Guidance Document
for the
WRITE Pilot Program
with State and Local Governments
WRITE
WASTE REDUCTION
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY
EVALUATION
December 1988
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Waste Minimization Branch
Cincinnati, Ohio
-------
GUIDANCE DOCUMENT FOR THE WRITE PILOT
PROGRAM WITH STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
by
M. Lynn Apel and Harry M. Freeman
Waste Minimization Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati. Ohio 45268
and
Michael F. Szabo and Sunll H. Ambekar
PEI Associates, Inc.
11499 Chester Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45246
Contract No. 68-03-3389
Work Assignment No. 2-14
Project Officer
M. Lynn Ape!
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
NOTICE
The Information In this document has been funded wholly or 1n part by
the United States Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 58-03-
3389 to PEI Associates, Inc. It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and
administrative review, and it has been approved for publication as an EPA
document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
11
-------
FOREWORD
Today's rapidly developing and changing technologies and Industrial
products and practices frequently carry with them the Increased generation of
materials that, 1f Improperly dealt with, can threaten both the public health
and the environment. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Is charged by
Congress with protecting the Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under
a mandate of national environmental 1-aws, the agency strives to formulate and
Implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities
and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. These laws
direct the EPA to perform research to define our environmental problems,
measure the Impacts, and search for solutions.
The Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory. 1s responsible for planning,
Implementing, and managing of research, development, and demonstration pro-
grams to provide an authoritative, defensible engineering basis 1n support of
the policies, programs, and regulations of the EPA with respect to drinking
water, wastewater, pesticides, toxic substances, solid and hazardous wastes,
and Superfund-related activities. This publication 1s one of the products of
that research and provides a vital communication link between the researcher
and the user community.
This guidance document provides an overview of a new research demonstra-
tion program designed to evaluate the use of Innovative engineering and
scientific technologies to reduce the volume and/or toxicity of wastes
produced from the manufacture, processing, and use of materials. The "WRITE
Pilot Program With State and Local Governments11 1s a major component of a
national pollution prevention research program called the "Waste Reduction
Innovative Technology Evaluation" (WRITE) Program. The WRITE Program Is
.broad In technical scope and addresses the reduction of pollutants across all
environmental media: air, land, surface water, and ground water. Under this
pilot program, technical and economic evaluations of source reduction and
recycling technologies are being conducted through the joint efforts of
various State and local governments and EPA. Information obtained under this
program will assist Federal, State, and local governments, as well as small-
and mid-size Industries In evaluating waste reduction technologies by
providing reliable performance and cost Information on pollution prevention
technologies. This research will also serve to accomplish an early
Introduction of waste reduction techniques Into broad commercial practice.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Acting Director
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
111
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword 111
Figures and Tables v
Executive Summary v1
1. Introduction 1
2. Background 2
3. The Haste Reduction Innovative Technology Evaluation
(WRITE) Program 8
4. WRITE Pilot Program With State and*Local Governments 12
5. Additional EPA Research, Development, and Demonstration
Pollution Prevention Programs 30
References 34
iv
-------
FIGURES
Page
Waste Reduction Techniques 5
Subprogram Emphasis 1n the WRITE Program 9
Worth Assessment Model For Evaluation of a Waste
Reduction Technology 22
Example Outline for a Waste Reduction Evaluation Report 29
TABLES
Page
Waste Management Hierarchy 4
Industries of Primary Interest Under the WRITE Program 14
WRITE* Program Regional Breakdown of the United States 14
SIC Classification of Some First-Third Land Banned Wastes 15
Maturity Index 17
Waste Reduction Technology Evaluation Schedule 24
Summary of Engineering Evaluation for Cold Solvent Cleaning
Process Modification 28
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The "Waste Reduction Innovative Technology Evaluation (WRITE) Pilot
Program With State and Local Governments" Is a major component of a new
national research program being undertaken by the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA) called the "Waste Reduction Innovative Technology Evalua-
tion (WRITE) Program." The WRITE Program 1s Implemented by the Waste Mini-
mization Branch (WMB) of the Office of Research and Development of EPA's Risk
Reduction Engineering Laboratory 1n Cincinnati. This guidance document'
provides an overview of the "WRITE Pilot Program With State and Local Govern-
ments," presents Its goals, and explains the general policy regarding funding
and execution.
The WRITE Program 1s a research demonstration program designed.to eval-
uate the use of Innovative engineering and scientific technologies to reduce
the volume and/or toxldty of wastes produced from the manufacture, process-
Ing, and use of materials. It encourages the -Interaction of government and
Industry 1n the demonstration and evaluation of available Innovative produc-
tion and recycling options for reducing waste generation. Research under the
WRITE Program supports the Intent of the 1984 Amendments to the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, which Is to reduce the amount of hazardous and
nonhazardous waste produced 1n the United States and to encourage the adopt-
ion of pollution-prevention practices and technologies.
Under the "WRITE Pilot Program With State and Local Governments," tech-
nical and economic evaluations are being conducted of manufacturing, proces-
sing, and use operations 1n which pollution-prevention techniques reduce the
volume and/or toxicity of waste generated. These evaluations are being
funded through the joint efforts of the EPA and various State and local
governments. This joint approach was chosen because State and local govern-
ment officials are familiar with local Industrial practices and regional
manufacturing and economic Interests that can affect the potential success
and widespread applicability of proposed pollution-prevention technologies.
This pilot program is being conducted to determine the success of incorpora-
ting pollution-prevention technologies and practices in Industrial operations
through Federal and State cooperative efforts.
Because the EPA is already devoting considerable effort and funding to
waste treatment under other Agency programs [e.g., the Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program], research efforts under the WRITE
Program focus primarily on source reduction and the recycling and reuse of
waste materials.
Further information concerning the WRITE Program can be obtained by
contacting M. Lynn Apel of the Waste Minimization Branch. Written correspon-
dence and Inquiries for additional information concerning this and other
vi
-------
research and development programs in pollution prevention should be directed
to:
Waste Minimization Branch
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 W. Martin L. King Or.
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
vil
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Passage of the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWAs) to the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 marked a strong change
1n the U.S. policies concerning the generation of hazardous and nonhazardous
wastes. In addition to authorizing very stringent treatment and disposal
regulations, the Amendments also Indicated (as the Nation's top waste manage-
ment priority) a redirection toward "waste minimization11 as a preferential
strategy for encouraging Improvement In environmental quality.
To carry out the Intent of the Amendments to reduce the generation of
waste 1n the United States, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
has developed a comprehensive pollution-prevention program addressing the
release and transport of hazardous, toxic, and nonhazardous materials through
air, water, and solid media. The EPA pollution-prevention program Includes
Information gathering, research and development, demonstration, support of
State/municipality waste-minimization and pollution-prevention programs,
training and education, technology transfer activities, waste-minimization
assessments, and extensive communication with universities, State and local
governments, and the general public. The part of the EPA program concerned
with research, development, and demonstration of pollution-prevention tech-
nologies Is the responsibility of the Waste Minimization Branch of the Risk
Reduction Engineering Laboratory of the Office of Research and Development- in
Cincinnati, Ohio.
This document describes one of the pollution-prevention activities being
undertaken by the Agency. The "Waste Reduction Innovative Technology Evalua-
tion (WRITE) Program" has been designed to identify, evaluate, and/or demon-
strate new Ideas and technologies that lead to waste reduction. The "WRITE
Pilot Program With State and Local Governments" Involves the cooperative
efforts of the EPA, State and local governments, private Industry, and other
organizations to encourage the development and/or demonstration of effective
techniques and technologies for pollution prevention.
-------
SECTION 2
BACKGROUND
During the last decade, waste management and disposal regulations have
changed drastically. During the 1970's, the seriousness of the hazardous
waste problem became apparent and prompted enactment of the Resource Con-
servation and Recovery Act (RCRA) In 1976. Since that time, the Increasing
quantity of waste generated 1n the United States and Its effect on human
health and the environment have received significant attention from the
public, EPA, and Industry. By the early 1980's, It had become apparent that
even well-regulated land disposal could cause significant environmental
damage. The 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWAs) to RCRA have
resulted 1n the banning of the land disposal of some 400 chemicals and haz-
ardous wastes.
During the 1980's, significant effort was devoted to research, develop-
ment, and commercialization of hazardous waste treatment technologies. Al-
though some efforts were successful 1n substantially mitigating the problem
of existing waste, It became apparent that treatment alone would not solve
all of the problems associated with the Increasing amounts of hazardous and
nonhazardous waste being generated.
Congress recognized this fact while drafting the national policy on
hazardous wastes and directed EPA to report on the feasibility and desirabil-
ity of developing mandatory requirements to compel the adoption of pollution-
prevention techniques. The 1984 HSWAs to RCRA define the national policy on
hazardous waste management as follows:
"The Congress hereby declares It to be the national policy of the United
States that, wherever feasible, the generation of hazardous waste is to
be reduced or eliminated as expeditiously as possible. Waste that is
nevertheless generated should be treated, stored, or disposed of so as
to minimize the present and future threat to human health and the en-
vironment.11 [1]
The following are three statutory requirements for generators:
-------
1) They must certify on their waste manifests that they have in place
a program "to reduce the volume or quantity and toxicity of such
waste to the degree determined by the generator to be economically
practicable;11
2) They must make the same certification in relation to any new permit
issued for treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste; and
3) They must describe In a biennial report to EPA any waste minimiza-
tion program and accomplishment during the reporting period.
DEFINITION OF WASTE MINIMIZATION
In 1986, EPA responded to the Congressional request 1n the HSWAs with a
Report to Congress on the Minimization of Hazardous Waste [2]. In this
report, the Agency defined waste minimization as:
"The reduction, to the extent feasible, of hazardous waste that 1s
generated or subsequently treated, stored or disposed of. It Includes
any source reduction or recycling activity undertaken by a generator
that results in either (1) the reduction of total volume or quantity of
hazardous waste or (2) the reduction of toxicity of hazardous waste, or
both, so long as the reduction 1s consistent with the goal of minimiza-
tion of present and future threats to human health and environment.11
The EPA's definition of waste minimization Includes source reduction and re-
cycling, the first two elements In the Waste Management Hierarchy shown in
Table 1 [3]. Source reduction and recycling each comprise practices and
procedures as those shown in Figure 1.
EPA'S WASTE MINIMIZATION PROGRAM
In Its Report to Congress, the Agency explored various technical, eco-
nomic, and policy Issues relevant to the reduction and recycling of hazardous
and nonhazardous wastes, and concluded that it would be counterproductive for
EPA to establish a mandatory program for waste minimization at this time.
This conclusion was based on three key factors. First, mandatory programs
would "second-guess" Industry's production decisions and quite possibly
produce counterproductive results. Second, mandatory programs would be
difficult and expensive to design and administer. Third, generators already
face strong economic Incentives to reduce their wastes. A regulatory program
-------
TABLE 1. WASTE MANAGEMENT HIERARCHY
Source Reduction: The reduction or elimination of waste at the source,
usually within a process. Source reduction measures Include process
modifications, feedstock substitutions. Improvements in feedstock -
purity, housekeeping and management practice changes, Increases 1n the
efficiency of equipment, and recycling within a process.
Recycling: The use or reuse of a waste material as an effective substi-
tute for a commercial product or as an Ingredient or feedstock 1n an
Industrial process. It Includes the reclamation of useful constituent
fractions within a waste material or the removal of contaminants from a
waste to allow 1t to be reused.
Treatment: Any method, technique or process that changes the physical,
chemical, or biological character of any waste so as to neutralize such
waste, to recover energy or material resources from the waste, or to
render such waste nonhazardous, less hazardous, safer to manage, amen-
able for recovery, amenable for storage, or reduced 1n volume.
Disposal: The discharge, deposit, Injection, dumping, spilling, leak-
Ing, or placing of waste Into or on any land or water so that such waste
or any constituents may enter the air or be discharged Into any waters,
Including ground water.
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION TECHNIQUES
99999»999999999999999999I99999999S
499999909999!
99999999999995
SOURCE REDUCTION
PRODUCT CHANGES
Product substitution
Product conservation
Changes In product
composition
<99999999999999909999999999999999
SOURCE CONTROL
9959999959999999399999999999999!
INPUT MATERIAL
CHANGES
Material purification
Material substitution
099999999999999999999999999999S
TECHNOLOGY
CHANGES
Process changes
Equipment, piping, or
layout changes
Additional automation
Changes In operational
settings
fs/srs/s/rssssssssssssssssssss*
Tim.
RECYCLING
(ONSITEANDOFFSITE)
USE AND REUSE
Return to original process
Raw material substitute
for another process
£999999999999990993999999
GOOD OPERATING
PRACTICES
Procedural measures
Loss prevention
Management practices
Waste stream segregation
Material handling
Improvements »
Production scheduling #
\
RECLAMATION
Processed lor
resource recovery
Processed as a
by-product
99999999991999999!!
Figure 1. Waste reduction techniques.
-------
would take time to develop, and many industries might postpone any action
until mandatory requirements are defined.
The Report to Congress stressed that the most constructive role govern-
ment could assume is to promote voluntary waste minimization by providing
Information, technology transfer, and assistance to waste generators. The
Agency proposed a pollution-prevention program to encourage Industry to
accelerate efforts to reduce the generation of wastes through Implementation
of process changes and/or the Incorporation of recycling methods.
In Us efforts to pursue the objectives set forth by Congress, EPA has
established a national program to effect waste minimization. This program Is
based on the five elements listed below [3].
1) Promoting waste reduction by transferring technical Information to
firms and State and local government .technical assistance officers.
2) Encouraging the adoption of waste reduction by Identifying, eval-
uating, and demonstrating appropriate technologies and by promoting
the use of waste minimization assessments.
3) Keeping Congress advised on national progress on waste
minimization.
4) Fostering development of State and local government waste-minimiza-
tion programs.
5) Developing outreach and communication programs with the goal of
raising awareness of the benefits of waste minimization within
government, Industry, and the public.
To accomplish some of these objectives, EPA recently established the
Waste Minimization Branch (WMB) in Its Office of Research and Development.
The WMB is responsible for encouraging the development and adoption of tech-
nologies that result in a reduction in volume and/or toxiclty of waste mate-
rials generated in the United States. Research, development, and demonstra-
tion activities undertaken by the WMB focus on the implementation of source
reduction and other pollution-prevention technologies such as recycling for
all wastes, Including hazardous, nonhazardous, Industrial, and municipal
wastes.
The WMB also provides support to the operating programs of EPA and to '
State and municipal agencies in the development of policies and regulations
related to pollution-prevention. Technical assistance concerning pollution-
-------
prevention research activities 1s also provided by the WMB to other offices
within EPA and the Federal government, to State and local governments, and to
Industry.
-------
SECTION 3
THE WASTE REDUCTION INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY
EVALUATION (WRITE) PROGRAM
OVERVIEW
The WRITE Program 1s designed to Identify, evaluate, and/or demonstrate
new Ideas and technologies that lead to waste reduction. Its overall goal 1s
to promote the national waste-minimization policy by the cooperative Involve-
ment of EPA with private Industry 1n an effort to encourage the development
and/or demonstration of effective technologies for waste minimization. The
WRITE Program 1s broad 1n. technical scope and addresses the reduction of
pollutants across all environmental media: air, land, surface water, and
ground water. Source reduction, defined as the reduction or elimination of
releases through either production process changes or other source modifica-
tions, 1s a more desirable technique than recycling and 1s thus more strongly
emphasized under the WRITE Program. The WRITE Program Is directed and Imple-
mented by the WMB of the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL), a
component of the Office of Research and Development (ORD) of the EPA.
For the purposes of this program, Innovative waste-minimization tech-
nologies are defined as those technologies that represent an alternative
approach to conventional waste management methods (I.e., Incineration, land
disposal, treatment, etc.). This approach Involves substantially reducing
the volume or toxidty of waste generated at the source and/or recycling or
reusing the waste materials. In some cases, the technologies may Incor-
porate novel modifications to a component of an existing process or opera-
tion.
As shown in Figure 2, the WRITE Program Is composed of several subpro-
grams. The "WRITE Pilot Program With State and Local Governments11 1s one of
two evaluation subprograms and addresses immediate information transfer needs
through cooperative efforts with State and local governments and industry.
8
-------
WRITE PROGRAM
i
EVALUATION
SUBPROGRAMS
(70%)
RESEARCH
SUBPROGRAM
IO
WRITE PILOT PROGRAM WITH
STATE/LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
(80%)
STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
SMALL AND MEDIUM SIZE INDUSTRIES
1
WRITE PROGRAM WITH
INDUSTRY
(20%)
INDIVIDUAL COMPANIES
INDUSTRIAL TRADE
ORGANIZATIONS/
TECHNICAL SOCIETIES
LARGE INDUSTRIES
«
WRITE RESEARCH
PROGRAM
UNIVERSITIES
OTHER GOVERNMENT
AGENCIES
INDUSTRIAL TRADE
ORGANIZATIONS/
TECHNICAL SOCIETIES
Figure 2. Subprogram emphasis in the WRITE Program.
-------
Under this pilot program, technical and economic evaluations are being con-
ducted of manufacturing and processing operations in which waste-minimization
technologies reduce the volume and/or toxicity of wastes generated. These
evaluations are being provided through the joint efforts of EPA and various
State and local governments. This joint approach was chosen because State
and local governments are much more familiar with local Industrial practices
and regional manufacturing and economic Interests, which can affect the
potential success and widespread applicability of proposed waste minimization
technologies.
The second evaluation subprogram, the "WRITE Program With Industry"
focuses on evaluations of waste reduction technologies currently 1n use or
under development by large Industries. One of the objectives of this program
Is to encourage the transfer of knowledge and technology concerning
pollution prevention practices between large, mid-size, and small Industries.
Under the "WRITE Program With Industry", evaluations of waste reduction tech-
nologies are performed directly with Industrial firms or through Industrial
trade associations and/or technical societies.
In addition to the two evaluation subprograms, the WRITE Program has a
research subprogram. This subprogram, called the "WRITE Research Program",
focuses on pollution-prevention research needs, I.e., the generation of data
to allow the future demonstration of emerging new pollution-prevention tech-
niques. Projects under this component of the WRITE Program will address
various technical obstacles to waste reduction and to chemical-, waste-
stream-, and industry-specific waste minimization Issues. Research projects
under this subprogram will be conducted with Industrial firms, universities,
other government agencies, technical societies, and Industrial trade
organizations. Additional Information concerning the "WRITE Research Pro-
gram" can be obtained from the WMB.
Because EPA Is already devoting considerable effort and funding to waste
treatment under other Agency programs [e.g., the Superfund Innovative Tech-
nology Evaluation (SITE) Program], efforts under the WRITE Program focus
primarily on 1) source reduction through process modification and other
means, and 2) recycling/recovery of waste materials for reuse. Innovative
10
-------
modifications to existing processes* (e.g., In-plant changes, process modifi-
cations, etc.), however, are considered.
PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE WRITE PROGRAM
The purpose of the WRITE Program Is to Identify, develop, and evaluate,
through engineering and economic assessments, Innovative techniques for
pollution prevention. Attention Is directed toward nfethodologles with-the
potential for reducing the quantity and/or toxldty of waste produced at the
source of generation, or to achieve practicable onslte reuse or recycling of
waste materials. Strong consideration 1s given to the applicability of a
technique on an Industry-wide basis and across Industries.
The objectives of the WRITE Program are as follows:
0 To establish reliable performance and cost Information on pollution
prevention techniques by conducting evaluations or demonstrations
of the more promising Innovative technologies.
0 To accomplish an early Introduction of waste-reduction techniques
Into broad commercial practice.
0 To encourage active participation of small- and medium-sized com-
panies In evaluating and adopting pollution-prevention concepts by
providing support to these companies through State and local
government agencies.
0 To encourage the transfer of knowledge and technology concerning
pollution-prevention practices between large, medium-sized, and
small Industries.
0 To provide solutions to Important chemical-, wastestream-, and
Industry-specific pollution-prevention research needs.
11
-------
SECTION 4
WRITE PILOT PROGRAM WITH STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
The "WRITE Pilot Program With State and Local Governments" Involves the
cooperative efforts of EPA, State and local governments, private Industry,
and other organizations to encourage the development and demonstration of
effective technologies for multimedia pollution prevention. The success of
this pilot program will determine the future expansion of this part of the
overall WRITE Program and the effectiveness of Incorporating pollution-pre-
vention technologies and practices 1n Industry operations through federal and
state cooperative efforts.
For Fiscal Year 1989 (10/1/88 - 9/30/89), the following factors provide
the basis for this pilot program:
1) EPA will recruit approximately six to eight State/local governments
to participate In this pilot program. This pilot program 1s not a
competitive progam and, therefore, proposals are not being solic-
ited.
2) Approximately $1,200,000 has been made available under this pilot
program for cooperative agreements between EPA and State/local
governments. Funding for this pilot program in fiscal years 1990
and 1991 will also be available.
3) Initial EPA funds of $100,000 will be made to each participating
State/local government. The amount of additional funds provided to
each State/local government will be determined on a case-by-case
basis and will average approximately $100,000 per year for each
State/local government. A maximum of $300,000 may be provided to
each State/local government participating in this pilot program.
Funds will be provided incrementally during the project period of
the cooperative agreement.
4) Funds awarded to each State/local government may be expended by the
State/local government over a period of up to 3 years, as appro-
priate.
12
-------
5) State/local governments participating 1n this program are required
to provide a 33 to 50 percent cost share (50 to 100 percent match-
ing funds) or in-kind contributions. [For example, to receive an
EPA award of $100,000, a State/local government must provide addi-
tional funds or in-kind goods or services of $50,000 to $100,000.]
RECRUITMENT OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FOR PARTICIPATION IN PILOT PROGRAM
The EPA considered several factors 1n recruiting State and local govern-
ments to participate 1n this pilot program. These factors are summarized
here.
1) Established waste-reduction program within a State/local govern-
ment.
2) Demonstrated experience In cooperative research efforts with Indus-
tries of varying size and type located within a State/local govern-
ment.
3) Significant level of State/local government resources dedicated to
waste-reduction activities. This Includes the number of
State/local government technical and administrative personnel and
the existence of State/local government funds sufficient to meet
cost share requirements.
4} Level of other Federal funds available to a State/local government
for conducting waste minimization/reduction activities.
5) Geographical location and types of Industries present within the"
area of a State/local government. For this pilot program, a
concentrated effort was made to recruit State/local governments
representing insofar as possible all regions of the United States
as well as major industrial segments and waste categories. Table 2
lists the industries of primary interest under this pilot program.
Table 3 Identifies the regional breakdown of the United States used
In recruiting State and local governments.
6) Types of chemicals and waste streams present within a State/local
government as related to the chemicals/waste streams of priority
concern to EPA. For example, wastes banned from land disposal are
of high concern to EPA. Some of these wastes are listed in
Table 4.
13
-------
TABLE 2. INDUSTRIES OF PRIMARY INTEREST UNDER THE WRITE PROGRAM
SIC major group
Industry classification
Food 20
Textile 22
Lumber 24
Printing & Publishing 27
Chemicals 28
Petroleum 29
Fabricated Metals 34
Machinery Except Electric 35
Electronic & Electric 36
Transportation 37
TABLE 3. WRITE PROGRAM REGIONAL BREAKDOWN OF THE UNITED STATES
Region States Included
1 ME, MA, NH, VT, CT, RI
2 NY, NJ, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands
3 DC, WV, DE, PA, MD
4 KY, FL, GA, SC, NC, AL, TN, MS
5 MN, WI, IL, IN, MI, OH
6 AR, LA, NM, OK, TX
7 NE, IA, MO, KS
8 SD, ND, MT, WY, UT, CO
9 NV, AR, CA, HI, American Samoa, Guam
10 AK, ID, OR, WA
14
-------
TABLE 4. SIC CLASSIFICATION OF SOME FIRST-THIRD
LAND BANNED WASTES.
WASTE
CODE
SIC
INDUSTRY GROUP
F006
F007
F008
F009
F019
K001
K004
K008
K011
K013
K014
K015
K016
K017
K018
K020
K021
K022
K024
K030
K031
K035
K044
K045
K047
K048
K049
K050
K051
K052
K060
K061
K062
K069
K071
K073
K083
K084
K08S
K086
K087
K099
K101
K102
K103
K104
K106
34
34
34
34
34
24
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
29
29
29
29
29
29
33
33
93
28
28
28
28
28
28
29
28
28
28
28
28
28
Fabricated Metal Products
. _
Lumber & Wood Products
Chemical & Allied Products
«
Petroleum & Coal Products
mm*
9mm
Primary Metal Industry
Chemical & Allied Products
Petroleum & Coal Products
Chemical & Allied Industry
»
15
-------
CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF WASTE-REDUCTION TECHNOLOGIES FOR EVALUATION WITHIN
A STATE/LOCAL GOVERNMENT
The selection criteria for waste minimization technologies will be
developed on a case-by-case basis, depending on the type of application,
Industry segment, scale of demonstration, etc. Determination of the actual
technologies evaluated under the "WRITE Pilot Program With State and Local
Governments" will be made jointly by EPA and the State/local government* The
technical criteria.presented herein are examples of some that are Important
for the evaluation of many applications. This list 1s not complete 1n
Itself, but rather serves as a guide that should be considered 1n selecting
technologies.
Technical Evaluation Criteria
Examples of technical evaluation criteria are as follows:
1. Type of Waste-Minimization Technology
The objective of waste volume or toxldty reduction can be achieved
by source reduction, waste recycling, waste reclamation, and treat-
ment. Source reduction could entail, for example, product reformu-
lation, product substitution, process modification, or equipment
redesign. Waste recycling and reclamation could be on-s1te or
offsite. Treatment Involves end-of-p1pe destruction or detoxi-
fication of wastes from various separation/concentration processes
Into harmless or less toxic substances. Under the WRITE program,
only source reduction and recycling applications are considered;
offsite reclamation or recycling and treatment technologies are not
considered.
2. Status of Development
Technical developments follow a hierarchy of successive steps as
they proceed from the Idea to commercial reality. Each step (e.g.,
documentation of the Idea, bench-scale testing, pilot-scale test-
Ing, and sustained operation of Integrated systems) has a unique
set of attributes and characteristics that reflect the relative
maturity of the development. The "WRITE Pilot Program With State
and Local Governments" 1s concerned only with those technologies
that have a relatively high maturity. The U.S. Department of
Energy has developed a maturity Index that can be used to determine
relative maturity. This maturity Index uses a numerical scale from
1 to 100. The scale 1s essentially arbitrary. Table 5 presents
the scale of development of a technology, the corresponding matur-
ity Index, and associated developmental characteristics. This
16
-------
TABLES. Maturity Index.
SCALE OF A
DEVELOPMENT
Commercial
POot Plant
nonch
1ATURF
INDEX
100
97
93
92
Q1
TO
42
37
38
34
29
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
1A
17
18
15
1*4
12
1O
4
3
2
1
CHARACTERISTICS
Specific private sector interest in system application - commercial operation
Specific private sector interest in system application - construction complete
Specific private sector interest in system application - system design complete
Specific private sector interest in system application - contract awarded
rm nfmai for detailed design- oi replicate systems possum (data avanaoJe)
criteria Bsted below for prototype system; duration of operation sufficient
fatigue Mures, etc. tar determination of plant lite
PMAMHM nrntntiMi fiiPiHlii A*WM«4vMi
Cost estimate complete based on most up^tonjate data
Integrated pilot plant constructed
Integrated pilot plant designed
Integrated subscate pilot plant operated
Integrated subscafle pilot plant constructed
Integrated subscaio pilot plant designed
Non ntegratod pilot plant operated
Non-integrated pilot plant constructed
Non-integrated pilot ptont designed
1 loit »«>rigMlla»aa ^l^m**^**t* ^^i^M^taa ««»t^k«J
unii opefaoon oiemenis consvuciBQ
xpenmenis ana analysis conoucieo 10 nv point 01 mapping system vanaoie
responses and optimization
Delated documentation of idea, principles, and other essential system elements
Idea developed to encompass a definable system
Descrbable idea
17
-------
ranking system can be used to decide the status of a waste-minimi-
zation technology. The technologies considered under the "WRITE
Pilot Program With State and Local Governments" program will have a
maturity Index equal to or above 29.
3. Unique Nature of the Technology
The WRITE program focuses on f1rst-of-a-k1nd applications of a
technology. If a technology has been previously demonstrated and
Its cost/performance documented, 1t may not be considered under the
"WRITE Pilot Program with States and Local Governments":
4. Applications
Three types of applications will be considered under this-
criterion:
Capability of the technology to minimize one or more of the
priority wastesPriority wastes Include those that have been
pat
101
subjected to land disposal ban. Any process that can minimize
these waste streams will be given special consideration.
0 Range of other potential appl1cations-*A waste minimization
technique for one process could have applications for another
process. Many chemical manufacturing processes follow similar
reaction mechanisms; therefore, a modification for one may
often be theoretically applicable to other similar reactions.
For example, benzene and toluene chlorlnatlon reactions follow
a similar mechanism; thus, a modification applicable to ben-
zene chlorlnatlon could be applled-to toluene chlorlnatlon
with similar results.
0 Size of the IndustryOne of the objectives of the "WRITE
Pilot Program With State and Local Governments" is to promote
waste minimization In small- and medium-scale operations.
Thus, technologies/concepts targeting this Industrial sector
will have special consideration.
5. Source-Reduction-Performance Capability
The extent of waste volume or toxicity reduction achieved is the
main measure of performance capability; however, this criterion has
several dimensions to it.
0 The extent of waste volume or toxicity reduction 1s the mea-
sure of the performance capability, I.e., efficiency. Depend-
ing on the type of application, the extent of waste reduction
achieved will change; hence, there Is no definitive minimum
18
-------
standard for this parameter. Within similar types of applica-
tions, however, a technology with a higher efficiency will
receive higher priority.
0 The effect of the process modification on the product quality.
Technologies of greatest interest are those where no discer-
nible difference is detected in the quality of the final
product.
6. Extent of Process Modification
The technology could Involve a process and/or equipment modifica-
tion. The modification may Involve only a minor change in a pro-
cess operation and/or a small equipment change. A significant
modification could Involve an extensive retrofit of an existing
piece of equipment or process or construction of a new equipment
facility. Smaller, more cost effective modifications are prefer-
red.
7. Cost-Effectiveness of the Technology
An estimate of the cost-effectiveness of .the technology will be
determined by comparing the costs-of adopting the Innovative tech-
nology versus the status quo or conventional technology. If alter-
native waste minimization techniques exist, they will be compared
to the proposed technology and the option providing the greatest
waste reduction per dollar (calculated by methods such as payback
period, cost/benefit analysis, Internal rate of return, etc.; will
be given preference.
8. Process Safety and Health Considerations
Process safety and associated health considerations play an es-
sential role in the selection of a technology for evaluation. Each
technology must be carefully evaluated for possible dangerous
operating situations (e.g., explosions, runaway reactions, fire
hazards). Moreover, there must be no health risks arising (for
example, from the possibilities of toxic emissions), during either
normal or abnormal operations.
9. Cost to the EPA and State/Local Government
The cost to the EPA and the State/local governments of an evalua-
tion of a technology Is obviously an important consideration. Such
costs usually depend primarily on the amount and difficulty of the
analytical work required and the complexity of the engineering
evaluation steps necessary. If the demonstration entails develop-
ing new analytical methods for which standard methods do not exist
or significantly modifying existing sampling and analytical
methods, or if the engineering evaluation required is highly
19
-------
detailed or complex, evaluation costs to the EPA and the
State/local government may be unacceptably high. Limited program
funds make the cost of conducting a demonstration an Important
consideration.
Other Criteria
Examples of other criteria are as follows:
10. Demonstrator's Qualifications
The technical qualifications (past experience, technical personnel)
and the financial capabilities of the demonstrator are considered
during the selection process. The. EPA and State/local governments
provide funding only for the analytical and evaluation work. Thus.
the demonstrator must be financially capable of conducting the
field demonstration Itself.
11. Legal/Contractual Issues
The EPA and State/local governments consider legal/contractual
Issues such as patent rights, proprietary Information, etc. Al-
though patented technologies can be evaluated, all pertinent Infor-
mation regarding the technology must be publicly available. Also,
the technology must be available for use (even though royalties
might be applicable).
12. Length of the Project
Technologies are preferred for which selection, evaluation, and
report preparation can be completed within a period of no greater
than 12 months.
Worth Assessment Model
A worth assessment model 1s one of the decision tools EPA and the State/
local governments may use to evaluate and rank potential waste minimization
technologies. As noted earlier, each technology must comply with the follow-
ing requirements to be considered for evaluation under the "WRITE Pilot
Program With State and Local Governments". The technology must:
0 Involve source reduction or recycling.
0 Be within the prescribed maturity Index limits.
0 Be used In a unique, f1rst-of-the-k1nd application.
Also, all major legal/contractual Issues will have to be resolved before the
technology can be evaluated.
20
-------
Technologies meeting the preceding criteria will be analyzed further
with the worth assessment model presented in Figure 3. The technical merit
of each technology will be evaluated with respect to the following criteria:
status of development (maturity index), applications, performance capability,
extent of process/equipment modification, cost-effectiveness, health and
safety, and cost to the EPA and State/local governments.
EVALUATION OF A WASTE REDUCTION TECHNOLOGY
Under the "WRITE Pilot Program With State and Local Governments", an
Initial award of $100,000 will be given to each participating State and local
government. As technologies are chosen for evaluation within a State/local
government, EPA will meet with each State/local government to determine If
they have the technical personnel required to conduct the technical and
economic evaluations. If a State/local government has these resources
available to the program, EPA will continue to provide full funding for the
remaining years of the cooperative agreement (average Federal funding level
of $100,000 per year) directly to the State/local government. If, however, a
State/local government is unable to conduct these evaluations, EPA will
reduce the subsequent year funding level and use the balance of the funds to
provide an' EPA technical contractor to perform the evaluations. Under this
scenario, funds would be provided to the State/local government to contact
industries, to assist in the selection of technologies, and to coordinate the
performance of the evaluations and the reporting of results. For this rea-
son, the outyear funding level for each State/local government recruited
under the "WRITE Pilot Program With State and Local Governments" may vary and
will be decided on a case-by-case basis.
An average of five technologies are expected to be evaluated during the
3-year period of this pilot program with each State/local government. Table
6 shows a typical projected schedule for conducting a waste-reduction tech-
nology evaluation. It is anticipated that each evaluation will be completed
within one year or less. Table 6 serves as a guide and illustrates several
of the activities that may be required in conducting a technology evaluation.
Depending on the complexity of a technology, an evaluation may be completed
in significantly less than one year if items shown in this table are not
-------
Criteria
Status of Development
Maturity index 0-28
Maturity index 29-35
Maturity index 37-70
Maturity Index 80-90
Maturity Index 90-100
Applications
Priority Waste
- High
- Moderate
- None
Range of other applications
- More than one Industry/
process
- One Industry/process
- Site-specific application
Size of Industry
- Small Scale
- Medium Scale
- Large Scale
Source Reduction Performance
Capability
Significant reduction
Moderate
Slight improvement
No change
Extent of Process/Equipment
Modification
Low
Moderate
Significant
Cost-Effectiveness of
Technology
Significant
Moderate
Slightly better
Poor
Ranking
[1.0]
[0.5
[0.1]
[1.0]
[0.5]
[0.0]
1.0
(1.0)
(0.5)
(0.0)
0.1
0.5
1.0
0.2
(0.3)
(0.4)
(0.3)
(1.0)
(0.5)
(0.1)
(0.0)
(1.0)
(0.5)
(0.1)
(1.0)
(0.5)
(0.1)
(0.0)
Weight
5
20
20
10
15
Figure 3. Worth assessment model for evaluation
of a waste reduction technology.
22
-------
Safety and Health Considerations
Beneficial
Same as conventional
Deleterious, but solvable
Very hazardous
Cost to EPA and State/Local
Governments
Low
Moderate
High
Demonstrator's Qualifications
Technical
Excellent
Moderate
- Poor
Financial Condition
- Excellent
- Moderate
- Poor
Legal/Contractual Issues
None
Solvable
Serious
Length of Evaluation
0 to 6 months
6 to 12 months
Greater than 12 months
1.0]
0.5]
0.1]
.(1.0)
(0.5)
(0.1)
(1.0)
(0.5)
(0.0)
(0.5)
(0.5)
1.0)
0.5)
0.1)
1.0)
1.0)
0.1)
10
Too
Figure 3. Worth assessment model for evaluation
of a waste reduction technology (continued).
23
-------
TABLE 6. Waste reduction technology evaluation schedule.
ACTIVITY
Selection of WM Study (
Site visit and preliminary
on-site review
Detailed review/identification
of key parameters
Decision
EPA/State contract negotiations
and scheduling field demonstrations
Preparation of
test/samplIng/QA plan
EPA/State review and comments
Final approval of test plan
Pre-test activity
(I.e. coordination with analytical labs, etc.)
Reid demonstration and sampling
Samples to the laboratory
Laboratory analytical results
Data analysis and material balance
Summary of results from engineering
and cost evaluation
Preparation of draft report
EPA/State review and comments
Submit final report to EPA/State
MONTH
1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
r
*
£23
-
m
9
i
mm!
*
i
4
i
i
RT
B
089
m
1
m
T-HB
m CflmCALPATH
NON-CRITICAL PATH
24
-------
required. The following subsections describe the scope of the engineering
and economic evaluations and procedures for reporting the results and conclu-
sions.
Engineering and Economic Evaluations
The technical evaluation establishes the status of the technology with
respect to each technical criterion. This evaluation Involves an in-depth
study of the process, a literature review, material and energy balance compu-
tations, a field demonstration, and cost estimation.
It 1s recognized that the short tine Involved In conducting the evalua-
tion of a technology precludes examination of long-term operating data for
evaluation of life-cycle costs and long-term operating problems. Also, the
long-term data required to assess maintenance and repair costs for most of
the technologies studied may not be available. These evaluation shortcomings
are accepted; however, they will be compensated for by making engineering
estimates of the Impacts and costs of long-term operation.
Once a technology has been selected for demonstration, a detailed test
plan will be developed and coordinated with EPA, the State/local governments
and the developer. At a minimum, this plan addresses the following:
1. Testing Program Duration and Schedule
The developer will propose the duration of the demonstration to
establish the relevant parameters for evaluating process perfor-
mance and cost. The State/local governments and EPA will discuss
and finalize the evaluation schedule with the developer.
2. Development of Detailed Evaluation Design
The developer, State/local governments, and EPA (with the assis-
tance of a contractor, if required) will develop a detailed evalua-
tion design. The evaluation will be designed to define the limits
of the most useful range of performance and the cost-effectiveness
of the proposed technology. It will also provide for collection of
scientifically valid data on process operating parameters, flow
rates, controls, process stream concentrations, etc.
3. Sampling and Analytical Procedures
The State/local governments or the EPA contractor will be respon-
sible for the coordination and development of a sampling and analy-
sis plan that 1s scientifically adequate to support the claims for
the proposed technology and to evaluate its effectiveness.
25
-------
4. Health and Safety Concerns
A health and safety plan will be prepared by the State/local
governments or the EPA contractor 1n conjunction with the
developer. This Plan will discuss necessary provisions for medical
monitoring of operating and management personnel, levels of worker
protection, emergency procedures, etc.
In addition to the development of a test plan, the State/local govern-
ments and/or the EPA contractor will work with the developer in preparing a
Quality Assurance (QA) Site Plan to ensure that the data are of known and
acceptable quality for their Intended use. All data collected under the
WRITE Pilot Program With State and Local Governments' will be of EPA Cate-
gory III or IV level. Topics often addressed 1n a quality assurance plan
Include:
Project description and Intended use of data
Organization chart and delineation of QA/QC responsibilities
Data quality objectives for critical measurements
Sampling procedures
Analytical procedures
Data reduction, validation, analysis, and reporting
Internal QC checks
Plans for system and performance audits
Calculations of data quality Indicators
Corrective action procedures
QA/QC reports
To assist in the implementation of this pilot program, EPA will prepare
a general Quality Assurance Program Plan addressing data quality objectives,
general sampling and analysis procedures, reporting and documentation
requirements, etc., for the "WRITE Pilot Program With State and Local Govern-
ments". This QA Program Plan will be provided to each State/local government
to assist them In preparing QA Site Plans.
Example of Information Obtained From An Engineering Evaluation
Presented here is an example of the types of information gathered in an
engineering evaluation of a waste minimization technology. The example
concerns the modification of a cold solvent cleaning process.
In the cold cleaning of ball bearings with solvents, using a two-step
countercurrent cleaning sequence can increase the cleaning efficiency. It
26
-------
can also substantially reduce the-solvent requirement and, hence, the waste
generation. This process does not Involve substantial equipment modifica-
tion. Material balance calculations Indicate a waste reduction of 50 percent
and a 33 percent reduction In fresh solvent requirements [4]. Table 7 pre-
sents an overview of an engineering and cost evaluation for this process
modification. Similar evaluations can be performed on any technology for
waste minimization.
Report of Evaluation Results
After the evaluation of a waste-minimization technology has been com-
pleted, a report presenting the findings and conclusions of the evaluation
will be prepared and submitted to EPA. An example outline showing the major
sections of such a report 1s presented 1n Figure 4. In addition to a report
summarizing each evaluation, the State/local governments will prepare an
annual report detailing activities performed under the pilot program and
reporting on the status of each evaluation. At the conclusion of the co-
operative agreement, all evaluation reports will be consolidated Into one
report describing waste-reduction activities.
The EPA will hold a national meeting, where the results of all
waste-reduction evaluation studies underway through the "WRITE Pilot Program
With State and Local Governments" will be presented and discussed. One of
the objectives of such a meeting 1s to provide a national forum to discuss
and promote the projects and to encourage the use of new technologies that
have proven to be successful 1n the reduction of waste generation.
In addition, as research results are available, workshops and seminars
emphasizing regional waste-minimization Issues and waste-reduction practices
for specific Industries will be conducted. These workshops and seminars will
be Interfaced with the dissemination of other research findings and activi-
ties ongoing 1n the Waste Minimization Branch.
27
-------
TABLE 7. SUMMARY OF ENGINEERING EVALUATION FOR COLD SOLVENT
CLEANING PROCESS MODIFICATION
Type of
application
Stage of
development
Unique nature of
technology
Applications
Performance
Need for new
equipment
Cost-effectiveness
of technology
Safety & health
Process modification
Demonstration
F1rst-of-a-k1nd demonstration
Reduces hazardous waste generation 1n the cold cleaning
operations of the parts cleaning Industry, which 1s a
medium/small-scale operation.
Achieves SOX waste reduction by reducing the fresh
solvent requirement by 33% [4],
Requires essentially only minor equipment modification.
Added capital costs $ 600
Net operating savings » $ 380 per year
Payback period » 1.6 years
Note: Net operating savings Include savings resulting
from reduced waste disposal, reduced solvent requirement,
and operation and maintenance expense.
Properly designed system Is considered safe. Metal
cleaning systems are routinely used in Industry without
any safety or health problems.
28
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I. INTRODUCTION
II. TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
III. DESCRIPTION OF TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC EVALUATION
IV. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN
V. DATA SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS
A. HISTORICAL DATA ON FACILITY
B. OPERATING DATA SUMMARY
C. PERFORMANCE AND ANALYTICAL RESULTS
D. ECONOMIC EVALUATION
VI. EVALUATION SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
APPENDIX:
QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES AND RESULTS
Figure 4. Example outline for a Waste Reduction Evaluation Report.
29
-------
SECTION 5
ADDITIONAL EPA RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION
POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAMS
The WRITE Program Is one of several activities currently being under-
taken by EPA to address the Agency's goal of Implementation of a national
'pollution-prevention policy. A summary of some additional EPA research
programs and related activities 1s provided herein.
To encourage the Identification, development, and demonstration of pro-
cesses and technologies that result 1n less waste being generated, EPA's
Office of Research and Development (ORD) has Initiated the programs sum-
marized 1n this section. These programs are designed to be the cornerstone
of the Agency's pollution-prevention research and demonstration program and
will provide sorely needed data on new technologies to the generating sec-
tors. Direction and Implementation of these programs are being undertaken by
the Waste Minimization Branch of the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory of
ORD 1n Cincinnati, Ohio.
Reducing the generation of Industrial and other wastes can be achieved
In many ways. Process chemistry can be changed; potential waste streams can
be recycled within a manufacturing process or back into the process; process
technology and/or equipment can be modified to produce products more effi-
ciently, resulting In less waste; plant operations, I.e., "housekeeping"
methods, can be changed or controlled to produce fewer and smaller waste
streams or less waste in general; changes in raw materials (feedstocks) can
lead to fewer waste streams or less-hazardous waste streams; finally, changes
in the end products from manufacturing operations can, in some instances, be
made so as to affect the types and quantities of wastes emitted. The EPA
waste minimization research, development, and demonstration programs
described below address several of these Issues.
30
-------
Waste Reduction Evaluations at Federal Sites (WREAFS) Program
The Waste Reduction Evaluations at Federal Sites (WREAFS) Program con-
sists of a series of demonstration and evaluation projects for waste reduc-
tion conducted'cooperatively by EPA and various parts of the Department of
Defense (DOD), Department of Energy (DOE), and other Federal agencies. The
WREAFS Program focuses on waste-minimization research opportunities and
technical Information at Federal sites.
Many Federal activities have established waste minimization plans and
programs 1n the past few years. For example, an overall goal within DOD 1s
to reduce hazardous waste generation a total of 50 percent by 1992 compared
with 1985 levels. Several operation and process opportunities for waste-
minimization practices exist at Federal sites that will reduce hazardous
waste and result 1n cost avoidance or cost reduction as well as productivity,
environmental, and human.health benefits. Waste-minimization opportunities
can be applied throughout the Federal community 1n fabrication, production,
and/or maintenance processes, depending on the waste-generating function.
Industrial activities that support Federal activities through In-house or
contract efforts (whether on-s1te or offsite) are .generally the same activi-
ties as those within the private sector. The application may vary, depending
on the final product; however, waste-minimization techniques and technologies
should work In both the Federal or private sector. The WREAFS Program en-
courages the use of any unclassified Federal and Industrial waste minimiza-
tion Information to the maximum extent practicable.
Further Information concerning the WREAFS Program can be obtained by
contacting James S. Bridges (513-569-7683) of the Waste Minimization Branch
of EPA.
The Waste Reduction Assessments Program (WRAP)
The Waste Reduction Assessments Program (WRAP) encourages the Industrial
community's use of waste-minimization assessments. The WRAP Program Is
designed to assist users In applying waste-minimization assessments as a tool
for Identifying options for reducing waste generation. These assessments may
be conducted Internally by In-house teams or through external means, such as
31
-------
consultants, with in-house assistance. Preliminary assessments will be
followed by long-term studies to verify the lasting effectiveness of waste-
minimization applications.
Initial efforts in the Program will demonstrate and evaluate EPA's
Manual for Waste Minimization Opportunity Assessments across a broad scope of
Industrial settings. The development of standard procedures applicable over
a broad range of business sizes and types will provide a uniform basis for
those In decision-making roles to Implement, postpone, or reject identified
options. Experience with the assessment protocol will demonstrate the effec-
tiveness of translating Incentives and disincentives for waste minimization
Into quantifiable factors that can be ranked objectively. Where appropriate,
evaluations will conclude with revisions to the manual. Suggested amendments
will be transferred to State and Regional waste-minimization programs.
Expected expanded efforts within the Program Include tailoring the EPA manual
to reflect the needs of Individual Industries.
Further Information concerning the WRAP Program can be obtained by
contacting Mary Ann Curran (513-569-7837) of the Waste Minimization Branch of
EPA.
Waste Reduction Institute for Scientists and Engineers (WRISE)
The Waste Reduction' Institute for Scientists and Engineers 1s a joint
unlversity/EPA-sponsored institute comprised of senior individuals knowledge-
able in the principles and practices of waste-minimization. Many of the
Institute members probably will be retired from distinguished careers in
Industry. The overall purpose of the group will be to counsel EPA with
respect to Its waste-minimization activities and to serve as liaisons to
private industry generators that the Agency wishes to encourage to adopt and
demonstrate waste-reduction techniques. Review and comment on individual
project documents and participation as lecturers in waste-minimization semi-
nars and In the Waste Reduction Assessments Program are envisioned as acti-
vities to be undertaken by the Institute personnel.
Further information concerning the WRISE Program can be obtained by
contacting Dr. David G. Stephan (513-569-7896) of the Waste Minimization
Branch of EPA.
32
-------
Written correspondence and Inquiries for additional Information con-
cerning Research and Development programs In waste minimization should be
directed to:
Waste Minimization Branch
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 W. Martin L. King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513-569-7215)
(FTS 684-7215)
33
-------
REFERENCES
1. U.S. Congress. Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments. Washington^ D.C.
1984.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Report to Congress, Minimization
of Hazardous Wastes. EPA/530-SW-86-033. Office of Solid Waste, Wash-
ington, D.C. 1986.
3. Freeman, H. M., and 0. Lounsbury. The U.S. EPA Hazardous Waste Minimi-
zation Program. American Institute of Chemical Engineers Annual
Meeting, Washington, D.C. 1988.
4. Jacobs Engineering. Waste Minimization Audit Report: Case Studies of
Minimization of Solvent Waste from Parts Cleaning and from Electronic
Capacitor Manufacturing Operations, Project Summary. EPA/600/52-87/057.
Office of Research and Development (ORD), Cincinnati, OH. 1987.
34
------- |