a

Volume 6, Number 1 Winter 1993

Connecticut Technical Assistance Program

f The ConnTAP 10-Step No-Sweat Guide to I I Replacing Ozone-Deple t ing Solvents I Don9 worry: solvent substitution is less complicated than you think

by Andrew Vecchio, Technical Specialist

With the 1995 phase out date for chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and 1 , 1 , 1 - trichloroethane (TCA) rapidly approach- ing, the push is on to find effective ozone-safe alternatives.

Since no uniform drop in replacement for CFCs or TCA exists, switching to an alternative requires research to select the best option for each facility. Using this 10-step guide will save you time, money, and aggravation.

0 Focus upper management suDDort. This is imperative to ensure your project’s success. Establish a corporate policy to eliminate ozone-depleting solvents by the end of 1995. 0 ~ 0 t . e - oroiect, Use the company newsletter, bulIetin board, memos, etc. 0 Provide sufficient resources. Estab- lish a reasonable schedule to complete the project. Ensure enough manpower is dedicated. Don’t expect an already overworked employee to provide constructive input to the process. 0 Allocate sufficient funds. Plan for changeover costs in the capital budget. This may be easier said than done, but planning for the cost helps assure sufficient-funding .

0 Identify plavers. The environmental manager can provide information on regulations and an industrial engineer can help solve technical problems. A representative from quality control will

know your cleaning requirements. Maintenance personnel can handle chemicals and set up new cleaning operations. The machine operators are the most important players. They must be comfortable with the new cleaning process and have confidence it will work. They are the closest to the problem; allow them to be close to the solution. Select a pollution prevention champion to lead the project team, with the task of overcoming possible resistance to proposed changes in operations. Lastly, involve anyone else who can help the changeover process. 0 Empower project team. Tell all employees the team’s goal and that

positive terms. This will help to foster cooperation with the team, rather than resistance to it. 0 Establish ownership. Many project teams like to give themselves an identifiable name. Calling the team the “solvent slayers,” for example, promotes camaraderie and makes the project fun. 0 Motivate all involved. Explain to the team members the reasons for and benefits of switching away from ozone-depleting solvents. Again, accent the positive. Look at the project as an opportunity to improve environmental health, find a better cleaning process, and help ensure the company’s future success.

Calendar of Xvents ........................................................... .. ...... .......... 2

News Brief........ ............................................................................................ 2

Connecticut WRITE Today ......................................................................... 4

St. Joseph Matching Challenge Grant: Reduced Hazardous Chemicals ... 6

Stevens Co. Matching Challenge Grant: 6-Month Investment Return ..... 6

Site Visit Representatives Help Manufacturer Eliminate Solvent Use ...... 7

*EPA launches Stratospheric Ozone Hotline

Businesses tap into free program evaluating innovative strategies

Low cost method of salt water electrolysis demonstrated

Reusing shopfloor wash water

ConnTAP’s legwork he@ company switch degreasing system

Legislators, Generators, and State People Service seeks comments on Status Report at these places and times ...... 8

About ConnTAP Quarterly ......................................................................... 8

FEBRUARY 8-9,1993 (MON. - TUES.) Pollution Prevention: National Regulatory Up&te/Practical Management Strategies Orlando, FL Sponsored by Government Institutes, Inc. (GI). Monday’s program will focus upon compliance with the federal Pollution Prevention Act, including new EPCRA Form R requirements; the waste minimization provisions of RCRA; state-mandated planning and reporting rules; and voluntary incentive programs. Pollu- tion prevention as it relates to business obligations under the Clean Water Act, OSHA, and solid waste recycling laws will also be covered. Tuesday’s program will help partici- pants identify and prioritize source reduction strategies; conduct pollution prevention opportunity assessments; define the roles and functions of a pollution prevention task force; motivate and train employees; apply new technologies for process modifi- cation and chemical substitution; and convert wastes into reusable resources. Cost: Each day of this two-day program costs $499 and can be purchased separately or for a total cost of $998. Registration is accepted up to 24 hours before each program. For more information, contact: Colleen Sullivan at GI at (301) 921-2345.

FEBRUARY 11,1993 (THURS. NOON - 4 p.m.) Update: Implementing the 1990 Clean Air Act, EPA Speaks University of Bridgeport Law Center & the University of Hartford, CT This four-hour satellite broadcast seminar is sponsored by the Air & Waste Management Association. It is presented by the American Bar Association (ABA) section of Natural Resources, Energy, and Environmental Law and the Division for Professional Education. Panelists will discuss the EPA’s direction during the Clinton administration. Air toxics, nonattainment, and permitting are also on the agenda. Cost: Students- $50; government employees - $85; all others - $150. For more information contact: the ABA at: (800) 964-4253. 2

MARCH 11,1993 (THURS. 8 - 11:30 a.m.) Clean Air Act Compliance Seminar Danbury Hilton, CT Sponsored by the Connecticut Busi- ness and Industry Association’s (CBIA) Environmental Policy Council (EPC), this program will cover labeling and substitutes for chlorofluo- rocarbons and employee transportation management planning. Cost: $85 for CBIA members, $65 for members of CBIA’s EPC, and $125 for non-members. For more information contact: Cindy Panioto at the CBIA at 244-1900.

APRIL 7,1993 (WED. 8 - 11:30 a.m.) Total Quality Environmental Management Seminar Waterbury Sheraton, CT Sponsored by the CBIA’s Management Services Division and its EPC, this seminar will provide practical environ- mental applications for quality management. It will cover pollution prevention projects through perfor- mance action teams and industry case studies. Cost: $85 for CBIA members, $65 for members of CBIA’s EPC, and $125 for non-members. For more Mk”m * nmta** Chartier at 244- 1900.

MARCH 15,1993 (MON. 8 a.m. - 5 3 0 p.m.) Stormwater Management: How to Comply with General Permits Stouffer Concourse Hotel, Arlington, VA This course is sponsored by GI. Topics include the most practical methods for: collecting and analyzing required samples; meeting desired effluent limitations and solutions to other storm water problems; and treating storm water runoff. cost: $499 For a program agenda or to register call: GI at (301) 921-2345.

APRIL 1-2,1993 (THURS.- FRI.) SARA TITLE 111 BRIEFING: What You Need To Know About WCRA, Pollution Preveqtion, and Form R Reporting Sheraton Carlton Hotel, Washington, DC Sponsored by Executive Enterprises, Inc., this conference is designed to: show the tie between EPCRA and source reduction; instruct managers in formulating an emergency planning system; and explain how to complete Tier I / I T reporting requirements. Cost: $995 per person; $95 additional per organization. For a program agenda or to register call: the continuing education coordinator at (800) 831-8333.

Here’s one hotline that’s really hot! The EPA has opened a Stratospheric Ozone Hotline. Call (800) 296-1996 between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. Monday through Friday (Eastern time) for a plethora of voice mail options. Press one number and you get an update on Title VI rulemaking developments. Press a different number on your touch tone phone for guidance developed by regula- tory staff on specific Title VI requirements. Press yet another numb& for general information on the problem of ozone depletion. So let your fingers do the walking.

CbaUirAp Quarterly/Wiinter 1993

(continuedfrom page 1 )

0 What substrates are cleaned? Determine what substrate materials, sizes, and shapes are being cleaned. Canvas all cleaning operations. 0 What soils are removed? Are the soils organic? Liquid? Soluble? 0 What are v our cleaning reauire- mnts? Determine how clean the parts have to be. This is a very important step to maximize the number of alternatives that are available. 0 What are the steps just before and just after cleaning? The reason for determining this will be addressed in the next step. 0 Why are you cleaning? Obviously you clean to get your p&s clean, but why are they dirty? Why do the parts have to be cleaned?

deanine Base this on information gathered in step 3. If parts come into your company dirty, require suppliers to clean them. Must parts go out clean? Does your customer clean them when received? If soiled in- house, can you prevent this from occurring? If you can't prevent it, try to reduce the amount of soiling. 0 Try to change cleaning specifica- h Changing in-house specifica- tions is straightforward. Changing military specifications is too laborious a process. Instead, the military is issuing variances to its mil-specs. Arrange a modification with the con- tracting officer to facilitate the change from ~z~ne-tkpletipg chemicals. 0 -lie clean ing. Limit the types of soils removed by reducing the number of lubricants, cutting oils, or coolants used at a facility.

Step 4's first thee tasks help to identify opportunities for source reduction in a degreasing operation. Next, move on to identifying what you need from a suitable alternative. 0 Jdentify needs. For example. what are your environmental health and safety requirements? List the soils the alternative must be able to clean. List the substrates the alternative must work on. What cleaning threshold (number of microns) is required? Be sure to identify employees'/operators' needs also.

resources to conduct your research. Vendors, trade groups, seminars, conferences, other companies, and ConnTAP all can provide information.

List pros and cons of each alterna- tive. including installation and gperating costs for each option. Vendors and in-house personnel can provide estimates.

Using this 10-step guide will save you time, money, and aggravation.

0 Determine reeulatorv. Demitting, and waste management reauirements. What permits will be needed for each alternative? Is it subject to Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) reporting? How must you treaddispose of the waste generated? Address each option's potential liabilities. 0 Consider future reeulatory reauire- ments. Class I1 ozone-depleters (HCFCs) will be phased out in 2015. As occurred with the phase out dates for CFCs, the schedule for HCFCs could be accelerated. Also, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 will lower the limits of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions. 0 Compare environmental health issues. Check flammability, toxicity, and OSHA exposure requirements. 0 Compare costs. When comparing alternatives' costs, considering the abpw m @ r e ~ n t s will p i c k the information needed to ensure proper full cost accounting. OComDare cleaning effectiveness. Ensure cleaner will remove your soils. 0 Select top ranking alternatives for further study. Prepare a matrix to ease the process. The matrix will compare your requirements for each proposed alternative. This will also identify any unknowns to be evaluated in step 7. Select the most promising alternative(s) for a pilot project.

0 Lease, rent. or construct testing eauipment. Construct test equipment by modifying existing equipment. Vendors often provide equipment for pilot scale testing. 0 Keep detailed records. Record the temperature, pH, agitation, detergent, cleaning and drying times, waste stream samples, and cleaning effec- tiveness of each alternative evaluated. 0 Solicit input from users. Did they like the operation of the equipmend machinerykhemistry? Ask for input on improving the process.

solvent alternative did they prefer? 0 Review testing records. What variables were most effective in removing soils? 0 Select alternative that best meets your needs. Base this on test results and your facility's criteria.

proper operation and DrGedures for new svstedprocess. If cleaning location/procedures/personnel have changed, notify all employees. 0 Continue to evaluate. Solicit comments from users and others. There may be kinks that need correc- tion to ensure continued successful operation.

0 Promote success, Tell the entire company about the project's success. Use newsletters, bulletin boards, memos, etc. 0 Reward participants. Upper man- agement should recognize the project team's efforts. Providing awards is a great way to show them their efforts are appreciated.

Look for a follow-up article in a future issue of ConnTAP Quarterly, addressing advantages, disadvantages, applications, and requirements of alternatives to ozone- depleting solvents.

ConnTAP can provide technical and financial assistance to aid in the process of selecting a new, ozone-safe solvent. Call Andrew Vecchio at 241-0777 for more information.

Connecticut WRITE Today Five projects proving profitability of pollution prevention

by Sumner Kaufman, WRITE Project Engineer

In March 1990 ConnTAP began participation in a novel research and development program christened WRITE--Waste Reduction through Innovative Technology Evaluation. It represented U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognition that a non-regulatory approach is needed to encourage innovative solutions to waste management problems. The EPA-funded program would evaluate the reduction in volume and toxicity of process waste, as well as the economic impact of generator proposals. Proposals had to be in either a pilot phase or recently implemented.

EPA chose Battelle Memorial Institute (BMI) as the contractor to:

prepare the sampling plan; perform the sampling; arrange for laboratory analysis; evaluate cost information; and prepare final written reports on

While participating companies didn't receive any direct funding, they benefited by reaping the rewards of BMI's research. ConnTAP selected the participating companies and coordinated interaction between those companies and BMI.

the projects.

The first project chosen for evaluation was at Quality Rolling & Debumng Company in Thomaston, a major metal-finishing job shop facility. General Manager Ron Stango had recently installed a Jensen automated aqueous rotary washing system for cleaning small metal components. The new unit was purchased to replace threedifferent and fairly standard cleaning processes: vapor degreasing; hand aqueous washing; and alkaline tumbling.

Testing the new unit had a minimal impact on production operation. The only effect was that the cleaning schedule of representative components had to be pre-planned. The three components examined were: steel caplets (normally vapor degreased); aluminum rivets (normally cleaned by a hand aqueous washer); and steel cylinders (normally cleaned by an alkaline tumbler). Product lots were divided between standard and Jensen processes.

Results demonstrated that the new process cleaned a variety of parts as well as or better than the standard methods.

Results Perchloroethylene use was

Compared to hand aqueous significantly reduced.

washing and alkaline tumbling, the automated washer used less raw materials. The automated washer generated a much lower total waste volume than either the alkaline tumbler or the hand aqueous washer. While the vapor degreaser generated less waste volume, its waste was hazardous with higher costs for disposal.

WRITE represents EPA recognition that

a non-re uhtory apprinwh innovatwe sola hens

to waste management problems.

is .nee d ed-to encourage

Caveat Because of unique part geometry, some components still required solvent vapor degreasing to assure surface oil removal.

Summary BMI calculated the payback to

The process produced good be seven years.

product quality.

The Jensen process increased

Economic savings were achieved. Liability is potentially reduced because of decreased solvent use.

pollution prevention.

The second project evaluated was at The Hartford Courant, a regional daily newspaper which had just installed a process to recover waste printing inks from high speed presses. Director of Facilities and Engineering Paul Reynolds, interested in a detailed evaluation of Separations Technolo- gies Inc.'s proposed pollution prevention system, sought WRITE participation.

As the ink is run through the recovery process it winds its way through a path as follows. Waste inks of every color are collected from the web-fed lithographic presses. The contami- nated ink is collected and pumped to a process skid where it is heated under vacuum. The separated water solvent fraction is condensed, with the solvent phase removed for reuse. Then, the dry, warm ink is filtered to remove paper dust, and moved to a blending tank where it is mixed with virgin black ink. About 200 gallons of waste ink are reused each week, which previously had been a hazardous waste.

Samples of the recycled and virgin inks werelcollected for analysis. To test printability, the Courant printed three complete editions using recycled ink. The Courant evaluated the visual effect and behavior of the printed recycled ink by comparing densitomer readings on black image areas of pages to virgin ink print. Also, experienced viewers recorded their preferences for newspaper pages printed with the recycled versus virgin inks.

See WRITE (conrinued on page 5 )

4 ConnTAp Quarterly/Wiiter 1993

Results The product quality of the recycled ink was very good. In most of the laboratory tests the recycled ink matched the proper- ties of virgin ink. Neither regular readers nor the panel of experienced viewers noticed any difference in print quality. Valuable resources such as ink and solvent are recovered from this process. The amount of waste disposed has been reduced from 9100 gallons per year of waste ink to 46 gallons of paper dust and 3050 gallons of wastewater. The wastewater stream can also be reduced considerably by installing an activated carbon filter and reusing the water.

h!"Y? BMI calculates a return-on- investment of 10 years, based on current costs. As disposal costs continue to rise and issues of long-term liability assume greater importance, the economic attractiveness of this system can be expected to increase.

The third WRITE project selected was at the Tomngton Company's Standard Plant in Tomngton. This facility is a major manufacturer of metal bearings. Senior Reject Engineet Jack Healy had identified two plating operations as candidates for pollution prevention activity.

For cadmium plating waste, the proposal involved ion exchange and electrolytic metal recovery (EMR) to capture and return the cadmium to the plating process. This proposal would also capture and destroy cyanide while close-looping to return water to the rinsing baths.

For a chromium plating waste stream, the proposed technology involved two ion exchange cells. This would capture the hexavalent chromium as

hydroxide and convert it to chromic acid for return to the plating bath. The water would be close-looped to the rinse tank.

Plating Services Company of Tomngton provided the pilot scale equipment for the demonstrations. BMI analyzed all samples and evalu- ated results together with the eco- nomic data provided by Tomngton Company.

Results The ion exchange/EMR process for cadmium was appropriately scaled and appeared to function well, meeting all expectations.

These rojects demonstrate t R at enlightened

selfiinterest calls for generators of hazardous

waste to review both existin and new processes

w i h egecttve waste reduction technologies

in mind.

Caveat The cationic cell in the 'chromium project was undersized, which at the time raised questions concern- ing the success of the demonstra- tion. The chromium ion ex- change system was too small to make judgements about a full- scale process.

suns" BMI calculated the return-on- investment for the cadmium recovery process to be less than one year. BMI calculated the return-on- investment for the chromium recovery process to be five years.

WRITE project number four will take place at Automatic Plating Company in Bridgeport. It will evaluate a process utilizing split electrodialysis to recover and recycle nickel from spent plating solution and close-loop the recovered water back to rinses. Vice President Stan Plewa and Doug Olsen of the Connecticut Resource Group are eager to have WRITE involvement.

Just like the first project, the final WRITE project will also occur at Quality Rolling & Debuning in Thomaston. BMI will evaluate an innovative application of vacuum distillation for chromium recovery and reuse. The processing line begins with metallic zinc coated (galvanized) components which are then cosmeti- cally plated in a chromating bath. The dragout is metered into a Cellini Controlled Atmosphere Separation Technology (CAST) flash distillation/ vacuum evaporation system. This is done for recovery and return of a highly concentrated chromium solution and a high quality rinse water. This completely close-loops the process.

These projects demonstrate that enlightened self-interest calls for generators of hazardous waste to review both existing and new pro- cesses with effective waste reduction technologies in mind.

Final reports and project summaries on all these projects are expected to be completed and available in August.

Copies of the WRITE Project Reports and Summaries are available by calling: ConnTAP at 241-0777. For more information on the WRITE projects contact: Sumner Kaufman, 360 Regency Dr., Marston Mills, MA 02648, (508) 420-1498, FAX (508) 428-7330.

Li" Quarterly/Wiiter 1993 5

1 St. Joseph College Matching Challenge Grant Yields Reduced Hazardous Chemicals

Graphite electrodes successfilly reduce cost of electrolysis process

St. Joseph College recently completed its 1992 Matching Challenge Grant project. The college received a $3,425 grant to study salt water electrolysis.

Electrolysis of water generates hydrogen gas and oxygen gas in a ratio of 2: 1 by volume. While a market demand exists for hydrogen to be used as fuel, there is little such clamor for oxygen. Electrolysis of salt water generates hydrogen gas and dissolved chlorine. The chlorine can be used for a secondary water treatment process and other purposes. By using naturally conductive sd t water in place of fresh water, toxic electrolytes such as potassium hydroxide or sulfurig acid are not needed. Hazard- ous chemical use is reduced and less hazardous waste is generated.

The college also investigated the . feasibility of using a photovoltaic electrical source to drive the electroly- sis of sea water. As a result, less pollution will be generated since the process does not require the combus- tion of fossil fuels for energy. Energy would actually be a by-product as hydrogen gas.

Partly as a msuL qf ConnTAP's Chaucnge Gmnt seed money,

St. Joseph's r e c e M " a d industry funding to further investigate this technohlgy.

Additionally, St. Joseph's investigated the possibility of using graphite electrodes instead of aobk metal electrodes such as platinum. This would significantly nduct the cost of the electrolysis process and the hydrogen and dissolved chlorine by-products.

The d e g e compared the electrodes' efficiencies. Project msults confirmed the coilege's hypothesis that the graphite electrodes generated yields of hydrogen and chlorine comparable to the pt.tinum electrodes. Ihe graphite e k p o c k showed little Moration after rtpeated rum. ahd pnerated no sisaiti;cont byproducts of chlorinated crrrbon casnpwads. T h i s may reduce cost and waste generated in water treatment.

Partly as a result of ConnTAPs Challenge Grant seed money, St. Joseph's received additional industry funding to further investigate this technololgy .

Acopy dtbe tiul report is avail- able. SeadaScbekmadeoutto Co*gTAP, te: ConnTAF', 900 Asylum Ave., Suite 360, Hprtfold CT 06105.

f Stevens Company Matching Challenge Grant Reports Six-Month Investment Return

Developing a new wastewder treatment p m e m Stevens Company Inc. used a $5,000 Matching Challenge Grant to develop a new wastewater treatment process, which will reduce wastewater dis- charges by 95%--15,000 gallons per year. The company expects the system to pay for itself in six months.

l

The Waterbury company also used information gleaned from the grant research to develop a new cleaning system. With this system, Stevens anticipates reducing its cldorinated solvent air emissions by 23,100 pounds per year. Equally impatant, the company expects to reduce its generation of hazardous waste (solvent still sludge) by 900 gallons per year.

The €iirst part of the grant project involved developing a better process to mat shop floor wash water. The goal was to reuse the detergent and emulsi- fied-oil wastewater. The company's process first passes the wastewater through simple strainers to remove

large particles. Afterword, the water is allowed to settle for 24 hours to permit solids to sink to the taak's bo". The wastewater is then run though a 25micronfilter. whd#ppcnslast

running the wastewater through a distillation system.

W ~ t h e S U b j e C t o f t 4 g n n t ~ 4\

stevens co#qpany nscltreed w@e- watcr discharges by 95perrsnf

Stevens investigated q r i c boiling, filtration, and distillation. The company learned that boiling could discharge regulated chemicals into the air, and would require a great mount of energy. Filtration wtnked up to a point, but did not clean the water sufficiently for reuse.

Stevens then successfully developed a unique closed vacuum stin. Since it is a closed system, air emissions are

pmmted. Since it is vacuum- opecatad, distitlation occurs at very low "s, mpiring less ene%y. what+rrergyisacededto d r i v e w process will COQlc from the

improving the project's environmental benefits. T h e d i s t i w ~ w i l l p u r i f y the waterf for^, rhus cfeathg

This will be applicd

search. Tbecumntvapordegreaser will be replaced witb a new closed- ioop a q " s cleaning system to clean fabricated metal parts.

A copy ot the nport is available. send a SJCheCk .udc OJ to COBRTAP, to: CouuirAp, 900 Asylum Ave., Suite 360, Hartfoal CT 06105.

to the ScCoBd part of& Brpat re-

6

c4Co~TAP’s contacts andresoumelibrerggive us access to experts and technical publications that most businesses aren’t privy to.”

r - Site Visit Representatives Help

Manufacturer Eliminate Solvent Use ConnTAP approves

Environmental Assistance Revolving Loan Fund money to finance upgraded system

“I was looking for information on transforming my degreasing operation from a solvent system to an aqueous one,” said Merriam Manufac- turing Company Plant Manager Dan Pearson. “ConnTAP’s site visit representatives did a lot of legwork. They investigated all the research and saved me a lot of time and money,” he noted.

The Durham plant makes fabricated metal bokes for original equipment manufacturer packaging, such as tool and first aid kits. Before painting, the drawing and mill-applied oils must be removed. Dan directed the site visit representative team to target the elimination of the solvent 1 , 1 , 1 trichloroethane (TCA) in his degreasing operation.

Sy Wiesen feld ConnTAP Site Visit

Representah’ve

To achieve the switch to an aqueous cleaner, the site visit team selected the five most appropriate East Coast manufacturers who will create custom- ized formulations of aqueous cleaners. The roster of manufacturers includes more than 20 businesses.

“Having dealt with aqueous cleaner manufacturers during my 20-year engiDeerkrg c a w r at EJ. plrpont, I used my experience t0 narrow the fEld,” explained Site Visit Represen- tative Sy Wiesenfeld. “In addition, ConnTAP’ s contacts and resource library give us access to experts and technical publications that most businesses aren’t privy to. We can provide names of people who have successfully overcome the same problem they’re having and we can provide reading materials on exactly the subject that concerns them.”

I

Dan plans to convert his conveyorized vapor degreaser to an aqueous system himself. ConnTAP has approved the company for a competitive-rate loan of $125,000 from the Environmental Assistance Revolving Loan Fund to

convert its equipment and purchase a wastewater recycling system. When completed, Dan anticipates the project will reduce Memam’s waste and TCA emissions by 100%--approximately 40,000 pounds per year.

Although an aqueous process’s disadvantage is that the manufacturer will now have wastewater, the site visit team offered suggestions on how the wastewater could be reused. The site visit report recommended running a pilot study on wastewater reduction techniques such as: oil skimmers; coalescing filters; and ultrafiltration.

“Memam’s location lacks any means for discharge, having neither access to surface waters or a sewer system. Recycling wastewater is particularly important in this case because hauling it away is so time-consuming and expensive,” Sy observed.

“The site visit team did an excellent job throughout, including the follow- up,” Dan said. “They even got me free samples of substitute cleaners. And the new system will enhance our product, adding a phosphate coating for better rust prevention.”

ConnTAP has a list of company representatives you can contact to discuss their experiences with participating in the Site Visit Program. To receive it call: Barbara Barbieri at 241-0777. For more information about how the ConnTAP Site Visit Program can costeffectively help your business meet its environmental obligations, contact: Program Administrator Walter Bonn at 241-0777.

7

Now is the time to my what you think about an important document The Connecticut Hazardous Waste Management &mice (Bervice) has issued for your review. The draft of the status report on haZE1rdOU8 waste generation and management in Connecticut will be aompleted in March. It meets the Connecticut General Btatute requuq an updated Bervice eathate of the types and vdumea of hazardous waste generakd-and needed manqement capacity-& least every five yeare. The Bervice published ita last update in 1988.

Before i a u m g a fml report, the Bervice seeks public review and comment at three public hearinp. The Be8siofl8 will start with quation and answer workshop.

Rara temprum felicitate ubi xntire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet* -

The worMqx/hearings will take place: Date Piace Tune 3/29/93 0, Historical &ciety,

3/31/93 Thamea Valley State Technical Cdc6e

Workshop 2pm Hartford Hearmg. 3-5pm

Norwich 7Pm

Waterbury 7Pm

Main Buddin& 1zm. 119

4/a/93 c i t y w

900 Asylum Avenue, Suite 360 Hartford, CT 06105-1904

(203) 241-0777

Address Correction Requested

FIRSTCLASSMAIL PRESORTED

US. POSTAGE PAID PERMIT NO. 26

MARION, C T 06444 U

Printed on Recycled Paper 0