However, it would be helpful
to further clarify that a request for an
audit report or a portion of a report
normally will be made when needed
information is not available by
alternative means. Therefore. EPA has
revised Section m.A., paragraph two
and added the phrase: "and usually
made where the information needed
cannot be obtained from monitoring,
reporting or other data otherwise
available to the Agency."
Another commenter suggested that
(except in the case of criminal
investigations) EPA should limit
requests for audit documents to specific
questions. By including the phrase "or
relevant portions of a report" in Section
IILA., EPA meant to emphasize it would
not request an entire audit document
when only a relevant portion would
suffice. Likewise, EPA fully intends not
to request even a portion of a report if
needed information or data can be
otherwise obtained. To further clarify
this point EPA has added the phrase,
"most likely focused on particular
information needs rather than the entire
report," to the second sentence of
paragraph two, Section m.A.
incorporating the two comments above,
the first two sentences in paragraoh two
of final Section IILA. now read: "EPA's
authority to request an audit report, or
relevant portions thereof, will be
exercised on a case-by-case basis where
the Agency determines it is needed to
accomplish a statutory mission or the
Government deems it to be material to a
criminal investigation. EPA expects such
requests to be limited, most likely
focused on particular information needs
rather than the entire report, and usually
made where the information needed
cannot be obtained from monitoring,
reporting or other data otherwise
available to the Agency."
Other commenters recommended that
EPA not request audit reports under any
circumstances, that requests be
"restricted totmlythose legally
required," that requests be limited to
criminal investigations, or that requests
be made only when EPA has reason to
believe "that the audit programs or
reports are being used to conceal
evidence of environmental non-
compliance or otherwise being used in
bad faith." EPA appreciates concerns
underlying all of these comments and
has considered each carefully. However,
the Agency believes that these
recommendations do not strike the
appropriate balance between retaining
the flexibility to accomplish EPA's
statutory missions in future, unforeseen
circumstances, and acknowledging
regulated entities' need to self-evaluate
environmental performance with some
measure of privacy. Indeed, based on
prime informal comments, the small
number of formal comments received,
and the even smaller number of adverse
comments, EPA believes the final policy
statement should remain largely
unchanged from the interim version.
Elements of Effective Environmental
Auditing
Three commenters expressed
concerns regarding the seven general
elements EPA outlined in the Appendix
to the interim guidance.
One commenter noted that were EPA
to further expand or more fully detail
such elements, programs not specifically
fulfilling each element would then be
judged inadequate. EPA agrees that
presenting highly specific and
prescriptive auditing elements could be
counter-productive by not taking into
account numerous factors which vary
extensively from one organization to
another, but which may still result in
effective auditing programs.
Accordingly. EPA does not plan to
expand or more fully detail these
auditing elements.
Another commenter asserted tha!
states and localities should be cautioned
not to consider EPA's auditing elements
as mandatory steps. The Agency is ruliy
axvare of this concern and in the interim
guidance noted its strong opinion that
"regulatory agencies should not attempt
to prescribe the precise form and
structure of regulated entities'
environmental management or auditing
programs." While EPA cannot require
state or Iocs! regulators to adopt this or
similar policies, the Agency does
strongly encourage them to do so. both
in the interim and final policies.
A final commenter thought the
Appendix too specifically prescribed
what should and what should not be
included in an auditing program. Other
commenters. on the other hand, viewed
the elements described as very general
in nature. EPA agrees with these other
commenters. The elements are in no
way binding. Moreover. EPA believes
that most mature, effective
environmental auditing programs do
incorporate each of these general
elements in some form, and considers
them useful yardsticks for those
considering adopting or upgrading audit
programs. For these reasons EPA has
not revised the Appendix in today's
final policy statement.
Other Comments
Other significant comments addressed
EPA inspection priorities for, and
enforcement responses to, organizations
with environmental auditing programs.
©ne commenter, stressing that audit
programs are internal management
tools, took exception to the phrase in the
second paragraph of section IILB.l. of
the interim guidance which states that
environmental audits can 'complement'
regulatory oversight. By using the word
'complement' in this context, EPA does
not intend to imply that audit reports
must be obtained by the Agency in order
to supplement regulatory inspections.
'Complement' is used in a broad sense
of being in addition to inspections and
providing something (i.e., self-
assessment) which otherwise would be
lacking. To clarify this point EPA has
added the phrase "by providing self-
assessment to assure compliance" after
"environmental audits may complement
inspections" in this paragraph.
The same commenter also expressed
concern that, as EPA sets inspection
priorities, a company having an audit
program could appear to be a 'poor
performer' due to complete and accurate
reporting when measured against a
-------
25006 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 131 / Wednesday. }uly 9. 1986 / Notices
company which reports something less
than required by law. EPA agrees that it
is important to communicate this- fact to
Agency and state personnel, and will do
so. However, the Agency does not
believe a change in the policy statement
is necessary.
A further comment suggested EPA
should commit to take auditing
programs into account when assessing
all enforcement actions. However, in
order to maintain enforcement flexibility
under varied circumstances, the Agency
cannot promise reduced enforcement
responses to violations at all audited
facilities when other factors may be
overriding. Therefore the policy
statement continues to state that EPA
may exercise its decretion to consider
auditing programs as evidence of honest
and genuine efforts to assure
compliance, which would then be taken
into account in fashioning enforcement
responses to violations.
A final commenter suggested the
phrase "expeditiously correct •
environmental problems" not be used in
the enforcement context since it implied
EPA would use an entity's record of
correcting nonregulated matters when
evaluating regulatory violations. EPA
did not intend for such an inference to
be made. EPA intended the term
"environmental problems" to refer to the
underlying circumstances which
eventually lead up to the violations. To
clarify this point, EPA is revising the
first two sentences of the paragraph to
which this comment refers by changing
"environmental problems" to "violations
and underlying environmental
problems" in the first sentence and to
"underlying environmental problems" in
the second sentence.
In a separate development EPA is
preparing an update of its January 1984
Federal Facilities Compliance Strategy.
which is referenced in section 111. C. of
the auditing policy. The Strategy should
be completed and available on request
from EPA's Office of Federal Activities
later this year.
EPA thanks all commenters for
responding to the .November 8,1985
publication. Today's notice is being
issued to inform regulated entities and
the public of EPA's final policy toward
environmental auditing. This policy was
developed to help (a) encourage
reculated entities to institutionalize
effective audit practices as one means of
improving compliance and sound
environmental management and (b)
guide internal EPA actions directly
related to regulated entities'
environmental auditing programs.
EPA will evaluate implementation of
this final policy to ensure it meets the
aoove goals and continues to encourage
better environmental management
while strengthening the Agency's own
efforts to monitor and enforce
compliance with environmental
requirements.
II. General EPA Policy on
Environmental Auditing
A. Introduction
Environmental auditing is a
systematic, documented, periodic and
objective review by regulated entities '
of facility operations and practices
related to meeting environmental
requirements. Audits can be designed to
accomplish any or all of the following:
verify compliance with environmental
requirements: evaluate the effectiveness
of environmental management systems
already in place; or assess risks from
regulated and unregulated materials and
practices.
Auditing serves as a quality assurance
check to help improve the effectiveness
of basic environmental management by
verifying that management practices are
in place, functioning and adequate.
Environmental audits evaluate, and are
not a substitute for, direct compliance
activities such as obtaining permits,
installing controls, monitoring
compliance, reporting violations, and
keeping records. Environmental auditing
may verify but does not include
activities required by law, regulation or
permit (e.g.. continuous emissions
monitoring, composite correction plans
at wagtewater treatment plants, etc.).
Audits do not in any way replace
regulatory agency inspections. However,
environmental audits can improve
compliance by complementing
conventional federal. Ifate and local
oversight.
The appendix to this policy statement
outlines some basic elements of
environmental auditing (e.g., auditor
independence and top management
support) for use by those considering
implementation of effective auditing
programs to help achieve and maintain
compliance. Additional information on
environmental auditing practices can be
found in vanous published materials.2
1 "Regulated entities" include pnvate firms and
public agencies with facilities subtect to
environmental regulation. Public agencies can
include federal, state or local agencies as well as
special-purpose organizations such as regional
sewage commissions.
* See. e.g.. "Current Practices in Environmental
Auditing." EPA Report No. EPA-ZMW»-«3-006.
February 1984. "Annotated Bibliograpny on
Environmental Auditing," Fifth Edition. September
1985. both available from- Resuiatorv Reform Slaff.
PM-223. EPA. 401 M Street SW. Washington. DC
20460.
Environmental auditing has developed
for sound business reasons, particularly
as a means of helping regulated entities
manage pollution control affirmatively
over time instead of reacting to crises.
Auditing can result in improved facility
environmental performance, help
communicate effective solutions to
common environmental problems, focus
facility managers' attention on current
and upcoming regulatory requirements.
and generate protocols and checklists
which help facilities better manage
themselves. Auditing also can result in
better-integrated management of
environmental hazards, since auditors
frequently identify environmental
liabilities which go beyond regulatory
compliance. Companies, public entities
and federal facilities have employed a
variety of environmental auditing
practices in recent years. Several
hundred major firms in diverse
industries now have environmental
auditing programs, although they often
are known by other names such as
assessment survey, surveillance, review
or appraisal
While auditing has demonstrated its
usefulness to those with audit programs,
many others still do not audit
Clarification of EPA's position regarding
auditing may help encourage regulated
entities to establish audit programs or
upgrade systems already in place.
B. EPA Encourages the Use of
Environmental Auditing
EPA encourages regulated entities to
adopt sound environmental
management practices to improve
environmental performance. In
particular. EPA encourages regulated
entities subject to environmental
regulations to institute environmental
auditing programs to help ensure the
adequacy of internal systems to achieve,
maintain and monitor compliance.
Implementation of environmental
auditing programs can result in better
identification, resolution and avoidance
of environmental problems, as well as
improvements to management practices.
Audits can be conducted effectively by
independent internal or third party
auditors. Larger organizations generally
have greater resources to devote to an
internal audit team, while smaller
entities might be more likely to use
outside auditors.
Regulated entities are responsible for
taking all necessary steps to ensure
compliance with environmental
requirements, whether or not they adopt
audit programs. Although environmental
laws do not require a regulated facility
to have an auditing program, ultimate
responsibility for the environmental
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 131 / Wednesday. July 9. 1986 / Notices
25007
performance of the facility lies with top
management, which therefore has a
strong incentive to use reasonable
means, such as environmental auditing,
to secure reliable information of facility
compliance status.
EPA does not intend to dictate.or
interfere with the environmental
management practices of private or
public organizations. Nor does EPA
intend to mandate auditing (though in
certain instances EPA may seek to
include provisions for environmental
auditing as part of settlement
agreements, as noted below). Because
environmental auditing systems have
been widely adopted on a voluntary
basis in the past and because audit
quality depends to a large degree upon
genuine management commitment to the
program and its objectives, auditing
should remain a voluntary activity.
III. EPA Policy on Specific
Environmental Auditing Issues
A. Agency Requests for Audit Reports'
EPA has broad statutory authority to
request relevant information on the
environmental compliance status of
regulated entities. However, EPA
believes routine Agency requests for
audit reports 3 could inhibit auditing in
the long run. decreasing both the
quantity and quality of audits
conducted. Therefore, as a matter of
policy. EPA will not routinely request
environmental audit'reports.
EPA's authority to request an audit
report or relevant portions thereof, will
be exercised on a case-by-case basis
where the Agency determines it is
needed to accomplish a statutory
mission, or where the Government
deems it to be material to a criminal
investigation. EPA expects such
requests to be limited, most likely
focused on particular information needs
rather than the entire report, and usually
made where the information needed
cannot be obtained from monitoring,
reporting or other data otherwise
available to the Agency. Examples
would likely include situations where:
audits are conducted under consent
decrees or other settlement agreements:
a company has placed its management
practices at issue by raising them as a
defense: or state of mind or intent are a
relevant element of inquiry, such as
during a criminal investigation. This list
1 An "onviroaimnial audit report" u a written
report wnich candidly and thoroughly presents
findings from a review, conducted as part of an
environmental audit as dncnbed in aecnon II-A.. of
facility environmental periormam and practice!.
An aucil report is not a substitute for compliance
momionne reports or other reports or records which
mav be required by EPA or other regulatory
agencies
is illustrative rather than exhaustive.
since there doubtless will be other
situations, not subject to prediction, in
which audit reports rather than
information may be required.
EPA acknowledges regulated entities'
need to self-evaluate environmental
performance with some measure of
privacy and encourages such activity.
However, audit reports may not shield
monitoring, compliance, or other
information, that would otherwise be
reportable and/or accessible to EPA.
even if there is no explicit 'requirement'
to generate that data.4 Thus, this policy
does not alter regulated entities' existing
or future obligations to monitoB record
or report information required under
environmental statutes, regulations or
permits, or to allow EPA access to that
information. Nor does this policy alter
EPA's authority to request and receive
any relevant information—including that
contained in audit reports-Hinder
various environmental statutes (e.g..
Clean Water Act section 308, Clean Air
Act sections 114 and 208) or in other
administrative or judicial proceedings.
Regulated entities also should be
aware that certain audit findings may by
law have to be reported to government
agencies. However, in addition to any
such requirements. EPA encourages
regulated entities to notify appropriate
State or Federal officials of findings
which suggest significant environmental
or public health risks, even when not
specifically required to do so.
B. EPA Response to Environmental
Auditing
1. General Policy
EPA will not promiseta forgo
inspections, reduce enforcement
responses, or offer other such incentives
in exchange for implementation of
environmental auditing or other sound
environmental management practices.
Indeed, a credible enforcement program
provides a strong incentive for regulated
entities to audit.
Regulatory agencies have an
obligation to assess source compliance
status independently and cannot
eliminate inspections for particular firms
or classes of firms. Although
environmental audits may complement
inspections by providing self-
assessment to assure compliance., they
are in no way a substitute for regulatory
oversight. Moreover, certain statutes
(e.g. RCRA) and Agency policies
establish minimum facility inspection
frequencies to which EPA will adhere.
However. EPA will continue to
address environmental problems on a
priority basis and will consequently
inspect facilities with poor
environmental records and practices
more frequently. Since effective
environmental auditing helps
management identify and promptly
correct actual or potential problems.
audited facilities' environmental
performance should improve. Thus,
while EPA inspections of self-audited
facilities will continue, to the extent that
compliance performance is considered
in setting inspection priorities, facilities
with a good compliance history may be
subject to fewer inspections.
In fashioning enforcement responses
to violations, EPA policy is to take into
account, on a case-by-case basis, the
honest and genuine efforts of regulated
entities to avoid and promptly correct
violations and underlying environmental
problems. When regulated entities take
reasonable precautions to avoid
noncompliance, expeditiously correct
underlying environmental problems
discovered through audits or other
means, and implement measures to
prevent their recurrence, EPA may
exercise its discretion to consider such
actions as honest and genuine efforts to
assure compliance. Such consideration
applies particularly when a regulated
entity promptly reports violations or
compliance data which otherwise were
not required to be recorded or reported
to EPA.
2. Audit Provisions as Remedies in
Enforcement Actions
EPA may propose environmental
auditing provisions in consent decrees
and in other settlement negotiations
where auditing could provide a remedy
for identified problems and reduce the
likelihood of similar problems recurring
in the future.9 Environmental auditing
provisions are most likely to be
proposed in settlement negotiations
where:
• A pattern of violations can be
attributed, at least in part, to the
absence or poor functioning of an
environmental management system: or
• The type or nature of violations
indicates a likelihood that similar
noncompliance problems may exist or
occur elsewhere in the facility or at
other facilities operated by the regulated
entitv.
4 See. for example. "Duiie> to Report or Disclose
Information on the Environmental Aspects of
Business Activities." Environmental Law Institute
report lo EPA. final report. September 1985.
s r_-A is developing guidance for use by Agency
negotiators in structuring appropriate environment**
audit urovisioas for consent decrees and older
settietaent negotiations.
-------
25008
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 131 / Wednesday. July 9. 1986 / Notices
Through this consent decree approach
and other means. EPA may consider
how to encourage effective auditing by
publicly owned sewage treatment works
(POTWs), POTWs often have
compliance problems related to
operation and maintenance procedures
which can be addressed effectively
through the use of environmental
auditing. Under its National Municipal
Policy EPA already is requiring many
POTWs to develop composite correction
plans to identify and correct compliance
problems.
C. Environmental Auditing at Federal
Facilities
EPA encourages all federal agencies
subject to environmental laws and
regulations to institute environmental
auditing systems to help ensure the
adequacy of internal systems to achieve,
maintain and monitor compliance.
Environmental auditing at federal
facilities can be an effective supplement
to EPA and state inspections. Such
federal facility environmental audit"
programs should be structured to
promptly identify environmental
problems and expenditiously develop
schedules for remedial action.
To the extent feasible. EPA will
provide technical assistance to help
federal agencies design and initiate
audit programs. Where appropriate. EPA
will enter into agreements with other
agencies to clarify the respective roles,
responsibilities and commitments of
each agency in conducting and
responding to federal facility
environmental audits.
With respect to inspections of self-
audited facilities (see section Ul.B.l
above) and requests for audit reports
(see section III.A above), EPA generally
will respond to environmental audits by
federal facilities in the same manner as
it does for other regulated entities, in
keeping with the spirit and intent of
Executive Order 12088 and the EPA
Federal Facilities Compliance Strategy
(January 1984. update forthcoming in
late 1986). Federal agencies should.
however, be aware that the Freedom of
Information Act will govern any
disclosure of audit reports or audit-
generated information requested from
federal agencies by the public.
When federal agencies discover
significant violations through an
environmental audit, EPA encourages
them to submit the related audit findings
and remedial action plans expeditiously
to the applicable EPA regional office
(and responsible state agencies, where
appropriate) even when not specifically
required to do so. EPA will review the
audit findings and action plans and
either provide written approval or
negotiate a Federal Facilities
Compliance Agreement. EPA will utilize
the escalation procedures provided in
Executive Order 12088 and the EPA
Federal Facilities Compliance Strategy
only when agreement between agencies
cannot be reached. In any event federal
agencies are expected to report pollution
abatement projects involving costs
(necessary to correct problems
discovered through the audit) to EPA in
accordance with OMB Circular A-106.
Upon request and in appropriate
circumstances, EPA will assist affected
federal agencies through coordination of
any public release of audit findings with
approved action plans once agreement
has been reached.
IV. Relationship to State or Local
Regulatory Agencies
State and local regulatory agencies
have independent jurisdiction over
regulated entities. EPA encourages them
to adopt these or similar policies, in
order to advance the use of effective
environmental auditing in a consistent
manner.
EPA recognizes that some states have
already undertaken environmental
auditing initiatives which differ
somewhat from this policy. Other states
also may want to develop auditing
policies which accommodate their
particular needs or circumstances.
Nothing in this policy statement is
intended to preempt or preclude states
from developing other approaches to
environmental auditing. EPA encourages
state and local authorities to consider
the basic principles which guided the
Agency in developing this policy:
• Regulated entities must continue to
report or record compliance information
required under existing statutes or
regulations, regardless of whether such
information is generated by an
environmental audit or contained in an
audit report. Required information
cannot be withheld merely because it is
generated by an audit rather than by
some other means.
• Regulatory agencies cannot make
promises to forgo or limit enforcement
action against a particular facility or
class of facilities in exchange for the use
of environmental auditing systems.
However, such agencies may use their
discretion to adjust enforcement actions
on a case-by-case basis in response to
honest and genuine efforts by regulated
entities to assure environmental
compliance.
• When setting inspection priorities
regulatory agencies should focus to the
extent possible on compliance
performance and environmental results.
• Regulatory agencies must continue
to meet minimum program requirements
(e.g.. minimum inspection requirements,
etc.).
• Regulatory agencies should not
attempt to prescribe the precise form
and structure of regulated entities*
environmental management or auditing
programs.
An effective state/federal partnership
is needed to accomplish the mutual goal
of achieving and maintaining high levels
of compliance with environmental laws
and regulations. The greater the
consistency between state or local
policies and this federal response to
environmental auditing, the greater the
degree to which sound auditing
practices might be adopted and
compliance levels improve.
Dated: June 28.1986.
Lee M. Thomas.
Administrator.
Appendix—Elements of Effective
Environmental Auditing Program*
Introduction: Environmental auditing
is a systematic, documented, periodic
and objective review by a regulated
entity of facility operations and
practices related to meeting
, environmental requirements.
Private sector environmental audits of
facilities have been conducted for
several years and have taken a variety
of forms, in part to accommodate unique
organizational structures and
circumstances. Nevertheless, effective
environmental audits appear to have
certain discernible elements in common
with other kinds of audits. Standards for
internal audits have been documented
extensively. The elements outlined
below draw heavily on two of these
documents: "Compendium of Audit
Standards" (*>1983. Walter Willborn.
American Society for Quality Control)
and "Standards for the Professional
Practice of Internal Auditing" (°1981,
The Institute of Internal Auditors. Inc.).
They also reflect Agency analyses
conducted over the last several years.
Performance-oriented auditing
elements are outlined here to help
accomplish several objectives. A general
description of features of effective.
mature audit programs can help those
starting audit programs, especially
federal agencies and smaller businesses.
These elements also indicate the
attributes of auditing EPA generally
considers important to ensure program
effectiveness. Regulatory agencies may
use these elements in negotiating
environmental auditing provisions for
consent decrees. Finally, these elements
can help guide states and localities
considering auditing initiatives.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 131 / Wednesday. July 9, 1986 / Notices
25009
An effective environmental auditing
system will likely include the following
general elements:
L Explicit top management support for
environmental auditing and
commitment to follow-up on audit
findings. Management support may be
demonstrated by a written policy
articulating upper management support
for the auditing program, and for
compliance with all pertinent
requirements, including corporate
policies and permit requirements as well
as federal, state and local statutes and
regulations.
Management support for the auditing
program also should be demonstrated
by an explicit written commitment to
follow-up on audit findings to correct
identified problems and prevent their
recurrence.
E. An environmental auditing function
independent of audited activities. The
status or organizational locus of
environmental auditors should be
sufficient to ensure objective and
unobstructed inquiry, observation and
testing. Auditor objectivity should not
be impaired by personal relationships,
financial or other conflicts of interest,
interference with free inquiry or
judgment, or fear of potential
retribution.
HL Adequate team staffing and
auditor training. Environmental auditors
should possess or have ready access to
the knowledge, skills, and disciplines
needed to accomplish audit objectives.
Each individual auditor should comply
with the company's professional
standards of conduct Auditors, whether
full-time or part-time, should maintain
their technical and analytical
competence through continuing
education and training.
IV. Explicit audit program objectives,
scope, resources and frequency. At a
minimum, audit objectives should
include assessing compliance with
applicable environmental laws and
evaluating the adequacy of internal
compliance policies, procedures and
personnel training programs to ensure
continued compliance.
Audits should be based on a process
which provides auditors: all corporate
policies, permits, and federal, state, and
local regulations pertinent to the facility;
and checklists or protocols addressing
specific features that should be
evaluated by auditors.
Explicit written audit procedures
generally should be used for planning
audits, establishing audit scope,
examining and evaluating audit findings,
communicating audit results, and
following-up.
V. A process which collects, analyzes.
interprets and documents information
sufficient to achieve audit objectives.
Information should be collected before
and during an onsite visit regarding
environmental compliance) 7).
environmental management
effectiveness!,?), and other matters {3}
related to audit objectives and scope.
This information should be sufficient.
reliable, relevant and useful to provide a
sound basis for audit findings and
recommendations.
a. Sufficient information is factual.
adequate and convincing so that a
prudent, informed person would be
likely to reach the same conclusions as
the auditor.
b. Reliable information is the best
attainable through use of appropriate
audit techniques.
c. Relevant information supports audit
findings and recommendations and is
consistent with the objectives for the
audit.
d. Useful information helps the
organization meet its goals.
The audit process should include a
periodic review of the reliability and
integrity of this information and the
means used to identify, measure,
classify and report it. Audit procedures,
including the testing and sampling
techniques employed, should be selected
in advance, to the extent practical, and
expanded or altered if circumstances
warrant. The process of collecting,
analyzing, interpreting, and
documenting information should provide
reasonable assurance that audit
objectivity is maintained and audit goals
are met
VI. A process which includes specific
procedures to promptly prepare candid,
clear and appropriate written reports on
audit findings, corrective actions, and
schedules for implementation.
Procedures should be in place to ensure
that such information is communicated
to managers, including facility and
corporate management, who can
evaluate the information and ensure
correction of identified problems.
Procedures also should be in place for
determining what internal findings are
reportable to state or federal agencies.
VII. A process which includes quality
assurance procedures to assure the
accuracy and thoroughness of
environmental audits. Quality assurance
may be accomplished through
supervision, independent internal
reviews, external reviews, or a
combination of these approaches.
Footnote* to Appendix
(7) A comprehensive assessment of
compliance with federal environmental
regulations requires an analysis of facility
performance against numerous
environmental statutes and implementing
regulations. These statutes include:
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Clean Air Act
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
Toxic Substances Control Act
Comprehensive Environmental Response.
Compensation and Liability Act
Safe Drinking Water Act
Federal Insecticide. Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act
Marine Protection. Research and Sanctuaries
Act
Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act
In addition, state and local government are
likely to have their own environmental laws.
Many states have been delegated authority to
administer federal programs. Many local
governments' building, fire, safety and health
codes also have environmental requirements
relevant to an audit evaluation.
(2) An environmental audit could go well
beyond the type of compliance assessment
normally conducted during regulatory
inspections, for example, by evaluating
policies and practices, regardless of whether
they are part of the environmental system or
the operating and maintenance procedures.
Specifically, audits can evaluate the extent to
which systems or procedures:
1. Develop organizational environmental
policies which: a. implement regulatory
requirements: b. provide management
guidance for environmental hazards not
specifically addressed in regulations:
2. Train and motivate facility personnel to
work in an environmentally-acceptable
manner and to understand and comply with
government regulations and the entitv 's
environmental policy;
3. Communicate relevant environmental
developments expeditious)}' to facility and
other personnel;
4. Communicate effectively with
government and the public regarding serious
environmental incidents;
5. Require third parties working for. with or
on behalf of the organization to follow its
environmental procedures;
-------
25010 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 131 / Wednesday. July 9. 1986 / Notices
6. Make proficient personnel available at
all times lo carry out environmental
(especially emergency) procedures:
7. incorporate environmental protection
into written operating procedures:
8. Apply best management practices and
operating procedures, including "good
housekeeping" techniques:
9. Institute preventive and corrective
mair'pnance systems to minimize actual and
poii, ..ui environmental harm:
10. Utilize best available process and
control technologies:
11. Use most-effective sampling and
monitoring techniques, test methods,
rrcordkeeping systems or reporting protocols
(beyond minimum legal requirements);
12. Evaluate causes behind any serious
environmental incidents and establish
procedures to avoid recurrence:
13. Exploit source reduction, recycle and
reuse potential wherever practical: and
14. Substitute materials or processes to
allow use of the least-hazardous substances
feasible.
(J) Auditors could also assess
environmental risks and uncertainties.
|FR Doc. 86-15423 Filed 7-8-86 8:45 am| *
MLLWOCOOE (SSO-SO-M
-------
APPENDIX J
DESCRIPTIONS OF STATE PROGRAMS
-------
APPENDIX J.I
CALIFORNIA
-------
J.I California
I. Legislative Background
California has been relatively active in efforts to promote hazardous waste
minimization. State programs include land disposal restrictions, regulatory
requirements for recycling some waste materials, different requirements for
hazardous waste facilities, depending on the type of waste processed, and fee and
tax assessments on generators and some disposal facilities. Financial assistance for
the purchase of pollution control equipment and for research, development, and
demonstrations of minimization technologies is also available in the forms of loans
and grants. California is sponsoring a study for the establishment of a waste
reduction program and already operates a waste exchange. Numerous publications
are also available through the California Department of Health Services.
In California, the volume of proposed legislation relating to hazardous waste
has increased dramatically in recent years. For the 1985 legislative session,
approximately 300 bills were introduced that dealt in some way with toxic or
hazardous contamination.
Significant pieces of hazardous waste legislation include the Hazardous Waste
Control Act of 1977 and the Hazardous Substances Account Act of 1981. The
former prescribed the regulation of hazardous waste by the State Department of
Health Services, set hazardous waste transport and land disposal rules, and
mandated that all recyclable materials be recycled where economically feasible.
The Hazardous Substances Account Act established a State fund for site cleanups
and specified a formula for taxes per ton of waste generated. Both acts have been
significantly amended since they were passed. For example, sections of the State
Health and Safety Code established by the California Hazardous Waste Control Act
of 1977 have been altered by recent legislation that ties fees on hazardous waste
generators to a variable base rate. Previously, the numerical amounts of these fees
had been specified.
-------
Phase-out of the land disposal of specified hazardous waste was not legislated,
but rather was enacted by the Executive Order of former Governor Jerry Brown on
the basis of a 1981 Department of Health Services study of land disposal
alternatives.
II. Regulatory Programs
A. Land Disposal Restrictions
Title 22, Article 15, of Chapter 30, Division 4, of the State of California's
hazardous and solid waste regulations specifies that the land disposal of certain
specified wastes is to be banned. The article sets forth the following schedule:
June 1, 1983 Banning of wastes containing free cyanides.
January 1, 1984 Banning of toxic metal wastes and polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs).
January 1, 1985 Banning of liquid wastes containing halogenated organic
compounds.
July 1, 1985 Banning of organic sludges, solids containing halogenated
organic compounds, and lab packs containing any of the
restricted wastes.
The above schedule is contingent upon a determination by the Department of
Health Services (DHS) that sufficient recycling and treatment capacity for the
wastes listed above will be permitted and fully operational by the day the landfill
restrictions take effect. In making its determination, the Department must consider:
• The technical feasibility of recycling or treatment to process substantially
all wastes subject to the land disposal restriction;
• The proximity of adequate recycling and treatment facilities to the
generators of the hazardous wastes; and
• The technical feasibility of reducing, recycling, or treating the hazardous
wastes at the point of generation.
Jl-2
-------
Revisions in the schedule to postpone the effective dates of the restrictions
must be followed by written notification to registered treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities within 15 days. At the time of this writing (December 1985), the
effective date of the land disposal restrictions on organic sludges, solids containing
halogenated organic compounds, and lab packs containing any of the restricted
hazardous wastes, has been changed from July 1, 1985, to July 8, 1987.
Exemptions from the land disposal restrictions include (1) drilling fluids spent
during exploration, development, and/or production of oil and gas, (2) mining
overburden, and (3) contaminated soils from the cleanup of toxic disposal sites,
unless it is determined that such soils can be recycled or treated. Variances for land
disposal of the restricted wastes may be granted by the DHS after consideration of
the following:
• The acute or chronic toxicity to humans, domestic livestock, and wildlife if
the restricted waste is ingested, inhaled, or absorbed through the skin;
• The immobility of the restricted waste in the land disposal environment;
• The persistence of this restricted waste in the land disposal environment;
• The ability of constituents of the restricted waste to bioaccumulate in
plants or animals; and
• The ability of the restricted waste to be isolated by land disposal.
In addition, in reviewing variance petitions, the DHS must consider the good
faith efforts of the petitioner plus any economic hardship caused by the use of
existing recycling or treatment facilities.
B. Formation of the Department of Waste Management
The formation of a new Department of Waste Management, as proposed by
current Governor George Deukmejian, is an endeavor to steamline the
administrative functions, reduce the costs, and increase the efficiency of the State's
waste management program. Justification for the reorganization is based on the
observation of current administrative inefficiencies, some of which are:
Jl-3
-------
The existence of 12 State agencies having duplicative and overlapping
functions;
The distribution of EPA funds to three State agencies, each of which pays
administrative overhead;
The duplication of inspections, permits, and cleanup orders; and
An inadequate recognition of public health and environmental issues and
slow progress in developing and implementing new hazardous waste
technologies.
At the time of this writing (January 1986), the latest reorganization plan had
been rejected by the State senate as incomplete; several political aspects are still
being debated, most notably, the composition and authority of the administrative
board of the toxics program.
C. Regulatory Promotion of Recycling
In California, generators of wastes deemed recyclable must recycle those
wastes or must, by request of the Department of Health Services, provide written
justification for not recycling them. Title 22, Article 12, of the State's hazardous
and solid waste regulations contains a list of wastes that the State considers
recyclable. The list comprises mainly organic wastes, alkalis, and unrinsed empty
containers used for hazardous chemicals.
In addition, the Department of Health Services has modified its regulatory
requirements relating to hazardous waste facilities in an effort to promote
recycling. These modifications, which went into effect in late August 1985, include:
• Changing the title of facilities that recycle hazardous waste from
"hazardous waste facility" to "resource recovery facility," provided certain
specifications are met;
• Simplifying permit requirements for facilities that recycle non-RCRA
hazardous wastes;
• Reducing permit requirements for facilities that handle large-volume,
low-hazard materials or that use recyclable materials as substitutes for raw
materials or commercial products; and
Jl-4
-------
• Establishing certain requirements for the management of recyclable spent
lead-acid storage batteries and waste elemental mercury.
Three series of resource recovery facilities are now defined: Series "A" for
Federal RCRA hazardous wastes, Series "B" for California, non-RCRA wastes, and
Series "C" for directly recyclable or large-volume, low-hazard wastes. A Series "A"
permit is very similar to the Federal RCRA permit, and most resource recovery
facilities of that type already have Federal RCRA permits. Series "B" and "C"
permit regulations lessen some of the permit application and processing stipulations
consistent with the degree of hazard posed by the waste handled. This is intended to
cut permit processing time and lessen the paperwork load for facility operators.
The designation "resource recovery facility" is intended to reduce the stigma
imposed by the title "hazardous waste facility" by differentiating those facilities
that recycle wastes from those that ultimately dispose of hazardous waste. The
objective is to make the siting of recycling facilities less of a problem.
D. Local Government Regulatory Requirements
In California, regulation of hazardous waste is also found at the county level.
In at least two counties, Santa Cruz and Sacramento, generators may be required to
employ special consultants or inspectors to conduct environmental audits if deemed
necessary by the county. In Santa Cruz County, the consultants must demonstrate
expertise to the satisfaction of the county. Their report must include an evaluation
of the facility and recommendations to the generator on how to comply with county
regulations. Within 30 days of issuing the report, the generator must file with the
county a plan for implementation of the recommendations or an explanation of why
the recommendations will not be implemented.
III. Fee and Tax Incentives
Under the Hazardous Waste Control Act, California imposes fees on hazardous
waste disposal according to the type of waste being handled. Prior to July 1, 1985,
Jl-5
-------
specified charges were levied on each ton of hazardous waste. These charges varied
according to whether the waste was hazardous, extremely hazardous, restricted,
etc., under the State's classification. Legislation passed during the 1985 session has
replaced these specified charges with a fee schedule anchored to a base rate
formula. Using the formula, the fees will depend upon the amount of waste
produced in the State. The formula is designed such that fees per ton generated will
increase as total tons generated fall. Revenues from the fees are collected in an
amount sufficient to cover the costs of administering the fee program plus a 5
percent operating margin.
Recent legislation has also shifted the burden of payment of these fees from
disposal facilities to hazardous waste generators. Disposal facilities are responsible
for paying fees only on their disposal of waste received from out-of-State
generators.
In addition to the hazardous waste control fees, generators are required to pay
taxes under the Hazardous Substances Account Act. The revenues from these taxes
revert to the Hazardous Substances Account, which is a site cleanup fund. These
"Superfund" taxes are based upon a formula much like the one for the generator
fees. The base rate for the tax is inversely related to the estimated number of tons
produced in the State.
IV. Loan and Bond Assistance
A. Pollution Control Financing
Assistance with pollution control financing is available through the California
Pollution Control Financing Authority. The assistance is provided in the form of
tax-exempt bond financing for the purchase of pollution equipment. The program
features:
• No limit on the amount of tax-exempt bond financing available; and
• Exemption from the State interest rate ceiling on industrial development
bonds.
Jl-6
-------
According to the Authority, annual interest rates on these bonds are 2 percent
to 5 percent lower than rates on funds from conventional sources, so that the cost of
borrowing capital to pay for pollution equipment is lower. The payback period is
also longer. Interest earned by the bond purchaser is exempt from taxation. A key
point of project eligibility for a bond issue is the Internal Revenue Service
requirement that pollution abatement facilities produce no material profit or
productivity increase for the operator, and that resource recovery facilities yield
useful forms of material or energy as a means of waste disposal alone.
B. The Hazardous Waste Reduction Incentives Account
The Hazardous Waste Reduction Incentives Account is currently funded at
$5,200,000 of which $2,600,000 is allotted to the California Pollution Control
Financing Authority. With this money, the Authority is permitted to contract with
financial institutions in support of the granting of credit to medium and small
generators for the purchase of waste-reducing equipment. The impetus for the
legislation establishing the account originated with the observation that medium and
small generators have had difficulty obtaining such financing because o.f their poor
credit and/or the high costs associated with obtaining loans. The Authority can
lower these costs by using the account to support interest rates and/or directly pay
loan costs. It may also use the account to cover its own costs from the issuance of
revenue bonds.
V. Grant Programs
The State of California provides funds for research and development by private
consultants and hazardous waste generators. A current example of work by
consultants is a study of the economic incentives to reduce hazardous waste (ICF
1985). Recent legislation has set aside funds to support research and development
by the public, private, and academic sectors, and to enable technology
demonstrations by cities, counties, and private firms.
Jl-7
-------
With the Hazardous Waste Reduction, Recycling, and Treatment Research and
Demonstration Act of 1985 (Assembly Bill 685), a grant program was established
within the Department of Health Services to disburse funds for the research,
development, and commercial demonstration of reduction, recycling, and treatment
technologies. The Act established two separate fund accounts, one for providing
research and development support to universities, governmental agencies, and
private organizations, and the other to facilitate technology demonstrations by
cities, counties, and private firms. For the demonstration project grants, one of the
following criteria must be met:
• The project must have onsite as well as offsite potential for reduction,
recycling, or treatment of hazardous wastes;
• The project must have the potential to benefit, or be used by, small
businesses; or
• The project must be potentially applicable to a range of industries.
Examples of reports put out or sponsored by State offices follow in Section VIII.
VI. Information Programs
A. The Waste Reduction Program
The Alternative Technology and Policy Department Section of the DHS's Toxic
Substance Control Division has outlined a program for the promotion of waste
reduction. The program, a responsibility of the Waste Reduction Unit, features
several approaches to the problem including technical assistance, information
transfer, regulatory measures, and economic incentives. Technical assistance would
include joint studies with industry associations of waste reduction possibilities for
large generators, studies of specific waste streams, and waste reduction audits for
small businesses. The plans for information transfer include the development of
regulatory fact sheets, of appropriate technology, and of financial incentives as well
as the use of seminars, biennial alternative technology reports, the California Waste
Exchange newsletter, and a technical reference center. The regulatory program
includes the California land disposal ban (which can be suspended for certain wastes
if capacities for alternative means of disposal do not exist), in addition to the
Jl-8
-------
economic incentives, both in place and planned, are grants and appropriations as
positive incentives for waste reduction activity, and generator fees and Superfund
taxes as disincentives to waste generation.
B. The California Waste Exchange
The California Waste Exchange is operated by the Resource Recovery Unit of
the Department of Health Services' Alternative Technology and Policy Development
Section. The program has been operating for approximately five years and currently
has three staff members.
To facilitate the exchange of wastes among generators, a newsletter is issued
quarterly containing listings on available or desired wastes. The listings are coded
and include information on waste type, concentrations, quantity, and the geographic
location of available or desired wastes. In addition, there are reports on changes in
State and Federal hazardous waste laws, regulations, and procedures.
The program also puts out a Directory of Industry Recylcers, which gives the
names and locations of recycling companies and the types of materials they
recycle. The listings are compiled from information obtained by questionnaires,
field reports, and telephone contacts. Only those facilities with a California
hazardous waste facility permit or with interim status documentation are listed.
The Directory is updated as appropriate.
VII. Award Programs
California currently has award programs to encourage minimization.
VIII. Publications and References
Alternative Technology and Policy Development Section. 1985. Directory of
industrial recyclers. Sacramento, Calif.: Department of Health Services.
Alternative Technology and Policy Development Section. 1985.
Newsletter/Catalog. Sacramento, Calif.: Department of Health Services.
Jl-9
-------
California Air Resources Board. 1983. Air pollution impact of hazardous waste
incineration: a California perspective.
. 1980. Disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls in California.
. 1982. Suggested control measures to reduce organic compound emissions
associated with volatile organic waste disposal.
. 1982. Technologies for the treatment and destruction of organic waste
as alternatives to land disposal.
California State Water Resources Control Board. 1983. Polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs).
ICF. 1985. Economic incentives for the reduction of hazardous wastes. Final
report prepared for Alternative Technology and Policy Development Section.
Sacramento, Calif.: Department of Health Services.
Radimsky, J., and Marx, R.E. 1983. Recycling and/or treatment capacity for
liquid hazardous wastes containing polychlorinated biphenyls. Alternative
Technology and Policy Development Section staff report. Sacramento, Calif.:
Department of Health Services.
Radimsky, J., Piacentini, R., and Diebler, P. 1983. Recycling and/or treatment
capacity for hazardous waste containing cyanides. Hazardous Waste
Management Branch staff report. Sacramento, Calif.: Department of Health
Services.
Radimsky, J., et al. 1983. Recycling and/or treatment capacity for hazardous
wastes containing dissolved metals and strong acids. Alternative Technology
and Policy Development Section staff report. Sacramento, Calif.: Department
of Health Services.
Radimsky, J., et al. 1984. Recycling and/or treatment capacity for hazardous
wastes containing halogenated organic compounds. Alternative Technology and
Policy Development Section draft report. Sacramento, Calif.: Department of
Health Services.
Radimsky, J., et al. 1984. Recycling and/or treatment capacity for hazardous
wastes containing polychlorinated biphenyls. Alternative Technology and Policy
Development Section draft report. Sacramento, Calif.: Department of Health
Services.
Stoddard, S.K. et al. 1981. Alternatives to the land disposal of hazardous
wastes; an assessment for California. Toxic Waste Assessment Group.
Sacramento: Governor's Office of Appropriate Technology, State of California.
Jl-10
-------
APPENDIX J.2
GEORGIA
-------
J.2 Georgia
Georgia's major effort to promote waste minimization is the Hazardous Waste
Onsite Consultation Program, a nonregulatory technical assistance program.
Proceeds from revenue bonds may also serve as incentives for recycling and source
reduction.
I. Legislative Background
The Georgia Hazardous Waste Management Act, adopted in 1979, established
the administration and enforcement procedures applying to the State's hazardous
waste regulatory effort. It authorized the Environmental Protection Division (EPD)
of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources as the lead agency in hazardous
waste regulation and set penalty fees for noncompliance at a maximum $25,000 per
day.
In 1981, the Georgia Hazardous Waste Management Authority Act created a
State Authority with the power to plan, construct, and operate/manage hazardous
waste facilities. The Authority was also empowered to charge fees for the use of
facilities under its operation.
II. Regulatory Programs
Hazardous waste rules in Georgia are the same as the Federal rules. The State
rules appear under Title 391, Natural Resources, Article 3, Environmental
Protection, Chapter 11, Hazardous Waste Management, where the Federal
regulations are directly cited.
III. Fee and Tax Incentives
Georgia currently uses no fee or tax incentive to encourage waste minimization.
IV. Loan and Bond Assistance
Proceeds from Georgia's general obligation revenue bonds may be used to pay
for project costs related to hazardous waste recycling and source reduction.
J2-J
-------
V. Grant Programs
Grants are available to cities and counties for solid waste management
endeavors, which may include resource recovery from hazardous waste (personal
communication with John Taylor, Georgia DNR, February 13, 1986). Thus far.
Georgia has not awarded grant monies to hazardous waste generators or other
organizations for research, development, or demonstrations of waste minimization
technologies.
VI. Information Programs
A. Hazardous Waste Education/Information Program
In June 1984, the EPD began a hazardous waste education program to increase
the public's awareness of existing sources and management options for hazardous
waste. The program promotes the concept of management of hazardous waste
alternatives to land disposal, e.g., hazardous waste reduction, treatment, and
recycling.
The program has three major components: (1) public meetings and workshops,
(2) media information coverage, and (3) school support. The most intensive
component is comprised of public meetings, speeches, and workshops. Workshops for
citizens and breakfast meetings for opinion leaders have been held in 18 cities
throughout Georgia. Concurrent with the workshops, the EPD has made
presentations to civic and professional groups, and numerous radio and TV
appearances. A major goal of the program is to inform the public on hazardous
waste issues and solutions and to encourage them to take an active role in the
decision-making process.
B. The Hazardous Waste Onsite Consultation Program
The Hazardous Waste Onsite Consultation Program (OSCP) is a pilot program
conducted by the Georgia Tech Research Institute's Environmental Health and
Safety Division. It is jointly funded by the Georgia Environmental Protection
Division (EPD) and the U.S. EPA, and was established in mid-1983 to determine
J2-2
-------
whether such a program could significantly aid the expanding community of
regulated waste generators in voluntarily complying with hazardous waste
regulations. Georgia's small- and medium-size businesses are expected to derive
the greatest benefit from the program.
The actual onsite evaluation involves several steps. 05CP is supplied with
preliminary information, and a visit to the facility is scheduled. The OSCP auditor
and a company representative then go over regulations and company processes
before touring the facility site. The auditor and representative discuss the auditor's
observations, and the auditor preliminarily assesses the facility's regulatory
compliance status. After the first visit, the auditor submits a confidential report
containing his identification and characterization of the waste streams, results of
any laboratory analysis, his final assessment of the facility's regulatory compliance,
and his recommendations to correct or improve any problems. A follow-up visit is
scheduled for sometime during the next year.
Assistance is also provided to firms in meeting reporting and pretransport
requirements and in preparing manifests. Additionally, program personnel can
review treatment, storage, and disposal alternatives and can provide guidance
concerning the financial requirements of complying with the regulations. No
engineering or analytical services are supported, and assistance is expected to be
short-term. The program is publicized in the media and through the regional offices
of Georgia Tech. As part of its educational function, the program conducts
seminars, workshops, and short courses.
VII. Award Programs
Both the Business Council of Georgia and the Georgia Department of
Community Affairs sponsor award programs that may encourage hazardous waste
recycling and source reduction. Each year, the Georgia Environmental Protection
Division nominates companies that have shown outstanding improvement in the
areas of air quality, water quality, and/or hazardous waste management to the
J2-3
-------
Business Council. The annual award given by the Georgia Department of
Community Affairs is for achievement in resource recovery (personal
communication with John Taylor, Georgia EPD, February 13, 1986).
VIII. Publications and References
Georgia Institute of Technology Research Institute. n.d. Fact sheet:
Hazardous Waste Onsite Consultation Program. Atlanta: Georgia Institute of
Technology.
Nemeth, J.C., and Kamperman, K.L. 1985. Small quantity generator
compliance manual. Hazardous and Industrial Waste Management Program.
Atlanta: Georgia Institute of Technology.
J2-4
-------
APPENDIX J.3
ILLINOIS
-------
J.3 Illinois
Illinois has attempted to minimize hazardous waste generation through the
regulatory strategies, fee incentives, loan and bond assistance, research and
information programs, as well as a waste exchange. The Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency, the Development Finance Authority, the Hazardous Waste
Research and Information Center, and the Industrial Materials Exchange Service are
just some of the organizations involved with waste minimization in Illinois.
I. Legislative Background
Waste control in Illinois began in 1970 with the Environmental Protection Act,
which created the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) and statutes
addressing the pollution problem. In the mid-1970s, the Act was amended to include
provisions on hazardous waste as the IEPA turned towards the regulation of waste
from industrial sources. Restrictions on the location of hazardous waste disposal
sites were added in 1979, as were provisions for long-term care of sites, for the
financial responsibility of owners, and for the establishment of a hazardous waste
fund financed through fees on hazardous waste disposal.
In 1981, the Environmental Protection Act was again amended, this time to
authorize a State regulatory program paralleling the Federal program. Also in 1981,
the General Assembly passed a bill banning land disposal of all liquid hazardous
wastes beginning January 1, 1987. In 1983, this schedule was accelerated to prohibit
landfill disposal of all liquid hazardous wastes after July 1, 1984, unless no
technically and economically feasible alternative existed.
Further revisions to the Environmental Protection Act in 1983 included an
increase in disposal and treatment fees and the requirement for an annual hazardous
waste report by regulated facilities. The Act was amended again in 1984 to list
certain dioxins as hazardous waste, to establish fees on waste handling, and to direct
the Department of Energy and Natural Resources to study the underground injection
of hazardous waste.
J3-1
-------
The State of Illinois has also launched the Chemical Safety Research Initiative,
which calls for toxicity testing of common chemicals and for State government
assistance to industries, communities, and local governments in coping with
hazardous waste problems.
An Illinois State Law, effective January 1, 1987, will require that recycling be
considered as a waste management practice prior to land disposal (Ferguson 1985).
II. Regulatory Programs
A. Land Disposal Ban
The Illinois Administrative Code (Title 35-Environmental Protection, Subtitle
G-Waste Disposal, Subchapter C: Hazardous Waste Operating Requirements, Part
729) stipulates that landfilling of certain wastes is prohibited. At this time, the
code prohibits the landfilling of all liquid hazardous wastes, of halogenated organic
solvents in nonaqueous liquid phase, and of solids containing halogenated organics
which, when combined with water, would form a liquid having concentrations in
excess of the specified minimum. To determine whether a waste is a liquid, the
State of Illinois uses not only the Federal paint filter test, but also its own
penetrometer test.
The land disposal ban on halogenated organics and liquid hazardous wastes went
into effect in July 1, 1984. Sludges and still bottoms resulting from the recycling of
halogenated organic solvents are excluded from the ban.
B. Special Generic Permits
Illinois has three classes of permits: (1) individual waste stream,
(2) development and/or construction, and (3) operating. Operators are usually
required to obtain permits for each waste stream in addition to their operating
permit. The Illinois EPA has developed a generic permit for operators, which allows
operators to receive more than one waste stream under a single permit. The generic
permit was created to expedite the facility permitting process.
J3-2
-------
III. Fee and Tax Incentives
The State of Illinois levies waste-end fees on hazardous waste which vary
according to the method of waste management employed. The fee structure is as
follows (Illinois Environmental Protection Act Sec. 22.2):
Waste going to treatment $0.01/gal or $2.02/cu. yd. ($10,000/yr. max.)
Land disposal $0.03/gal. or $6.06/cu. yd. ($10,000/yr. max.)
Underground injection $2,000/yr. for less than 10 million gals./yr.
$5,000/yr. for between 10 and 50 million
gals./yr.
$9,000/yr. for more than 50 million gals./yr.
IV. Loan and Bond Assistance
The Illinois Development Finance Authority (IDFA) conducts an environmental
control financing program for small businesses as defined by the Small Business
Administration. According to that definition, a business is small if, together with
all affiliates, it has:
a. A maximum net worth of $6,000,000 and an average net income of
$2,000,000 in the preceding two years, or
b. A maximum of 250 employees, though this number is the general maximum
with many specific industries (by SIC code) having larger limits.
The IDFA provides financing through issuance of environmental control revenue
bonds. The interest on these bonds is exempt from Federal income taxation.
Proceeds from bond sales are loaned to successful applicants for construction and/or
acquisition of environmental control facilities.
J3-3
-------
The State of Illinois does not guarantee repayment of bond obligations, but acts
solely to secure the tax exemption on the interest. Repayment terms, interest
rates, and other particulars of the financing are negotiated among the IDFAs, the
small business applicant, and the bond purchaser.
V. Grant Programs
Illinois awards research grants through the Hazardous Waste Research and
Information Center (see discussion under VI.A).
VI. Information Programs
A. The Hazardous Waste Research and Information Center
The Illinois Hazardous Waste Research and Information Center was created by
the Chemical Safety Research Initiative of 1983, which arose out of public concern
over hazardous waste disposal. The center has three programs: (1) research,
(2) technical information and information/data management, and (3) industrial and
technical assistance. Initial funds and activities have thus far focused on the
research program, which is staffed by a program coordinator, a research scientist,
and a collaborating scientist in each of three surveys (Natural History, Geological,
Water, and State Museum) within the Illinois Department of Energy and Natural
Resources. This group is investigating several alternative technologies to hazardous
waste disposal.
The Center began operation in June 1984 but was not fully staffed until the
summer of 1985. The Center has a director and is supported by an administrative
staff consisting of an executive secretary and a financial affairs officer. Additional
administrative support is received from Water Survey Office personnel.
For fiscal year 1985, the Center received $800,000 outright from the Illinois
legislature, another $200,000 from utility tax revenues, and $300,000 from
hazardous and solid waste disposal fees, for a total funding of $1.3 million. The
level of funding has remained approximately the same for fiscal year 1986.
J3-4
-------
In fiscal year 1985, research grants administered by the Center totalled
approximately $500,000. Research is promoted in four areas: (1) characterization
and assessment of hazardous waste; (2) environmental processes; (3) source
reduction; and (A) treatment and remediation. Most of the initial research work has
been on characterizing waste streams and assessing the quantity of waste
generated. Research projects for fiscal year 1986 contain further work in this area
and also include several studies of environmental processes and a study on waste
cleanup. The results of these studies will have some bearing on future grant
programs.
A hazardous materials laboratory is planned for the near future. It is expected
to be a state-of-the-art facility for research and pilot studies of hazardous wastes.
The lab is projected to cost approximately $8,000,000 to 10,000,000, and $200,000
has already been committed to the effort.
The research budget for fiscal year 1987 is anticipated to contain $100,000 for
matching grants to aid firms in studying the feasibility of waste reduction
measures. To fund its future research projects, the Center hopes eventually to
obtain funding from sources outside the State government.
B. The Industrial Materials Exchange Service
The Industrial Materials Exchange Service (IMES) completed four years of
operation as a passive waste exchange in April 1985. This waste exchange,
sponsored by the Illinois EPA and the Illinois State Chamber of Commerce, is being
cooperatively distributed through eight State and private sector agencies, including
the Illinois EPA (IMES 1985). Funding is by State government appropriations and is
currently at a level of approximately $300,000 per year.
In addition to its passive waste exchange operation, IMES conducted a pilot
study to actively identify possible waste exchanges. Thirty leads of potentially
recyclable waste streams were identified. Of those leads, one firm was already
J3-5
-------
applying for a permit to transfer the waste stream identified to the same company
that had been identified by the IMES staff; seven firms had waste streams that were
not reuseable, had insufficient quantities or concentrations, or were no longer
available. The remaining 22 firms were interested in following up on the potential
exchange (IMES 1985).
Over four years of operation, IMES reports that it has helped industry realize
costs benefits of $2.57 million while reusing and recycling approximately 12 million
gallons of waste. For the 1984 calendar year, industry profited over $1.21 million by
transferring over 900,000 gallons of waste through the IMES. A successful exchange
rate of 20 percent was estimated for 1984, the IMES believes that the actual rate
was higher (IMES 1985).
VII. Award Programs
Illinois presently has no award program that directly promotes hazardous waste
minimization.
VIII. Publications and References
Division of Land Pollution Control. 1984. Annual report on hazardous waste:
generation, treatment, storage and disposal. Springfield, 111.: Environmental
Protection Agency.
Ferguson, M. 1985. Waste exchange in North America: a coordinated
approach. IMES presentation at Haz Pro '85, 16 May 1985, Baltimore
Convention Center, Baltimore, Md.
HWRIC. 1985a. Hazardous Waste Research and Information Center. Industrial
and technical assistance program: status report (April-September 1985).
Savoy, 111.: Department of Energy and Nautral Resources.
. 1985b. Meeting the challenge of hazardous waste management in
Illinois. Champaign, 111.: Department of Energy and Natural Resources.
1985c. FY '85 progress report (May 1985). SWS/HWRIG Report 003. 111.
Department of Energy and Natural Resources.
. 1985d. Program plan for FY '86 (September 1985). HWRIC 005. 111.
Department of Energy and Natural Resources.
J3-6
-------
. 1984a. Plan for FY '85 (July 10, 1984). SWS/HWRIC Report 001. 111.
Department of Energy and Natural Resources.
. 1984b. Hazardous materials laboratory feasibility study (September
1984). SWS/HWRIC Report 002. 111. Department of Energy and Natural
Resources.
IMES. 1985. Industrial Material Exchange Service assessment report: April
1985. Springfield, 111.: Environmental Protection Agency.
. 1984. Industrial Material Exchange Service directory: August -
September 1984. Springfield, 111.: Environmental Protection Agency.
J3-7
-------
APPENDIX J.4
MASSACHUSETTS
-------
J.4 Massachusetts
Massachusetts has recognized the importance of minimizing hazardous waste
and is taking steps to develop a comprehensive source reduction program in the
Commonwealth. After lengthy analysis of the topic, the State has determined that
an effective program must be integrated with other State programs influencing
hazardous substance management. The State points to industry case studies that
show how far reaching source reduction efforts can minimize the use and release of
hazardous substances. Source reduction program development in Massachusetts
focuses on input substitution and plant-wide process improvements. Program
components may include coordination of regulatory programs in air, water,
hazardous waste, and right-to-know; improvements in reporting requirements to
enable better planning of source reduction efforts; and education and outreach
programs, which include technical and economic assistance.
I. Legislative Background
Massachusetts legislation that involves hazardous substance management
consists of (l)the Massachusetts Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1979
(Chapter 21C), which establishes the authority for development of a hazardous
waste management program; (2) the Massachusetts Hazardous Waste Facility Siting
Act of 1980 (Chapter 21D), which prescribes a process for siting new hazardous
waste management facilities; (3) the regulations pursuant to the Clean Air Act (310
Code of Massachusetts Regulations (CMR Section 6-8); (4) the regulations pursuant
to the Clean Water Act (314 CMR 1-9); (5) the Right-to-Know law (Chapter 11F;
105 CMR 670, 310 CMR 33, 441 CMR 21); and (6) the Massachusetts Oil and
Hazardous Materials Release Prevention and Response Act of 1983 (Chapter 2 IE),
which establishes a $75 million fund for State cleanup of uncontrolled waste disposal
sites to be paid for by a transporter fee.
Implementation of these laws is carried out by two State agencies: the
Department of Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE) and the Department of
Environmental Management (DEM), as well as by the Hazardous Waste Facility Site
J4-1
-------
Safety Council (HWFSSC). Overseeing DEM and DEQE is the Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs (EOEA). The Secretary of Environmental Affairs is in a
position analogous to that of the U.S. Secretary of the Interior. He has indicated
that the foundation of a hazardous waste management plan should include, among
other things:
• Development and enforcement of strict hazardous waste management
regulations;
• Reduction of the quantity of hazardous waste generated;
• Establishment of safe and well-managed treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities; and
• Establishment of public participation and education programs regarding
hazardous waste issues (Mass. DEM, p. 1-1).
The Massachusetts Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1979 (Chapter 210),
implemented by DEQE, is the act by which Massachusetts has taken primary
responsibility for administration of RCRA. DEQE has undertaken its responsibility
for the hazardous waste program in two phases. Phase I regulations, effective as of
July 1982, cover the management and administration of notification, manifests,
recordkeeping, and reporting for generators. The Phase II components, promulgated
in October 1983, essentially parallel RCRA Part B requirements.
In the FY 86 statutory budget, the Bureau of Solid Waste Disposal and its
Source Reduction Program were relocated from the Department of Environmental
Management (DEM) to the Department of Environmental Quality Engineering
(DEQE). In the fall of 1985, the Secretary of Environmental Affairs designated
DEQE as the lead agency to develop programs, plans, and policy for source
reduction. The Bureau of Solid Waste Disposal has continued to carry out
substantial research and planning activities to develop a comprehensive source
reduction program for Massachusetts, and will integrate these activities with
DEQE's regulatory programs in air, water, hazardous waste, and right-to-know, as
well as other agencies where appropriate. The Secretary of Environmental Affairs
has stated that source reduction activities, for the purpose of hazardous waste
generation and facilities needs data, as they relate to siting responsibilities, should
remain at DEM, operating in consultation with DEQE (personal communication with
Richard Bird, Massachusetts DEQE, February 13, 1986).
-------
The attention of the Department of Environmental Management (DEM) is
focused on a variety of hazardous waste issues, including public participation and
the siting of T5D facilities, household hazardous waste, an autobody shop recycling
program, and a coalitions program, which offers small grants to regional groups for
a variety of efforts. The Hazardous Waste Facility Site Safety Council is
responsible for implementation of the Siting Act with DEM (personal communication
with Pat Lebau, Massachusetts HWFSSC, February 13, 1986).
II. Regulatory Programs
The Massachusetts source reduction program does not consider recycling as part
of its program unless the recycling is an integral part of a manufacturing unit.
Nevertheless, the State has put substantial effort into creating a fair and effective
recycling regulatory program.
As of 1983, DEQE developed guidelines to encourage recycling. Hazardous
wastes that were reused, reclaimed, or burned as fuel were not subject to State
regulations regarding transportation and TSD facility licensing. Before a company
was eligible for regulatory relief, an application had to be filed with and approved
by DEQE. Compliance with terms and conditions stipulating operation was
necessary for approval of a request. The recycling permit was viewed by firms as
very restrictive, however, since only 12 permits were issued between 1983 and
January 1, 1986.
DEQE must now develop regulations consistent with those that EPA
promulgated January 4, 1985, i.e., the revised definition of solid waste (see
Appendix F for further details on these regulations). The new RCRA regulations
now include some wastes as hazardous and solid wastes even if recycled. Although
the actual act of recycling is not regulated under Federal regulations, shipping these
wastes offsite to be recycled requires manifesting. Those wastes that are excluded
from the definition of solid waste under RCRA are exempt from the manifesting
requirement at the Federal level. Under Massachusetts laws, the actual act of
recycling is regulated. The exemptions from the Federal manifesting requirement
for wastes that are excluded from the definition of solid waste are also exempted
from Massachusetts' manifesting requirements.
-------
The new DEQE recycling regulations, based on those promulgated
January 4, 1985 by EPA and now in draft form in Massachusetts, are expected to
encourage recycling upon their implementation. There are, however, no source
reduction regulatory requirements now in place other than the RCRA II mandated
certification requirements (personal communication with Karl Eklund.
Massachusetts DEQE, February 13, 1986).
Under the new recycling regulations, DEQE is proposing that there be a new
category for hazardous waste to be known as regulated recyclable material.
Operators who wish to function under the new regulations must do so under
recycling permits that are less restrictive than either the recycling permit or the
T5D permit now required. Failure to comply with the conditions of the new permit
will, however, result in a company's being required to go through the full TSDF
permit process.
There will be three classes of permits, each with increasingly stringent
requirements for compliance. The categories of permit are based on substance and
process.
The Class A permit is the least restrictive and covers substances that EPA
categorically exempts from TSD requirements. The application for a permit
basically will inform the State that recycling is taking place. Requirements will be
few and conditions broad.
Class B permits will apply to wastes delineated as less hazardous in the EPA
recycling regulations. Categories of waste included are:
Use constitutes disposal;
Burning for energy recovery;
Used oil recycled in any way;
Wastes that contain precious metals; and
Spent lead acid storage batteries.
Class C is the third and most restrictive regulatory category. Wastes requiring
Class C permits are also designated in the EPA recycling regulations. Though this
group is subject to regulations that resemble those of a TSD facility more closely
-------
than either A or B, recycling will still be encouraged. The generator will be able to
recycle onsite, where previously the only viable choice was to have the material
hauled offsite for disposal.
The Massachusetts recycling regulations will be presented for public comment
in February 1986, and DEQE expects promulgation on or before July 1, 1986.
Implementation of these regulations will allow businesses to tailor management
standards to encourage recycling (personal communication with Karl Eklund,
Massachusetts DEQE, February 13, 1986). RCRA regulations require hazardous
waste transporters to be licensed just as T5D facilities must be licensed under
RCRA, and limit the landfilling of hazardous wastes. They also prohibit landfilling
over "actual, planned or potential" underground drinking water sources, and
landfilling is only acceptable when a waste cannot be further treated, recycled,
destroyed, or disposed of by other means. Massachusetts regulations, however, do
not yet speak to these issues (personal communication, Massachusetts DEQE,
February 13, 1986).
In addition to licensing regulations, DEM land the HWFSSC implement
regulations that establish siting procedures for hazardous waste facilities. The goal
of this procedure is to ensure that all concerned parties understand their function in
the process. The HWFSSC plays the following roles:
• Oversees the operation of the siting process;
• Ensures fairness for communities and developers;
• Makes the majority of major substantive decisions in the siting process;
• Reviews notices of intent to determine feasibility; and
• Awards technical assistance grant money to communities participating in
the siting process.
This system has been used in the State's attempts to attract private sector
developers for hazardous waste treatment facilities. So far, five proposals have
been received, but none has been accepted. Public resistance has been a major
factor, as has the fact that the objectives of the developer have in most cases not
matched those of the State (personal communication with Pat Lebau, HWFSSC,
December 19, 1985).
j-.-:?
-------
Finally, regulatory activities considered more specific and important to the
development of the Massachusetts source reduction program include the effort to
coordinate those existing regulations that influence the management of hazardous
substances at the industry level. The State's objective is to integrate the activities
of these programs so that source reduction is encouraged wherever possible, and to
develop new regulatory systems, especially in the area of reporting requirements, to
more directly facilitate source reduction efforts in industry (personal
communication with Richard Bird, Massachusetts DEQE, February 13, 1986).
III. Fee and Tax Incentives
Massachusetts has carried out preliminary reviews of revenue generation
systems and has considered their potential to serve as direct incentives for waste
minimization. The State will investigate revenue generation systems more
extensively in the near future and considers them a necessary component of an
effective source reduction program. A stable revenue generation system would be
used primarily to fund targeted and substantial incentive programs to assist industry
with source reduction efforts.
The State has concluded that in some situations taxes or fees will serve only as
indirect incentives for source reduction, since the costs of waste management and
liability insurance are fluctuating so rapidly. These fluctuations will, in most cases,
offset the effect of such taxes or fees, which would be minor in comparison. The
State believes waste-end fees or taxes may serve in certain instances as
disincentives to the RCRA waste generation reporting requirements, which are still
in the early stages of development and reliability. As an alternative, the State is
investigating a tax or fee system on hazardous inputs and intermediates, believing
that such a system may serve as a more reliable means of raising revenue for source
reduction. A tax or fee on inputs may simultaneously encourage some firms to
consider source reduction input substitution and process changes to avoid the
increased costs of both hazardous inputs and the release of these constituents to the
environment at large (personal communication with Richard Bird, Massachusetts
DEQE, February 13, 1986).
-------
One fee structure under consideration may have some effect on waste
management. Under Chapter 21E (this is the State version of Superfund), DEQE is
in the process of implementing a transporter fee designed to help recover some of
the costs associated with State cleanups. This fee will be, in effect, a waste-end
tax. Onsite waste management appears to be increasing in part in anticipation of
this fee, according to discussions with DEQE and DEM personnel (personal
communication with Richard Bird and Lee Dane, February 13, 1986).
IV. Loan and Bond Assistance
Massachusetts legislators have filed several bills calling for loans and bonds to
facilitate waste minimization practices. Although the concept of source reduction
has earned strong support among lawmakers, the consensus has been that more
analysis is needed before such economic incentives are established. The analysis
necessary for development of an effective source reduction program is nearing
completion, and a renewed emphasis on legislation for loan and bond assistance may
be included at that time (personal communication with Lee Dane, Massachusetts
DEM, December 20, 1985).
The Massachusetts Industrial Finance Authority (MIFA) has been considered a
possible source of revenue to enable small generators to install source reduction
equipment. No credit assistance program for source reduction has been initiated by
MIFA to date, but one is under review at the present time (personal communication
with Lee Dane, Massachusetts DEM, and Pat Lebau, HWFSSC, February 13, 1986).
V. Grant Programs
In 1983, DEM made the first grant under their Safe Waste Management
Participation Program. This program is composed of local advocacy groups who
view hazardous waste issues from a variety of perspectives. The program has
funded studies and projects on subjects ranging from underground storage tank
management to technical assistance workshops for specific industry segments, and
will be expanded further in FY 1987 (personal communication with Anita Flanagan,
Massachusetts DEM, February 13, 1986).
-------
VI. Information Programs
A. Information Transfer and Technical Assistance
Distribution of information concerning waste reduction is initiated in two
general ways: (1) the Commonwealth offers activities designed to inform concerned
parties or (2) inquiries are made to the State by generators. Conferences and
seminars have been successful promotional tools in the past, and the information
programs have stimulated enough interest to continue the conference/seminar
format.
In October 1983, the Bureau of Solid Waste, then part of DEM, held the first
Source Reduction Conference and Exhibition with the help of the Source Reduction
Advisory Committee. The one-day gathering in Boxborough, Massachusetts,
featured 40 exhibitors, 27 speakers, and approximately 350 attendees. Sessions
focused on a variety of waste reduction issues including solvent recycling and
substitution, waste exchanges and recycling, policy issues, technical assistance, and
plant management. The second conference, held in October 1984, grew to nearly
twice the size of the first. According to DEM personnel, the proceedings resulting
from these conferences have been two of the most effective technology transfer
tools to date.
A third general conference is planned for October 1986, in addition to others of
a smaller scope. One of the smaller conferences will be geared toward the
corporate office and will stress management strategies for source reduction. In
addition, industry-specific regional workshops are planned and other substantial
outreach projects are under development as part of the comprehensive source
reduction programs (personal communication with Lee Dane, Massachusetts DEM,
December 20, 1985).
Increased awareness of source reduction/recycling has prompted generators to
call the Solid and Hazardous Waste Division Compliance Section with requests for
information and questions regarding technical assistance and regulatory
compliance. The waste minimization statement now required on the manifest has
been a key stimulus to these queries. The Compliance Section personnel are not
authorized to refer callers to private corporations specializing in consulting or
-------
pollution control devices (personal communication with Linda Benevides,
Massachusetts DEQE, July 23, 1985). In the development of a comprehensive source
reduction program, however, the Bureau of Solid Waste is considering a substantial
technical assistance component, which may include some inquiry response capability
(personal communication with Richard Bird, Massachusetts DEQE,
February 13, 1986).
B. Source Reduction Program Development
Extensive work is ongoing in source reduction program development in the areas
of regulatory improvements, outreach and incentive programs, and revenue
generation systems, as discussed above. As part of this effort, the Bureau of Solid
Waste Disposal has undertaken three contracted studies to improve the State's
ability to develop an effective program.
The first study surveyed specific industries in the Commonwealth to better
understand how much waste of particular types is generated and how much source
reduction has been achieved. This effort yielded extremely useful case studies and
qualitative input from generators on source reduction. Its primary value, however,
*
was to further clarify the definitional problems posed by evaluating source reduction
needs or accomplishments on the basis of onsite hazardous waste generation as
defined under RCRA. The State has been able to design its source reduction
program more precisely, focusing on the quantities of hazardous constituents used
and released through various routes from industry processes.
The second study evaluated the business characteristics of four industry sectors
in Massachusetts to determine incentive programs for source reduction that would
best match their needs. This study has served as a very useful guideline for
evaluating more industry sectors in the Commonwealth, and should provide a fairly
accurate basis for designing targeted incentive programs.
The third study was a nationwide overview of source reduction program efforts
in States and organizations. It has been instrumental in organizing the State's effort
to develop a comprehensive source reduction program (personal communication with
Richard Bird, Massachusetts DEQE, February 13, 1986).
J4-9
-------
In addition, targeted economic incentive programs are vital to source reduction
program development in the Massachusetts program.
VII. Award Programs
The State of Massachusetts currently has no award programs to promote waste
minimization, but is considering such a program as part of its incentive system.
VIII. Publications and References
Banning, W. 1983. The role of waste exchange in industrial waste
management: identifying offsite recycling opportunities. Presented at the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Environmental Management
Hazardous Waste Source Reduction Conference, 13 October 1983, Boston, Mass.
Capaccio, Robert S. 1983. Process modifications: case histories in source
reduction. Presented at the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of
Environmental Management Hazardous Waste Source Reduction Conference, 13
October 1983, Boston, Mass.
League of Women Voters of Massachusetts. 1985. Waste reduction: the untold
story. Conference held 19-21 June 1985 at the National Academy of Sciences
Conference Center, Woods Hole, Mass.
Department of Environmental Management, Bureau of Solid Waste Disposal.
1983. Hazardous waste management in Massachusetts: Statewide
environmental impact report. Boston, Mass.
Roeck, D.R. 1985. Interim report on sample population design and
questionnaire distribution. GCA Corp. Contract no. 84-198, interim report for
Bureau of Solid Waste Disposal. Boston: Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Management.
J4-10
-------
APPENDIX J.5
MINNESOTA
-------
J.5 Minnesota
Minnesota has final authorization status to operate its own hazardous waste
program under the 1980 RCRA amendments. The Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA), which enforces environmental regulations, the Waste Management
Board (MWMB), and the Minnesota Technical Assistance Program (MnTAP) are
involved with various programs that promote recycling and source reduction. These
include regulatory programs, fee and tax incentives, loans and bonds, grants.
information programs, a technical assistance program, and an award program.
I. Legislative Background
The Minnesota Waste Management Board (MWMB) was formed in 1980 under the
Waste Management Act passed by the Minnesota State Legislature. The legislation
was enacted in response to a growing concern over pollution associated with the
management of hazardous wastes. The Legislature charged the Board with
(1) drafting a comprehensive hazardous waste management plan including
recommendations and guidelines for the implementation of a sensible and effective
waste management policy, (2) selecting "preferred areas" for hazardous waste
processing facilities, and (3) locating and developing at least one site for a
hazardous waste disposal or long-term storage facility.
In early 1984, the MWMB, in the draft version of its hazardous waste
management plan, ranked source reduction and recycling first and second,
respectively, as preferred alternatives in the management of hazardous waste. The
Board's plan outlined a number of innovative approaches to waste minimization, and
the 1984 Legislature consequently adopted three of these recommendations: (l)tax
credits for pollution control equipment, (2) grants and loans to support the
development of hazardous waste processing facilities and implementation of waste
minimization techniques, and (3) the establishment of a technical and research
assistance program for Minnesota's hazardous waste generators. In addition, the
State adopted an awards program to recognize successes in reducing or improving
the management of hazardous waste.
-------
II. Regulatory Programs
Minnesota has two regulatory programs that promote waste minimization. The
first, found in the Hazardous Waste Rules, exempts waste that is to be "beneficially
used, reused, or legitimately recycled or reclaimed" from Parts 7045.0205 to
7045.1030 (standards applicable to hazardous waste generators) and from most of
the MPCA's permitting requirements (Minnesota Rules Part 7045.0125).
The second program is actually a permitting/siting assistance effort by the
MWMB, which is a nonregulatory body. To alleviate public concern over facility
siting and the regulatory problems associated with obtaining permits and undergoing
siting procedures, the Board has selected 21 preferred sites for three types of
hazardous waste processing facilities: chemical processing, incineration, and
transfer/storage. This action was taken in response to the State's Waste
Management Act of 1980, which mandates that at least three sites be chosen for
each kind of facility. If a private developer submits a proposal for operating such a
facility, especially in a preferred area, and if the proposal is approved by the MPCA,
the Board is empowered to mediate disputes between the developer and the local
government regarding the siting of the facility. If necessary, the Board can override
i
local objections (personal communication with Wayne Sames, MWMB,
January 7, 1986). To date, the Metropolitan Recovery Corporation has obtained
approval from a local government to build a facility for the recovery of heavy
metals in a preferred area, and has submitted a RCRA Part B permit application to
the MPCA.
III. Fee and Tax Incentives
Minnesota's hazardous waste generators are charged a generator fee according
to the volume and waste category of waste generated in addition to a 50 percent
surcharge on that annual fee. A generator who recovers, reuses, or recycles a
hazardous waste stream for his/her own use onsite is exempt from the generator fee
for that particular waste stream. Any hazardous sludges or residues from a
recovery process, however, are subject to the generator fee (Minnesota Code of
Agency Rules Parts 7046.0030 - 7046.0050).
JS-2
-------
The MPCA reports that the generator fee has worked well as a mechanism to
persuade generators to reduce hazardous waste generation, citing as evidence the
fact that many generators have switched to alternative waste management
practices or have stopped generation altogether. The fee was originally established
by the 1983 Legislature not so much as a strategy to reduce waste generation, but to
provide funds for ten new staff positions within the MPCA. To generate the
legislatively mandated revenues in 1985, MPCA was forced to double the original
fee, which has had the effect of placing economic hardship on some businesses.
Thus, the hazardous waste generator fee has posed some problems from an
administrative point of view. This would probably be the case whenever a budgetary
goal is established based on the receipts of such a fee levy (personal communication
with Melba Hensel, MPCA, December 13, 1985).
In addition to the fee, hazardous waste generators are taxed based upon the
volume and destination of the waste. These "waste-end" taxes, however, do not
apply to hazardous "wastes destined for recycling or reuse including waste
accumulated, stored, or physically, chemically, or biologically treated before
recycling or reuse..." (Minnesota Stat. Sec. 115B.22). Thus, both the fee and tax
systems in Minnesota ' are structured to encourage recycling activities. Waste
reduction activities are automatically encouraged by such a system, since the fee
and tax levied are a direct function of waste volume.
IV. Loan and Bond Assistance
Loan monies are available for construction of hazardous waste processing
facilities, which include both commercial treatment and recycling facilities. Up to
75 percent of capital costs excluding land acquisition may be covered by a facility
processing loan (personal communication with Jerry Johnson, MWMB,
December 13, 1985). Bonding authority is set by the Legislature at $10,000,000,
although other monies may also be available (Minnesota Stat. Sec. 166M.07 Subd. 9).
J5-3
-------
The program is jointly run by the Minnesota Department of Energy and
Economic Development (DEED) and the MWMB. Before a loan application is
processed, it goes to DEED for financial feasibility studies and to the MWMB for
technical feasibility studies (Minnesota Stat. Sec. 1 ISA.162 and 116M.07, Subd. 9).
Thus far, one firm, Metropolitan Recovery Corporation, is expected to apply for
the loan as soon as its permit application is fully approved. The MWMB expects that
construction will begin in late 1986. Other companies have made inquiries about
available loans; the MWMB believes that the next facility to apply for a loan will
most probably be a waste transfer/storage facility (personal communication with
Jerry Johnson, MWMB, December 13, 1985).
V. Grant Programs
The MWMB oversees several of Minnesota's grant programs:
• $600,000 for feasibility and development studies of new hazardous waste
processing facilities or services;
• $350,000 for the study and development of a Statewide hazardous waste
transportation and collection system; and
• $350,000 to study and develop hazardous waste reduction techniques.
Though all three potentially could involve waste minimization efforts as defined
in this report, the third, Grants to Minnesota Businesses for Waste Reduction
Feasibility Studies, is specifically related to source reduction and recycling.
The third grant program provides a total of $350,000, to be awarded over three
years in increments of up to $30,000, for investigating new methods of reducing
hazardous waste generation, or for studying the applicability of known waste
minimization techniques to a production or handling process. Any hazardous waste
generator or group of generators in Minnesota may apply for these grants (personal
communication with Wayne Sames, MWMB, January 7, 1986). The program, fully
operational since January 1985, is administered by two MWMB staff members, who
allocate approximately 50 percent of their time to the project.
-------
The MWMB received few applications for grants in the first grant period
because slow progress was made in publicizing the program. Application requests
were mailed to 2,500 small waste-generating firms, but just over $100,000 of the
fiscal year 1985 allocation of $150,000 was disbursed (a total of 6 grants). A
follow-up study of why only six of the 80 firms that requested applications actually
submitted applications produced a variety of reasons. The firms cited: (1) the lack
of preparation time, (2) the prevalence of other business matters, (3) the narrow
eligibility range, and (A) the extensive information requirements as factors weighing
most heavily against their participation in the program.
The requirements of the grant program were changed to broaden the range of
eligibility and to reduce information demands. The schedule was also revised to
allow more lead time than was given in the previous year. The program was first
announced in October 1984 and the application deadline fell in early January 1985.
For 1985-1986, materials announcing the grant program were available in September
and the application deadline was late January. A total of $150,000 was allocated for
this year's program. Results of the studies are available to the public (personal
communication with Wayne Sames, MWMB, August 23, 1985).
VI. Information Programs - Minnesota Technical Assistance Program
(MnTAP)
The Minnesota Technical Assistance Program (MnTAP) is a nonregulatory
program that works with hazardous waste generators to reduce hazardous wastes,
find cost-effective alternatives to land disposal, and provide regulatory compliance
guidance. MnTAP can provide assistance through several mechanisms including:
• Outreach programs, including onsite technical consultations, information
seminars, a telephone hotline, and technical workshops and training
programs;
• The active assembly, cataloging, and dissemination of information about
hazardous waste reduction and waste management methods;
]5-5
-------
• The evaluation and interpretation of information needed by generators to
improve hazardous waste management;
• Information and technical research to identify alternative technical
solutions;
• An engineering intern program to implement in-plant changes resulting in
waste minimization; and
• Coordination of its efforts with other agencies working towards hazardous
waste reduction.
The Legislature specified that the program must focus on assisting smaller
generators of hazardous waste, who lack the technical and financial resources to
research and implement waste reduction techniques. However, MnTAP also helps
manufacturing firms and service companies of any size, industry and trade
associations, consultants, and waste management firms.
MnTAP was initially funded at $150,000 for its first year of operation, which
officially began in November 1984. Of this, the University of Minnesota received
$97,000 to establish the location and operation of the program, including the
necessary data base, and the Small Business Development Center received $40,000
to develop information seminars and newsletter articles and to conduct direct
mailings of the MnTAP information. The program has been re-funded for the next
two years at $200,000 per year. Two professional personnel and one staff assistant
currently operate MnTAP.
After one year of operation, MnTAP has gained credibility and recognition
through its many services. Initially, slow progress was made in making services
known despite a publicity campaign of direct mailings, articles in newspapers, and
speaking engagements. The MnTAP staff cited the program's recent formation as
the reason for the lack of recognition and established credibility. During its
operation, the program has produced information brochures and a series of fact
sheets, and has participated in many meetings and conferences to help hazardous
waste generators achieve waste minimization. The program operates a telephone
hotline that gives free advice and assistance. MnTAP also conducts onsite
consultations, which are described as informal plant surveys.
J5-6
-------
In the summer of 1985, MnTAP sponsored an intern program, in which seven
university students (one mechanical, one civil, and five chemical engineers)
conducted in-plant surveys/studies of electroplating companies, a painting and
coating operation, and a variety of other operations. Interns were able to help
participating companies implement practices or operations that have reduced or will
result in reducing the quantities of waste being landfilled. In addition, each intern
produced a report that documents case studies to be used by MnTAP as examples of
methods in which waste minimization can be achieved.
MnTAP hopes to establish a program of research grants to educational
institutions in Minnesota this year. These grants, limited in amount to $5,000 each,
are intended to support research on new methods to reduce hazardous wastes. A
total of $20,000 has been allocated for this year, although MnTAP is investigating
the possible availability of Federal EPA grant funds to accelerate this program.
VII. Award Program
Minnesota's award program, the Governor's Award for Outstanding
Achievement in Hazardous Waste Management, is a method of recognizing
companies or institutions and publicizing their projects. To qualify for the award, a
project must achieve one or more of the following: (1) represent a worthy effort at
reducing hazardous waste generation, (2) reclaim energy or materials from waste,
(3) reduce the quantity of wastes going to treatment and disposal facilities, or
(A) reduce the risk of hazardous waste release into the environment. A project is
evaluated on the following criteria:
• Environmental benefits;
• Technological importance of its processes or equipment;
• Economic benefits - profits, annual savings, and payback periods; and
• The potential award winner's commitment to sharing information and
expertise resulting from the project.
15-7
-------
Entries are received in March for awards presented in April. There has been no
limit to the number of awards given, although in the future, the number may be
limited. Award winners receive a certificate and special flag as a symbol of
achievement. Achievements are also publicized in a booklet published by the MWMB
(MWMB [1985]). The publicity associated with the award provides an attraction to
companies seeking favorable exposure. The program therefore encourages the
development of waste minimization among other desirable waste management goals.
In April 1985, seven projects were submitted and seven winners selected. One
was further singled out to receive special recognition. The panel of judges felt that
all projects demonstrated worthy efforts at hazardous waste management.
The response to the program was considered favorable, especially since 1985
was its first year of operation. Participants expressed some dissatisfaction about
the short time limit given for project description. With a few improvements,
however, the MWMB hopes to attract greater participation in the coming years
(personal communication with Patrick Hirigoyen and Wayne Sames, MWMB,
October 1, 1985).
VIII. Publications and References
Frank, M.A. 1985. Minnesota Technical Assistance Program intern report:
reduction of copper and nickel sludges. Minneapolis: MnTAP.
Hamann, R.D. 1985. Minnesota Technical Assistance Program intern report:
final report on the in-house internship. Minneapolis: MnTAP.
Kuchibhotla, P.M. 1985. Minnesota Technical Assistance Program intern
report: hazardous waste reduction and metal reclamation. Minneapolis:
MnTAP.
Larson, C. 1985. Minnesota Technical Assistance Program intern report: final
report for Midwest Finishing. Minneapolis: MnTAP.
Marxen, R. 1985. Minnesota Technical Assistance Program intern report:
intern project: Micro Parts, Inc. Minneapolis: MnTAP.
Minnesota Household Hazardous Waste Task Force. 1985. Summary:
management of hazardous wastes generated by households. Crystal, Minn.:
Waste Management Board, State of Minnesota.
J5-S
-------
MnTAP. n.d. Hazardous waste fact sheets: acids and bases; solvents;
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); heavy metal sludges; paints and inks; waste
oils; and pesticides and herbicides. Minneapolis: MnTAP.
. 1986. A year of service: Minnesota Technical Assistance Program 1985
annual report. Minneapolis: MnTAP.
MWMB. 1985. Minnesota Waste Management Board. Foresite. April 1985.
Crystal: State of Minnesota.
. [1985]. The Governor's award for outstanding achievement in hazardous
waste management. State of Minnesota.
Sandberg, J. 1985. Minnesota Technical Assistance Program intern report:
final report in the internship served at Gage Tool Company. Minneapolis:
MnTAP.
J5-9
-------
APPENDIX J.6
NEW JERSEY
-------
J.6 New Jersey
The State of New Jersey has recognized the potential benefits of hazardous
waste minimization. The Bureau of Hazardous Waste Planning and Classification
and the New Jersey Hazardous Waste Facility Siting Commission are the State
agencies addressing minimization with legal authority. Disposal restrictions, permit
exemptions, and special allowances for certain industries are examples of regulatory
programs that directly or indirectly promote minimization. Seminars, conferences,
and a waste exchange have served to educate concerned parties about minimization
opportunities, strategies, and techniques. In the future, New Jersey plans to
establish a technical assistance program to focus on this issue.
I. Legislative Background
Two laws form the fundamental legal structure for New Jersey's hazardous
waste programs: the Solid Waste Management Act of 1970 and the Major Hazardous
Waste Facilities Siting Act of 1981. Aspects of waste minimization are part of the
responsibility of agencies implementing these laws.
The Division of Waste Management (DWM) of the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJDEP) is responsible for implementing requirements of
the Solid Waste Management Act (personal communication with David Potts,
NJDEP, December 12, 1985). The Bureau of Hazardous Waste Planning and
Classification within the DWM is the unit whose duties include implementation of
both regulatory and nonregulatory programs (with the exception of siting) that
affect waste minimization. The Bureau recently sponsored a source reduction
seminar held at Rutgers University (August 1985); however, the efforts of this
Bureau are currently focused on planning (personal communication with Kevin
Gashlin, NJDEP, December 12, 1985).
The Major Hazardous Waste Facilities Siting Act (P.L. 1981, Ch. 279) forms the
legal basis for a method of planning, licensing, and siting new hazardous waste
J6-1
-------
facilities in New Jersey. The Act also establishes the Hazardous Waste Facilities
Siting Commission, a nine-member group consisting of representatives evenly
distributed from industry, county and municipal governments, and citizens groups.
Each member is appointed by the Governor.
Assisting the Siting Commission are the Hazardous Waste Advisory Council and
the Hazardous Waste Source Reduction and Recycling Task Force. Like the Siting
Commission, the Council is composed of representatives from various groups. The
Task Force, whose purpose is to encourage education and dissemination of
information and also to promote recycling, is composed of representatives from
environmental organizations, academia, and industry. As part of its dissemination
activities, the group sponsors an annual roundtable. The Task Force is also
responsible for advising the Siting Commission on options that it may use for
proposed legislation.
II. Regulatory Programs
The State of New Jersey's hazardous waste regulations contain provisions that
may directly and indirectly promote waste minimization. Specifically, these
provisions are (1) restrictions applied to land disposal, and (2) permit exemptions and
special allowances for certain forms of waste recycling.
Landfills are subject to the same requirements as the HSWA of 1984, as well as
requirements that go beyond these amendments. For example, New Jersey requires
that all landfills must have double liners (New Jersey Admin. Code 7:26-10.8(c)).
New Jersey also has regulations requiring that landfills be "constructed such that
any leachate formed will flow by gravity into collection sumps from which the
leachate will be removed, treated, and/or disposed" (New Jersey Admin. Code
7:26-10.8(d)l.V.).
New Jersey exempts certain specific hazardous waste recycling activities from
the requirements of submitting Part A and B permit applications. One exemption
related to recycling allows onsite-generated waste to be burned as fuel without the
operation's needing a full TSD facility permit. Some of the provisions of this
exemption are as follows (New Jersey Admin. Code 7:26-12.l(b)7):
J6-2
-------
1. Wastes must be burned so that they are "used or reused as a fuel for the
purpose of recovering usable energy and are limited to onsite wastes or
specific waste between intra-company and intra-State facilities under the
control of the same person";
2. A "Permit to Construct, Install or Alter Control Apparatus or Equipment"
has been issued by the regulatory agency;
3. Rate of gross heat input must be greater than 20 million Btu/hr;
4. Device must be continuously monitored and recorded for 02 and either
CO or total hydrocarbons;
5. A full-time, certified operator must be present when the waste is burned;
and
6. The device must be located in an industrial facility.
Another provision expands the onsite provision to other forms of "recycling" or
"reclamation."
Though these exemptions are currently in effect as written, they will soon
undergo revision. The new definition of hazardous waste will require that these
companies receive an EPA identification number. According to the New Jersey_
Division of Waste Management, this difference will be slight and its implementation
will cause no significant change in the exemption (personal communication with
David Potts, NJDEP, January 15, 1986).
The NJDEP, in developing its new definition of solid waste, is planning to
incorporate a partial permitting exemption for operations that recycle precious
metals and other types of hazardous waste. These businesses would then be allowed
to operate with a "Permit-by-Rule" as long as they function within guidelines
established by the State. They would not be subject to obtaining a full TSD facility
permit. This relaxation of existing regulations will result in encouraging certain
forms of recycling (personal communication with David Potts, NJDEP,
December 23, 1985).
III. Fee and Tax Incentives
New Jersey presently does not use fee or tax incentives to encourage
minimization.
J6-3
-------
IV. Loan and Bond Assistance
Loan and bond assistance is not available in New Jersey at this time for waste
minimization efforts.
V. Grant Programs
The Hazardous Waste Advisement Program has received a grant of $75,000
from EPA to fund a Household Hazardous Waste Project. County governments will
receive portions of this grant to execute specific programs. These will include
promotion of innovative methods of reducing the need for land disposal of home
hazardous waste (personal communication with Kevin Gashlin, NJDEP, December
12, 1985).
VI. Information Programs
New Jersey has several programs and organizations involved in the effort to
promote waste minimization by providing informational and technical assistance.
Groups involved in this effort include the New Jersey Hazardous Waste Facilities
Siting Commission, NJDEP Bureau of Hazardous Waste Planning and Classification,
the Hazardous Waste Source Reduction and Recycling Task Force, the
Industry/University Cooperative Research Center, the New Jersey League of Women
Voters, and the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce.
A. Information Transfer
The Hazardous Waste Source Reduction and Recycling Task Force is a volunteer
group, which includes university professors, environmentalists, and industry
representatives. The Task Force, with assistance from the Siting Commission, is
working on strategies to provide incentives for waste minimization based on the
Minnesota and North Carolina programs (see Sections J.5 and J.8 within Appendix J
for information on these programs). Presently, the Task Force is involved in a study
that will provide information needed to make specific recommendations to the
Siting Commission on the incentives and disincentives necessary to achieve the
maximum degree of reduction and recycling in New Jersey. Partial funding for this
project came from the DEP's Office of Science and Research, and the balance came
J6-.
-------
from the Siting Commission. The scope of this project is to analyze existing source
reduction practices and the potential for increased reduction of hazardous waste
produced by the following industries: Industrial Inorganic Chemicals (SIC 2819),
Plastics Materials and Resins (SIC 2821), Electroplating and Plating (SIC 3471), and
Electronic Components and Accessories (SIC 3679) (NJHWFSC 1985).
The Hazardous Waste Advisement Program sponsored the Source Reduction of
Hazardous Waste Seminar at Rutgers University on August 22, 1985. Papers were
presented on topics that included waste minimization practices and technologies,
means of promoting waste minimization, and waste minimization programs. The
Hazardous Waste Advisement Program is part of the Bureau of Hazardous Waste
Planning and Classification in the Division of Waste Management.
The New Jersey Hazardous Waste Source Reduction and Recycling Roundtable,
held on July 25, 1984, was sponsored by the Hazardous Waste Facilities Siting
Commission, the New Jersey League of Women Voters, and Shell Oil Company.
Topics covered at this roundtable included the Northeast Industrial Waste Exchange,
used oil recycling, Minnesota's source reduction and recycling policy, and case
studies of waste minimization.
In July 1985, the Task Force and the New Jersey League of Women Voters
sponsored a second conference, the New Jersey Technical Assistance Roundtable, in
Princeton. Representatives from Minnesota, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and
California each spoke on existing technical assistance programs within their
respective States. Presentations were also made by the Hazardous Waste
Advisement Program and the Industry/University Cooperative Research Center,
which operates out of the New Jersey Institute of Technology. Group discussions at
the Roundtable centered on topics such as (1) the need for a technical assistance
program in New Jersey, (2) the form of a potential program, (3) the location of
program headquarters, (4) staffing, and (5) funding.
The Industry/University Cooperative Research Center is an organization that
coordinates the resources and expertise of universities to meet the research needs
of participating industrial firms. Presently, the Center is focusing on identifying,
-------
evaluating, and developing inexpensive end-of-the-pipe waste treatment and
recovery systems, and developing new uses for waste materials. Financial support
for the center is generally provided by universities and industrial sponsors. The New
Jersey Commission on Science and Technology has also added the Center, and EPA
grants have been obtained to support many of the research projects (Liskowitz 1985).
B. Technical Assistance
New Jersey hopes to facilitate waste minimization, specifically in the form of a
technical assistance program. The Hazardous Waste Facilities Siting Commission
and the DWM are currently drafting a proposal that calls for the following:
• Formation of a task force to oversee the project;
• Study of all technology for hazardous waste impact;
• Review of source reduction and recycling proposals;
• Determination of sources for grants for industry;
• Formulation of regulations to promote the use of innovative and alternative
technologies; and
• A survey of existing hazardous waste activities in various industries for the
purpose of minimizing the waste of small-quantity generators.
C. The New Jersey State Industrial Waste Exchange
The New Jersey Chamber of Commerce established a waste exchange in 1978 in
response to a need expressed by the business community. The service, known as the
New Jersey State Industrial Waste Exchange, functions as a passive distributor of
information on available or wanted materials. Both hazardous and nonhazardous
wastes are included.
Businesses participate by paying a yearly fee; they are included in the listing
and receive a year's subscription (3 issues) to its publication. Chamber of
Commerce members may list either "Wastes Available" or "Wastes Wanted" for
$25.00. Nonmembers may do so for $35.00. Additional items may be listed by
J6-6
-------
members and nonmembers alike for $7.00 per entry. These fees are used to finance
this nonprofit exchange. The New Jersey Exchange provides an information transfer
service, as opposed to exchanging the waste materials. By assigning each item a
code number, the Exchange maintains confidentiality for the participants. When a
subscriber sees a potential match between what they and another business want,
they contact the Exchange, which, in turn, gives the name of the inquirer to the
company that paid for the listing.
The success of this type of waste minimization effort is difficult to assess. The
Exchange has received some letters of appreciation, but it is not common for
participants to acknowledge the benefits of this service. Occasionally, companies
have asked to be removed from the list after incorporating minimization processes
into production. Although this is a favorable waste minimization step, it is not
necessarily a reflection of the Exchange's success. Demand for the Exchange is
strong, however, and it should remain in operation for as long as the need remains.
There are about 65 items listed currently. This value fluctuates and at times
exceeds 100. Subscriptions usually number between 60 and 78.
There have been attempts to link the New Jersey Exchange to others to
increase the potential for exchanges. With the exception of a one-time event with a
waste exchange in Pennsylvania, such transfers have not occurred. Although
liability problems have forced the closing of some material exchanges, this has not
been a problem for the New Jersey Exchange, since they transfer information and do
not take physical possession of the materials (personal communication with William
Payne of the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce, December 19, 1985).
VII. Award Programs
New Jersey currently does not have an award program to encourage
minimization.
-------
VIII. Publications and References
Auerbach, A., and Boyle, 5., eds. 1984. Proceedings of the New Jersey
hazardous waste source reduction and recycling roundtable. Held 25 July 1984.
Hyatt Regency, Princeton, N.J.
Liskowitz, J.W. 1985. Industry/university cooperative hazardous waste source
reduction research in New Jersey. Paper presented at the Source Reduction of
Hazardous Waste Seminar, 22 August 1985 at Rutgers University - Douglass
College, N.J.
NJHWFSC. 1985. Project-specific request for proposal: source reduction
project under term contract X-007 data collection and analysis for the
Hazardous Waste Facilities Siting Commission and the Source Reduction and
Recycling Task Force.
Resource Management, Inc. 1985. New Jersey hazardous waste facilities plan.
Trenton, N.J.: Hazardous Waste Facilities Siting Commission.
J6-8
-------
APPENDIX J.7
NEW YORK
-------
J.7 New York
New York has taken various steps to promote waste minimization through
State, regional, and local programs. State programs include: the establishment of
the Industrial Materials Recycling Program (IMRP) within the Environmental
Facilities Corporation (EFC); Generator Certification Requirements; the
Environmental Regulatory Fee System and State Superfund Program; and Land
Burial Restrictions. The latter three activities are implemented by the New York
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). A regional program, centered in
New York State, is the Northeast Industrial Waste Exchange (NIWE), an
informational waste exchange. Finally, on the local level, Erie County conducts the
Industry-Specific Small Quantity Hazardous Waste Generators Technical Assistance
Program.
I. Legislative Background
The New York State Governor's Hazardous Waste Treatment Facilities Task
Force encouraged the practice of waste minimization by recommending
implementation of a four-part waste management hierarchy in the following order:
waste reduction; waste recycling, recovery, and reuse; waste treatment or
detoxification; and land disposal only for pretreated residuals that have been
detoxified so that direct or indirect human contact does not have a significant
environmental or health risk. The four-phase hierarchy is implemented by both the
New York Department of Environmental Conservation and by the New York
Environmental Facilities Corporation.
The DEC was established by the Legislature of the State of New York as the
agency responsible for implementing regulations established under the New York
State Resource Recovery Policy Act, the New York State Solid Waste Management
Plan, the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, and
amendments thereof. Waste minimization is promoted directly and indirectly by
DEC through: (1) the HSWA of 1984 requirement for generator certification of
waste minimization on all manifests; (2) the Environmental Regulatory Fee System
and State Superfund Fee System; and (3) restrictions on land burial of specific
hazardous wastes at all commercial landfills.
-------
The EFC was established under Chapter 744 of the Laws of 1970 as a
reconstitution and continuation of the New York State Pure Waters Authority. A
nonregulatory agency, it can plan, design, finance, construct, and operate solid
waste, hazardous waste, resource recovery and pollution control facilities, and can
conduct programs regarding remediation of inactive hazardous waste disposal sites.
EFC also finances water management and pollution control facilities through the
issuance of industrial revenue bonds. EFC can render advisory services for
authorized projects that include wastewater treatment, air pollution control, water
management, storm water collection, and solid waste management facilities. EFC
has been an active participant in New York State's hazardous waste minimization
program since 1977.
In 1981, Chapter 990 amended the Public Authorities Law with the addition of
Section 1285-g, which established the Industrial Materials Recycling Program
(IMRP). The Industral Material Recycling Act (IMRA), passed by the State,
designated EFC as the State entity responsible for implementing the program
responsibilities stipulated by law. This law mandates a program to help industry
reduce, reuse, recycle, and exchange industrial materials. IMRA is designed to
provide industry with direct assistance in the reduction and recycling of industrial
and hazardous waste materials as an economically and environmentally sound
alternative to disposal.
In addition to the programs supported by New York DEC and EFC, the
Northeast Industrial Waste Exchange (NIWE) was established in 1981 to promote
waste minimization. This waste exchange is operated by the Central New York
Regional Planning and Development Board and the Manufacturers Association of
Central New York, and is funded in part by the EFC (see Section 4.3.2 for more
information on waste exchanges).
II. Regulatory Programs
The New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has instituted
regulatory programs to implement the four-part waste management hierarchy
recommended by the Governor's Hazardous Waste Treatment Facilities Task Force.
In addition to the HSWA of 1984 requirement for generator certification on
-------
manifests regarding waste minimization, the DEC has placed restrictions on the land
disposal of several organic hazardous wastes at commercial land burial facilities in
New York State (personal communication with Cliff Van Guilder, NYDEC,
November 1985).
The land disposal restrictions were implemented to provide an incentive to use
preferred waste management practices. The restricted wastes were selected based
on their effect on liners in hazardous waste landfills.
The land burial ban of hazardous organic wastes has the following time schedule
and requirements (personal communication with Cliff Van Guilder, NYDEC,
November 1985):
1. Twenty-four listed hazardous organic wastes (F001, F002, and 22 K-code
wastes) are prohibited from land disposal unless it is demonstrated that the
sum total of the "hazardous constituents" is less than or equal to 5 percent
of the waste stream by weight. After December 31, 1985 this percentage
was reduced to 2 percent.
2. No bulk or containerized hazardous waste may be land disposed that
contains in excess of 5 percent by weight as generated, of:
(a) Halogenated, nitrogenated, or aromatic chemicals;
(b) Low molecular weight organic chemicals; and
(c) Any organic constituents identified in 40 CFR 261.33(e) and (f),
individually or in combination.
After March 31, 1986, this percentage will be reduced to 2 percent.
3. The New York DEC may approve the continued disposal of certain waste
streams if it can be adequately demonstrated that practical alternative
high technology facilities for managing the waste do not exist. This
approval is for a maximum of 18 months and may be revoked if an
alternative technology becomes available.
4. "Lab Packs" will be regulated according to guidelines established in 40 CFR
265.316, and no lab pack may contain more than one gallon of liquid.
-------
III. Fee and Tax Incentives
The New York State DEC has two fee programs: the Environmental Regulatory
Fee System and the State Superfund Fee Program. Both of these programs impose
fees on regulated facilities in order to encourage preferred waste management
practices. The fees are based on the amount of wastes generated as well as the
waste management practice. Under the State Superfund Fee Program, wastes sent
to landfills are taxed at the highest rate; wastes sent for treatment are assessed the
lowest rate. In addition to the tax on the waste generated, there are also special
facility fees assessed on landfills, lagoons, and other units. The fees that the owners
pay are thus passed on to the generator shipping the waste to the facility (personal
communication with Cliff Van Guilder, NYDEC, November 1985). No fee is imposed
on waste that is recycled (GAO 1984). By structuring the fee system in this way,
there is an incentive both to generate less waste and to reduce the amount of waste
that is land disposed.
New York State did not collect the annual revenues from these waste-end taxes
that they expected. In a report prepared by the U.S. GAO (1984), several possible
reasons were cited as to why this may have occurred, including: an inaccurate
projection; a depressed economy; a loss of out-of-State business at New York
disposal facilities; misuse of a materials recovery exemption, which excludes
recycled wastes from taxation; and to a lesser extent the underreporting or
nonreporting of waste.
IV. Loans and Bonds
In 1974, the Environmental Facilities Corporation (EFC) was authorized to
make loans to private industry for air and wastewater pollution control facilities and
solid waste management facilities. This authority was extended by Chapter 639 of
the Laws of 1978 to include industrial hazardous waste management facilities (which
include resource recovery facilities). The loans have no limit and may be for a term
of up to 40 years. They may be used to pay (1) the cost of land and appurtenant
J7-4
-------
buildings; (2) equipment and engineering costs; and (3) design, legal, financing, and
other related costs. These loans apply to both new and existing facilities, and the
loan recipient may also use the accelerated depreciation deductions, investment tax
credits, and energy tax credits allowable under State and Federal laws. Since 1976,
industry has been issued $123.2 million in bonds under this program (NYSEFC 1985a).
The EFC finances these loans through proceeds of special obligation revenue
bonds. Because the interest on the revenue bonds is usually exempt from New York
State and Federal income taxes, the EFC can make loans with lower interest rates.
The bonds are issued on an individual company basis, so that neither the EFC nor the
State of New York is under financial obligation. An additional feature of these
loans is that several environmental projects at one or more of a company's plant
sites in New York State may be financed through a single bond issue. A company
must meet the debt service to demonstrate financial ability to qualify.
V. Grant Programs
Presently, New York does not have a grant program that directly promotes
hazardous waste minimization.
VI. Information Programs
A. Environmental Facilities Corporation (EFC)
The Environmental Facilities Corporation (EFC) is a nonregulatory agency
formed by the Public Authorities Law of New York State. EFC provides
informational, technical, and financial assistance for industrial and hazardous waste
management, including waste minimization. Within EFC, the Industrial Materials
Recycling Program (IMRP) assists industry in reducing, reusing, recycling, and
exchanging industrial materials. This is accomplished through activities such as:
J7-5
-------
• Technical information and assistance programs;
• Data collection, development, and maintenance; and
• An active waste exchange program.
The IMRP offers technical services to industry by recommending source
reduction, energy recovery, and treatment and disposal options. Staff members
determine the availability of specific wastes and judge their recovery and reuse
potential. Wastes are identified from sources such as the New York State DEC
manifest systems, the NIWE Listing Catalog, and EFC staff contacts. EFC's
services also include regulatory assistance, technology evaluations, technical
feasibility studies, process analyses, research of potential markets for wastes, and
assistance in selection of consultants. EFC's services are offered to all companies
located in New York State, although small- and medium-size companies are the
primary users of this program.
Data collection, development, and maintenance enable IMRP to obtain the
information to support its technical assistance programs, as well as information to
disseminate to the public. Publications provide a means of transferring technology.
IMRP publishes the following:
• Industrial Materials Recycling Act (IMRA) newsletter (published quarterly)
covering topics such as waste exchange information, current technical
assistance and research programs, and recent papers and publications;
• Hauler's Directory (published annually) based on EFC's survey of permitted
haulers;
• Laboratory waste management manual - "A Guide to Informational Sources
Related to the Safety and Management of Laboratory Wastes from
Secondary Schools"; published as an information source on the proper
storage and disposal of small amounts of hazardous wastes; and
• Technical papers written by the staff.
In addition, IMRP has library facilities for over 700 technical materials such as
books and reports to aid its staff members in their own research and to provide
assistance to industrial clients.
J7-6
-------
IMRP operates an active waste exchange. The IMRP waste exchange serves as
an intermediary between the generator and the potential user, and locates wastes
for interested clients.
In addition to IMRA, EFC conducts special projects. This year they have
included (1) a Hazardous Waste Management Audit Program for Small Quantity
Generators, and (2) a Feasibility Study for a Research and Development Center for
Hazardous Waste.
(1) Waste Management Audit Program
In August 1985, EFC was awarded an EPA grant to help small-quantity
generators (SQGs) manage industrial wastes. The 20-month program is
being developed with the assistance of the Manufacturers Association of
Central New York and the Environmental Management Council. EFC
selected the Central New York-Syracuse region as a representative
industrial region from which data about the types and quantities of waste
as well as waste management practices would be collected, analyzed, and
incorporated in the development of a State waste management plan for
SQGs. The data compiled are expected to highlight the needs of SQGs in
the State for reducing, recycling, reusing, collecting, transporting, and
treating wastes.
(2) Hazardous Waste Research and Development Center
EFC was appropriated $150,000 in the 1985-1986 State budget to perform
a feasibility study for a research and development center for hazardous
and industrial waste. It is anticipated that the center will conduct basic
and applied research on hazardous waste in the area of source reduction,
treatment, resource recovery, recycling, and other forms of waste
management, as well as address government and industrial policy issues,
disseminate information, and train industrial personnel. EFC contracted
with the Rockefeller Institute of Government Affairs to perform the
study, which was released in January 1986.
B. Northeast Industrial Waste Exchange (NIWE)
The Northeast Industrial Waste Exchange (NIWE) is an information waste
exchange created in June 1981. In the State of New York, the Manufacturers
Association of Central New York and the Central New York Regional Planning and
Development Board are joint sponsors of the NIWE. The NIWE serves industry
J7-7
-------
throughout the U.S. and Canada. The primary region served by the NIWE includes
New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland, and the New England States.
As part of the IMRP, EFC began to cosponsor and provide funding for NIWE in
1981; the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency became an additional cosponsor by
providing financial support in 1983. In addition to covering printing expenses for
NIWE's Listings Catalog, EFC provides NIWE with an informational supplement
containing regulatory, technical, waste exchange, legal, financing, and publication
information of interest to generators and users (NYSEFC 1985a).
The NIWE exchanges information by listing "Materials Available" and "Materials
Wanted" in a quarterly Listings Catalog with a distribution of nearly 9,000.
Confidential inquiries received by NIWE are forwarded to the company that placed
the listing. The originator of the listing is then responsible for the negotiation. For
nonconfidential inquiries, notification is sent to both the originator and inquirer.
NIWE has the first computerized waste listing service in the U.S. This online
computer service provides industry with immediate access to listings from the
Northeast Industrial Waste Exchange, Industrial Material Exchange Service (Illinois),
and Southern Waste Exchange (Florida). NIWE plans to include listings from the
Great Lakes Exchange, Canadian Waste Exchange, and Piedmont Waste Exchange.
This computerized system makes waste exchange information immediately
accessible to a large population of users (see Appendix D for a sample run from this
computer system).
C. Erie County, New York - Industry-Specific, Small-Quantity
Hazardous Waste Generators Technical Assistance Program
The County of Erie, New York, has a Federal grant to develop, field test,
evaluate, and publish guidebooks on the management of small quantities of
hazardous waste from specific business categories. This program will be conducted
over a two-year period (August 1985 to August 1987) by the Erie County
Department of Environmental Planning.
J7-8
-------
These guidebooks will provide information on the technologies available to each
industry for reduction, recycling, reuse, or treatment of hazardous waste. They will
also provide information on State and Federal regulations that apply to small
quantity generators and the specific industries included in the program. The
industries are: vehicle maintenance, metal manufacturing, printing, photography,
laundry/dry cleaning, construction, motor freight terminals, and educational and
vocational shops. Two more industries (pesticide applicator and general
government) may also be included if additional funds are available.
VII. Award Programs
New York presently has no award program that directly promotes hazardous
waste minimization.
VIII. Publications and References
Banning, W., and Hoefer, S.H. 1984. An assessment of the effectiveness of the
Northeast Industrial Waste Exchange in 1983. NYSEFC.
Battelle Corp. 1982. A preliminary handbook on the potential for recycling or
recovery of industrial hazardous wastes in New York State. EPA contract no.
68-01-6002, final report prepared for New York State Environmental Facilities
Corporation, U.S. EPA Region II Technical Assistance Panels Program.
Deyle, R.E. 1985. Source reduction by hazardous waste generating firms in
New York State. Technology and Information Policy Program. Syracuse:
Syracuse University.
GAO. 1984. U.S. General Accounting Office. State experiences with taxes on
generators or disposers of hazardous waste. Pub. no. GAO/RCED-84-146, May
4, 1984. Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office.
NIWE. 1985. Northeast Industrial Waste Exchange. Listings catalogue. (Issued
quarterly).
NYS EFC. 1983. New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation.
Annual report 1983. New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation.
. 1985a. Fourth annual report: Industrial Materials Recycling Act
Program.
J7-9
-------
. n.d. A guide to informational sources related to the safety and
management of laboratory wastes from secondary schools.
. 1984b. Hauler's directory. (Published annually).
. 1985b. Industrial materials recycling program: quarterly status reports
(Winter, Spring, Summer, and Fall).
. 1984a. Third annual report: Industrial materials recycling act program.
-------
APPENDIX J.8
NORTH CAROLINA
-------
J.8 North Carolina
North Carolina has been relatively active in efforts to minimize hazardous
waste and other forms of pollution. The lead agency addressing waste minimization
is the Pollution Prevention Pays (PPP) Program within the Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development (DNRCD). The PPP staff, the Governor's
Waste Management Board, the Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Branch of
the Department of Human Resources (DHR), the Department of Commerce (DOC),
and the Board of Science and Technology work closely together to promote waste
minimization, using strategies of information transfer, technical assistance, and
grants, as well as a waste exchange and an award program. The State further
encourages minimization through special provisions in the tax code for reduction,
recovery, and recycling facilities and industrial revenue bonds that are available to
finance pollution control facilities.
I. Legislative Background
The North Carolina General Assembly passed the Waste Management Act of
1981 establishing the Governor's Waste Management Board, which had the duty to
plan and oversee the safe management of hazardous and low-level radioactive
wastes generated within the State. Two of its responsibilities were (1) to promote
research and development of new methods to prevent, reduce, recycle, treat, and
dispose of wastes, and (2) to evaluate and recommend ways to aid governmental
activities concerning waste management. Under the legislative charter, the Board
sponsored an award program, the Governor's Award for Excellence in Waste
Management. The program was to provide recognition to individuals, companies,
and institutes that have shown outstanding commitment, innovation, and/or
technological advances through source reduction, recycling, treatment, or other
management of hazardous or low-level radioactive wastes.
The official interest of the State of North Carolina in pollution prevention
began in 1982 with a Statewide symposium on the question of adopting economical
means of reducing pollution as a State policy. This conference was attended by
J8-1
-------
business, government, and academic representatives, who urged the adoption of
pollution prevention as the official State approach to waste management. The State
responded with Resolution 54 of the 1983 Sessions Laws (Senate Joint Resolution
653), which empowered the State Legislative Research Commission to study the
"desirability and feasibility of creating a Pollution Prevention Pays (PPP) Research
Center in North Carolina." The Legislative Research Commission appointed the
Hazardous Waste Study Commission of 1983 to study the prevention, reduction,
treatment, incineration, and recycling alternatives to landfilling disposal as well as
the idea of a research center.
The Study Commission adopted a "hierarchy of alternatives" in hazardous waste
management and specified the desirable characteristics and objectives for an
all-encompassing PPP Program instead of a typical "research center." The
alteration of manufacturing operations and the onsite recycling of materials, both of
which reduce the overall generation of waste, were recognized as the most
preferred waste management strategies. To promote waste minimization, the Study
Commission directed that the proposed PPP Program be nonregulatory, yet still
operate in conjunction with regulatory and other agencies to meet its goals. The
PPP Program was to be involved in research, education, and technical assistance for
the benefit of both the general public and the industrial community, particularly
those in the industrial sector whose size and resources do not allow independent
implementation of pollution prevention methods. The Commission finally
recommended that a PPP Program be established within the DNRCD to formally
address positive methods of waste reduction.
II. Regulatory Programs
North Carolina's hazardous waste regulations for the most part follow those of
the U.S. EPA. There are no special exemptions or modifications for recycling
practices other than provisions codified in 40 CFR 266 for recycling materials used
in a manner constituting disposal, for hazardous waste burned for energy recovery,
and for recyclable materials utilized for precious metal recovery.
J8-2
-------
The State's land disposal restrictions present some tighter requirements such as
additional location standards for hazardous waste management facilities (10 North
Carolina Admin. Code 10F .0032(q)) and requirements for landfills. For example, no
hazardous waste landfill can be built until at least one "comprehensive hazardous
waste treatment facility is fully operational" (10 North Carolina Admin. Code 10F
.0032(o)). As the need for establishing a hazardous waste landfill within the State
becomes greater, a requirement such as the last may serve as an incentive to
building a recycling facility, depending on the interpretation of "comprehensive
treatment facility." At this time, no legal definition exists.
III. Fee and Tax Incentives
A. Assessments
Large-quantity hazardous waste generators, transporters, and treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) are all assessed a flat fee according to the
following classification (10 North Carolina Admin. Code IOC .0701-.0704):
Generator $600/year
Transporter • $600/year
Generator and transporter $900/year
TSDF $l,200/year
TSDF and generator and/or transporter $l,200/year
No distinction is made based on volume, toxicity, or type of waste management.
B. Tax Credits
North Carolina law gives special tax treatment to individuals and companies
that purchase resource recovery, recycling, and volume reduction equipment or that
construct facilities for waste treatment, resource recovery, recycling, and volume
reduction equipment. Specifically, the cost of equipment and facilities may be
J8-3
-------
deducted from capital stock, surplus, and individual profits in computing the
corporate franchise tax; the cost is eligible for 60-month amortization and is
deductible from corporate and individual income taxes (North Carolina Gen. Stat.
105-147). Equipment and facilities for waste treatment, resource recovery, and
recycling are also excluded from the property tax base (North Carolina Gen. Stat.
105-275).
Since "resource recovery and recycling equipment" and "resource recovery and
recycling facility" are not defined in the statutes, the Department of Human
Resources (DHR) is charged with developing and promulgating standards that the
equipment and facilities must meet in order to qualify for the tax benefits.
Individuals and corporations must obtain certification from the DHR that indicates
such equipment and facilities are "exclusively used in the actual waste recycling,
reduction, or resource recovery process" and not just in "incidental or supportive"
roles (North Carolina Gen. Stat. 130A - 294(aX3)).
Despite the fact that generators of hazardous waste in North Carolina are
purchasing and installing equipment and building facilities for waste treatment,
resource recovery, recycling, and volume reduction, few of these taxpayers are
i
taking advantage of the available benefits. Thus far, most of the equipment that
has been certified is used for nonhazardous solid waste (Dunn 1985). There is
speculation that the program has not been widely used because it is not well known
(personal communication with Gary Hunt, PPP Program, DNRCD, December 1985).
IV. Loan and Bond Assistance
North Carolina law authorizes the issuance of industrial revenue bonds to
finance a pollution control facility, which includes reduction, recovery, and
recycling facilities, if the project meets the approval of the Secretary of the
Department of Commerce and the DHR. Such a determination would depend on
whether the facility would further the State's waste management goals and not have
adverse effects upon public health, the environment, or the economy (Bulanowski
1981, in reference to North Carolina Gen. Stat. 159C-7).
J8-4
-------
V. Grant Programs
See discussion on Challenge Grants and Research and Education Grants in
Section V/I.A, Pollution Prevention Pays Program.
VI. Information Programs
A. Pollution Prevention Pays Program
The PPP Program encompasses a number of strategies for waste minimization
comprising (1) information transfer, (2) onsite technical assistance, (3) challenge
grants, and (A) research and education grants, each being effectively coordinated
with the other.
These strategies are discussed below:
(1) Information Transfer
The PPP Program provides information transfer through its Information
Clearinghouse and its outreach programs. In the Clearinghouse, an
information data base provides quick access to literature sources,
contacts, and case studies on waste reduction techniques for specific
industries or waste streams. Over 1,200 references on waste reduction
methods have been identified and organized by industrial category.
Information is also made available through customized computer searches
of literature data bases. This provides access to current national and
international literature on pollution prevention techniques specific to the
problem area.
The Information Clearinghouse also has access to universities, trade
associations, industries, research laboratories, and government agencies,
which can provide additional technical, economic, or regulatory
information. This network includes contacts at State, Federal, and
international technical assistance and research organizations. Reports on
waste reduction published by PPP staff are available through the
Clearinghouse. These include:
• Pollution Prevention Bibliography, which references literature
organized by industrial category;
• Accomplishments of North Carolina Industries, which provides case
summaries of the technical and economic aspects of pollution
reduction efforts undertaken by the State's industries;
J8-5
-------
• Directory of North Carolina Resource Recovery Firms, which lists
companies that purchase waste materials for reuse; and
• A Handbook of Environmental Auditing, which details successful
auditing programs used by the State's industries.
Also available through the Clearinghouse are:
• Series of "Pollution Prevention Tips," which provide technical and
economic assessments of pollution prevention methods for specific
industries such as textiles, electroplating, and furniture manufacturing;
• Handbooks developed in conjunction with PPP's workshops - Managing
and Recycling Solvents, Managing and Minimizing Hazardous Waste
Metal Sludges, Managing and Recycling Solvents in the Furniture
Industry,
• "Challenge Grants Information"; and
• "Information on Research Funds and Projects."
During 1985, the PPP staff responded to an average of 75 phone calls and
letter reguests each month for general information and literature. Staff
also prepared detailed information packages for over 25 industries and
communities. These information packages included copies of references,
case studies, contacts, and computer literature searches.
As far as the outreach effort, in 1985 PPP staff conducted or cosponsored
over 30 presentations on pollution prevention for trade associations,
professional organizations, citizen groups, universities, and industrial
workshops. They have also sponsored several "Workshops on Implementing
State Pollution Prevention Programs," attended by representatives from
numerous States, USEPA, and Ontario, Canada.
(2) Onsite Technical Assistance
Comprehensive technical assistance is provided directly through a visit to
a facility. During an onsite visit, detailed process and waste stream
information is collected and plant personnel are consulted on current
management practices. Information is analyzed and a series of waste
reduction options for each waste stream is identified. A short report
outlining the management options is prepared for the facility. The report
package includes all supporting documentation such as literature,
contacts, case studies, and vendor information, as well as a preliminary
assessment of reduction potential and economics.
In 1985 the PPP staff provided onsite technical assistance to five firms.
Onsite visits addressed such waste streams as cooling oils, metal-
contaminated wastewater, oily wastewater, acids/bases, metallic sludges,
and solvents.
J8-6
-------
(3) Challenge Grants
The Challenge Grants Project provides matching grant monies in amounts
up to $5,000 for projects that evaluate the feasibility of applying methods
or technologies to prevent pollution or decrease waste generation. It is
aimed at small businesses and manufacturing firms, trade associations,
and communities to develop and implement waste minimization
techniques for specific waste streams and/or facilities. Projects range
from the characterization of waste streams, in order to identify waste
minimization techniques, to in-plant pilot scale studies of reduction.
Funds are available for the cost of personnel, materials, or consultants
needed to undertake a pollution prevention project. Ideally, the lifespan
of a project is six months.
Grant proposals are reviewed on the basis of several criteria (PPP
Program 1985b):
• Commitment and ability of applicant to implement pollution
prevention recommendations;
• Severity of pollution/waste problems or uniqueness of opportunity to
prevent or reduce waste;
• Specificity of approach to reduction of waste volumes or toxicity
through process modification, waste stream segregation, equipment
redesign, recovery for reuse, etc.;
• Potential of implemented recommendations to be economically
beneficial to the applicant through payback or cost savings;
• Potential of transfer to other similar waste streams, businesses, or
communities;
• Measurable results and proposed project costs; and
• Consultant qualifications.
During the first round in the Spring of 1985, 16 projects were funded,
representing over $190,000 in pollution prevention and waste reduction
efforts. These projects addressed wastes from such areas as textiles, food
processing, hospital laboratories, paper manufacturing, solid waste, waste
oil, and drinking water treatment. Waste streams and industries
addressed by projects during 1986 include electroplating, waste solvents,
laboratory waste, meat packing, seafood processing, textiles, and
municipal solid waste. These projects will receive $100,000 in matching
funds, doubling 1985's initial allotment of $50,000.
(4) Research and Education Grants
Research and education projects are funded through the North Carolina
Board of Science of Technology with staff assistance from the PPP
-------
Program. Grants in amounts up to $30,000 per project per year are made available
to sponsoring universities and institutions for research and education addressing the
following objectives (North Carolina DNRCD [1985]):
• Target waste streams and industries specific to North Carolina;
• Document economic and technical feasibility of waste reduction
techniques;
• Reduce the volumes of the State's major hazardous, toxic, and
water/air waste streams; and
• Develop innovative approaches to environmental management.
Research projects range from in-plant demonstration projects to applied
research on new technologies. Some of the recent projects include
application of pollution prevention techniques to such industries as wood
preserving, chemicals, electroplating, textiles, food processing, and
microelectronics.
Educational projects include onsite demonstrations and workshops on
waste minimization designed for businesses, communities, and citizens.
Currently, two projects are being developed for university students: (1) a
pollution prevention curriculum for use in engineering and industrial
technology programs, and (2) an engineering intern project to place
engineering students with industries to develop waste reduction programs
for individual firms.
A director's position was first filled in October 1983 to develop the program
and recommend a work plan. In January 1984, a business specialist was assigned to
provide part-time staff support. Acting on the Hazardous Waste Study
Commission's recommendation, the 1984 Summer Session of the General Assembly
approved a budget and staffing for the PPP Program, as well as funding for research
and education. In January 1985, an environmental engineer and a secretary were
added. An additional engineering position has recently been approved by the
DNRCD.
The 1985 full session of the General Assembly authorized annual budgets of
$190,000 for the PPP Program and $300,000 for research and education for fiscal
year 1986 - 1987. Research funds are appropriated to the North Carolina Board of
Science and Technology, with staffing provided by the PPP Program. Additional
funding of $100,000 annually through 1987 is made through the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency to support research for small business waste reduction.
J8-8
-------
The initial obstacle encountered in implementing the PPP Program was
attaining the visibility and recognition necessary for the promotion of the program's
goals and intentions. The designation of the DNRCD as the lead agency in pollution
prevention provided a central point of contact and a network of regional DNRCD
offices throughout the State. Concurrently, a publicity and information campaign
entailing the distribution of PPP literature to trade associations and the insertion of
articles in trade association newsletters also helped achieve recognition. In
addition, the program began to document successful industry-specific pollution
prevention cases and to develop a bibliography and library of source material.
Another early problem was suspicion by industry of technical assistance from
what was perceived as a "regulatory agency." North Carolina's PPP Program
attributes its success in addressing industry reluctance to (1) developing its own
identity through a series of reports and publications, (2) focusing on helping those
industries that want assistance, and (3) continually stressing that the Program is
nonregulatory in nature.
In its first two years of operation, the PPP Program has concentrated its
efforts on information and technology transfer, technical assistance development,
and research funding. In the coming year, the program will place emphasis on
expanding contacts through technical assistance and onsite consultation. A
continuation of research and education projects and Challenge Grant projects will be
pursued. An evaluation of these projects will be undertaken to determine if they are
meeting objectives and if they can be improved.
Successful technical assistance, onsite visits, and Challenge Grant projects will
be compiled into case studies and distributed to respective industries and trade
associations. An engineering intern program similar to that of Minnesota's is being
developed. Additionally, the program will continue to provide staff support to a
"national roundtable" forum of State waste reduction programs and will seek to
organize the group more formally.
J8-9
-------
B. Piedmont Waste Exchange
The Piedmont Waste Exchange (PWE) is an active information exchange
sponsored by the Urban Institute and the Department of Civil Engineering at the
University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Funding is provided by the Urban
Institute, the Governor's Waste Management Board, Mecklenburg County, and
various industry and environmental groups and trade associations.
PWD distributes the Waste Watcher, a quarterly bulletin listing companies that
want to transfer both hazardous and nonhazardous wastes. The fee for an unlimited
number of listings is $40 per year. Approximately 25 percent of the listings receive
matches. This waste exchange works with other exchanges, such as the Northeast
Industrial Waste Exchange, to increase the potential for successful waste transfers
(PWE [1984]).
In addition to arranging waste transfers, PWE prepares and distributes
educational literature; makes presentations at industrial meetings, workshops, and
conferences; sponsors technical assistance workshops for individual firms; and
conducts surveys and studies on hazardous waste topics. Projects conducted by PWE
include: a survey of small-quantity hazardous waste generators in Mecklenburg and
Gaston Counties; a study of legal, institutional, and policy incentives for waste
prevention, exchange, and reuse; and a survey to identify potential waste transfer
pairs.
VII. Award Programs
North Carolina has operated an award program for almost four years for the
purpose of honoring individuals, companies, and institutions within the State that
have demonstrated superior waste management practices for hazardous or low-level
radioactive wastes. Each year in the fall, the Governor's Waste Management Board
distributes entry forms and information letters on the Governor's Award for
Excellence in Waste Management to generators, public organizations, and local
governments throughout North Carolina. By December, the entry forms and an
J8-10
-------
accompanying summary of the waste management projects are screened and sent to
a five-member judging panel, representing industry, environmental organizations,
and the scientific community. The entries are judged in the following categories:
Commitment by management;
Creativity;
Environmental and economic benefits;
Technological achievement;
Superior management and engineering; and
Leadership in communicating technology to others.
Early in the new year, the Governor presents the award winners in each waste
category with a plaque and certificate. Annual program costs, including printing,
postage, plaques, and publicity, are approximately $3,500 (based on 1983
expenditures).
The award program usually receives 15 to 20 entries each year, although in 1984
only 9 were submitted. The reduced number of participants was ascribed to the lack
of media publicity given in the last year and an expanded entry form, which required
additional effort to complete. Because of these comments, the Board has decided to
increase the publicity by providing more notice to the news media. In addition, the
application process has been simplified and the award expanded to further encourage
participation, especially by waste management firms and small quantity generators
(personal communication with Edgar Miller, North Carolina Governor's Waste
Management Board on November 20, 1985).
Recipients of the Governor's Award for Excellence in Waste Management have
thus for included: 1982 - Burlington Industries (Furniture Division); 1983 -
Stanadyne, Inc. (Moen Division, Sanford Plant) and Duke Power Company (McGuire
Nuclear Station); and International Business Machines Corp. (Research Triangle
Park). These recipients and the honorable mentions (the number varies from year to
year) are listed along with their accomplishments in a booklet that is made available
to the general public (Governor's Waste Management Board 1982, 1983, 1984).
J8-1
-------
VIII. Publications and References
Dunn, H.G. [1985]. Special tax treatment of equipment and facilities for
recycling, recovering, and preventing generation of solid and hazardous waste.
Article prepared for the N.C. Hazardous Waste Report by Poyner, Geraghty,
Hartsfield, and Townsend, Attorneys at Law, Raleigh, N.C.
Governor's Waste Management Board. 1982, 1983, 1984. Achievements in
waste management. Raleigh, N.C.
Hunt, G., and Schecter, R. 1985a. Accomplishments of North Carolina
industries. Raleigh: N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development.
. 1985b. Pollution prevention bibliography. Raleigh: N.C. Department of
Natural Resources and Community Development.
Kohl, J. 1984a. Managing and minimizing hazardous waste metal sludges.
Raleigh: Industrial Extension Service, North Carolina State University.
. 1984b. Managing and recycling solvents. Raleigh: Industrial Extension
Service, North Carolina State University.
Kohl, J., Pearson, J., and Wright, P. 1985. Managing and recycling solvents in
the furniture industry. Draft report. Raleigh: Industrial Extension Service,
North Carolina State University.
McRae, G., Tooly, R., and Perry, D. 1985. Hazardous waste in North Carolina:
a comprehensive analysis of waste requiring offsite treatment and/or disposal.
Raleigh: N.C. Governor's Waste Management Board.
PPP Program. 1985a. Directory of North Carolina resource recovery firms.
Raleigh: N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development.
. 1985b. Grants for research and education in pollution prevention.
Raleigh: N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development.
. 1985c. Handbook of environmental auditing in North Carolina.
Raleigh: N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development.
J8-12
-------
. 1985d. Information on research funds and projects. Raleigh: N.C.
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development.
. 1985e. Pollution prevention tips: furniture manufacturing. Raleigh:
N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development.
. 1985f. Pollution prevention tips: local waste managers' associations.
Raleigh: N.C. Department of Natural Resources and Community Development.
. 1985g. Pollution prevention tips: metal finishing. Raleigh: N.C.
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development.
. 1985h. Pollution prevention tips: textile mills. Raleigh: N.C.
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development.
PWE. 1984. Annual report: 1983 - 1984. Charlotte: Urban Institute,
University of North Carolina.
PWE. 1985. Waste Watcher. Charlotte: Urban Institute and Department of
Civil Engineering, University of North Carolina. (Issued quarterly).
J8-13
-------
APPENDIX J.9
PENNSYLVANIA
-------
J.9 Pennsylvania
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has combined two strategies in its effort to
encourage waste minimization. A licensing exemption is in effect to promote
recycling and a technical assistance program disseminates information to facilitate
minimization.
I. Legislative Background
In Pennsylvania, the control of hazardous waste is usually provided for within
legislation covering solid waste. In 1980, the Pennsylvania Solid Waste Management
Act established requirements for accurate recordkeeping, labeling, and manifesting
of hazardous waste. In addition, chemical users were required to keep information
on chemical constituents and properties and to report on hazardous waste activities
and emergency contingency plans. The Act also set down facilities permitting,
siting and financial requirements, and prescribed penalties and fines for
noncompliance.
II. Regulatory Programs
A. Hazardous Waste Regulations
Hazardous waste regulations in Pennsylvania appear under the Pennsylvania
Code, Title 23, Environmental Resources, Chapter 75, Solid Waste Management,
Subchapter D, Hazardous Waste. The solid waste regulations, which contain the
hazardous waste regulations, were first adopted in 1971, but have been amended
through March 8, 1985. The hazardous waste regulations set standards for the
identification, listing, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of wastes.
B. Licensing Exemption
Under Subsection 75.261 of the State's hazardous waste regulations,
generators/transporters who use, reuse, recycle, or reclaim hazardous waste are not
J9-1
-------
subject to the State's transportation license requirement. The exemption does not
apply, however, to wastes having commercial value and a history of routine
commercial trade. Also, recycling, reuse, or reclamation facilities are required to
submit a pre-operation plan describing any proposed chemical mixes to the State
Bureau of Air Quality to ensure that air quality standards are met (Pennsylvania
Codes Title 25, Chapt. 75D).
III. Fee and Tax Incentives
Pennsylvania offers no fee or tax incentives to promote minimization at this
time.
IV. Loan and Bond Assistance
Loan and bond assistance has yet to be incorporated into Pennsylvania's efforts
to minimize waste.
V. Grant Programs
Pennsylvania presently does not award grant monies to generators and other
organizations as an incentive for waste minimization efforts.
VI. Information Programs
A. Pennsylvania Technical Assistance Program
The Pennsylvania Technical Assistance Program (PENNTAP) is a technology
transfer and dissemination service operated by the Pennsylvania State University
and the Pennsylvania Department of Commerce under a Commonwealth-University
partnership agreement established in 1965. The program employs five full-time
technical specialists with backgrounds in engineering and science. These specialists
are supported by two technical librarians who maintain PENNTAP's in-house data
base. The program is headed by a director, who is assisted by an information
coordinator, an office manager, and two other office staff members. Program
J9-2
-------
funding sources include Penn State University's Division of Continuing Education,
the State legislature through the State Department of Commerce, and other State
and Federal agencies for special projects. Advisory services are provided free of
charge.
The bulk of program advisory activity is in microcomputers and
computerization (143 cases in 1984), although environmental problems — those
dealing with handling, disposal, and/or identification of hazardous wastes, with solid
waste materials, and with other environmental concerns — comprise a significant
portion (62 cases in 1984). Other major areas addressed by PENNTAP include
chemical technologies, energy technologies, safety/health (including fire safety),
productivity improvements, and construction and maintenance.
According to program literature, PENNTAP required $4.43 million to operate
between 1972 and 1984. In that same period, 19,343 problems were addressed,
resulting in $79.9 million in benefits to the State's economy. Since 1980, the
program has been credited with saving or creating more than 580 jobs. Program
impact figures for 1984 alone indicate that 1,242 cases were handled, 59.8 percent
of which came from business/industry, entrepreneurs, and consultants/engineers.
The economic impact was just under $10.8 million, not including the valuation of 57
jobs created or saved. All reports of economic and job benefits are made by
recipients of program services on a post-assistance evaluation form; a 17.8:1
benefit-to-cost ratio has been documented (personal communication with William
Arble, PENNTAP, January 31, 1986).
VII. Award Programs
The Commonwealth currently does not use public recognition or honors as
incentive to promote minimization.
VIII. Publications and References
Pennsylvania Technical Assistance Program (PENNTAP). 1985. PENNTAP
UPDATE 1984. Prepared for the Pennsylvania State University.
(PENNTAP also provides informative pamphlets.)
J9-3
-------
APPENDIX J.10
TENNESSEE
-------
J. 10 Tennessee
The State of Tennessee has recognized the potential benefits of hazardous
waste minimization and has addressed the topic through special regulatory
requirements for recycled hazardous waste, fee incentives, loan and bond assistance,
and a hazardous waste minimization program that is currently doing studies on
waste reduction techniques for small businesses.
I. Legislative Background
Tennessee's policies concerning hazardous waste minimization have their legal
basis in the Hazardous Waste Management Act. Part I (68-46-101 through 1 14) was
drafted in 1975 and Part II (68-46-201 through 221) in 1983. Of the two parts, the
latter is focused more on resource recovery. Modifications to Part II are currently
in the process of being adopted by the Tennessee legislature. Among these changes
are provisions to: (1) promote efficient and economical management to encourage
recycling, (2) prohibit land disposal of certain substances, and (3) subject
privately-owned wastewater treatment and pretreatment plants to permits-by-rule.
»
The Hazardous Waste Management Act is implemented by the Tennessee
Department of Health and Environment (DHE). The Division of Solid Waste
Management administers Part I, while the Division of Solid Waste Management and
the Division of Superfund share responsibility for Part II. The Safe Growth Team,
which was previously under the Office of the Governor, is now under the
Commissioner of DHE (personal communication with Bobby Morrison, Tennessee
DHE, January 30, 1986). Among its objectives, waste reduction and recycling has
been adopted as a high priority goal. Initial plans include the establishment of a
technical assistance program.
II. Regulatory Programs
Tennessee has special requirements for hazardous waste that is used, reused,
recycled, or reclaimed. The requirements allow the generator or other handler to
petition to the Commission of the Tennessee Department of Public Health to
J10-
-------
exclude such wastes from many of the requirements applicable for other hazardous
wastes as stated in Tennessee Rules 1200-1-11-.03 through 1200-1-11-.07.
III. Fee and Tax Incentives
The State of Tennessee charges fees for the State's remedial action fund and
for permit applications and permit maintenance. The latter are intended to cover
the cost of administering the hazardous waste regulatory program. Both application
and maintenance fees vary according to whether the application or permit holder is
a transporter, a storage facility, a treatment facility, or a disposal facility. For
storage and treatment facilities, the fees also vary according to design capacity,
with larger facilities paying higher fees. Disposal facilities are assessed a base fee
plus an additional fee on the remaining design capacity of their landfill, land
application, and injection well operations (Tennessee Rule 1200-1-1 1-.08).
Under the Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1983, fees for the State's
remedial action fund are charged on the generation and transportation of hazardous
waste. The "generation fee," based on a size classification of generators, has been
structured by administrators to encourage recycling, and to discourage land
disposal. No fees are imposed on generators who recycle their wastes (for the
portion recycled) or have their wastes recycled. For generators in fiscal year
1983-1984, the maximum fee was $7,500 and the minimum fee $300. The "offsite
shipment fee," an additional fee, is collected from generators who ship hazardous
waste offsite for treatment or disposal. In fiscal year 1983-1984, this fee was $7.00
per ton. The Act allows annual adjustments to be made in both fee structures to
reflect any changes in the revenue needs of the remedial action effort. State
appropriations to the fund match revenue collections dollar-for-dollar (Tennessee
Code Sec. 68-46-203, Rule 1200-1-13-.02).
Generators who recover hazardous waste for recycling may receive exemption
from generator fees administered under the State's Superfund program. Exclusions
are granted on approval of the generator's application to the Division of Solid Waste
Management (Tennessee Code Sec. 68-46-203(b)(2XO).
J10-2
-------
IV. Loan and Bond Assistance
Tennessee has a program that provides loans, in the form of revenue bonds, to
cities and counties for resource recovery facilities. The current capacity of the
State to issue money as needed is $100 million. Cities or counties must have the
capability to pay off the bonds, which are good for the life of the facility or up to 20
years (personal communication with Bobby Morrison, Tennessee DHE, January 30,
1986).
V. Grant Programs
Tennessee presently does not award grant monies to generators and other
organizations as an incentive for waste minimization efforts.
VI. Information Programs
The State of Tennessee received an EPA add-on grant in Fall 1984 to aid in
promoting waste reduction activity. The State, through its Department of Economic
and Community Development, is currently using the grant to fund studies of
applicable waste reduction techniques in small businesses. The aim of the program
is to select representative facilities within specific industrial categories (e.g.,
furniture fabricators) and to conduct waste audits to identify cost-effective waste
reduction measures. The results will appear in the form of feasibility studies for
individual facilities, generalized studies for each industry category, and regional
studies. A consulting firm has been hired to perform the work.
The consultant is also required to hold waste minimization technical workshops
in the regions of the State where generators are selected. This is to broaden the
dissemination of the information collected within the 15-month grant period.
The add-on grant was made in the amount of $90,000 and was matched with
$10,000 from the State of Tennessee. Depending on the success of the effort and
the prospects for future funding, the State may gradually phase in a waste reduction
program by allocating permanent funding and staff, or by contracting with a
consultant. To showcase the pilot program's successes, the Governor's Safe Growth
Team is planning a waste minimization conference to be held March 4-6, 1986.
JiO-3
-------
VII. Award Programs
Tennessee currently has no award program that provides recognition and honor
to individuals or organizations that have demonstrated outstanding achievement in
hazardous waste management.
VIII. Publications and References
EMPE, Inc. 1985. Tennessee hazardous waste minimization program. Outline
of program prepared for Existing Industry Services, Department of Economic
and Community Development, State of Tennessee, presented at Workshop on
Implementing State Pollution Prevention Programs, 31 October 1985,
Washington, D.C.
J10-4
-------
APPENDIX J.ll
WASHINGTON
-------
J.I 1 Washington
Washington State is active in promoting hazardous waste minimization through
regulatory programs, annual fee assessments on generators and facilities, and its
Priority Waste Management Study, which attempts to determine the best waste
management practices for different waste categories and strategies to achieve such
management.
I. Legislative Background
The State of Washington initiated a number of efforts to regulate hazardous
waste prior to the enactment of RCRA by the Federal Government. In 1976, the
State enacted the Hazardous Waste Disposal Act, which charged the Washington
Department of Ecology (DOE) with the responsibility for regulating the production,
transportation, and disposal of extremely hazardous waste. Federal and State
regulations were incorporated into one set of "Dangerous Waste Regulations" in
1982. They were amended in 1984 to include the regulation of polychlorinated
biphenyls under 50 ppm.
In 1983, legislation was passed specifying preferred hazardous waste
management practices. Substitute Senate Bill 4245 established a set of priorities
for managing hazardous waste. These priorities, in order of importance, were:
1. Waste reduction;
2. Waste recycling;
3. Physical, chemical, and biological treatment;
4. Incineration;
5. Solidification/stabilization; and
6. Landfilling.
The bill also directed DOE to complete a study of the best management
practices for each category of waste by July 1, 1986, and to prepare new rules to
promote priority waste management practices. DOE was also authorized to offer
consulting and technical assistance services in this endeavor.
-------
Substitute House Bill 1438 directed DOE to determine by July 1, 1986, the
waste categories that are most suitable for landfilling. Until that time, all land
disposal of hazardous waste at commercial offsite facilities is prohibited, as is the
construction of new landfill facilities.
The Hazardous Waste Control and Elimination Account Act is the legislation
that set aside funds for hazardous waste activities. The account is to be used (1) to
implement the hazardous waste and substances regulation control program, (2) to
encourage waste recycling and reduction, (3) to clean up sites, and (4) to provide
CERCLA matching funds. The account is supported by fees charged to generators
and facilities.
II. Regulatory Programs
Washington's land disposal bans on certain substances and legislative directives
for facility siting both indirectly promote recycling and source reduction. The land
disposal of all hazardous waste was banned under Substitute House Bill 1438 until
July 1, 1986, or until a study of landfill suitability is completed for each waste or
waste category. To implement this legislation, a two-phase study (Phase A and
Phase B) was designed by DOE. Phase A studies those wastes most likely to require
landfill disposal (inorganics). Phase B studies organic wastes. Phase A of the study
has been completed and the landfill restrictions on inorganic wastes have been lifted.
To expedite the siting of hazardous waste facilities, both houses of the State
legislature have passed bills that allow the State to preempt local government
authority in determining feasible locations for incineration and disposal facilities.
These bills also require county governments to develop waste management plans
that include potential sites for treatment, storage, and recycling facilities. The
State's responsibilities under the provisions of these bills are for incineration and
disposal facilities, whereas responsibility for treatment, storage, and recycling
facilities is left to the local government.
Jll-2
-------
III. Fee and Tax Incentives
The Hazardous Waste Control and Elimination Account Act established a
system of annual fee assessments on hazardous waste generators and facilities. The
amount of the generator's fee depends on: (1) risk classification, which is assigned
according to the type of waste produced and the amount produced per year, and
(2) the gross income of the waste generator. As an example of the generator risk
classification, a generator producing between 0.1 tons and 0.2 tons of extremely
hazardous waste per year or between 2.0 and 3.5 tons of dangerous waste per year
would be designated G3. The amount of the hazardous waste facility fee depends on
the facility risk classification alone, which is determined according to the type of
waste disposed, the amount disposed, and the method of disposal. A facility treating
between 3 and 26 tons of extremely hazardous waste per year or between 30 and 260
tons of dangerous waste per year would fall under facility risk classification F5, for
example.
The schedule of fees for generators and facilities is as follows (Washington
Admin. Code 173-305-030,-060,-070):
Schedule of generator fees
Generator gross income (M equals millions)
Risk class
Gl
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
G7
Risk class
Fl
F2
F3
F/i
F5
F6
F7
Less than
$ 15
40
65
90
115
140
150
$1 M $1 M - $10 M
$100
300
500
600
675
725
750
Schedule of facility fees
Amount per annum
$ 750
1,500
4,000
5,000
6,500
7,250
",500
Greater than $10 M
$1,000
3,000
5,000
6,000
6,750
7,250
7,500
Jll-3
-------
IV. Loan and Bond Assistance
Washington currently offers no credit assistance in the form of loans or bonds
for waste minimization efforts. The Priority Waste Management Study, however, is
considering such a strategy (Moellendorf 1985).
V. Grant Programs
Washington presently does not award grant monies to generators and other
organizations as an incentive for waste minimization efforts, although this approach
may be considered for future programs, especially for research and development
(Moellendorf 1985).
VI. Information Programs
A. Priority Waste Management Study
Under Senate Bill 4245, DOE is directed to conduct a study to determine the
best management practices for each waste category and make recommendations on
implementation of waste management priorities. These efforts are currently
underway. DOE is working with a subcommittee composed of representatives from
major industry, local government, and public interest groups to develop a list of
recommendations. Tentative suggestions include technical and public information
programs, a waste exchange, financial disincentives to landfilling, and additional
restrictions on certain hazardous wastes going to landfill facilities (Moellendorf
1985).
VII. Award Programs
Washington State currently has the Environmental Excellence Award Program.
Washington DOE proposes to expand the program and to liberally give awards as a
positive way of recognizing achievements in managing hazardous waste by the
higher priority methods (Moellendorf 1985).
Jll-4
-------
VIII. Publications and References
Moellendorf, G.V. 1985. Progress report: priority waste management study for
Washington state hazardous waste. Olympia: Washington Department of
Ecology.
Washington DOE. 1983. 1982 Annual dangerous waste report. Office of
Hazardous Substances and Air Quality Programs.
1984. Hazardous waste: 1983 annual report. Office of Hazardous
Substances and Air Quality Programs.
Jll-5
-------
APPENDIX K
TWO PROPOSED REGULATIONS ON HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT BY TWO COUNTIES
IN CALIFORNIA
-------
K.I Sacramento County
-------
r
EXHIBIT n (continued)
a) Uses permitted outright
Assembly of small electronic equipment
Computer programming/software and system design
Data processing service
laboratory, medical, dental, or optical
Office, administrative, of bank, saviir-s and loan,
finance, loan, credit
Office, business or professional
b) Uses permitted subject to issuance of a use permit
by the Project Planning Concussion:
Laboratory, materials testing
Laboratory, research and analysis, including but
not ^""ted tos
Biochemical
Chemical
Genetics
Environmental and natural resources
Film and photography
Electronics
Fiber optics
Instrumentation
Laser Optics
Medical, dental, surgical
Metallurgy
Pharmaceutical
Robotics
Solar
Sanies and Sound Imaging
X-Ray
Educational, training facilities related to other
permitted uses.
19. Comply with all Federal, State, and County Hazardous
Materials Regulations.
20. Handlers of hazardous materials shall prepare a
hazardous materials management plan (IftMP) , to be
submitted to the Planning Director, including the
following standards and elements:
a) All storage tanks for hazardous materials shall be
designed with leak detection systems and secondary
containment.
b) Underground storage of hazardous mafwjaip shall
be limited to Class I flammable
c) All air emissions including, but not limited to,
process emissions and tank venting, shall be
treated to remove or reduce hazardous air
contaminants. Systems to remove or reduce
hazardous air emissions shall be reviewed and
-------
EXHIBIT II (continued)
approved by the Sacramento County Air Pollution
Control Officer prior to any handling of hazardous
materials.. •
d) Prior to any handling of hazardous materials,
handlers shall prepare a contingency plan for
spills, fires, or other incidents involving
hazardous materials accidents. Such contingency
plans shall be prepared in cooperation with and
reviewed by Hie Citrus Heights Fire Department,
the Sacramento County Sheriff and the California
Highway Patrol.
e) Wastewater shall be treated to minimize the
content of volatile organic solvents, heavy or
toxic metals, halides, and other hazardous
matgriaip, and to avoid extremes of pH in the
waste stream. Treatment protocols shall be
reviewed and approved by the Regional Sanitation
District.
'>
f) Prior to any handling of hazardous materials,
users shall prepare a mass balance analysis
program (MBAP), subject to review and approval of
the Planning Director in consultation with the
County Health Department. The MBAP shall provide
a means of monitoring and accounting for all
hazardous materials at all times from arrival on
site through ultimate disposition, including
material storage, movement, processing or
fabrication, analysis, waste storage, treatment,
discharge, product storage and shipment off-site.
Adequate monitoring shall be provided to detect
any losses, which shall be immediately reported to
appropriate agencies. _j
g) Hazardous wastes stored on-site shall be
inventoried and reported to the Citrus Heights /
Fire Department at intervals not to exceed fifteen
days.
21. A Native American person as r
ended by the Native
American Heritage Commission should be consulted for
the cultural resources survey.
22. Dedicate or grant to SMUD all necessary easements for
needed electrical facilities to serve the development.
23. The applicant should coordinate with SMUD staff to
assure implementation of the following Conservation
and Load Management Measures:
Iib0027ed
-------
K.2 Santa Cruz County
-------
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 11.38, REPEALING
CHAPTER 11.39., ADDING CHAPTER" II. 37 AND
AMENDING SUBSECTION- Cc) OF SECTION 18.10.111
OF THF SANTA CRUZ COUNTY CODE
RELATING TO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Cruz do ordain
as follows:
SECTION I
Chapter 11.38 of the Santa Cruz County Code is hereby repealed.
SECTION II
Chapter 11.39 of the Santa Cruz County Code is hereby repealed.
SECTION III
Chapter 11.37 is added to the Santa Cruz County Code to read as
follows:
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Sections:
PART I
GENERAL PROVISIONS
11.37.010 Findings and Intent
11.37.020 Purpose
11.37.030 General Obligation - Safety and Care
11.37.040 Specific Obligation
11.37.050 Definitions
11.37.060 Designation of a Hazardous Materials User
11.37.070 Professional Assistance for County Determinations
PART II
MATERIALS REGULATED
11.37.100 Materials Regulated
11.37.110 Exclusions
PART III
STORAGE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
11.37.200 Containment of Hazardous Materials
11.37.210 New Storage Facilities
11.37.220 Other Storage Facilities
11.37.230 Variance
11.37.240 Abandoned Storage Facilities
[1449-3>
-------
PART IV
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT PLAN
11.37.300 The Hazardous Materials Management Plan
11.37.310 Standard Form Hazardous Materials Management Plan
11.37.320 Short Form Hazardous Materials Management Plan
PART V
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DISCLOSURE FORM
11.37.400 Filing a Hazardous Materials Disclosure Form
11.37.410 Content of the Disclosure Form
11.37.420 Exemption to Disclosure
11.37.430 Trade Secrets and Exemptions from Public Disclosure
PART VI
RESPONSIBILITIES
11.37.500 The Hazardous Materials Permit
11.37.510 The Hazardous Materials Management Plan
11.37.520 Unauthorized Releases - Reporting
11.37.530 Unauthorized Releases - Repair
11.37.540 Unauthorized Releases - Cleanup Responsibility
11.37.550 Unauthorized Releases - Indemnification
11.37.560 Handling, Emergency Procedures and Access
PART VII
INSPECTIONS AND RECORDS
11.37.600 Inspections - Authority
11.37.610 Inspections
11.37.620 Maintenance of Records - County
11.37.630 Maintenance of Records - Applicants
PART VIII
PERMIT PROCESS
11.37.700 Requirement for Permit
11.37.710 Required Information for Permit Application
11.37.720 Permit Issuance, Amendment and Transfer
11.37.730 Fees for Permit
11.37.740 Appeal Procedure
PART IX
ENFORCEMENT
11.37.800 Revocation or Suspension
11.37.810 Criminal Penalties
11.37.820 Civil Penalties
11.37.830 Citizens Right to Act
11.37.840 Civil Action for Retaliation
11.37.850 Remedies Not Exclusive
[1449-3]
-------
PART X
MISCELLANEOUS
11.37.900 Duties are Discretionary
11.37.910 Disclaimer of Liability
11.37.920 Regulations
11.37.930 Conflict with Other Laws
11.37.940 Severability
11.37.950 Initial Compliance Schedule
11.37.010 FINDINGS AND INTENT. The County Board of Supervisors
finds and declares:
(a) Hazardous materials present in the community may pose acute
and chronic health hazards to individuals who live and work in
this County, and who are exposed to such substances as a result
of fires, spills, industrial accidents, or other types of
releases or emission. Additionally, many hazardous materials
present a serious health risk, even when emitted in low levels
over long periods of time.
(b) Mishandling of small amounts of many of these substances
has resulted in widespread and serious contamination of soil,
air and groundwater.
(c) The cleanup of soil and groundwater contaminated with toxic
chemicals can cost 100 times more than the original cost of •
properly containing and handling the hazardous materials
responsible for the pollution.
(d) It is the responsibility of all businesses to protect their
workers and the public from hazardous materials they use.
(e) It is technically and economically feasible to design
manufacturing and commercial facilities that eliminate or
minimize the release of hazardous contaminants.
(f) Aggressive efforts to control hazardous materials will
.enable companies to reduce technological obsolescense and
eliminate the need to undertake expensive retrofit projects to
comply with new regulations.
(g) Many state and federal programs have solved one type of
toxic pollution problem by redirecting the contamination to
another part of the environment, rather than eliminating the
hazard. The County, however, has the responsibility and the
authority pursuant to the County's Environmental Guidelines to
plan to protect human health and the environment from all
significant adverse effects resulting from the use and handling
of hazardous materials.
[1449-31
-------
(h) It is the intent of the County Board of Supervisors that
this Chapter shall recognize the County's responsibilities, its
right to act to protect public health, life, and the environment
from toxic contamination. It is the intent of the Board of
Supervisors that the Chapter shall foster the best available
industrial processes and best practical control technology to
minimize potential contamination. This ordinance shall
condition the use of hazardous materials by placing an
obligation on the users to strictly control their emissions,
discharges and releases.
(i) It is further the intent of the County Board of Supervisors
to require that hazardous materials users monitor their
emissions into the environment and keep records on the
effectiveness of their hazardous materials management practices
as a means of enforcing their obligation.
(j) The people who live and work in this County have a right
and need td know of the use and potential hazards of hazardous
materials in the community in order to plan for and respond to
potential exposure to such materials.
(k) Basic information on the location, type and health risks of
hazardous materials used or stored in the County should be
available to firefighters/ health officials, planners, elected
officials or residents.
(1) It is the intent of the County Board of Supervisors that
this Chapter shall recognize the community's right to know basic
information on the use and storage of hazardous materials in the
County and that it shall establish an orderly system for the
provision of such information.
(m) It is further the intent of the County Board of Supervisors
that the system of the disclosure set forth in this Chapter
shall provide the information essential to firefighters, health
officials, planners, elected officials, and residents in meeting
their responsibilities for the health and welfare of the
community in such a way that any statutory privilege of trade
secrecy is not abridged.
(n) The Board of Supervisors hereby finds and determines, on
the facts relevant to disclosure of the precise location within
a facility where hazardous materials are stored or handled, that
the public interest served by not disclosing such information to
the public clearly outweighs the public interest served by
disclosure of such information.
11.37.020 PURPOSE. The purpose of this Chapter is the protection
of healtn and life, the environment, and property by placing on
the users of hazardous materials the obligation to control
releases, emissions or discharges of all hazardous materials, to
properly handle all hazardous materials and to disclose their
whereabouts.
f 144Q-? 1
-------
PART IV
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT PLAN
11.37.300 _THE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT PLAN. Each
applicant for a Permit pursuant to this Chapter shall file a
written plan, for the Health Officer's approval, to oe known as a
•Hazardous Materials Management Plan (HMMP), which shall
demonstrate the safe handling and control of hazardous materials.
The HMMP may be amended at any time with the consent of the Health
Officer. Those hazardous materials users that frequently initiate
signficant changes, as defined in Section 11.37.050 and referred
to in Section 11.37.400, in handling of a hazardous materials
should indicate that information in the plan, or file an amended
plan. The HMMP shall be a public record, except for items
designated as trade secrets in accordance with the provisions of
Section 11.37.430 and except for information contained in the
General Facility Description and the Facility Storage map or line
drawing of the facility, as herein provided.
11.37.310 STANDARD FORM HMMP. The Standard Form HMMP shall
consist of tne following:
(a) Facility Information;
1. General Information. The Standard Form HMMP shall
contain the name and address of the facility and business
phone numner of applicant, the name and titles and emergency
phone numbers of the primary response person and two
alternates, the number of employees, number of shifts, hours
of operation, and principal business activity.
r ;U.IQ_-? i
-------
2. General Facility Description.
(i) The Standard Form HMHP shall contain a map drawn at a
legible scale and in a format and detail determined by the
Health Officer. It shall show the location of all
buildings and structures, chemical loading areas, parking
lots, internal roads/ storm and sewer drains, and shall
specify the uses of adjacent properties.
(ii) The Health Officer may also require information as
to the location of wells, flood plains, earthquake faults,
surface water bodies, and/or general land uses (schools,
hospitals, institutions, residential areas) within one
mile of the facility boundaries.
3. Facility Storage Map.
(i) The Standard Form HMHP shall contain a Facility
Storage Map at a legible scale for licensing and
enforcement purposes. The information in this section is
provided for purposes of ensuring the suitable and secure
sto'rage of hazardous materials and for the protection and
safety of emergency response personnel.
(ii) The Facilities Storage Map shall indicate the
location of each hazardous materials storage facility,
including all interior, exterior, and underground storage
facilities, and access to such storage facilities. In
addition, the map shall indicate the location of emergency
equipment related to each storage facility, and the
general purpose of the other areas within each facility.
(iii) For each storage facility, the map shall contain
information as prescribed below:
(1) A floor plan to scale and the permit quantity
limit.
(2) For each hazardous material the general chemical
name, common/trade name, major constituents for
mixtures, United Nations (UN) or North American (NA)
numoer, if available, and physical state.
(3) For all hazardous mateials, including wastes,
stored in each storage facility, the hazard class or
classes and the quantity for each such class.
(4) For tanks, the capacity limit of each tank, and
the hazardous material contained in each tank by
general chemical name, common/trade name, major
constituents for mixtures, United Nations (UN) or North
American (NA) number, if available, and physical state.
ri
-------
The Facility Storage Map shall be updated annually o\
whenever an additional approval is required for the
facility..
(b) An Environmental Audit. Hazardous materials users shall
provide the Health Officer, and themselves, with an
environmental audit of each process using a hazardous material
or materials. The environmental audit shall include:
1. A list of all hazardous materials that will be stored,
produced or used in production, assembly and cleaning
processes (a copy of the Hazardous Materials Disclosure Form
as provided in Part IV herein may satisfy the requirements of
this subparagraph);
2. Diagrams showing the flow of all hazardous materials
through each step of these processes;
3. Diagrams and descriptions of all processes that produce
wastewaters, air emissions, or hazardous wastes;
4. Diagrams and descriptions of all treatment processes for
hazardous materials, including information on their
efficiency in removing or destroying hazardous contaminants;
5. Estimates of the type and volume of hazardous materials
that~will be incorporated into final products, discharged
into the sewer, released into the air, or transformed into
hazardous wastes; and
6. A description of the methods to be utilized to ensure
separation and protection of stored hazardous materials from
factors which may cause a fire or explosion, or the
production of a flammable, toxic, or poisonous gas, or the
deterioration of the primary or secondary containment.
(c) Control of Emissions, Discharges and Releases. The
Standard Form HMMP shall indicate the measures employed to
control emissions, discharges and releases of each hazardous
material, by:
1. Showing that the user has a permit or license from the
appropriate regulatory agency.
2. Explaining how the user adheres to existing laws,
statutes, standards or regulations that do not require a
permit or license, but do specifically cover the handling of
each hazardous material and specifically require its control.
3. Documenting measures that will be employed to control the
hazardous material in such a manner as to present the least
acute or chronic hazard or risk to public health, and/or
least damage to the environment, including, but not limited
to:
[1449-3
-------
(i) The best available control technologies, practicable,
or
(ii) Cnanges in process and manufacturing strategies to
reduce handling of the hazardous material.
4. Demonstrating the adequacy of:
(i) Contingency plans for spills and unauthorized
emissions, discharges and releases of the hazardous
material; and,
(ii) Employee training and equipment for proper handling
of hazardous materials, and in response to all emergencies
involving the hazardous material.
5. Upon a showing the environmental fate of the hazardous
material handled is such that it presents no harm or
potential of harm to human health or to the environment, the
HMMP need not indicate the measures employed to control
emissions, discharges, and releases of each hazardous
material.
(d) Monitoring Plan. For each hazardous material used, the
user snail document the efforts to verify that the hazardous
materials are controlled in accordance with all other elements
of the HMMP:
1. These efforts shall include, but are not limited to:
(i) Sampling of emissions discharges and releases;
(ii) Self-inspections of storage, manufacturing, and
transportation operations; and
(iii) Testing of emergency procedures.
2. These efforts shall take place in such a manner as to:
(i) Include sampling, self-inspections and monitoring at
those times during the production process when the highest
volume discharges and the highest probable concentrations
of hazardous materials are likely to occur;
(ii) Monitor, inspect or sample all hazardous materials
used in the manufacturing process which have any potential
for appearing in wastewater discharge; and,
(iii) Include periodic random sampling, monitoring or
inspection.
(e) Recordkeeping Forms. The Standard Form HMMP shall contain
an inspection check sneet or log designed to be used in
conjunction with routine inspections. The check sheet or log
[1449-3]
-------
shall provide for the recording of the date and time of
inspection and, for monitoring activity, the date and time of
any corrective action taken, the name of the inspector, and the
countersignature of the designated safety manager for the
facility or the responsible official as designated in the HMMP.
11.37.320 SHORT FORM HMMP.
(a) Any user handling an aggregate amount of less than 500
pounds of solids or 55 gallons of liquids or 200 cubic feet of a
gaseous material at standard temperature and pressure, whichever
is lesser, of a product or formulation containing a hazardous
material may opt to file the Short Form HMMP unless the Health
Officer has provided notice that he or she has lowered the
weight or volume limits for a specific hazardous material to
protect the public health.
(b) The Short Form HMMP shall consist of the following:
«
1. The Short Form HMMP shall contain the name and address of
the facility and business phone number of applicant, the name
and titles and emergency phone numbers of the primary
response person and two alternates, tne number of employees,
number of shifts, hours of operation, and principal business
activity.
2. The Short Form HMMP shall contain a simple line drawing
of the facility showing the location of the use or storage
facilities and indicating the hazard class or classes and
physical state of the hazardous materials being used or
stored and whether any of the material is a waste.
3. The Short Form HMMP shall also indicate the use and/or
storage of any quantity of any carcinogen or reproduction
toxin as defined in this Chapter.
4. Information indicating that the hazardous materials will
be stored in a suitable manner and that they will be
appropriately contained, separated and monitored.
5. Description of adequate contingency plans for spills and
unauthorized emissions, discharges, and releases of the
hazardous material and, employee training and equipment for
proper handling of hazardous materials, and in response to
all emergencies involving the hazardous material.
6. Assurance that the disposal of any hazardous materials
will be in an appropriate manner.
f 1
-------
PART V
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DISCLOSURE FORM
11.37.400 FILING OF A HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DISCLOSURE FORM.
(a) Any user operating within the unincorporated areas of the
County and handling hazardous materials shall submit a completed
disclosure form to the Health Officer by January 1 of each year.
(b) In addition, any user shall file an amended disclosure form
detailing the handling and other information requested on the
form within 60 days of any:
1. Sigificant change in the handling of a hazardous material;
2. New handling of a previously undisclosed hazardous
material;
*
3. Change of business address;
4. Change of business ownership; or
5. Change of business name.
11.37.410 CONTENT OF THE DISCLOSURE FORM.
(a) The disclosure form shall include the following:
1. Identification information, including but not limited to
name, address and assessor's parcel number.
2. A copy of the MSDS for every hazardous material used by
the person or business completing the disclosure; unless the
MSDS has been previously filed pursuant to the requirements
of this ordinance or does not exist.
3. A listing of the chemical name,'any common names, hazard
class and the CAS number and/or UN/NA number of every
hazardous material handled by the person or business
completing the disclosure form;
4. The EPA waste stream code, if available, of every
hazardous waste handled by the person or business completing
the disclosure form;
5. The estimated maximum amount of each hazardous material
disclosed in either subsection 2 or 3 which is handled at any
one time by the user over the course of tne year;
6. Sufficient information on how and where the hazardous
materials disclosed in subsections 2 and 3 are handled by the
user to allow fire and safety personnel to prepare adequate
emergency responses to potential releases of the hazardous
materials;
-------
7. The SIC code of the business, if applicable; and
8. The names and phone numbers of at least three persons
representing the person or business and able to assist
emergency personnel in the event of an emergency involving
the person or business during nonbusiness hours.
(b) In an emergency, all users must immediately provide upon
request information beyond that specifically required in the
disclosure form to the agency of jurisdiction during the
emergency if that agency has determined that such information is
necessary to protect health and safety of the environment.
11.37.420 EXEMPTION TO DISCLOSURE.
(a) Fuel products that are regulated by the Uniform Fire Code
shall be exempt from disclosure under Part V.
(b) A subs-tance designated as a hazardous material by this
Chapter solely by its presence on the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission list of radioactive materials shall be exempt from
the requirement that an MSDS be submitted with the disclosure
form.
11.37.430 TRADE SECRETS AND EXEMPTIONS FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE.
(a) If a user believes that a request for information contained
in the disclosure form or the HMMP involves the release of a
trade secret, the user shall complete the documents nonetheless,
but shall notify the Health Officer in writing of that
information in the documents that the user believes involves the
release of a trade secret. As used herein, trade secret shall
have the meaning given to it by Section 6254.7 of the Government
code and Section 1060 of the Evidence Code.
(b) Subject, to the provisions of this Chapter, the Health
Officer shall exempt from public disclosure any and all
information coming into his or her possession which is claimed
to involve the release of a trade secret, pursuant to subsection
(a).
(c) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, the Health
Officer shall also exempt from public disclosure that portion of
a Hazardous Materials Disclosure Form, the HMMP or other record
on file which states the precise location where hazardous
materials are stored or handled.
(d) Any information reported to or otherwise obtained by the
Health Officer, or any of his or her representatives or
employees, which is exempt from disclosure pursuant to
subsections (b) or (c) shall not be disclosed to anyone except:
f 1
-------
1. An officer or employee of the County, the State of
California, or the United States of America, in connection
with the official duties of such officer or employee under
any law for the protection of health, or to contractors with
the County and their employees if in the opinion of the
Health Officer such disclosure is necessary and required for
the satisfactory performance of a contract of work, or to
protect the health and safety of the employees of the
contractor; or
2. To a physician when the Health Officer determines that
such information is necessary for the medical treatment of
the physician's patient.
(e) For the purpose of this section, fire and emergency
response personnel and County health personnel operating within
the jurisdiction of the County shall be considered employees of
the County.
«
(f) Information claimed as a trade secret must be disclosed to
a physician by the Health Officer for the purpose of treating a
patient. ' Any physician who, by virtue of his or her treating a
patient has possession of or access to information the
disclosure of which is prohibited on this section, and who,
knowing that disclosure by this information is prohibited,
knowingly and willfully discloses the information in any manner
to any person not entitled to receive it, shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor.
(g) Any officer or employee of the County or former officer or
employee who, by virtue of such employment or official position
has possession of or access to information the disclosure of
which is prohibited by this section, and who, knowing that
disclosure of the information is prohibited, knowingly and
willfully discloses the information in any manner to any person
not entitled to receive it, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Any contractor with the County and any employee of such
contractor, who has been furnished information as authorized by
this section, shall be considered to be an employee of the
County for purposes of this Section.
(h) Information certified by appropriate officials of the
United States, as necessarily kept secret for national defense
purposes, shall be accorded the full protection against
disclosure as specified by such official or in accordance with
the laws of the United States.
(i) Upon receipt of a request for the release of information to
the public which includes information which the user has
notified the Health Officer is a trade secret pursuant to
subsection (a) of this- section, the Health Officer shall notify
the user in writing of said request by certified mail. The
Health Officer shall release the information, forty-five (45)
days after the day of mailing said notice unless, prior to the
f1449-31
-------
expiration of said forty-five (45) days, the user institutes an
action in an appropriate court;for a declaratory judgment that
such information is subject to:protection under subsection (b)
of this section and obtains a temporary restraining order or
preliminary or permanent injunqtion prohibiting disclosure of
said information to the general public.
------- |