United States        Office of Solid Waste     EPA/530-SW-87-026
Environmental Protection   and Emergency Response   October
Agency          Washington DC 20460    1987
Solid Waste

This booklet focuses on EPA's waste minimization
program under the 1984 RCRA amendments.  It also
describes genera! waste minimization practices and
lists Federal and State offices that can assist generators
in initiating or expanding their programs,

Other EFA Waste Minimizattom Materials
Waste Minimization Bibliography (computer format)
Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Minimization Reviews
Belter Operating Practices
Metal Parts Cleaning
V/aste Exchanges
Waste Minimization Techniques (18 specific industries)
Paint Application Processes
Economic Benefits of Waste Minimization
This booklet was published h\ the Waste Treatment Branch of HPA's
Office ol Solid Waste.  The work was prepared under the guidance of
Angela Wilkes. It was written by Michael Aliord, Heidi Sennit/.
Angela Wilkes, Robert Bellinger, and Roger Sehecter; it was
designed b\ Stephen Gibson. The booklet was re\ie\\ed b\ the
U.S. EPA and approved for publication. Major re\ ie\\ers were
Mareia Williams. Joseph C'arra, Ham Freeman. Pat Fo\. Elaine Hb\,
Susan Bullard, and James O'Learv.

E!JA  is grateful for the materials ant! illustrations pnnided b\ the
State \\aste minimi/ation nnigrams. Sle\e  Delanex, and the following
organi/ations: E.I. DuFont lie Nemours & Conipain; EMPH, Inc.;
idnish Engineering. Inc.; Lanc\ International,  Inc.; 3\1 Corporation;
IVleTighe Industries,  Inc.; Pfaudler, Inc.; Stanadxne, Inc.: Tui'ts
I'niversitv; and the I'.S. Department of Deiense.


Environmental Quality
with Economic Benefits
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

Washington, D.C., 1987

                                           During the 1970s, the seriousness of the
                                           hazardous waste problem became
                                           apparent. In 1976, Congress passed the
                                           Resource Conservation and Recovery
                                           Act—the first law to deal on the national
                                           level with hazardous  waste.
  By 1980, EPA had established a regula-
  tory program requiring "cradle-to-grave"
  management of hazardous waste.  The
program set forth design requirements for
hazardous waste landfills, including liners
           and leak detection systems.
                            By 1984, it had become clear that even
                           well-regulated land disposal could cause
                          environmental damage.  Landfill liners can
                              leak, possibly creating future cleanup
                            problems. Treatment methods such as
                           incineration will reduce but not eliminate
                                      the need for land disposal.

The Congress hereby declares it to be the national policy
of the United-States that, wherever feasible, the generation
of hazardous waste is to  be reduced or eliminated as
expeditiously..:as.possible.	.'	
        The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
                                      as amended, 1984
Over the past decade, we have learned that the nation's
hazardous waste problems cannot be cured by simply
burying waste in the land. In recent years, Congress
and EPA have emphasized effective treatment of haz-
ardous waste prior to its land disposal. Treatment
alone, however, will not necessarily remedy our hazard-
ous waste problems.: It is essential that we first mini-
mize the generation and subsequent need for treatment,
storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. This concept,
called ''waste minimization," is essential for ensuring a
healthful environment for us all.
Relying on treatment and establishing strict
controls on land disposal cannot fully solve
our hazardous waste problems. We also
must strive to minimize the amount of
hazardous waste generated in the first
place. This silver recovery unit both.
reduces the amount of waste that must be
treated or disposed of and enables photo
processors to turn a profit on the recovered

        A leading chemical company established
        a program in 1987 that reduced waste
        generated at the company's facilities by
        more than 100,000 tons. This has saved
        an estimated $250 million through sav-
        ings on reformulated products, conserved
        materials and energy, and the ability to
        delay  or completely  eliminate the pur-
        chase of pollution control equipment.
Waste minimization means the reduction, to the extent
feasible, of any solid or hazardous waste that is gener-
ated or subsequently treated, stored, or disposed of.  In
addition to waste regulated under RCRA, EPA encour-
ages the minimization of all wastes that pose risks to
human health and the environment. Waste minimiza-
tion techniques focus on source reduction or recycling
activities that reduce either the volume or the toxicity of
hazardous waste generated. Unlike many waste treat-
ment methods, waste minimization can be practiced at
several stages in most industrial processes. Like all in-
novative solutions to waste management problems,
waste minimization requires careful planning, creative
problem solving, changes in attitude, sometimes capital
investment, and, most important, a real commitment.

The payoffs for this commitment, however, can be
great. Waste minimization can save money—often
substantial amounts—through more efficient use of
valuable resources and reduced waste treatment and
disposal costs.  Waste minimization also can reduce a
                      generator's hazardous-waste-
                      related financial liabilities: the
                      less waste generated, the lower
                      the potential for negative envi-
                      ronmental effects. Finally, tak-
                      ing the initiative to reduce haz-
                      ardous waste is good policy.
                      Polls show that reducing toxic
                      chemical risk is the public's pri-
                      mary environmental concern.
                      Waste minimization can pay off
                      tangibly when  local residents are
                      confident that industry is
                      making every effort to handle its
                      wastes responsibly.
                             Incentives and Obstacles
                             Industries and other hazardous waste generators across
                             the country are making progress toward reducing and
                             recycling wastes, but much more could be done.  The in-
                             centives are great, but, too often, so are the obstacles.

This vapor recovery unit traps escaping fumes from
a printing press area in the adjoining plant.  The
trapped vapors then condense, forming reclaimed
solvent, which is stored in a tank until it is reused.
By far the biggest incentive for
generators to reduce their hazardous
waste volume is the high and
escalating cost of other forms of
hazardous waste management.  Land
disposal, which once cost as little as
$10 per ton of waste, now costs at
least $240 per ton. Disposal sites
are in short supply, and prices keep
rising. Another important incentive
is that Congress has directed EPA to
phase out the land disposal of certain
types of untreated wastes. Under the
Agency's land disposal restrictions
program, mandated in the 1984
RCRA amendments,  many untreated
wastes that were previously sent to
landfills will now be  incinerated or
otherwise treated at costs many
times higher than those for land dis-
posal. And these costs are only part
of the overall picture. Other costs
include waste storage expenses,
transportation fees, administrative
and reporting burdens, potential fi-
nancial liabilities from accidental
releases, and insurance (which, for
many generators, may not even be
                            Working against these strong incentives are a number of
                            practical obstacles that must be removed before waste
                            minimization can reach its potential. Eliminating these
                            impediments will be a high priority for the Agency over
                            the next several years.

                            Information Is Scarce

                            Many companies that genuinely want to reduce their
                            wastes do not have access to the information they need
                            to make appropriate decisions.  Identifying waste mini-
                            mization opportunities can demand specialized engi-
                            neering knowledge that many small- or medium-sized

                     companies do not have and may not be able to obtain
                     independently. Companies of all sizes need access to
                     current information, especially data on the cost-effec-
                     tiveness of various waste minimization techniques. Im-
                     proved information dissemination is one of the most
                     important steps to encouraging waste minimization.

                     Product Quality Must Not Suffer
                     Reducing waste at the source may mean changing the
                     way that products are made. Care must be taken not to
                     risk the quality of established products.

A Texas chemical manufacturer of adlponitrile, a nylon intermediate, recently developed
a new process that improves product yield while reducing by 50 percent the amount of
aqueous waste generated. The company's original process generated 800 gallons of
wastewater per minute, along with nonchlorinated waste solvents that  had to  be
incinerated.  The new process enables the firm not only to reduce the amount of
wastewater that must be treated* but also to burn the waste solvents in the company's
powerhouse.  Steam generated by the burning of the waste solvents is used in the
manufacturing process, thereby saving the company more than $10 million per year in
fuel oil.
                     Competing Pressures
                     Waste generators are struggling to keep up with emerg-
                     ing hazardous waste regulations.  Over the next few
                     years, many generators will be making long-term
                     commitments to phase out land disposal and to adopt
                     waste treatment processes. For many managers, waste
                     minimization may not seem as urgent as meeting these
                     regulatory deadlines. Because information is not al-
                     ways readily accessible and because process changes
                     may be required, action is too easy to postpone.  For
                     waste minimization to gain acceptance among manag-
                     ers, they must realize how it can help meet their regula-
                     tory obligations, pay off in economic benefits, and im-
                     prove their image with the public by demonstrating a
                     commitment to environmental quality.

A Pennsylvania die manufacturer uses 1,1,1-trichlo-
roethane to clean and degrease machine parts. Prior
to installing this solvent recovery unit, the company
shipped the contaminated solvent offsite for reclama-
tion and then purchased reclaimed solvent at $.80 per
gallon and virgin 1,1,1-trichloroethane at $4.50 per
                                EPA9s Report to Congress on
                                Waste Minimization

                                The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
                                emphasizes the preeminence of source reduction and
                                recycling as a strategy for managing solid waste. As
                                early as 1976, the year RCRA was passed by Congress,
                                                EPA developed a formal hierarchy for
                                                waste management that listed source
                                                reduction as the preferred manage-
                                                ment option, followed, in order of
                                                preference, by onsite and offsite recy-
                                                cling, treatment, and, last, land dis-
In 1984, reflecting increased national
concern over the hazardous waste
problem, Congress directed EPA to
report on whether it might be desir-
able or feasible to develop mandatory
requirements, such as national
regulations, to compel adoption of
waste minimization techniques. In
1986, EPA responded with its report
to Congress on waste minimization.
Using this solvent recovery unit, the company now
reclaims solvent onsite at a cost of $.04-$. 10 per
gallon.  In addition, the company's purchase of virgin
1,1,1-trichloroethane has dropped from two 55-gallon
drums each month to two 55-gallon drums every 6
months, a savings of nearly $5,000 per year.
This report explored various techni-
cal, economic, and policy issues
pertinent to hazardous waste source
reduction and recycling, and con-
cluded that mandatory programs
would not be desirable or feasible at
this time. EPA is continuing to collect
and analyze data from generators and
other sources to  assess further the
need for statutory authority on waste
minimization. These findings will
provide the basis for a followup re-
port to Congress in 1990. In this
report EPA will  evaluate whether ex-
isting incentives have been sufficient
to promote waste minimization, or
whether some form of mandatory
program is seen  as necessary to im-
plement the national waste minimiza-
tion policy.

                           The conclusion in EPA's 1986 report to Congress that a
                           mandatory program is not desirable at this time was
                           based on three key factors. First, mandatory programs
                           would second-guess industry's production decisions,
                           quite possibly leading to counterproductive results.
                           Second, mandatory programs would be difficult and ex-
                           pensive to design and administer. Third, generators al-
                           ready face strong economic incentives to reduce their
                           wastes.  A regulatory program would take time to de-
                           velop, and many industries might postpone any action
                           until mandatory requirements were spelled out. The
                           time for making constructive source reduction and
                           recycling decisions is now, while industry is making
                           long-term decisions on how to respond to the land
                           disposal restrictions program and other revisions in the
                           hazardous waste law.
One of the largest -chemical manufacturers In the
Netherlands uses waste segregation, removal of
solvents in water solutions by distillation, and other
source reduction  measures  to  reduce the
company's annual wastewater output by 80 per-

In Sweden, a major pharmaceutical producer initi-
ated a program to recycle  approximately 10,000
tons of hazardous waste solvents per year through
the company's onsite distillation plant, thereby re-
ducing by 60 percent the amount of solvent waste
that was shipped offsite for disposal.
                           EPA's report to Congress stressed that the most con-
                           structive role government can assume is to promote
                           voluntary waste minimization by providing information,
                           technology transfer, and assistance to waste generators.
                           Since the States deal firsthand with generators, EPA
                           believes the States should play the central role in
                           fostering knowledge about waste minimization.
                           Through waste minimization outreach programs, EPA
                           will provide technical materials and guidance as well as
                           information resulting from research efforts and other
                           sources. EPA is also developing a nonbinding waste
                           minimization policy statement to provide guidance to
                           generators who must certify and report information to
                           EPA on their waste minimization activities.
Waste Minimization in
Other Countries
EPA's waste minimization strat-
egy parallels those in Europe and
Japan. All of them rely on coop-
erative, voluntary efforts.  All of
them stress the importance of low-
pollution source reduction and
recycling technologies, waste
exchange (one company's waste
being used as another's feed-
stock), and information sharing.
As in the United States, these
countries operate on a two-tier
system: states, provinces, or pre-
fectures deal directly with waste

                            generators, while central governments provide direction
                            and support. All countries surveyed in an EPA study of
                            foreign waste reduction practices have rejected the
                            notion of mandatory performance standards or other
                            regulatory approaches.  Several countries have commit-
                            ted significant resources toward working with genera-
                            tors to reduce waste volumes.
Waste Minimization Practices in Other Countries

Waste End Taxes
Tax Incentives
Price Support System for Recycling
Government Grants as Subsidies
Low Interest Loans
Information and Referral Service
Site Consultation
Training Seminars
Technical Development Labs
Demonstration Projects
Industrial Research
National Waste Management Plans
Waste Reduction Agreements
Waste Reduction as a Part of Permits
Regional Waste Exchanges
Focus on Corporate Image
Focus on Consumer Practices









Source: Foreign Practices in Hazardous Waste Minimization (Medford, Mass.:  Center for Environ-
mental Management, Tufts University, 1986).


 Setting up
 an Industry

Prepare background material
fof the assessment.

Conduct a preassessment visit
to identify  candidate  wast©

Select waste streams tor de-
tailed analysis.

Conduct a detailed site visit to
Collect data on selected waste
streams and controls and re-
lated process data.

Develop a series of potential
waste minimization options.

Undertake preliminary  option
evaluations  (including  devel-
opment of preliminary cost es-

Rank options by:
— waste reduction
-extent of current use
  in tne industry;
— potential for future
  application at the facility.

Present preliminary results to
plant personnel along with a
ranking of options.

Prepare a final report, includ-
ing recommendations to plant

Develop an Implementation
plan and schedule.

Conduct periodic reviews and
updates of assessments.
 Establishing an aggressive source reduction and
 recycling program is not difficult, but it does require
 commitment on the part of any organization's manage-
 ment. Each company should adopt its own general
 program for waste minimization, and, wherever
 possible, define that program formally in a written
 document. It should also develop an implementation
 plan for each of its facilities or subunits and periodically
 review, revise, and update its program to reflect chang-
 ing conditions. While a waste minimization program
 can target regulated hazardous waste, it can also easily
 incorporate effective reductions of other types of

 Conducting Waste Minimization

 An effective first step in setting up a waste reduction
 program is to perform a waste minimization assessment,
 sometimes referred to as a "waste minimization audit."
 Conducted by in-house staff or an independent outside
 expert, a waste minimization assessment is simply a
 structured review of a facility's potential opportunities
Waste minimization assessments are an effective means of
identifying opportunities for source reduction and recycling.


                           to reduce or recycle its waste.  Its focus can be broad or
                           narrow. EPA has found that it is usually most effective
                           to select a few waste streams or processes for intensive
                                              assessment rather than to attempt
                                              to cover all waste streams and
                                              processes at once.
In  1986, EPA sponsored a waste minimization
assessment at an electric arc furnace steel-mak-
ing facility.   The  assessment team examined
waste minimization options, including source re-
duction and resource recovery, for the company's
corrosive and heavy metal wastes. The assess-
ment revealed that calcium fluoride (fluorspar) in
the sludge generated during neutralization of the
pickling line wastewater could be economically re-
covered. Previously, the company had disposed
of  the sludge and purchased  1,000 tons of
fluorspar per  year as flux material for the steel-
making process.  The waste minimization option
identified by the assessment team will save the
company $100,000 per year in costs avoided to
purchase fluorspar, and a further $70,000 per year
because of a 30 percent reduction in the volume of
sludge to be disposed of.
Many State programs promote and
support waste minimization assess-
ments as a central element of their
waste minimization programs. All
facilities that generate hazardous
waste can benefit, and operations
that generate large volumes of
waste and/or highly toxic waste
can benefit greatly. Substantial
and continuing waste reductions
have also been achieved through
the information gained from con-
ducting waste assessments. Waste
minimization assessments identify
and characterize waste streams, the
production processes that are re-
sponsible for generating each par-
ticular stream, and the amount of
waste  generated by each.
                           The results of a waste minimization assessment enable
                           companies to identify cost-effective approaches to re-
                           duce the volume and toxicity of waste generated.  They
                           can then make more informed decisions on how to
                           allocate resources to source reduction and recycling
                           programs.  While some capital investment may be re-
                           quired, returns can be analyzed in terms of payback pe-
                           riods and opportunity costs.

                           Involving Production Staff
                           The key difference between waste minimization and
                           other environmental programs is that the essential deci-
                           sionmakers are often on the production rather than on
                           the environmental compliance side of the organization.
                           While many environmental controls can be simply
                           added to existing production processes, waste minimi-
                           zation usually happens within the production process
                           itself. For example, recycling decisions require input
                           from production staff, since waste often must be
                           pretreated or otherwise modified to permit in-house

                            recycling or to make it more attractive to outside pur-
                            chasers as part of a waste exchange.  Top management
                            can play a significant role by urging employees to
                            identify source reduction techniques and recycling op-

                            Integrating Costs
                            Hazardous waste disposal costs have increased rapidly
                            and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future as
                            generators compete for scarce treatment and disposal
                            capacity. Because process engineers in many industrial
                            plants are not required to consider "fully loaded" waste
                            management expenses (such as treatment and disposal,
                            transportation, tracking, management overhead, insur-
                            ance, and energy and raw material expenses) as part of
                            their production costs, they may be making process
                            design and operation decisions that seem cost-effective
                            within a discrete process, but that are actually ineffi-
                            cient from the company's overall financial perspective.

                            Keeping Accurate Records
                            An important step in setting up waste minimization pro-
                            grams is to maintain accurate records on existing waste
                            generation rates and management costs, particularly for
                            the major hazardous waste streams that will be targets
                            for source reduction or recycling and that may have
                            been subject to waste minimization assessments as part
                            of the company's overall waste minimization program.

                            Working with  State Programs
                            Some States have already instituted waste minimization
                            technical assistance and outreach programs; others are
                            initiating or expanding their efforts.  States can help
                            generators of all  types, private and public, by providing
                            technical guidance, helping to find qualified engineers
                            to conduct waste assessments, serving as conduits for
                            obtaining the latest information on waste minimization
                            techniques, and putting companies with similar needs in
                            contact with each other.  Although companies must
                            protect the confidentiality of their business information,
                            they may, in many instances, benefit from sharing or
                            trading expertise or experience with State waste mini-
                            mization programs as intermediaries. States can also
                            help publicize a company's waste minimization efforts.

                             Additional State support may include loan and bond as-
                             sistance, grants, and award programs.  A few States
                             have economic incentive programs, such as encouraging
                             waste minimization through tax preferences. In some
                             States, waste minimization programs are administered
                             by nongovernmental groups such as universities and
                             nonprofit organizations.  Some of these programs are
                             listed in this pamphlet.
 An electronics plant installed
       this electrolytic metal
     recovery cell to recover
copper from waste generated
in the production of telephone
   switching equipment.  The
   process produces a better
 quality copper deposit on the
  cell's cathode plates, where
   the copper collects in half-
   inch-thick sheets.  The cell
recovers 75 pounds of copper
   per week, which is sold for
   $.50 per pound—a total of
  about $2,000 per year.  The
      use of the cell also has
  eliminated 1 drum of sludge
        per week, saving an
   additional $4,000 per year.

Reduction  and recycling of waste are inevitably site-
and plant-specific, but a number of generic approaches
and techniques have been used successfully across the
country to reduce many kinds of industrial wastes.

Generally, waste minimization techniques can be
grouped into four major categories: inventory manage-
ment and improved operations, modification of equip-
ment, production process changes, and recycling and
reuse.  Such techniques can have applications across a
range of industries and manufacturing processes, and
can apply to hazardous as well as nonhazardous waste.

Many of these techniques involve source reduction—
the preferred option on EPA's hierarchy of waste man-
agement. Others  deal with on- and off-site recycling.
The best way to determine how these general ap-
proaches can fit a particular company's needs is to
conduct a waste minimization assessment, as discussed
above. In practice, waste minimization opportunities
are limited only by the ingenuity of the generator.  In
the end, a company looking carefully at bottom-line
returns may conclude that the most feasible strategy
would be a combination of source reduction and
recycling projects.

The approaches discussed and illustrated below provide
waste minimization examples for generic and specific
processes. Several of these will be the subject of EPA
technology transfer documents (see inside front cover).
   By improving tie methods for analyzing raw materials and products, a textile fibers plant in
   Tennessee reduced the amount of waste solvent generated from 7,000 gallons to 2,400 gallons
   per year.

   Changing the reactor rinse and cleaning procedures on its truck-loading strainers has enabled
   a California chemical  plant to reduce by 93 percent the amount of prganics m its  resin-
   manufacluring operation. Instead of allowing the phenol used in the manufacturing process to
   drip into the plant's sewage treatment system as a hose drains It from trucks, the company now
   flushes the hose with water, and the water-phenol mixture is recovered for reuse in a separate
   treatment system.

 Inventory Management and Improved

 * Inventory and trace all raw materials.
 • Purchase fewer toxic and more nontoxic
  production materials.
 * Implement employee training and man-
  agement feedback.
;* Improve material receiving, storage, and
  handling practices.

 Modification of Equipment

 * Install equipment that produces minimal
  or no waste.
 * Modify equipment to enhance recovery
  or recycling options,
 * Redesign equipment or production lines
  to produce less waste.
 « Improve operating efficiency of  equip-
 * Maintain strict preventive maintenance
Production Process Changes

* Substitute nonhazardous for hazardous
  raw materials.
• Segregate wastes by type for recovery,
• Eliminate sources of leaks and spills.
* Separate hazardous from nonhazardous
• Redesign or reformulate end products to
  be less hazardous.
• Optimize reactions and raw material use.

Recycling and' -Reuse-.  '    '-      •"

•• Install closed-loop systems.
• Becycle bristle for reuse.
• Recycle offslte for reuse.
• Exchange wastes.
                               Better Operating Practices

                               One of the best means of reducing wastes is through
                               better operating or housekeeping practices—that is,
                               ways to make existing processes work more efficiently,
                               and thereby generate less waste. Better operating prac-
                               tices can involve anything from finding a more efficient
                               way to handle a particular hazardous waste to making
                               fundamental changes in the way a company thinks
                               about waste management.

                               Better operating practices are specific to each facility
                               and to each waste-generating process, but general
                               themes include the following:

                               Personnel Practices

                               Heightened awareness by employees of the need for
                               waste minimization is essential. Training programs, for
                               example, are ways to generate ideas and establish em-
                               ployees' commitment.


Evaporative recovery
systems can minimize the
volume of waste from metal-
plating baths and recycle
plating solutions by recover-
ing 90-95 percent of the
plating solution lost through
dragout.  The operating cost
of the recovery system is only
$.08 per gallon, while the
dragout sludge hauling and
disposal costs are close to
$1.00 per gallon.  With only
5-10 percent of the dragout
requiring waste treatment,
waste handling and disposal
costs have been reduced
 Waste Segregation

 Many wastes are actually mixtures of hazardous and
 nonhazardous waste.  Much of their content may even
 be water. By segregating key toxic constituents,  isolat-
 ing liquid fractions, or keeping hazardous streams from
 nonhazardous waste, generators can sometimes save
 substantial amounts of money on disposal or find new
 opportunities for recycling and reuse.

Better Standard Procedures

Large quantities of hazardous waste may be generated
through spills, improper storage practices, inefficient
production startup  or shutdown, scheduling problems,
lack of emergency  procedures and preventive mainte-
nance, or poorly calibrated pollution control devices.
New standard procedures manuals, better inventory
control,  and routine training and retraining sessions can
help eliminate this  inadvertent waste generation and
provide significant companywide source reduction
                              During standard equipment-cleaning operations, hospitals,
                              universities, and research centers, as well as many small- and
                              medium-sized businesses, such as metal finishers and furniture
                              manufacturers, generate small amounts of waste solvents.
                              These waste solvents can be recycled for reuse in cleaning
                              operations using small, commercially available recovery units.
                              Depending on the commercial value and amount of solvent
                              recovered, the pay-back time for recycling equipment can be as
                              short as 1 year.  Since transportation costs can be very high,
                              even businesses that use only low volumes of solvents may
                              find it more economical to recycle their waste solvents onsite
                              rather than ship the wastes offsite for recovery or disposal.


                              Improved Paint Application Processes

                              Paint application processes are integral to many indus-
                              trial operations. Not only are many leftover waste
                              paints hazardous, but also waste generated through
                              surface treatment (such as abrasion) and equipment
                              cleaning can be hazardous.

                              One of the most direct means of reducing paint-related
                              hazardous waste is to use low-toxicity paints, such as
                              those that are water-based products or do not contain
                              heavy metals.  Changing to water-based paints helps to
                              reduce the use of organic solvents that later must be
                              managed as hazardous waste and that also can be  a
                              source of air pollution.
 The Department of Defense has developed a
 new technique called Plastics Media Blasting
     to strip paint from military aircraft. In this
process, small plastic beads are air blasted at
   the aircraft's surface, removing the paint by
abrasion. This method requires less time and
       generates less hazardous waste than
traditional wet paint stripping. On the basis of
     a test, the DOD estimates that the time
      required to strip an F-4 fighter has been
    reduced from 340 to 40 hours and that the
amount of hazardous waste has been reduced
 from 10,000 pounds of wet sludge per aircraft
  to 320 pounds of dry paint chips and decom-
            posed plastic media per aircraft.
                                          Another approach to reducing waste from
                                          painting operations is to employ mechani-
                                          cal paint stripping. Companies that
                                          substitute such processes as bead blasting
                                          or cryogenic coating removal can avoid
                                          the use of hazardous caustics and  solvents.

 As stain is sprayed onto a
 piece of furniture, the water
 curtain in  the booth traps the
 excess stain and solvent
 residue.  The water is
 recycled back to the wet
 booth and reused.
                               Paint application can also be improved through various
                               approaches—segregating halogenated from nonhaloge-
                               nated solvents, segregating paint and solvent waste from
                               other trash, purchasing paints only in quantities needed
                               (to avoid discard), reducing overspray, controlling paint
                               quality to avoid defective batches that require stripping
                               and repainting, and scheduling and sequencing paint
                               operations more efficiently to reduce cleanup fre-

An-electric company uses a "water-based electrostatic
paint system instead of a conventional organic solvent
paint system.  This has resulted in improved quality of
application, decrease of downtime from 3 percent to i
percent, reduction in the generation of aromatic waste
solvent by 95  percent, reduction in paint sludge by 97
percent, and increase of efficiency with up to 95 percent
recovery and reuse of paint. The new system reduced
hazardous wastedisposai costs and decreased personnel
and maintenance costs by 40 percent.

An automobile manufacturer modified its paint storage
and transfer system to be totally enclosed with full reclrcu-
lation, resulting in less frequent and easier cleanups and
improvement in paint quality.
                              More Effective Metal Parts Cleaning

                              Metal parts cleaning is an essential process for many
                              large and small industries as well as a wide variety of
                              businesses involved in the manufacture, repair, and
                              maintenance of metal parts and equipment.  Potentially
                              hazardous substances used in metal parts cleaning can
                              be minimized by reducing the volume or the toxicity of
                              the cleaning agents used.  Either method can save
                              money as well as reduce hazardous waste. Generic ap-
                              proaches to minimize waste from metal parts cleaning
                              include source control and substitution of cleaning

                                In the case of source control, lids, sideboards, and
                                chillers can be added to solvent tanks to reduce product
                                loss and spillage. Improved solvent-handling practices
                                can reduce cross-contamination, sludge buildup, and

                                                   Substitute cleaning processes can
                                                   include using abrasives in grease-
                                                   less or water-based binders, thus
                                                   eliminating the need for subsequent
                                                   caustic-based cleaning to remove
                                                   the binder. Plants can also substi-
                                                   tute abrasive-free, water-based
                                                   cleaning compounds for solvent
                                                   cleaners in many processes, thereby
                                                   reducing air emissions from
Ion exchange metal-recovery
units are used to remove heavy
metals from aqueous residues
generated by electroplating,
metal-finishing, electronics
manufacturing, and metal-
refining processes. Ion
exchange systems are
commercially available, are
relatively compact, and use little
                                A high-efficiency vapor degreaser removes lubricants and oil
                                substances in this metal parts cleaning operation.  This totally
                                enclosed system, which collects solvent vapors and recycles
                                them back to the cleaning operation, also reduces potential
                                solvent air emissions.


                                 Improved Process Equipment Cleaning

                                 Virtually all manufacturers must clean their process
                                 equipment to maintain efficiency, extend the life of the
                                 equipment, remove deposits to allow for inspection and
                                 repair, and prevent product contamination. This often
                                 generates hazardous waste, especially in chemical-
                                 processing-related industries.

                                 Two approaches to minimizing waste from process
                                 equipment cleaning are reducing the frequency of clean-
                                 ups and reducing the quantity and toxicity of waste.
                                 For example, to reduce the frequency of cleanups, spe-
                                 cialty chemical plants might schedule their batch proc-
                                                          esses to make a full year's run
                                                       :   of a single chemical all at
                                                       i   once, rather than interspersing
                                                          it with batches of other prod-
                                                       :   ucts.  Other plants might
                                                          install more corrosion-
                                                          resistant pipes and vats that
                                                       ;   can tolerate less frequent
                                                       :   washing without risking
                                                       ;   product quality.
    Acetone is used at this Ohio fiber glass manufacturing plant to clean and rinse molds and finished
    fiber glass panels for use on mass transit buses. A cost of $225 per gallon for acetone coupled with
    high disposal costs for the waste solvent caused the company to turn to onsite solvent recovery.
    The plant now uses two solvent recovery units that reclaim 45 gallons of acetone per day at a cost
    of $.04 to $.10 per gallon. The recovery units, which have a typical pay-back period of 1 year, allow
    the reclaimed solvent to be reused immediately. Not only has the company reduced its  waste
    volume by 90 percent, it has also substantially decreased the amount of virgin acetone it must
      Oil-water separators can be
          sized to accommodate
       different types of pollutant
      discharges from petroleum-
        and nonpetroleum-based
       industries. As oily influent
    flows into the separator, oil is
     removed and recovered and
     clean effluent is discharged.
    The heavy solids settle to the
      bottom and are periodically

                           To reduce the quantity or toxicity of waste in each
                           cleanup, some manufacturers have installed high-
                           pressure spray nozzles for tank rinsing.  These work
                           more efficiently than low-pressure hoses and, therefore,
                           generate less aqueous waste.  To reduce the toxicity of
                           waste, one company rinses its reactor vessels in two
                           steps—the first rinse generates a small quantity of
                           highly concentrated waste that can be recycled for
                           additional rinsing, while the second, full-volume rinse
                           finishes the cleaning and generates a much lower
                           toxicity waste than before.
Chemical Plant Reduces Add Disposal Problem
The chemical and pigments department of a major chemical company in Kentucky manufac-
tures freon. Low-quality hydrochloric acid, generated as a manufacturing byproduct, was
previously disposed of  in injection wells.  The company recently installed a new freon
manufacturing process that produces high-quality hydrochloric acid. By installing the new
process and building an additional acid  storage .facility, the company now is able to sell
approximately 22 million pounds per year of acid that was previously discarded.

. Reverse "Osmosis Removes Cfart We from' "RSrsse Water -.-_'•
A polymer products operation in Arizona uses reverse osmosis to eliminate the discharge of
cyanide-containing rinse water from one  of the company^ four plating unite.  The process,
which concentrates the cyanideand separates It from the rinse water, reduces the environ-
mental impactof the discharge and conserves valuable plating materials and water treatment
                           Use of Waste Exchanges
                           A waste exchange is a matchmaking operation based on
                           the idea that one company's waste may be another
                           company's feedstock. Waste exchanges are private- or
                           government-funded organizations that can help bring
                           together generators of hazardous waste with companies
                           that can use the waste as feedstocks or substitute
                           materials in their operations.  The goal of waste ex-
                           changes is to minimize waste disposal expenses and to
                           maximize the value of reusable manufacturing bypro-

                              There are two basic types of waste exchanges: informa-
                              tion exchanges and material exchanges. Information
                              exchanges act as clearinghouses for information on the
                              wastes that are wanted. They put generators in touch
                              with waste users for the purpose of recycling waste
                              materials back into manufacturing processes. They are
                              usually nonprofit organizations that receive most of
                              their funds from governmental agencies. Material
                              exchanges, unlike information exchanges, take actual
                              physical possession of the waste and may initiate or
                              actively participate in the transfer of wastes to the users.
                              They are usually privately owned companies that
                              operate for profit.

        Forniatctehyde^Suiplus. Formaldehyde solution. Potential Use: embalming fluid. Type
        1: Contains 25% formaldehyde with 10% glycerine, 10% alcohols (ethanol, isopropanol,
        methane!) and distilled water by wet wt. Type 2: Contains 25% formaldehyde with 25%-
        35% alcohols (ethanol, isopropanol, methanol) and distilled water by wet wt 165,000
        gals, in 15 gal, drums/plastic carboys in steel drums, One time. Independent analysis
        (specification) available, PA

        1,1,1»frichloroethane. 1,1,1-trichloroefhane from asphalt extractions. Contains 90%
        1,1,1-trichloroethane with  10% asphalt and 1% oil.  220 gals,  in drums available.
        Quantities vary. Thereafter 220 gal/yr. Sample available. PA

        Paraffin Wax. Paraffin wax from clean-out of chewing gum base mixers. Fully refined.
        Potential use: firelogs, crayons, etc. Contains traces of gum base and calcium carbonate,
        80,000 Ibs. in 50 gal. drums. Quantities continuous. Thereafter 40,000 Ibs/qtr.
                              While any type of waste can be listed in a waste
                              exchange, certain materials are more likely than others
                              to be recycled.  Most transactions involve relatively
                              "pure" wastes that can be used directly with minimal
                              processing.  Solvents, organics, acids, and alkalies are
                              most frequently recycled. Metals from metal-bearing
                              wastes, sludges, and solutions also may be recovered

                              Waste exchanges are located throughout the country,
                              but computerized central listing services are now the
                              best first step in finding the most convenient one (see
                              inside back cover).

    Looking to
    the Future
Waste minimization is an essential element of the
nation's immediate and long-term strategy to manage
hazardous waste.  Land disposal will continue to play a
role, but that role is diminishing. EPA's land disposal
restrictions program, established in response to the 1984
amendments to RCRA, will ban the land disposal of
many untreated hazardous wastes, forcing generators to
explore other options.  Treatment technologies can as-
sume much of the waste management burden from land
disposal, but treatment is expensive, and, at least in the
near term, capacity is limited.  EPA's strategy to
minimize the generation of hazardous waste will help
reduce or eliminate regulated wastes that are now
managed by treatment or land disposal as well as other
wastes that pose risks to human health and the environ-

Waste minimization is one of the few areas where
national environmental goals and industry's economic
interests clearly coincide.  For generators, the benefits
include reduced costs, liabilities, and regulatory burdens
associated with hazardous waste management.  For the
general public, waste minimization pays off in an im-
proved environment.

Because of these shared interests, EPA is promoting
voluntary action on the part of industry.  The only for-
mal waste minimization requirement under RCRA is
that industries certify that they have waste minimization
programs of their own design in place. To support this,
                             EPA will publish a non-
                             binding waste minimi-
                             zation policy statement
                             reflecting the Agency's
                             ideas on what an effec-
                             tive voluntary program
                             might include.  EPA is
                             also revising its
                             biennial reporting re-
                             quirements to provide
                             generators with
                             checklists with which
                             to describe their
                             activities and report
                             their progress.
Waste minimization promotes environmental quality.

                            In framing the recommendations in its 1986 report to
                            Congress, EPA stated that it "believes that waste mini-
                            mization must be implemented as a general policy
                            throughout the hazardous waste management system
                            and, ultimately, more broadly throughout all of EPA's
                            pollution control programs." Consequently,  EPA's
                            waste minimization program will initially focus on
                            RCRA hazardous waste. The overall Agency strategy
                            will, however, address multimedia opportunities and
                            will include an information clearinghouse, a national
                            data base, research and technology transfer, and support
                            for  State programs.

                            EPA's technology transfer program will provide infor-
                            mation to industry on methods to prevent waste
                            generation by changing industrial processes, materials,
                            and operations.  One of the Agency's first projects is to
                            issue a detailed manual on how to conduct a waste
                            minimization assessment. This will be followed by a
                            15-minute videotape illustrating the step-by-step proc-
                            ess, with examples of how different firms have profited
                            from these assessments.  EPA is also producing a com-
                            puterized bibliography on waste minimization and a
                            series of technology transfer documents  on a variety of
                            subjects. In addition, the Agency is developing a series
                            of guidance materials for 18 different types of industries
                            that tend to generate small quantities of hazardous
                            waste.  All of these materials will be available through
                            State waste minimization programs.

                            Waste minimization clearly provides opportunities to
                            deal more efficiently  and effectively with wastes that
                            are  hazardous to human health and the environment.
                            These opportunities are unique in that they provide im-
                            mediate financial rewards to industry, increased waste
                            management flexibility to generators, and reduced pres-
                            sures  on the nation's existing treatment and land
                            disposal capacity. Now is the time to investigate and
                            take practical steps toward waste minimization, before
                            major commitments are made for treatment and disposal
                            options. Over the longer term, the benefits of source re-
                            duction and recycling will be key incentives for genera-
                            tors to integrate waste minimization techniques into
                            their overall hazardous waste management programs.

State Waste  Minimization  Programs
Alabama     Hazardous Material Management and          Illinois
              Resource Recovery Program
             University of Alabama
             P.O. Box 6373
             Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-6373
             (205) 348-8401

Alaska       Alaska Health Project
             Waste Reduction Assistance Program
             431 West Seventh Avenue
             Anchorage, AK 99501
             (907) 276-2864

Arkansas     Arkansas Industrial Development
             One State Capitol Mall
             Little Rock, AR 72201
California    Alternative Technology Section
             Toxic Substances Control Division
             California Department of Health
             714/744 p Street
             Sacramento, CA 94234-7320
             (916) 322-5347

Connecticut   Connecticut Hazardous Waste
              Management Service
             Suite 360
             900 Asylum Avenue
             Hartford, CT 06105
             (203) 244-2007

             Connecticut Department of Economic
             210 Washington Street
             Hartford, CT 06106
             (203) 566-7196
Georgia      Hazardous Waste Technical
              Assistance Program
             Georgia Institute of Technology
             Georgia Technical Research Institute
             Environmental Health and Safety Division
             O'Keefe Building, Room 027
             Atlanta, GA 30332
             (404) 894-3806                           Kansas

             Environmental Protection Division
             Georgia Department of Natural
             Floyd Towers East, Suite  1154
             205 Butler Street                          Kentucky
             Atlanta, GA 30334
             (404) 656-2833
Hazardous Waste Research and
  Information Center
Illinois Department of Energy and
  Natural Resources
1808 Woodfield Drive
Savoy, IL 61874
(217) 333-8940

Industrial Waste Elimination
  Research Center
Pritzker Department of Environmental
Alumni Building, Room 102
Illinois Institute of Technology
3200 South Federal Street
Chicago, IL 60616

Environmental Management and Education
Young Graduate House, Room 120
Purdue University
West Lafayette, IN 47907

Indiana Department of Environmental
Office of Technical Assistance
P.O. Box 6015
105 South Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN  46206-6015

Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Air Quality and Solid Waste Protection
Wallace State Office Building
900 East Grand Avenue
DesMoines, IA 50319-0034

Center for Industrial Research and Service
205 Engineering Annex
Iowa State University
Ames, IA 50011

Bureau of Waste Management
Department of Health and Environment
Forbes Field, Building 730
Topeka, KS 66620
(913) 296-1607

Division of Waste Management
Natural Resources and Environmental
 Protection Cabinet
Frankfort, KY  40601
(502) 564-6716

Maryland     Maryland Hazardous Waste Facilities
               Siting Board
              60 West Street, Suite 200A
              Annapolis, MD 21401
              (301) 974-3432

              Maryland Environmental Service
              2020 Industrial Drive
              Annapolis, MD 21401
              (301) 269-3291
              (800) 492-9188 (in Maryland)

Massachu-    Office of Safe Waste Management
setts          Department of Environmental Management
              100 Cambridge Street, Room 1904
              Boston, MA 02202
              (617) 727-3260

              Source Reduction Program
              Massachusetts Department of
                Environmental Quality Engineering
              1 Winter Street
              Boston, MA 02108
              (617) 292-5982

Michigan     Resource Recovery Section
              Department of Natural Resources
              P.O. Box 30028
              Lansing, MI 48909

Minnesota    Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
              Solid and Hazardous Waste Division
              520 Lafayette Road
              St. Paul, MN 55155
              (612) 296-6300

              Minnesota Technical Assistance Program
              W-140 Boynton Health Service
              University of Minnesota
              Minneapolis, MN 55455
              (612) 625-9677
              (800) 247-0015 (in Minnesota)

              Minnesota Waste Management Board
              123 Thorson Center
              7323 Fifty-Eighth Avenue North
              Crystal, MN 55428

Missouri      State Environmental Improvement and
               Energy Resources Authority
              P.O. Box 744
              Jefferson City, MO 65102

New Jersey   New Jersey Hazardous Waste Facilities
               Siting Commission
              Room 614
              28 West State Street
              Trenton, NJ 08608
              (609) 292-1459 or 292-1026
              Hazardous Waste Advisement Program
              Bureau of Regulation and Classification
              New Jersey Department of Environmental
              401 East State Street
              Trenton, NJ 08625
              (609) 292-8341

              Risk Reduction Unit
              Office of Science and Research
              New Jersey Department of Environmental
              40 East State Street
              Trenton, NJ 08625
              (609) 633-1378

New York     New York State Environmental
               Facilities Corporation
              50 Wolf Road
              Albany, NY  12205

              Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste
              New York Department of Environmental
              50 Wolf Road
              Albany, NY  12233

North         Pollution Prevention Pays Program
Carolina      Department of Natural Resources and
               Community Development
              P.O. Box 27687
              512 North  Salisbury Street
              Raleigh, NC  27611
              (919) 733-7015

              Governor's Waste Management Board
              325 North  Salisbury Street
              Raleigh, NC  27611
              (919) 733-9020

              Technical Assistance Unit
              Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
              North Carolina Department of Human
              P.O. Box 2091
              306 North Wilmington Street
              Raleigh, NC  27602
              (919) 733-2178

Ohio         Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste
              Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
              P.O. Box 1049
              1800 WaterMark Drive
              Columbus, OH  43266-1049

              Ohio Technology Transfer Organization
              Suite 200
              65 East State Street
              Columbus, OH 43266-0330
              (614) 466-4286

Oklahoma    Industrial Waste Elimination Program
              Oklahoma State Department of Health
              P.O. Box 53551
              Oklahoma City, OK 73152
              (405) 271-7353

Oregon       Oregon Hazardous Waste Reduction
              Department of Environmental Quality
              811 Southwest Sixth Avenue
              Portland, OR 97204
              (503) 229-5913

Pennsylvania  Pennsylvania Technical Assistance Program
              501 F. Orvis Keller Building
              University Park, PA 16802

              Bureau of Waste Management
              Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
              P.O. Box 2063
              Fulton Building
              3rd and Locust Streets
              Harrisburg, PA  17120

              Center for Hazardous Materials Research
              320 William Pitt Way
              Pittsburgh, PA  15238
              (412) 826-5320

Rhode Island  Ocean State Cleanup and Recycling Program
              Rhode Island Department of Environmental
              9 Hayes Street
              Providence,  RI  02908-5003
              (401) 277-3434
              (800) 253-2674 (in Rhode Island)

              Center for Environmental Studies
              Brown University
              P.O. Box 1943
              135 Angell Street
              Providence,  RI  02912
              (401) 863-3449
Tennessee     Center for Industrial Services
              Suite 401
              226 Capitol Boulevard Building
              University of Tennessee
              Nashville, TN 37219-1804
              (615) 242-2456

Virginia      Office of Policy and Planning
              Virginia Department of Waste Management
              11th Floor, Monroe Building
              101 North 14th Street
              Richmond, VA 23219
              (804) 225-2667

Washington   Hazardous Waste Section
              Mail Stop PV-11
              Washington Department of Ecology
              Olympia, WA 98504-8711
              (206) 459-6322

Wisconsin     Bureau of Solid Waste Management
              Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
              P.O. Box 7921
              101 South Webster Street
              Madison, WI  53707
              (608) 266-2699

Wyoming     Solid Waste Management Program
              Wyoming Department of Environmental
              Herschler Building, 4th Floor, West Wing
              122 West 25th Street
              Cheyenne, WY 82002
              (307) 777-7752

Further Information on Waste Minimization

                             Computerized Waste Exchanges
                            Northeast Industrial Waste Exchange
                            90 Presidential Plaza, Syracuse, NY 13202

                            Southern Waste Information Exchange
                            P.O. Box 6487, Tallahassee, FL 32313

                            Great Lakes Regional Waste Exchange
                            470 Market Street, Grand Rapids, MI 49503

                            EPA Reports on Waste Minimization

                            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Waste Minimization
                            Audit Report: Case Studies of Corrosive and Heavy Metal
                            Waste Minimization Audit at a Specialty Steel Manufacturing
                            Complex." Executive Summary.*

                            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Waste Minimization
                            Audit Report: Case Studies of Minimization of Solvent Waste
                            for Parts Cleaning and from Electronic Capacitor Manufactur-
                            ing Operations." Executive Summary.*

                            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Waste Minimization
                            Audit Report: Case Studies of Minimization of Cyanide
                            Wastes from Electroplating Operations." Executive Sum-
                             U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Report to Congress:
                             Waste Minimization, Vols. I and II. EPA/ 530-SW-86-033 and
                             -034. (Washington, B.C.: U.S. EPA, 1986).t

                             U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Waste Minimization
                             - Issues and Options, Vols. I - III. EPA/530-SW-86-041
                             through -043.  (Washington, B.C.: U.S. EPA, 1986).t
                             *Executive Summary available from EPA, ATD, HWERL,
                             26 West St. Clair Street, Cincinnati, OH, 45268; full report
                             available from the National Technical Information Service
                             (NTIS), U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, VA
                             tAvailable from the National Technical Information Service
                             as a five-volume set, NTIS No. PB-87-114-328.

U.S. EPA Regional Offices
Region 1
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203

Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212) 264-2525

Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107

Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347-4727

Region 5
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604

Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
(214) 655-6444
Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS  66101
(913) 236-2800

Region 8
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202-2405
(303) 293-1603

Region 9
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 974-8071

Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Office of Solid Waste
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460

(800) 424-9346
(in Washington, DC,