United States
                     Environmental Protection
Hazardous Waste Engineering
Research Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
                     Research and Development
EPA/600/S2-87/055 Nov. 1987
&EPA          Project Summary
                    Waste  Minimization  Audits  at
                    Generators  of  Corrosive  and
                    Heavy  Metal  Wastes
                     M. Drabkin and E. Rissmann
                      The USEPA is encouraging hazardous
                     waste generators to develop programs
                     to reduce the generation of hazardous
                     waste. To encourage such programs
                     the Agency's Hazardous Waste Engi-
                     neering  Research  Laboratory is sup-
                     porting the development and evaluation
                     of a model hazardous waste minimiza-
                     tion audit procedure. The procedure was
                     tested in several facilities in the summer
                     of 1986.
                      Waste minimization audits (WMAs)
                     have been carried out in an electric arc
                     furnace  (EAF)  specialty steelmaking
                     complex. These audits were intended
                     to develop waste minimization options
                     for two hazardous waste  streams at
                     this facility: corrosive waste and heavy
                     metals  waste.  Waste minimization
                     options considered were in one of three
                     categories: source reduction, recycling
                     or  treatment (in the same order  of
                      Application of WMA methodology to
                     a corrosive waste stream (KO62) gen-
                     erated at one plant in this complex,
                     resulted in the development of a pro-
                     mising recycling option for the recovery
                     of calcium fluoride (fluorspar) which is
                     directly  usable as a metallurgical flux
                     (replacing presently purchased material)
                     in the EAF steelmaking process at this
                     facility. Savings obtained by using this
                     option (including $68,000 savings from
                     a  thirty percent reduction in off site
                     nonhazardous  waste disposal, and
                     $100,000 savings in purchased chemi-
                     cal costs) were estimated at $168,000
                     annually, and the proposed .process
                     could largely  use existing  process
                      Application of the WMA methodology
                     to a heavy nnetals-bearing waste (EAF
dust-listed waste KO61) generated at
another plant in the steelmaking com-
plex did not result in any viable source
reduction or recycling options for this
waste. However, a detoxification treat-
ment step proposed for this material is
economically attractive  based on pre-
liminary estimates, and bench-scale
development of this option appears
  This Project Summary was developed
by EPA's Hazardous Waste Engineering
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH, to
announce key findings of the research
project that is fully documented In a
separate report of the same  title (see
Project Report ordering  Information at

  The U.S.  Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is expanding its efforts to
promote  waste minimization activity in
the private sector by providing technical
assistance to generators of hazardous
waste. As part of  this effort, the EPA
Office of  Research  and  Development/
Hazardous Waste Environmental Re-
search Laboratory  (ORD/HWERL), Cin-
cinnati, Ohio, is promoting the develop-
ment of  a generalized or model waste
minimization audit  (WMA)  procuedure
and testing this procedure in actual pro-
duction facilities agreeing to cooperate
with the audit teams  selected for this
task. Initially, the following four hazardous
wastes were selected by  EPA/ORD/
HWERL to be studied in this effort: 1.
Corrosives; 2. Heavy metals; 3.
solvents; and 4. Cyanides.
  In the full report, results are presented
of WMAs conducted at  generators of
corrosive and heavy metals wastes. A

specialty steel manufacturing  complex
agreed to provide host facilities for the
reported WMA effort. This complex in-
cludes the following plants, which were
audited in the present effort:

  • An annealing and pickling facility for
    finishing stainless  strip  only. This
    facility is designated as Plant No. 1.
  • Cold rolling, annealing and pickling
    facilities for finishing both stainless
    and electrical  steel product  strip.
    These  facilities are designated as
    Plant No. 2.
  • The melt shop employing  electric
    arc furnaces (EAFs) for the manu-
    facture of stainless and electrical
    steels, as well as hot rolling furnaces
    for fabricating these steels into pro-
    duct strip, and EAF emission col-
    lection and cleanup equipment. This
    entire facility is designated as Plant
    No. 3.
Description of the WMA Protocol
  The function of the protocol is to force
the use of a step-by-step procedure for
conducting a WMA  at a host site. The
initial WMA protocol was developed in
earlier work and was further refined dur-
ing the present effort.  The protocol is
applicable to all three categories of waste
minimization (source  reduction, recycling,
and treatment).
  The teams employed in carrying  out
the audits were composed entirely of
employees of outside  consulting/engi-
neering firms. After selection of the host
facility,  the following sequential  steps
were executed by the audit team:

   1. Preparation for the audit
   2. Host site pre-audit visit
   3. Waste stream selection
   4. Host site waste minimization audit
   5. Generation of waste  minimization
   6. Preliminary evaluation  (including
     preparation of preliminary cost esti-
     mates)  and ranking of options in
     three categories (effectiveness, ex-
     tent of current use,  application
   7. Presentation, discussion  and joint
     review of  options  with  plant
   8. Final report  preparation  and pre-
     sentation to host site management

  This protocol was used to conduct the
WMAs, as summarized below.
Results of the WMA Conducted at
a Generator of Corrosive Waste
Audit at Plant No. 1
  Following the selection of Plant No. 1
as a host site for a WMA for corrosive
waste (listed waste K062), a pre-audit visit
was  made (and process and waste
treatment   operations were  directly
observed. The Plant No. 1 facility consists
of a stainless  steel  strip annealing and
pickling line |or processing 300 and 400
series stainless steels and a pickling waste
water neutralization plant.
  Following [annealing of the stainless
steel strip, this  material is fed through
the continuous pickling process. The strip
is first treated in a Kolene bath (the latter
a mixture of molten sodium and potassium
hydroxides) at 800ฐFfor initial dissolution
of surface scale on the strip, followed by
water quench^ and rinse tanks to cool and
flush the treated strip, and then a nitric-
hydrofluoric ^cid pickle using a mixture
of 8-10 percent  nitric acid and 2-4 per-
cent hydrofluoric acid. Following a water
rinse, the stainless steel  strip is coiled
and  shipped.  Air  emissions from  the
Kolene treatment and acid pickling tanks
are controlled through the use of fume
scrubbers.  Trie following  waste waters
are generated in the pickling process:
  • A Kolene rinse water which is highly
    alkaline [and contains sodium and
    potassium hydroxides, sodium and
    potassium carbonates, and  chro-
    mates  resulting from some oxidation
    of the chromium on the steel surface
    during the Kolene descaling treat-
    ment.  Chromate  levels are below
    200 ppnj, and the spent rinse water
    has a pH of about 12. Approximately
    45 gallons  per minute (gpm)  of
    Kolene finse water is discharged
    from the| process.
  • Spent  HF/HNO3 pickle liquor waste.
    This stream is periodically dumped
    and replaced with a mixture of fresh
    HF/HNO3 and recycled spent pickle
  • Rinsewater  from  the  HF/HNO3
    pickling operation. This  stream  is
    generated  continuously from the
    rinsing operation.
  • The combined  spent pickle  liquor
    and rinse water waste stream from
    the HF/fjINOs pickling operations has
    a pH of|about 2 and contains dis-
    solved metals, nitrate and fluoride.
    The cornbined  wastewater stream
    flow from the pickling and rinse tanks
    averages  150 gpm.  Average com-
    position of the spent  pickle liquor/
    rinse water stream over a one-week
     operation (which includes a  once-
     per-week dump of spent pickle liquor
     into the combined wastewater
     stream) is given as:
 Parameter     Average Concentration, mg/l
  Cr (trivalent)
   The Kolene waste rinse water and the
 combined spent acid/rinse water waste
 stream are treated as follows:
   • Raw Kolene rinse water  is treated in
     a mix tank with excess ferrous sulfate
     heptahydrate and sulfuric acid with
     about 80 minutes  retention  time.
     The ferrous ion reacts with chromate
     to reduce hexavalent chromium to
     trivalent chromium. The pH of the
     treated waste is approximately 4.
   • The combined spent acid/rinse water
     waste and the treated Kolene rinse
     water are  pumped to a mix  tank
     where slaked lime is added. The final
     pH after lime addition is about 8. The
     addition of lime causes the heavy
     metals  present  to precipitate as
     hydroxides and the fluoride to pre-
     cipitate as calcium fluoride. The re-
     sulting mixture of treated wastewater
     and precipitated solids is  treated in a
     second mix tank where coagulant is
     added and the stream is  then fed to
     two 30-foot diameter clarifiers oper-
     ated in parallel. The clear overflow
     from the clarifiers is discharged to the
     outfall (a local creek)  meeting the
     conditions of an NPDES  permit and
     the underflow is fed to two vacuum
     filters operated  in  parallel.  Non-
     hazardous solids recovered from the
     filters are disposed of offsite and the
     filtrate is recycled to the treatment
   During the formal audit phase of this
study at the Plant No. 1 acid pickling
facility, process and waste  treatment
operations were intensively  studied by
the audit team. The use of various potential
source  reduction and recycling options
was reviewed with plant personnel. Plant
No. 1 already recycles part of the spent
acid mixture to the pickling  line,  thus
reducing fresh acid use. Based  on the
audit team's evaluation and discussions
with plant personnel, there did not appear
to be any other significant source reduction
options available.
   With respect to recycling, the present
neutralization treatment of the combined

 Plant No.  1  pickling  line wastewater
 stream (KO62) generates a mixed sludge
 for which there is essentially no potential
 for  reuse. The audit team determined,
 however, that the raw  waste (the spent
 HF/HNO3  pickle liquor/rinsewater  dis-
 charged from the pickling operation) does
 contain  a constituent (fluoride ion) that
 could be converted into a useful product-
 calcium fluoride (fluorspar). The electric
 arc  furnace (EAF) facility  at this  steel-
 making complex (designated as Plant No.
 3) presently purchases about 1,000 tons
 per year of fluorspar for use as a furnace
 flux material in the steelmaking process.
 Current cost  for metallurgical  grade
 fluorspar (approximately 75-80 percent
 calcium fluoride) for flux use is $100 per
 ton at the plant. The audit team proposed
 a waste minimization option for recovery
 of calcium fluoride wherein the combined
 Plant No. 1 wastewater stream at pH ~2
 (excluding the treated Kolene waste) is
 treated with slaked  lime at a  controlled
 rate  so  that pH —2.5 is not  exceeded.
 Calcium fluoride will precipitate selec-
 tively, and at this pH, fluoride solubility
 data indicate that a level of 65 ppm
 dissolved fluoride will be achieved. With
 about 1,100 ppm dissolved fluoride in the
 raw wastewater, approximately 95 percent
 of the fluoride will  precipitate. This is
 equivalent to about 1,300 tons per year of
 calcium  fluoride potentially recoverable
 (based on 330 days  per year operation),
 which more than equals the annual con-
 sumption of calcium fluoride  (fluorspar
 flux) in the EAF operation and Plant No. 3.
 Hydroxides of iron, nickel, and chromium
 are all highly soluble at pH values below
 3.0 and thus would not be expected to
 co-precipitate with the calcium fluoride.
  The combined spent  HF/HNO3 pickle
 liquor and rinse water discharge would be
 treated in the same waste acid neutraliza-
 tion system now used  to generate the
 neutralized  nonhazardous solids dis-
 charged off site and NPDES effluent to the
 outfall. However, the neutralization would
 be done  in two stages, thereby effecting
 the recovery of a reasonably pure calcium
 fluoride in the first stage. After the first
 stage of neutralization, the  presently
 treated Kolene waste would be combined
 with the partially neutralized waste pickle
 liquor/rinse water stream. The combined
 stream  would then  be  neutralized and
 discharged to the outfall.
  If the above described option were to be
put into operation at Plant No. 1, not only
would the generation rate of sludge from
KO62 treatment be reduced (resulting in a
saving in offsite sludge disposal costs).
 but a  substantial potential savings  in
 chemical purchases could be made. Plant
 personnel agreed with the audit team that
 this was a worthwhile option.
   After a recycling option established for
 the Plant No. 1 corrosive waste, the pre-
 liminary  engineering design and  cost
 estimate for this option was developed. A
 preliminary estimate  (using 1986 capital
 and operating cost data) of the economics
 of this recycling  option  indicates the
   • Total capital cost
     (including new
     drying and
     equipment and
     retrofitting of one
     existing clarifier
     vacuum filter system
     to make it corrosion-
     resistant at pH 2.5)    $300,000
   • Annual operating cost $ 46,000/yr
   • Savings due to
     replacement of
     purchased fluorspar   $100,000/yr
   • Savings due to lower
     cost of offsite waste
     disposal              $ 68,000/yr
   • Total potential savings $168,000/yr
   • Estimated payback period 2.5 years
   • Estimated internal
     rate of return (based
     on an economic life
     of 5 years)             28 percent

Audit at Plant No.  2
   Plant No.  2 consists of  cold-rolling
equipment to convert raw stainless steel
and electrical steel slabs  into  strip,
annealing  ovens,  and  a series of six
countercurrent flow pickling lines which
acid pickle stainless and electrical steel
strip produced in the  cold-rolling equip-
ment as well as stainless and electrical
hot-rolled steel strip produced in the EAF
raw steel manufacturing facility. Its six
pickling lines use HF, HNO3, H2SO4, and
mixtures thereof and  have a total name-
plate capacity of  1,833 tons per day of
processed steel strip.
   Emissions from  all  of the pickle lines
are controlled by use  of fume scrubbers.
Following pickling, the treated  strip is
wound into coils and shipped.
  The six pickle lines generate the fol-
lowing spent pickling  acids: dilute spent
sulfuric acid, dilute spent mixed sulfuric-
hydrof luoric acid mixtures and dilute spent
mixed  nitric-hydrofluoric acid mixtures
(also containing dissolved iron salts and
traces of dissolved chromium, cadmium,
and nickel), as well as rinse waters con-
 taining  lower concentrations of these
 components. About 313,000 gallons of
 spent sulfuric acid, 144,000 gallons of
 spent sulfuric/hydrofluoric acid, 12,000
 gallons of spent hydrofluoric/nitric acid
 pickle liquors and 9.7 million gallons of
 rinse water are generated in this facility
 per week. The average composition of the
 combined waste stream (in terms of critical
 metal and non-metal parameters)  is as
 Parameter    Average Concentration, mg/l
 This stream also contains emulsified and
 free fatty oil and grease from the cold
 rolling  operations  at  this  facility. The
 combined  wastewater discharge  from
 Plant No. 2 is sent to a central treatment
 facility onsite where it is treated with lime
 to effect precipitation of metals as the
 corresponding hydroxides and removal of
 fluoride as calcium fluoride. The treated
 wastewater slurry  is then pumped to  a
 series of onsite large lagoons where the
 suspended solids are  removed by sedi-
 mentation and the treated wastewater is
 then discharged to the outfall. The pre-
 cipitated solids meet EP-toxicity test levels
 for hazardous  metals  and the  treated
 wastewater is discharged to a local creek
 under an NPDES permit.
  During the formal audit phase of this
 study at the Plant No.  2  acid  pickling
 facility, the use of source reduction and/or
 resource recovery options was studied by
 the audit team. No  source reduction op-
 tions were identified by the audit team.
 Furthermore, the current neutralization
 treatment of the combined pickling and
 cold-rolling aqueous waste stream (listed
 waste KO62) generates a  mixed metal
 hydroxide-gypsum-calcium fluoride sludge
 for which there is no reuse potential. The
 key to waste minimization at this plant is
 suitable segregation of selected spent
 acid wastes  before these  wastes are
 combined at the process building outlet
flume (the  latter discharging to a cen-
tralized  wastewater neutralization  pro-
cess) — an option that plant personnel
 indicated would be highly disruptive to
plant operations and costly as well. How-
ever, assuming that pickling waste stream
segregation is feasible, the following waste
minimization  option is proposed by the
audit team:
  • As  a recycling  option segregate an
    appropriate amount of waste sulfuric

    acid pickle liquor (13.5 million gallons
    per year are potentially available from
    three pickling lines).* Two uses for
    this material were identified by the
    audit team:
    — Reduction of hexavalent  chro-
       mium in a bleed stream of venturi
       scrubber waste  resulting from
       scrubbing of  EAF dust in Plant
       No. 3.
    — Reduction of hexavalent  chro-
       mium  in the Kolene waste in
       Plant No. 1.
    Both of these uses presently employ
    purchased  solid ferrous  sulfate
    heptahydrate. Recycled sulfuric acid
    pickle liquor (containing 5 to 10 per-
    cent dissolved  ferrous sulfate) is
    usable for this purpose.
   The technical and economic feasibility
 of this recycling option was evaluated by
 the audit team. A preliminary estimate
 of the economics of this recycling option
 indicates the following:
 • Total capital cost
    (including  new
    tankage, piping, and
    pumps, a tank truck
    to haul the spent acid
    between the various
    facilities and suitable
    permitting)           $255,000
 • Annual operating cost $ 20,000/yr
 • Savings due to
    replacing purchased
    ferrous sulfate
    heptahydrate with
    waste ferrous
    sulfate/sulfuric acid
    pickle liquor          $ 44,000/yr
 • Savings due to lower
    lime usage for
    neutralization at
    Plant No. 2           ?..8'.0.9ฐ/yr
 • Total potential savings $  52,000/yr
 • Estimated payback period 8.0 years

 The payback period of eight  years is
almost three times the usually acceptable
period of three years, making the proposed
project distinctly unattractive from  an
economic standpoint. In addition  to the
obvious economic disadvantage of this
option, plant personnel are  concerned
with the cost and disruption of decoupling
the internal discharge points of this waste
(in the pickling process building) needed
to  segregate the appropriate amount of
this waste for recycle. No information was
available from the plant to permit estima-
  Bascd on 300 days per year (43 weeks/yr) operation
  o( Iho Plant No, 2 acid pickling lines.
tion of the cost of decoupling this waste
quantity from the  remaining waste
streams  discharged from the facility.
However, sincejthe use of this option does
result in some \X/aste minimization as well
as a small but measurable extension in
the life of the present waste lagoon dis-
posal system (approximately 10 percent
less calcium sulfate and metals-containing
solids would be deposited in the lagoons),
the audit team believes that the  option
should continue to be reviewed at Plant
No. 2.

Results of the WMA Conducted at
a Generator of Heavy Metals Waste
  During the pj-e-audit visit to this facility
(designated as Plant No. 3) the audit team
became acquainted with process  opera-
tions at the EAF melt shop and the wastes
generated from these  operations.  The
melt shop contains three 165 ton capacity
EAFs used to manufacture 300 and 400
series stainless steels and silicon steels,
as well as  orje 175 ton argon-oxygen
decarburizer (ADD) used to further refine
the raw stainless steels.  Steels leaving
the furnaces are processed through con-
tinuous casting and hot-rolling operations
to produce coils of strip which are sent to
the acid pickling facility (Plant No. 2) for
final processing.  Production of stainless
and electrical steels  is  approximately
270,000 tons per year.
  The pre-audjt visit yielded the following
waste stream faharacterization and treat-
ment information at:
  • The three EAFs and the AOD at the
     melt shop generate about 8,000 tons
     per year (TPY) of particulate emissions
     (listed wa'ste KO61).
  • Of these I emissions, approximately
     7,000 TPY are removed from the EAF
     vent gases using venturi scrubbing;
     the remaining  1,000 TPY include
     EAF fugitive  emissions as well as
     emissions removed from  AOD vent
     gas, and are recovered in a baghouse.
  • The venturi scrubber slurry is clarified
     and filtered with the filter cake, con-
     taining about 30 percent water, dis-
     charged at the rate of 10,000 TPY.
  • The combined EAF dust and sludge
     (listed waste KO61) leaving the plant
     totals about 11,000 TPY and is sent
     to offsite hazardous  waste landfills
     at an annual cost of approximately
     $1.0 million.
   During the detailed audit phase of this
study at Plant No. 3, the use of source
 reduction and/or recycling options for
 EAF dust emissions was reviewed with
plant personnel. The following information
was developed which discouraged further
exploration of these waste minimization
options for the K061 waste generated at
the plant:
  • With the primary steel  products of
     this facility being 300 and 400 stain-
     less  grades, there will always be
     significant levels of the  following
     hazardous metals in the EAF dust:
     chromium and nickel (because of the
     alloying requirements of stainless
     steels), cadmium and lead. Contribu-
     tions to these metals in the EAF dust
     come from the scrap feed as well as
     from the alloying additives. These
     EAF dust constituents are expected
     to always generate levels ofone or
     more of these hazardous  metals in
     excess of the  presently allowable
     RCRA  levels in  leachate from the
     TCLP procedure (using acetate buf-
     fer).  Source  reduction is  therefore
     not an available option to the plant.
  • Plant No. 3  has made a number of
     attempts (without success) to recycle
     EAF dust to the steelmaking furnaces.
     Plant personnel also indicated that
     because of the volume of dust gen-
     erated and the sensitivity of the steel
     product quality to tramp elements in
     the recycled  dust, it is unlikely that  a
     large percentage of this waste could
     ever be recycled to the process.
  • With respect to use of the  KO61
     waste  by  a  metals reclaimer, the
     principal ingredient of value (zinc) is
     only present to the extent of 8 to 10
     percent in the Plant No. 3 EAF dust.
     In order for EAF dust to be economi-
     cally attractive to reclaimers, it should
     have at least 20 percent  zinc and
     preferably nearer 50 percent.  Addi-
     tionally, internal recycling of the EAF
     dust, which would tend to enrich the
     zinc content of the residual material,
     is presently not available to Plant No.
     3 due to factors discussed above.
       No source reduction and/or re-
     cycling options appear to be available
     to reduce the quantity of KO61 waste
     generated by  this  plant.  The  last
     resort  is an alternative  treatment
     step proposed by the  audit  team
     which  appears to be the only option
     available for  this waste stream and is
     summarized as follows:
       Plant No.  3 would (1) convert the
     material into a nonhazardous waste
     using a chemical stabilization tech-
     nique (using lime kiln or cement kiln
     • dust and water blended with the EAF
     dust to generate solidification re-
     actions and create an  essentially

     insoluble matrix), (2) apply to have
     the waste delisted by EPA, and (3)
     dispose of the delisted material in an
     onsite dedicated landfill.
       A preliminary estimate (using 1986
     capital and operating cost data)  of
     the economics of this option (for 10-
     year onsite disposal) results in the
  9 Total capital cost      $1.75 million
  • Annual operating
     cost               $0.42 million/yr
  ฎ Estimated payback period  3 years
  • Estimated internal
     rate of return (based
     on an economic life
     of 5 years)              20 percent
  • Present annual
     KO61 waste
     generation rate        11,000 TPY
  • Proposed annual
     treated K061 waste
     generation rate        22,000 TPY
  • Cost of treatment
     and disposal of
     waste                    $35/ton
  • Annual savings (over
     amortized life of
     treatment plant and
     onsite landfill), if this
     option was
     implemented          $227,000/yr

  The disposal cost of KO61 waste using
this treatment option is estimated at
$35/ton of treated waste compared to
$100/ton for the current cost of disposal
of the raw waste even though the treated
waste generation rate has doubled. It  is
therefore  recommended  that this treat-
ment option be pursued further with an
initial bench-scale effort to establish the
appropriate waste stabilization technique.
  It should be noted that plant personnel
are in agreement with this assessment of
available waste minimization options.

  The following conclusions can be drawn
based on the study summarized  herein:
  • The WMA methodology can be suc-
     cessfully applied to the minimization
     of  hazardous waste,  in this case
     corrosive waste (KO62), in at least
     one industry — the specialty steels
     segment of  the EAF steelmaking
     industry. Application of the  WMA
     protocol to a plant in this industry (a
     stainless steel pickling facility in an
     EAF steelmaking complex), resulted
     in the identification of a technically
     and economically feasible recycling
     option for the recovery of fluorspar
   (calcium fluoride) from a corrosive
   waste stream. The fluorspar would
   be used internally in place of pur-
   chased material. Use of this waste
   minimization option results in savings
   of $168,000 annually and a 30 per-
   cent reduction in final waste disposal
9 Application of the WMA methodology
   to another corrosive waste generated
   at another steel pickling facility in
   the  same steelmaking complex, re-
   sulted in the development of a re-
   cycling option requiring segregation
   of a portion of this waste (waste
   ferrous sulfate/sulfuric  acid pickle
   liquor) for internal recycle replacing
   purchased ferrous sulfate heptahy-
   drate. However,  this option is  not
   economically feasible and  this dis-
   advantage outweights the principal
   advantage of a small prolongation of
   the  life of the onsite facility for dis-
   posal of neutralization sludge from
   present waste treatment.
• An  attempt to  apply  the  WMA
   methodology to another hazardous
   waste stream: heavy metals — con-
   taining EAF dust (KO61) generated
   in the EAF steel  plant at the same
   steelmaking  complex, could not be
   considered as successful inasmuch
   as both of the more preferred waste
   minimization approaches  (source
   reduction and  recycling), were  not
   technically feasible in  this case.
   However, the  identified treatment
   approach: detoxification of the waste
   by onsite  chemical stabilization/
   solidification treatment, followed by
   onsite disposal in a dedicated landfill,
   appears to be worth investigating
   further  based on the results of a
   preliminary technical and economic
   evaluation  of this option.
• It is believed that the on-site audit
   (employing the WMA methodology
   developed in this study) is a distinctly
   useful tool for waste minimization
   due  to the one-to-one contact with
   the  industrial waste generators by
   qualified engineering professionals
   on the audit team.



    This Project Summary was prepared by staff of Versar, Inc., Springfield, VA.
    Harry M. Freeman is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
    The complete report, entitled "Waste Minimization Audit Report: Case Studies
      of Corrosive  and Heavy  Metal Waste Minimizatioh at a Specialty Steel
      Manufacturing  Complex," (Order No. PB 88-107 180/AS; Cost: $13.95,
      subject to change) will be available only from:
            National Technical Information Service
            5285 Port Royal Road
            Springfield, VA 22161
            Telephone: 703-487-4650
    The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:
            Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory
            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
            Cincinnati, OH 45268                       !
Unuod States
Environmental Protection
Center for Environmental Research
Cincinnati OH 45268  ;
  PERMIT No. G-35
Official Business
Penally for Private Use S300