National Technical Information Service
                                PB-261 287





        This final  report (SW-130c) describes work per-
        formed for the Federal solid waste management
        programs under  contract  no.  68-01-3241  and
        is reproduced as  received from the  contractor


                                  TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                           (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
                                                          3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
             5. REPORT DATE
              October 1976; Issuing Date
7 AUTHORis) Robert c. Terry, Jr.,  Joan B.  Berkowitz,
 C. Michael Mohr, Joseph P. Tratnyek,  John T.  Funkhouser,
 Blair C. Shick, Andrew C. Somogyi.	
 Arthur D. Little, Inc.
 20 Acorn Park
 Cambridge, Massachusetts  02140
                                                           10 PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
             11 CONTRACT/GRANT NO

 Hazardous Waste Management Division
 Office of Solid Waste Management  Programs
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Washington, D.C. 20640
              Final. June 1975-October  1Q76
 This report examines the experience  of  the industrial waste information  clearing-
 houses operating since 1972 in  ten European countries, explores opportunities  for
 the waste transfer concept in the United  States, outlines the requirements  for suc-
 cessful transfer organizations,  and  describes their techniques and procedures.   The
 transfer approach seeks to broaden the  potential markets for both new and apparently-
 marginal industrial process residues, and thus to reduce the quantity of potentially-
 harmful wastes requiring disposal into  the environment.  The study analyzes concepts
 and requirements for transferring wastes, distinguishing between "trash  waste," bavin?
 no reuse value whatever, and "scrap  waste," having some reuse value.  It identifies
 and estimates quantities of industrial  process wastes suitable for transfer, especially
 in the Philadelphia SMSA.  It describes the two basic types of transfer  organization—
 clearinghouses, which transfer  only  information about wastes, and exchanges, which
 transfer (and process, if necessary) the  actual scrap materials from generator to user;
 for each type, details are given of  services, methods, organization, and finances.  Two
 subtypes of clearinghouses, subsidized  and financially self-sufficient,  are distin-
 guished.  Appendices contain details about existing clearinghouses and exchanges, daua
 and methods for identifying scrap wastes  and their uses, economics of transferring
 wastes, various institutional options,  and liability and other legal considerations.
 The summary lists next steps needed  to  develop clearinghouses.
                               KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
 Chemical Wastes
 Hazardous Wastes
 Industrial Process Residues
 Waste Disposal
 Waste Exchanges
 Industrial Waste Disposal
 Industrial Waste Informa-
   tion  Clearinghouses
 Industrial Waste Mate-
   rials Exchanges
 Chemical Wastes
 Waste Transfer
RELEASE TO PUBLIC.  Available from
U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington,  D.C.   20640      	
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
                                                                        21. NO. OF PAGES
20 SECURITY CLASS (Thu page)
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)

    This report has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency  and
approved for publication.  Its publication does not signify that the contents necessarily
reflect the  views  and policies  of the  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  nor does
mention of commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by
the U.S. Government.

    An environmental protection publication  (SW-130c) in the solid waste management

                          TABLE OF CONTENTS


List of Tables                                                          vi

List of Figures                                                        vii

Acknowledgement                                                     viii


I.    INTRODUCTION                                                  11

     Problem and the EPA Response                                       11
     Objectives and Focus of This Study                                     13



     The Concept of Waste Transfer                                        15
     Requirements For a Transfer                                         18


     National Waste Stream Data                                         25
     Industries and Wastes Suitable for Transfer Services                        29
     A Sample Area: Philadelphia                                        31

IV.   TWO TYPES OF TRANSFER ORGANIZATION                         37


V.   SERVICES AND METHODS                                        41

     Services                                                        41
     Operations and Methods                                            42


                      TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
VI.   ORGANIZATION AND FINANCES                                     47

     Staff                                                              47
     Finances                                                           48
     Organizational and Legal Considerations                                  51


VII.  SERVICES AND METHODS                                           53

     Services                                                            53
     Methods for Assessing and Transferring Scrap Wastes                        55


     Operations                                                         59
     Staff                                                              61
     Finances                                                           63
     Organizational and Legal Considerations                                  64


A.   IN FORMATION CLEARINGHOUSES                                   65

     European Models                                                    65
     U.S. Versions of the European Model                                     74
     Operating Experience                                                 76
     Advertising Wastes in Technical Journals                                  78
     Commercial Variations                                                78

B.   MATERIALS EXCHANGES                                           81

     Characteristics                                                       81
     Two Samples                                                       81
     A New Exchange Concept                                             84

                     TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)


C.   DATA AND METHODS                                              87

     Identifying Scrap Wastes and Their Uses                                  87
     A Sample Transfer Area: The Philadelphia SMSA                           89


     Economic Feasibility of a Transfer                                     109
     Economics of Transfer by a Materials Exchange                           116

E.   INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS AND OPTIONS                           123

     Influences on Transfer Agents                                         123
     Institutional Sponsorship                                            123

F.   LEGAL ASPECTS OF TRANSFERRING WASTES                        131

     The Potential For Legal Liability                                       131
     Other Legal Considerations                                           135

GLOSSARY OF NAMES AND TERMS                                       137

REFERENCES                                                         141

                                 LIST OF TABLES
Table No.                              Description                             Page

11-1        Requirements for a Transfer                                            20
111-1       Manufacturing Process Wastes from Selected U.S. Industries                 26
111-2       Potentially Transferable Wastes from Selected Industries                    27
111-3       Wastes Generated and Potentially Transferable, Philadelphia SMSA          32
IV-1       Comparison of Clearinghouses and Exchanges                             38
A-1        Waste Information Clearinghouses                                       66
A-2        Sample of Items Listed by U.K. Clearinghouse                            68
A-3        Sample List from German Clearinghouse                                  71
A-4        First List from St. Louis Clearinghouse                                   75
A-5        Sample List from French Clearinghouse                                  79
C-1a       Generation and Potential Uses of Selected Chemical Wastes                 90
C-1 b       Generation and Potential Uses of Inorganic Chemical Wastes                91
C-1c       Generation and Potential Uses of Organic Chemical Wastes                  92
C-2        Range of Plant Employment, Philadelphia SMSA                          94
C-3        Summary of Waste Generation by Plant and Industry, Philadelphia SMSA    95
C-4        Summary Information from Telephone Interviews                         98
C-5        Summary Information from Plant Visits                                 102
D-1        Definitions and Units for Economic Analysis                             110
E-1        Internal Characteristics of Waste Transfer Organizations                   124
E-2        External Conditions Influencing Transfer Organizations                   126
E-3        Institutional Sponsorship: Options and Merits                           128

                                LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No.                             Description                             Page

11-1       Hierarchy of Purity Requirements                                       21
V-1       Waste Material Registration Form                                       45
VI11-1     Punched-Card Format for Waste Material Data File                        62
A-1       U.K. Form for Submitting Waste Offers and Requests                      68
A-2       U.K. Forms for Inquiring About Waste Offers and Requests                72
C-1       Philadelphia SMSA and Neighboring Industrial Areas                      93
D-1       Savings to Generator or to User                                        114
D-2       Economics of a Materials Exchange                                     119
D-3       Economics of Transferring Selected Wastes                              120

     We were assisted in conducting this study by many persons and organiza-
tions in Europe  and the United States.  They include industrial firms, industry
and professional associations, and agencies of state and local governments, espe-
cially those concerned with the Philadelphia metropolitan area. Only a few could
be cited in the text, but we are pleased  to acknowledge the contributions of all
with thanks.

                    CONVERSION TO METRIC UNITS
     In this report, some units are expressed in U.S. customary units. Conversion
to metric units is easily accomplished by using the following formulae:
          Multiply miles by 1.6092 to get kilometers

          Multiply tons by 0.9072 to get metric tons (103 kg)

          Multiply pounds by 0.4536 to get kilograms

                              EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

                        MAJOR FINDINGS AND NEXT STEPS
     The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated in 1976 that 344 million
metric tons (wet basis) of industrial processing residues are generated annually in the United
States. EPA suggests* that plant managers and engineers consider the following sequence of
steps as they develop their waste management strategies:

     (1)  Minimize  the quantity of  waste generated  by  modifying  the  industrial
         process involved.
     (2)  Concentrate  the waste at  the source (using evaporation, precipitation, etc.)
         to reduce handling and transport costs.
     (3)  If possible, transfer the waste "as is", without reprocessing, to another facility
         that can use it as a feedstock.
     (4)  When a  transfer  "as is"  is not possible, reprocess the waste for material
     (5)  When material recovery is not possible,

         (a) Incinerate the waste for energy recovery and for destruction of hazardous
             components, or,
         (b) If the waste cannot be  incinerated, detoxify  and neutralize it through
             chemical treatment.

     (6)  Use carefully controlled land disposal only for what remains.

EPA commissioned this one-year study both to explore the feasibility of the waste transfer
concept (step 3 and to some extent step 4) and to outline the requirements for a successful
waste transfer organization.  The purpose of the transfer approach is to help broaden the
potential markets  for  both  new and  apparently-marginal industrial residues, and thus to
reduce the quantity  of potentially harmful  wastes which require disposal into the natural
environment. Hence, established  secondary materials markets were not within the scope of
the study.
•Federal Register, Vol. 41, No. 161, pp. 35050-1.

     This study began by investigating the several existing European "waste exchanges."
whose purpose is to transfer information about wastes available and wastes sought as food-
stock. It was soon discovered, however, that a few chemical reclamation companies also
offer to transfer waste materials. This led to the distinction between  two types of transfer
agents, the "information clearinghouse" and the "materials exchange": the former transfers
information only, while the latter accepts residues, analyzes them, identifies new uses, treats
them as necessary, and then actively seeks buyers. Both types of organizations were studied.
                          CONCEPT OF WASTE TRANSFER

     Waste transfer is both similar to and different from the purchase and re-use of indus-
trial by-products. In both cases, an industrial process generates, in addition to its principal
product, some material which  is not usable  by the generating company, but which can
economically be sold for reuse by another company. When the material has a well recognized
value which justifies the costs of recovery, handling, and transportation, it is known as a
by-product. When the material has a value which has not been recognized, it is a potentially
transferrable waste. So  long as disposal is easy and inexpensive, disposal is the waste gener-
ator's economically preferred course. Transfer to another plant or industry is economically
attractive only when disposal presents major problems, as will increasingly be the case as
restrictions tighten and  costs rise.

     While some transfers occur directly through the initiative of either the waste's generator
or its potential user, large-scale realization of the concept requires a third party or "transfer
agent." This is because the possible uses are not well established, generators and potential
users usually do  not know about each other, and companies are reluctant to reveal infor-
mation about  their processes and materials.  A transfer agent is therefore needed to identify
generators and users to each  other while at  the same time protecting confidential informa-
tion until a promising match is identified. Still more transfers can be made if the transfer
agent is able to offer additional services, such as assistance with negotiations, consultation
about uses and reprocessing requirements, or actual handling of the materials.

     The term "waste" has two meanings which are related but distinct. First, it can refer
to damaged, defective,  or residual  material resulting from an industrial process, retaining
some or much of its original value; this is "scrap waste" or "scrap". Second, in everyday
usage "waste"  can  refer to any kind of refuse, with no value, which can only be thrown
away; this is "trash waste" or "trash". In common usage of "waste", confusion often arises
because the distinctions between "scrap" and  "trash" are not obvious to everyone. What is
considered trash by one person is considered useful by another. This difference between two
values seen in  one waste is central to both the economic and the technical viability of waste
transfer, and creates opportunities for transfer agents.

                       THE TRANSFER AGENT'S FUNCTIONS

     Engineers routinely examine their residues to seek further uses as by-products. In recent
years, stricter waste disposal regulations and the scarcity and rising prices of raw materials
have made it more economically attractive for companies to research further uses for the
valuable  components of their  wastes. Large companies with  many processes and  skilled
chemical engineers are likely to find those recycling opportunities which exist, particularly
within their own manufacturing facilities.

     However, even  engineers in large national  companies are not  likely to recognize all
waste transfer opportunities outside of their own industry. Moreover, technical discoveries
of new ways to find value in scrap do not occur in all  companies at once. Also, medium-
sized or  small companies  typically lack the time and skills to  find reuses for their wastes.

     Therefore, needs exist which a formal, institutional transfer agent can satisfy. Indeed,
the difficulties which many engineers face in  distinguishing between scrap wastes and trash
wastes offer  the opportunities for waste  transfer agents to provide useful technical and
economic services. The  transfer agent works at the fuzzy and shifting boundary between
wastes and by-products. If successful, the transfer agent will gradually identify what  can be
described as  a  "scrap chemicals market," a  small but distinct market  sector containing
materials which are more valuable than trash but less valuable than established by-products.
The transfer agent may also lift some scrap wastes with uncertain value up into the category
of by-products with well recognized value.

     The function of the  transfer agent,  therefore, is to identify and help bring together
the generator, who views the waste  as trash without further value, and the user, who views
it as scrap with re-use value. In this process, the transfer agent identifies scrap materials of
interest to both generators and users.

     To  be economically and  technically useful,  a  transfer  service must recognize the
realistic limits of its business or  functions. On the one hand, it  cannot afford to accept trash
wastes. On the other, it would  serve no unique environmental or public purpose by trying
to deal in regular flows of process by-products with recognized value which are commer-
cially established; and the organization would not be a waste transfer service, but instead
one of many competing industrial or chemical brokerages. A transfer agent can  thus offer
useful activities in only a narrow sector of the chemical materials  market—the scrap sector.

                        REQUIREMENTS FOR A TRANSFER

     Transfers of scrap can occur only after many conditions have been established for both
generator and user.  Each, depending upon his own business and perspective of what is

important, must consider the following:

     •  Technical feasibility-the matching between the chemical and  physical pro-
        perties of available waste streams and the specifications of raw materials they
        might replace.

     •  Economic feasibility—balancing of disposal costs foregone and raw materials
        costs saved against the administrative and transport costs of implementing a
        waste transfer.

     •  Institutional and marketing feasibility—values at risk, guarantees of supply,
        guarantees of anonymity, and mutual confidence among generator, user, and
        transfer agent.

     •  Legal and regulatory—potential transfer must be handled confidentially,  be
        allowed by law, and be unlikely to lead to liability suits.

     Accurate information about wastes being produced by industrial processes is difficult
and expensive to obtain. The first national estimate was compiled by EPA for Congress in
1973.  More  detailed  national estimates by industry  were developed in 1974-1976 by a
series of  14  EPA-commissioned studies, of  which  11 were reviewed for this report.8"18

     The quantity of manufacturing processing wastes generated in those industries amounts
to about 206 million metric tons/year on a wet weight basis. Those wastes having potential
value for transfer and reuse total about three percent,  or about six million metric tons/year
(wet basis). In selected industries, however, the percentage can be much higher: up to 95
percent in Pharmaceuticals (SIC 2831), at least  25 percent in organic chemicals (SIC 286),
at least 10 percent in petroleum refining (SIC 2911), about 40 percent in paints and allied
products (SIC 285), and as much as 20 percent  in small industrial machinery (SIC 355).

     Wastes generally recognized as having components of potential value include:

     •   wastes having high concentrations of recoverable metals
     •   solvents
     •   alkalis
     •   concentrated acids
     •   catalysts
     •   oils
     •   combustibles (for fuel)

Available  data  cover only about  one-third of the manufacturing industries which might
participate in waste transfers. But they suggest that significant fractions of wastes from
other industries may have value which is not now  being extracted. The easiest method for
testing the hypothesis would be  an inexpensive  transfer service  for an industrial region
having many chemical plants, one or  more petroleum refineries, and  a  mixture of other
industrial plants.

     All industries  which manufacture chemicals  or use chemicals as raw  materials are
potential clients of transfer  agents. Potential  participants  in  and beneficiaries  of waste
transfer are concentrated in five industry groups:

     •  Pharmaceutical (SIC  2831 and 2833)
     •  Paints  and  allied products (SIC 285)
     •  Organic chemicals (SIC 2865 and 2869)
     •  Petroleum  refining (SIC 2911)
     •  Small industry machinery (SIC 355)

Their wastes  with  the highest reuse and transfer potential include solvents, still bottoms,
and spent catalysts.  In general, transfer  will take place:

     •  from larger  companies  using continuous processes to smaller companies
        using batch processes;

     •  from basic  chemical manufacturers to formula tors; and,

     •  from industries with high purity requirements (e.g. pharmaceutical) to those
        with lower purity requirements (e.g. paints).

In addition, almost any industry which  needs fuels or cleaning solvents, for example, machine
shops and boat builders, is a potential user  of scrap wastes. Moreover,  reclaimers would
naturally become clients of a transfer organization in order to expand their business.

     Most potential clients will demand reasonably large amounts of regularly-produced
scrap wastes. There is some potential  for transfer of smaller amounts of wastes produced
occasionally,  such as spilled  or ruined batches of paint or other chemicals. While many
such wastes can be  anticipated, their total tonnage, and hence their economic and environ-
mental impact on the area, is not likely  to be large.

     The economic gains  from each potential transfer depend  upon the  waste generator's
savings on disposal costs and  the user's savings on raw materials costs. The total gain must

cover such  transfer costs as  transportation, administration,  and possibly reprocessing.
Generally, scrap wastes valued at less than one cent per pound cannot be transferred eco-
nomically over a distance greater than SO miles.

     A transfer organization which serves several industries has a greater chance of identify-
ing new  transfer opportunities than does one serving only one industry. Thus, while the
chemical industry is expected  to be the mainstay of any transfer service, participation by
customers of the chemical industries should be expected  and encouraged. Such customers
or major users  of  chemicals  include the textile,  paper,  wood  products, printing, rubber
and plastics, leather, ceramics, machinery, and electronics industries.

     No  government agency, whether  federal or state or  local, whether a line agency or a
special-purpose authority, should try to operate or sponsor a waste transfer service directly.
The  potential conflicts between their  promotional and regulatory roles would render the
service unacceptable to its intended industrial clients, and thus largely ineffective. None-
theless, governments retain an indirect interest because  of their public health and environ-
mental protection  responsibilities. They  can provide significant general support,  notably
by encouraging  waste  inventory and market research studies, offering technical assistance
to organizers and sponsors of clearinghouses, encouraging generators to keep wastes separa-
ted and  to analyze their  characteristics, controlling disposal and thereby raising its costs,
and clarifying the questions and uncertainties which now surround legal liabilities of genera-
tors and handlers of hazardous wastes.

     When generators and users cannot satisfy all  Requirements  for a transfer by  them-
selves, they may seek help elsewhere. Their first recourse is to informal networks of colleagues.
The second is to professional societies and advertising columns of technical journals.

     The third is  to  an information clearinghouse, which serves  the  limited function of
linking  interested  trading  partners.  A clearinghouse transfers only information.  It plays
only a passive role in  the transfer process, because it leaves generators and users to negotiate

     The fourth recourse is to a dealer, reclaimer, or materials exchange equipped to handle,
treat, and certify the  characteristics of chemical materials.  Such agents play an active role,
because they stand as  intermediaries between generator and user. Of course, many companies
reclaim  materials with well-recognized reuse value. Only a few small companies in Europe
and the United States now seem to be offering, or interested in offering,  the full range of ser-
vices needed to transfer scrap chemicals.

     Most existing transfer organizations are operated by the chemical industry associations
or governments of European countries as wholly- or partially-subsidized information clear-
inghouses. Only a few waste transfer agents operate now in the United States; two follow
the European pattern, and two take more active roles in identifying matches and negotiating
transfers,  although  they do not physically handle the materials.  Several small materials
exchanges were identified, one in Europe and the rest in the United States.
                              Information Clearinghouses

     The  functions of  an information clearinghouse  are very limited: to offer a central
point for  collecting and displaying information, and to introduce interested potential trad-
ing partners to each other. They do not actively seek customers, negotiate  transfers, set
values, process materials,  transport materials, or provide legal advice. Any such functions
required  to transfer a specific  material are performed by generators, users, or middlemen

     The  basic clearinghouse service is to receive offers of waste materials  and requests
for scrap materials, list both anonymously, and publish the lists to members and interested
nonmembers of their sponsor association.  Interested  potential  traders then contact the
clearinghouse, which refers them to each other, but takes no further active role in negotia-
tions which may lead to  transfers. Most  clearinghouses try to learn whether transfers in
fact were completed, but with only limited returns.

     All existing information clearinghouses are subsidized by their sponsors.  Some charge
nominal listing fees. An information clearinghouse requires little capital investment and can
be operated at an annual cost of between  $10,000 and  $90,000 per year, depending on
industry response and the degree of active promotion of its service. Financial self-sufficiency
could be achieved once the information transfer service has shown its usefulness to industry,
by building a large circulation and by setting realistic listing and subscription fees. A partici-
pating company could  probably recover such fees with  one successful transfer a  year.

     Experience of the  older European clearinghouses suggests that about 10  percent of
scrap wastes listed will actually be transferred. Approximately one-half of  those wastes
transferred went to waste brokers and  reprocessing companies (i.e., solvent recovery, etc.).
The remainder were transferred to manufacturers.

     The  best sponsor for a clearinghouse is a  local or regional industry association, or an
organization equally responsive to industry's needs, for three major reasons. First, to be
successful, clearinghouses  must obtain the support of industry, especially plant managers
and engineers faced with waste disposal problems. Second, it is not likely that clearinghouses

will be self-supporting until industry learns about the assistance which clearinghouses offer.
Finally, they must keep identities and waste generation data confidential.

     Although  information clearinghouses can assist industry, their importance should not
be overemphasized. When clearinghouses began in Europe, they received many listings. The
initial influx of wastes included many continuous waste streams. In most cases after the
first 12-to-18 months of operation, the number of listings declined. Presumably as plant
managers either negotiated transfers or decided that their wastes had no value in the current
market, they discontinued their listings.

     However,  in addition  to facilitating transfers of specific wastes, clearinghouses provide
two useful general services. First, both their existance and listings of available wastes help to
educate  industrial engineers about the increased opportunities for transferring and using
scrap wastes. Second, their series of lists can gradually build  an inventory, incomplete but
also inexpensive, of industrial processing wastes.

     In  the next few years, several more clearinghouses may begin in the United States.
Even though subsidized clearinghouses can be operated in areas with a low density of indus-
try,  they will  facilitate a greater  number  and higher  percentage of transfers in heavily-
industrialized areas, such as Houston, Chicago, and Philadelphia, having a large number and
variety of industries within relatively small geographic regions.

     The scope of the typical clearinghouse in Europe is national, and in two cases interna-
tional. The likely American pattern will be a network of regional clearinghouses, with
arrangements to cooperate  in cases in which the value of the scrap waste is great enough
to cover costs of transporting it between regions.
                                 Materials Exchanges

     The  services  of exchanges are  more complex and expensive than those of clearing-
houses. Exchanges buy or accept wastes, analyze their properties, identify potential uses,
reprocess  them as  needed, and sell at a profit. They transfer information only as a courtesy
to clients or in the course of paid consulting services. Whereas a clearinghouse needs only a
part-time  staff and office space, an exchange needs highly-competent technical, managerial,
and marketing skills, as well  as storage and processing facilities.

     Financial success depends upon brokering matches to completion. Because of trans-
portation costs,  most transfers can occur within about SO miles only. Exchanges must, for
economic reasons, concentrate on those scrap wastes of most value and most likely to find
buyers. A materials exchange requires a capital investment of from $200,000 to $350,000,

and annual operating costs are expected to fall in the range of $50,000 to $ 150,000 per
year. Economic analysis indicates that a materials exchange service is not likely to become
profitable, unless offered  together with a range of other established services to chemical
industries, such as handling surplus chemicals.

     1.  Detailed data are  needed from one  or more operating  clearinghouses in
        order to guide the creation of clearinghouses elsewhere. Such data should
        include listing activity,  costs, and  manpower used, and  should not over-
        look  the value of contributed volunteer professional time. These operating
        data  must  be collected  without impairing the anonymity  guaranteed to

     2.  Although the role of the public sector must be only indirect, it is nonetheless
        important  in providing support services, notably by encouraging studies of
        operating experience and inventories of available wastes.

     3.  Emphasis should  be given to the needs of potential scrap users. Waste gener-
        ators quickly recognize the potential usefulness of the information clearing-
        house service. Moreover, success of  the  waste transfer  concept depends
        ultimately  upon  the demands of users of acceptable scrap wastes. Examples
        of new recycling technologies and successful new types of transfers should
        be brought to the attention of potential scrap users through technical journals
        and professional societies.

     4.  Information about the waste transfer concept and practice should be dissem-
        inated widely, to satisfy the  interest which is now so evident. Useful techni-
        ques  include publications,  regional conferences, and  technical assistance.
        Various  institutional  and legal arrangements for clearinghouses should be
        examined and perhaps tested.

     5.  A definitive study of  legal  liability  issues is needed in order to clarify the
        many questions,  and  to dispel some of  the  fears, which now present major
        barriers to participation in waste transfers by generators and potential users.
        Topics addressed should include transfer of title  to wastes, residual liability,
        variations in law and practice among  states, and developing trends both in
        legislation and in  court decisions.

6.  One  or  more  subsidized clearinghouses  should be encouraged in order to:

    •    demonstrate the effectiveness of the  transfer concept,
    •    identify the existence of transfer opportunities,
    •    generate detailed operating data,
    •    educate potential transfer participants in industry, and,
    •    identify the potential for financial self-sufficient clearinghouses.

7.  A  financially  self-sufficient clearinghouse  should be designed and  demon-
    strated over a  period of two-to-three years. Various combinations of rela-
    ted services and various forms of institutional sponsorship should be examined.

8.  Materials exchange services  should  be  offered and operated only by the
    private sector. But  the public sector  should provide general encouragement
    through technical and information services.

                                I.  INTRODUCTION

                       PROBLEM AND THE EPA RESPONSE

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated in 1976 that 344 million
metric tons (wet basis) of industrial processing residues are generated annually in the United
States. This is almost twice the quantity of municipal wastes and more than thirty times
the amount of sewage sludge generated annually.1 *

    As ocean dumping is decreased and  water pollution and air pollution controls are
tightened, these  materials will increasingly be concentrated into solids and sludges for dis-
posal  on land. EPA estimates that 25 million tons of hazardous wastes are annually disposed
of on land. Furthermore, EPA projects that this quantity  will double during the next

    Section 212 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended required EPA to investi-
gate  the problem of hazardous wastes and study the concept  of national disposal sites
for storage and disposal of these materials.3  The EPA did this, but recommended  that any
action on a national disposal site system be made part of a larger strategy based on improved
regulatory controls.4

    The EPA's  report was submitted to the President and the Congress in 1973. It con-
cluded that:

    •  Current practices of hazardous waste management are inadequate.

    •  This is  because adequate treatment and disposal are expensive and, except
        in the case of radioactive wastes, are not mandated by law.

    •  What  is lacking is appropriate legislative authority over land disposal of
        non-radioactive materials.  Existing  authorities  are adequate  to protect  the
        air, surface  waters, and probably  ocean waters from hazardous  materials,
        but not  land and groundwaters.

    •  The technology of  hazardous waste  management is  generally  adequate.

    •  A national disposal site system  would be expensive, requiring investments
        of about $940 million and annual operating costs  of about  $620 million.
'References are listed at the end of the report.

     •  The private sector is capable of assuming most  or all  of the responsibility
        for hazardous waste management, and a small private-sector hazardous waste
        management industry has in fact begun to develop.

The  strategy recommended in the report is first to establish appropriate regulatory controls,
then to monitor  the response of the private sector, and only later to take further govern-
ment action if that is found necessary.5

     EPA currently proposes the following  order Of preference  and sequence of steps for
handling industrial waste streams:6

     (1)  Minimize the amount of waste  generated, by modifying the industrial
         process involved.

     (2)  Concentrate  the  waste (through  evaporation,  precipitation,  etc.) at the
         source to reduce handling and transport costs.

     (3)  If possible  transfer the waste  as is to another industry which can use it
         as a feedstock.

     (4)  When  a transfer "as is"  is not possible, reprocess the  waste  for material

     (5)  When material recovery is not possible,

         (a) Incinerate the waste for energy recovery and for destruction of hazard-
             ous materials.

         (b) If the waste cannot be incinerated, detoxify and  neutralize it through
             chemical treatment.

     (6)  Use carefully controlled land disposal only for what remains.

The  present study is concerned with Step 3 and to  some extent Step 4. It explores the
feasibility of the concept of "waste exchange" and outlines the requirements for success-
ful waste transfer operations.

     The study is intended  to  further the strategy  recommended  in the  1973 EPA report
by outlining one way in  which industry  can reduce its waste disposal needs. The study
is  also responsive to the goals  of the National Academy of Science, whose 1966 study of
waste management identified recovery  and re-use of pollutants as the strategy with highest
probable long-term utility  in alleviating the nationwide pollution problem.7


     This study has two major objectives: (1) to assess the feasibility and potential impact
of transferring wastes in the United States, and (2) to provide guidelines for the organization
and operation of a waste transfer organization. The conclusions are based on a review of the
activities of existing transfer organizations; analysis of the technology, economics, and insti-
tutional aspects  of waste transfer; and extensive discussion of the concept with industries
generating and potentially using wastes.

     This report  will interest  primarily existing and potential operators of waste transfer
services. The main questions addressed are:

     •  How do existing  transfer organizations operate,  using  what procedures,
        and with what results?

     •  Where can such an organization operate best?

     •  Who are the most likely clients? What are their needs? How do they behave?

     •  How can clients best be identified, contacted, and attracted?

     •  Will their demand for transfer services grow, or at least remain stable over

     •  What proportion of transferable wastes are likely to find exact matches—that
        is, find uses without chemical treatment?

     •  What skills and resources are required to  run a transfer organization success-

     •  What are the economics of transferring wastes?

     •  What legal problems may arise?

     •  What competition might a transfer service face?

     Other readers of this report will include potential sponsors or subsidizers of transfer
organizations, generators of wastes, and potential users of wastes having reuse value.

       PART ONE


     Like most new  subjects, this one is developing its own special vocabulary, in which
many terms are used with various and confusing meanings. Among the basic tasks typically
needed  in  a new field, just as  important as collecting and analyzing data, is to develop
and  standardize  its terms. When  each  term used  in  this report first appears  in the text.
the rationale for the choice and definition is stated; the meaning is also given in the Glossary.

     The term "exchange" is now being applied quite broadly, as in, "After the exchange
opens, many companies may wish to exchange their wastes." It is used to describe organi-
zations  ranging from publishers of information lists to  reprocessing  companies, and it is
applied  to all types of inter-industry movement of wastes.

     Inter-industry transactions rarely take the form of exact swaps, in which Plant A gives
its waste to Plant B and receives Plant B's waste in return. Moreover, these transactions are
not necessarily made for profit or even for money; in fact, the generator may have to give
the waste away or pay  the user  to accept it. Therefore, it is useful to adopt a term broader
and  more neutral than "exchange."  "Transfer" was  chosen, because in common usage it
includes any kind of movement from one owner or  location to another.

     To refer genetically to the "exchange" organization, whether its role is that of clear-
inghouse or of broker, this report uses the terms "transfer agent," "transfer service," or
"transfer organization." This report identifies  two  distinctly different types of transfer
organizations, offering  distinctly  different  types  of  assistance in transferring wastes;  the
common term "waste exchange" describes only one of these.
                       THE CONCEPT OF WASTE TRANSFER

     The concept of waste transfer is analogous to that of the purchase and re-use of indus-
trial by-products: an industrial process generates  a  material which  is not  the principal
product and  is not  usable by  the  generating company, but  which can economically be
told to, and used by, another company. The difference is that a by-product's recognized
value generally justifies  the  costs of recovery, handling, and  transportation, while the
recognized value of a waste generally does not. So long as disposal is easy and inexpensive,
it is the economically preferred course. Transfer to another industry is economically attrac-
tive  only when disposal presents major problems. This, of course, will be the case  increas-
ingly as disposal is subject to tighter restrictions and as its cost rises.

     While some transfers of industrial wastes are accomplished directly through the initia-
tive  of either the company generating  the  material or the company seeking  it, large-scale

realization of the concept requires a third party.  This is true mainly because the uses in
question are not well established, generators and potential users often do not know about
each other, and companies are often reluctant to reveal information about their processes
and materials. An intermediary is needed to enable generators and users to find each other
while at the same time protecting confidential information until a promising match is iden-
tified.  Still more transfers can be made if the third party is able to offer additional services,
such as assistance with negotiations, consultation about uses and reprocessing requirements,
or actual handling of the materials.

     A transfer agent does not operate in a vacuum, but instead within a complex economic
and  technical environment. It  is therefore important to understand the structure of the
market for chemical materials. In its basic form, the market consists of three layers:

     •  Primary or Raw Materials
     •  Processing By-products
     •  Wastes

     The top layer of raw or virgin materials includes the most valuable materials. It includes
raw materials from nature, for example sulphur or salt. It also includes virgin manufactured
materials, for example plastics,  which manufacturers need for their processes and  thus view
as primary materials.

     The middle layer of processing by-products includes materials which are often less pure
and less valuable than primary materials. Common examples are solvents from pharmaceuti-
cal and paint  processing,  slag from steel making, and rejected lead plates from  lead acid
batteries. These  examples  have recognized value as material inputs for some manufacturers.
But their values  are set, of course, by supplies of and demands for competing raw materials.
When  primary materials are plentiful and  cheap,  processing by-products may have little
demand, and thus little value in commerce.

     The  bottom  layer of wastes includes materials generally viewed as having no value
whatever.  In the eyes of their manufacturers, they should be disposed.

     This  description of the three-tier market is, of course, a simplified and static summary
of many relationships. Closer examination is needed of materials in the bottom  category of

                               Waste:  Scrap or Trash?

     The term "waste" requires clarification, because it has two meanings which are related
but distinct. First, it can refer to damanged, defective, or residual material resulting from an
industrial  process; such materials  typically retain some  or  much of their original value.
Therefore, this report refers to them as "scrap waste" or "scrap."

     Second, in everyday usage the term "waste" can refer to many kinds of refuse; such
materials have no value, and can only be thrown away. Therefore, this report refers to them
as "trash waste" or "trash."

     However, the confusion in common usage of "waste" arises often because the distinc-
tions between "scrap wastes" with some  value and "trash  wastes" with no value are not
immediately obvious. Often, what is considered  trash by one person is considered useful
by another. For example, the process of manufacturing textiles produces irregular trimmings
and scraps of materials which cannot be reprocessed for sale as finished cloth; but they can
be used to wipe oil and dirt from machinery. Another common  example is the scrap from
the metal-working industry,  consisting of shavings, scraps of metal, and off-specification
parts left over  after processing, which find their way to secondary uses-within the same
plant, at other  plants within  the same  company, or at other companies via the established
scrap metals market.

     The distinction between scrap waste and trash waste is important because it is central
to both the  economic and the technical viability of a waste transfer service. Economically,
if a material is truly trash, with no further value whatever, then  it will not attract a buyer
or even an acceptor; thus, no transfer will result.  If an organization accepts such materials,
it is not really a transfer agent, but instead a disposal center.

     The distinction between scrap and trash therefore modifies  the first description of the
three-layer market for chemical materials to appear as follows:

     •  Primary or Raw Materials
     •  Processing By-products (Recognized Value)
                   Scrap Wastes (Limited or Potential Value)
        Wastes     Trash Wastes (No Value)

     The discussion thus far has assumed that relations among materials in the materials mar-
ket are static. But, of course, their value and positions within the market can change. Many
process  residues in the chemical industry were viewed initially as wastes with no apparent
value; then, as uses  for which buyers  would pay were identified and gained  acceptance,
they rose to become established by-products with recognized value. Engineers designing
new industrial processes routinely examine the residues to seek further uses as by-products.
In recent  years, both stricter  waste  disposal regulations and rising prices of raw materials
have made it more attractive  economically for companies to research further uses for the
valuable components of their waste. Large  companies with  many  processes and  skilled
chemical engineers are likely to find those recycling opportunities which exist, often within
their own manufacturing facilities.

     However, even engineers in large national companies cannot solve all waste problems.
Moreover, technical discoveries of new ways to find value in scrap do not occur in all com-
panies at once. Also, medium-sized  or small companies typically lack the time and skills to
find reuses for their wastes. Although engineers in different companies do meet at profes-
sional societies to compare problems and share solutions, these informal personal networks
are by nature limited in scope and uncertain in operation. Therefore, needs exist which a
formal transfer agent can satisfy. Indeed,  the difficulties which companies face  in distin-
guishing between scrap wastes and trash wastes offer the opportunities for waste transfer
agents to provide useful technical and economic services.
                            The Transfer Agent's Functions

     The transfer agent works in the fuzzy and shifting boundary area between wastes and
by-products.  If successful, the transfer agent will gradually identify what can be described
as a  "scrap chemicals market," a small but distinct market sector containing materials which
are more valuable than trash but  less valuable than established by-products. The transfer
agent may also move some scrap wastes with uncertain value into the category of by-
products with recognized value.

     The function of the transfer agent,  therefore, is to  identify and help  bring together
the generator, who views the waste as trash without further value, and the user, who views
it  as scrap  with reuse value. In this process, the transfer agent identifies scrap materials of
interest to both generators and users.

     To  be economically  and  technically  useful,  a  transfer service must  recognize the
realistic limits of its  business or functions. On the one hand, it cannot afford to accept trash
wastes. On the other, it would  serve no unique environmental or public purpose by trying
to deal in regular flows of process by-products with recognized value which are commercially
established; and the  organization would not be a waste transfer service, but  instead one of
many competing industrial  or chemical brokerages. A transfer agent can thus offer useful
services in only a narrow sector of the chemical materials market—the scrap sector.
                         REQUIREMENTS FOR A TRANSFER

     Before describing the transfer system and how it operates within the materials market,
it is necessary  to recognize the elements of successful transfers. Transfers of scrap wastes,
like any other business transaction, can occur only after certain conditions are satisfied for
both generator and user. These needs may be divided into four basic groups:

     (1)   Technical—The  potential reuse  requires that the scrap have specific char-

     (2)  Economic-Since both  parties must  gain  from the transaction, relations
         among various costs and prices must be attractive.

     (3)  Marketing  and  Institutional—Once  technical and  economic  factors are
         favorable, such  matters as knowledge of availability and  need, confiden-
         tiality, and correct timing become critical.

     (4)  Legal and Regulatory—Potential transfers must be allowed by law,  must be
         handled  confidentially,  and  must be unlikely  to result in liability suits.

     Although the requirements are many, they cannot be satisfied at random, but rather
only in a logical sequence. Table II-1  shows the many requirements grouped into four
categories. Although all four categories are necessary,  their ranking  follows the sequence
dictated by  the nature of the scrap material and its possible uses. In judging the potential
of a scrap material for transfer, there is no point in even considering its economic potential
and marketing likelihood before knowing that a technical match is possible.
                             1.  Technical Compatibility

     To see value in a scrap waste, a potential user must know that the material will match
the input needs of his process. This specifies so  many barrels or gallons or tons and certain
physical and chemical properties. A  major factor determining technical compatibility is
purity. The transferability of a scrap waste from one process to another may be hindered
by impurities, or even by fear of unknown impurities which may damage the user's  process.

     The problem of impurities suggests a natural hierarchy which defines the direction
that transfers are most likely to  take. As shown in  Figure II-1, the hierarchy is  defined
in two ways, by type of industry and by type of material.

     Different industries in general have different  purity requirements due to the nature
of their products and end  uses.  Grouping industries  in order of decreasing purity  require-
ments leads to the following order:

     (1)  Producers of fine chemicals—for example, Pharmaceuticals, photographic
         chemicals, and some organics;

     (2)  Producers of chemicals—bulk organics and most inorganics;

     (3)  Formulators—blenders of paints, cleaning solutions, etc.;

     (4)  Hardware manufacturers—machine parts, boxes, etc.

                                         TABLE 11-1
                             REQUIREMENTS FOR A TRANSFER
                                        SCRAP WASTE WITH POTENTIAL VALUE
    Quantity fits user's need?
    Physical properties right?
    Chemical characteristics right?
    Pure enough?

    Generator's transfer cost less than disposal costs?
    User's transfer cost less than raw materials costs?
    Gains enough to cover transportation costs?
    Gains enough to cover analysis, treatment, and other
    transfer costs?
•   Generator knows of user's need and specifications?
•   User knows of scrap's availability and characteristics?
•   Mutual confidence exists between parties?
•   Generator willing to have waste reused?
•   User willing to accept and reuse scrap?
•   Timing right for both parties?
•   Confidentiality of data assured?

•   Legal liability limited?
•   Transfer not illegal?
•   Data confidential, insulated from government?
                                        SUCCESSFUL TRANSFER TO USER

                                 Type of Material

Basic Raw
Very High
High \
More ModerateX
Process Fluids
Low To Moderate
Low To Moderate
      Source:  Arthur D. Little, Inc.

     First, fine chemicals must be pure; if they are not, manufacturers risk paying significant
penalties. Pharmaceuticals are consumed by humans, and thus a particularly high premium
is placed on  their purity. Photographic chemicals and some organic chemicals used as raw
materials for other processes simply do not  perform their intended function  if impure.
Impurities may cause undesirable side reactions which  ruin the product (e.g.,  the photo-
graphic print) or poison the catalyst used  in  a subsequent process. Second, bulk organic
chemicals and most inorganics are subject to similar but  less strict requirements. Third,
formulations, for example paints and cleaning  solutions, are generally used in less sensitive
applications.  Thus, their performance is less likely to be affected by impurities. Fourth,
purity requirements for manufactured substances  are the least strict. The nature of these
products,  for example machine parts or  boxes,  tends to preclude incorporation of the
impurity and hence degradation of  product function. In summary, moving down the list,
there is diminishing need for chemical purity and therefore  increasing willingness to use
scrap wastes as replacements for raw materials.

     Different types of materials are required by each type industry. These can  be broadly
classified as follows:

     (1) Basic raw materials—the substances or inputs from which the main products
         are made;

     (2) Additives—materials used in small amounts to produce or enhance specific
         product characteristics; and

     (3) Process fluids—materials not incorporated into the product but used in its
         production (for example, cleaning solutions and heat transfer media).

Purity requirements generally also decrease down this list for the  simple reason that the
products include  progressively fewer materials. Therefore, within each industry, wastes are
likely to be transferred down the list; for example, the scrap waste from a basic production
process may become a process fluid input to another process.

     These two lists, when  combined in Figure II-l, show  that purity requirements are
highest for raw materials in the fine chemicals industries. They are lowest for process fluids
in the  manufacturing  industries. Exceptions  exist, of course. But this two-dimensional
hierarchy  is useful in identifying the natural market for a transfer service. If the organiza-
tion is  to be most effective, it must cover a broad range of industries. For example, even
though manufacturing  industries might not normally participate in transfers of scrap chem-
icals, they should  not  be ignored completely. Moreover, within an industry  group, the
hierarchy  of purity requirements helps to focus the search  for likely users of a specific
scrap waste material.

     In the ideal case, technical compatibility between the scrap waste and the user's process
is perfect, and the scrap can be transferred "as is". But typically the technical match is less
than perfect. In  these cases, the scrap waste offered by a generator must be changed to fit
the needs of a user. The change may be physical, for example by consolidating several small
lots. It may be chemical, for example  by reprocessing to remove impurities. Such changes
may be made by the user, who knows his own needs best. But they may also be made by
the transfer agent, if it has facilities for treatment, or by a reprocessing company.
                            2.  Attractive Economic Gains

     The economic requirements for a transfer are obvious. The most fundamental is that
the transfer must be advantageous to the user: the net  cost of the scrap material must be
lower, at the point where he needs it as a resource input, than that of his alternative feed-
stock. Likewise for the generator, the transfer must be attractive: ideally, the generator
wishes to gain by selling it; but more likely he will be content to reduce his disposal costs
by giving it away, or by  paying a net transfer cost  less than  his normal costs of disposal.

     The critical costs to both generator and user are net. If the transfer requires such costs
as transportation and some form  of treatment, these may be paid by either generator or
user or shared between them.  But, unless one or both choose to subsidize the transfer,
the net  transfer costs they will agree to pay must be lower than their alternative disposal or
raw material costs.
                                3.  Marketing Factors

     Once  technical and economic feasibility seem probable,  several marketing factors
become important. Generator and user must of course know of each other's need. In the
primary and by-product sectors of the market, this linkage function is facilitated by regular

     But in the waste sector, contacts are made much less easily.  For example, although the
user must know the scrap's technical characteristics, his need is typically difficult to satisfy.
Generators usually have no incentive to analyze their wastes, which are often chance mix-
tures of  residues from several processes. Even where an analysis exists, generators are not
eager to  broadcast such data, because such "chemical  footprints" might provide useful
clues about new products to competitors.

     A factor of great importance is mutual confidence. Generators, especially large com-
panies, hesitate to release scrap wastes to others for fear of possible injury to their reputations

 for quality; they generally will not release  the odd batch of even slightly below-standard
 product.  Similarly, potential users, especially  those with high purity needs, hesitate to
 accept  a  scrap waste just to save a few dollars where its uncertain impurities might ruin a
 large production run worth far more money: thus, the user is most interested in the gen-
 erator's technical reputation, integrity, and willingness to guarantee  the  scrap's technical
 characteristics. Mutual  confidence is influenced not only by professional reputation,  but
 also by Financial strength.

     Another factor, more elusive but still significant, concerns attitudes. One influence on
 potential  partners to a  transfer is opportunity cost-those activities which could otherwise
 be pursued profitably if engineers were not  worrying about  transferring scrap wastes.
 Because transfers present unusual problems, and thus new risks, those engineers and man-
 agers who tackle them must be motivated  partly  by a philosophy that their efforts may
 benefit society and the environment even if not measurably their own company. Several
 engineers cite the prevailing  "philosophy  of  waste" as an important barrier to early success
 of the concept of transferring wastes.

     Yet  another factor is accurate timing. Generator and potential user must know of their
 needs at just the right  time, when economic conditions, especially  the  costs of user's raw
 materials, are favorable.

     The  number and variability of these market factors show that generator and user must
 know about each other's needs in detail.  When they do not know each other directly, they
 need the services  of a transfer agent.
                            4.  Legal and Regulatory Factors

     A major need for both generator and user is to feel free from legal liability arising from
a transfer. This often-expressed fear explains the generators' reluctance to release wastes to
other organizations; should a third party  suffer injuries possibly  caused  by such material,
both generator and user, especially if they are large companies with known  financial strength,
might become tempting targets for suit. Generators also worry that transferring wastes may
increase their exposure to scrutiny by regulatory authorities.

     These legal and regulatory factors differ from most  of the  technical, economic, and
marketing factors in that they are beyond  the  direct control of generators, users, and
transfer agents. But these factors, however indirect, still have influence.  Disposal costs to
generators are largely a function of how stringently landfills are regulated.  Freight rates may
be discriminantly higher for other-than-raw materials than for competing primary materials,
and thus a burden to the whole recycling industry.

                         NATIONAL WASTE STREAM DATA
     Accurate estimation  of the likely market  opportunities for transfer agent services
requires data about wastes being produced by industrial processes. But such data are diffi-
cult and expensive to obtain. The first national estimate was compiled by EPA for Congress
in 1973.4  More detailed national estimates were developed by a series of industry studies
from  1974 to 1976 commissioned by  EPA.8"18  Several states are now conducting inven-
tories, but results are not yet available. Detailed data at the level of a Standard Metropolitan
Statistical  Area (SMSA) or an industrial region, such as northern New Jersey or the Gulf
Coast, do  not exist; instead, estimates for a locality or SMSA can only be derived from
national estimates. These national estimates are summarized in the following paragraphs and
tables; details about data collection and  forecast methods appear in Appendix E.

     Table III-l summarizes for the United States the total quantity of manufacturing pro-
cessing wastes generated in a number of industries studied for EPA.8"18  The total quantity
for these industries is about 206 million metric tons/year on a wet basis and 147 million
metric tons/year on a dry basis. Table 111-2 summarizes the types and quantities of known
wastes from  the  industries  listed in Table III-l  which might have potential value. This
amounts to  about 6 million metric tons/year, or about 3 percent of the total. This is an
order-of-magnitude estimate, based on the best available waste stream data. The data, how-
ever,  were obtained primarily to estimate the magnitude of wastes requiring disposal and
the hazards that such wastes might present in landfill. In order to estimate transfer potential
accurately, the wastes would have to be characterized in far greater detail, preferably on a
plant-by-plant rather than on a national-average basis.

     Table III-2 lists those wastes reported in EPA's industry studies and generally recognized
as having components of potential value, namely:

     •  wastes having high concentrations of recoverable metals,
     •  solvents
     •  alkalis
     •  concentrated acids
     •  catalysts
     •  oils
     •  combustibles (for fuel)

Information developed and reported in those studies was based upon typical national practices.

                                  TABLE 111-1

                               1975 (U.S. TOTALS)
SIC           Industry

3691          Storage Batteries
3692          Primary Batteries

281           Inorganic Chemicals

286           Organic Chemicals
2879          Pesticides
2892          Explosives

3471          Electroplating

2851          Paints and Allied Products

2911          Petroleum Refining

283           Pharmaceuticals

33            Primary Metals

226           Textiles Dyeing and Finishing

30            Rubber and Plastics

3111          Leather Tanning and Finishing

355 & 357     Special Machinery

367           Electronic Components

2992          Waste Oil Re-Refining

                                              Total Watte Stream (metric tons/yr.)
Wet Basis
| 10,000
| 7,000.000
Dry Basis
Source:  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous Waste Management Division.

                                   TABLE 111-2

                                   (U.S. TOTAL)
Reject cells
Wastewater treatment sludge
! Chlorinated hydrocarbon
liquid heavy ends
Other still bottoms
Degreaser sludges
Spoiled paint or lacquer
batches and wash solvents
Coke fines
FCC catalyst fines
Halogenated solvents, other
solvents, tars, still
bottoms, carbon filter aid
Still pickle liquor
Sludges and trimmings
) Solvents, metals, oils, acids,
( and alkalis
Potential Value
Metal recovery (17-70%
Zn. Hg. Pb. Cd)
Metal recovery
(40% Cr)
Degreasing solvents
Solvent recovery
Solvent recovery,
Catalyst recovery
Degreasing solvents;
Cleaning or paint
solvents; fuel
6% H2SO4 with metals
Leather composites
Recovery and reclamation
(Metric tons/yr..
Wet Basis)
Percentage of
Total Waste
Stream Lilted
in Table II 1-1
Source:  Arthur D. Little, Inc., estimates.

However, specific plants may generate  wastes with characteristics different from those
reported as "typical". Furthermore, the studies were designed to determine the "hazardous"
components, rather than the physical and chemical characteristics, of wastes. Stream descrip-
tions were not sufficiently detailed to permit definitive judgments about their potential for
waste transfer.

     Nonetheless, the data suggest that opportunities for waste transfer exist in many indus-
tries. For example, up to 40% of paint industry wastes, 25% of organic chemical waste, 20%
of machinery  manufacturing waste (on a wet weight basis) might find markets with the aid
of effective  transfer agencies.  Furthermore, available data cover only about one-third of the
manufacturing industries which might  participate in waste  transfer. The results lead to the
hypothesis that significant  fractions of wastes from other industries may have value, and
therefore transfer potential, which is not now being extracted. The easiest mechanism for
testing the hypothesis would be an inexpensive transfer service for an industrial region hav-
ing many chemical plants (SIC 28), one or  more petroleum refineries, and a mixture of
other industrial plants which use chemicals as raw materials.

     The EPA industry studies showed that resource recovery by internal recycling is widely
practiced. In  the lead-acid battery industry, for example, there is in most  plants a high
degree of recovery  via internal recycling.  In other sectors of the battery industry, rejected
nickel-cadmium, cadmium-silver oxide, and mercury cells are sent to metal reclaimers; but
disassembly  of the cells and separation of the metal is difficult. In the electroplating, pharma-
ceutical, and paint industries, waste solvents are generally recovered, in larger plants by their
own on-site  facilities and in small  plants by outside contractors. The metals industries have
continuing programs to explore ways to reclaim metals  of value. The organic chemical
industry continually seeks ways to increase the percentage of raw materials in saleable
products, and thus  to decrease the proportion of waste; it  recovers solvents when econom-
ically feasible. The  petroleum refining industry sells a large fraction of its coke fines as fuel,
and sends much of its spent catalyst out for reprocessing. On the other hand, our contacts
with plant managers suggest that  even this generally-established recycling practice has not
been adopted by every plant within the industry. Hence,  it should be possible to expand
transfer opportunities.

     Most of  the well-documented large  process wastes from major industries are trash at
this time; uses have been sought for years, but with little success; thus, the probability that
a transfer agent could identify customers to  accept a significant portion of these wastes in
the near term is very low. However, relatively small quantities of other wastes have poten-
tial as scrap, namely:

     •   waste solvents,
     •   alkalies,

     •  wastes high in metal content,
     •  concentrated acids, and,
     •  catalysts.

Many of these wastes are not now reclaimed or reused, and thus are excellent candidates
for transfer.

     In  summary, the exact quantity available of transferable wastes is unknown. But the
above analysis of national data for a limited number of industries suggests that it might be
at least  three percent of the nationwide total of processing wastes now being generated and
disposed into the environment.

     All industries which manufacture chemicals (SIC 28 or 29) or which use chemicals as
raw materials (e.g. SIC 22—textiles, 24—wood products, 26—paper, 27—printing, 30—rubber
and  plastics,  31—leather, 32—ceramics,  33—metals extraction, 34—metals products, 35—
machinery, and  36—electronics) are potential clients of transfer agents. Such industries
generate chemical wastes with possible material or energy value that might be recovered for
use in other parts of the U.S. economy.  Such  industries also purchase virgin chemicals, and
might be willing  to substitute scrap chemicals if their existence and availability were known.

     The close relationship between the  chemical industry and most of the Europen trans-
fer agencies is not accidental.  Similarly,  transfer agents in  the U.S. could not be successful
without substantial  participation of companies in the chemical industry. Their initial con-
tacts, mailings,  and advertising should  be  concentrated in such chemical manufacturing
groups as:

     •  Pharmaceuticals (SIC 2831 and 2833)
     •  Paints and allied products (SIC 285)
     •  Organic and chemicals (SIC 2865 and 2869)
     •  Petroleum refining (SIC 2911)
     •  Small industry machinery (SIC 355)

Waste streams from these industries with the highest reuse and transfer potential as scrap
include solvents,  still bottoms, and spent catalysts.

     In general, transfers among these industries and to others that use chemicals in manu-
facture or waste treatment will take place:

     •  from larger companies using continuous processes to smaller companies using
        batch processes;

     •  from basic chemical manufacturers to formula tors; and.

     •  from industries with high purity requirements (e.g., pharmaceutical) to those
        with lower purity requirements (e.g. paints).

In addition, almost any industry with a need for fuels or cleaning solvents, (for example
machine shops and  boat  builders) is a potential user of scrap wastes.  Reclaimers would
naturally become clients of a transfer organization, as a means for scanning the marketplace
and for expanding their businesses.

     Most potential  clients will demand reasonably large  amounts of regularly-produced
scrap wastes. There is also some potential for transfer of smaller amounts of wastes produced
occasionally, such as spilled or ruined  batches of paint or other chemicals. While a signifi-
cant number of wastes of this type can be  anticipated, their total tonnage, and hence their
economic and environmental impact on the area, is not likely to be large.

     Transfers may occur  within an industry or between different industries. Is the impact
of a transfer organization  likely to differ between these types  of transfer? Transfers within
an industry  are favored by common knowledge concerning technology, products and raw
material requirements and by the likelihood that potential transfer partners already know
each other. However, plants within an  industry are more likely to have common wastes and
common raw material requirements; thus, if a waste cannot be used in-house, it is not likely
to be useful  to another plant in the same industry.

     Plants in different industries may not know each other  or be aware of each other's
raw  material requirements and waste streams. The diversity between plants opens ground
for potential transfers, if the parties can be brought together or made knowledgeable about
each other.

     It seems therefore that a transfer  organization which cuts across industry lines has the
greater chance  of opening up  new transfer  opportunities than  does one acting only within
one industry. Thus, while  the chemical  industry is expected to be the mainstay of any trans-
fer service,  participation  by  those who now purchase  raw  materials from the chemical
industry should be expected and encouraged.

     The largest volumes of scrap wastes are in sludges (often waste-water treatment sludges)
from a variety of industries,  and  slags from the ferrous metals industries. But transfer of
these materials is not practicable because of their volume, diverse contents and intractable
physical form.  It  is conceivable that some of the constituents of these sludges, notably the
heavy metals, could  be reused if they could be kept out of the sludge. This can be accom-
plished only if the waste streams  in individual plants could be segregated near their point
of origin and dealt with separately.

                        A SAMPLE AREA:  PHILADELPHIA
     In order to examine potential opportunities for waste transfer in more detail than is
possible using national estimates, particular attention was given to one Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Area. SMSAs are designated by  the U.S. Bureau of the  Census to  standardize
urban areas for purposes of consistency and comparisons; an SMSA's boundaries are drawn
to include both a core city and its natural economic suburbs and hinterlands. A number of
areas with heavy concentrations of industries producing process wastes, including the Gulf
Coast, the Great Lakes, St. Louis, and San Francisco Bay, offer potential for transfer services.

     The Philadelphia SMSA was chosen  for this study for several reasons. The major one
was  that  its industrial economy is both large and highly diversified, containing representa-
tives of 98% of all Standard Industrial Code (SIC) categories.  It is also near other SMSAs
with large industrial concentrations, especially in chemicals. It is a bi-state area, and both
Pennsylvania and New Jersey have made notable efforts in recent years to regulate disposal
of industrial wastes. Philadelphia offers a variety of institutional forms.

     Philadelphia's waste transfer potential  was estimated in two ways. First,  the volume of
scrap wastes was derived from the national industry studies and other data. Second, inter-
views with 53 plant managers produced data about their needs to offer and to obtain scrap
wastes, and  about their willingness to consider using a transfer service. Detailed methods
and results are reported in Appendix C.
                        Potential Estimated from Available Data

     The types and quantities of Philadelphia SMSA wastes as derived from national data
are shown in Table II1-3. The scaling factor  used  for each industry was its employees in
Philadelphia as a percentage of its employees  nationally in 1975. For example, the pharma-
ceutical industry (SIC 2831  and  2833) had 18,500 employees nationally, and 312 in Phila-
delphia, or 1.7%; thus, the tonnage of transferable pharmaceutical wastes produced nationally,
160,000 metric tons/year,  was reduced by 98.3%  to derive the tonnage potentially trans-
ferable in Philadelphia, 2700 MT/yr. These data are not highly accurate, of course, due to
uncertainties  in local employment and the inherent variability in waste generation rates
related to numbers of employees. However, these data are the best available, and allow an
initial estimate of the magnitude of the market for transfer services.

     Table  III-3 summarizes the wastes generated, almost 4,000,000 metric tons/year, of
which  about  6 percent or  about 249,000 metric  tons/year, are  potentially transferable.
Included in this 6 percent are  solvents of several sorts, which have potential reuse value if

                                            TABLE 111-3

                      Potentially Transferable
Paint and allied
Cyclic crudes and
Other organics
Iron and steel making
Iron and steel
Inorganic chemicals
Storage batteries
Types of Waste
Paint sludges and
Still bottoms, tars
Still bottoms, tars
Solvents, bottoms.
fllter-eMs, toxoids
Slags, sludges and
pickle liquor
slags, sludges
Sludges, Pb com-
Potofrtwlly Wwtfl in tn0
Transferable Wastes largest plant
(MT/yr) (X of Col. 4) (MT/yr) (X of Col. 6)
2.100 45 700 30
1.650 100 600 35
70.700 100 28.500 40
2.700 95 1.620 60
163,000 5 17.300 11
- - - -
- - - -
60 2 47
_ _ _ _
2911   Petroleum refineries
355 &


Special machinery

Leather tanning
Spent lime, sludges,
 tank and still

Metals, oils, solvents,
 acids, alkalis

Sludges, trimmings













Source:  Arthur D. Little, Inc., estimates, derived from EPA national industry studies.8"18

reclaimed, and still and tank bottoms, which could have appreciable fuel value. The remain-
ing 94 percent consists mainly of slags and various sludges.

     Table III-3 also shows the uneven distribution of wastes among plants in each industry
sector. Column 6 shows  the tonnage of potentially transferable waste associated with the
largest plant in each sector. The tonnages range from as little as 5 percent of the total in
special machinery  to as  much as  60 percent in Pharmaceuticals.  Thus, only nine  plants
generate 20 percent of Philadelphia's potentially transferable wastes.

     The question of how many tons would in fact be transferred with the help of a transfer
agent is difficult to answer, because of the many requirements for a  transfer, which may not
all be satisfied in all cases. However, the likelihood of a successful transfer is influenced by
the amount of waste  offered:  if the  amount is too large, there may be no user with suffi-
cient demand to want it; if too small, there may be no user near enough, with a matching
need, and willing to run the risks of accepting it.

     The transferable  wastes produced  by the five industrial groups—pharmaceutical, paints
and allied products, organic chemicals, petroleum refining, and small industrial machinery-
are of three types: solvents, still  and tank bottoms,  and specialized  wastes. The transfer
potentials for each  were estimated as follows.

     Solvents. The potential identified above includes 3,800 metric tons of solvents, 1,900
tons coming from  37 paint plants and  1,900 tons coming from 10 pharmaceutical plants.

     Solvents coming  from each plant will be unique, differing in solvent concentration and
impurities from  every other plant, as well  as from time to time within the plant. For the
most part, solvents must be processed  (purified and/or concentrated) for re-use, and the
economics  of processing are scale-dependent. Large  volumes cost much less per unit to
process than do small volumes. In addition, larger volumes come from  larger companies
which are more comprehensively staffed with technical people. Both of these factors suggest
that the larger volumes of solvents, for which a market can be found, are likely to be pro-
cessed in-house or brokered to existing solvent  recovery specialists.  The smaller volumes
from the smaller plants,  which are unattractive to the existing recovery industry because
of the economies  of scale, are the most likely  candidates for transfer with help from a
transfer service.

     Thus, about 30 to 50 percent of  the solvents generated in the Philadelphia area (or
about 1,100 to 1,900 MT/yr.) might be transferred, provided that the necessary processing
can be arranged. The problem is complicated by the fact that  the solvents would be avail-
able only as separate batches, from many plants, and in amounts ranging from six to 100
MT/yr. per plant. Because of the poor economics of processing small volumes, no more than
ten percent (or about 1 SO MT/yr.) of the total potential would be transferred successfully.

     Still and Tank  Bottoms.  About 70,000 MT/yr. of these wastes are potentially avail-
able. Their main use would be as fuel. The larger the plant, the more worthwhile would be
the technical effort to utilize them. These bottoms might have a  value of $20 per ton
(assuming a basic fuel value of $1 per million BTU), so that the largest single plant (produc-
ing 29,000 MT/yr.)  could  realize a value of about $600,000 per year. This is sufficient to
invite in-house reuse if that reuse is technically and economically feasible. Smaller quantities
in smaller plants have potential annual values ranging from $60 to $3,000 or more. But the
smallest ones are of too little value to repay the effort needed for successful transfer or reuse.

     Thus, economics uncertainties, problems of scale matching, and risk factors all reduce
the potential. No more than about 10 percent (or about 7,000 MT/yr.) would be transferred

     Specialized wastes.  The best opportunities lie among small amounts of more specialized
wastes, such as concentrated acids, caustic, off-spec materials, spent catalysis, high-metal-
content scrap, and some salts. No data are available as to how many or how much of these
scrap wastes are  generated, either nationally or in Philadelphia. But they are probably
generated in small amounts of between 5 and 100  MT/yr. per plant. Their total amount
seems unlikely to exceed 5 percent of all of Philadelphia's wastes, or about 190,000 MT/yr.
Further,  it seems unlikely that more than  10 percent of this amount, or  19,000 MT/yr.,
could be transferred successfully.

     Combined estimate.   In summary, the total amount of scrap  waste transferred with
assistance from a transfer service in the Philadelphia  SMSA would amount to no more than
about 26,000 MT/yr., or less than 1 percent of an estimated total of 3,856,000 MT/yr.
generated, as follows:
Potentially Transferable
(%) (MT/yr.)
3-5 150
10 7,000
10 19,000
~10 ~26,000
             Waste Type


             Still and Tank Bottoms

             Specialized Wastes

     The uncertainties in these estimates are sufficiently general to make the estimates of
the amounts of specific wastes with transfer potential very difficult. The interpolation of
these base data, collected and reported on a national basis, to the Philadelphia SMSA adds

further uncertainty. Estimates of what would actually be transferred must average out tech-
nical feasibility factors, attitudes of potential  generators and receivers, real and perceived
risks, and the timing of offerings and bids. Each of these factors could be sampled only
lightly  in this study's field work; the averaging of effects from these lightly-sampled factors
add further uncertainty to numerical estimates.

    However, the estimate is a good representation of the order-of-magnitude of the poten-
tial. The impact of a transfer service, expressed as a percentage of total industrial process
wastes generated  in the Philadelphia SMSA, would be small. In particular industries, how-
ever, it could be substantial.
                       Potential Estimated from Field Interviews

     Interviews  with S3  plant  managers produced the following summary conclusions:

     •  Internal recycling and by-product recovery is practiced widely.

     •  There is now relatively little waste transfer between plants.

     •  Many managers would be interested in using scrap materials, but are unfamiliar
        with potential sources.

     •  For most, the transfer concept was new; many indicated willingness to try it.

     •  A large number of waste offers, some probably trash but some with potential
        value as scrap, would be listed with a transfer service. The number of requests
        would be few.

     •  Managers willing to try scrap materials would usually require a guaranteed
        supply for at least 12 months.

     •  Some managers consider the potential  risks and  legal liability problems too
        great even to consider using scrap.

Thus, it appears that many managers are alert to recycling opportunities and willing to try
scrap materials, but lack the means to learn about their availability.

     The discussion thus far has referred  to  the "transfer agent" as if only one organiza-
tional pattern exists. But in fact, two distinct types are operating in Europe and the United
States. It is important to understand clearly the differences between them, so that expecta-
tions about each will be realistic.

     The major  differences concern, first, what each transfers, and second, the role each
plays in the basic transfer system. The European organizations transfer only information.
These are not "waste exchanges", strictly speaking, because they do not transfer wastes as
stock exchanges transfer stocks. Instead,  they  are  "waste information clearinghouses",
because they receive and refer only information about wastes. By contrast, some companies
actually receive  and handle the scrap waste materials themselves; these organizations are
therefore "waste materials exchanges." Whereas  the information clearinghouse performs
only a few  limited functions, the materials exchange  performs many. Both types of service
exist to help generator and user satisfy all of their requirements for a transfer.

     A comparison of these two types of transfer organizations is presented  in Table IV-1,
which  summarizes many points discussed in the following separate treatments of clearing-
houses (Part Two) and  exchanges (Part Three). The  institutional analysis which  produced
this comparison is described in Appendix E.

     Of the various economic actors influencing a transfer organization, the most significant
is its sponsor. Most of  the existing information  clearinghouses are sponsored by industry
trade associations and receive financial subsidies. Some of  the materials exchanges are
sponsored financially  by large and established companies and others, by investors.  Which-
ever the form of its sponsorship, a transfer service  needs help both to perform its technical
functions and, at least in its beginning stage, to survive economically.

     This comparison suggests a natural sequence  of transfer organizations.  The first step
represents the several existing information clearinghouses which are sponsored and subsidized.
The  second step represents the one clearinghouse which is attempting to operate as a com-
mercially-viable enterprise. But a subsidized clearinghouse might evolve into at least a break-
even operation  if sufficient and continuing demand  were demonstrated. Moreover, either
form of clearinghouse could  help perform  the valuable market research functions of identi-
fying both transferable scrap wastes and  the extent of potential  demand  for  the more
comprehensive transfer services which a materials exchange could provide. Thus, a clearing-
house could evolve into a third step, a materials exchange, or at least outline its opportunities.

                                                  TABLE IV-1


Current Examples (described
In Appendices A & B)
European and St. Louis Clearinghouses

Zero Waste Systems
•    Service! Offered

•    Role & Strategy

•    Geographic Area

•    Industries Served

•    Scrap Wastes Accepted
               I.    SERVICES

Information and referral only
Passive-no assistance in negotiating final

No limit; broader coverage increases
utility of lists to clients.

Mainly chemical
All wastes with conceivable reuse value
Buy chemical residues, identify potential
users, reprocess as needed, and sell at pro-
fit; information and referral only as cour-
tesy, or as part of paid consulting services.

Active—Business success depends on
brokering match to completion.

Transport costs limit most transfers to
radius of about 50 miles.

May be limited, based on special skills, or
extensive, to seek more stable volume
of activity.

Only wastes highly likely to be trans-
•    Volume & Regularity
•    Data Bank
              II.   OPERATIONS

Begin with moderate and variable level,
but may later slow to small and episodic;
small, part-time, flexible staff makes
variations acceptable.
Periodic bulletins to house mailing list;
journal ads also possible.
Simple card files workable to begin; com-
puterizable punched-card system will
allow upgrading to computer later as
volume grows.

Only part-time office space; access to
association news bulletin helpful.
Cooperation among clearinghouses, by
publishing each other's lists, broadens
geographic and Industry coverage.
Begin with limited activity to develop
reputation, market, and reprocessing
capacities; maintaining constant volume
important to use staff and facilities

Aggressive personal marketing to supple-
ment brochures and word-of-mouth
needed to spot opportunities and over-
come client reluctance.

Same, but more data for each material;
broad industrial contacts are essential
Lab for analysis, tanks and equipment
for reprocessing, storage yard, own or
lease trucks; second-hand gear reduces
capital cost.

Inter-regional cooperation possible, but
limited by competition for most profit-
able scrap materials.

                                            TABLE IV-1  (Continued)
                                  INFORMATION CLEARINGHOUSE
                                           MATERIALS EXCHANGE
•    Skills and Experience
•   Size
•   Style of Management

•   Initiative to Create Organi-
                 III. STAFF

Only managerial and clerical essential, but
but some industry end chemical knowledge
Part-time manager and secretary, with
access to technical advisors.
Dependent upon volume and fees.

Only reactive.

Group, association, with approval of top
Chemicals analysis, materials-handling,
detailed industry knowledge, technical
Imagination, marketing entrepreneurshlp,
and business management; access to
legal skills.

1-6 full time with business end technical
skills; clerical and day labor staff as
volume requires.
Entrepreneurial, aggressive.

Mainly individual, by risk-taking entre-
•    Pricing Policy
•    Income Sources

•    Initial Capital Required

•    Annual Operating Budget

•    Risks Acceptable
              IV.  FINANCIAL

Free, if subsidized; small listing fee accept-
able to clients; later, clients may also
accept larger subscription fee.
At first, subsides from sponsor; later, fees
from clients.

None, if office and publication available.


Little or none; sponsor's interest is in
preserving its reputation.
Negotiated for each waste, with likely
minimum of $250. "Loss Leader" pric-
ing possible at beginning to establish

Capital from investors or parent com-
pany; fees from clients.



Considerable risks necessary.
•    Organizational Form
•   Sponsorship
•    Government regulation of
     waste disposal
•    Liability
•    Laws affecting transfer
                 V.   LEGAL

Small staff unit of sponsor, or agency
funded by sponsor.
Industry association typical and preferred.
Government possible only if client confi-
dentiality guaranteed; state or federal
environmental agencies more likely than
local or special governments.

Helpful, but not essential for a subsidized
service; the stricter, the better for a self-
supporting one.

Concern for generators, but not clearing-

Same as those for any information or
research service.
Independent, small, specialized company;
or subsidiary of a large, multi-service

Private investors or parent company.
The stricter, the better, to create and
stabilize market demand.
As owner and treater of material,
exchange exposed to suit.

Same as those for any chemical hauler,
treater, or reclaimer.

         PART TWO


                           V.  SERVICES AND METHODS
     The basic service provided  by an  information clearinghouse is simple and limited.
Action begins when a generator  sends to the clearinghouse its offer of a waste  which it
thinks may  have scrap value. (Similarly, a user may initiate action by sending his request
for needed  scrap material.) The clearinghouse then publishes generator's offer among
others in its next regular list. A user scanning this list may be interested by the generator's
waste, because he sees in it scrap material of value for his manufacturing process. Because
the offer is  identified only by code number, user next contacts clearinghouse to register
his interest in learning more. As clearinghouse passes user's name on  to generator, it com-
pletes its service. It thus satisfies  one of  the requirements for a transfer—linking two poten-
tial trading partners.

     From  then on, the  clearinghouse plays no further role. Generator and user negotiate
directly to discover whether the many other requirements for a transfer—for example accept-
able purity requirements, price, transportation costs, and mutual confidence—are already
satisfied or can be arranged. If so,  generator will transfer its waste to user directly.

     The clearinghouse generally  does not actively try to help satisfy requirements other
than introducing potential transfer partners.  Thus, the  role of  the clearinghouse is only
passive. It exists to perform only limited functions—to help generators advertise the existence
of wastes with possible reuse value, to help users identify such scrap wastes, and to refer
potential partners to each other. All other requirements  for a transfer must be satisfied by
others—sometimes by generators  and users themselves, and  sometimes by dealers or waste
                                  Geographic Scope

     The area which a clearinghouse can serve effectively can be broad. In fact, the broader
its coverage of geographic regions (and materials), the better, because this increases the
probabilities of readers finding listings of interest. This is why regional and national clearing-
houses in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland publish each others' lists, and why the St. Louis
service accepts listings from throughout the United States.

     However, the economics of t/ansferring  wastes dictate  that most transfers will occur
between plants located within SO miles of each other. Only in exceptional cases, with scrap

waste of high value and small volume, will the economic benefits to generator and user be
large enough to pay for transportation costs over longer distances. Moreover, a clearinghouse
subsidized by a sponsor with only regional interests may not wish to continue indefinitely
publishing listings beyond the region. Therefore, a network of regional clearinghouses, such
as exists in Germany, would also be useful in the United States. The heart of each region
should be a metropolitan area with a strong industrial economy having the characteristics
described in Chapter III. Such an industrial area would be likely to have both enough per-
sons with the skills and interest to design and operate a clearinghouse, and enough industrial
plants to benefit from waste transfers facilitated by the clearinghouse.
                                   Industries Served

     A clearinghouse could in theory transfer information about many kinds of waste mate-
rials from many industries; in fact, the United Kingdom's clearinghouse accepts such listings
as scrap  wood. But in practice, such ordinary waste materials as wood and textiles can be
readily reused or disposed through incineration. The industrial wastes of most concern are
produced mainly by the chemical industries; most clearinghouses have been created by the
chemical industries, and they serve  primarily  the chemical industries and  major users of
chemicals, as identified in Chapter III.
                                Scrap Wastes Accepted

     A clearinghouse can and should accept for listing all wastes with any conceivable reuse
value. Materials  which can be classified without doubt as trash, without any reuse value,
should not be listed, because their inclusion would place a needless  burden both on the
clearinghouse staff and the readers of its lists. However, the ultimate judgment about the
value in a scrap  waste lies with its potential users, who know the needs of their own manu-
facturing processes, rather than with the clearinghouse staff. The purpose of the clearing-
house service is not to judge which wastes are more or less valuable, but merely to help identify
their availability to potential users. Thus, the broader the range of wastes listed, the better.
                            OPERATIONS AND METHODS
              Two variations: subsidized and self-supporting clearinghouses

     Most existing clearinghouses are in one way  or another subsidized by their sponsors
and provide their services free or for only nominal fees. But the usefulness of the waste
clearinghouse function and  the existence of other kinds of for-profit information services

for the  chemical  industries suggests  the possibility that  waste clearinghouse services may
eventually become feasible as small but self-supporting, commercial enterprises.

     Both of these two subtypes, subsidized and self-supporting, have the same functions
in the waste transfer process—to identify scrap wastes and to link potential partners. But,
whereas the subsidized variation may charge little or no fee and merely wait for listings to
arrive for publication, the self-supporting variation must charge enough to cover or exceed
its costs and must vigorously  seek paying  subscribers  in order to stay in business.  Thus,
where appropriate in the following comments about  operating methods, the differences
between the two variations are noted.
                                Volume and Regularity

     Because accurate data about wastes available for transfer are scarce, predicting the
number of listings a new clearinghouse may expect is difficult. Several years of experience
by some European clearinghouses suggest the pattern of an early surge of activity, perhaps
as a backlog of continuous wastes are offered,  tapering off to more modest numbers of
listings with a large proportion of one-time or episodic offerings.

     Such fluctuations do not seem to cause problems for subsidized clearinghouses, which
are operated only part-time, as  volume requires, and by staff members with  other regular
duties in the sponsor  organizations. For a commercial organization, however, such fluctua-
tions suggest that the clearinghouse  service would not be launched with expectations of
early profitability; instead, it should be offered first as an adjunct to established information
services to  the chemical industries, for example as a column in trade journals or a section of
a newsletter listing offers and requests for surplus chemicals.
                              Advertising and Publishing

     The main  publication channels for subsidized clearinghouses are regular publications
of their  sponsors, for example monthly  bulletins of trade associations or chambers of
commerce. In addition, clearinghouses should reach out to potential readers through the
pages of journals read by the chemical and chemical-using industries, including both chem-
ical  trade journals (such as listed  in Appendix C) and environmental journals and news-
letters, which are  likely to be read by environmental engineers of large companies; this
may be done not  only  by paid ads with tear-out  subscription forms but also by free ads,
news stories, and letters to the editor.  Finally, a clearinghouse may, as its listings and file
of interested persons grow, publish its own  monthly or bimonthly bulletin, printed and
mailed in facilities of its sponsor.

     How often  the clearinghouse  should  publish  its bulletin is  governed by  trade-off
considerations. European practice varies, from Italy's weekly list to Great Britain's quarterly
bulletin, but with most publishing monthly. If a clearinghouse publishes seldom and irregu-
larly, only when enough listings have accumulated, it runs  the risk of carry ing in formation
which is out-of-date; but  if it publishes only short  lists too often, it risks carrying many
repeat ads and incurring mailing costs beyond its income. Thus, the best course is to have
the list  published as part of an established  monthly bulletin or journal with large circula-
tion.  Next best is for the clearinghouse to publish specially for its own gradually-accumu-
lated  mailing list, beginning bi-monthly  and adjusting the frequency later as it learns the
volume and  stability of demand.

     A  self-supporting operation will be unlikely to receive free  aid from journals,  but
should instead use its own established news  bulletin  while building  up a file of subscribers
especially interested in information about available and requested wastes.  Although exten-
sive  direct-mail advertising could be done by both  subtypes, this  approach requires skill
and investment; return rates of only 2 or 3 percent  are considered good. A subsidized service
should therefore take advantage of normal mailings by its sponsor to advertise and to pub-
lish lists.  A commercial service, however, is probably already using direct-mail techniques,
and so this  would be a cost-effective approach to  plant managers, environmental directors,
and presidents of potential waste generating and using companies.  Names of such persons
can be bought from regular brokers of direct-mail lists.
                              Data Collection and Storage

     The simplest system is  a  one-page  form (Figure  V-l). It both registers each offer or
request and keeps data about  each  on file. Each waste offered or requested is assigned a
code to preserve confidentiality. Most clearinghouses use an alpha-numeric code, consisting
of a letter  to indicate an offer or request, and  a number (1, 2, 3,...) assigned in  the order
received; this code number is entered in the lower right corner. The upper right hand corner
contains the four-digit SIC number to identify the respondent industry. Company name,
address, telephone number, and name of contact are entered in the upper portion. The zip
code is highlighted because it provides a good indication of geographical location.

     The registration form requests many specifications. Companies may either not know or
not wish to reveal some of these data. But the German clearinghouse experience (Appendix
A) suggests that many such specifications can be obtained and can increase possibilities for
transfers. The prospect of possibly locating a market for wastes that were becoming difficult
to dispose of acceptably seems to have stimulated many companies  to find out enough
about  their wastes to be able to list them.  The strict confidentiality maintained by  the
European clearinghouses has also been a major factor contributing to their success in obtaining

                                  WASTE MATERIAL REGISTRATION FORM
A. Confidential Information (for Clearinghouse use only; will not be released without permission):
   Name of company/plant:	Industry SIC Number
   Name/number of plant	
   Street address 	
   City & State	
   Zip Code	
   Contact Person's Name:	Title:.
   Telephone (with area code):	
B. Publishable Information (to appear in Clearinghouse's next listing; provide only those data which
   you are able and willing to supply):
                              Material Is: Offered/Requested (circle one)
   Type (select code)!	    Physical form	
   Name	    Chemical composition
   _.    .,„..,.                                        (list % in descending order).
   Lab Analysis Available?	
   Additional data
                                                          Impurities (ppm)
                                                          Surface tension
                                                          Melting point
                                                          Boiling point
                                                          Other properties
   'Acids - Ac; Alkalis - Al; Inorganics - I; Organics - 0; Metals - M; Oils and Waxes - OW; Catalysts - C;
   Rubber & Plastics - RP; Miscellaneous - Mi.
   #List amount per period, e.g. gals/week, tons/month.  Describe whether material is offered/requested on a one-time.
   regular, or irregular basis.
                                                                               For Clearinghouse Use Only:
                                                                               Identification Number	
                                                                               General Location	


data.  This form, can help to educate plant managers about what (hoy should know .ilunit
their wastes. Finally, such data would be useful if, after several years of operation, (ho pub-
lished listings became the data  base  for  an inventory of available wastes in the clearing-
house's region.

     The  next levels of  complexity  are, first, a punched-card storage system  and, then,
computerization. However, these techniques are  probably too costly for the  small-scale
listing service of a subsidized regional clearinghouse. They might eventually become cost-
effective  for a  self-supporting clearinghouse,  which might be able to add these data to
existing systems and might use them for developing and marketing other services.

     A clearinghouse requires only a small amount of office space, standard clerical equip-
ment, and access to reproduction facilities or news bulletins, all on a part-time basis. These
are best  obtained from its sponsor organization, whether a trade association or an estab-
lished commercial service.

     As noted above, economics will limit distances of most transfers. Thus, clearinghouses
are likely to emphasize the needs of their own regions. But a network of cooperative arrange-
ments among clearinghouses should exist to facilities transfers of those low-volume wastes
whose high value can  justify the cost of transportation over long distances. Subsidized
clearinghouses can arrange to publish each other's lists, in whole or in part. Self-supporting
ones can arrange to cooperate when specific inter-regional opportunities arise.

                       VI.  ORGANIZATION AND FINANCES
                                Skills and Experience

     The limited  services offered by existing subsidized clearinghouses require only basic
managerial and clerical skills by staff members conducting its daily operations. Some know-
ledge by the manager  of industrial chemistry and of client industries is desirable, but not
essential.  When questions  or problems arise requiring technical guidance, managers in
practice draw upon chemical engineers  associated with the sponsor organization. These
engineers  could be  regular staff members of the  industry association. Better yet, a volun-
teer advisory committee should  be set up both to counsel  the manager on technical and
policy questions, and to serve as a liaison mechanism with industry; its members should
be  representative of the range of  companies likely to take  advantage of clearinghouse
services, both generators potentially offering wastes and users potentially accepting them.
Whereas a core committee of about six to eight persons  would be enough  to consider
technical  questions in  detail, a larger panel of perhaps 25  representative advisors  would
provide broader contacts with industry and be a useful sounding board on broad policy

     A self-supporting, commercial venture would not have access to technical guidance
by volunteers, but could obtain it from  engineers on a consulting basis. Moreover, in addi-
tion to managerial and clerical  skills, it would  need  marketing and advertising skills to
attract subscribers.

     A subsidized operation needs only a part-time manager, devoting  perhaps  three or
four hours per week to handling inquiries and editing the listings for publication, assisted
by a part-time, perhaps half-time, secretary. These levels of effort could increase in  response
to higher volumes of offers and requests.

     A self-supporting clearinghouse, likewise,  could start with only part-time personnel
drawn from the parent company.

                                 Style of Management

     Existing clearinghouses require only a routine and reactive style of management, in
keeping with their subsidized financial basis. But, Jike information services in other fields,
a  clearinghouse service could  be offered  commercially  and marketed aggressively, thus
requiring an entrepreneurial style of management. The best approach, of course, would be
to add the information service about scrap wastes to information services about raw mate-
rials,  surplus chemicals, and byproducts for the same  clientele. This approach would mini-
mize  risks and costs by  building upon  existing facilities, reputation and  knowledge of
the market.
                           Initiative to Start a Clearinghouse

     Because confidence of industry is such a major requirement for success,  a  clearing-
house service, whether subsidized or commercial, must be started with great care for estab-
lishing a reputation for integrity among prominent members of its likely clientele. The ideal
method, adopted by most existing clearinghouses, is to arrange formal sponsorship by an
established, prominent, and broad-based industry association, or by an autonomous govern-
ment institution  with  backing from  a representative committee of industrialists.  For a
commercial venture, the corresponding method is to obtain endorsements from industry.

     In all cases, public  approval for creating the service should come from top  levels of
potential client companies, preferably  from their presidents or general managers of their
plants  located in the clearinghouse's area. Although contacts with  a clearinghouse about
specific offers or requests might be handled for large companies by mid-level managers or
environmental engineers, they cannot do so easily without clear approval from  their supe-
riors. Thus, a clearinghouse service should anticipate this need and act from the beginning
to solicit and obtain public approval from prominent companies.
                           Pricing Policy and Income Sources

     A subsidized clearinghouse, depending upon the amount of its financial support, need
not charge for its service directly; but members of sponsoring industrial associations do pay
for it indirectly through their association membership dues. In addition, a clearinghouse

could charge separate fees for registering offers or requests and for subscribing to its bulle-
tins. Price  sensitivity of clients can be learned only through experience: initially,  only ;i
listing fee, of perhaps $5, might be charged to defray expenses; but. after the scnicv h.i>
shown its usefulness, the listing fee might be increased and a subscription fee charged to non-
listing readers, following the practice of newspapers and journals publishing classified ads.

     If a clearinghouse were to offer its listing service only for a fee, its clients would have
to subscribe, even though most listings would not be of interest, in hopes of occasionally
identifying  a trading partner  with an attractive material within an economic  distance.
Indeed, one successful  transfer could save a  participating  company  many times the sub-
scription fee. Thus, a clearinghouse policy of broader coverage should lead to a  corre-
spondingly greater volume of listings and  a lower schedule of listing and subscription fees,
which should make  its  service too useful and inexpensive for potential clients to ignore.

     A chamber of commerce or other private-sector association which sponsors a regional
clearinghouse may in time  object  to subsidizing a  nationwide information service which
benefits a large number of clients outside of its region and not members of the association;
at that time, when the clearinghouse would presumably have proven the continuing demand
for its service, it could raise its listing fee and perhaps add  a subscription price, both set so
as to cover its costs. Thus, policy pricing is  related to policy on geographic area served.

     The mix of industries using a subsidized clearinghouse or subscribing to a self-support-
ing service is immaterial, since neither subtype would  derive its income directly from the
waste  transfer transactions between generators and users. However, if participants or sub-
scribers to a service were to derive no benefits  from it and anticipate no future benefits,
they  might not want to continue  to  receive bulletins. Both  subtypes should therefore
solicit participation  from likely generators of valuable wastes (e.g., the  chemical, electro-
plating, electronics, pharmaceutical, and battery industries) and likely users of waste mate-
rials (e.g.,  boat builders, machine shops, ore processors, waste recovery firms,  pesticide
and paint formula tors, fertilizer manufacturers, etc.).
                           Capital Needs and Operating Costs

     Subsidized Clearinghouse.  For this first subtype, capital needs are small. A subsidized
clearinghouse may be merely one of many services offered by an industry association, and
so small as not to have a separate budget. Its level of effort varies, depending solely upon
the volume  of offers and requests, because it waits passively for  them to arrive  by mail
rather than seeking actively to sell subscriptions. Cost data for existing subsidized clearing-
houses are not available. The minimum pro-rated costs might be:

                Manager (at 10% time or 4 hours weekly)                   $2,000
                Secretary (20%)                                         1,500
                Sponsor's Executive Overhead                               500
                Total                                                $4,000

            Office and Communications

                Rent and Utilities (pro rated)                             $  500
                Telephone (@ $30/month)                                  360
                Supplies                                               1,000
                Printing (lists, forms, brochures)                           1,000
                Postage                                               1,000
                Total                                                $3,860

            Contingency @ 20%                                         1,500
                Total                                                $ 9,360
                                                                 say $10,000

     This minimum annual operating budget for a subsidized clearinghouse might vary
from region  to region. The factors changing the estimates would include wage rate differ-
entials in various labor areas,  the volume of activity, the amount of managerial time con-
sumed in persuading clients to provide complete listing data, the frequency of publishing
and  mailing lists, and  whether lists were printed and mailed separately or merely included
in the sponsor's regular bulletin. Moreover, hidden subsidies  might be provided by  tech-
nical specialists serving as volunteer advisors. Vigorous demand for the service might push
these costs up as high as $50,000. Accurate cost and operating data could be gathered
only through experience.

     Self-supporting Clearinghouse.  For this second subtype, initial capital needs would
also  be small,  assuming that the venture is launched on only a small scale as one of many
information  services provided by an established company.  However,  its operating  costs
would be  higher. The advertising and selling efforts to recruit paying subscribers would
imply more  entrepreneurial talent, more managerial and clerical time, perhaps access to
legal counsel, and higher office costs.  Again, costs would vary with such factors as market
demand  and mode of  publication.  (A large-volume operation could eventually justify
shifting to electronic data processing of offers, requests, and subscribers.) Operating  costs
might run as high as:

               Manager (full-time)                                     $20,000
               Technical professional (half-time)                           10.000
               Marketing professional (half-time)                           10,000
               Secretary (full-time)                                       7,500
               Company's executive and legal overhead                      10,000
               Total                                                 $57,500

            Office and Communications

               Rent ($500/month)                                     $ 6,000
               Utilities ($30/month)                                       360
               Telephone ($100/month)                                   1,200
               Supplies                                                1,500
               Printing                                                5,000
               Postage                                                 5,000
               Total                                                 $19,060

            Contingency                                               10,000
               Total                                                 $86,560
                                                                say $90,000

     For both subsidized and self-supporting subtypes, accurate cost and operating data
could be gathered only through experience. The logical course is to launch at first only a
small service, and to collect and analyze its cost data carefully. Therefore, if demand grows,
staff and resources can be added to supply it.


                         Organizational  Form and Sponsorship

     Existing clearinghouses are typically  only small services provided among other services
by their sponsors. Consequently, they do not appear to be separate staff units, but might
become so in time to respond to large and  sustained demand.

     Various forms of sponsorship for a  subsidized clearinghouse are possible (Appendix
E). Several state government environmental departments are exploring whether they might
begin, or at least encourage, such  transfer organizations. Federal and local government
agencies might do so, too. A research institute supported by grants and assisted by technical
staffs might be an effective sponsor, if it  enjoys a good reputation among likely industrial
clients of the transfer organization.

     The preferred option, however, and also the typical choice of existing clearinghouses,
is a broad-based  industry association, perhaps a chemical industry  trade association or a
more broadly representative  chamber of  commerce. Such  associations  have the needed
staff skills and facilities, and the desire to render services both to  their own membership
and to their larger communities. Above all, they are the type of sponsor most likely to be
acceptable to industry. In contrast, sponsorship by a government  agency would be quite
unacceptable to most potential users, and might thus limit the clearinghouse's full potential.

     For a self-supporting venture, the most logical sponsor would  be an established com-
pany providing information services to chemical industries. In either case, the region served
should be heavily industrialized for best results.
                              Legal and Liability Questions

     Any clearinghouse would be subject to the same legal standards which govern their
sponsors and  other kinds of research and  information  services.  Since it publishes only
information, and has neither the need nor the ability to verify all facts submitted for publi-
cation, it occupies the same position as any  technical journal. In short, there are no parti-
cular legal standards in federal, state, or local legislation which  would either hinder or
favor a waste  information clearinghouse in comparison  with any other information service.

     Government  regulation forcing a clearinghouse to divulge client information would
destroy its effectiveness with industry, and thus be self-defeating. A clearinghouse, in effect,
contracts only to  publish information provided by clients. It could, if it felt the need,
include in its registration form and established lists a disclaimer of liability.



                          VII.  SERVICES AND METHODS
     In contrast to the simple linkage function performed by an information clearinghouse,
the services offered by a waste materials exchange are several and complex. As an active
dealer in touch with the chemical industries, an exchange identifies potential uses  and
users, buys or accepts wastes in which  it sees value,  reprocesses them as necessary (per-
haps by chemical  treatment, perhaps by consolidating or dividing batches), convinces users
of their value, and sells them at a profit.

     Whereas the role of the clearinghouse is passive, that of the materials exchange is active.
All existing exchanges are profit-seeking  firms. They can survive economically only by
searching vigorously  for transfer opportunities and completing them successfully. Instead
of stepping back  from the negotiation after introducing generator and user, the materials
exchange remains interposed between them. As in stock and commodity exchanges, the  two
trading partners do not know or deal with each other directly, but only via the middleman
or broker. Therefore, the items transferred pass physically, economically, and legally through
the hands of the exchange, which earns its income from commissions charged on completed

     It follows from the larger role played by  the materials exchange that its organization
and economics must be more complex  than those of the information clearinghouse.  For
example, a user must know whether a scrap waste  has the chemical and physical properties
compatible with his intended use. But a generator typically does not know enough in detail
about these properties, often because several wastes from several chemical processes have
been mixed; moreover, sufficient analysis can be done only with the potential use in mind.
Thus, the materials exchange must operate or contract  for laboratory services to analyze
the waste. In almost all cases, except for the unusual and ideal case when generator's waste
exactly  fits user's need "as is",  the exchange  must process  or arrange for processing the
material. Moreover, the user wants assurance about the scrap waste's characteristics, some-
times from a  legally-binding certificate backed  by the exchange's business reputation.
                                  Geographic Scope

     Both the characteristics and  the  economics of  these services impose limits on the
market area which an exchange can serve effectively. One major factor is cost of transporta-
tion: as shown by the economic analysis in Appendix  D, this cost limits most transfers to a
distance within about 50 miles. Another factor is the frequent and face-to-face contacts
                                         53  .

which an exchange operator must have with potential clients in order to maintain detailed
knowledge of technical trends, to develop  the confidence which clients must feel before
dealing, and to negotiate the conditions  for each specific transfer. Thus, the effective
service area is the territory  which the materials exchange sales and technical staff can cover
efficiently, perhaps a circle  with a radius of about  100  miles and including a metropolitan
area with a diverse industrial economy.
                                   Industries Served

     Which industries an exchange can serve effectively depends upon its business strategy,
its reputation, and its technical skills. Some established dealers or reprocessors limit them-
selves to one industry.  But a waste materials exchange is more likely to find the new and
unusual opportunities it needs by working among several or many industries. Although its
focus is on  the chemical industries themselves, an exchange will also find transfer oppor-
tunities among other industries which use chemicals but lack the technical knowledge and
skills to handle wastes. Another motive for an exchange to diversify across industry lines
is to build an aggregate volume or flow of business which is stable, and  not dependent on
changing economic conditions in one industry.
                                Scrap Wastes Accepted

     Whereas  an information clearinghouse  can and should accept the broadest possible
listing of scrap wastes for publication, an exchange must usually restrict itself to handling
only the more valuable materials, which are more likely to bring in reasonable commissions.
An exchange  deals  with passing opportunities and  often  with  only slender  margins for
profit. It is a business, rather than a subsidized public service. It must therefore take care
not to be "nickeled  and dimed to death" by accepting many materials in less-than-econom-
ical quantities and with low probability of being sold at a profit.
                                    Best Locations

     All  of the  service characteristics described above  indicate that the best locations for
materials exchanges are areas in which industrial plants are numerous, diverse in nature, and
geographically concentrated. Examples are Philadelphia, northern  New Jersey, Chicago,
St. Louis, Houston, and the San Francisco Bay area.

     A secondary criterion for selecting a region is the  availability of analytical laboratory
facilities, and waste recovery or reprocessing facilities. The exchange may find it useful to
contract  with such facilities for services that would enhance the prospects for waste transfer.


     The techniques needed to satisfy the requirements  for a transfer also determine the
way  in which a materials exchange must organize and operate its services. Most of the tech-
niques described below for a materials exchange are also employed by a waste generator
and  user when they  negotiate a transfer directly, perhaps after being introduced  by an
information clearinghouse. As the middleman between generator and  user, the  materials
exchange performs or helps to arrange  most of the requirements for a transfer. The various
methods it may employ for assembling information and assessing the transfer potential of
wastes are part of three basic screens corresponding to  three groups of requirements: iden-
tifying technical feasibility, estimating economic feasibility, and assessing marketing factors.
                           Identifying Technical Feasibility

     Wastes with potential scrap value may be brought to an exchange by waste generators,
or may be identified  by the exchange's technical staff in the course of other consulting
work for industry. Appendix C contains lists of both chemical dictionaries and other sources
helpful for identifying potential uses, and of sample wastes and possible uses for each. Once
the idea has appeared,  the  exchange  must test its technical  feasibility  in three respects:

     1.  Sensitivity of potential uses to the waste's impurities,

     2.  Compatibility of the waste's physical properties with raw materials specifica-
        tions for the intended  process, and,

     3.  Match  between the quantity of waste available and the quantity required by
        the potential user.

Methods for testing are discussed below.

     1.  Sensitivity to Impurities.  The composition of a waste stream tends to vary greatly
from day to  day, week to week, and year to year, even  though produced by one process
within  one plant. Moreover, waste streams are typically contaminated with impurities. For
some applications, the exact composition of a  waste stream  may be inconsequential. For
example, a potential user seeking an  alkaline waste to neutralize acids for disposal would
be interested only in pH. Waste lime, soda ash, sodium hydroxide, and potassium hydroxide,
etc. would all serve equally well, if available in  suitable quantities at competitive costs. Some
caution, however, would be necessary with respect to toxic  impurities which, if present,
could cause the neutralized stream to be a hazard for disposal.

     Before accepting a waste stream, a potential user should ask the exchange agent for a
chemical analysis and/or  a sample for analysis by his own lab. Potential users unskilled  in
evaluating  the  implications of  a chemical  analysis should employ a consultant to assist
with the evaluation. A materials exchange should therefore offer analytical and consulting
services to establish the feasibility of matching the waste  with the intended application.
The exchange lab should identify and quantify all of the following components:

                Volatile organics         Non-volatile organics
                Acids                    Alkalis
                Salts                    Metallics
                Cyanides                Pesticides

Ideally, every component which is potentially a toxic substance, a contaminant to the user,
or at concentrations of 1 ppm and above should be identified, both qualitatively and quanti-
tatively. Moreover, the range over which major components might typically vary during a
year should be  identified, if possible; "major components" are defined as having concen-
tration  greater than 1  percent, the threshold of existing analytical methods and  machines.

     2.   Compatibility of Physical Properties.  Technical feasibility often depends not only
on  a waste's chemical composition,  but also on its physical properties. Those properties
which are  important must be determined for each case in view of the possible uses. If a
potential user has drawn up detailed specifications for virgin material suppliers, the waste
stream  must be tested against the  same specifications.  Otherwise, the materials exchange
and/or  the potential user should, as a first step, review the following list of properties  to
determine which, if any, might affect technical feasibility:

     •   Physical state at ambient temperatures (liquid, emulsion, slurry,  sludge, tar,
         bulk solid, solid powder)
     •   Layering
     •   Suspended solids
     •   Density
     •   BTU content
     •   Viscosity
     •   Flash point
     •   pH
     •   Other

     The important parameters should be measured. The exchange's staff can then judge
whether they lie within, or could easily be brought within, acceptable ranges.

     3.  Quantitative Match. If a potential user can accept only a  small fraction of a gen-
erator's waste, the generator would be left with a disposal problem. If the generator employs
a waste disposal  contractor, a small reduction in the quantity of waste for disposal might
not result in a proportionate decrease in disposal costs. There is of course the possibility
that the exchange could divide and distribute the waste among a number of users so that the
generator's disposal problem could be obviated completely.

     If a user's demand  for a waste exceeds the generator's supply, the user would still
have to purchase some virgin material. If the composition of the user's feedstock changes
from waste to  virgin material and back, and thus requires changes in his processing opera-
tions, the transfer may prove technically infeasible. This will depend upon the ease with
which the  required processing changes can be  made. In labor-intensive industries engaged
in batch processing, partial replacement of virgin  materials with wastes may present no
major technical problems. In continuous  processing, a reliable constant source of raw mate-
rials may be much more  critical. An exchange might possibly tap enough sources of a parti-
cular waste to ensure that the user's demand could  be satisfied completely; however, since
wastes from even one  plant tend  to vary, the  "same"  wastes  generated by two different
plants can be expected  to differ even more.

     Ideally, of course, the quantity of waste available from a generator will exactly match
the quantity required by a user. But such cases are expected to be relatively rare.
                            Estimating Economic Feasibility

     The analysis, formulas, and graphs for estimating economic feasibility appear in Appen-
dix D. It shows the importance of transportation costs, the components of transfer costs,
and how to estimate whether a transfer opportunity offers potential economic gains for
both generator and user. In brief, the proposed transfer must cost the generator less than his
disposal costs, and the user less than his raw material costs. Moreover, the economic gain or
saving to each must more than offset the perceived risk which the proposed transfer holds
for each—for the generator, the  risk that mishandling of the waste might cause injury and
give rise  to a  liability suit; for the  user, the risk  that unknown chemical properties of the
waste might  contaminate other, more valuable  materials in his manufacturing process.
Finally, the economic gain resulting from the proposed  transfer must cover transportation
costs and transfer costs, notably that of treating the waste to meet the user's specifications.

                              Assessing Marketing Factors

     Many new products fail in the marketplace, in spite of their technical merits and com-
petitive prices. Evaluating the transferability of a waste is not too different from evaluating
the salability of any new product: the waste must not only be objectively capable of serving
a particular need at a competitive cost; it must also be subjectively perceived by the poten-
tial user as something he wants or needs.  If a customer chooses a raw material on the basis
of cost alone, he should readily accept  a waste at a fraction of the cost of a virgin material.
But cost is rarely the only factor governing business decisions. Such other factors as the
seller^ reputation, reliability, and guarantees  can significantly influence the decision of a
potential buyer. Waste transfer differs from new product  sales in that the waste generator's
willingness to sell may not be based solely on economics: such factors as guaranteed con-
fidentiality, fears about liability, and concerns about public image can govern both whether
a generator decides to offer his waste and to whom he will  transfer it.

     A transfer agent must respond to the spectrum of needs and  attitudes typical of gen-
erators and potential users. Some managers deny that  their plants generate any chemical
wastes; batch processors of inorganic chemicals seem  to be particularly adamant. However,
such managers may offer information after being shown studies which list  wastes typically
generated by their industries.  Other managers become intrigued by the possibility that their
wastes may have reuse value. This attitude seems more characteristic in small plants than
large, and among users rather than manufacturers of chemicals; managers of large chemical
plants generally  know the  characteristics of their wastes and try to reduce  their magnitude
by changes in processes.

     Confidentiality is just as important a requirement  for materials exchanges as for infor-
mation clearinghouses. The generator must believe that any conditions he places upon a
waste  will  be observed by the exchange. Similarly, the user must feel confident that the
exchange is not deliberately withholding important information about the waste's  properties.

     Many plant managers willing to consider the use of scrap wastes need assurance that
such chemicals will  be  available in sufficient quantities for at least a year. But few waste
generators  can guarantee this. Changes  in product line,  and changes in manufacturing pro-
cesses  are relatively common, and nearly always affect the  nature and the quantity of wastes
generated.  The materials exchange operator might be able to locate alternative sources, but
may not be able to guarantee to the potential user that his  needs can be met.



                               Volume and Regularity

     An exchange's volume of business is likely to be low at first, and grow in relation to
such factors as its reputation, the amounts of scrap wastes available within its service area,
and willingness of generators and potential users to engage in transfers. Because an exchange
has more  staff and  physical facilities  than  a  clearinghouse, it needs a  higher volume of
profitable  business  to pay for them. Moreover,  like any business, it needs a reasonably
constant volume (Appendix D) to employ its staff and facilities efficiently. But this cannot
be assured in the volatile waste business. Thus, an exchange is less likely to succeed finan-
cially as a single-service venture than  as one  among several services, notably consulting,
reprocessing, and dealing in surplus chemicals, offered by  an established firm.

                         Advertising and Market Development

     General information about an exchange's service area can be assembled from industrial
directories and technical literature (Appendix C).  The exchange must then identify specific
companies and plants likely to need its services. The least effective way  to explore market
potential is by direct mail techniques; a response rate of  only 3 percent to mail solicitations
is high.  Merely dropping a bulletin on someone's desk does not assure he will read it; even if
he does, he may not recognize the possible relationship  between wastes listed and his own
raw material needs. Nonetheless, those who  do respond  are likely to become serious pros-
pects, and thus merit follow-up visits.

     The most effective way to  explore and build a market is  unquestionably by personal
visits, in order to establish confidence as well as to give and receive information about
trends,  needs, and  opportunities. The recommended sequence of contacts  is as follows:

     •  Telephone the manager of the potential donor or seller plant:

        —   describe the exchange's services
        —   request information about  the composition  and quantity of  wastes which
            the plant generates
        —   ask if recycling opportunities have been explored
        -   discuss whether the  transfer opportunity identified by the exchange does
            in fact exist

        —  judge the manager's degree of interest
        —  draw out his doubts or objections if any, and try to dispel them
        -  ask for a visit, if it seems likely to be useful

        Telephone the manager of the potential acceptor or buyer plant:

        —  describe the exchange's role and services
        —  ask about his raw materials needs and prices currently paid
        —  assess his attitude toward using lower-cost, scrap materials
        —  judge his degree of interest in the potential opportunity identified  by
            the exchange
        —  seek a visit, if it appears useful

        Visit generators and potential users:

        -  establish a sales goal and  direct discussion toward it throughout the visit
        —  know the plant's products and its likely problems and needs
        -  anticipate negative attitudes, e.g., "We don't generate any wastes" or "We
            can't use any wastes." However, most plant managers are intrigued by the
            waste transfer concept, even if they assume that they would not participate.
        —  draw out and dispel obstacles
        —  schedule four visits per day to plants in  the same zip code area; write
            visit notes between appointments
        —  obtain,  if possible, samples of wastes which might  be offered, and speci-
            fications of scrap wastes which might be bought.

        Assure that potential transfers are technically feasible:

        —  analyze the waste samples
        -  match analyses against user specifications
        —  determine, by analysis  or discussion with the manager of the generating
            plant, how variable the waste properties are likely to be over time
        —  discuss  these properties in detail with the  manager of the potential user
            plant, to determine whether they are acceptable
                                     Data Storage
     A rich data bank about the wastes generated by industries and plants within an ex-
change's service area is the  key to successful transfers. As an exchange's staff assembles
data from  both literature and plant visits, it must record and store it in ways wliich will
facilitate identification of potential matches. Initially, an exchange can use the simple form

recommended  (Chapter  V) for a clearinghouse. But soon, the amount of data is likely to
exceed the capacity of this system.

     Therefore, storage  on a punched card (Figure VIII-1) offers both more capacity  and
more flexibility for rapid retrieval of desired information. Suppose one wanted to know, for
example, all sources  of  acid wastes in the Boston, Massachusetts, area (zip code 021 —).
Retrieving such data  from cards would be laborious. With a punched-card system, one could
easily select, first, the cards listing  wastes in  the 021- - zip code zone and, then, the subset
of these listing acid wastes, or vice versa. With the card illustrated, one can store data on a
company's  zip and SIC  codes, general  types of wastes supplied  or used, the quantity of
each type of waste available or wanted (by range), and whether the quantity is continuous
or incidental.  Specific company  and waste data  may be recorded on the card's front  and
back spaces.

     If and when the amount of data becomes large, punched-card storage  allows conver-
sion to a computerized storage and retrieval system.

     An exchange must have, or have access to, facilities for handling, analyzing, processing,
and transporting wastes-in-transfer. It may have all of its own laboratory equipment, pumps,
storage facilities, trucks, etc.. Or it may restrict itself to the minimum of equipment and
borrow or contract for other facilities and services, for example for analyzing samples and
processing wastes. Following the policy of buying only second-hand equipment will help to
limit the amount of capital invested in facilities.


     Cooperation among exchanges serving different areas is possible when a transfer oppor-
tunity appears in which the scrap waste has a value high enough and volume low enough to
cover the  cost of long-distance transportation. However, this possibility is limited by the
natural competitiveness of exchanges for  the most  profitable wastes and  opportunities.

     The active materials exchange operator must convince both generators to allow their
wastes to be marketed, and users to accept them. The investment of staff time, and there-
fore money, required by personal contact is high, and the expectations of profitable return
must be commensurately  high. The  exchange manager and staff must have detailed and

1 i fMDvt i tews*
ind aO
0 .^
10 r
o -
o .
lO „"
a —
o -
w -
io ,
o -
0 -
-o .,
a —
10- _
Ill II


Quantity Ring>
Tom or Ton/Yr
O 0 O C
<5 MO 11-60 61 1
nvnoei-mzi-ao >z
1 1

) 6
00 im
) O

Quantity Ringt | Quantity Ringa
Tom or Ton/Yr g Toni or Ton/Yr
ooooooooooooo oo
<6 0-10 11-60 51- Ind. <6 0-10 11-60 51 IK
lOIBOBO-ZOWI-SSO >J50 CM B1 150151-0)201 BO X50



^ 1 1 1 II

o o o o o o §o'ol"o"ol o
001-19 0»ll 01-9 9> F»l
oo oooooooo
JA/UO i jo nioj. £

1 I
09E< OZ-IKOX19IO>-IO1 woi
00119 0»ll 01-9 9> «
o o o o c
'VU01JOIU01 -ml
abuitj Aiuuono [i

•ij ^^/
~- Q5
~- O
- o
"• of
^_ o
- os
"• o
- r\
^ ' H
~. of
"- o1
~- o
" 0,
• oi
_ o
ii ii 1 i i V
> OB< OK UtOK-mOB-lOl wo Ot&C OZ-KtOOC-iaoa-lOl w>9 OB< OI-IOIOOMSt 09110) h"«
) O
) O
B '
oooooooooooooo o
OH 1 01-9 9 > «»l 001-19 09-11 01-9 9> i»l 901 19 0»ll 01-9 9> -noi
o^o o q qjj o 0*0,0 o^ o o o
j *»-* || ' AJSk I
                           FIGURE VIII-1

current knowledge of the industries they seek to serve, as well as some knowledge of analyt-
ical methods and materials-handling techniques. Imagination is especially important, because
the exchange's  function is to recognize or create opportunities which previously were not
seen or did not exist. Related to technical imagination is entrepreneur-ship in marketing the
exchange's services. When legal questions arise and contracts need to be written, the exchange
needs access to legal  skills. Finally, to integrate all  these skills  profitably requires talent in
business management. All these skills imply that key members of the exchange staff must
have considerable first-hand experience in industrial processing technology.

     One or more full-time persons with business and technical skills are needed to run an
exchange successfully. They must be supported by a staff of clerical workers, truck drivers,
and  equipment operators to handle  and  process  waste materials. The size  of this staff
depends upon volume of activity; existing exchange staffs range from  about four to about
45, and are supplemented by outside specialized skills, notably laboratory and legal services,
purchased as needed.

     The price which an exchange must charge for each transfer depends upon the econom-
ics of each case.  Appendix D analyzes the several factors. The  exchange operator, based
on his analysis of the waste's market potential and his transfer costs, negotiates each trans-
action separately with generators and users. He is likely, however, to set a minimum designed
to cover his overhead costs and to discourage dealing in small,  uneconomical quantities;
this minimum might be about S2SO.

     Some capital investment is needed to rent or buy an exchange's equipment, including
storage  and  treatment  facilities, trucks, office space, and a laboratory. The experience of
existing materials exchange suggests that the initial capital investment would be between
$200,000 and $350,000. The exact requirement would depend  upon such factors as the
size of  the exchange's  planned market area, the amount  and condition of equipment pur-
chased,  the  facilities (for example,  storage)  which might be acquired at low or no cost
from a sponsor, and the expected period before reaching financial self-sufficiency.

     The annual operating  budget would cover such costs as salaries and wages, pensions
and benefits, rent or mortgage,  utilities, insurance, supplies for office and laboratory and
treatment facilities, interest payments, and real estate taxes. Depending upon the exchange's
size and services, these are estimated to fall within a range of $50,000 to $ 150,000.


     Existing materials exchanges include both small, independent, specialized companies,
and  subsidiaries of large, multi-service corporations. Financial sponsorship by banks and
private investors is possible. But affiliation with and access to the services of a large com-
pany with an established reputation  in the chemical industries is more  likely to assure
success. Indeed, economic analysis (Appendix D) suggests that the number of economically-
viable transfers which an exchange might complete would be too low to cover the costs of
operating  the exchange  service alone; therefore, the materials exchange service should be
only one  among several related services  for the chemical industries, notably consulting,
dealing in surplus chemicals, and reprocessing established by-products.

     Legally, an exchange is subject  to the same laws and regulations as any business corpo-
ration engaged in  hauling,  treating, and reclaiming chemical and industrial products. As
temporary  owner of waste materials which might contain ingredients harmful to people
or the environment, an exchange would be exposed potentially to liability  suits (Appendix
F) as one of the normal risks of its business.








                                   APPENDIX A

                        INFORMATION CLEARINGHOUSES

    The majority of existing exchange organizations are operated as wholly or partially
subsidized services, on the information clearinghouse model, by the chemical industry asso-
ciations or governments of European countries. There are only a few waste transfer opera-
tions in the United States, and their approaches vary.

                               EUROPE AN MODELS

                              Genesis and Organization

    In most cases,  the impetus for clearinghouses came from national chemical industry
associations, loosely equivalent to the Manufacturing Chemists Association (MCA) in the
United States (Table A-l). Most clearinghouses are financed  wholly by  the industry. In
Scandinavia, the clearinghouse was  formed at the recommendation of an official inter-
governmental working group on waste management, and funded for a three-year period, by
an intergovernmental foundation, Nordisk Industrifond, with matching funds from each
country's  Federation of Industry. In the United Kindgom, a committee including repre-
sentatives  of several chemical manufacturers recommended establishment of a clearinghouse
to the  Departments  of Environment and of Trade and Industry; the latter is now sponsor-
ing the clearinghouse for a two-year trial.

    All clearinghouses appear to have been  started on low budgets, with  a belief that
transfer made sense in  principle, but with no certainty about how many transfers would
result.  Most are sponsored by and integrated with the operations of the chemical industry
associations. For example, the Netherlands clearinghouse is administered by one part-time
staff person; the Belgium  and German each have a part-time director and a full-time admin-
istrator; and the Swiss  is headed by a lawyer and a chemist, both serving part-time. Costs
are kept to a minimum by using existing resources (offices, staff) and existing publications
(trade journals, association bulletins).

    Government agencies seem to play no direct role except in the United Kingdom and
Scandinavia. Although the U.K. clearinghouse is funded by the Department of Industry and
operates in  a  government laboratory, the information it  handles is said to be carefully
insulated from other government agencies, so as to maintain anonymity. The Nordic clear-
inghouse is funded by an intergovernmental foundation, Nordisk Industrifond, established
in 1973 to promote industrial research and development jointly among the  Scandinavian
countries.  The environmental affairs office of each country's Federation of Industry acts
as the national clearinghouse, and the central administrative agency is the Swedish Air and
Water Pollution Research Laboratory.
                                        65   .

                                                         TABLE A-1

                                       WASTE INFORMATION CLEARINGHOUSES
Name of Exchange or Sponsoring

January 1972)

(November 1972)

(December 1972)

(February 1973)

(chemical Industry

Fechlmle (Federa-
tion des Industries
Chlmlques de
Belglque; chemical
Industry associa-
VCI (Verband der
Chemlschen Indus-
trie; chemical
Industry associa-
Fachverband der
Chemlschen Indus-
trie Osterrelchs
(chemical Industry
The Hague, Nether-

49. Square Marie-
Louise, Brussels,

Karlstraise 21

Schllessfach Nr. 69
1011 Wlan Austria

Contact (•)
Mr. Beukers

Mr. Bormans
Miss Stuvenhage

Mr. Heinz Keune
Mrs. Use Mu'ller

Or. Loeschner

Chemical Indus-
try only

All Industries
chemical Indus-
try only)

Any manufac-
turing firm

Primarily chem-
ical Industry

Industry and

All Interested

Any manu-
facturing firm


and subscrip-
tion publica-
tion Ecochem
Bulletin to
members and
Journal, Cham-
ische Industrie
Monthly Asso-
ciation news-

(March 1973)

(March 1973)

(November 1973)

Gesellschaft fur
Nazlonale dell
Industrie Chlmfca
(chemical Industry
Institute! for
Vatten och Luft-
(headquarters In
Federation of
Danish Industlres

8035 Zurich

via Fatebenefra-
telll, 10
20121 Mllano

Box 5607 Stock-
holm 5 Sweden

1A Vestarbrogade
Or. Wegmann
Dr. Gut

Dr. Darlo Linares

H.O. Bouveng
H. Hargback

Mr. Hartlg
Mr. Christiansen

Association Association
members only members only

Primarily chem- Association
leal Industry members

members free
on request;
Monthly Bulletlr

Weekly publi-
cation of

United Kingdom
(November 1974)
(November 1975)
United States
United Kingdom
Waste Materials
Exchange (spon-
sored by the
government's Dept-
ment of Trade and

Sponsored mainly
by the government
agencies, Delega-
tion aux Eco;
mles de Matleres
Premieres, admin-
istered at l RCHA
(a mixed public-
private research

1. St Louis Indus-
  trial Waste

2. Iowa Industrial
  Waste Informa-
  tion Exchange
P.O. Box 51
Stevenage, Herts.
91710 Vert-le-Petlt
St. Lout* Regional
Commerce & Growth
Assn, 10 Broadway,
St. Louis 63102
Iowa State U. Ames,
Iowa 50011
Mr. J. Landvllle     Manufacturing
Mr. A. Poll          Industries
Jacques DeLoy,     All Industries
Nuisances at
Environnement. j
40, rue du Collsee
75008 Paris
Roland C. Marauart  Mainly chemical
others by

Mailing list     Quarterly
of Interested    Bulletins
Readers of the
listed to the
Individuals &
                                                                              United to Industries In Iowa
Classified ads
In the technics'
journals, Nui-
taneet et Environ-
nement and ChiTtie
at Actualite
                                                                         Periodic list
                                                                                                              Periodic list

                            Financial Support and Viability

     All  clearinghouses  have, to date, been subsidized. The U.K.  began  with a  two-year
grant of £70,000 (about $38,900). While the costs of the Nordic's headquarters in Sweden
were paid by a three-year grant, each country's Federation of Industry contributed an equal
amount to operate its national clearinghouse office. The Dutch, Austrian, Swiss, Belgian,
German,  and Italian clearinghouses are supported by their sponsoring industry associations;
their  operating budgets  were not reported, and indeed  Italy responded that its  costs are
simply included in its association's overhead budget. They charge no fees  for their service.
These clearinghouses are thus not yet seeking to become financially self-sufficient.
                               Services and Operations

     The basic service is simple and  inexpensive.  A clearinghouse receives offers of and
requests for waste materials, using a form such as shown in Figure A-l. The Clearinghouse
then codes them to  preserve anonymity. It assigns a reference number to each item and
indicate whether it is an offer or a request,  the type and quantity of material involved, the
general geographic location  for purposes of estimating transportation costs, and sometimes
other information. The U.K. geographic code, for example, is as follows:

     A  Scotland                     E   East Midlands and East Anglia
     B  Northern Ireland              F   Central, Southern, and Southeast England
     C  North of England             G   West of England
     D  West Midlands and  Wales

     Coded offers and requests are periodically published, sometimes in special  bulletins
as in the U.K. (Table A-2) and more often in the sponsoring association's regular journal
for members as in Germany (Table A-3). The German clearinghouse issues not only its own
lists, but also includes those from regional chambers of commerce within Germany and
those from the Dutch, Austrian, Swiss, and Nordic clearinghouses.

     Readers who see a material of potential interest then write to the clearinghouse, per-
haps using  forms such as shown in Figure A-2. Such inquiries are forwarded by the clear-
inghouse to  the listers, which may contact potential transfer partners directly to commence
negotiations. Clearinghouses usually do not participate in negotiations, but do try later to
leam whether or not they led to  successful  transfers. This basic clearinghouse service is
generally free, except sometimes for the publication's subscription fee; the St. Louis clear-
inghouse, however, charges a $5 listing fee to help defray its expenses.

                                UK WASTE MATERIALS EXCHANGE

                                         Notification Form
       Company Name:
                           Tel. No:
                       This Company Information is Confidential and Will Not Be publicly Disclosed

                       I should like the following items* included in the next edition of the bulletin:
 Quantity & Timingt
                               Description #
            space in the bulletin may be limited so please enter items in each section in order of
            give amount per period eg gals/week. Note that the period should give some indication
            of the regularity of the arising or requirement For instance a regular production of
            1000 litres/month should not be listed as 12,000 litres/year, but a single annual discharge
            would correctly be given as say 20 tonnes/year. Please use the following abbreviations-
            day (D). week (W). month (M). year (Y); litres (LT), gals (GL). kilos (KG), tonnes (TE).
                                          TABLE A-2


                               SECTION A:  MATERIALS AVAILABLE
REFR        QUANTITY                               ACIDS ft ALKALIS*

AA019C"        35  TN/W     WASTE SODA. CARBONATE 63%. HYDROXIDE 2%
               1100  KG


  1500  TN/M
   250  TE/Y


  1000  LB/W
    25  TE/Y


REFR        QUANTITY                             INORGANIC CHEMICALS

                75  KG
                SODIUM CYAN ATE


     1  CT
     2  CT


100000  GL/Y
   200  TN/Y

   207  KG
                             SALICYCLIC ACID
  •Other categories not shown In this sample: Food Processing, Metals, Minerals, Miscellaneous, Oils and Waxes, Paper &
   Board, Rubber & Plastics, Textiles & Leather.
 •*AA •= item available within first 999 listings; AB = item within second 999.
•"Dotted line in each category precedes new listings since last Bulletin.

Source:   United Kingdom Waste Materials Exchange, Bulletin No. 6, February 1976, listing 334 offers and 168 requests,
        for a total of 1,002 of which 83 were new since Bulletin No. S. November 1575.

                                    TABLE A-2 (Continued)


                               SECTION W: MATERIALS WANTED




    10  TE/D
     2  TF/W


 20000  TN/Y
 60000  TN/Y
                        ACIDS & ALKALIS


                     INORGANIC CHEMICALS
30 TE/W
10 TN/W
10 TN
5000 TN/Y

               100  TE/N


 •Other categories not shown ere same as In Section A: Materials Available.
••WA = Item wanted within first 999 listings; W3 = item within second 999.

                                                 TABLE A-3

                        der Chemlschen Industrie a V

                        6 Frankfurt em Main
                        KarlstraBe 21
                        Postlach 11 9081
                        Fernschreiber 411 372 veil d
                        Nur (Or din Inlirntn Gebrauch
                        der Mllglledinrmen
                                          ^ferband der Chemischenlndustrie e.Y
 Bellage zur Ausgabe 6/74
                                           27. September 1974

 Zusammenarbeit  von VCI und  DIHT
 We herein berlehtol, rlchlen die Industrie- und Hindilsksmmern generelle, Ober den Bereleh der In der Chemle anlillenden Oder zu
 verwertenden  ROckstdnde  hlnausgehende Abfallborun  eln.  GemaB der Vorelnbarung zwliehen dem  Deutschen Industrie-  und
 Handelslsg (DIHT) und dem VCI llegl uns nun die zwe'le Nummer der .DIHT-AblallbOrse* zur Auswertung vor.
 Wlr wlren Ihnen dankbar, wenn Sle die Abfallbdraen-Separal-Bogen an alle Slellen In Ihrem Unlernehmen wellergetaen wOrdan, die
 slch mil RuckslHnden. die noeh kelne Ablalle slnd und die slch zur Wleder- und/oder Weltenenrandung elgnon, befassen. Oas sollten
 nlehl nui die Slabsslellen IDr Umwellschuli, Insbesonder*  die Abfallbeselllgung seln, sondern such die teller von elnsehlSglgen Pro-
 dukllonabelrlebon und der Elnkaul.
 Wenn Sie sich (Or die folgenden Angobote Oder Nachfragen Inter-
 essicren. schtciben Sie bmo unler der Chillie-Angabe an den
 Verband der Chemischen Industrie e V — Abfallborse -. 6 Frank-
 furt 2. Postlach 119081  Ihr Schreiben wlrd soforl an die belreflen-
 de Firma weitergeleiiet

 A24S) Calclumcarbonat. ca SOV.Ig mil etwa 10% freiem Kohlen-
                  CaCOi            75 - 80V.
                  Ca(OH)t/CaO     ea.    5V.
                  SIOi            ea    IV.
                  freier C          ea  10V.
                  FluBspat. Mg- und  Fe-Oxld. N-haltlge orga-
                  nlsche Verbmdungen. Wasser unter 0.1V.
      Faroe  •      liefgrau bis schwarz
      KorngroOe-    ca 90V. unter G3 |i
omlge 100 l/Monat
 4246) Sehlamm aus der Trockenadsorption der Wasserregenerati-
     on mil etwa 20 •/• Fluor. Wassergehall bei ca. 105° etwa 49 •/.
     HiO (Hydratwasser)   5.60 •/•
           15.70 •/•
            6.17 V.
           32.15 V.
            6.83 •/•
           13.08 •/•
            1.27 •/•
            1.28 •/.
            1.27 %
600 t/Monat
A247) Ammonlummtrallosung. ca 2—2.5 molar
     mil Spuren von Uran
     Menge- ca 500 m'/Jahr
     Raum   Hessen
 A248) Nlokelsulfal. test bis schlammfdrmlg
      ca 25 Vt Nickel im getrocknelen Rucksland
      Menge  ca 20 Passer a 200 I pro Jahr
      Raum:  Koln

 A249) Natronsalpeter. veninrelnlgt mil ea. 6 % NaNO>
      Spuren von Fe. Cr. Ca. Nl
      Menge.  ca. 1.2 t/Monat
      Raum.  Koln

 A250) HelBveriormbares Schwerbeschichlungsmaterial
      Qranulatform. (Wlederholung von A171)
      aua 12.5 % elnes hoctmertigen Kaulschuks.
         2.5 V.  Polyslyrol sowie Gummihlllsstolfen. Fullsloffan
      Menge.  ca 7000 kg emmalig. in Sacke abgepackt
      Raum-  Hessen

 A251) Naphthalln mil Tetratin verunrelnlgt
      Menge:  ea 2 t/Monat
      Verpaekung 2001 Spannrmgfaaser
      Raum   Nordrhem-Weslfalen

 A252) Kaligllmmor (Muscovit) wasserfeueht
      (TeilchengrdBe <5 |i)
      folgender Zusammenselzung. ca. 60 V. Glimmer
                             ea. 2-3 •/• Natrlumchlorld
                             Real Wasser
      Menge-  ea. 20 t/Monat
      Verpaekung • nach Absprache
      Raum:   Rheln-Maln-Gebiel

A253) Zlnk-Kalkgemlsctt
      Wassergehall ca 50-60%
      Zlnk         ca 20 •/<,
     Calcium      ca 5 •/•
      Paplerreste   ca. 2V«
      Menge-  10-15 t/Monat
     Verpaekung • 10-l-Contalner
      Raum.   Nordrheln-Weslfalen

A254) Regenerlertes Ldsungsmlttelgemlsch  aua Methyfenehlorid
     und Aromalen. HOsslg.
     Menge:  sporedisch 90004
     Verpaekung lose ozw.  FSsser
     Raum:   Koln
 Source: Chemische Industrie, monthly journal of Germany's
          Chemical Industry Association.


                            UK WASTE MATERIALS EXCHANGE

                                  Contact Request Form 1
Company Name:
Tel. No:
This Company Information is Confidential and Will Not Be Publicly Disclosed
                   I am interested in obtaining the following items listed in the available section of
                   the bulletin:
                   (N.B.  The reference numbers of these items should begin with the letter A).
Ref. No. t
Quantity #
— S-^-^^
Description t
• — «^
                                    Contact Request Form 2
Company Name-
Tel. No:
This Company Information is Confidential and Will Not Be Publicly Disclosed
            I am able to supply the following items listed in the wanted section of the bulletin:
            (N.B.  The reference numbers of these items should begin with the letter W).
Ref No. t
Quantity #
Description t
                                    Contact Request Form 3
Company Name:
Tel. No:
This Company Information is Confidential and Will Not Be Publicly Disclosed
              I am also interested in obtaining the following items listed in the wanted section
              of the bulletin-
              (N.B.  The reference numbers of these items should begin with the letter W)
Ref. No. t
 Quantity #
 Description t


     Some variations of  this basic pattern exist. Lists of the Nordic clearinghouse, foi
example,  include  offers not  only of scrap wastes, but also of surplus stocks and plant
capacity for recycling or disposal. It  also conducts research and provides technical advice
on improving the quality of  wastes, so as to facilitate recycling.  About 200,000 Swedish
crowns ($46,000) are available for laboratory work or a pilot demonstration. The Danish
Federation of Industries, for example, learned of acid wastes from  the medical  industry
which seemed potentially suitable for acid pickling in the iron industry, except for trace
organics and other impurities; a pilot demonstration removed  the troublesome impurities,
and once it was shown to work well, the transfer was completed.

     Clearinghouses distinguish between two types of material:  continuous waste, produced
by a plant's normal operations; and occasional or episodic  wastes in odd lots, for example
products  failing to meet  specifications, surplus inventory,  and products damaged  in trans-
portation or by  fire or flood. Both continuous and episodic wastes are accepted for listing.
However, if two partners find  a continuous waste which  each wishes to continue trans-
ferring, then they have no need of the clearinghouse service after its  first referral; in time,
therefore, clearinghouses are likely to  receive greater proportions of episodic wastes, which
may also be more difficult to transfer.

     Germany's  clearinghouse cannot, under that  country's Waste Disposal Act of 1972,
list materials designated as "wastes" (Abfdlle), but only "residual materials" (Ruckstande);
in practice, this does not inhibit transfer,  since the material's owner chooses the designa-
tion.  The German  clearinghouse handles neither waste oil nor radioactive wastes because
their  disposal is regulated strictly. Moreover, its policy excludes residues for which there
is already an established market, such as paper, plastics,  textiles, and metal scrap.

     The  Nordic and  U.K. organizations handle a  broader range of wastes,  which they
classify.as follows (United States SIC numbers of typical generators appear in aprentheses):

           Plastics (30)
           Textiles (22) and Leather (31)
           Paper-Containing Materials (26)
           Solvents and Waste Oils (286. 29)
           Acids and Pickling Liquors (281)
           Inorganic Chemicals (281)
           Organic Chemicals (286)
           Slags. Sludges, etc.
United Kingdom

Acids and Alkalies (281)
Organic Chemicals and Solvents (286)
Metals (34)
Minerals (10.14)
Oils and Waxes (29)
Paper and Board (26)
Rubber and Plastics (30)
Textiles (22) and  Leather (31)
Food Processing (20)
Inorganic Chemicals (281)

The  Nordic clearinghouse tries to avoid  listing both established secondary materials and
trash wastes  clearly  lacking productive value. The U.K. clearinghouse seeks a variety of
participants, but does not list such easily marketable items as scrap metals or second-hand

     In November 1975, after several months of planning by a volunteer task force, the St.
Louis  Regional Commerce and  Growth  Association (RCGA), analogous to chambers of
commerce elsewhere, began its industrial waste clearinghouse service, the first in the United
States, patterned  after the  European clearinghouses.  Although  the  East-West Gateway
Coordinating Council, a council of local governments in and around St. Louis, helped launch
the clearinghouse by providing office space for the task force in its early days, it later with-
drew in favor of the RCGA  in recognition of industry's reluctance to provide potentially
sensitive information to any organization associated with governments  and their regulatory
powers. RCGA staff spend only a few hours weekly preparing offers and requests for pub-
lication quarterly.

     The volunteer task force, comprising about  18 persons from industrial companies,
waste processing firms, consultants, and  local and state governments,  sets general policies
and  provides technical skills. Significant amounts of time, and thus professional skills and
judgment, were contributed initially by some government officials, industrial companies,
and  consulting firms; for example, one senior environmental control engineer with a major
chemical company, spent about 16 days over six months as chairman of the task force, and
five  or six other persons spent one or two days monthly.  Other forms  of hidden subsidies,
not  formally logged as costs but important,  are the secretarial  time,  telephone bills, and
duplicating costs  incurred by these volunteers' companies. Moreover,  the list, in addition
to being mailed directly to some 500 names throughout the nation, is to be published with-
out  charge by several  Missouri industry and  environmental journals. Still more important
for the clearinghouse's credibility  with industry is the approval and professional endorse-
ment of major local companies. Thus, the full start-up and operating costs are not known
accurately even by its sponsors. Federal and state governments have not provided any direct

     The first list (Table A-4) contained 43 offers and eight requests, more than the organ-
izers had expected. Nineteen of the 51 listings came  from beyond  the St. Louis area, and
as far as the east and west coasts. Moreover, during its first three months, the clearinghouse
received some 350 inquiries about its procedures, eligibility of specific wastes, and possibili-
ties  for reciprocal arrangements with civic and private groups wanting to offer comparable
services elsewhere.

                                                  TABLE A-4


                                       ITEMS AVAILABLE (TOTAL - 43)

Code Identification:  A1-1
Kern:  Coated Abrasive Scrap-Mixed Pieces/Sizes, both doth end Paper Backings; Grit Range 16-400 Unsorted.
Availability:  Ten Tons per Month, 350 Pound Bales.
Location:  Mid-South.

Code Identification:  A1-2
Item:  Spent Nitric Acid Strip with Approximately 1M Pounds Copper Metal per Gallon Plus V4 Pound Nickel Metal per Gallon.
Availability:  3.000 Gallons at this Time.
Location:  Local.

Code Identification:  A1-3
Item:  Centrifuge Cake-10% Plus Moisture; Sollds-Approximately 84% Sand, 14% Glass, 2% Iron. Average Particle Size 20
Availability:  200 Tons per Week.
Location:  Local

Code Identification:  A1-4
Item:  Thermoplastic Resins, Reground; Verious Types and Colors. Contaminated from 1% to 50%; Average Contamination
      5% with Other Resins. Average Particle Size 3/16 Inch Diameter.
Availability:  50,000 Pounds per Month.
Location:  Midwest.

                                         ITEMS WANTED (TOTAL - 8)

Code Identification:  W1-1
Item:   Liquid Caustic Soda 25-50% by Weight/Volume.
Quantity Desired: Not Specified.
Location-  Local.

Code Identification:  W1-2
Item:  Organic Waste Solvent-Ketones, Aromatics, Aliphatic, Chlorinated Solvents, Alcohols, or Blends of Same. Must Contain
      6O% or Higher Solvent and be Pumpable by Normal Means.
Quantity Desired: 7,000 Gallons per Day.
Location:  Local.

Code Identification:  W1-3
Item:   Tin By-Products or Waste Products with 10-15% Tin or Higher.
Quantity Desired: 25-60,000 Pounds per Week.
Location:   East Coast

Code Identification:  W1-4
item-  Spent Nickel Catalyst Containing 10-12% Nickel, Dry Basis, or More.
Quantity Desired: 200,000 Pounds per Month.
Location:  East Coast.

Source: St. Louis Regional Commerce and Growth Association, February 1976.


     Other clearinghouses are in early stages of planning or operations at Iowa State Univer-
sity, the State of Washington, and the Houston Chamber of Commerce.
                             OPERATING EXPERIENCE

     Comprehensive and accurate data about  wastes and transfers are difficult to obtain,
due mainly to needs of confidentiality and incomplete follow-up of referrals. Four older and
larger  clearinghouses,  however,  have analyzed and  reported  some numerical  data:'9"22
           (1st 18 months)

           (2nd 100 listings)

           (1st 10 months)

       United Kingdom
           (1st year)
                             Listings         Inquiries
 80      Not available
100      375 (for 70 items)
142      250
833      2,640 (for 618 items)
                              Transfers Completed
                               via Clearinghouse
Clearinghouses cannot always obtain complete information from clients on the results of
referrals; moreover, some materials, even though listed,find users through channels other
than the clearinghouse.

     Data in reports, lists, and interviews showed a number of patterns common to clear-
inghouses in Europe and St. Louis:

     •  Their periodic lists (weekly to quarterly) usually carry many more offers than

     •  Only about ten percent of wastes offered are transferred.

     •  Of those  transferred, a large proportion are recognized by-products, such as
        concentrated  acids,  certain  catalysts,  and residues with  high  contents of

     •  A large proportion, both in number and in volume, of wastes offered but not
        transferred are materials  such as dilute acids and ferrous sulfate: although
        these have potential uses, they are often too low in value, too diluted, or
        offered in quantities too small to justify transportation or reprocessing costs.

     •  Major barriers to successful transfer are transport costs, too low a concentra-
        tion of valuable material,  and impurities too costly to remove; the last prob-
        lem  points to the importance of generators keeping wastes separated, rather
        than mixing them, so  as  to  facilitate analysis, matching,  and  reprocessing.

     •  Major receivers of scrap wastes transferred via clearinghouse referral appear
        to be  chemical dealers and reclaimers, which suggests that they reprocess
        the materials before selling them to ultimate users.

     •  Continuous waste streams  offered  are far  greater, in number and volume,
        than one-time offers of off-specification or damaged materials.

     •  Volume of activity on the older clearinghouses declined after an early peak,
        which suggests that (1)  the backlog of transferable scrap wastes was worked
        down and (2) trading partners identified to each other by clearinghouses later
        continued to negotiate transfers directly.

     •  The more likely clients  for the clearinghouse service are companies with little
        or no technical skills in industrial chemistry.

     •  Useful  functions performed  by clearinghouses, in addition to identifying
        scrap wastes  and  introducing generators and users, are (1) educating industry
        generally  about possibilities of waste transfers, (2) broadening the markets
        for chemical  reclaimation firms,  and (3) collecting  inventory  data, incom-
        plete but better than now available, about  both scrap  wastes available for
        transfer and trash wastes needing disposal.

     In addition to these points  which appear to be common to most clearinghouses, some
highlights relate to only one.  In the Netherlands, a firm designing a new  plant asked the
Dutch clearinghouse which of the  several production processes being considered generated
wastes which might be transferred successfully via the  clearinghouse. The German clearing-
house  pursues a strict policy of not listing wastes which are clearly  trash; consequently, it
shows a success rate higher than those of other clearinghouses, with almost 20 percent of
listings leading  to transfers.  In  the United Kingdom, savings to industry clearinghouse-
assisted transfers are  estimated to be  about £2 million (about $3.6 million), which  vastly
exceeds the clearinghouse's operating cost.


     In France, Nuisances et Environnement began in 1974 a column listing offers  and
requests (Table A-S). Advertisers are asked to indicate quantity and composition of mate-
rials, frequency of availability, and general geographic location. The response was initially
small, but has reportedly increased since the formation of the French clearinghouse, which
now publishes listings both  in  this journal and in another, Chimie-Actualites. In Japan,
a chemical monthly  charges companies $30  for an advertisement indicating the  waste's
characteristics, quantity, and location. In Canada, Canadian Chemical Processing publishes
ads free of charge; thus, the column produces revenue only to the  extent  that its avail-
ability increases  purchases of the journal. In 1974 and  1975, it listed  only six-to-eight
notices yearly.

     Chemical journals often  carry  advertisements  for  surplus raw  materials and  by-
products; these columns could also advertise scrap wastes.

     Unlike the  official clearinghouses, the  technical journals do not appear to screen
listings for appropriateness or to follow their referrals to learn the results. They do help,
however, to collect information that could be used by potential clearinghouse operators
to gauge the market, and to educate generators and potential users about the possibilities
of transferring wastes.
                            COMMERCIAL VARIATIONS

     Two new services may demonstrate in time the market potential for a type of transfer
service which is  neither subsidized  on the European model  nor capital-intensive as are
materials exchanges, but which can survive as an economically viable enterprise.

     The Natural Resource Recycling Exchange, Boston,  Massachusetts, was organized in
late  1975 by men experienced in advertising, banking, and commodity trading. They con-
ceive of a data bank large enough to justify handling by a computer programmed to match
offers  and requests. They plan to retain scientific or engineering consultants to seek or
develop uses for  wastes without readily apparent uses. Although the sole purpose of this
enterprise is  to transfer information, it differs from the European and  St. Louis clearing-
houses in three ways.  First, it is a profit-seeking venture, charging fees in the manner of
stock or commodity exchanges: clients  must pay one fee to join the service, another each
time they enter an  offer or request into the computerized data bank, and a commission on
each transfer completed successfully.  Second, it is not supported, financially or profes-
sionally,  by  industry associations  or government laboratories; thus, it may lack the  free
access  to technical  talents which other exchanges use to identify wastes and possible reuses;

                                                     TABLE A-5


   >•»»                ^-llj
                             quide  -r cnstaux  10 l/mois tuts
                             ler 2201  Dpt 77
                             Ecr « la Revuen* A U7qui Ir
                              11 16 17 35 30 31 37 44 5I-S4-56 51
                              5962634*71 7677 78 69
                              Ecr a la Revuen* A I7iaui ir
        NUISANCES    &
Solvent use white spirit essence
loluene  10 t/mois Ibts metal ou
plaitlque Oept (Semoy)
Ecr * la revuen* A liSgui Ir

Sdure copeaun cedre vrac  PCI
1500 CO I/k 1.350 l/| Dpi 77
Ecr a la Revuen' A IMqui Ir

Resldut distillation  phenol
polyalkyts tertiobutyls phenols h
Profiles extrudes  de  neoprene
vulcanise sacs 10k  si/mois
Profiles extrudes d'e'hylene pro
nylene IE POM) vulcanise sacs 10
k7t/mois  Dpi 95
6cr a la Revue n' AI9«quitr

Boun peiietables   85.4 «b eau
15 H cellulose  45 "o ma'  mint
riles (CaSOj  Zn (OHI, Chaux)
 JO t/iour Dpi 01
Ecr a la Revue n* A It! qui tr
 Residus disrlilaiion  p  oelyl
 phenol  -  p  oelyl  el  isomeres
 dioctylphenol  pateux 10 f/moij-
 tu'slerl20l Dpi 77
 Ecr a la Revue n* A Ita qul Ir

 Residus distillation  nonylpherol
 -  eolyaikylphenois pa'eux  ID
 i/mo.sluts ler 2201   Opt 77
 Ecr a la Revue n< A 1*9 qui tr

 Lmeres hssus endum 60 «* PVC
 10 l/mois en bennes  pa'e plasli
 solPVCIOls: l/mois Opt01
 Ecr Ala Revue n'A 170 qui Ir

 Pale 20 IS % Cu metal + laibles
 quanhtes metaux precieux (Au
 Ag Pt)  vrac • environ 10 I/pour
 Mai 76 Opt II
 Ecr a la Revue n' A 171 qui ir
                                                          Residul metalliques  10 «t  Zn
                                                          10 *b Pb 60 •> Ft  & 220 mm 30
                                                          I/moil M creuseti  graphite cas-
                                                          jes/mou epan  20 mm vol  120 I
                                                          dmpregnei zn Pb Pel Opt 93
                                                          Ecr a la Revue n1 A I71ctui rr

                                                          Chaux de carbure contenant lu
                                                          lurej  - Sulla t«   chloruret
                                                          ammoniaque  tail d • I.I ou
                                                           750 t/mon dpt IS  650 t/m
                                                          Opt 54
                                                          Ecr a la Revue n* A 174qui ir i
   kg alummate de sodium, hqul
   lull 200 IIQ 31 376  Opt 93
f .tr a la Revue n' A109qm Ir

 75 kg alcool stearylique fOts 100 I
 iq3117« Optn
 Ecr a laRevuen* AllOquiir

 100 kg liquids saccharaie de ler
 glycerine fuls SO I  iq 31 3 76 Opt
 Ecr a la Revue n* Altlquilr

 23 kg pcntachlorure phosphor*
 (uldeboisiq31 376 Dpi 93
 Ecr a la Revue n> A III qui Ir
                                                          a 5 t mousses de polythene fm
                                                         sees en balles -
                                                         I 500 lOts polythene nolr el grls
                                                         Dpi II
                                                         Ecr a la Revuen* AD3qui tr

                                                         Dispose de dechels rev«lemenls
                                                         sols plajiiquej. de revetements
                                                         sols textiles de matieres premit
                                                         res diverscs (PVC. pepier Kralt.
                                                         canon, etc) 10 t/iour de chaque
                                                         composition d'echantilions sur
                                                         demande Dpt 08
                                                         Ecr a la Revue n* A IMqui ir

                                                         Mousse  80'a  polyureihanc  +
                                                         20 °o papier 7 a 10 t/mois Dpi 52
                                                         Ecr a ^a Revuen* A tsiqui tr

                                                         Cypse sohde a M *i eau + ctilore
                                                         variable  bennes  ID mJ  40 l/i
                                                         Amianie + eau +  traces chlare -
                                                         bennes 7m1 14 l/mois Dpi 31
                                                         Ecr a la Revue n* A121 oui tr
 Slocks 18  solvents a revalorise
 200 a 35 800 f selon cas (alcoois
 ce'ones carBures aiipnaiiques ou
 aromatiques TIM Pllistesurde
 mande Opt 62
 Ecr a la Revue n* A 177 qui Ir
ACHETONS chutes et dechets la
bnc textiles  louies fibres  lots
textiles et lusus hors cours Paul
KATZ  Succ   B P   31  67013
Tel   188) 39 10 SO	

Grande socitte de recuperation
recherche malieres plastiques
— l.lmsde polyethylene en balles
— decnets polystyrene choc/ens
— dims de polypropylene neulres
ABS SAN brove ou en plaques
Enlevement par camions 20 ton
nes France Beigique Suisse
Ecr alaRevuen* AKOqui Ir

Solvents a rccuptrer ou a recy
cler louies regions Dpi 69
Ecr a la Revue n* A131 qui tr

Recherche solvents propres. im
pursousouilles Opt91
Ecr a la Revu
it may also find difficulties in overcoming reluctance of some waste generators and potential
users  to  deal with an organization of unknown reputation. Third, in order to sell enough
services to survive economically, it cannot wait passively for clients to call in waste offers
or requests; instead, it must go into the marketplace to promote services and seek clients

    Trans Chemical Corporation, a Miami-based chemical trader began in late 1975 to offer
a computerized matching service,  "Chemscan", which monitors about 250 chemical prod-
ucts. Companies can submit offers and requests without charge.  These appear weekly in a
computer printout of about 1,200 buy-and-sell orders, bought by  about 150 subscribers
at a price of $15  a  week. Interested subscribers can  then contact each other to negotiate
deals directly.

    "Chemscan" lists chemical products rather than scrap wastes. However, this or a similar
service could be extended to scrap wastes if the market proved large enough. The fee of $15
per week, or $780 per year if 52 lists are issued, yields  a gross income of $117,000 if 150
subscribers remain the full year; this is presumably high enough either to cover costs and
return a  profit, or at least  to cover most costs for a service which Trans Chemical considers
an effective "loss leader", a technique for attracting clients for other lucrative services. The
major  attraction of "Chemscan" is volume—using its computer  to  collect and display far
more  information  to many more  customers than can the ordinary  broker with paper and
pencil  roving the floor of a commodity exchange. For subscribers, their chances of identify-
ing suitable trading partners make the $15 per week fee well  worthwhile; in fact, many
probably cannot afford to  pass up such chances for such a low price. Similarly, the St.
Louis  and  European clearinghouses could tally their costs accurately and then design a
schedule of both listing and subscription fees according to their estimates of the numbers
of listers and subscribers willing to pay; the rate schedule could be designed merely to cover
costs exactly, or to return  a surplus or profit which would help finance such other services
as limited technical consulting.

    Trans Chemical no doubt tries to sell its "Chemscan" service widely.  However, it
remains a passive form of  clearinghouse, since after listings are published the initiative for
bringing  trading partners together rests entirely with themselves. From a business viewpoint,
such a listing service has little direct interest in whether material is later transferred, because
its economic survival depends on collecting its listing and subscription fees.

                                   APPENDIX B

                            MATERIALS EXCHANGES


     A few small companies offering a broad range of chemical reclamation and consulting
services are  also serving, or interested in serving, as materials exchanges. Examples exist
in both Europe and the United  States; the examples given below are intended only to
illustrate this type of transfer agent and not to suggest that these are the only companies
engaged in activities relevant to transferring scrap wastes.

     The number of true materials exchanges is smaller than that of information clearing-
houses. A key characteristic is that these exchanges were begun and are operated by persons
who are both entrepreneurs  and have extensive knowledge and experience in  chemical
processing. Because the exchange service is difficult and risky, it is typically offered together
with other services. Details of the financial  and technical operations of existing exchanges
are not known, since these are private business organizations and do not publish lists of
scrap wastes available. It is  clear, however, that both technical knowledge and imagination
are essential requirements for success.

                                 TWO EXAMPLES
                         A Dutch Company: Wimborne-CPR

     Wimborne-CPR  is a chemical processing  and reclamation firm. It was formed as a
joint venture between Wimborne Chemicals Ltd., a British chemical reclamation company,
and Centrale Potas Raffinaderij, whose principal activity today is trading in potassium and
sodium  carbonates and  other salts. It  has a close  working relationship with the Dutch
information clearinghouse and in many ways complements the latter's efforts.

     The company originated from  an interest in diversifying on the part of CPR, whose
potassium carbonate extraction operations had  declined. Discussions with the Dutch Indus-
tries Federation  and  with government authorities led to the idea of using CPR's resources
to reclaim valuable products from  waste materials. In the course of subsequent market
research, CPR made  contact with Wimborne Chemicals, and the companies decided on  an

     Both of the joint-venture partners are members of larger groups:  Wimborne is part of

the Shirley Aldred group, which in the past has had interests in wood chemicals and today
has strong interests in activated carbon; CPR is ultimately held by the Dutch sugar industry
(two companies), although until  1965  the Belgian sugar industry also participated. This
matrix of relationships within the two parent groups enables Wimborne-CPR to provide a
comprehensive chemical waste reclamation service with little, if any, technical staff of its
own and limited  processing facilities. For much of the latter, it uses subcontractors, mainly
located in the Netherlands, the  United  Kingdom, and Belgium. Some of these are major
chemical  companies with spare capacity. Thus, the company's activity consists largely of
using its contacts and affiliations  to provide technical and processing solutions on a case-
by-case basis. It  is the only Dutch company  performing such  a service on a  large scale.

     Part  of the  company's role is furnishing advice to companies with disposal problems.
It tries to become involved at the  earliest possible stage, since it can then propose solutions
which render the materials capable of processing. For example, one company  had built a
huge storage  tank which received three incompatible waste streams, including paint and
machine-tool lubricants. The company wanted someone to take a regular quantity of the
contents  for reprocessing, but approached Wimbome-CPR only when the  tank was  well
on the way  to being full. Had each of the three streams been channeled to separate tanks,
they might all have had appreciable value for reprocessing.

     Wimborne-CPR sees itself as providing the commercial link (i.e., at a profit) between
buyers and sellers of chemical wastes, a role which is essential but which the Dutch informa-
tion clearinghouse does not attempt to fill. Offers of waste material received by the clearing-
house are sent immdediately to Wimborne-CPR,  which accounts for a large share of the
transfers actually completed with aid from  the clearinghouse. While the clearinghouse is an
important source of offers and requests, Wimborne-CPR also gets them directly as  a result
of its numerous  contacts in  the  process industries. Wimborne-CPR does  not advertise,
although it does issue a small, two-page promotional pamphlet.

     The company's services are paid for both by the company  generating waste chemicals
and by the buyer  of the purified products.
                        Zero Waste Systems, Oakland, California

     Newer and smaller than Wimborne-CPR, Zero Waste Systems (ZWS) also offers a broad
range of services. ZWS was founded in 1973 by a physical chemist. The staff includes a chem-
ist, support persons for lab and office work, and a network of Bay Area consultants. ZWS
offers to handle surplus chemicals, collect industrial processing wastes, sell recycled and
surplus  materials, and  provide consulting aid  in minimizing waste control problems. Thus,
ZWS is  both a materials-handling exchange and a surplus chemicals dealer and consulting
firm specializing in industrial processing wastes. ZWS appears to operate on  tight profit

margins and to depend for success upon technical experience, imagination, many industrial
contacts, a  keen knowledge  of current markets and prices, and entrepreneurial  vigor in
finding and pursuing market opportunities. ZWS, like Wimborne-CPR, farms out much work
to chemical job shops or plants with spare capacity. ZWS's objective is to neutralize or find
new markets for all industrial wastes, rather than to dispose of them into the environment.

     Several aspects of ZWS's business environment or circumstances  deserve mention for
the guidance of potential exchange operators elsewhere. A major assist comes from Cali-
fornia's hazardous waste control law and regulations, which require generators to report in
detail on all wastes sent out for disposal. Plant managers, to save the cost and bother of
lengthy reporting, prefer to sell or even give wastes to ZWS. (However, ZWS can survive by
accepting only  those wastes containing scrap materials of known value. It does not accept,
for example, dilute sulfuric  acid  or  chromic acid, for which there is little or no market.)

     Another and related major assist comes from the Bay Area public's environmentally-
conscious attitude. ZWS receives much free publicity from local news  media. It is aided at
working levels of many companies by technicians who make an extra effort to send wastes
to ZWS rather than to  disposers. Zero Waste receives many referrals from state and local
agencies which do not know how to handle hazardous wastes.

     Public attitudes, the wealth  of technical talent in Berkeley, and the concentration of
industrial plants all make the Bay Area ideal for ZWS. Although the firm reports that it
often has more work than its staff of five  can handle, demand is not stable enough at liigh
enough levels to permit  an increase in staff. Los Angeles offers a larger industrial concentra-
tion and market area and would be a  logical candidate for future expansion. Although
most transfers  probably occur within the Bay Area, ZWS reports occasional shipments as
far as Texas when the economics of the transfers are favorable enough. Part of the ZWS
business strategy is not  to limit itself, as  do some dealers, to only one industry or area,
but rather to offer services to many industries and nationally.

         Another part  of its business strategy is to fill a gap in the chemical materials
market  structure by serving the needs of companies which  either choose not to or do  not
know how  to transfer scrap wastes in small quantities.  This suggests, as does some infor-
mation from Europe, that the most likely customers for transfer services, both information
and materials, are companies with little or no technical skills in industrial chemistry.

     However sound its  business strategy in theory, ZWS seconds the experience of others
that the materials exchange staff must be persistent and aggressive both in identifying waste
and in finding appropriate matches. Its staff sometimes meets generators who at first do not
recognize having  significant wastes in their plants, only  to  do so later in the conversation
when asked about them specifically; generators are not trying to cover up the existence of
wastes,  but simply overlook them in response to the initial  question. Indeed, it  is quite

logical that processing residues intended for disposal are not perceived by generators as
"scrap chemicals"  having reuse value. This illustrates the importance which attitudes play
in recognizing scrap value in wastes, and thus in  seeing the usefulness of an exchange. It
also underscores the importance of keeping wastes segregated, so as to facilitate analysis,
matching, and transfer.

    Zero Waste Systems prides itself on being a small and innovative enterprise. It sees
itself pioneering a new industry, and offering the best model for a waste materials exchange.
It foresees  a national network of regional waste exchanges. Its own need now is for a major
data bank  to support its technical procedures and entrepreneurial skills developed during
its first two years.
                           A NEW EXCHANGE CONCEPT

     The newly opened American Chemical Exchange does not transfer scrap wastes. Yet it
deserves mention because it is trying to prove an exchange concept and procedures which
may be useful for materials exchanges which deal in wastes.

     American Chemical Exchange, Inc. (ACE), of Skokie, Illinois, resembles Trans Chemi-
cal's "Chemscan" service (Appendix A) in featuring a computerized matching service and
mass exposure of information. It also specializes, by making trades only in about 75 manu-
factured  chemical  products.  But  whereas Trans Chemical is only a modern classified ad
service transferring information, ACE  is a broker interposed  between buyer and seller.

     A majority of ACE's clients are  small companies. They join ACE by paying a fee
($250) analogous to the subscription fee for "Chemscan" and the membership fee for the
National  Resources Recycling Exchange (Appendix A). With 90  clients in early 1976, 50
inquiries each day, and the eventual possibility of 1000 clients, ACE could have a financial
base of $250,000. But the important source of its income will come from commissions,
ranging between 1% and 5%, on  any trade it makes. After placing  a firm order, a seller
must deposit 10% of  the sales price into  an escrow account to ensure  availability of the
chemical. Similarly, a  buyer must  deposit the entire purchase price into the escrow account
within  24 hours. ACE thus performs a needed intermediary role to resolve the constant
question of whether goods or payment should move first.

     As in  a stock exchange, buyer and seller do not know  each other but negotiate only
through ACE. Once a  deal is struck, ACE handles the transfer of both funds and the chem-
icals to keep identities secret. This classes ACE as a materials exchange. However, the func-
tional requirements for transferring a manufactured product are less than those for a scrap
waste. With a standard product, the seller, buyer, and exchange all know its characteristics,
which  are backed  by a warranty and  the reputation of the seller and  ACE. But with a

waste-almost  never standard—its characteristics  must be  specially  analyzed  so that the
potential users can judge according to their process specifications. Thus, technical compati-
bility requirements exist for both a product and a waste, but in paractice ACE is able to per-
form mainly as an information and financial broker, while a waste materials exchange like
Wimbome-CPR must also perform analytical and reclamation functions. Although ACE now
has the information technology and brokerage skills for extending its services to include scrap
wastes, it would have to add the technical and marketing skills required to deal success-
fully in these materials. Moreover, it would of course have to see attractive processing profit
opportunities in the business of brokering wastes, which is inherently more risky than the
business of brokering manufactured chemicals.
     However, ACE's best market seems similar in an important respect to the natural mar-
ket of waste exchanges. Large chemical companies have within their staffs enough knowledge
and skills to identify and arrange their own spot trades. But these functions often strain the
capacities of smaller companies, which are therefore forced  to seek help from  a broker.

                                    APPENDIX C

                               DATA AND METHODS

     Recognizing and verifying a potential use for an industrial waste constitute the heart
of the transfer process. It is a creative act, since it makes possible something which did not
seem possible before; the  discovery of value  in a waste previously considered as trash is
the first step in transforming it into scrap.

     Therefore, experience, knowledge of chemical processing, and, especially, imagination
are essential  for identifying possible uses for wastes.  Naturally,  published  sources can
stimulate the imagination, and young graduate chemists and chemical engineers can assist
in initial screening  steps.  But there are no substitutes for practical processing expertise
and first-hand knowledge of industrial practices. Of course, no one person, or even a small
group,  can be  familiar  with detailed operating practices and the many industries which
might use wastes. So, a variety of experts should be consulted to help verify initial judge-
ments and to assess the economic and  technical feasibility of potential  transfer oppor-
tunities. (However,  expertise can result in negativism—emphasis on reasons why new ideas
cannot succeed  and should  not be  tested. This is why imagination, and some courage,
are essential qualities.)

     Various publications  can  help in initial  identification of  potential uses. The main
ones are:

     •   Chemical Week in every issue groups classified ads under the head ings: "Chem-
        icals for Sale/Wanted", "Chemicals   for Sale", and "Chemicals Wanted".
        Most ads are to buy or sell surplus  chemicals. A few, mostly from  dealers
        and reprocessors, request chemical  wastes.  Occasionally,  an offer appears
        for waste  materials. The requests  recently have  been for solvents, spent
        catalysts (Co-Cu,  Cu-Zn, Cu-Cr, etc.), slurries  and  sludges with a minimum
        30% metallic content, ethanolamines,  and glycols.

     •   Chemical and Engineering News is  useful  mainly for current information
        on prices and supplies of chemical commodities, which should be monitored
       Preceding  page blank          87

•   Chemical Marketing  Reporter,  is useful  mainly for determining demand
    and price trends for chemicals. As demand and price increase, the economic
    feasibility of recovering the valuable components from waste materials im-

•   The Merck Index of Chemicals  and Drugs, New Jersey:  Merck & Co., Inc.

•   Chemical Origins  and Markets,  Menlo Park, Cal.: Stanford Research Insti-
    tute, Chemical  Information  Services, 1967;  includes product  flow charts
    and tables of major organics and inorganics.

•   Stanford Research Institute, Directory of Chemical Producers—United States
    of America, Menlo Park, Cal.: SRI.

•   Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical  Technology, 2nd  ed., 6 v.,  New
    York, Interscience Publishers, 1963.

•   Considine,  Douglas M., Chemical  and Technology Process Encyclopedia,
    New York: McGraw-Hill.

•   Hackh's Chemical Dictionary, Fourth Edition,  revised and edited by Julius
    Grant. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1969.

•   The  Van Nostrand Chemist's Dictionary, D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc.
    Princeton, New Jersey, 1953.

•   The Encyclopedia of Chemistry, Third Edition, edited by Clifford A. Hampel
    and Gessner G. Hawley,  Van  Nostrand  Reinhold Co., New York,  1973.

    These  dictionaries list industrially-produced chemicals and their uses. A
    dictionary is entered according to the principal component of the waste.
    Potential uses  are selected by  engineering judgment about the sensitivity
    of the use to the waste's purity. In general, the less critical purity is to the use,
    the  greater  the possibility for using  the waste "as-is",  or with only minor
    pre treatment.

•   R. Norris Shreve's, The Chemical Process Industries, (New  York:  McGraw-
    Hill), a classic  textbook, provides flow diagrams and raw materials require-
    ments.  Those wastes which appear to match  the  properties raw  materials
    in a process represent potential substitutes.

     •  EPA's  national industry studies8"16  also provide process flow diagrams and
        descriptions of raw materials feedstocks.

     Table C-l  lists a sample of processes, their wastes, and potential uses for the wastes.
This list is by no means exhaustive;it was developed both to explore uses for wastes described
by EPA's industry studies, and to suggest possibilities to Philadelphia plant managers during
interviews. Many  more wastes and uses appear in  two categories (organics and inorganics)
than in the six others (acids, alkalis, oils and  waxes,  catalysts, polymers and resins,  and
miscellaneous);  this imbalance does not reflect the actual proportion of transfer oppor-
tunities among industries, but rather variations in the data bases available.
                        Characteristics, Industries, and Wastes

     Standard  Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) are designated by the U.S. Bureau
of the Census to standardize urban areas for purposes of consistency and comparisons. An
SMSA's boundaries are drawn to include both a core city and its natural economic suburbs
and hinterlands. The Philadelphia SMSA  (Figure C-l) encompasses nine counties: Bucks,
Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia in Pennsylvania; and Burlington, Cam-
den, and Gloucester in New Jersey; its urban  core  consists of Philadelphia and Camden.
The  SMSA measures  about  60 miles along its major east-west and north-south axes. It
abuts other industrially  important SMSAs, Trenton,  Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, and
Wilmington; moreover, Newark, Jersey City, Patterson-Clifton-Passaic lie 60 miles northeast.

     The Philadelphia  SMSA, the nation's  fourth largest manufacturing area, contains indus-
trial  plants representing  98% of all  Standard  Industrial Code (SIC) categories. Principal
industries  include electroplating, foundries, inorganic chemicals, Pharmaceuticals, paints,
petroleum refining, and machinery manufacture. In the SIC categories considered by this
study, there are 442 plants, of which most  are small (Table C-2).

     Table C-3 summarizes the types and  quantities of wastes estimated from plants in vari-
ous industry categories in the SMSA.  These data were derived from the national waste data
summarized in Tables III-l and III-2, using as the scaling factor the number of employees
in Philadelphia plants  proportionate to the number in  the industry nationally. While the
data are not highly accurate due to  uncertainties in local employment and  the inherent
variability of waste generation rates expressed on a per employee basis, it  is clear that the
largest number of plants in each industry  category (with the exception of petroleum refin-
ing) employ under 100 people. Out of a total of 442 plants listed, only 28 or 6% employ

                                                 TABLE C-la

                             WASTES GENERATED
                                                                                      POTENTIAL USES
SIC    Product Manufactured/Process

2819   PCI3

2819   Activated Carbon

2812   NSjCOjj/Trona or Solvay

2813   Acetylene/Carbide

2833   Penicillin

2819   Ca(OH)2

2821    LOPE/Hi-Praisure
2865   Styrene

2821   Polymer resins

2833   Antibiotics

2833   Penicillin

2833   Alkaloids

3291   Crucibles and grinding wheels
Waste Properties

HCI + P2°s ln aqueous scrubbing liquor


CaC03,Mg(OH)2 sludge

Ca(OH)2 sludge

NaOH waste broths

Lime and limestone solids

Oils and Waxes
Styrene, ethyl benzene tars


Filter cell mycellium

Filter cell mycellium

Wet plant material

Pickling and rustprooflng metals

Fertilizer manufacturing
Electric plating

Alkaline wet scrubbing
Filler for rubber

Alkaline wet scrubbing

Alkaline scrubbing
Acid neutralization

Alkaline scrubbing
Acid neutralization

Capacitor Insulation
Secondary plastics
Mold Binder

Mold core lubricant

Mold cores

Soil builder

Soil builder


Grey iron foundries
Source:  Arthur D. Little, Inc.

                                                 TABLE C-1b

                             WASTES GENERATED
                                        POTENTIAL USES
SIC    Product Manufactured/Process
2815   Phenol & Sulfonate
2816   ZnO/Amerlcan
2812   Na2CO3/Solvay
2818   Formic acid/Formate

2818   Glycerlne/Allyl chloride
2819   Boric Acid
       Chromic Acid
       Hydrochloric Add
       Sodium Sulflte
       petrochemical Polymers
2813   Acetylene/Sachaser


K >
KNO3 |
Sodium bicarbonate
Nitric oxide
Chromic oxide
Iron Oxide pigments
Mercuric sulflde
2819   Beryllium hydroxide

2819   Nickel sulfate
2819   P2O5

2819   PCI 3

2819   KMnO4

2819   ZnSO4
2869   Eplcnlorohydrtn
2821   Methyl methacrylate

2819   Ferrous Sulfate

2B6S   Phenol/cumene

2816   TIOj

3321   Cast Iron pipes

Source:  Arthur D. Little, Inc.
Waste Properties
Na2SO3, Na2SO4 sludge
FB2O3, FeO, MgO sludge
Na2SC<4 sludge

CaCi2,NaCl Salts
Na2SO4 sludge
Na2SO4 sludge
Na2SO4 sludge
Na2SO4 sludge
Attapulga clay and hydra ted lime
Carbon black filter cake

CaCO3 filter cake
                                        Glauber's salt,
                                        (viewed as a by-product)
                                        NaCI cake
                                        Fe3O4 and tar
                                        CaSO4 sludge

                                        Na2CO3, NaHCO3 slurry
Caustic, sodium nitrite solution

Fe(OH)3; Fe2O3 solids

Alum slurry

NI(OHj). filter acid
Ca3(PO4)2 sediment
AsCI3 residues

MnO solid

MnOj solid
CaCI2 solid
Na2SO4 filter cake





Paper manufacture
Ferrous smelting
Road salt
Paper Industry
Textile Industry
Road salt
Paper Industry
Textile Industry
Filler for rubber, paper, textiles
Lead pencils
Carbon dispersions
Wet scrubbing
Rubber filler
Textile Industry

Textile Industry
Road salt
Steel mills
Paint filler
Add neutralization
Timber mold Inhibitor
Metal recovery
Ferrous smelting
Metal recovery
Water treatment
Metal recovery
intermediate for organic
Ferromanganese production
Metal recovery
As above
Road salt
Water Treatment
PbCOs manufacture
Glass manufacture
Manufacture of Iron blue
Water Treatment
Manufacture of Fe2O3 Pigments
(dry process)
Cement block
Cinder block

                                        TABLE C-lc

                        WASTES GENERATED
Product Manufactured/Process
Ethylene Glycol
Iso and Tere-phthallc acids
Acrylic acid
Phthalic anhydride/xylene
Maleic anhydride
Aromatic amines
Surface active agents
Ethylene dichlorWe (EDC)
Perchloroethylene (Perc)
Sulfonlc Acids
Ethyl chloride
Methyl methacrylate
Dicumyl peroxide
Waste Properties
Glycols and water
Phenol, cresol, off-spec in water
Acetophenone. phenol, cumyl phenol
evaporation residue
Phthalic acid, toluic acid, benzole acid,
trimellltic acid, aldehydes, acetic acid,
Bi, Mn, Co-still bottoms
Aqueous acrylic acid and hydroquinone
Pitralic anhydrlde/maleic anhydride tar
Maleic anhydride tars
Naphthol residues
Long chain amines (solid)
C-8-C-ISfatty alkyl acids, nitrites.
Styrene and acrylonitrlle
EDC, tri- end tetra-chloroethanes;
Chlorinated toluenes, pentanes,
Perc., CCI4 chlorined hydrocarbons-
liquid still bottoms
Various solvent wastes-chlorobenzene,
toluene, methanol, methylene. dichlo-
ride, tetrachloroethane
Emulsified oils and sulfones
Mixed polyols and phosphate esters
Tetraethyl orthosillcate, iodine, alcohol,
Genusolu D
Butyl acetate and butyl alcohol
Chlorinated solvents
Benzene, nitrobenzene stripping
Ethyl chloride, chloroethenes.
trichloroethylene, etc. — liquid still
Hydroquinone; polymer heavy ends
Organic peroxides
Solvent reclamation
Wood preservative for boat or
fence post manufacture
Wood preservative
Film forming in paint manufacture
Acrylic emulsion paints
Polymeric binder for shingles
wood chips, grinding wheels,
retractory bricks, etc.
Polymeric binder
Dye intermediate
Ore Benefication
Ore Benefication
Film forming
Molding Compounds
Dry cleaning
Degreasing of metal parts
Degreasing solvents
Dry cleaning solvents
Degreasing solvents
Solvent recovery
Leather lubricant and treatment
Molding compound
Filler for wood, wallboard
Stone or concrete preservation
Solvent reclamation (done
Paint Formulation
Peint remover solvents
Paper board binder
Point industry-film formers
Source:  Arthur D. Little, Inc.

                                                        Paterson-Clif ton-Passa ic
                                                                 Jersey City


                       Philadelphia  e

                                                                     Scale (Miles)

                                                                  0   10   20   30
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

                                       TABLE C-2


                                                       Number of Plants with Employees
SIC No.       Industry                               <20     20-99        100-499   >500

                                                                           1         1
                                                                           3         8
                                                                           3         1
                                                                          15         2

                                                                           2         2
                                                                           6         1
                                                                           1         6
                                                                          11         2
                                                                           9         4

Totals                                              220     133           62        28
2831 & 2833
Storage Batteries
Iron & Steelmaking
Iron & Steel Foundries
Primary Ferroalloys
Primary Copper
Primary Non-Ferrous
Secondary Non-Ferrous
Inorganic Chemicals
Organic Intermediates & Dyes
Industrial Organics, NEC
Paints and Allied Products
Petroleum Refining
Leather Tanning
Special Machinery
Office, Computing & Accounting Machines




*The New Jersey counties (Burlington, Camden, and Gloucester) have less than 20% of the SMSA's indus-
 trial capacity, and were thus eliminated from discussion.

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, County Business Patterns, 1973; Industrial Directory of the Common-
       wealth of Pennsylvania, 1972, Harrisburg; Pa.: Department of Commerce & Industry, Common-
       wealth of Pennsylvania.

                                                 TABLE C-3

SIC No. and Industry
3691 —Storage Batteries
285-Paints and Allied

2865— Cyclic Crudes
and Intermediates

2869-Other Organics

2831 and 2833-

Estimated Total
Wastes. Phlla.
SMSA (MT/yr.)



< 570

Potentially Recyclable Wastes

Description (MT/yr.)
Spoiled batches 2,100
and waste

Still bottoms, tars, 1 ,650
filter solids

Still bottoms, tars, 70,700
filter solids

Unknown Negligible
Solvents, carbon 2,700
filter acid, tars, and
still bottoms

Recyclable-Wastes Available Per Plant

No. of



No. of




332—Iron and Steel
281—1 norganic Chemicals    109,000
3312-lron and Steel
2911 -Petroleum
3111 -Leather Tanning

355 and 357-Special
  100,600       None (wastes are
                slags, sludges, dusts.
                end sand)
                None (wastes ere
                primarily mixed
                metal sludges)
3,490,000       Pickle liquor        163,000
    2,900       Degreaser sludges         60
                (50% Cl & FI3 &
                50% polishing
   58,000       FCC catalyst, fines,    6,600
                coke fines, tank

    2,900       Trimmings and          170
    8,600       Metals, oil. solvents,    1,800
                acids, and alkalis
20- 99
20- 99


Source:  Arthur D. Little, Inc., analysis of EPA industry studies.

over 500 people. Well over 50% of the wastes, however, are estimated to come From the 28
largest plants. This is important to a materials exchange operator in analyzing the econo-
mics of his business. There is a lower limit to the quantity of waste which can be transferred
economically. In the Philadelphia area, there are only  few opportunities to transfer large
wastes, and  a materials exchange would face economic problems in dealing with large num-
bers of wastes in small volumes.

     Despite the uncertainties in the data in Table C-3,  they are the best available and pro-
vide a sufficient base for estimating the magnitude  of the market  for transfer services and
the magnitude of the impact arising from the utilization of such services.
                    Identifying and Assessing Potential Opportunities

     In order to test the potential transfer opportunities developed from publications and
general experience, a number of managers of Philadelphia-area plants were interviewed. The
first group was interviewed by telephone, as any transfer agent would do, to gather general
information in a cost-effective way. The second group was visited personally, as a materials
exchange operator would  do,  to describe the transfer concept  in detail, gather specific
information, establish rapport,  and explore various  transfer possibilities. Although most
interviews  did not lead to identification of immediate possibilities, the results of  all are
summarized below for the information of readers and as examples of data and assessments
needed by transfer agents. These interviews provided data needed for this study to identify
those wastes and industries best suited for transfer; interviews also provided insights needed
to develop  operational techniques for  information clearinghouses and, especially, mate-
rials exchanges.

     Telephone Survey of 35  Plants.  Managers in representative industries  were asked
about  (1)  the accuracy  of waste information for  their plants as suggested by published
literature, (2)  their  assessment  of transfer possibilities listed in  Table  C-l, and (3) their
reactions to the concept of using transfer agents.

     Names and addresses were taken from the 1972 Industrial Directory of the Common-
wealth of Pennsylvania, (20th ed.), but proved in some cases to be incorrect. In a few cases,
the  products  manufactured  differed  from those  typical of the SIC code assigned  to the
plant. In many cases, even though the product was identified correctly, their wastes differed
drastically from those described in the literature.  Thus,-published data was only of limited
value beyond getting started.

     Results are summarized in  Table  C-4.  The column  "Wastes for Listing" shows the
type of data which would be provided to an information clearinghouse. Experience, if any,

with the use of secondary materials is recorded under "Wastes Used or Tried". The columns
"Wastes Sold" lists, for the most part, materials which are not established by-products and
which were at one time considered as trash wastes for disposal, but which are now routinely
sold as scrap wastes. The  column "Wastes Recycled" documents reuse of processing resid-
uals within the plant.  The column  "Needed Materials" shows  raw materials already used
by  the  plant,  and  for which  the column manager would consider a secondary materials
source if available.

     The information obtained through direct contacts with various plant managers differs
substantially from that derived  from the nationally-averaged data. The petroleum refining
industry, for example, generates a  spent  caustic which was not included in the national
data. This waste is occasionally transferred to paper mills. If a formal transfer service were
available, higher  percentages of this scrap  waste  would very probably find more  steady

     The paint industry was assessed to be both a generator and a potential user of waste
solvents. Many paint companies contacted in the Philadelphia area, however, produce only
water-based paints.

     Field Visits to 21 Plants.  One purpose of these visits was to play, in part, the  role of
waste transfer agents,  and to  obtain  first-hand information that would help to crystalize
the scope of a possible waste clearinghouse.  Results are summarized in Table C-S. As before
the column "Wastes Used or Tried" lists those materials which have already been investi-
gated by the  manufacturer for inclusion into production; these  materials may be used
presently, or have been tried and discarded because of reasons noted in the table. "Wastes
Sold" shows  the by-products or scrap wastes presently sold to reprocessors,  reclaimers,
or other industries.

     As might be expected, more detailed information was obtained in the plant visits than
in the telephone interviews. The transfer concept was new to most plant managers, and
many indicated  that they had not really appreciated the value of  the activity until dis-
cussed with them face-to-face. Although most managers were enthusiastic about the waste
transfer concept, they reported many more offers to provide or sell wastes than requests
to receive or buy them; this pattern is consistant with that seen by clearinghouses already
in operation.  But it should also be noted that the list of sold, recycled, and wanted mate-
rials is large; this suggests that more waste materials would be used if acceptable sources were
known to manufacturers.  It appears that many managers are  alert to recycling opportunities
and willing to try secondary materials, but are  currently limited by lack of information.

                              TABLE C-4
      No.         Product or Activity

 1       28    Specially chemicals

 2     2865    Phenol
      WMMI for Lifting
      Wastes Used or Tried


 3    3362     Brats and bronze

 4    3312     Iron and iteel. secondary

 5    2822     Urethanes

 6    2865     Aniline and nitrobenzene

 7    2818     Lithium chemicals

 8    3312     Iron and neel

 9    2822     Urethanei
1.  Dirty tend (12T/mo.I. goes to landfill


1  Undefined mud cake Irom filters
   12 drum/wk)

1  Electric furnace flue dusts, mixed iron
   oxides (60 tons/day), it is a fine powder
   which is now stored

                                                 1. Reclaimed rubber
                                                 2  Foamed materials
                                                 3. Fillers
1.  100% metal scrap utilized
10.   2843     Quaternary chlorides
11    2843     Surfactants
12    2911     Petroleum refining
13    2816     Zinc Oxide
1  Spent granular carbon (18.000 Ib/yrl. to landMI
2  Xylene. caustic. H2SO4. NaCI. fatty acids and
   Blconots strCBift
3  Methanol. free amines. TEA. DEA. fatty acids
   0nd 0lconolt itiwfi         ,
4. C, |-C,4 fatty aod residues (60 Ib/day)

1  Spam caustic. 8-10% NaOH and NajS
2  White water. 2tt oil emulsion (4000 bbl/mo.)
3  Spent day. Fuller's earth (15.000 yd3/yr).
   contains 30-4OK oil
4  Catalyst fines 13 tons/day): not rare metals.
   goes to landfill

                                                                                                      1  Various sources of zinc
14    2911     Solvents and petrochemicals
                                                     1   Sp»nt caustic
                                                     2  Spent acids
                                                     3  Oily sludges. dirt and oil accumulated in storage
                                                     4  Biological sludges from water treatment

       TABLE C-4 (Continued)
       Wastes Sold
 1  Acetone
 2  Or-Methylstyrene
      Wastes Recycled


1.  High molecular weight
   organic* mixtures used
   at fuel
                                       1. Metal scrap
                                                                            Material! Needed
1.  Cumene. pure
                                                                     1.  BOFdutt
                                                                     2.  Crushed inorganics
                                                                     3.  Foamed materials

Direct combination reactions. No wastei or bv-oroduci.

Considen reuse whenever possible.

Recycles whenever epproprate.

Recycling an economic necessity.

Compounded products produce no waste. Can use
fillers for urethane.

Proprietary information not conveyed.

Recycles whenever appropriate No appreciable
waste generated.
 1   Unspecified by-products
                                        1.  Xylene
                                        2.  Fractionated raw materials
                                                                                                       Pure materials. e.g.. isocyanates purchased from maior
                                                                                                       producers. On rare occasions, company has a spoiled
                                                                                                       batch of urethane.
                                                                                                                     ver appropriate. Do use some scrap
                                                               Recycles whi
                                                               materBls but information Is proprietary.
                                                                                                       Has considered methanol recycling and use as fuel
I  Spent caustic on oeouion
   to paper mill
                                                               White water is a stable emulsion and very difficult
                                                               to break. Anxious to be rid of generated wastes for
                                                               which they pay cost of disposal
1  Zinc containing wastes to primary
   smelters when abundant

1. Oily sludges sold to reclaimers
2. Spent caustic extracted to remove
   cresylic acids
                              1.  Sources of zinc
1  Spent acids reprocessed
   outside plant and returned
                                                               Recycles whenever appropriate.
                                  Recycles whenever appropriate. Oil-spec gasoline
                                  C0n tas tv^tCTinGo.

        TABLE C-4 (Continued)
      No.           Product or Activity

15    2834    PharrrBceuticali
16    3312    Iron and ttml (fully integrated
    WacMi for Lifting

1  Mold, now dumped
2. Carbon, named to remove solvent
3  Solvent!
4. Mi xed organic*, hauled away

1. NH j liquor, very dilute (GO gal/mm.)
2. Spam pickling liquor  (9-10% FeClj. 1% HCI).
   now neutralized with lima and dumped
3. BOF dun. von oxide with zinc content
   (50 tons/day), now dumped
4. KISH. magnetic iron oxide containing carbon.
   flaky and greasy: now dumped
5. Oil ikimmngi. hydraulic lluidi (6000 gsl/mo.l:
   burned at fuel
6. Sludgn from water treatment, high in FeO and oil
7. Crushed brick (10T/mo.l. to landfill
8. Grease containing dirt (2 drums/mo.); to landfill
                                                       WattaiUHd or Triad
                                                                                                                      SOI Wilt!
                                                                                                          1.  Limestone for flux, not usable
17    3321    Iron and steel foundry

18    3297    Cement

19    2851    Paint
1  Slag (16-20 tons/week)
2. Residue from dean cutting of steal plate -
   magnetized (50T/yr)
                                                       1.  Cleaning solvents — mostly water
20.   3271    Cinder block

21.   2621    Bag paper and industrial tissue

22    3272    Concrete limels

23.   2621    Paper
                                                                                                             Foundry slag (whe
                                                    1. Double lime Kraft
                                                    2  Cut stock waste
24    2851    Latex paints

25    2874    Feruli/er

26    2851    Emulsion paims

27    2851    Paint

28.   2621    Paper
   Dirty water
                                                    1   Incinerator sludge from Chicago -
                                                       used in nitrogen fertilizer manufacture
                                                    2.  72% waste sulf uric acid
1  Acrylic and vinyl emulsions

I. Dirty water with pigments, latexes, and
2  Xylene and mineral spirits (8O-100 drums/yrl

1. Clanfier sludge (2-3T/day). 15% solids (liber and
   clay filler), varying color

                  TABLE C-4 (Continued)
    Wanes Sold
                                          Wastes Recycled
                                      1.  Methylene chloride
                                      2.  Isobutanol
                                1  Solvent!
                                2.  Fuel>
 Mixed organics are variable composition. Have considered
 reclaiming it. Some solvent burned as fuel
1  Tar and low sulfur coke by-product
   (250.000 gal/mo.) - sold to a refiner
   for use as a roofing and road sealer
1  Tar. low in sulfur (250 K gal/mo.).
   sold to refiner
2  BTX mixture, benzene, toluene.
   xytene. sold to distiller
1.  Lime dust collected in
                                                                      1.  Lime
Mill is reluctant to use scrap materals Small amounts of
impurities have large effects on iron.
                                      1.  Industrial solvents (mineral
                                          spirits and alcohol) to a
                               1  Extruders and tillers
                               2. Latex
                               3. Solvents
                               4. Pigments
                               5  Linseed oil
No use found for the waste in 100 years, too expensive to n
the phosphate for fertilizer.
                                                                                                        Use a hydrapulper (no chemicals) in manufacture
                                       1.  Ctarlfier sludge - used in
                                          bleaching operation for
                                          Kraft paper
                                       2.  Bark - burned m boiler
                                                                 Consider use of scrap materials too risky.
                                                                      1.  Pigments
                                                                      2  Alkyd emulsions
                                                                                                       No interest in scrap materials; concerned about color - must
                                                                                                       be pure white.

                                                                                                       Pays $20/drum to have solvents hauled away.

                               TABLE C-6
     No.          Product or Activity

1    2879    Agricultural chemical*
2    3321     Metal rolling
3    2834    Pharmaceuticals
   Waitet for Lifting

1  15-20% HCI. in limited quantity, being
   investigated lor pickling
2. 90% acetone with some water, traces ol
   CHjO and HCI. difficult because ol CH,O.
   solvent reclaimers will not accept it.
   burned off
3. Treatment plant sludge containing small %
   of Cr. Zn. Ni, etc, es hydroxide precipitate.
   burned or landfill, exploring recovery

1  Spent ptcklmg liquor. 10% HCI with 3% iron
   chloride (6000 gal/wk)
2. Caustic rinses, Irom cleaning operations
3. Water soluble oils, emulsif table (55 gal/wkl
4  Electroplating waste, solid cyanide crystals
   plus sails. NejCOj 11500 Ib/day)

1  Spent granular carbon, wet with water and
   solvent (500 Ib/wkl. has been used to
   decolorize solutions
2  Mold, wet (tons/day).decomposes rapidly,
   being looked at lor feed, goes to landfill
3. DEO waste containing HCI, dibenzybmine,
   methanol 11000gal/wk). presently neutralized
   with caustic and hauled away
4. Spent yeast, wet; goes to landfill 4 times/yr
   Mattel Used or Tried

1  Ethylene didiloride, reprocessed.
   presented impurity problem
2  Heavy acids
4    3069     Rubber
                                                                                                           1.  Reclaimed rubber
5    2911     Petroleum refining
1  White water (oil. caustic, water)
2  API sludge, trucked out to land disposal
1 Spent H,S04
4  Wash waters cqnuming caustic, sulfidei. phenols.
   solvents, oils, etc.
6.   3079    Cellophane
                                                       1.  Cellophane, oil-spec or waste, 8000 Blu/lb
                                                          (en 1500 Ib/day)
                                                                                                           1.  Fuel oils
7       28     Diversilied chemicals, metals,
               and consumer products
 1  Greases from overruns, may be mixed types
8    2821     Monomers
                                                       1  None

                         TABLE 06 (Continued)
   Wattes Sold
                                                  WsMttBs Rscyclofl

                                              1.  Xylene. 90% recovered
                                HCI. H,SO4, HNOj
                                concentrated and pure (no
                                trace organiol

                              Expect to be reprocessing acids in luture and reusing plant
                              water. Raw materials are sensitive to impurities since l*.ey
                              will affect chemical reactions.
1  30% ferrous chloride, reclaimed from
   pickling liquor, cannot sell all
2  Spent oils 5% (30 K gal/yr). given or
   sold to reclaimer
1. HCI. reclaimed from
   pickling liquor
I. Caustic, free of iron finei
2. Oils, lubricants, greases
3. NaCN
4. H,S04
Waste oils have no fuel value at null. Material! not sensitive
to impurities but must be non-tome and not reactive wnh
1. Mon-fecoveraUe solvents (2000 gal/yr)
1. Solvents: some burned
2. Methylene chloride
                                                                            1. Pure solvents
                              Materials must be vary pure to meet FDA requirements
                              Everything is analyzed. However, traces of unknowns .nay
                              not be found, which would present a potential hazard.
1. Carbon black — occasional contaminated
 1.  Carbon black, collected
    from dust collectors
 1. Carbon black
 2. Fuels
                                                                             1. Concentrated H,SO4
                                                                             2. Caustic
Material requirements limited. Energy requirement! to
generate steam are high. Fuel value material! would be

Oils, greases, hydrocarbons of reasonably known com-
positions from external or in-refmery sources can be re-
worked if necessary, and If available in large enough
quantity to Mend into refinery feedstocks.
1. NejSO4. recovered by vacuum
1. Spent cutting oil! from machine operations
2. Spent HCI
3. Metal scrap
 1. HjSO4                    1.  Fuels lunsulfured)
 2. Caustic                    2.  Caustic (21-50%)
 3  Glycerol/glycol plastiazers  3.  H,SO4 (>21%»
 4. Solvents
 5. Carbon sorbants
 1. Cutting oils
 2. Amalgam
                                                1. Solvents
 1.  Fresh cutting oils
                                                                             1.  Caustic
Detailed process information is proprietary Little or no
waste viscose generated. Emphasis is on reclaiming anri re-
cycling most materals in plant. HjS is produced and » passed
through the slack. Raw materals need to be pure unce im-
purities will show up in cellophane. Do burn waste oils.

Most operations in Philadelphia area are limited to machinery
and fabrication operations. Chemical operation! are "dean"
or produce only very limned quantities of wane.

Aqueoui waste streams are inconsistent. May contain a
variety of acrylic acids and monomer!, salts, solvent, by-
product, catalyst and lacrymator Total concentration » lest
than 5%. which makes recovery end separation tmrva'iical.
No requirements for waste monomer or material-.

        TABLE C-S(Continuad)
      No.         Iroouct Of Activity

 9    2843     Speoally chemcals
   Wastes for Listing

1. Dirty wet oild & obi/day). variable
   cornpoiition. hauled away
2. Water treatment sludge. 15% T5.
   (5000 gal/mo.1: hauled away
3. Sullonated watte oils with iron I inet
   Wastes Used or TrM

1  Re-refined oili
2. Reclaimed mineral oili
10    2843     Processing oils
                                                      1.  Lime/CaSO4 sludge. 30% water
                                                         (15-20 tont/mo ). to landfill
11.   3674     Electronic cermatf
                                                      1.  Mixed tolvems (50-100 gal/mo.)
12.   3312     Iron and Heel
                                                      1.  Electric lurnece dint. conteimFe.Zn.
                                                         trace dementi; being imenigaied ai a
                                                         sari additive
                                                      2.  BOF dint, a fine von oxide containing
                                                         CaO. MgO. ZnO. AI. P. S.Si (SO torn/day).
                                                         Qiuvot DA fBUMo btwsucB o* Zti content
                                                         which affecti Mast furnace refractorin
                                                   1.  80-00% C from rubber plant flue
                                                      dun; palletized for coke, contained
                                                      too much wlfur
                                                   2.  Limestone. 80-90% CaCOj.MgCO,.
                                                      too fine for ease of ute
                                                   3.  Chlorinated hydrocarbons, burned ei
                                                      fuel and the scrubbed HCI n used lor
13    3471     Electroplating and anodizing
14    3479     Lacquers
1  15% H2S<>4 anoduing bath with aluminum
2. Soap cleaners with oils, waxes and polishing
3. NaOH etcheH>H12. with sodium gluoonate
4. Contaminated aluminum hydroxide precipitates

1. Polymeric sludge
15    3339     Copper smelting
                                                                                                         1.  Copper bearing scrap is primary raw
16.   2851     Paints
                                                                                                         1.  Of f-spec latex
                                                                                                         2.  Surplus cans
17.   2843     Soaps and surface treatment
1  Spent lye
2  Dilute sutluric add
1. Fats and tallows — purchned from
   a broker
2. Various surplus chemicals

             TABLE C-6 (Continued)
   Winn Sold

1  Wane oils (15.000 gal/yrl. to
   oil reclaimer
                                         WMtn Recycled
                                1. 91* H,SO4 for water
                                2  Mineral oili and other
                                   type* of Oils
                                  Would have little to offer an exchange, but could UK oil and
                                  «•» materBls if not contaminated or toxic.
1. Collected precioui metal tcrap
   (100 Ib/mo.l. (Judge, floor tcraping.
   etc.. to refiner

1. HCI pickling liquor, told to broker
2. Blest furnace dag. used tor paving
   aggregate or concrete blocks
                                      1. Precious metal pastes
1. Iron and iteel scrap
2. Blast furnace slag reined
   as flux
                                                                      1. 98%H3SO«
                                                                      2. Oils, waxes, fats. etc.
                                                                      3. Solvents
                                                                  Raw materals need not be pure and in some cases can be
                                                                  mxtures. Oils and fats can be water nonsoluble as long as they
                                                                  can be converted to emutsifiable forms.

                                                                  Materials extremely sensitive to impurities. Cannot tol< rate
                                                                  impurities since they mil affect electrical characterist a.
1. Sources of iron
2. Carbon
3. Lime
4. Fuels
5. Chlorinated hydro
   to generate HCI
& HCI for pickling
1. Chrome plating tank residue-
   incidental, to a competitor
2. Oil Tank Bottoms - to reclaimer
                                                                      1.  Nickel sulfonate
                                      1.  Solvent blend (mostly
                                         MEK) with lacquers and
                                         enamels - 1 drum/day -
                                         to reclaimer
 1  Blast furnace slag - marketed for
   sand blasting
1.  Fine slag from Mack copper
   refiner and filter bag dust is
   recycled to the blast furnace
                                                                      1.  Fatty acids
                                                                      2.  40% caustic
                                                                      3.  Mineral oils
                                                                      4.  Paraffin waxes
                                                                      5.  IPA
                                                                      &  Glycols
                                                                      7.  Ethanolamnes
                                                                  Small company that deals in of f-ipec and slightly contaminated
                                                                  chemicals as a sideline.

                                                                  Sells to the textile industry, which might me if a Imah.ng agent
                                                                  affected fiber properties adversely.

    TABLE C-6 (ContlnuMl)
      No.          Product or Activity                      Wastes tor Listing                                  Wastes Ihed or Tried

18.     28     Carbon Mack dispersions, surfactants       1.  Dilute ammonn                                  1.  Surplus nocfc for dealers
               and polymers (sodium polyaorylaie)        2.  20% methanol

19.   2295     Rubber and plastic coated doth           1.  Resin bottoms (coating immures                   1.  Reclaimed rubber
                                                         left m cans)
                                                      2.  Scrap - burned In boiler before
                                                         converting to oil

20    2843     Fabric finishing agents                    1.  Surfacunt blends which accidentally                1.  Surplus stock for dealers
                                                         freeze on shipmrm
                                                      2.  Oft-spee batches

21    2834     Pharmaceuticals                                    --                                                —

              TABLE C-5 (Continued)
    Wastes Sold                                  WulM Recycsed          Ms:teriali> Needed                       Coiiiiiwiili
                                                                     1   Peroxide catalym               Continuity of fupply » very important. Surptui or waste
                                                                     2.  Caustic for cleaning tanki        must be available in the quantity needed for 12 months

                                                                                —                   Would not risk the use of scrap chameals. which might
                                                                                                      ruin • customer's cloth.
1  Surplus stock - to broken
                                             1.  Solvents              1. Sodium hypochlorite            Cannot ever accept solvent wastes for cycling through
                                                                     2. Sodium hydroxide              their recovery facility, because of strict FDA requirements
                                                                       Both lor voter treatment

                                   APPENDIX D


     This Appendix presents details of the economic analysis of transferring scrap wastes.
The first section discusses the basic analysis of transfer between generator and user directly,
without the assistance  of a  transfer agent. The second section applies this basic analysis
to identify  the business opportunities and limits of a materials exchange, which derives its
income from the transfers it arranges as middleman between generator and user.


                    Costs of the Transfer and No-Transfer Options

     The economic effect of a transfer can be determined by comparing the costs incurred
by generator and user with those which would be incurred if no transfer takes place. Sup-
pose that generator's W pounds  of scrap waste would be acceptable to user in place of R
pounds of raw material  purchased elsewhere. Under the first or no-transfer option, generator
arranges for disposal of its waste at a cost of Qj cents per pound, while user independently
purchases its raw material from a supplier at  a cost of CRM cents per pound; the total cost
of this no-transfer option is thus:

                               C^WCo + RCRMW)                                (1)

     Under the second  option, if the transfer can be made, the costs are quite different.
Generator is no  longer liable for disposal costs and user need not buy raw material. How-
ever, two other costs become necessary:

     •  Transportation costs, to move  the  waste from  generator's  plant to user's
        plant; if these  plants are M miles apart and the unit transport cost is Or cents
        per Ib-mile, transport cost is WCTM ($).

     •  Transfer costs  including administrative costs for arranging the transfer, handl-
        ing costs (if any), and costs of processing the waste to meet user's require-
        ments. Transfer cost may be zero, if no handling (other than direct transport
        between plants) or processing are required. The magnitude of the administra-
        tive costs attributable to the transfer depend on the nature of the waste mate-
        rial, how the transfer is arranged, and the total number of transfers over which
        these costs can be spread. The net transfer cost, CA, is expressed in cents per
        pound of waste transferred.
        Preceding  page  blank

                                           TABLE D-1










Net economic benefit or gain from a transfer

Net benefit or gain per unit of scrap waste

Cost of no-transfer option, when generator pays to dis-
pose of the scrap waste and potential user pays to buy
raw material from other source

Cost of transfer option, when generator need not pay
disposal cost and user need not buy raw material

Net cost of administering the transfer, including such
costs as communications, advertising, managerial time,
handling charges, and processing the waste to meet
requirements of the user.

Cost of disposal of the waste

Cost of the raw material  for which the scrap waste
might substitute

Cost of the scrap waste as raw material  for the user's

Cost of transporting the scrap waste from generator
to user

Fraction of the disposal cost paid by generator if
the scrap waste is transferred

Fraction of the raw material cost paid by user if he
accepts the scrap waste as a substitute

Distance between generator and user

Number of transfers completed annually

Scrap waste available for transfer

Net annual income of materials exchange from all

Unit income or revenue earned by arranging a transfer

Income earned by arranging a transfer
                                                                          Unit of Measure
                                                                  cents (i)

                                                                  cents per pound

                                                                  cents W
cents (4)

cents per pound (4/lb)

cents per pound W\b)

cents per pound W/lb)

cents per pound

cents per pound per mile (4/lb/mi)

cents per pound (rf/lb)

cents per pound (4/lb)

miles (mi.)




cents per pound

dollars ($)

The total cost of the transfer option is thus:

                               C2 = WCTM + WCA W)                               (2)

                            The Economic Effect Model

     The transfer  will produce a net economic benefit if costs associated with the trans-
fer option, Equation (2), are  less than costs associated with the no-transfer option, Equa-
tion  (1). Conversely, the transfer will lead to a net economic loss if Cj is smaller than €3.

     The net benefit (B) of a transfer can be expressed mathematically as


                         B = WCD + RCRM - WCTM - WCA. (i)                         (3)

     The benefit per unit of scrap waste is

                      b = B/W = Cn + —  CRM  - CTM - C.  W\b)
                                    W   "      '      M
The  term (R/W CRM ) is  the unit value of the waste as raw material,  taking into account the
fact  that the waste may have more or less (almost always less) of the  important raw material
than that substance purchased from  a regular supplier. The ratio of  amounts (R/W)  is given
here  simply to demonstrate that scrap wastes normally will  not replace raw materials on a
pound-for-pound basis, and that the amount of waste which is "equivalent" to one pound
of raw material influences the economics of the transfer. Having made  that point, let us
replace the term (R/W CRM ),  the value of waste as raw material, with the single term CR .

     The benefit equation then becomes

                             b = CD + CR - CTM -CA.                             (4)

This  simply shows that if the transfer is to show a net benefit, the generator's cost of waste
disposal (Co) plus the user's cost of an equivalent amount of raw material (CR) must exceed
the sum  of the costs of  transportation (OfM) and  of  administering the  transfer

                               Implications of the Model

     It is difficult to evaluate the economics of specific transfer opportunities without first
knowing the transfer cost (CA ); this can be known only by analyzing the economics of the
materials exchange itself, including the number of transfers which it arranges during the
year, as shown below.  But the result of that analysis shows that a reasonable transfer cost
is one-half cent per pound. The cost of transporting  the  waste is about 0.005 cents per
pound-mile.* Therefore, the net benefit is (from Equation (4))

                              b = CD + CR - (0.005) M - 0.5.

     Whether a specific transfer shows a net positive benefit depends on the waste disposal
cost foregone (Co), the cost of raw materials replaced (CR when expressed in  terms of
waste quantity), and the distance the waste must be shipped. If generator and user are  SO
miles apart.then

                             b = CD + CR - (0.005) (50) - 0.50
                               = CD + CR - 0.25 - 0.50
                               = CD + CR - 0.75

and the benefit will be positive if CD + CR is more than 0.75 cents per pound.

     Alternatively, if CD  + CR is 2 cents per pound, then

                                 b = 2.0 - 0.005M - 0.50
                                   = 1.5-0.005M

and  the benefit will be positive if the distance (M) between plants is less than 300 miles.

     The foregoing analysis deals only with the overall economics  of the transfer, i.e., how
much the net cost of the transfer exceeds  or is less than the comparable costs of the no-
transfer option. The analysis  says nothing  about how this benefit is allocated among the
three parties-at-interest (namely, the generator, the user, and the materials exchange). This
allocation is important since each of these economic  actors is more concerned  about its
own gain or loss than about the overall benefit.

     The economics of the materials exchange, discussed  below,  depend on a number of
factors, mainly how many  transfers it can  arrange in a year. However, generator and user
This is an average cost, based on tank-truck loads. Specific cost quotes can be obtained from local con-
 tract haulers.

react to individual transfer opportunities, and this economic analysis of a single transfer can
help to identify when a transfer will appear economically attractive to both.

     By participating in a transfer of scrap waste, both generator and user incur risks which
would  not exist if each  acted  separately to dispose of waste and purchase raw materials.
Generator incurs the risk that his waste material, when used by someone else as a raw mate-
rial, will cause (or be thought to have caused) a problem for  which generator may be held
liable. User runs the  risk  that the waste will contain some impurity which, when used as raw
material, will degrade his product or damage his process equipment. Neither generator nor
user will accept these risks unless he sees some offsetting advantage, most likely to be eco-
nomic gain.

     The comparative cost of the transfer and no-transfer options to each transfer partner
can be expressed in the terms of the overall economic analysis. The cost of the no-transfer
option to the generator  is CD , his cost of disposal of the waste. Suppose, if the waste is
transferred, that he pays  only a fraction of his normal disposal cost (frj), a fraction deter-
mined  by negotiation between  generator and  user. The difference  in costs (Co  - foCp)
becomes the profit which compensates him for the risk he  incurs in transferring his waste.
Similarly,  the user might only  be required to  pay for the scrap waste only a negotiated
fraction of its value (f^)  as raw material equivalent. His saving over the no-transfer option
is (CR -fRCR ), compensating him for the risk which he incurs.
     The benefits of the transfer depend not only on unit savings per pound, but also on the
total amount of the material. If T tons are transferred, the savings become:

                  For the generator:       ^nP'^n)^  (      j      ($)                (5)

                  For the user:           CR (1 - fR}T  (^292.)      ($)                (6)
                                        "V    n i    \  100  /

     These expressions can be  plotted for easy reference (Figure D-l). Here the value of the
scrap waste to the generator (CD) or the user (CR ) is plotted against the amount (T) to be
transferred. The lines sloping across the logarithmic graph show the dollar savings accruing
to generator or user.

     For example, suppose a chemical maker can use 100 tons of scrap waste  to replace a
raw material whose comparable cost is Si per pound. Assuming that he pays only 70 percent
of the raw material value (fa = 0.70), user's profit (or saving) would be:

                       (5)    (1-0.70)  (lOO)f-^0-)  =  $3000.
                                           \ 100

                                                        Wntn with vilun lea than
                                                        ibout 1 (Vlb probably not
                                                        tramhrrable, dua to coiti of
                                   Amount (Tom)

Likewise, suppose thut a generator can transfer 100 tons of his waste instead of paying for
its disposal at 54 per pound. Assuming that generator must pay (for costs of transportation
and transfer) only 70 percent of his normal disposal cost (fo = 0.70), his profit (or saving)
would be:

                        (5)   (1-0.70)  (100) (.H?0^  = $3.000.
                                           \ too /

     This value  can be located in Figure D-l by finding the intersection of the horizontal
line associated with a value of 54 per pound with the vertical line associated with an amount
of 100 tons. These lines intersect at the $3,000 profit sloped line.
     Note that Figure D-l applies only for the assumed 0.70 fractions of disposal cost
paid by generator and raw material cost (fR ) paid by user. For other values of the fractions,
the savings lines would shift vertically. For example, if FD = 0.6, the lines would shift down
by the fraction  LrJLZ =M  , and the profit would be $4,000; if fD = 0.85, profit would be
$ 1 ,500. For the general  case, however, use Equation  5 for generator and Equation 6 for
user to evaluate savings in a potential transfer.

     No matter how the profit picture looks to the generator or user, the transfer will not
take place if the amounts they pay do not cover  transportation  and transfer costs. The
amount available to cover these costs is foCD + fRCR ; in our example, where fo = fR =0.70,
it is  0.7 (Co + CR ). The transfer costs were estimated at 0.5 cents per pound and transport
costs for a 50-mile  transfer were 0.25 cents per pound. Therefore, payments by generator
and user will cover transportation and transfer costs almost exactly if

                                              =1 W/lb>
Figure D-l shows a horizontal line at this value of 1 4 per pound as a reminder that transfer
of material with sufficiently low value  is not economic overall. The position of this line is
somewhat arbitrary, since it  depends on the sum of both disposal and raw material costs,
whereas the graph's vertical axis shows the unit value of scrap waste either to generator or
to user but not to both. The line could  be drawn at a value of 0.54 per pound if the disposal
cost (Co ) and the value as raw material (CR ) were equal. The purpose of this line is merely
to indicate the approximate value below which transfer is not likely to be feasible, due to
transportation cost.
                               Parameters of the Model

     This economic model shows that the gains or benefits which may result from a poten-
tial transfer will be influenced by several factors. One is the distance between generator and
user;  the greater the distance, the  less likely the overall economic benefits.  Another is

the transfer costs. Administrative costs, whether incurred by generator and user themselves
or by a materials exchange, must be  covered. Processing costs can be significant; if, for
example some impurity must be removed before the waste is acceptable by the user, costs
may run as high as 3 cents per pound, or even more, as is apparent from industry studies.8'18
Processing costs would be incurred by whomever removes the impurities, whether generator,
user, or a scrap reclaimer, but would be paid ultimately by the trading partners benefiting
from the transfer, namely generator and user.

    The model also shows how these  several costs influence the overall economic benefit.
Equation 4 makes apparent that an increase in the transfer cost, for example of 3 cents
per pound for processing the scrap waste, would require, if a constant economic gain is to be
maintained, that the value of the waste  (Co + CR ) be greater by an equal amount.

    Finally,  the  fraction of value paid by the user and the fraction of disposal cost paid
by  the generator determine how much  is available to cover transportation  and  transfer
costs.  The higher  these fractions, the more attractive the overall economic benefit, because
more  money  is made available  to pay for these transport and administrative costs. Note,
however, that increase in these fractions also reduce the economic incentives  to generator
and user to seek help from a third-party, the materials exchange,  and increase their incen-
tives to arrange the transfer directly and thus to avoid paying the transfer agent's charges.
                        Income Earned by Completing Transfers

     As the middleman between generator and user, the materials exchange must earn its
income from the transfers  which it arranges. The analysis above showed that the net eco-
nomic benefit per unit of waste transferred, is:

                            b = C0 + CR - CTM - CA  W/lb)                           (4)

However,  generator will pay only a  fraction of his  normal disposal cost foregone (fo) in
compensation for his risks  in the transfer, such as liablity. Similarly,  user will pay only a
fraction of his normal raw material cost foregone (f&) to compensate  for the risks he runs,
such as unexpected impurities in the scrap waste. Therefore, generator retains (1 -fo)Co
and user retains (1 - fp ) CR . If fp = fa = f, the  first two terms on the right side of Equation
4 can thus become f(Co + CR ). As the transfer agent,  the materials exchange bears the
transfer cost (CA )•  Moving CA  to  the left-hand side of Equation 4, the sum of CA  and  b

becomes the income y received by the exchange per unit of waste transferred. Making these
two adjustments, Equation (4) becomes:

                         y = b + CA = f(CD + CR) - CTM W/lb)                          (7)

Using f = 0.7, CT = 0.005 cents per pound-mile, and M = 50 miles, and changing the units
of y from cents per pound to dollars per ton by the factor (2000/100), yields:


    The income earned from a  transfer, Y, is obtained by multiplying Equation (8) by the
tonnage (T) of waste transferred:
                      = [0.7(CD+CR)  -0.25]   -22°°    ($/ton)
                       Y = yT = [0.7 (CD + CR) - 0.25J (20)T ($)
     The net annual income to the exchange, X, is simply the sum of the Y's from all of the
transfers arranged during the year.

                                   *  = £  Y; <*>                                (9)
where N is the number of transfers during the year. This value of X must equal or exceed
the administrative costs of the exchange, which is estimated (Chapter VIII) to fall within the
range $50,000-$ 150,000; assume for illustration $90,000. Therefore:
                          Transfers Required to Break Even

     Now, Y will vary from transfer to transfer, because both of the major determining
components (value and tonnage) will vary. However, if all of the transfers occurring in one
year had the same average value (Co  + CR ) and the same average tonnage T, the above
equations could be combined to give:

                          90.000 = NY

and we could solve for N, the number of transfers necessary to cover the exchange's admin-
istrative costs. This value, denoted NO , is:

                           .,    	90.000
                           N0 " r..,~  . „  >  ---._                           "D
The break-even value NO depends on value of the material and tonnage transferred, and
decreases as either or both of these factors increases.

     Equation 11 can be plotted on a graph (Figure D-2). Data about the values and ton-
nages of materials which might be transferred will locate points on the lines denoting the
numbers of transfers required annually for the exchange to break even. For example, con-
sider a scrap  waste material with value of 0.9^/lb. and being offered in lots of 1,000 tons.
First, enter Figure D-2 on its horizontal axis at value 0.9^/lb.; then, follow the 0.9^/lb. line
up  to  its intersection with  the curve for  1,000  tons; finally, follow the horizontal line
through that intersection left to the vertical axis at 12, which shows that  12 such transfers
would be required annually to cover the exchange's administrative costs.

     The graph shows that the number of transfers required increases sharply with decreas-
ing tonnage and  decreasing value. In fact, if the  waste  values are less than 0.36^/lb, the
exchange cannot  break even no matter how many transfers are arranged, because of the cost
of transportation when generator and user are assumed to be SO miles apart.
                                Potential Opportunities

     A  materials exchange  operator, by using this graph, can assess whether a materials
exchange would be viable by plotting points representing potential waste transfers or actual
wastes offered for transfer.  For example, Figure D-3 shows waste offers published recently
by the  United  Kingdom and the St. Louis clearinghouses. Waste tonnages were published,
but we computed their values by factoring current prices for virgin materials down to the
published concentrations. No penalty  for possible impurities  was exacted. Disposal costs
(which  would accrue in the absence  of transfer) were assumed to be zero. These assump-
tions  tend  to offset each other, but  the real net effect on value could not be computed
with the information available.

     Transfer of the  offered caustic soda alone (at 42,000 tons and a factored value of
1.85^/lb)  would  more  than finance  the  exchange's operations for a year; so would  the

       Transport costs
       •xcnd incomt it
       WHII vilun of
       test thdn Oi36tf/lb.
          Tranvort com
          wend Income M
          watte ValuM of
          ten than
                                  • lnoom«-0.70(CD + CRl
                                      CM-0.006cm ~mi.
                                   Exchange Operating
• UniM4 Kingdom Offw
                                                NMiyl-Ethyl 1
                                               Ketont-Tphnn. ' N
                                                         • MydrefloorleOifomleArid
                                                                   iMoopyl AtaOhol
                                                                         * Slyram
                                            • WMeOil      • MMtivmt-Aomora

                          * THanliim Dtexlde Gntgw
                                               • CauAlcSoda

                                          Unit Value (CD + CR) W/lb.l

magnesium  sludge (at 400 tons and 30^/lb).  Other attractive offerings were ammonium
chloride (at  440 tons and lOtf/lb) and a methanol-acetone mixture (at 610 tons and 5.3^/lb).
Each of  these alone would nearly finance operations for one year. The metals, lead oxide
and zinc carbonate, would earn less profit despite high values, because of their low tonnages
(11 and  14  respectively); between 40 and 70 of such transfers would be required each year.

     Some offerings of large amounts of low-value wastes, principally spent and diluted
sulfuric and hydrochloric acids, do not fit well on the graph and thus deserve special dis-
cussion. Specific offerings from sample lists include:

                                                         Value of Waste
                                          Tonnaga         as Raw Material
                Waste Offers               (tons/yr.)            (Mb)
                Sulfuric acid                 1.400              0.2
                Hydrochloric acid             2.100              0.25
                Sulfuric acid               165,000              0.5

Because the first two acid wastes are valued significantly below the assumed transportation
cost of 0.36^/lb, they could not be transported even  SO miles at a profit. The tlu'rd offer
is interesting because its value is slightly more than the 0.36^/lb transport cost, and because
its tonnage is very large. If these cost values held, the income to the exchange for arranging
a transfer of this waste would be:

                       (165,000) 12j£- \   (0.50 - 0.36)  = $462.000

which  would more than meet the exchange's estimated annual operating cost of $90,000.
However, if the perceived value to the user were  a little less and/or if the transportation
costs a little  more, the potentially large profit could turn into an equally large  loss. More-
over, it would  be  very difficult to find one or more users for this amount of waste acid
within a reasonable distance from the generator. Thus, the  exchange should  not expect to
finance itself on this type of transfer, regardless of how  attractive the economics might
appear in theory.

     The foregoing analysis  and our assessment  of potential opportunities presented in
Chapter III shows that a materials exchange  which tries to derive its income solely from
transfers actually completed will experience continuing difficulty in paying its operating
expenses, even  in a densely industrialized  area  such as the Philadelphia SMSA. Some scrap
wastes with attractive revenue potential are more likely to  be transferred directly between
generators  and users than by means of the exchange. It  is doubtful that enough  lower-
volume, lower-value wastes can be transferred to pay for the exchange's operating expenses.

                                   APPENDIX E


     Before  any scrap  waste can be transferred, the many requirements—technical, eco-
nomic, marketing, and  legal—must be satisfied for both generator and user. However, the
tasks of satisfying them can be distributed among various participants in the transfer sys-
tem. The simplest and  most ideal case  exists when generator and user are the same plant;
such transfers can be almost costless. Next best is when negotiations are carried out between
two plants or companies directly; in both cases, all requirements are satisfied by the transfer
partners themselves. At the next stage,  when generator or user cannot satisfy all of its own
needs,  the  transfer agent  steps in to help. In turn, the transfer agent does not operate
independently, but is influenced by various marketing and institutional factors.

                       INFLUENCES ON TRANSFER AGENTS

     The transfer of a scrap waste is a complex transaction, fraught with uncertainties and
risks. The role of a transfer agent is therefore also complex. The many factors influencing
how a  transfer  agent might organize itself are noted in the following tables, designed to
help potential  managers and sponsors of transfer services. By considering where their own
circumstances fall along the ranges of options, they can develop a profile of likely charac-
teristics of their organization. These tables were used in developing the comparison between
information clearinghouse and materials exchange (Table IV-1).

     It is useful to consider the factors in two groups. The first includes characteristics
of the transfer agent itself; these are internal  factors which are  within the power of its
sponsors  and managers  to choose and control (Table E-l). The second group includes
characteristics  of the organization's technical,  business, and legal  environment; these are
external factors which, once its managers have chosen its geographic location,  are largely
beyond their power to control (Table E-2).

                          INSTITUTIONAL SPONSORSHIP

     Several types of institutions  might sponsor  an information clearinghouse  or a mate-
rials exchange.  In  theory, a transfer organization could be independent; but in practice,
such requirements as credibility with industry, technical resources, and economic backing
produce the need for  some form of institutional or financial sponsorship. In fact, the
sponsor is the most important institution in the business environment of a clearinghouse
or exchange, especially in their initial states.
          Preceding  page  blank

                        TABLE E-1


Services Offered
Service Role or
Geographic Radius
Served Normally
Industry Coverage
Type of Clients
Number and Value
Scrap Wastes
Volume of Activity
Legal Status
By magazine By special
ads clearinghouse
25 mi. 50 ml. 75 mi.
i 1 i
1 sector of 1 industry
an industry
Small, local firms;
weak technical skills
Few, most valuable
i I I
Small, episodic,
Private Non-Profit Private
Individual Institution Firm
i i i
Private Informal Trade Asso-
Individual Network ciation
i I I
Single local Several local State
Government governments agency
Only handling
and transport

100 mi. 1,000 ml.
1 I
i i
Medium, regional;
moderate skills
i i
I i
Private Firm Special-Pur-
with Govern- pose Govern-
ment Fran- ment Cor-
chise poration
i i
small, single
Multistate Federal
authority agency
Analysis, reprocessing,
and transport
2,000 mi.
Large, national firms;
strong technical skills
Many, even of marginal
Large, continual,
Government Line
Subsidiary of large
multi-purpose compary

                                       TABLE E-1 (Continued)


Skills of Staff
Technical Exper-
ience and Imagina-
tion of Staff
Size of Profes-
sorial Staff
Data Bank
Pricing Policy
Income Sources
Risk level
Style of
Capital Require-
Annual Operating
Budnet (all costs

Limited (men- Moderate Extensive (chemical analysis,
agerlal end (arranging) processing, marketing)
clerical) contracts)
i 1 i i i
Limited Moderate
i til
1 part-time manager, 1-3 full-time
few volunteer advisors
i ill
Blackboard, Files, library, staff experience, and contacts
simple card Limited Moderate Extensive
i ill
Informal Via maga- Special lists Occasional
word-of- zlne and marketing
mouth journals
Free At cost
i I I
Subsidized Subsidized Subsidies Breakeven
informally formally and revenues on revenues
I ill
Individual Informal Formal Client Fees Client Fees
subsidies subsidies subsidies (Waste Users) (Waste Gen-
None Small Medium
i i 1
Reactive Mixed
i I 1
0 $100.000
ii il
il i 1
3-6 full-time
Large, Computerized,
matching + retrieval
At profit
Profit or
Partial public Full public
subsidies subsidies
I i

                             TABLE E-2


      Hindrance        ^	   Spectrum   	
 1. Industrial locations

 2. Transport cons

 3. Number of small, low
    technology firms

 4. Disposal costs to

 5. Competing raw
    materials costs to

 6. Treatment Costs

 7. Industry Communi-

 8. Generators' Analysis
    and Knowledge of
    Wane Stream

 9. Users'Technical

10. Potential Value of
    Scrap Wastes

11. Concentration of
    Scrap in Waste

12. Regularity of
    Streams (com-
    bined total)

13. Quantity of Wastes
    Available for

14. Public Awareness
    of Environmental

15. Initiative Available
    to Create Transfer

16. Regulations Requir-
    ing Reuse or Safe

17. Financial Incentives,
    Subsidies, or Capital

18. Legal Liability
      Low and
Informal, Group,
Formal, Group,
      Few or none.
      Limited scope
                                                    High or Rising
                                                    Little or none,
                                                    within Industry
                                                                          Little or none
                                                    Many, Compre-
                                                    Clearly defined
                                                    and limited

     The criteria for judging the merits of various sponsors derive both from the functions
which clearinghouses and exchanges should perform, and from the sponsor's interest. The
overriding interests of sponsors are two:

     •  effectiveness  of  the  clearinghouse  or exchange  in  facilitating transfers of
        scrap wastes, and,

     •  Financial performance.

From these goals flows a simple hierarchy of related criteria:

     •  Economic  success depends  upon the transfer agent's effective performance
        of services needed by client generators and users.

     •  Effectiveness depends upon enjoying the confidence of both types of clients.

     •  Confidence depends  upon many factors, but at  least  the  transfer  agent's
        reputation  and  ability in maintaining each client's  data confidential  both
        from competitors and from government regulators.

     •  Thereafter, confidence rests upon the agent's skills  and whether these suit
        each client's  specific  needs. Skill requirements are relatively few and simple
        for a clearinghouse, but many and complex for an exchange.

These criteria will guide in ranking the sponsorship arrangements most likely to favor effec-
tive performance. Table E-3 summarizes the factors operating for and against each type of
sponsor institution.

     An industry association,  in general, would be the best  sponsor for a clearinghouse,
especially  of the non-profit and subsidized or break-even type, because  the association has
industry acceptance and the needed clerical skills. But this conclusion does not apply to a
materials exchange,  because associations lack the needed technical and entrepreneurial skills.
At the national level, one logical candidate to sponsor an information clearinghouse would
seem to be the  U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which might in time link and coordinate clear-
inghouse services by several regional chambers. Another would be the Manufacturing Chem-
ists Association (MCA), which represents 185 companies having 95% of the installed chemi-
cal manufacturing capacity in the United States and Canada. But, the MCA lacks a formal
structure of regional chapters; thus it would presumably have to offer a service of national
scope, perhaps relying upon both informal regional networks of its own members and exist-
ing clearinghouse programs, such as that in St. Louis.

                                                         TABLE E-3
Type of Operator or Sponsor


   Examples: Chambers of Commerce,
   St. Louis Regional Commerce and
   Growth Association, Greater Phila-
   delphia's Penjerdel Corp., Manufac-
   ing Chemists Association.
   Examples:  Franklin Institute, Phila-
   delphia; Battelle, Stanford Research,
   Swedish Water/Air Lab in Nordic
Information Clearinghouse
FOR: Acceptable to industry, skills avail-
able, costs low, compatible with sponsor's
minion, good for community relations,
operating experience of St. Louis and
European models available, start-up easy,
no legal hindrances.

AGAINST: Economic self-sufficiency not
yet proven, national assoc. of large firms
may not attract use by smell which need
service more.
FOR: Same as above; technical specialists
elso available; compatible with mission.

AGAINST:  Requires contract funds to
operate, not likely to subsidize from own
(Materials Exchange
FOR:  Generally acceptable to industry.

AGAINST:  Entrepreneurial Instincts,
technical skills and facilities locking,
thus not credible to potential clients,
broad membership unlikely to approve
service for narrow group, associations
not designed to manage/oversee business
enterprises, non-profit stetus conflicts
with for-profit subsidiary, start-up diffi-
cult, initial investment significant, risks
too greet, cannot subsidize heavily or
for long.

FOR:  Acceptable to Industry, technical
skills and fecilitfes perhaps available,
non-profit stetus may reduce some costs
(e.g.. interest, taxes).

AGAINST:  Management of e  business,
f inanclel risks, and likely need to sub-
sidize not compatible with research mis-
sion; entrepreneurial  skills perhaps
insufficient, detailed  knowledge of pro-
cess industries end materials markets
probably insufficient; compliance with
regulations governing haulers and proces-
sors of industrial wastes.

    (for profit) Exemple: Arthur D.
    Little, TRW.
   (metals, paper, etc., but not
   chemicals; "Brokers" transfer
   information only, "Dealers"
   transfer materials).
FOR: Some as for non-profit, institute.

AGAINST: If a limited, subsidized demon-
stration, needs outside contract funds; if
a business venture, needs corporate invest-
ment (if capital not better invested else-
where) and staff interest; venture may not
match business goals; overhead costs high
in competition against specialized broker
or listing service.

FOR: Loosely related to existing busi-
ness, brokers know economics end tech-
niques of clearinghouse role, useful scan-
ning and market research tool for dealers.

AGAINST: Opportunity costs, reluc-
tance to expend into unproven new
services and markets.
FOR:  Acceptable; technical, menagerial,
and some market skills available.

AGAINST: May not be compatible with
research business, continuous staff inter-
est not assured, opportunity costs prob-
ably high, thus Internal financing diffi-
cult, overhead costs burdensome.
FOR:  Dealers have basic handling and
transport facilities.

AGAINST:  Brokers end dealers both
lack technical, market, and regulatory
skills In chemical process industries;
brokers also lack facilities; opportunity
costs end start-up costs high; Internal
financing difficult.

                                                  TABLE E-3 (Continued)
Type of Operator or Sponsor

   Example: American Chemical
   Exchange, Trans Chemical.
   Examples: Rollins-Purle, Shirley-
   Aldred Group (U.K.). Wlmborne-
   CPR, Western Processing, Zero
   Waste Systems.
Information Clearinghouse

FOR: Established reputation, technical and
industrial knowledge, closely related to exist-
ing services and clientele, economics of
clearinghouse role familiar, useful scanning
and inventory tool.

AGAINST: Opportunity costs, uncertainty
of profits, not eligible for government

FOR: Some as broker; even if profit low or
negative, still useful adjunct to major services.

AGAINST: Same as broker.
Materials Exchange

AGAINST: No handling facilities, labs,
or technical staff; not compatible with
information brokerage business.
FOR: Established reputation and credi-
bility, facilities, staff, business, and
regulatory knowledge available; centre!
to business mission; fits entrepreneurial

AGAINST: Opportunity costs of divert-
ing resources from reclaiming materials
with established value.

   AGENCY State end local environ-
   mental protection departments.
   Commerce and development depart-
   ments, perhaps via government lab,
   e.g. U.K.'s Warren Springs Leb.
   Maryland Environmental Service
   (MES), New York Environmental
   Facilities Corp.. Connecticut
   Resource Recovery Authority, Gulf
   Coast Waste Disposal Authority,
   Philadelphia Industrial Development
   Corporation, local sanitary districts,
   multlstate authorities.
FOR: Cost low. skills available, useful tool
to help inventory wastes, agency's mission
provides incentive, start-up easy.
                                         AGAINST: Conflict of Interest with regula-
                                         tory role, thus most generators will not use
                                         voluntarily; enforced listings neither accept-
                                         able politically nor feasible administratively;
                                         thus limited, partial coverage reduces effec-
                                         tiveness and economic viability.
FOR: Same as regulatory agency, except
less justified by agency missions.

AGAINST: Competition for resources from
agency's other programs, opposition from
those agency constituents not benefited;
generator's suspicion that data not insulated
from regulatory agencies.

FOR: Same as above, if justified by mission;
greater efficiency possible.

AGAINST: Same as above. Conflict of inter-
est actual (e.g., Maryland Environmental
Service Is within Dept. of Natural Resources)
or suspected by industry.
FOR: Minimum technical, legal, end
managerial skills available; storage and
transport available, some costs low (no
taxes or interest), incentive from mis-
sion take needed site by eminent domain.

AGAINST: Conflict of interest; key
skills probably lacking; competing against
private firms; serving only narrow sector
of public; start-up difficult; geographic
coverage limited to state or local bound-
aries; budget, accounting, and civil ser-
vice procedures costly and limit essen-
tial flexibility; costs and risks make eco-
nomic success highly unlikely.

FOR: Minimum managerial skills, per-
haps some facilities, some costs low,
eminent domain.

AGAINST: Even fewer technical skills
the regulatory agency, less incentive, end
all other barriers noted above.
FOR: Greater flexibility than agencies
to mobilize skills and resources and start-
up, eminent domain power, costs lower
via greater efficiency from business man-
agement practices, perhaps required by
law to serve localities (MES).

AGAINST: Conflict of interest, demand
too low or unstable to justify hiring key
technical staff, risks end costs may con-
flict with obligation to be economically
viable, greater efficiency possible but
not assured, competing against private
firms, geographic service area may con-
flict with natural economic market erea,
no advantage over private firms In com-
plying with environmental regulations.

     In the for-profit industrial sector, secondary materials firms, dealing in scrap materials
such as metals and paper, might seem to possess some interest and business skills for ventur-
ing into transferring industrial  process wastes; but  such firms  typically lack  the special
technical skills and  facilities needed  for success in the quite different industry based on
process wastes.  Chemical  brokers  and reclaimers, however, do have such technical and
marketing knowledge, as well as reputations with potential clients of transfer services. They
are therefore the most likely candidates for investing in the waste transfer business, first by
testing the market by offering a clearinghouse service, then by progressing to a full mate-
rials exchange service.

     Most government agencies  have the  facilities and skills to offer information clearing-
house  services. None, however, even those lacking regulatory powers, would be acceptable
to industry.  Moreover, few have the technical skills, the entrepreneurial style, and the
organizational mandate  required  to run  a materials exchange. Financial  sponsorship  is
possible, but only  when confidentiality of client data is guaranteed strictly. This conclu-
sion applies to all levels of government—federal, regional, state and local—and to all types
of bodies—including line agencies, special-purpose governments and corporations, public
utility commissions, and  public utility companies holding franchises  from  government
and operating under its supervision.

                        Regional Networks for the United States

     Opportunities for transfers between  services will grow. The  St. Louis clearinghouse
already accepts listings from outside the St. Louis area; it also received two inquiries about
establishing  reciprocal agreements with transfer services in other regions. Zero Waste Sys-
tems reports that it occasionally facilitates transfers between the San Francisco Bay Area
and other locations, including Los Angeles and Texas. Informal networks operate within
some professional societies and large corporations.

     In each case,  the economic gains of the transfer must be  large enough to cover the
greater costs of interregional transportation. Moreover,  the more attractive a potential
transfer is economically, the more incentive  a generator  and a user will have to find each
other directly and, conversely, the less incentive they  will have to seek help from a transfer
service and pay its charges. Nonetheless, occasions  will arise when a scrap waste offered
and listed by one service will match a request listed by another service, and procedures for
such opportunities should exist.

     The next step  would be for several  local services to be linked with each of them via
one central switchboard, such as the Manufacturing Chemists Association or U.S. Chamber
of Commerce. This network of transfer services seems most efficient in that it allows local
agents to concentrate on the local situation while providing the opportunity for inter-local
or inter-regional transfers of selected waste offerings.

                                    APPENDIX F



     The liability questions surrounding waste transfer cause both concern and confusion.
Concern stems from recognition  that some industrial  waste may be potentially toxic or
hazardous, particularly if handled improperly. Confusion stems from the lack of clear legal
precedents about where responsibility lies in the event of accident.

     The possibilities for accident are legion. A few obvious examples include:  spillage in
the transfer of wastes from generator  to hauler, leakage from containers used in transport;
overturning of trucks; ailments, from skin rash to cancer, in persons handling waste at any
stage; development of customer dissatisfaction with products, as manufacturers shift from
virgin materials to scrap waste materials.

     An accident is "an event occurring by chance or from unknown causes". Nonetheless,
if an accident causes loss or injury, the injured party may be entitled to legal relief. Ques-
tions about who provides relief can be of paramount importance to the parties to a transfer.
Answers may vary from state to state in accordance with their statutes.

     Thus the danger of liability looms large in the minds of both generators and potential
users of wastes. If transfer of wastes proves to be an invitation to law suits, few companies
will agree to participate. Litigation is both time consuming and expensive, not to mention
the probable adverse effect on corporate image.

     At the outset, it should be recognized that legal considerations can be viewed as creat-
ing both positive and negative incentives relevant to the development of the waste transfer
concept. The continued development and refinement of pollution standards, in conjunction
with vigorous enforcement  of those standards, must be seen as creating positive incentives.
As private disposal becomes increasingly difficult and expensive to maintain, generators are
apt to become more responsive to the possibilities inherent in transfer.

     Conversely, a regulatory environment which encourages or otherwise makes private dis-
posal simple to the point of being costless will discourage experimentation with transfer
services. In this context, any potential for legal liability  which may exist can be expected to
be cited as one reason for noninvolvement.  This liability may, in many respects, be remote.
It is, however, a factor of concern especially to waste generators.

     In general, this potential falls into three categories:

     (1)   public liability of certain kinds of waste;
     (2)   liability to third parties for injury resulting from waste; and
     (3)   contractual liability to users with regard to the contents of waste.

At the heart of each of these categories lies a common fear among various generators that
they will be held legally accountable (or be accused of being responsible for) the effects of
waste under circumstances over which they have relinquished control, namely while it is in
transit or in the possession of either a materials exchange or a user.
                                    Public Liability

     Waste products with particularly hazardous or demonstrably toxic quantities are pres-
ently subject to a variety of statutory patterns and enforcement policies. It is difficult to
generalize about the various approaches involved because of the differences in potential
harm which result  from different wastes. In a limited number of instances, as in the case
of radioactive materials, a combination of federal statutory and administrative policy makes
transfer  of  the waste legally impossible. In others, as in the case of explosive or highly
inflammable materials, legal standards affecting transportation and handling  add substan-
tially to the cost of facilitating a transfer.

     In the  overwhelming majority of cases, the waste involved is neither explosive nor so
obviously dangerous, hazardous, or toxic,  as to have given rise to specific statutory treat-
ment of the type described here. Any given waste, however, may be potentially injurious
under some circumstances. Consequently, the enactment in recent years of pollution  control
statutes at the state level has given rise to  fears on the part of generators of uncertain en-
forcement. Specifially, they are concerned that wastes which have been traditionally dis-
posed of privately and without broader exposure may become exposed to spills and other
mishaps which  may ultimately result in a violation of these statutes. More specifically, many
generators fear that they will  be legally  held responsible for the packaging, handling, and
transportation of waste while under the control of a transfer agent or a user.

     There is some legitimate basis for those fears. Standards in pollution law  are presently
in an evolutionary process. Liability can exist under a theory of negligence or one of strict
accountability, i.e., without regard to the care exercised. Moreover, violations could result
in criminal fines or injunctions, both of which could result in  potentially large legal fees
and/or adverse publicity. As long as there is uncertainty as to the standard of care which
might become  involved, generators are likely to be somewhat  inhibited from injecting cer-
tain kinds of waste into Ihe public stream of commerce.

     Closely related to the question of public liability is the question of public exposure of
information relevant to certain kinds of waste. Along with the federal government, almost
all states place some kind of controls on the transportation of some potentially harmful
materials (including wastes). New Jersey  and Pennsylvania emphasize controls of "indus-
trial" waste generally. Others tend to focus on "hazardous" waste. Under either approach,
however, there is some need to identify the particular waste being transported.

     This identification  would be  in public  documents. Although governments have a
responsibility  to keep trade secrets confidential, there remains nonetheless a concern by
generators that information would be available which might prove valuable to competitors
anxious to learn of manufacturing processes or other internal considerations relevant to the
trade secrets.  Or, it might be  interpreted by particular  government  agencies or public-
oriented groups as deserving of further inquiry relevant to pollution or product content.

     The concern  here is for scrutiny over matters which are perceived to be solely private.
If it were known that scrutiny of this type was harmless, generators would exhibit less con-
cern. At this stage, however, they are, in fact, concerned about unknown ramifications, and
that leads to some caution or suspicion about waste transfer possibilities.
                               Liability to Third Parties

     A  separate legal concern of generators is the potential for liability to third parties,
namely, persons other than those directly involved in the transfer. The most recurring fear
is liability for personal or property injury resulting from a waste in transit between gener-
ator and user.

     Liability of this type is not unlike the public liability discussed above. In the former,
liability generally  exists  in  the form of administrative or criminal penalties or injunctive
(i.e., cease and desist) orders. In contrast, liability to third parties is conceived in terms of
compensatory damages for injuries sustained. It can lead to substantial monetary judgments,
as in the  case  of multiple deaths. By and large, this would result from the application of
"tort" law.

     The general legal standard for tortious conduct, common to all the states, is one of sim-
ple negligence. In the context  of transferring  waste, negligent behavior could become in-
volved in  packaging, transporting and general handling during movement. The standards will
differ depending on  the potential for injury of any particular waste. For example, the greater
the toxicity involved, the higher the standard of care which will be imposed by a judge or
jury under negligence law.

     Legal responsibility for negligent behavior does not extend beyond the party or parties
responsible for the negligence. Thus, as a matter of strict rational principle, a waste gen-
erator would not be held accountable for the negligent behavior of scrap users or a materials
exchange. As a practical matter, however, generators tend to be large and publicly-known
corporations.  They are often perceived as having the resources to compensate injured per-
sons.  They have, therefore, some reasonable fear that the transfer process will force them
into a zone of liability exposure beyond their control.

     This exposure is compounded by the threatened emergence of new standards of legal
accountability in the  context of the public statutes  and administrative regulations. There is
substantial support in the general law of tort recovery for the incorporation of new stand-
ards adopted  to prevent certain  kinds of harm. Thus, an emerging body of administrative
law which is preventive in  orientation-designed to impose strict standards on the part of
waste generators without regard  to the party who eventually causes harm-could conceiv-
ably be brought into play as the appropriate standards for determining and assessing com-
pensation responsibilities.

     Here again, the issue is largely one of the unknowns inherent in an emerging body of
law. Waste generators are, and will be, holders of substantial insurance coverages designed to
protect  them against  liabilities of this type. At the same time, any increase in liability will
eventually result in an increase in insurance premiums.  Thus the question of liability mani-
fests itself in economic terms; given the potential for liability, generators will demand com-
pensating benefits as a condition for participating in waste transfers.
                                 Contractual Liability

     The  third legal concern is that of contractual responsibilities. In its most operable
form, operations of a materials exchange will be manifested in written documents evidencing
the various terms and conditions negotiated. An information clearinghouse is not likely to
need such contracts; an exchange handling the materials needs this protection.

     For the most part, these contracts can be expected to represent the agreements of the
parties. Therefore, they will be enforceable on terms and conditions mutually defined. Thus,
questions involving liability for third party inquiry can be stipulated by contract and any
risks anticipated can be allocated accordingly. To the extent that generators tend to be larger
and financially stronger  organizations, they will have the negotiating leverage to shift the
responsibility for ultimate liability to the waste users. This is not necessarily unfair. Unless
some new standard  of responsibility  is developed (which would place liability with  the
exchange  as a risk-spreading cost to be shared equally by all participants), users would seem
to be in the best position to control the handling of the waste and take the steps necessary
to prevent foreseeable mishaps.

     One concern is the possible responsibility for the quality of waste. Generators as a class
would prefer to participate in a transfer on an "as is" basis; that is, they would not want
contractual  responsibility for the  specific chemical content of a generally defined waste
product. Under this approach, users would  be counting on the chance that a given scrap
contained a specific compound of sufficient quantity and/or  purity to make accepting it
economically feasible.

     This, however, could be viewed as an essential part of normal market mechanisms. Any
fixed responsibility which could place generators in a warranty position would escalate the
cost of the  transfer beyond feasibility. Users can be presumed to have sufficient technical
knowledge to behave as informed buyers and can be expected to negotiate price in terms of
expected product performance.

     Market mechanisms  can also  be expected to help prevent undue responsibilities being
placed on the exchange itself.  Because of the position occupied by the exchanges, they will
be able to secure  needed protection through contractual stipulation. That is, the essential
quality of the role performed by the exchange affords sufficient negotiation leverage to pre-
vent the acceptance of any responsibility for the conduct of the transaction itself.
                         OTHER LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

     The regulatory framework affecting alternative institutional arrangements and laws
which might either inhibit or favor one over the other were examined. There are impacts on
transfer organizations which result indirectly from governmental legal and regulatory activi-
ties; for example, the stricter the enforcement of governmental control standards, the greater
the economic incentives for generators to find alternative means of disposal. In general, how-
ever, there are no particular laws or regulations which have any comparable direct effects.

     The general law of tort and contractual liability suggests some implications for materials
exchanges.  As with other legal considerations, however, these implications are not unique in
applying to waste transfers or materials exchanges, and must be viewed as raising cost con-
sequences which fall into the category of imposing the normal obligations inherent in almost
any economic pursuit. Moreover,  these legal  questions become moot when economic analy-
sis shows that a  company acting purely as a  materials exchange would not be likely to sur-
vive financially.

     Two other broad legal areas were examined: legislation and regulations concerned with
waste management and related environmental issues; and anti-trust standards, because of
their potential for affecting industry associations, the most likely sponsors of clearinghouses.

     Statutes and regulations of the federal  government, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania
were  examined. Local  ordinances are generally derived  from and less sophisticated than
their state statutes. Nothing in this legislation  can be interpreted either to favor or obstruct
the development of one form of transfer organization or sponsorship over others. As noted,
stricter enforcement of pollution control standards can be viewed as encouraging transfer as
a more economical form of disposal by generators. Similarly, the authority of the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT) to regulate the transportation of some materials under
authority of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1975 necessarily has cost conse-
quences which indirectly affect the economics of negotiated transfers. Since DOT's author-
ity  reaches all aspects affecting commerce, it extends  to transfers within  state boundaries
and can be viewed as applicable even in states which lack equivalent legislation. Nonetheless,
such regulation must be viewed in the same category as general economic regulation. Any
cost consequences, as for example with taxes, shall be  considered a normal part of the con-
duct of the activity concerned.

     Much the same can be said for anti-trust issues. The primary administrators of the anti-
trust  laws—the Federal Trade Commission and the Department  of Justice—have shown
particular concern  for the activities of trade  associations and  other arrangements jointly
sponsored by two or more members of the  same industry. The general thrust of the law is
to discourage joint undertakings which might stabilize  prices, inhibit new entries into field,
or prevent one of the sponsors from pursuing that activity by itself. It is difficult to visualize
institutional arrangements for waste transfers which would run afoul of these anti-trust con-
straints. Moreover, our economic analyses show that the availability of profit-making oppor-
tunities are at best limited. Furthermore, existing clearinghouses are typically subsidized and
sponsored by industry associations because other institutions are not willing or acceptable.
Therefore, absent an unusual situation arising from improper motives, the anti-trust laws do
not appear to impose either direct or indirect  restraints on the development of association-
sponsored clearinghouses or commercial information services.

                        GLOSSARY OF NAMES AND TERMS
CEFIC.  Conseil European des Federations de 1'Industrie Chimique (Council of European
     Chemical Industry Federation), Brussels.

HWMD.  Hazardous Waste Management Division, one of several operating units of the
     Office of Solid Waste Management Programs (OSWMP), U.S. Environmental Protec-
     tion Agency.

MCA.  Manufacturing  Chemists Association, Washington, D.C., the major North American
     industry trade association,  made up of 185 large companies having 95% of installed
     capacity in the United States and Canada.

OSWMP. Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, a major program organization of the
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). One of several units within OSWMP
     is the Hazardous Waste Management Division (HWMD).

Abfall.  German term  for waste or residue. (Afval in Dutch.)

Abfallborse.  German  term for "waste  exchange" (called waste information clearinghouse
     in this study). (Afvalbeurs in Dutch and Flemish; Avfallbors in Swedish.)

Bourse des De*chets.   French  term for  "waste exchange" (called waste information clear-
     inghouse in this study).

Broker. An  agent which  negotiates transactions. In the secondary materials market, an
     organization  which arranges transfers  of secondary materials  but, unlike a dealer,
     does not handle the materials physically.

By-product.  A salable industrial residue with an established use.

Clearinghouse. See information clearinghouse.

Client. The term  adopted by this study in order to maintain a clear distinction between
     "users"  of a transfer  service (both generators and receivers) and "users" of the trans-
     ferred  wastes. Not meant to imply that transfer agents must require fees from gen-
     erators and  receivers; in  fact, most do not now charge significant fees. In  the future,
     however, charges  may be adopted in order to pay for costs now being subsidized.

Exchange. In this study, the term transfer is used instead of "exchange" as more accurately
     describing the subject of the study. "Exchange" is used to describe one type of transfer
     organization: the materials exchange. It is also sometimes  part of the official name
     of an organization (Nordic Waste Exchange, U.K. Waste Materials Exchange).

Generator. Company or plant producing an industrial residue, and  thus a potential client
     of a transfer agent or service.

Information Clearinghouse.  A transfer agent  which handles information only, typically
     by publishing offers of and requests for wastes and referring inquirers to the company
     originating the offer  or request. These organizations usually operate passively; that is,
     they do not seek out matches for listed items or help to conduct transfer negotiations.

Materials Exchange.  A transfer  agent which, unlike the information clearinghouse, partici-
     pates actively in the  transfer, usually by acquiring, reprocessing, and selling the mate-
     rial.  The materials exchanges identified in  this study are profit-seeking, private-sector
     operations, some independent and others part of larger  companies. Most U.S. transfer
     organizations are of this  type.

Receiver.  Party buying or accepting a scrap waste  material for its reuse value. The receiver
     may also by  the user of the waste, or may be only the middleman who treats the
     material to certain specifications before selling it to the ultimate user.

Residue (industrial).  Material left over as a result of an industrial  process. Includes both
     wastes and by-products;  not limited to the chemical industry.

Scrap chemicals or scrap waste.  The materials  of primary concern to this study. They are
     the  continually-changing class of chemical wastes which have some reuse  value when
     the economics are right, but which have not yet become  established by-products. Their
     non-chemical equivalent  is secondary materials.

Secondary materials.  Non-chemical  recoverable items,  primarily from municipal  wastes.
     Examples are paper,  bottles, cans, and textiles, Comparable to scrap chemicals in the
     chemical industry.

SMSA.  Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, one of the  geographical  divisions defined
     by the  U.S. Bureau of the  Census for purposes of aggregating data and making com-
     parison on a standard basis. An  SMSA's boundary,  contiguous with those of counties,
     is drawn to include both tiie city and the surrounding suburban and rural areas within
     commuting distance.

Special-purpose  government.  Generic  term for a governmental organization  created  to
     provide  special or limited services in a specified geographical area; examples are port
     authorities, sanitation districts, and industrial development corporations. These public
     corporations (described legally as "bodies corporate and politic") usually differ from
     general-purpose governments in being allowed  to  apply principles of business admin-
     istration; they differ from private corporations in  having special financial powers and
     being chartered to provide specific services to the public.

Transfer.  Generic term, replacing "exchange," for the acquisition by one plant or indus-
     try, for the purpose of reuse, of waste material generated by another plant or indus-
     try. Both a noun (a transfer) and a verb (to transfer).

Transfer agent.  Any person or organization providing services intended to facilitate trans-
     fers of industrial wastes. Two  types of transfer agent or service are described in this
     study: the information clearinghouse and the materials exchange.

Transfer organization.  A transfer agent that is an organization rather than a person.

Trash waste.  Waste that has no current or foreseeable reuse value and must be  disposed
     of into the environment.

User. The ultimate consumer of the scrap waste, using it as an input to his manufacturing
     process. The user may receive the  transferred waste either directly from its generator
     (with or without the assistance of an information clearinghouse) or  indirectly via a
     materials exchange or scrap reclaimer.

Waste.  Except  where otherwise designated (e.g.,  household  waste, municipal waste), a
     general term for industrial residues  other than established by-products. For the chem-
     ical industry, this study divides wastes into  two categories: scrap chemicals and trash.


 1.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Hazardous Waste Management Division,
    "Industrial/Hazardous Wastes", (unpublished), 1976.
 2.  Mausshardt, D.B., "Federal Emphasis and Directions in Hazardous Waste Management",
    Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency, (unpublished), 1976.
 3.  U.S. Congress, Solid Waste Disposal Act (P.L. 89-272) as amended, 1970.
 4.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs,
    Disposal of Hazardous Wastes: Report to Congress, Environmental Protection Publica-
    tion SW-115, Washington; U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974, 110 pp.
 5.  Ib id.
 6.  Federal Register, Vol. 41, No. 161, Wed., August 18, 1976, pp. 35050-1.
 7.  National Academy of Science, Waste Management and Control, NAS Publication No.
    1400, Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966.
 8.  Battelle-Columbus Laboratories, "Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices;
    Electroplating and Metal Finishing Industries—Job Shops," U.S. Environmental Protec-
    tion Agency, in preparation, to be distributed by the National Technical Information
 9.  WAPORA,  Inc., "Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste  Practices: Paint and
    Allied Products Industry Contract Solvent Reclaiming Operations, and Factory Appli-
    cation  of Coatings," Environmental Protection Publication SW-119c, U.S. Environ-
    mental Protection Agency, PB-251 669 (1976).
10.  WAPORA, Inc., "Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices—Special Machines
    Manufacturing Industries," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in preparation, to
    be distributed by the National Technical Information Service.
11.  Jacobs Engineering Company, "Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices
    in the Petroleum Refining Industry," U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency, in
    preparation, to be distributed by the National Technical Information Service.
12.  Gruber, G.I.,  "Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices, Organic Chemicals,
    Pesticides, and Explosives Industries," Environmental Protection Publication SW-118c,
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, PB-251 307 (April 1975).
13.  Versar, Incorporated, "Assessment  of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices, Storage
    and  Primary  Batteries Industries,"  Environmental Protection Publication SW-102c,
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, PB-241 204 (January 1975).
14.  Calspan Corporation,  "Assessment of  Industrial Hazardous  Waste  Practices  in the
    Metal Smelting and  Refining Industry,"  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in
    preparation, to be distributed by the National Technical Information Service.
15.  Versar, Incorporated, "Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices, Textiles
    Industry," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in preparation, to be distributed
    by the National Technical Information Service.
16.  Foster D. Snell, Inc., "Assessment  of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices, Rubber
    and  Plastics Industry," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in preparation, to be
    distributed by the National Technical Information Service.
        Preceding page blank        141
                                                                          Arthur DLittklnc

17.  Shaver, R.G., et al., "Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices; Inorganic
     Chemicals  Industry," Environmental Protection Publication SW-104c, U.S. Environ-
     mental Protection Agency PB-244 832 (March 1975).
18.  SCS Engineers, Inc., "Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste  Practices-Leather
     Tanning and Finishing Industry," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in  prepara-
     tion, to be distributed by the National Technical Information Service.
18a. Arthur D.  Little, Inc., "Pharmaceutical Industry: Hazardous Waste  Generation, Treat-
     ment,  and Disposal," Environmental Protection  Publication SW-508, U.S. Environ-
     mental Protection Agency, 1976.
19.  "Dutch Center for Industrial Waste Exchange", Translated from Nederlandse Chemische
     Industrie, No. 18, September 1973.
20.  "Beilage zur  Ausgabe 8/74",  Verbands-Mitteilungen, Frankfut-am-Main, Germany:
     Verband der Chemischen Industrie e.V. (Association of the Chemical Industry), 20
     December  1974.
21.  Bouveng, H.O., and H. Hargbaeck, The Nordic  Organization for Waste Exchange
     B208,  Stockholm, Sweden: Swedish Water and Air Pollution Research Laboratory,
     September 1974.
22.  A. Poll, Annual Review. 1975,  Stevenage, England: United Kingdom Waste Materials
     Exchange,  1975.

                                                                           Arthur D Little Inc