p2infohouse.orgjzeport orgnnizntion summary statement of results status of thc hazardous...
TRANSCRIPT
JZeport Orgnnizntion
Summary Statement of Results
Status of thc Hazardous ll'nstc Reduction Projcct
DEWS Current Pollution Prevention Program
The Rhode Island Center for Pollution Prevention
Some General Findings of DEWS On-site Assessment Program
The HWRP/DEJI Pollution Prevention Assessment Protocol
Quantitative Data on Assessmcnt Program Effectiveness
13
16
19
23
Observed Polhition Prevention Incentives CQ. Barriers 37
Conclusions & Recommendations 42
Appendtr A Published Article on Pollution Prevention P r o p i at the University of Rlrode Island
Appendix B Rltode Island Method for ToTeting Technical Assistance
Appendk C Publkiied Articles on Employee Involvement and Pollution Prevention
Appendix D Narragansett Bay Contmhion ' Pollution Pmention Program Proposal to EPA
Appendix E Options -0 Pollution Prevention @wsletter
Appcndir F Goi"mr's A wnrd for Excellence in Pollltt;c)it Prevcntiolt * .
I STli 0 D UCTl ON 'I-he S;ir:;l_ransett Bay Projecr. a member of the U.S. Environmental Protectioll
,AsL'~c.L's Satiorxl Estuary Program, \\'as formed in 1985 to conduct a five-year study of rhc
Bay and its resources. As part of the Karragansett Bay Project's (NBP's) efforts to develop pollution control initiatives in the Bay watershed, the NBP established the Hazardous Waste
Reducrion Project (HWRP) in cooperation with the Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management's Office of Environmental Coordination. The project began operations on h'ovember 28, 1985 with the overali objective to assist Rhode Island
companies in their efforts to reduce the use and disposal of toxic and hazardous materials -- effectively preventing pollution before it begins.
~
-
- .-
The H WRP was initially funded through a grantfrom-the-Narragansett Bay Project ~ -
and matched by Rhode Island state contributions from the Department of Environmental 14anagement (DEM). At the time the HWRP was created, work on pollution prevention had already begun within DEM'; Office of Environmental Coordination. DEM's eariiest efforc focused on the development of an industrial technical assistance program and the
administration of a newly created statewide grants program; the grants program is supported by a $2 million bond that provides grants to industry for research and development, and investment - in hazardous waste reduction technologies. The HWRP's specific goals were to 1 ) assist DEM in the establishment of a multi-media pollution prevention technical assistance program, 2) provide information to Rhode Island businesses on source reduetion, recycling, and chemical substitution of hazardous materials in the workplace, and 3) work with the Rhode Island Department of Economic Developme?r in the performance of on-site hazardous waste reduction assessments. [In September of 1988, DEM sponsored a pilot program with the Rhode Island Departmc:!t of Economic Development (DED) to conduct waste reduction assessments of in-state firm. The &i'%T%l' helped DEM and DED design
-
~
and test a model waste reduction audit ~ r ~ w c o l . ] ___
I n thc spring of IYSY, DEJI \ \ o n a $300,000 Source Rcd:iction, J : c ~ - L ~ * ; : ~ : :
Teclinicd Ashistance g a n t f rom [lie L.S. EPA. P:irt of the grant includcd [LII;:.~? : ( I
mnt::rct w i t h the Chemical Engineering Department of the University of Rhods i.;t:!nti
( LRI) to provide engineering support to DEM/HWRP during on-site waste rediictlon
messments. In 1991, URI's Chemical Engineering Department was designated the "Rlloilc
Island Center for Pollution Prevention" and has since become a permanent part of DEl l ' s
pollution prevention program (refer to article Pollution Prevention Progrnm :it t tic
Ilniversitv of Rhode Island, Environmental Progress, Appendix A).
. "
Since its creation in 1988, the HWRP has played a major role in supporting !he
del*elopment of DEM's Pollution Prevention Assistance Program. Early efforts upere directed toward assistance in policy and planning; the development of a method for targeting technical assistance resources (Appendix B); and the estabIishment of a protocol for
a n eniployee invoivement team approach to polIution prevention (refer to articles in
Appendix C). Efforts in the later part of the project (1991 to 1992) were principally directed toward --., specific, in-plant technicaI assistance to Rhode Island companies. Funding
for the HWRP is scheduled to end in August 1992. Left in its place is a fully-developed, broad-based industria! pollution prevention program housed within DEMs Office of Environmenta! Coordination. Strong engineering support is provided to DEM through the newly created Center €or PoUution Prevention at the University of Rhode Island.
. . - __ r or ,dl lc t lncrnt-"zduct ion opportunity assessments and the conceptual design of -- -
2
This report describes tiis impact 2nd accomplishments of the joint DEhf ,~Hl \ 'R I'
polluiion prevention program. A major section of this report, "Qumtitati\re Data on the'
Eifcctiveness of the Assessment Program," focuses on actual quantities of waste reduced ~
through on-site technical assistance efforts. Qualitative data and information on the st~ccess
of these in-plant assessments and technology recommendations are also included in the __
Prograri.1 Effectiveness section of this report. This report also profiles the University of
Rhode Island's Center for Pollution Prevention and describes field observations on
incentives and barriers to pollution prevention for Rhode Island industry. The remaining test of this report is organized into nine (9) sections as follows:
Siimmary Statement of ResuIts Status of the NBPs Hazardous Waste Reduction Project The DEM Pollution Prevention Program The- Rhode Island Center for Pollution Prevention Some General Findings of DEMs On-site Assessment Program ?e MWRP/DEM Pollution Prevention Assessment Protocol Quantitative Data on the Effectiveness of the Assessment Program Observed Pollution Prevention Incentives & Barriers Conclusions and Recommendations
. .
3
Ovcmicw
1Iost of Rhode I h r i d ' h inc l i i~ t r la l i x i l i t i e b ;ire mature a n d their p r o d ~ c t s ;111ci
processes have chm_red little over recent ! e m . Conipany management ant! teclinic;!l
staffing senerally do not have the in-hoiise skilis to t h i n k through chanses needed to / ) re \ cnt
pollution. Engineering studies hn1.t: I m n initiated at 65 Rhode Island companies \ \ it11
widely varying products and processes. About txo-thirds of the studies have been comple tetl
so far. In every plant facility studied. at least one cost effective process was identified. t h a t
could reduce pollution. As a result of identifiring these waste reduction measures, 30% to 50% of the companies which have \vorkec! wvith or are currently working \\ i th DEIU. i?:ive
been able to implement source reduction measures. These source reduction m e w res have already resulted in the eiimination or reduction of more than 1,000 tons of indtistrial \ \ m e and wastewater. Examples of the types of reductions that &ire occurred x e presented in Table 1.0. The data presented in Table 1.0 are discussed in detail in the "Quantitative Data on the Effectiveness of the Assessment Program" section of this report.
Immediate Results and Concliisions
Though Table 1.0 quantitatively demonstrates that Rhode Island's pollution prevention technical assistance efforts have been highly successfill, these data do not tell the
entire story. Presented below is additional information that describes some of the immediate results that have been obtained and major conclusions that can be drawn from DEM's in-plant experience:
1) A partnership among Rhode Island industry, RI DEM, RI DED and URI has
proven to be a highly effective tool to reduce hazardotis waste on a cooperative vo1ur:tx-y basis.
. , . . 2) Teams of DEM scientists and URI chemical engineers have worked with 65 Rfiode
Island companies in the past two years. In every case at least one cost effective process Iias
been identified to prevent pollution. In one case there \ w e thirteen such processes:
' -
I J
4) Common technic3l solutions for pollution prevention exist for rultiple cases of
prodtiction processes. Multiple options are commonly available to reduce pollution. For the 65 companies for which studies have been started an average of about three options are
available to consider for each waste stream. For the waste streams for the 65 companies, about 500 options have been considered. Time for an engineer to develop a cost effective
option has required from a few hours to a year.
__
TABLE 1.0 Summary of Waste Reduction Data 0- P2 Program
SIC INDUSTRY \1'ASTE TYPE
30 Rubber & Plastic .. Die-Casting Seal Mfg.
Zn Die-Casting 33 Primary metals
34 Fabricated Metals Reel-to-Reel Elctr. Jeweler's Mat.
35 lnd, Machinay & Eqp. Gun-drilling Mach. Nails/Staples/Tools
36 Electronic & EIec. Eqp.
39 Jewelry Industry COMCClOr Q C d g
Costume Jewerly Fastner Mnfg.
Vibratory Waste Oil/ Water
Vibratory Waste Mineral Spirits
Freonll, 1,l-TCA Methylene Chloride
Machine Coolant 1, 1,l-TCA
l,l,I-TCA
Vibratory Waste Paint Waste
ARIT. RED. P2 TECH, (Ga I I on s)
37,800 1 - 9,900 ~ I 7
17,900 1 240 4
3,000 3/4 150 4
495 1 35,000 194
4,900 194
4,800 1 1,800 5
P2 Techniaue Code; 1 = technology changejmaterial recycle; 2 = technology change '
3 = material elimination; 4 = material substitution; 5 = operational changes -
S) Of the 6.i R I companies ithere srudies have been initiated:
;I. About Xf’c to COC; of the companies have or ;Ire rrbout to reclllic‘
b. Absent an external influence, the principle determinant for any plant to
undertake a pollution prevention effort is the process competence of the technical staff
availdie to work on pollution prevention. c. A major current barrier to industrial pollution prevention is the state of the
economy in RI. Even though cost effective processes exist to reduce pollution, investnient funding is a probIem. In Rhode JsIand as of this writing, corporate bankruptcies art:
occurring at a record rate, unemployment is 8.896, and banking loans are less available than before. Even while studies were underway with the 65 companies, three filed for Chapter 11 protection. -
pollution. (See Table 2.0 for specific reductions)
6) A fine support system is in place for the specific pollution prevention work. ‘A-
library, tied into a national data base, has been started; the DEM-URI computer facilities have IN-MAGIC software available for retrieval; publications, newsletters are issued; a phone hotline is in place; provision for grants and awards have been established.
A4 a j o r Long. t em Resui ts
In addition to the immediate results and conclusions identified above, a number of major long-term benefits to the state of Rhode Island exist. These include:
1) Many RhodeIsland companies can be described as mature industries which lack in-house company skills to address even the most obvious opportunities to ;revent pollution. A broad-based capability is needed to mist Rhode Island industry in preventing pollution. Such a capability has been established by DEM and URI at the C1:c:micai Engineering Department of URI - that capability is tbe Rhode Island Center for Prdlution
c , * .
Prevention (RICPP).
2) The RICPP a) has experienced personnel on-hand WIO can help irl;fastry reduce polltit ion; b) is developing laboratories, processes and facilities mefill to RI L & m y
6
3) RICPP has funding sources now established for the next se.i.er;ll j'ears \.iSliicl1
vv.ll! ;?ermi! strenghening of and an orderly growth for the RICPP.
4) A Pollution Prevention Council, made up of representatives from i n d w r J * , p w " e n t and academia has been established to recommend direction for Rho& Iiiand pol!u tion prevention programs.
7
STATL'S OF THE J1AZAI<1)0L'S \VASTE IIEDUC'I'JON PROJECT
. _
\Vhcn the HWRP was first created, a Program Manager was hired to work \i.ith DEh1
to carry out the overall objective of establishing a broad-based, multi-media pollution
prei'en tion program within DEM's Office of Environmental Coordination (OEC). The
d # c t was initially funded at $150,000.00. Once tTie program was firmly estrtb2ishe~f;~rhe intent was to merge the HWRP into OEC's Pollution Prevention Program. In Februar!, 1990, the HWRP Program Manager was hired by DEM's Office of Environmental Coordination to oversee the continued development of the state-wide program.
~
-
__
As of 27 September 1991, the balance remaining in the HWRP account \vas
S20,141.00. A contract with the University of Rhode Island's Chemical Engineering Department has since been signed which will utilize remaining funds to support continued
with the project since 1989 and has demonstrated expertise in resource recovery and '
mxerial reuse using membrane technology. The work of the Hazardous Waste Reduction _ _ d r o j e c t is nearly complete and the principal objectivesdirwted toward assisting-DER1 in its
efforts to establish a broad-based technid assistance program for industry have been met and in many cases exceeded.
0.
lJL + k & " m m o r k t 7 p a - - e % dmmhndi&te has-txnwoiking
8
Recognizing that some indiv iduds and organizations have practiced ''pOliilljo11
prevention" for some time, the history of pollution prevention in Rhode Island as a le;;]]
concept dates back to 1956 when the Rhode Island General Assembly enacted the
Hazardous Waste Reduction, Recycling, and Treatment Research and Demonstration Act .
This act established the primacy of waste minimization over waste management 2 n d
established the framework for the development of a Hazardous Waste Technology,
Research, Development and Demonstration grants program. This grants program is
supported by a $2 million voter approved bond issue. To date, nearly $1 million of this
money has been invested in 10 speciaI poJlurion prevention projects since this program began in 1957. The NBP's Hazardous Waste Reduction Project played a role in the grant
~
-
- - -
review process when it was first established in November 1988. __ - - -
In addition to the hazardous waste ___ reduction grants pmgram.&gclrick---- ___- - --- ~
support, has created a broad-based pollution prevention assistance program. Pollution prevention assistance is provided to Rhode Island businesses through the performance of mu1 ti-media waste reduction assessments designed to review a company's manufactbing
--
process and determine where and how process changes or chemical substitutions can reduce .
the generation of hazardous waste. To date, some 85 companies have received on-site technical assistance from the DEM program. The first 20 assessments were performed by
the Rhode Island Department of Economic Development under contract to DEM. These .*** t:
assessments focused on manufacturing processes such as: machine tooling operat ions, electroplaters, photo-chemicd etchers, polyester and plastic films coater and an aluminum anodizing company (John Riendeau, Department of Economic Development, 1989). In 1990,
the DED assessment project ended; though DED remains very active in DEM's overall pollution prevention program At that time, DEM took the assessment program in-house and has since performed some sixtyfive assessments with URI chemical engineering support. The DEM assessment program initially focused on jewelry manufacturers and electroplaters,
companies, metal fabrication and fabric coaters.
-
~
but has since expanded it's assessments to chemical manufacturers, autobody shops, te\:tile -
.A second major component of DEWS technical assistance program, and a11 ;irc;l :I;;,;
the H\\’RP helped to initiate, is thc hazardous “; Iste reduction information lit>rary. +1*11~
purpose of the library is to serve as a resource for individuals, firms, and governnient
agencies seeking technical information on waste reduction. The library is currently under.
development and includes books, periodicals and vendor information 3s well ;is :I
comprehensive computer data base. To help organize and computerize library holdings, DEh4 has purchased INMAGJC 7.2 (DOS), SearchMagic (5-node license) and BIBLIO
GUIDE software. [INMAGIC textbase software is currently used by the URI Pel1 Marine Science Library and a number of EPA regions to perform literature searches and help locate
papers, publications and periodicals.] Abstracts of library materiak are currently being developed and entered into this computer data base. The information contained in the library is available to the general public, industry and assessment team members.
As part of its on-site technical - assistance ~- - program - - - for-RI industryLD-EM-aIso affers assistance in establishing industrial employee invoIvement t eam to work on pollution prevention projects. NBP‘s Hazardous Waste Reduction Project spearheaded this initiative in 1989, and it has now become a permanent part of the DEM technical assistance program. Thd principal goal of this initiative is to encourage management commitments to waste
reduction and to call upon companies to utilize their most vaIued resource -- .their empioyees -0 to set goals, prioritize opportunities, and implement solutions. Approximately 10-20% of DEMs on site technical assistance efforts now take the form of participative management programs (refer to Appendix C).
- - - - ------ - -
- .
, Recognizing that pollution prevention problems are multi-disciplinary in nature, the DEM has developed a support network of environmental scientists, planners, and chemical engineers. These specialists are drawn from four principal areas of government related organizations: the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, the Rho& Island Dep: m c n t of Economic Development, the, state University of Rhode Island, Chemical E yrineering Department, and most recenily the Narragansett Bay Water Quality Manageme,! Oistrict Commission (NBC); HWRP‘s Program Manager helped the N B C Rhode ISlLi largest POTW, apply for and win a $300,000 U.S. EPA Pollution Prevention
:0
/ r i L * c x [ i \ cs Grant. This grant it,ill be used tu rricorporate pollution prci*cn:ion politic, :,!;Lj
proccdtircs into the SBC's sehw connection permitting process a n d enfoxcmcnt : I C I I ~ ) - \
(reicr 10 Appendix D for more information). Outside experts including a textile chenli3t
from Ulil's Textile Department and staff from the Governor's Water Conservation Progriim,
are cal!ed on an as-needed-basis for special projects. Student interns from Brontn
L'niiwsity's Center for Environmental Studies and Economics Department have also been
involved in the DEM program. An increasing number of -highly respected industrial professionals are now also directly assisting the program.
-
~ _ - _ _ -
Together, the DEM and HWRP have built a pollution prevention program that offers a broad ran,oe of services to Rhode Island business and industry, In summary, DEJl's ciirren t pollution prevention program includes:
SZM hazardous waste reduction grants program; funds are provided to businesses and university to ___________ research and initiate innarativesaurcer edrtctioapFegFa-ntf,- __--
, _ -
Pollution prevention opportunity assessments: DEM staff and university- engigeers assist businesses in the identification of areas for potentia1 waste reduction. Assistance is provided in the form of 1) process specific consultation, 2) whole facility
en tof igplant pdcipative management steering committees that focus on source reduction. '
--3 __
_. __ __- ~
__- - ~ -assessments, and 3) est _ - ~- _ _ ~
Pollution prevention ciearinghouse: operates to facilitate information exchange
and technology transfer through conferences, workshops, demonstrations and the arrangement of site visits to companies with proven success. A computerized library database bas been developed using INMAGIC software and is avaiIabIe for use by
_ ~ _ _ _ ~ ~ technical mistance staff and industry.
Options Newsletter: this newsletter k published by the DEM and focuses on
current state and nation pollution prevention activities (Appendix E). __
Conferences: a number of state wide conferences and seminars we held each !.e;ir
in conjunction with municipalities, the RI Department of Economic Development
and others. In September of 1992, DEM in conjunction with NEW.MOA, EPX, et. a]., will hold a two-day technical conference on pollution prevention with emphasis
on priority wastes identified from the capacity assurance planning process. Technical breakout sessions, expert speakers and regulatory topics will be included.
Governor's Award: the first annual Governor's Award will be presented in the
first quarter of 1992 for pollution prevention accomplishments achieved in 1991.
Each year the Governor's Award for ExceIlence in Pollution Prevention will be presented to one Rhode Island business, institution, government agency or individual for a project which has reduced sources of pollution. Additional entities' or individuals may. be honored with Outstanding Achievement Awards (Appendix F).
Rhode IsIand Pollution Prevention Council (RIPPC): RIPPC was formed 'in 199 1
and is composed of industry and environmental leaders, government and academic institutions. Its mission is to generate broad support for pollution prevention, to promote source reduction and environmentally-sound recycling, to develop a coxuensus on a straw to reduce pollution in Rhode Island, and to encourage active communication and information exchange among all interested and affected parties I
in the publie and private sectors. .
* Narragansett Bay Water Quality 'Management District Commission (NBC) the
NBC was rkcently awarded a $3OO,OOO EPA Pollution Prevention Incentives Grant. a
DEM helped the NBC write the proposal and will be working wiih the NBC to
incbrporate pollution prevention policies and procedures into their sewer connection
-
!
c .,
permitting process and enforcement actions.
. :
o:i in ti!^ past inc!ude:
Reel-to-reel later Islectrmic componentsk development of proccss cc)i?[roi
systems to improve efficiency and reduce waste of plating and cleaning operai.ions.
Electrical fixture manufacturer: company funding to assist in the development 2 n d
implementation of pollution prevention strategies recommended during a joint
URI/DEM review. Electric power generatine plant; engineering review of processes and wastewater
treatment system to improve efficiency and reduce toxics use and waste generation. Metrolo? products CQ metal fabricator; company funding to assist in the
deveiopment and implementation of pollution prevention strategies recommended during joint URI/DEM on-site review.
Textile. polvurethane coat ing resins & adhesives ma nufacturer; conduct tests and process development work for source reduction and' toxic chemical recovery and reuse.
CTstal boutique and fin ished 1 'ewelrv ma nufacturer; to further company pollution prevention efforts through a process review of a nickel plating line .and the .
development of practid/low cost recommendations to achieve source reduction.
.
- _____--- __
3
As an example of the type of work students have conducted during these and other projects, the following 1991 SUMMER WORKPLAN for the crystal boutique and finished jewvelq manufacturer is provided:
1 Samme r Workplrn - Nickel Platfne L ine RESOURCES: One UIU Chemical Engineering student par t - ihe summer,
I.)-- _Develw- ofplating Iine as is - with tank/distance measurenents. Company/HWRP supervision
c Observe and record plater's work routine. Note: operati!) naI sequence,
potential for opcrdtor and housekeCping improvement an< [joints where plating solution is lost.
* .
2.) 3.) Material Balance
Submit drawing and record of observations to CompanylDEM for I: piew.
14
addition.
Obtain representative samples of each rinse tank 2nd analyze at LRI, i i
possible, for parameters to be determined by the Company & W V R P Determine water flow through operation and costs. Determine Ibs./unirs plated over time by operation.
4.) Conduct literature search and write a report with recommendations to reduce r:nv -
mzterirtl usage (e.g., optimize plating bath chemistry, use drip racks/drain boards.
reposition rinse tanks, counterflow rinsing, flow restrictors). Include current operating costs and projected costs savings.
Determine in-house analytical capabilities for monitoring plating processes and waste streams.
5.) Obtain/anaIyze representative rinse tank samples. Write final report on program effectiveness, applicability to other plating lines and cost/benefit analysis.
. University Course The University has also recently formalized it's plans to offer a graduate level
pollution prevention course io students and -company personnel this spring (l992j. A
program description is provided below:
GHE 576 Process &g ineer irg for Pollution Pre vention (1 and rrl Management of ptocesses and development of techniques for waste minimization in
the chemical process, machine tool, coating, plating, plastics ai.ld other industries.
Waste minimization is now the preferred method of response for all industry: instead of treating wastes, the idea is to change the process or materials. The course is a mechanisn for providing engineers and scientists a framework for changing each industry's processes. We are trying to provide a generic approach t ~ ' many of the problems rather than -
~~
. e \ an indtistry specific approach. . .
-
15
Ovenicw
IVith nearly 65 DEM on-site assessments either complete or under review, technical
assistance staff and university engineers have gained a fair degree of competence in sofc'ral
h i sh priority industrial operations within the state of Rhode Island. The types of industries
that DEM has worked with to date include: jewelry & plating, coated fabrics, metal castins, stamping, textile and electronic. These companies have ranged in size from 3 to 1,620
employees; roughly 50% of the companies visited employ fewer than 50 people.
-
One of the companies that participated in the DEM on-site assessment program, 1 Miniature Casting Corporation, received a $23,800 grant from EPA's Pollution Prevention By and For Small Business Grant Program in 1990. The HWRP alerted , \Mature Casting Corp. to the availability of the EPA money and arranged a meeting between the company president and URI staff. With the assistance of DEM and a Ph.D. chemical engineering student, Miniature Casting applied for and was awarded the EPA grant to implement pollution prevention methods and technologies recommended during an earlier DEMIURI waste reduction assessment. Miniature Casting was one of 17 grant recipients selected from 176 nationwide. A press release on this project has been included in the Appendix G.
.
*
As a means of summarizing some of the HWRP/DEM experiences to dati, the following outline has been prepared. This summary is only intended to provide the reader *
with a "snap shot view" of some of the program's early findings.
Backbnnd 6 &periencG Procedure development, completed or started 65 assessments.
s; Jewelry & Plating, Coated fabrics, Metal fabrication, casting and stamping, Textile and Electronic,
Indltstw Size; Range: 3 - 1,620 employees, roughly half the companies visited
employee less than 50 peoplc. Twical Waste T
,
~
~
. \ __.
electroplating wastes (e.g., metal bearing ibastewater, metal
16
3lanhorrrs per Assewnent: 20 - I50 per company.
Recommendations; more than 150 different technical recommend;l:ions macle V, ; t i l
typical payback periods ranging from 0.5 to 2.5 years.
Findings
Mature industries with limited pollution prevention skills. * Waste reduction is not difficult if the right people are involved.
Implementation of pollution prevention measures is hampered more by lack of
management understanding, lack of in-house technical skills and economics rather
than by the availability of proven processes and methods. * In tough economic times, pollution prevention offers a good way for companies to save money if investment funds are available,
Once identified, pollution prevention measures take anywhere from 2 months to
-
- -_ -
~ _ - - _ _ _ _ - -- 3 years to implement in today's economy. Operational changes with low capital investment can be implemented faster than process changes with high capital and operational costs requiring skilled labor.
., ,
Voluntary approach to pollution prevention 1 is gaining support both nationally and
in Rhode Island. Since mid-1990, all companies new to the technical assistance program have come to DEM of their own initiative; others have discussed problems openly with URL
~- Examples of ljlpical Successes
US EPA Pollution Prevention Grant:- Miniature Casting Corporation, 30 employees, rcctived $23,800 for pollution prevention work to implement a program developed cooperatively with.DEM and URL One of 17 grant recipients from 176 afiplicants natfon wide; the only regional award. Elimination of mineral spirits and
hydrochloric acid, water consellration and zinc'recowy.
Elimination ( 1 : 28,000 Ibs. of waste cyanide representing about $15,000 per year in
1 7
;in:;ual sa*& iEgs, continued work o n freori dr)ing operation elinii l iarion, precio:!, ;j1c:;ii
recovery. hydroxide sludge reduction, w e r conservation, waste cutting oil a n c j -I.c,-\ rcd tict ion n t one jewelry manufacturer.
Recoveq and reuse of hundreds of gallons of a synthetic metal coolant at one
Rhode Island company. More than 90% of-the mackine coolant can be recycled \vith
u l trafiltration technology.
-
Under the direction of one companies Vice President, Quality and Environmental Directors have organized employee involvement teams to work on waste reduction issues. Solid waste generation has been cut in half (oil/speedi-dri), machining coolant reduced by more than 25% and more than 35,000 gallons of l,l,l-
trichloroethane have been eliminated. __ -~ ~ ~- ~ __-__--______ - _ _
One company installed an ion exchange unit to create reagent grade nickel sulfate from nickel plating waste. Nickel sulfate to be returned to the piating operation is projected to resuIt in resource conservation, reducing the need fbr more than 1,700
ibs. of raw materials representing $21,690 in savings, and reduction in the generation of approximately 3,000 Ibs. of hazardous waste costing $12,000 per year to dispose of. This project was initiate by the company and after a DEM assessment. DEM conclusions and recommendations supported the company's plan.
*
One company eliminated the use of Freon in parts degreasing. The
company dso replaced a TCA vapor degreasing operation with an alkaline cleaning system Spent TCA was generated at the rate of 1,800 gallons per year. Annual operating costs (water,. energy, raw material) were S19.167. With the new aqueous cleaning system annual operating costs are $762. Additiod work is underway to recycle the soap solution, to conserve proieS water USG, and to recover plating materials.
, .
* Grant Program participant: In the case of a paper coating operatior?,' the
18
yan tce h;is succcsAlly r e p l x e d 11s solvent-based coating matcri:li n ~ : h an : I ( I ! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,
rnisture. The two-?ear aqueous phase conversion program began in Febrti:ir\ 1
In addition to the environmental health, public image and potential liability bcnefi:b.
the amount of hazardous \vasts generated dropped dramatically from :ipprosim:iteIv
15,S30 to 440 gallons per year -- a 97% decrease. This amounts to an annual savings
of about $83,000 in transportation and treatment costs alone.
-
-
THE H I W / D E M POLLUTION PREVENTION ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL
Overview
The pollution prevention assessment protocol has evolved as the result of more than three years of on-site technical assistance experience. When the assessment program first began, the Department of Economic Development and DEhl‘s Office of Environmental Management had to “sell” the program to manufacturers by direct calling. A DED/DEM representative would call a prospective company manager and attempt to interest or persuade him/her in the state’s polhion prevention technical assistance services. The DEM $2 million dol1ar.g” program was often cited,as an additional positive program that the agency was administering to the benefit of industry and the Citizens of the state of Rhode Island. The effectiveness of this approach varied depending upon the skills of the person making the call and the wiliingness of the company contacted. Overall, 70% of the companies contacted voluntarily committed to
participate in the assessment program; Le., DED maintained a 50% success rate in bringing new companies into the technical assistance program, whereas DEM had a
better than 90% success rate. From about mid-1990 to date, OEC has stopped soliciting companies by telephone since new compahies were coming to the program on their own
initiative. Referrals from DEM regulatory divisions account for about 10% to 15% of all companies tRat have sought technical assktance.
., . The Assessment Protocol . \ Whe~r a prospective company first contacts DEM’s Hazardous Waste Reduction
Progtxn, some basic information about the company and msmgement concerns are
19
r;o:et!. Ot-erall DE11 program goal> are discusscd with the caller and ;in :!;ipoini!iic~;:
>c[ io: ;1 site visit. The DEM person.who first visits the site i s tjpically the person \ \ ! IO
\ t i l l be :issigned to the company as "team leader." The team leader is the person w h o
\ \* i l l be responsible for all work at the company and for ensuring that all deadlines are
met.
At this initial meeting, the team leader carefully considers and listens to the
concerns and scope of work outlined by the company representative. The company representative will usuaily outline objectives and review management or corporate support such as financial backing, willingness to enforce changes in procedures, and p a l i t y assurance. Plant safety policies, if existent, are reviewed with the team leader for the benefit of team members. Company management is assured by the team leader, that
the teams purpose is not to tell a company how to run its factory, but rather to look for cost-effective opportunities on how to reduce pallution at its source and improve worker health and safety. At the close of the meeting, the team leader leaves a set of set of forms to be completed by the company.
-
.I
+
Once the completed forms are received by OEC, the team leader schedules a meeting with selected team members. In addition to state staff, teams can include one to three URI chemical engineering students. A "desktop" review of the company data is performed by team members and the team leader provides information on the company's background, goals, and attitude. The team is now ready to go, on a site visit.
The site visit consists of three parts: 1) the opening conference, 2) the facility tour 0 and 3) the closfng conference. During the opening conference, company personnel
involved in the project are introduced. Company staff typicalIy use this time to state their individual or collective okjectives. Tbe team also uses this opportunity to cIarify points in the data that was initially supplied by the,company. The team leader along with company management defirits the scope of the facility tour.
I )
'Team ,,.,mbers wear required personal protective equipment and obey all safety
20
r ~ : l c \ L! t , r : ; i~ thc I:iciijt> tour. 'l'!it. cornp.in! us1:tii;>* di.>ignLre.\ oiie o r i \ i o ;I/;L!I( ! ( ) L ; ;
gtiic1t.s to take the team th rough the facilitc. Processes and operations of p:irtic.ul;ir
inicre_si to team members are revieired, The tour rcve4s items such as space
limitations, housekeeping procedures, spill frequency, and worker care while providing ;1
good understanding of overall processes. During the tour, interviews with various personnel are important tools to gather information regarding process changes and other
details. A team member may make a suggestion and get feedback on the spot. The worker's opinions are given strong consideration, since they must ultimately help implement or maintain process changes.
-
- -
At the closing conference, team members are free to raise new questions concerning processes that they reviewed. If additional data are needed, the company is asked to supply it. Preliminary findings are discussed with company management and specific areas are identified for further study. The team leader then provides a brief overview regarding the substantive nature of the report, an estimate of it's expected
____.__-
completion date ancioiher services available to the company.
,In most cases, follow-up visits are necessary to ciarify information br to gather data missed during the initial facility tour. These visits have also provided the URI students with an opportunity to demonstrate equipment that may be applicable to the cohpany's source reduction problem. On some occasions, the students have processed samples of actual waste solutions for the company.
.4
'
After conducting the site visit, the team reassembles to review all data incliuling -
flow diagrams, facility layout, waste quantities and waste management. As part of this
rehensivc assessment the team identifies and targets waste generating processes that odified, For example, a goal could be to reduce the amount of copper i:i a -
w s t e stream, or Tt) recycle water in a tubbing operation. DEMs Hazardous Waste Reduction Libra.?; and national data bases are seaich'ed for supportive literature airit
information (e.g., case studies) where needed. Pertinent information and data is t l i c r i
summarized am'
-
~
__
plained in a written report. These waste reduction reports list y t 4 m s
21
; I \ ;iil;iiilc 10 companies including p r o m s and operational changes a n d recover\ /rei)\;>
technolog. Capital and operational .costs for new equipment are listed and compared lo
existiris s!'stems. Swings due to decreased sludge disposal, reduction in raw m:iterial
tibage arid scrap metal sales are accounted for in the economic analysis.
- Once the report is completed it is hand delivered by the team leader to the company. It is then up to the company to select a course of action. In some cases, the
company finds it necessary to consult with DEM/URI to clarify questions or obtain additional information. Once company projects are started, however, DEN and URI continue to periodically visit the facility to check on operations and note improvements. This entire procedure provides the DEM 1) with a sound understanding of poreential opportunities to reduce pollution at it's source and 2) with an opportunity to assess the effectiveness of recommended technologies and operating procedures.
- __ __. ._____-- __ -~ -~~ - - .
QUANTLTATIVE DATA ON THE EFFECTNENESS OF THE ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
*
Introduction DEWS pollution prevention program provides technical assistance to Rhode
Island industry in several different ways, including: 1) in-plant audits or assessments performed by a team of DEM ewiromental scientists and URI chemical engineers, 2) by helping to organize environmental task forces or management steering committees within the companies, and 3) by organizing conferences and sponsoring outreach activities. So far, waste reduction- assessments appear to be the most effective mechanism for helping small companies, with limited engineering or environmental staff, reduce pollution at it's source. Larger companies, which employ more engineers and e iivironmentally-trained professionals, are more apt to develop and implement pollution prevention programs by themselves. In these cases, DEM cari provide guidance and
i:
-
~
I . __.
x:3cd technical support using management steering committees, method 2 above. Ouanti 13 tive data and results from the assessments and in-house steering committees are
2 2
.- .
anilerrul 'ask
i 100% o Sewer
100%
N c.
DEM WASTE REl i
3369 Miniature 3 Precision
Die-Casing
Mined Spirits *Source Reduction 240 GallYr * Sdwnt 0 GaUYr Subffirution With Aqueous ckuwr
UCTION DATA
ECONOMICS
CAP EQ (UF) -53,000 ANNUAL COnS < -sm ANNUAL SAVINGS +sz.m PAYBACK 1.8 Yrs
CAP EQ (UF) -s4.OoO ANNUAL COSTS < -s2.000 ANNUAL SAVINGS +fS.000 PAYBACK 2 Yrs
ANNUAL SAVlNCiS +53.000 (Maintenance COS&)
HRS
41
110
3
i I
I 1
b
* I Drum of waste 50% oil : 50% water is now gCneratCd. Water and coolant
is ncycied.
*Recipient of T P A small business 1'2 grant. *Soap and water I S recycled. *NO sewer diwtwrpr *7.inc alloy IS
recovered for rritsc *Sludge elrmtnxrtdt Chemical trexmcni reduced
SIC CODE4 TYPE OF UWUSfRY WASTE DESUUPTION " T R Y #
347 1 Rc&To-R~ Frum Usod For 4 Elatmplahng Plaat&bqrryiez
347 1 Rat-To-Reel t * 1 ,I-triehlorOcthene 5 Elccrroplating aprcuirysohrtion
3546 Manufacturer Of 1 .l .I-wichtomcthane 7 Nails. SIapk L k g d n g Ruid
And Tools To Drive Fasteners
i \
.Rccyck With 700GalIYr 1 Uiuafiltration M W Y r
' =Aqueuut Cleaning 45.000 GaYYr system I , I . I-TCE -Ra) f l e Witb 0 GaUYr ullntiImi0n
b
PERCENT ECONOMICS MAN CO>lhlENTS REDUCTION I l K S
IOOX ANNUAL SAVINGS 4 *Convinced kendor to Freon supply p1sstic parrs Purchase without oil film +526.400
1 0 %
93 %
100%
CAP -522.000 EQ (Ultrasonic) 1 o~ompmly vendor a1 m i
ANNUAL COSTS govcmrncni I" -3760 conterencr. . ANNUAL SAVINGS +f19.000 Ultrasonic unit PAYBACK Immediate
Aqueous
purchased
I I
SIC CODU TYPE OF INwsfRY cvmw
3089 zincoiccroig 8
3591 9
3591 10
I
Pump Manufactum MlnuJ Spiriu Partid 100 GdlYr R- 25 GaUYr WilhAqUarur (Shipped cteuwr Offsite For
MicroRllntioa With Racydc)
PERCENT ECONOMICS REDUCTION
100% CAP €Q (UF) To Sew -f4.000
ANNUAL COSTS -<w.Ooo A N N U A L SAVINGS +510,000 PAYBACK I Yr
>97% ANNUAL COSTS <-fl.40t) ANNUAL SAVINGS +55,OOo PAYBACK 0.4 Yrs
75 % ANNUAL COSTS < -5900 ANNUAL SAVINGS +ft ,200 PAYBACK Immediate
M A N COMhlE%TS fins
66 Technology crmrierrcd from entry# 2 abchc. .Company perinancntly s d e d olf s t w t r discharge ptpe
.
ECONOkf ICs SIC CODU TYPE OF INDUSTRY WASTE DSUUPTION METHITECH WITXAUFlNAL PERCENT LYTRYl USED WASTE GENERATION REDUCTION
3961 Costume Jcvelry DischqeToScwer 0-k With 5,oOO GaUYr IOOZ CAP EQ (UF) I 1 OfM+91Bl%ing utlnfrltnuian 100WYr I To Sewer -54.m
3678 Electronic Connecton 1.1.1 T r k h b ” .Source Reduction 1.400 Gal/Yt 100%
v i watt watcr I
12 For Dqfcasing By Solvent ,O GallY r Replacement With Aqucouscltaner *
.. ..
3053 S d banufaclurer Air Comprasot L * Btowdown Discharged
To Smr
I
t
*Changed Mixing 1,870 GaUYr 20 W Y C
15 36
99 R
99%
ANNUAL COSTS -f300 ANNUAL SAVINGS +fJOO PAYBACK Inimrdtacc
ANNUAL COSTS
ANNUAL S VlNCS
PAYBACK Immdiair
-5222
+613,O(x) 4 )
2s
~ ~ U U ~ A L WASlZ GENERATION
I 2,420 W Y r
I
SIC CODEJ TYPE OF lNDUsl%Y PERCENT ECONOMICS REDUCTION
M.\N COhLVENTS ENTRY#
3965 16
3991s 17
3915 18
391s 19
391s 20
3%1 21
HKS
10
1
8
4
20
IO
ANNUAL SAVINGS +SI776 '
t10GYYr OGIVVr 1
Xa-HOape RdcrcliaL
100% ANNUAL SAVINGS + s3m
100% ANNUAL SAVINGS +S12.925 I
Costume Jcwcby Plating
I ANNUAL SAVINGS +5520 ~
100%
i 64%
Costume J w e k q Plating
Costume Icwelrj Plating
. *' ' I -Ion Exchange 2.91s GdIYr 1 With I ,OOO GallYr Electrolytic
-Segregated 3 4 S . W GaUYr WssleStnams OGJUYr
I Meal Recovery I 1 .Ion Exchange I
ANNUAL SAVINGS +55.300
I
100% CAP EQ (IE Units) To Sewer -s1o.o(x)
ANNUAL SAVlNGS (Discharge Permits) PAYBACK 7. Yrs
Tool and Du
SIC CODE4 E N t R Y l
3823 22
347 I 23
3471 24
t
r a u2
TYPEOFMWSLRY
Plating Company
. - - ,,
WAS"F.DEscRIplloN MGLtuTEcfl MITIAUFINAL PERCENT ECONOMICS Lf&Y COhlMt>TS us€D WA!STE GENERATION REDUCTION liKS
spnt sdnnt % 1 . 1 . 1 - w
Spcnt'Nielrd iYating sdruion
*Racyclc wilh 1m.Oao W Y r 98% CAP EQ (UF untt) 4 *The companv hJ\ %tt
UknMtntiOn 2.000GaUYr -S60*OOO an immediate paybach ANNUAL SAVINGS from u v i n g s on +S1SO.OOO (Disposal) ANNUAL COSTS
PAYBACK 4.5 Months
disposal costs alone
-f3,000 (DlSpOsal)
.ElimiMrion 1 .SSO W Y r 100% ANNUAL SAVINGS I O +52.000
I
Savin& of more than w*Rccyele 1,700,lbs. in raw materials
I
25
DOC8 i f0u5 3 FOG1 L FOOS 5 roo2 6 F007 7 f O 0 9 8 UOlZ 9 0006
1D ROO1 1 1 ocnt ? 2 c:cs 13 uooz ? C DO11 15 U226 16 ObOL 17 FOOE 18 u122 19 0009 :J u22a 21 U2Bb T ? 2 FO11 R . 1 ~3 u2\1 T
2 L OOlb E ?5 u15c. t 25 K O 5 2 T 7 7 FOOG T 79 U223 1.R 29 U220 T
57 U239 T
Hazard
EP tox ic Toxic Toxic Ignitable, Toxic Toxic Reactive, Toxic Rcrct ive, lonk Toric EP Tortc State Toxic E? Tokfc 61. Toric TOXIC EP Toxlc Toxlc EP Toxlc Reactive, Toxle Torte' . E? "loirlc T o x k Toric Rcac t ive, Toxk toxic EP Toxic loxlc Toxic Toxfc
TABLE 4.0
Rhode Isbnd tcnerated Hazardous Waste by Uastc LCXJC 0 ; 1 t a totrrrc 1987 Ccncrstor Bienniat Report - Recurrcn: r)n(y
( A l l Units in Tons )
Toxic Onty
Description
Lead Electro Studgc He\ t O l V / b t ~
uon-Hal folv Hot Solv CW 6th Soln Stripltln soln hllln C.br iUr tonle thraniur Barfun Acetanr 6i (vet llrthylchlwofora Arsenic P l t 8th Reitdm Foravldehyde Wrcury 1 r lcht orocthy lene
CU 6th CLU Tetrach\orcnwthane Mathoxychtor HethylAlcoho\ Pet- Ref- lnk Btm, Yon-Halsol
Toxic , Reactive Benzene, 1.3-dllsocyanatccaethyl Toxlc Benzene, nethyle Toxic XyLene
5 1 PO30 N &cute Toxic cw n.0.s.
AnriuaI
Tons
1.n02.20 1.570.00
784.40 514.66 446.39 !80.46 175.23 101 -31 94.02 83.45 82.30 64 .99 51.89 25.70 17.98 11.81 7.46 4 -79 4.61 1.16 3.05 3.42 3.03 2.89 1.96 1.91 1 .R5
1.50
1.24 1.27 1.27
1 , 8 0 4 .ZOO 3,375 .000 f + , l b l . L O O 4,476.060 f,122.&SO 5,302.9 10
5,470.140 5 e 579.4 50 5.6T3.170 5,756.920 5,839,300 5,902.290 5,936.180 '5.961 . o m 5.979.860 5.991.670 5.999.130 6.003.920 6,000.530 6.012.690 6.016.540 6,019.950
6,023 .O 10 6.025.900
6.029.770 6,031 .hN 6,033.120 6,036.5 10
6,035 680 6,036.950
6,027.860
19.852
25.910 13.017 0.51s
2.9%
2.899 1.676
1.556 1.381 1.363 1.075 0.528 0 -425
0.297 0.195 0.123 0.079 0.026 0.0';O
7.3atr
0.014 0.057 0.050 0.W0 0.032 0.032 0.(151
0 .(IC5 0.021 O.Wl 0.021
7 ' r w . 1 ' J l!1+* >. 1.-.;
35 FC3. 36 U1W 1? uta% 38 Ull2 33 UZOl
r t U1?1
4 U113 43 u14s LC 0017 45 Ut62 L 6 U061
..I
i o pow
Code
n T
n T T T 1 n 1
1.1 T E T 1
r c y :
Hazard , ,'bcscr iptiop ' I ! Acute Toric Dttthyt-pnin@myl phospatc Toric Alph.-Nspthylmnino T n V i C h z e n e , 1.3 - Oiehloro Acute Toric Uwfr in lox i c Pentuhlwotthm Toxic Phenol Toxic Merle Add, ethylester
Acute Toxft Toxic T r l c h t o r ~ f twometham Toxlc, tgnftabta Ethyt ecrytate Toric ttd Phospatr EP Toxic ' ' Z,f,S-TP Stlvex
Toxic DOT
Toxic 1,s- I n r m d i o l Phosphonthfdc acid , o,o-diethyl O-<C-nitrophenl} ester
to*ic Kcpwre
,.-. I , i
1.01 0.97 0.89 0.71 0.69 0.69 0.55 0.43 0.37 0.25 0.23 0.06 0.01
0.01 0.00
6.037.YM1 6.038.930 6, o w . nzo 6.040.530 6.0bt.220 6.041.910 6,0C2.460 6,O.CZ. 890 6.043 -260
6.Q43.740 6.043.800 6,023.010 6,043.820 6.063 -820
6, ak3 - s 1 o
0.011'
n.oit, 0.01'.
0.012
0.011
0.011
0.OOY O.OO?
0.006 0 .a04 0.001.
0.001
0.oou 0.000 0. 00tl
I = tgniteblc, L - EP Toxic, W 9 Acute Hszardcnts, f= Tonic, C * Corrosive , R = Reacfi've, SC = , R = Rc,~ct ivc , SC = st,,rc t o r r o . , , ~ ~ , PIsu = 91 speci81 Hazardous Waste, SI = state of Rhode island lrritant, S,Oit= State of Rilode is land O i l ,
.I = Stare f!a"btc, El 9 Statr of P1 Extremely Hazerdour Waste
i /
1
I
c 3 L
Q
I/ - I
r
i
. .
i TABLE ' 5.U
I Rhode Island Generated Hhrdous Waste by Waste code Data Source
1987 kn+ratar'Efenn~at R c p w t - Recurrent Only
< A l l Units In Tons ) Other
I
i d 3 ~ 2
ho. Code Code Hazard Bescriptian
1
2 3 c 5 6 r ' 8 4
10
ROlO 0001 0002
RP'JS a007 f 003 0003 R003 ROO&
f 033
0.0i t I C R l f U St I R SF SC
Stete Oil, Ignitable Cor ros f w Spec. tf8rte State frrit- tsni teble Reactive State Flwnnebie State torrotlve -
6,297.60 4.460.70 1.521.90 1,278.60
974.05 459.46
00.06 17.22
0.27 0.23
6,297.400 1 0.75 n. 300 12.28h.200
14.53n.n50 13,564.800
14.998.3 1 0 15.O70.370 15,095.590 15.095.860 15.096.090
S 1 . 7 1 7 29.5i.P 1 0 . 1 2 1
8.170
6.C52 3.OLL
0.530 O.llL 0.002 0.002
Ucy:
I = Ignftable, L = EP lox(c, W u lSY +: R1 Spcch l Hsrardaa Woste, St S f = S t a t e FlcUmretj.c, f U = Stet= of R I Extremely Haratdarr Uaatc
Acute H~Z.tdoua. 1- Twit. C Corrosive , R = Reactive, SC = , R = Reactive, SC = S t a t e Corco'>ive,
State of Rhoda lrlsnd Irrjtant, S,OiL= S t a t e of Rhode.lslond o i l ,
I
TABLE 6.0
*
; , _ - m e Target Data Sunnsry by Two Oigit'Code ( Rhode Is tarx lUn\ tc Data )
-c s i c C d c Total DOOB fOO6 FOQl f 00s FOOZ f GO7 F 009 DO0 7 UOlZ 0006 \LA, TGt l r . i t ' c r
7 ' L . -
L 3 9 - - 3 5 3 - - C 16--
5 sa- - 6 24-- 7 50.- 8 20.- 9 55.-
10 .-*.
11 36-- 12 61--t35>* 13 = T - -
IC 22.- 15 27-- 16 32-- 17 30-- 18 BO-- 19 37-- 23 72.- 21 21-- 2 2 b7-*C35J9 23 2L-. 24 03.. 3 -5-- 26 2%- 27 55-- 28 49-: 29 97.- 30 31.- 31 17"- 32 5L-- 33 7-3.-
1077511.44 113078.2 672242.81 128Q57.44 1978S.46 768167.11 12824.01 524624.75 1OS648.38 S132.72 528862.99 S55131.37 15376.36 40320 4333.63
355931.18 13344.55 6109.81 WWOf.45 fBos21.36 339152.73 . 323409.09 0 15043.64 a 301144.19 0 420 150560.55 - 0 275365.M I 2013.19 420 37181.62 2S20 239926.2 148183.6i S774S.45 t m . 6 f 0
215061 .It 132t92.U W485 3346.37 19227.62 192412.V 9620.9 ?7013.6f 47026.W 1260
116550 303?2.?3 . 1050 W59.09 0 93658.b6 1260 0 58869.03 48t94.55 sb518.72 lU20.91 0 ZSS8.91 29915.h5 b63522.7b 9 -' m . 9 1 965.91 3716.- 2Wf.16 4 W . 19 ' 232n.73 0 0 0 39262 -71 Qt32 .?3 0 3532.n 4363.63 37361 .S6 0 0 0 649.09 U026.36 68.18 0 4855.65 3062.73 33 176.76 0 0 1?63.6( 0 Z1202.lf 0 0 0 21102.55 19197.62 0 0 0 0 t 2 2 n . n 0 0 1090 0 8915.b6 114.55 420 0 . 9 1 0 84699.54 0 0 190.91 4723.65 8430.54 0 0 Q 0 f368.SC 0 0 1uO 1611.27 5Qlt.73 0 0 0 0 4746.61 2426.81 0 0 95 .45 3610.66 0 3282.20 0 0 ;?b7 8 9636.36 0 610.91 - 0
2:c3 0 2100 0 0 2100 0 0 0 0
502147.28 3908W.09 7636.36 8667.27 0
112C5.18 38876.72
210 2091 -82
163b1.83 0
lSObl2 b362.73 1622.73
a 31 123.2 3111.82 3$36.36 93n. b f
0 0
, 19822.72 0
10974.82 30973-1
0 0
630 0
3555 8430.54 2947.27
0 209.99
0 0 0 0
2791 7.98 331 12.26 20140.91
420 0
0 0
56947.28 0
078.18 2622.72 897.27
1431.82 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
19197.82 0 0 0 0 0 0
49.64 0 0 0 0
85453 .99 5230.91 66G36.36
0 0 O
0 0
0 0
21 76.36 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
22.73 1922
0
870.19 2931.61
0 0
29.55
150 1793.82
34134.54 420
0 6218.63 16809.1 062.72
0
3009.09 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
378 0
0
0 0
4813.19
0 0
0 0 0 0 0
92018.18 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0
ll45.LS 4se3 .bS
0
7 6 ~ 7 i .2R 2405.91
0 0
0
0 LS.L5
25.45 0 0 0 0 0
B i n . 18 0 0 0 0
0
0 0
0 0
0
210 0 0 0 0 0
i I
I - 3c e9- - 1373.64 0 0 0 0 0 0
30 ,&-- iaso 0 0 lo50 0 35 or-- 1260 0 0 0 Q 0
31 56.- 996.09 ' 0 0 210 0 38 82.- 940 0 0 1 0 0 0 39 23.- 772 -73 l o 0 1 °
0 0
0 772. ?3 0 210 114.55 0 40 76-- 706.37 0 0 381 A2
b l Is-- 630 0 0 630 0 0 0
L2 20-- 496.36 0 0 0 0 0 0 c3 99-- 210 0 0 210 0 0 0 LL LL-- 61.36 0 0 0 0 61.36 0 45 Q S - - 20.45 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lb 9 t - - 19.09 0 0 0 0 t0.W 0 4 t 01-- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 et) uc-- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LQ 12.- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 14- - -0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 19-- ' 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 52 & I - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
53 12-- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5L 4 3 - - 0 0 0 0 O * 0 0 55 4 5 - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
57 = ? - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 53-- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 59 - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 b\-- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
61 79.- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 92-= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 othr 974.09 0 553 .& 0 0 420 ~ Q
,.e I 0
56 &I-- 0 0 0 0 0 ti 0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 a 0 % 0 0 0 0
196.36 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 a
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
I o 0 0 0 0 0 0
.-
0
0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0 0 ci
0 0 c; c 0
G 0 0 0
a 0
0 0
0
0 0 0 0 0
____I__- _ _ ~ _ _ _ - - 3 r ' 7 Totals: 5C05505.58 1600012.41 1427446 690109.16 467567.82 352h7.1 16363S.88 159297.62 74889.73 92018.18 85471.35 < t
' ( 35 ) -SIC codes 61 and b? are bttwtly 35; thts tr reflected tn teblcl: R I Toxic Hazardous Waste, Rcccurent 1987
1:\user\mikey\sprrsdsh\sum\scy Niched A. Belluccl, Program Specialist (6 /6/90)
I TABLE 7 .O 1
I
I
table I: R I l o x i c Hazerdouz Waste ttccwcent, By luo-Digit S t t code 1987 8iemiat Report Oatabase (lons/yr) I
SIC Industry I of Toxks
34 f.bricrtcd Uatalr 39 M i r e Mnf# 33 Primary nttrtr 35 nachincry & C a r p Equip 38 I n r t r m t s 26 Papccr 50 M o l e s r t r trade ?q CkerQtrels Og Unkflt%q Sic Codem . 36 Elec Lqulp ,1 Trade-mndur6ble , ** A t 1 Other Sic Corks 22 I c x t l l . 27 ?rintbg 32 Stcr~ ,Clry C w Prod 30 Rubber I; nirc Plastics 80 Wealth Services 37 Trans Equtp 72 Perranat Service . 2s furniture 24 L e r
I -
120 27 46 2s
I 17 34 38 48 20
443 22 18 6
s1 2s St 61 6 5
1,180
768,167.11
375,676.02 S55,9Sb.18 139,152.n 101,7C6.19 274,365.94 215,061.71 192,412.90 9S,650.46 60,761.53 56.S 10.72 46,S22.?4 40.093.19 39. 262.71 37,361.36 34,646.36 35,176.7b 21,402.ff 12,292.13
12a,wz.w
4,903~ra.30
1,187A2 6211.51 m.52 464.48
413.99 75.01 392.24 b5S.76 5 n . n 72.25 332.52 1,401 .40 302.3) l.o(M.63 237.00 2,247.00 2lt.04 S2t.W 1OJ.20 282.m 66.97 4,818.62 62.27 141.73 51 .os T8.05 U.18 17.?U 43.27 134.73 bt.17 177.03 37.52 609.40 36.56 2.37 23.59 8.95 13.55 1.55
sa2.m sst. i v
X fatat t lox i cs)
21.97 15.66 10.78
7.26 6.92 6.15 5.59 4.39 3.92 1.91 1.24 1 .15 0.94
0.80 0.76 0.69 0.68 0.44 0.25
4 7.66
0.82
1,403.915 13,861.1s 100.00
48142 56.08 63134
76h1 82!01 86.39 90.32 92.23 93.46 91.62 95.56 96.38 97.18 97.94 98.64 99.31 99.n
100.00
70a26
T J X etectroplating/15X spent soivent uastes ? 3 X etectroplating/20X spent solvent wastes
19% electrop~sting/9% spent Solvcnt/bTx 0008 21% rlectroptating/16X solvcnt/SlX DO08 2% electroptsting/92% solvent/&% DO08 4 x spent solvents/9f% GO08 99% spent solvents/t% electroplatinq wastes
21% electroplating/l6% spent sotvents/33% U012/28X c:her 11% spent So~VentS/z7% etectroplEting/62% 0008 41% spent solvents/43% eIectroplsting/lOX other 97% spent sotvents/2% FOOT CN P l o t . BTH
74% spent aolvents/24% DO08 53% spent solvents/32% GO07 h D008/13% other
58% 0008/22% DO07 71% spent solvents/26% DO07 h DO08 98% other 55% Spent Solvents/ 9X 0007/35% Other 98% Spent Solvents/= 0007/35X other 100% f005 21% Spent SoIvents/DX Other
‘oxics from unknown SIC Code origin; l e not reported to the state end not rendily locetablt !Ll Other S i c Coder Including:
*: SIC coder 61 L 75 do not report the generatfon of toxic waste, but generate 2481 Tons of otherwise hnzordous uaste.
0 3 . 7 5 . 2 9 , 5 5 , 4 9 , 9 7 , 3 1 ~ 1 7 , 5 ~ , ~ , 0 6 , , 9 1 , 0 1 , 0 4 , 1 2 , 1 6 , 1 9 , 4 1 , 4 2 , ~ 3 , 4 5 , 4 8 , 5 2 , 5 3 , 5 9 , 6 5 , 7 9 . 9 2 , Hisc
database represents both recurrent and one-time shipncnts ,
rcr\m1Cey\spreodsh\tn~Iel2.~~ J m 6. lPp0 i I
I Chemical Name
S00lW SULFATE CsoluliW) SULFURIC AClO ACElOWE “IHANOL fOLUENE METHYL ETHYL KETONE 1.1,l-TRICHLOROETHME TEIRACWLOROETHYLENE SBXU HYDROXIDE (5oLUl1ON) TRICHLOROETHYLENE COPPER XYLENE (MEXED ISBWRS) F P O N 113 HYOROCHLORIC ACID
DfCHLOR~THANE SlYRiME HYOROiiEW FLvXIUE 2-!4ElHOXYETHANOL AN I L IN€ PHOSPHORIC ACfD AI#owIuW SULtAlE <SOLUTIOW) MANGANESE CCWUJNDS LEU) COPPfR CU4PWMDS ‘ - 2-ETWOXYETHANM. ETHYLEWE GLYCOL ZIXC COnFQUNDS NICKEL C M P W N O S
€lMYCENE OXIDE N-BUTYL ALCOHOL 1,2-DICHLOROElHARE C v f [ r r y v r u ~
WICKEL
Y S I R I C AClD A ! 4 W l A
LEAD C W W N D S
ZINC (FUME OR DUST) Dl(2-ETHVLHEXYL) PHlHALATE CDEHP) UAPHTHALEltE 1,2,4-TRlCHLOROBENZENE
1
Fwtive A i r
0 5,038
696,2’19 18,572
454,827 85,287 622,MI 261 ,497
4,- 376,325
253 50,544
129,978 4.267
98,706 143,674 S 8 , W
0 250 760
0 28,250
250 41.250
100 505 500
29,250 990
25,250 250
0 250
1,567 8,454
0 250
0 11,ow
0
TWLE 8 . 0
1 Uetcr Stack A i r
I
0 12,957.2 6 25,562 31,3 1 0 88,337 5,949
153,651 / O 919,824 210
221,db6 534 841.958 0
51,617 10 1,254 6 2 , d O
88,279 186 1,000 t i 2
158,100 * 0 113,5&6 1
6,7bS 1a,980
I
68,617 323 0 0
62,7a7 0 53,671 0
500 250 750 . 0
0 0 250 0
??l 250 25 1 750
53,744 0 2,245 46 ,400
265 250 250 250
53,750 0 250 0 250 250
12,390 0 250 108
1.OOO 250 11,750 0 1,130 I 2
500 7s 740 0
0 0 10,346 0
lnjertion
0 0 0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0
Land
0 0 0 0
0 0
750 0
0 0
1,088 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
58,500 0
0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
272 0 0
7.991 LO8 0 0 0
PO1 u
278.493
509,223 C32,OOO
1,103,202 0
0 250 175
535,887 2,973 1,157
250 0
132,081 0 0 0 0
3,028 77,795 3,858
250 250 a7 0 0
2,723 500 0 0 0 0
8,020 17,950
250 D
325 0
0
1,826
O t h e i
Chemical Name
C’ANIDE CCHPWXOS
f JQHALDEHYDL ISOPROPYL ALCOHOL (HANUFACTURIWG, S CHLORINE ‘ , 2 “‘CWOROBENZSNF kOLTCHLCRINATED 61PHENYlS OlCTHAYOCAnlNL 0-TOLUIDINE
CHROWlUn COnPUJNDS PHOSPHORUS (YELLW OR WHITE> HELMlNE L,C‘-ISOPROPYL1DENEDIPHENOL EPICWLOROHYDRIW ARSENIC C(MPQIWDS TOLUENE - 2 , i -0 1 I SOCYANATE 0-CRESOL -- 1 C”’ ORIETHLEYE
RETHYL HETWACUYLATE BENZOYL CHLORIDE A Y T I W U Y 3 -
METAL H CADM 1 u( s I cvEn C.I. BASIC GREEN 4 CHQOnlUW DICHCOROBRWOIILTHANE
PROPYLENE
METHYLENEEIS(PHENYLIS~YAN~TE~ C?2”!34 CWCUNDS O*U I U W
SILVER COWPOUNDS
Fugstive A i r
250 SO0 466 500 150
0 500
0 0
250 0
250 250
0 250 250
0 250
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3,164,084
Stack A i r
111 501 EO
1,100 250
0 SO0 250
0 250
0 ZSO 250
0 250 2so 250
0 250
5 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2,995,614
Water Inject ion
* 516 I
250 O I
370 I 0 I
0 0
250 0 0 0 0
‘ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1
O I
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
. o 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
13 , 187,892 0
Land
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0
69,009
POTU
1,150 2,400
0
3 70 250 0 0
0 0
250 500 250 250
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
2,998,055
Other T o t a I
2,691
1 ,I)OO 2,500
250 0
1,050 0
25 0
750 0
250
0 ,l
75 0
e 0 0
0 0
I-
O
0
i?
(1
L ( 1
1
I’
r
4 , 7 1 8
4 . 4 1 3 , Y M
2,5Wl 1,250 1 ,c50 1 , OOtI
75 0
75 0 753
753
750 75 9 750 500 505 25’3 250
250 5 3 2 1
0
0
i)
0
0
U 0
IJ
* n 7 - , I?, : '5 J 0 3 0 0 n "
250 0
: 2 , 3 9 1
1, Gal, 219 0 1,500 9
0 3 21,627 0 17.4CO 0
0 0 0 0
7 0 r n f i #U,J"Ll U
,. 26, i ; i 2 L . 3%
392 1,c5d 9 , !w
0
~
2,654,816 10,759,5;5 12,L35,182
80
1,645,637 .- 0
0 17
,726 1
2295 22b9 2258 c c r 7
22c2 22.3.; 2252 2257 2253
-*- ,
2263 _ -
2 0 2 12,4R3 2 133,300 7 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 250 1 0 1
14 445,733 Air: 1,061,803
30
0
16,250 0 0
10,346 10,375
0 25 0 0 0 --
578349
__
2,212,850 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 __
55,000 0 0 0
0 48,300 0 58,SC3
0 20,000 1,325 3
175 0 4,354 ' 0 750 0 4 0 0 0
~ -.
0 n , 2 3 2 13,300
0 .O 0 0 0
750 0 a
Subtotal 3,5L9,844 Group Totals
- Croup i o t a ( by %
616,070 Water:
2.2 12,850 2,343,259
66
130,409 58,500 86,282
2
332,242 IS0 0 0
26,500 0 IS0 0
10,060 0 0 0 0
- - - 0
0 0 262 0 0 0 0 0
* 2
3471 345 1 34 79 3499 3669 3433 3462 - 3429 3449 3452 3496
912,543 422,251 391,250 194,380 157, C5 1 118,370 15,000 12,846 11,237 10,700
0
24 2 5 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1
204,052 5 ,686
163 , 050 187,000 93,416 9,024
15,000 ' 250 10,ns 6,200
0
185,279 250
750
82,906 0
12,119 0 0 0
119, 850
28,594
13,241 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
250 0 0
176,979 416,515 81,850
25,381 26, UO
0 In
0 4,500
0
5D880
Subtota l 2,246,028 40 6Y4,203 429.t48 Group Totals Air: 1,123,951 Water: Croup Total by X 50
396 1 1,340,952 10 177,41s 128,360
395 1 91,878 2 3,017 86,902 3942 66,870 I 39,870 27,000
391 'I 219,713 9 150,099 3,750
3914 46,547 1 41,650 500 39 21,606 1 2,534 0
13,091 383.305
17 ~
369,814 750
33
0 WQ
0 0 0 66
633,330 0 500 1,766
0 0 0 0 0 0
66 0
401,841 63.396
1,939 0
18.960 4,397
Subto:al 1,80Q,~.S9 Group T o r a i s Group Total by ?.
3132 91 5,379 3731 269, %0 3714 5,208
Subtotal 1,191,137 Group Tc ta l s ;roup To:al by Z
2754 685, sss 2752 166,966
Subtotal 832,551 Group Totals Group Total by f
365 1 3662 367k 3665 3699 3676 3644 3694 %3
- 376,830 113,332 54 ,653 51,800 33,000 24 , 200
1,500 500 0
Subtotal 655,865 Croup Totals Group Totat by X
3315 3357 3356 3398 335 1 3362
3369 n a o
97,104 75,431 60,064 16,935 1,529
0 0 0
suetotat 251,063 Group Totals
3
t
29 Air;
c 1 1
6 A i r :
1 1
2 Air:
1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
10 Air:
2 6 1 1 1 1 1 1
#
11 Air:
750 0 0
L 1 5 , 3 5 S 641,867
37
856,979 2 s 7,000
0
1,103,979 1,103,979
93
0 35,117
35,117 826 , 062
99
14,420 87,000
764 40,900
750 0 0
250 0
144,084 190,004
29
49,334 30,675 - 59, b7 l
5,%S 253
0 0 0
145,aa 146,190
S * A Z K - A i R
0 0 0
2Lb.512 Water:
0 0 0
0 Water:
685,595 105,350
790,945 Water:
0 24,900 15,170
0 750
4,100
1,000. 0 0
45,920 W e r :
250 1,250 252
0 EO 0 0 0
2,502 Water:
, 5 2 7
..
3:;CT;
0 0 ?
266 t41,EOG
36
0 0
0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
171,380 108 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
171,488 281,685
43
0 250
0 0 0
. o ' \ O
0
250 1,115
~ d : e r
PO'W
7 ,6 . . 2 0
0
641,538
0 0 0
0
0 0
0
109,53J 0
2,217 0
1,000 0 0
250 0
112,997
0 250 339
. o 276
0 0 0
865
L M 3
0
0
0
1,768
0
3 0 0
0
0
0 0
0-
0
0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0
0
0
0 0 0 I] 0 0 n 0
0
6, S20 0 3
L95,019
27
59,330 22,950
5 , t o 8
87,158
7
0 6.699
a m
1
81,550
36,502 10,900 30,500 20,100
5 00 0 0
1$24
181,376
28
47,520 43,006
2
250 0 0 0
io,9ao
101,758
s us: c 1 J I ' 5 L , 4 39 Croup T o t a l s
Group TotaI by ::
Subtotal 1&9,581 Group Totats Group Total by Z
3822 3 , 0 4 5 386 5 33,990 3629 18.000
Subtotal 737,035 Group Totals Group Total by f:
3079 114,993
Subtotal 116,993 Group Totals Group Total by X
2086 45,750 2026 61,000 2031 10,065 2076 0
Subtotat 96,795 Group Totals Group Total by X
354 1 32,001 3599 11,000
sulbtotrt 43,001 Group Totalr Group Total by X
2491 1,750
Subtor a 1 1,750
2 1
3 A l l - :
1
1 Air:
1 1
1
3 Air:
7
7 Air:
1 1 1 I
0 Air:
1 1 '
2 Air:
1
1
53
8 ,900 66
3,964 132,230
84
59, so3
59,500 133,380
a9
0 990
18,000
18,990 97,501
~ - 71-
23,519
23,519 98,559
86
0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 11,000
11,000 65,001
100
0
0
. . - I ,
S 7 :CK-A 1 9
'21.210 2,056
123,266 Water:
3 , 5 3 3
73,830 Water:
45.511 33,000
0
78,511 water: __
75,040
75,040 water:
0 0 0 0
0 WRter:
32,001 0
32,001 water:
0
0
::FECI
0
0 0
0 0 0
2
2 2 0
. o 0 0
0 0 0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 %,
100
0 0
0 0 0 , . 0
0
.-,:e7 ' . rc:w
3 0
0
3
0
0 3 0
0
0
0
CS,TsO 41,000 10,045
0
96,795
0 0
0
0
0
. A h 3
I
0 0
0
0
7,591
7,991
5
0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0 . 0
0
0
0
OTHER-OF f
; I
6,:5; 16,152
22 ,209
16
6 ,228
8,208
5
39,534 0 0
39,534
29
16,436
16,434
14
0 0 0 0
0
0
0 0
0
0
1,750
0 1,750
;!$‘ .’5 3 1 0 3
253 0 250 .,..
0 0
0 0
a 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0
LAk3
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
100
750
750
1 c3
0
0
0
: r ara
Total 26,854,469 15s 3 , ib~ ,o&c z , m , 6 ? 4 i3,187,89t t,wa,oss 69,009 4 , 4 3 9 , 8 1 5 Group :o:als A I r: d, 159,698 Water: 16,185,947
Y:\user\mikey\spreadsh\targerb
?
i
00'001 00'001
00'001 66'66 S8'66 L3'66 70 * 66 ES'Q6 46.0% O'r'L6 91'96 20'36 26'06 67-98 QL'6L 27'14 02 -9s
W w 3 X O l
x mw
00 1
00'0 00'0 10'0 91'0 9E'O C3'0 1s-0 95'0 05'0 S6'0 77'2 01's 39-3 of-9 9S.Q ZZ'El 02-95
-113 X O l
\ea01 x
L27'tl
I; 1'0 8E'O 88'0 os- I t O Y O 7 OS-&% 2s-83 6L"rL ZZ'LL tS 'S2l M ' L X 8Z.917 LS.565 €2'006 lO'€Zl'L Z6'71L'l 97'710'L
697'758'92
OS2 OS1 OSL'C \OO'<? I 6L '96 S66'711 S ~ O ' L S L lUS'671 6t7'751 t90'1SZ 298'559 195'2t0 LCI '161'1 0S7'008'1 920'972'2 7?U'6% '2: 616'829'51
SSL
1 1 1 I 7 L z: 1 s 31 01 2 0 62 07 SL 41
( 3 ) % Rein8intng = 2% Acetone, .6% PCBs, 2% A#rrie, .2% Methyl uthaoxylato
(4) X Remining * 6% xy\arw, 4% I(Ey, 3% Acetone, d Phorphork Acid, 2% HZSOC, 2% Zn, 1% Toluene,’ 1% Wi, other = acids, caustic, s a l t , LN. mcte ts +
(5) X Remaining = 7% TCE, 7% HeOH, 5% 1,1,1-Trichloroathc, 4% “genes@, 3% Dichtorcmethene, 3% rytene, end HEK, Hydrogen Fturlde, Pb. cu
( 6 ) X Remaining * 5% Freon 113, 3% NCL, 2% Acetone, 3% D i c h l ~ ~ t h w , 2% TOlUene , ARIwIIia, Cu. W i , Zncfuneldust), Xy\ene, Antimony, cd. cr C ~ Y - S , and Pb
( 7 ) X R e m a i n i q 2% Olchlorwthw, 2% n-hutylalchohol, “@anere capd., napthskne, W I capds, Xylene, lolucnc
( 8 ) X Pemaining t &”mi., Cy fnpdr, Phosphoric Acid. Phosphorus, Sulfuric Acid, N i , Ag, Pb and in cmpds
i 1
1
i
I ,-
* I i I
Y : \ : t ier \rP\key\spreadsh\tablel I .WKO nay 2, 1990 Page luo of Juo
l i l
TABLE 11 .I,
1988 A i r Toxics Inventory
S m r y of A i r Toxic Emissions by 2-Digi t SIC
SIC industry Wwberof Pounds Percent Cunuletive Comnents C c q m i e s Emitted of Total X of Totsl’
27 Pr in t ing
34 Fabricated Metal
22 Text i le 39 M i x . Manufacturing
36 Electronic Equipment 72 Personal Services SO Rubber L Plas t ics Prod
26 Paper Products
80 Health Sorvlccs 37 Tranrportmtian Equtp 38 lm t r rmcn t t 26 L u n k r Products 33 Primary Metd 25 fu rn i tu re
32 Stone, Clay, L Glass 31 Leather 35 Irwlustriai hechinery 8 i Err.nr h nngnnt Service
50 Uholcsatc - Durabk 4b Uatet Transportation 82 Educariaul Services 20 Food Pfodzt. 29 Petrol tun and Cod 51 Uholrrale Nondurable Z9 E k C t r i C / G 8 S Services
28 C h t E l l C 8 l
23 Apparel < -
Totat
13 122 26
111 22
104
12 40 11 12 8 2
16 4 4 2 9 1
1 3 1 1 ? 4 1
2a
1
2365629
1321772 992461 720904 411599 362842 272919 108036 98173 93b56 92352 78557 50369 35371 ZbSoB 17287 16926 16704 16500 $785 5559 5291 765 303
0 0 0
568 7116568
33.26 18.57 13.95 10.13 5.78 5.10 3.83 1.52 1 .u) 1.31 1.30 1.10 0.71 0.50 0.37 0.24 0.26 0.23 0.u 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
100
33.24 One source brings t h i s category up - otheruise uoutd te 7 a Ib .s eiillsslc,:,i
51.81 This category inctudes over 50 conpsnies in tire top 100 h<lz,rrd f a i r o r ra . ,k ,c ig
65.76 One source w i t h emissions of 151,875 1b.s hes s i n c e disconr loue use o f d l ~ t d A , \
75.89 This category inc\udes Over 30 cocpnies In t h e top 100 horord f a c t o r r I , r , k ~ ~ < j
81.67 One source uith emissions of 360,868 tb .s u i \ \ be disconttnu,r,g s m a l r C L A I L ~
86.71 Control of t h i s source category, dryclearlers, has been eddrcsjed 90.61 A few cnediun p r i o r i t y sources 92.13 A feu m d i u n p r i o r i t y sources 93.50 A few tnediun-high p r i o r i t y sources 96.81 I ns t i t u t i ona l Ethylene Oxide Ser i l i r e rs
96.11 A few medim-high p r i o r i t y 97.21 P r i o r i t y conpanies in this category have received operating permits 97.92 Low p r i o r i t y sources 98.42 A feu lou-mediun p r i o r i t y sources
98.79 Low Pr io r , i t y sources 99.0s” hiah p r i o r i t y source - under review 99.27 One high
99-74 One high p r i o r i t y source, hos since ciosed
99.83 Lou p r i o r i t y 99.91 LOU p r i o r i t y 99.98 Lou pr io rk t y
100.00 Lou p r i o r i t y 100.00 LOU p r i o r l t y 100.00 LOW p r i o r i t y 100.00 L o u p r i o r i t y
100.00 tow p r i o r i t y
r i o r i t y source under review 99.51 A feu lou-mediun P p r i o r i t y sources
. .. . ...
1988 A I R POLLUTION INVEWTORY VOLATILE ORGANIC CWPWHO EMISSIOHS BY SIC
TAbLE 12.0
2-Dig i t Industry N u k r of Total Percent of Cwwlative tonramtr SIC F.cl1tti.r by SIC Total X of Total
27 Pr iq t ing 34 Fabricated Netal8 22 Tex t i le 39 W i s e . Icanufactwing 37 Tram Equip 25 Paper 30 R u t k r crire. Plas t ic 36 Elec t r i ca l Equipntnt 51 YhlsL Nonhrreble Goods 72 Personal Services M Instruncnts CC W t e r Trsnsparfqtion 28 Chemicals , 35 Indus t r ia l nachinery 50 uhis l - Our8ble Goods 33 Primary Metal8
25 f u r n i t w a 26 L h r 32 Stone, Clay C w Prod 31 Leather Products 80 Health Services 23 ApperrL
82 Educationel Services 29 Petroleun Refining 87 Ewnr k Hngnnt Service
q20
13 122 26
110 12 12 28 22 4
104 8 4
40 9 1
16 6 6 2 4 2
11 1 1 7 1
3694616 3097907 2231693 1329066 1063954 9851u 857994 796972 455596 367059 262061 232714 221473 1 OS920 98141 94332 04241 69976 SO369 36392 16926 6853 678s 28a6 2753
0
22.72 19.05 '
13.72 8.17 6.54 6.06 5.28 4.90 2.80 2.26 1.61 1 .cs 1 .36 1.20 0.60 0.58 0.52 0.43 0.31 0.22 0. to 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.00
22.72 Largest source in s ta te 0678250 Ib.s emissions) i n th i s category
41.77 large source cotegory includes 25 of highest 100 VOC emit t ing source5
55.49 6 04 hiohcot 100 WX: emitt ing sources In t h i s ca tegory
63.67 large source Cetegory, houever, does not include any high-renting sources I0.21 Includes 6 in the top 100 VOC-emitting sources 76.27 Include8 7 fn the top 100 VOC-emitting GOUTCCS
81.54 Includes 9 o f the top 100 VOC-emitting sources 86.64 Includes 5 of the top 100 V O C - e m i t t i n g sources
69.25 Bulk Terminal - A l l sources have control equiprent 91.50 Drycleaner6 - 93.11 includes 2 of the top 100 VUC-emi t t ing sources 94.55 One source accounts f o r mst of emissions (22U38 1b.s) this sourLt is c c r r r u l \ t d
95.91 Includes 2 of the t o p 100 V O C - e m i t t i n g sources 97.11 Includes 2 of the t o p 100 VOC-emitting sources 97.72 One source In t h i s category; in top 100 VOC-emitting ranked sourccs
98.30 kne l l sources 98.81 Lou p r i o r i t y 99.24 Lou pr io r i t y 99.25 Lou p r i o r i t y
99.78 Low p r i o r i t y 99.88 Lon p r i o r i t y 99.92 Lou pr io r i t y 99.97 LON p r i o r i t y 99.28 Lou p r i o r i t y
100.00 Lou p r i o r i t y 100.00 Lou p r i o r i t y
M i S S i W r S from th is source category have been oddres;ed
I ' I I I I
Yo.
1 2 3 c 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1& 15 16 17
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
-
i a
IDUSZRY
( 3 4 ) Fabricated Metals (39) nisc. Manufacturing (22) Textile (27) Franting (36) Electronic Equipnent (26 ) Paper (28) Chemicals (57) transportation Equip. (38) Instrunentr (30) Rubher 6 Misc. Plastic ( 3 3 ) Primary Metel (35) industrial Machining 132) Stone. Clay. Conc.
( 5 0 ) uholcsalc Trade (BO) Health Services ( 5 7 ) Trade Won-Ourabla (72) Personat Service (25) furniture ( 2 4 ) Lunbtr (31) Leather Products (87) Engr. L Wt. Services (23) Apparel (44) Uater Transportation (82) €ducationat Services ( 5 0 Uhsl. Nondurable Goodo ( 2 0 ) Food 6 Kindred Prod. (29) Petrolewn Ref inins
TOTAL
MnRwus WSZE TU1 AIR 10XiCS VUC'S ALL U A i A
Rank %lox Rank XIOX Rank XTox Rank %loa U N I K SW b
1 2 11 12 9 6 a 16 S 14 3 b 13
7 15 10 17 18 19
22 3 16 4 1 2 1 4 4 7 7 9 6 1 0.7 5 7 11 0.8 12 11 8 8 14 O.SCBSX1 10
6 0.8 2 0.7 0.4 0.3 15
16
e T o m
8 2 7 4 13 3 3 1 2 5 0.6 8 UI 9 4 11 0.5 12 0.4 7 1 16 0.2 18 0.6(98%1 16
21 10
6 15
e.1 13 <*l 17
19 20 22 23
13.427 Tons
19 2 10 4 14 3
. 33 1 6 8 2 6 1 13 1 5 1 1 1 4 7 6 0.5 16 0.2 16 0.2(92'/.120
0.1 1s 1 22
S 10 0 .4 18 0.7 19 0.2 21 0.2 0.1 23 <.1 12 <.I 24
9 \ 17 , 25
3.558 T o r s I
19 8 14 23 5 4 1 7 2 5 0.6 1 E 4 1
0.6 < . I
2 0 . h 0 .3 0.1
<.l 1 ( - 1 3 .5 c.1 8,131 T o n s
YOTES: 1 . ) Tonics from unknoun SIC codes represent 4% of total toxic hazardous ueste 2.) More than 40 SIC codes together cotrpritc 1% of the toxic hazardous uatfe generetcd state uide.
cnetated. P Though not show, above these are: 03, 75, 29, 55, 49, 97, 31, 17, 54, 73, 56, 82, 23, 75, is, 20, w, 44, 95, 91, 01, OL. 12, 14, 19, 41. 42 , 43, cs 59, 65, 79, 92, 16, L nisc.
8 11 19 20 29 29 31 37 39 LO 6 1 50 59
Employee Involvement and Pollution Prevention
,'f &e ?aw /earned anvthing a! 311 fxm ?tstUry, snvlr$rlne~:a/ pro:mon can not fey 3fl pollurron control z!one A l ; ? o u p :ne GS t'wironmental Protection Agency (€PA) has made suustantial progress In tmpfuwng environmental quahty ?here are iimits as to how much more rmprovemenf can be made thrgugh efforts that amphastze control management afrer ~o/L!ar i iS have been generated. Realgams. now and in the fuure. require a cultural change, directed toward preventwe practices that eliminate or dramatically reduce the productton of pollutants at their source.
1s that
W'lile some companies have estab- Working Together to Prevent rished well-defined pollution preven- Pollution: Government, tion programs which predate even the Business and the AQP
Publication of outstandlng employ- ee contributions to the field of poii;. t4on prevention a
Awardi?g cemficates of merit to earliest state and federd initiatives of the 1380s, the vast majorrty of a m - On March 20.1989, representames panies either have yet to begin or are of the Rhocle Island Asswation for and team members
still in the early stages of pr&ram Quality urd Paiapabon (AOP) dap. The sPonso~hlP of a State development. This skewed distribu- ter and the State of Rhode Island's tron IS largely the result of govem- ollic6 of Emmmental Coordi- ment and tndustry's hisroncal em- nation's atl lank us waste Reduction sis on media-specific pollution Sectton staff met to discuss how to
roundtable of waste reduction pro- grams and the availability of state grant money to suitable team pro-
. l- control rather than on pollution pre - ventron.
In the wake of the emerging move- ment toward prevention, employee involvement represent, one way ro effect cultural change and to achieve significant reductions in the genera- tion of pollutants at thew source. Last year. several Rhode Island organiza- tions took steps to introduce quality and particrparion processes to pre- vention of hazardous waste genera- tion
fum rpruny and parttapatton process. es into a powerful mans to prevent pollution. At this first meehng, the AOPs severrmember board af dim- ton and the state discussBd how they wouldlorntly launch a new cnnploycnr involvemf rnitsabva directed toward encouragtng and asslsbng pamapa- tive wasta mucoon programs. Tho initsattve, it was decrded, would be multt-faceted and wwld tndude:
Direct university a n i government technical assistance to participative waste reduction efforts
ment workshops Sfionsorship of employee involve-
The Rhode Island AQP chapter was approached because of the experme it had to offer. Working wltb AOP member amq"es was seen as the most effmwe means to introduce this new conapt to the manufactur- ing Seaor of ttrs Rhode Island busi- ness communrg since these firms were familiar- w%R using participative processes to sdve problems. Forming pgllutiorn prevention teams wtthin these wmpanies was viewed as a natural extsrlsion of existing employee rnvolwament programs
~
~
-
The Journal for Ouartfy and Panicipatron July/August t 990
_. . -~ . ... .
. .. I . . ,:' . ... . .. L'.,,. . .. .. .
< . , I ' .. - . ..
I .
. ., -
- I ,. , . . .
'i ,
,~. . .. .,.". , . '
SIC CODE/ WTR’II
3019 3081 1
3079 3081
2
3451 3 ‘d
0
3452 4
DED WASTE REDUCTION DATA
Purchase : Purchase: PAYBACK T8pO &Id CO8ting. W8.t. X y h M -Housakwping Hanuiacturer U8nLfmmt.d ?or -Lowr 3.905 Gal/Yr 14% Immediate
O i h i t r D b p 0 8 a l Production 3,355 G a l / Y t Disposal: ANNUAL SAVINGS nixtur.. Disposal I 12% +52,310
999 CIl/Yr 880 Cal /Yr
Tape And Coatings Hachine Oil Manufactur~r
natal Hachina Cutting oils Parts Manutacturer
*.- , I
Hachine Parts 1.1,l-TCE Manufacturer
*Replaced Skkiving notors
*Recycling Bettar Housekeeping
.Substitution Aqueous-Based cleaner - Improved Train inq
Hodif ication Equipment
Purchase: 38s Cal/Yr f 6 5 Gal/Yr
385 G a l J Y r 165 Cal/Yr
Disposal:
Purchase: 18,000 G a l 2,300 Gal
Disposal : 11,227 Gal
Purchase\
Disposal 605 Gal 550 Gal \
€QUI PH ENT Purchase: 57 % Disposal: SAVINGS 5?% +$1.705
-510.000
PAYBACK 6 Y r s
4 *Product ion incre4s-d k y S O \ .
4
Purchase: CAPITAL - $ 2 . 7 6 0 cosrs 4 871 D i sposa 1 : 4 3 2 +S3,796
ANNUAL SAVIIIGS
PAYBACK-Immediate
Disposal: ANNUAL COS IS 9% -$1.500 VOC Emission ANNUAL SAVIHGS 68% +$1,780
PAYBACK 0.84 Yrs
4
I
PERCENT REDUCTION
100% To Landt ill
ECONOKICS liAN HRS C O M ENTS nmat/wtcx 08CD
-Recycling Scrap Material. For Resale
lNITIlUL/FlNAL UUTE GENUtATfON
110,000 L b p r (Landfilled) 0 W r l V r
S I C CODE/ ZIPL a? fliDVSTRX EYtYRI
2 9 5 2 Tape And Coating 5
Scrap Laminated F i l m And F o i l 8 TO hndf i l l
BALER/EINS 4 -$9.950 ANNUAL S A V I N G S +54,215 PAYBACK 2 . 3 Yrs
3 4 7 1 6
4
4
17,1io0 Gal/Yr 12,000 CaliYr
Wastm Water v01urr
*Drag Out Tank -Spray Rinses
30% Jewelry Hanutacturer
Racycl ing 51% Machine Parts nanufacturu
llrdrining ai l 3722 3599
7
s&nt cutting OiL
CAPITAL COSTS 4 -$63,000 ANNUAL S A V I N G S , +$3,328
ANNUAL COSTS 4 -53,080 ANNUAL SAVINGS
.Recycling Prior to 1988
2,860 Gal I V i r g i n o i l Purchases
35% Machine Parts nanufacturar
3 4 5 2 a
Oisposa 1 : 4 6%
Purchase: 1001
V i r g i n tlaptha
Hachine P a r t s I
3,600 GaliYr Disposal: 1,600 Gal/Yr j Purchase : 2,800 GaZ/Yr
p.troieUn Neptha Racycling 3 7 2 2 5549 9
I I 1 I
(i.e., 15 out of 52 companies h a J e demonstrated success in their pollution prc\’cnt:o:i
prograins based on DEM/URI recommendations). An additional 11 companies are i n
modifications. Altogether, this means that 50% of the first 52 companies will most likely
-
the process of or about to start test programs designed to carry out pollution prevention
achie\.e s o m e d i i a , significant benefit as result of DEM’s technical assistance efforts. -
~ _ _ _ _-
Options to reduce hazardous uaste were presented to companies within the
contest of the pollution prevention hierarchy: 1) source reduction, 2) recycling, and 3)
treatment/disposal. Typical source reduction recommendations have included better housekeeping to avoid spilIs and toxic solvent elimination. Organic solvents like 1,1,1-
trichloroethane are used primarily to clean and degrease metal parts. Companies that have switched to an aqueous-based cleaner as the result of participating in the DEM program have realized significant reductions in costs, liabilities, and environmental health hazards. Once contaminated, aqueous cleaners are recovered for direct reuse in the process by employing membrane filtration technology. . . .
-=+ ____
It is interesting to note that some companies who participated in the DEM program had originally purchased end-of-pipe treatment/disposal equipment. While traditional treatment processes were once cost-effective and accepted as the best method to process waste materials, tighter regulations and increasing chemical and disposal costs have compelled industry to modify or replace conventional treatment operations. Successful implementation of DEM/HWRP recommended source reduction and tecycling measures M e been effective at reducing the reliance on end-of-pipe treatment
-
and sewer discharge. ~ ~~ -. _._ - ~-
Quantitative kstiits
Companies that have demonstrated significant , . reductions in hazardous waste generation and/or waste water discharge are shown in Table 2.0. Each entry describes [lie change in a Ln-& process or operation within a company. Methods and technologic.; used by companies to reduce waste (Column 4) had typical payback periods of less than
Since it's creation in November 1988, the Hazardous Waste Reduction Project Ius played a significant role in DEM's program to reduce liazartious waste, toxic chemicals and metal-bearing wastewater. The data presented in Table 2.0 show t h a t niore t h a n
250.000 gallons of waste (more than 1,000 tons) has been reduced with additional substantial reductions about to be take place; company No. 23 has reduced spent nickel plating waste by more than 99% on its own initiative (see third bullet on page IS). This
amount includes: 1) > 110,000 gallons of machine coolant, 2) > 100,000 gallons of metal-
bearing wastewater, 3) > 10,000 gallons of oily wastes ,and oil-contaminated washwaters,
4) > 4 1,000 gallons of halogenated and non-halogenated toxic organics, 5 ) approximately 1,800 gallons of paint waste, and 6) 110,000 pounds of scrap laminated films and foils diverted from landfill for reuse.
..
. Solvent Reduction A major accomplishment of the technical assistance program has been the
significant reduction in organic solvents. Company # 4 was able to sttccessfirlly eiiniinate n 113 by working with the vendor who supplied plastic'parts contaminated
with oil. The vendor was able to modify the plastic forming process such that no oil residual was left on the parts. Freon had previously been used io clean the plastic parts. This same company was also able to eliminate the use of 1,800 gallons per year of LLI -
trichforoethane (TCA) by replacing it with an aqueous wash system. The plant manager had actually initiated the cleaner replacement program after h:iwvg attended ;I N W R P
workshop. Further recycling nieasures were then taken to process and rcube the x ] i i e o i l s
, ,
P
n
33
- .
r\ second company ( S o . 7) i i u h ~llw successful in it's efforts to substitute :in
aqueous cleaner for TCA. This company was the first company in Rhode Island to implement the HWRP team approach to pollution prevention. As a result, an employee
Manager, eliminated the use of more than 35,000 gallons of TCA per year. . involvemem team, under the general supervision of the-Ql)ality and Environmental
In total, is estimared that more than 41,000 gallons/year (220 tons) of toxic
solvent purchases (i.e., Freon 113, l,l,l-trichloroethane, mineral spirits, methylene chioride and xylene) have been eliminated by eight different companies.
Membrane Technology and Recycle ~~
___- -e - replace men t-of w r o c & " y aners has created a
second more benign type of waste - oily wastewater. Non-chemical technologies l ike membrane filtration can be easily implemented to generate clean, reusable soap solution. Membrane technologies are considered to be very powerful tools for pollution prevention programs since the process is purely a mechanical means of separating contaminants from usable solution; no dangerous chemicals are required and operating costs are fairly low. Membranes have been recommended by DEM/URI and have been demonstrated in several plants not only for degreasing solution recovtry-tnr+also for tubbinglvibratory solution recovery.
-
- -~~
Three companies (No's. 2,8 and 11) have already implemented ultrafiltration to recycle tubbing/viiratory solutions with no: sewer or waste treatment discharge. Two of the companies have demonstrated fairly long-term recycling capabilities (up to six months) while the ocher has just recently (October 1991) eliminated sewer discherge, Two companies had been discharging zinc-bearing wastewater; the third company (ehtry
antimony. From these three companies alone, it is estimated that t51,OOO gallor. 3f
metal-bearing wastewater per year has been prevented from entering Rhode !h:d
-
~
No. 11) had been releasing an assortment of metals including tin, lead, zinc, copper, and * __
3 4
Other applications of membrane technology in pollution prevention have also been demonstrated in Rhode Island machine shops. In this type of industry, convcn tional, oil-containing machining coolants (water-soluble) have been replaced \ifit11
synthetic, biodegradable coolants. The synthetic coolant presents several opportunities io
improve the metal machining operation. For example, the synthetic coolant lasts much
longer than the water-soluble coolant, so less waste is generated. Also, inherent in the
synthetic mixture are demulsifiers which reject any tramp oil contamination, thus allowing simple oil skimmers to remove almost pure oil and lengthen the lifetime of the coolant. Thirdly, membrane technology can be used to clean and recycle the synthetic coolant, reducing the potential amount of waste even more. To date, more than 8,500 gallons per year of used machine coolant has been prevented from becoming waste. In one company alone (entry No. 9), an approximate 97% reduction in waste generation ws observed. This company had once relied on the traditional water-soluble coolan't to machine metal parts. .
Technology Transfer Already apparent is the transferability of developed pollution prevention processes
from one company to another. The first company to develop a "generic" process to reduce tubbing waste was Miniature Casting Corporation (entry No.3 2 and 3) of Cranston. In November 1989, Miniature Casting received $23,800 from the U S Environmental Protection Agency under it's "SmalI Business Pollution Prevention Grant Program" With technical assistance from DEM and URI, the company used the money to demonstrate and evaluate the effectiveness of membrane technology on several of its
the potential for wastewatt.;' reuse, the elimination of two types of iiazardous materials used on-site, and the recovlsry of recyclable zinc, So far, two successful adaptations of the "Miniature Castings" ibratory recycling process have been Ciirr.l:d out at companies new to the program.
. waste generating processes. For the last two years, project staff h a w been investigating -
~
d .. -
3 5
Company number I 1 has directly benefited from the hliniature Castings
clernoi1srr;ltion program. The knowletfge gained in the Miniature Casting's trials WLIS
ayplicd to this conipany. As a result, 100% of the zinc-bearing tubbing waste is recvclcd and n o t discharged to the sewer. Four additional companies are now in the process of
testing and implementing similar technologies to manage and recycle their vibratory *
fluids. A recent article in-the Providence Journal described the success of Miniature Casting's recycling program. As a result, over fifteen new companies have joined DEhl's
Hazardous Waste Reduction Program in over a two week period. Direct technology transfer is anticipated in most of these new companies.
Local vendors are also appIying potlution prevention principles in their sales and
marketing programs. One such vendor of ultrafiltration equipment has studied the Miniature Castings Company process in detail and began an extensive marketing plan apply m e m b r m m n o l o g y in vibrarory and tubbing operations. n e - initial feedback from industry has been positive.
_ -
~-
to
Another example of technology transfer is organic solvent degreasing fluid
repIacement with aqueous cleaners. As companies switch from organic degreasing aients to aqueous-based cleaners, success is demonstrated over and over again Ieading to new company involvement.
Ongoing Projects and Development h g ~ a m s In addition to the entries listed in the table, there are a number of ongoing and
pending projects with participating companies. Some examples include: 1) organizing an R&D program between a coated nylon fabric manufacturer and the coating chemical supplier to develop a less h&dous coating proms, 2) assisting companies that still use
vapor degreasers to locate safer, alternative cleaners, 3) working with four different textiie companies to reduce dye and metal loadilig$to "s as well as conserve water, 4) developing modified membrane processes to further improve on washwater and rinsewater recycling, and 5 ) assisting a chemical supplier to better separate mixed chemicals utilizing pervaporation technology, a specialized membrane process. Some of
______ -
36
[ ! ; c > \ c coixp;mlc~ n!lich :!re int,o!\ c,! i n [!IC ;ihoi~e-c?en:ioncd projccrs are U l , l J r - , l L u d i ,.\:. \ ’ ”’
7’aldc 2.0 due l o ~~iccessful inil)ienic.ri,tatir)n of po l lu t ion prevention measures ir i o[!lc:
procwes. Fifteen out of 52 companies (29%) have successfully demonstrated pollurlorl
prevention measures. Another 1 I companies fall into the category of ongoing or pencii~?;
projects. In sum then, 26 or 50% of the companies who have participated thus far are
considered active or genuinely concerned in adopting pollution prevention measures into
their company,
~
-
Reasons for less than 200% active participation and success rates are many and
predictable. Two companies have shut down in the past year. One company has recently moved its factory to a new location. The management in some companies have "cry conservative policies which made process modification difficult to carry out. Other companies, while willing to cooperate initially, appeared to distance themselves from DEM; possible reasons include distrust of any governmental agency or general apathy. Yet other companies, which have already invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in end-of-pipe waste treatment equipment, find it difficult to justifjl the elimination or replacement of capital equipment that appears to maintain compliance standards and keep manufactu‘iing operations running. In these situations, even when sound economic paybacks are indicated, companies are less willing to change a system that has been used
for years and works. As regulations and costs become tighter and more expensive, however, more and more companies will be looking to pollution prevention to maintain their economic health and competitive advantage, .
OBSERVED POJ,LUTION PREW’h’ION INCENTIVES d? BARRIERS
O w the last two years, DEM has gained better insight into what motivates companies ‘.Q implement source reduction technologies and management practices. Through i t ; on-site expericnce, DEM has found that the following factors are commonly encounteres and serve to motivate manufacturers to source reduction:
I, ,
37
i r" [ i
f
COST S..I\'ISGS: I t h a $ h e n ob5t.nt.d that economic : i d rcc:!!;liory u
incentives are the two strongest incentives to reduce wahte. IVhen C O ~ I saving, I:,
3 major incentive, companies are looking to save money on raw niaterial ptirclia5c
costs and off-site disposal costs. It is important to note that when cost savings is
the primary motivational force, rarely do the companies consider "fully-loaded" waste management asts;-iG they typically only consider the more visible c6st
factors such as off-site transportation and disposal costs.
REGULATORY COMPLIANCE - A number of Rhode Island companys have
participated in the DEM program as the result of their inability to meet sewer discharge standards for TCLP metals, zinc, copper, and color (textile companys). Others want to reduce' their overall flow to the sewer, air emissions of volatile organic solvents and overall exposure to environmental regulation and potential
B * ' TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AVAILABILITY - Many of the companies tha t
DEM has been workingLwith lack basic in-house expertise to think ablout or even
E work on pollution prevention projects. Once they become aware of the availability of free university and state resources they seek out help. In the current economic climate, most companies do not have money to hire outside amtractors -to perform waste reduction assessments in addition to investing in source reduction and recycling technologies.
e
f f
i .
~~ k . B
~~ -
MAMETING/PUBL€C IMAGE - One autobody shop was referred to our
office requesthg.addtional help to reduce waste. The company had already purchased a number of HighVolume Low Pressure (HVLP) spray devices anh
pollution control equipment for VOCs, Our office performed an on-site assessment of this autobody shop with the assistance of a local paint formulator who is now working with the company to develop high solids/low solvent and aqueous paint system for trial. Throughout our efforts, the company owner 11 2.;
expressed a sincere interest in souice reduction and in using his achievements 10
-
E . . __
38
Other factors that serve to niotivate companies to source r c d w i o n include: pcer
recognition, governor’s award and corporate stewardship. Though the Rhode Island
DEhl/NWRP recognizes that these are indeed important factors, we h a y n o t f ( x ~ n d
them 10 be p r i m m y motivational forces in the companies with which w e kve worked.
The above list illustrates some of the more common motivational factors DEhI
has encountered since it began its on-site technical assistance efforts in the fall of 1OS9.
By comparison, DEM has also experienced a number of barriers to pollution prevention. Some of the more notable ones are listed below:
PRODUCT QUALIrY - Some companies are reluctant to pursue source
reduction for fear that product quality may be affected. Many of the more mature companies are hesitant to modify a process or operation that has a track- record of producing good product. Techniques that DEM used to overcome this
barrier include: 11) DEM/URI staff often speak in the language of money .. how
much it is costing the company, in terms of waste management costs, for continued operation in the traditional way, 2) arranged site visits to similar companies that have achieved source reduction, and 3) transfer of technical information and methods that have worked ebewhere or arranged meetings with
reputable vendors (this has occurred in two cases - both were formulators of coating materials).
*
MANAGEMENT/PERSONNEL BARRIERS - In two notable cases, the
barriers to pollution prevention were .company employees.
1.) In one case, even though the company was working with DEM regulatory agency to come into compliance with air q u h y standards, the managing chemist (a PhD) was very reluctant to investigate alternative low solvent conrent fabric coating materials. The argument presented to our technicai assistance staff was
I . .
39
t h : ~ t the chemist had looked into al tcrnt lu~e co:iting materials i n the p s t w l i 1 !Ii)
hticcehs and that the company had to meet Isery strict military specificarions. Aitcr
riumerous meetings with the chemist and then with the company president, technical assistance and university staff were able to convince the company to at
least take the time to give the matter another look. Over the course of about sis
months, and& as the result of perseverance on the part of HWRP, were
sampies sent out to a large national formulator and a meeting arranged with a
second smaller, but local coating formulator. As the result of these efforts, the
local formulator developed a low solvent coating material that could meet military
specifications and the quality requirements of the company. The company has
since tested the new material in production and has placed a second order for more with the formulator.
'
2.) One small Rhode Island machine shop, generates about 20, 55-gallons drums per pear of machine coolant. University of Rhode Island engineering staff performed a technical assessment and recommended ultrafiltration as a means to recycle the coolant. The sm'allest commercially available unit cost about $4,000
(1991 dollars). The company said that the cost of this unit was beyond it's reach. The university was then able to locate a new UF unit that was available below market price. The company purchased this unit and with start-up help from URI, put it on-line.
-
At the time of it's installation, there was considerable debate within the company as to whether the unit should be used simply to treat the waste prior to disposal or to use it for material recycling; the purchasing agent wanted to use the unit for recycling white the operator on the shop floor wanted to use it for waste pretreatment prior to discharge. Obyiously, state technical assistance staff did all they could to persuade the company to use &e' equipment for material recycli,ng. The finaI understanding between company management and HWRP was that the
equipment would be used for rcsource recovery. On a follow-up visit, months later, technical assistance staff found that the operator was very unhappy with the
40
; ~ r i i t citir.2 rcLimrb \ ~ h ! i i CiJ I : (J~ \\ark \iell i'dr niaterid recolsr!. I t iurric,] o,,%
that the operator, either cor;~ciously o r subconsciously, was not foollo\\ ing g00~1
operating practices or standard maintenance procedures. It seems r h t becatl!,C
he did not want it to work - he did all he couid to ensure that i t didn't.
From this e,xperience, we learned that in some cases, TAP'S need to get the
operator's to "buy in" to the process early on. This-may--re+ie some form of individualized instruction on the value of resource recovery. AIS~ , if the operator is not capable of performing to required standards he/she may have to be
repIaced with one who can.
-
COST BARRIERS - Company managers have stated that they lack the capital necessary to invest in recyclejseparation technologies. Some industry representatives have expressed an interest in the development of a Iow-interest
loan or grants p r o g a d - . . a n t l y - ~
managed by the HWRP, DEMs Division of Water Resources has been working on the development of a $15M grants program for wastewater pretreatment and pollution'prevention equipment. Grant programs like EPXs Pollution Prevention By and For Small Business program are also very helpful to some companies that wish to explore innovative Pollution Prevention technologies.
-~
-
. I' . I .
C'Oh CLUSl OSS A S D RECO3 1. l f ESDATJ 03"s
The SBP's Hazardous Waste Reduction Project has been very effectiipe at
absisting the Iihode Island Department of Environmental Management build a nationallv
CRI's Chemical Engineering Department, manyof Rhode Island's industries have b&$n
to seek out new methods to reduce waste at it's source. A clear message has been sent to Rhode Island business and industrial leaders on the primacy of pollution prevention over waste management. This message has been communicated through the enactment of legislation, through seminars, conferences and newsletters, through publication in nationally recognized joumals, and through new and exciting initiatives such as the Rhade Isl23d Po!!tl!i~~ ? r e v e n h Council and the Rhode Island Governor's Award for Excellence in Pollution Prevention.
~
recognized, sward-winning program. Through the stewardship of the HWRP, DE A I , w d - -
The data presented in this report demonstrates the effect that a smaIl federally- funded project can have on improving environmental quality. Through the allocation of $150,000 in federal funds, the Narragansett Bay Project, a member of the United4States . Environmental Protection Agency's National Estuary Program, has been able to get a
head start on the implementation of selected recommendations contained in its Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. Polfution prevention through source/toxic use reduction measures is now a statewide strategy that is gaining momentum and support €tom the general public as well as the business and industrial *:O"Udty.
As the result of Rhode Island's experience, a number of specific recommendations to EPA's National Estuary Program can be made:
1) To better protect our nations estuary's, t$e,National Estuary Program should Lievelop a comprehensive strategy to foster and support coopera rive, voluntary pollution :.revention initiatives with industry and business. This strategy should target those pollutants of greatest concern to the National Estuary Program with specific emphasis on
2 ) EPA should encourage state pollution prevenrion p rogrms to q) existing
uni\'crsity resources. Academic engineering institutions with proven industrial competence and lab facilities can serve as a central resource for industg' and government
a.oiding the use of potential pollutants and (5) take on long range research for basic
pollutjon prevenrion. Graduate and undergraduate engineers can be a valuable resource
~
to ( I ) reduce pollution now with existing technologies (2) develop new processes, , -
to state program staff while also providing excellent training to young engineers.
3) For those states with developing pollution prevention programs, similar projects should be funded by the U.S. EPA. In Rhode Island's case, EPA's investment went a long way toward heiping the Department of Environmental Management establish its
broad-based pollution prevention program.
4) The National Estuary Program should encourage municipal water pollution control authorities to work with state, university and federal pollution prevention offices to incorporate hazardous materials reduction activities into existing industrial pretreatment programs. Business and industry that can benefit from poIIution prevention far out number existing government and university resources -- P O W personnel can be an added positive resource.
4
.
1 .
I
. .~ " . - . . , - . ... . . .
Stanley M. 52r~e:t Chairman, Department o f Ghernicai En;irieerin:_l.
Unrversrty of Rhode Isfz:r,a, i<InsStGn, 32bL;
niadc for OJIC plant. Thc way the program works is quite siinplc. An cn-
ginccr with cxtcnsivc industrial ucpcriencc mccts with company owncis and staff to cxplain the program. If tlic coinpnny wishcs io procccd, thc company pctsonncl asscniblc data on watt streams, including w s t c ship- ping nianifcsts, safety data shccts, flow rrrtcs, and com- positions of process strcams, costs, ctc. Tcams of cnviroritnctitd scicntists from RI DEM and URI clwn- ical cnginccrs working side-by-sidc rcvicw thc data. hkny timcs thc data arc full of gaps and questions. Thc &aim, lcad by an csjxricnccd cnginccr and working with plant pcrsonncl, visit thc plant as o h as nccdcd to gct ma- Icrial balances, xcurntc process flow shcct dala and costs. Tlicti I I I C clicniinl ctiginccrs consider proccss op- tions, Coui~noiily, this can includc scparatiori proccssa to rccovcr and rcwc wluablc coniponcnis ;I: rl ic tvaslc strcanis. T y p i c d options can inchidc ion cscliangc, di- ;iI!~sk, ultr;tfiiti,atioii or using aitcrnatc Iiiatcri;ils, par- i tcu1;~I~y Cor l i x a r h u s wxtcrs. Costs siudics nrc inndc ;I!IJ op1 iiiiiriti t c d i i i i a l ant! cos1 rcconiiiicii(l;rrioris arc , . .c.tnhlcd. I'rc~ica\ flow shccf!, arc I>rcp;lrcL! XIJ ;I w r i i -
: l i v i : m n e i l ! . l , PI . , : i r c : ~ ( * : u i , t n , p.'u. 3)
I i i i I C ; N ) I I I\ di b . i i . , ~ * t L l will1 I ~ I C L*OIII;>;IIIS. I .. ' *lit,,
and the State Of Rhode Island
mMyrrthegmtspmgr"rr l laa
Technitid mistance t provided to WU W a d bttsine" tbxougb the gerformme of multimedia wmta rw- duction mewments deaigwd to to= vie yP manufwturing pm ces eniiine where rad bow pro- cess changes of chemical aubstjtutionr can rducs the generation of hnzardour waata.3 in 1968, HWRS contracted with the Rhode Inland Department of Economic Dcvcfooment (DEDI to con- duct # pilot wostfi reduction MWI. ment prosrant of in-etate firms. To dnic. DFJD has completed ten 1 1 5 9 ~ ~ .
' rirer~is ol rnnnuitwuring proccrses ruch
t j ; \ r t i !go') \'*)I 1-0 j? N 3 4
putidpotin w u k kduction-pro- @MI. By e i w in-plult .-!-#wqurlitrdrdeandPra- frcr krnrrtnudrbifi rut4 p"8 dgcrtlcfpotiryLompraicranrcd~ ize .imwh?na nductiolu ia wute gen- eralioa. Thi, new initiative, kicked4 at a June 29,1989 dinner symposium attended by ov(l170 people, aillw,~ courya awnage" commitments tn warb reduction rad will dl upon COUI. pmin to utilize their moat valued re- source-theiz employem-to set wn.b.q minimization go&, prioritize opport!~ nitiea, md implement aolutions.n
The primary objective of this initin- rive ir to enrouregc and e.ssisi pnttic,. petrvc wa8tc reduction proVrunt'i
I . 2. 3.
F e d 4 Reg&tcr, M. 3845-47,1989. Fedrrd k i l t e r . S I , ?505657. J989. Volumr 1: The Rok of Waste Mintmi. ration. Nsliond Cowmor's Assorla- tion, N&tur.l h l o u r m Policy Studrer Unit, Center for Polm Research. 444 North Cipitol Street. Wuhington, D.C.
RESPONSE
- - - _ - __ __ --
Cross Media Pdlutfm EPA'S p g k k ) , nu& eppTeGtnd;or;-3efmmmp"es would be easy to do angw tradeoffa are idway p o f r t z d or that thu information would make
Editor: tradeoffa. decisionmaking easier. Indeed, as Mr. Having been in the integrated entri- If EPA knew what it WI Wng to Alford observes, information on cross
tonmental analysis biz for n ~ e d achieve in each environmental medi- media impacto would highlight diffi- years, I read "Can regulatory kutitu- um, cross-media t d e n would be cult "apple-and-oranges" cradeoffs. In tions cope with crwmedia pdution?" easy to analm We would be able to ths; short term, such information is with interest. While tke article dirg. ray to a proposed air reg, "that laat likely to make decisionmaking more noses current rqdatorp d p a d a (10 ounce of metbyigloopats d y blows it difficult. When theae tradeoffs turn curately, it bco, m e irzrporhnt qurCrr- for tlu drfoldnl wntm prolltanz" The out to be impartant, however, we @- t i O D k fad b that P A bru T few 8 P d C nom them at our own perif.
Thework"riarirk"Qudwithoutdd- g&mt srrougb to be rble to teU Such analyrh i~ at0 hportant be- nition. In ~~ccepted rycory puhm when a u ~ ~ - & trrupJtnlhould ut m m it ia in part the lack of informa- riskisgeaerallytakentomeanhrnara offthokha~~ tion that pennib the vacuum and ra- health rirk--Urujly I rather Eosllttict k Hihn 6ad MJir corm& h p b , tiondizatione that Mr. Word deplorer ed and s p e ~ ~ h h mbmt of hu" the current pmosr tdndr to defeat the We believe that evaluating FKW media health risk, ouch at atimatd uppsr k i d of commap wm prw", lib s h h will generats one wfd piece of bound cancer rklr inferred from kb. porruttao pm", tht d e a" information that wiU permit um to bet. oratory m i d 8 t a d i a & a h of dun- when goal usiUag. My oburvrtioa b @r understand environmental goals age to dWe, CScdOdd hprinWatr, thrt, until we get mum specific about and to move toward being "more a p e recreation hr dqrdr- wbatenvironme.ntrlpro(rsmruesup cific about what environmental pro- tion,androcwurrinrpbnotcl*rlurM podtoaccompiiat.~,the&temptton- grarmueruppoaed toaccomplirh." becduae wo don't bor. k CUIF. tiaar(ire oar-media tnnriern rimply In Mr. ~Uod'r terms, not only m rently plavsrt rbk rnrbdr brt)clpb~* tlriL around in I vlccup~ we regulating without using a full deck, ing bridge ua&oaly tb, jukr Michael R Alford, V m r ~ Inc. but we rehtre tolsok d all of our &, On ftd face, it "a l&d Ut and we snn't really bothering to keep
th inp would be betbr J1 It Authon'bply amre to l e a how to improve our game. - EPA thought throtqb nom-media Mr. Alfonl rioter that *I) failed to In addition, a0 Mr. Alford (and others, transfers before 8Cting. But dig I l i th dircuu and defiqe "W" in our recent e.g., Lave and Mdb) observe, the goah below the aurface and thingo M bu d C 1 8 . parenth$tially pmcnted of the game dve incombtent and un- obvious. Use the d o g y of the federal 011 p10e 26, we intended that riak in- clear. Without a more integrated per- budget: flip "risk*' for " s o d benefit" cl& my md d "adwtree effectr on spective, we will continue to use a m s - - and aak if a dollar subtraded from SrSr human hufthortbeenvironment"-in leading accounting syatem thet tit best Wan, and spent insthad on Hetsd Start ober Wr&, any .ad rll corusgucnces. exemines nn unknown subset of the BC- would be an improvement. Clearly, It We qree that m y comqucnccs can- tual changes created by regulatory tic- depends on what you are trying to not be evduakd becaurc YI don't yet tions.
Eric H Malts , Jellinr'., Schwar:z, achieve in each progrnm. And even &now how toevduate them, when goela are specific (which they an In our Mi&, we were not ruggprting Conno//\ d: Frcshmon, In- R d w f W' not for Star Wars, Head start, or that evaluating Crm mcd,# h f u and Hohn, C c t t i r ~ t P N d h n i ' n ~ t cmlr,
The %'arra_emseft Bay Commission I N B C ) is Rfiodc Isfmd's Iargcst POTW uric ~ i i ~ ~ s
01' Providence and the TOWRS of Johnston and Nonh Providencc and por t ions 0 ; ;)IC Tdwn of Lincoln and the City of Cranston. NBC's scrvicc arc3 contdins J i3rgc numbcr of industrial users identified in the Jndustrlsll Toxics Projcct such 3s ~ C N C I ~
and textile manuf3cturers. As part of its operations SBC operates a n Indus!r :s l - - P - r e E w r o g r a m that permits, monitors and regulates industrial a n d
commercial discharges. This program received EPA's national award for .[he 3 c s t Pretreatment Program for large POTWs in 1990.
The SBC has a unique pponunity for encouraging source reduction technologies by incorporating revention reviews into the sewer connection permit
including source reduction requirements as part of consent orders, 3nd through the performance of regularory and non-regulatory waste audits. The gods of this grant proposal are to establish a model pollution prevention program wi th in the Narragansett Bay Commission, expand of the scope of the State of Rhode Is la~d ' s Department of Environmental Management's existing multimedia Hazardous . Waste Reductjoa Program, and implement the University of Rhode Island's source reduction technology developments.
and operJtes a 65 mgd secondary wastewater treatment facility rhsi scn'cs t h c C ; : ! -.
~
oulp involve a'joint effort among the three agencies and provide for the poration of regulatory and research aspects into a pollution prevention
p p m , It also takes advantage of the extensive resources are available from each of the three well established agencies that will be involved in the program. J B C h3s trained staff, a data base and lab facilities: DEM has trained staff, a data base and a
t a m h e & pollution prevention program; URI has the technological expertise and rt tkarch capabilities.
. I
In addition, NBC, through the use of Environmental Enforcement Funds (monies collected as the result of enforcement actions), will be able to continue the pollution prevention program beyo
1
I . Dcvelopment and implernenlclfion o f intcmsl polrcics 2nd proccdurcs for S B C 13 incorporate cost-effecilve source reduction ~ C V I C W and/or conditions in to [hc s c w r connection permitting process. This would include tcchnical rcvicws by ~
SBC and URI of new commercial and industrial pcrmits.
2. Development and implementation of inremal policies and procedures for NBC 10
' Sdurce reduction. product substitution and employee training to reduce the
" D E M and URI would be included.
incorporate source reduction acrivitics into consent orders resulting from - mforcement actions.
generation of pollutants.
Consent orders may require pollution measures such as
Technical assistance to audited companies from XI3 C,
' 3 . Training of NBC staff in multimedia pollution prevention measures and how to
DEM, URI and/or outside consultants,
reduction or product substitution OppORUnitieS in the course of Training would be provided by its and independent waste audits.
4. Implementation he Rhode Island Pollution Prevention Council's
wi& all regulations and prevent cross media transfer of pollutants.
industrial user pretreatment plans be reviewed and TW and DEM regulatory agencies to ensure user compliance
. . .. . . . 5. Expansion and development of NBCs Industrial Pretreatment data base and its
of URI's technical development programs and to pollution prevention program.
1 analytical' capabilities, along tb DEM's Air, TRI and Hazardous Waste data, to .
assistance to NBC sewer users through NBCs IndosWI Pretreat" Ptogram and DEM's Hazardous Waste Reduction Program.
7. idmtiflcrtion of kgulat and non-regulatory barriers and incentives to sourw mIuctio@ in conjunction with the Rhode Island Pollution Prevention Council's (RIPPC) Pollution Prevention Incentives Subcommittee, including Industry, NBCs Citizen Advisory Committee. URI. Deuartment of Econcomic
9.
IO.
Development, DEM NBC et.al. - With the usiistmce of the KIPPC Communications G% Technology Transfer Subcommittee, disseminate case stu.dies and technical information packages nat ion wid&
Sponsorship of join! confcrcnces and workshops on pollution prevention for Rhode Island industries and disseminate information about pol lutisn prevention programs througb quanerlj newsletters and bill inserts.
Provide resources for the txpansion of DEM's pollution prevention ciearing house.
2
PR0,JECT TASKS
Please no te : o rgan iza t iona l p l an , projcct tinlcfine a n d b u d g e t a r e included in t h e back of t h e appl ica t ion
Phase I - Program S t a r t - u p
F stsbf ish Pc!lution-
Thc pollution prevention office shall be located within the Policy, Planning and Regulation Division of NBC. suppiics. A computer with the necessary cabling and modems will be procured and installed to enable linkage with both the Industrial Pretreatment Program's data
University of Rhode Island.
Pire Proiert Staff
New staffing requirements associated with the program are the hiring of a senior sanitary engineer with a background in chemical and industrial processes. This position would be responsible for the overall program development and would coordinate efforts between NBC, URI and OEC. In addition, a subordinate engineering posfiion would be required part-time. This position's primary responsibility would be the performance of waste audits.
The Division wil l provide office space, equipment and
I base, DEbl's data base and the RI Pollution Prevention Center located i n the
Project start-up shall be performed by the Assistant Director for Policy, Planning and eegulation,
Phase I1 - Program Development + *
Dev.cl~~~&afPaliutian P=- Procc;dures for Se pevicws. Consent O r d u W-
. . . . wer P e w
The Senior Engineer shall develop internal mechanisms .for incorporating the review of all commercial and industrial sewer permit applications for source reduction opportunities. with review by DEM$ Hazardpus Waste Program an assessment of the feasibility of the incorporation of polkttion prevention actions as 8 colidition of permit approval and any changes to NBCs Sewer Use Ordinance.
As pan of its Industrial Pretreatment Program, enforcement actions are periodicaIly undertaken against violators of discharge permits. This task would involve the development of internal policies md procedures for the incorporation of sourm: reduction activities as part of enforcement actions through consent orden and coordinating effort8 with the DEM's Hazardous Waste Program. This would include an inquiry into the legal ramifications, administrative hurdles, and enforcement feasibility as well as an investigation of what kind of activities could be incorporated. Consent orden potentially rqui re industrial users to impkment source reduction technologies, employ non-polluting product subs'tiiutions and train employees on non-polluting work habits.
Also included in this task would be development c;f policies and procedures for the performance of waste audits. This would include an organizational study for the
This would include tbe review of plans by NBC staff along This development would also include
.
3
AI\,? I x l u d e d in th i s l d h k u.ould br. d c v e l o p m c n t o f policics Jod proccdurcs ! o r '2:
,.rc.r<,7rm,ncc o f waste audits. i nzn rpnrn i ion of the technic.il J b S i a l J l l C C program 10 cnsu re contidentisltty .ind ihe - , tpmtifin from [he regulatory 3m of the NBC. 1,irms uould be dcveloped IO gather process and industry informatron. perform Lost,bcncf'it analyses and to collcct the information g;tthered during [he waste 3 ~ 3 1 1 s
This Hould includc a n orgm173110ndi s r u j y f o r I I I C
Also 3s pu t of this task w3ste audi t
7'hcsc L3sks would be performed by the Senior Engineer with assistance from Industrial Wastewaier Technicians and affected NBC staff.
P,II;I B3se Soft u3re DevcloDmeU - _ - -
NBC's has an existing informatco< system for its industrial pretreatment program which contains information pertinent to the permitted industrial and commercisl users such as company name, address, permit number. solvents used, metals used, water usage, ciassifkation, compliance monitoring data. to enhance the software in order to enable the system to calculate mass loadings and develop local discharge limits as loadings to the POTW change. Mass loadings would be compared before and after industries have implemented pollution prevention measures. reductions in five ( 5 ) of the seventeen (17) target chemicals listed in the EPA Toxics
The data base would be continually updated by pollution prevention staff and IPT staff as part of new and existing monitoring programs.
A consultant would be hired
The computer system would specifically be capable of monitoring
. Release Inventory (TRI): cadmium, chromium, cyanide, Iead, and nickel.
5s anticipated that the permanent pollution prevention staff will have a --A background in chemical and industrial processes and will be * familiar with source
reduction and pollution prevention technologies. sessions for IPT and pollution prevention staff on the identification of source reduction opportunities during waste audits and on current source reduction tec hnalogies.
URI and DEM will conduct training
letters would be developed by the ------f- I I senior [email protected] from tbe public relations specialist,
lutiug pcodvct sub8titution~ and source reduction technologies becomes Ilnfloeartioa regarding thcrc pollution prevention technologies would be d through tho means mentioned above.
As information
I during the permit and consent order process will bc ri between DEM, URI and NBC. -
80th ccmpliance and non-regulatory compliance iiudits will be performed. anticipiites completing 24 waste audits through compliance procedures an? 24
NBC
4
through nan-regulsrory audits. WJctc audit targets will Sc rhojc f i r m s u i l I I / i n g :!t,-
chemiccll\ contained in the Indus t r id Toxics Projcct. Tdrscts w i t 1 cotilinue to hc rcfincil .is more d3:3 is made 3~3 l f Jb Ie th rough sanipling,
NBC m i l l utilize existing lab rcsourccs 10 ana1)Le effluent sampling and will incrcaw sampling of those firms that participate tn the technical assistance program. Data will be recorded in NBC's and DEM's data base. disclosure of sludgc manifests and sludge concentrations as pan of its IPT permits i n order to assist with the assessment of multimedia reductions.
NBC will also incorporate the
_ - .-..--- ? J1LLTIMEDIA OPPORTUNITIES
This pollution prevention strategy targets the reduction of pollutsnts across all media with specific emphasis on land and water discharges of chemicals identified in the Industrial Toxics Program along with selected priority polluiants.
This proposal is a collaborative effort between NBC, DEM and URI. NBC proposes that the senior engineer be responsible for scheduling interagency meetings and ensuring that the air, water, toxics and waste programs are included in the development of NBC's program and in the expansion of DEMs program. In addition, to interagency meetings, the primary participating division of the DEM is the Office of Environmental Coordination. This division is intimately aware of DEM's other
dregulattlry programs and can provide insight into which areas need involvement.
- -In addition to interagency meetings, multimedia concerns will be addressed through established forums for coordination among these groups. roundtable discussions. RIPPC includes repnstntatives from industry, govemment, public interest groups and also includes experts in pollutioa-prwcntion. Another is t+ NBC's Citizen's Advisory Committee whicb includes representatives from industry
The RIPPC has proposed the formation of 1 multi-regulatory agency review panel to review and approve of pntrcatment system p h to ensure that cross media transfer
agencies. The creation of this review pmel would criminate the transfer of pollutants from one media to another.
One is the RIPPC
.- d such as the Rhode Island Conlract Electroplaters and other interest groups.
a of pdtutants does not occur and to enmrc user compliance with all regulatory
3. SIGNIFICANT NEEDS OF THE ST'ATE
9f a Source Reduction Recycling Technical Assistance Grant the State of sland, DEM's Hazardous WMC Reduction Program, has developed a technical
g protocol &at addresses significant need and higb risk areas ffBCs dadustrial P " t Program data base.and the chemicals
urvid Toxjcr h j e c t will be integra into this multimedia tsct, ~f this phj- L addition, this w eip develop protocol that
will -focus outreach and 1 d b t i a n of tbe URI technical programs and assessment and e identification of ndundant industrial pollution problems amenable to
VOC’S SIC HAZARDOUS T A l AIR TOXICS ”
Rank INDUSTRV COM RANK ’ % T O Y RANK % f O X RANK %COX RANK %lox 8, WASTE
., 2 1 Faoricaled MeIaIs ;34 )
2 Mnc Man (39)
3 Textile (22)
4 Printing ;27) 5 Eiecfrontc Equcp. (36)
6 Paper (26) 7 Chemic& (28)
8 h n r . Equip. (37)
9 Inslrumenta (38)
10 Rubber & Mist. (30) 1 1 Primary MOW (33) $3 Ind. Machining (31) 13 Stone. Clay. Cmc. (32)
14 Wholosale Trade (50) 15 Hbalfh Srrvicor (80) . 16 Trade Non.DunM. (57)’ 17 penonat SeNicr - (72) 18 Furnitun (25)
I
2
1 1
12
9
6 8
16 5
14
3 4
13
7
15
10
17
18
19
2 2
16
1
1
4
7
6
0.7 7
0.8 11
6
.8(SW
6
0.8 2
0.7 0.4
0.3
3 8 4
2 13
6 3 7 2
9 06 1 56
5 4
1 1 05 1 2 04 8 1
14 3.2 10 .6(98%)
..
15 tl
18 Cl
8,404 Ton$ 13,427 Tons
c ‘9
4 10
3 1 4
1 33 6 5
8
9 1 1
12 7
14
18
16
21
4 0
6 15 13
17
19
20 22 23
2 j
1
4
5
0 2
2192%)
0 1
1
5 0.4 0.7 0.2
02 0.1
Cl Cl
8
6 13
5
1 1
7 16
4 a 3 1 4
1 2 3
5
6 I -
?
2
5 5
-
1 4 1
20 i(93Y.j
15 0.6 2 2 Cl
10 2 18 0.4
19 0.3
21 0.1
23 Cl 12 1 * 24 Cl
* 9 3
17 0.5
25 Cl 3,588 Ton$ 8,131 Tons
4. INTEGRASIOW OF OTHJZR POLLUTION PREVENTION ACTIVITIES INTO PROPOSAL
This p;oposd is specifically designed to expand up0 he State’s existing Pollution Prevention Program rod to take advantage of the technological developments and
‘ was established in 1987. On June 5, 1990, HWRP was selected .as tin 500):urd’oh atMe 4, 1991 the AcMevmOM Awatd by EPA in Washington D.C. The multimedia pollution prevention
of the United Nations >Envimnmcnt Programme (FUNEP was awarded the National Environmental
~
~
. *
The Rhode Island Foilurion Prevention Council (RIPPC) - created in 1991 IO promotc - source reduction m d environmentally sound recycling, io develop a strategy for
6
The Department of Environmental 3lanagemen:'s (DEhI) Hxmdous \ \ 35:e
r\ed::c:ion Section (I-N'RS) u'as embl ished in the Fall of 19S7. The Section o?erd!es ;: r i a ~ - x g d a : q , multimedia program desigced to assist Rhode Island compxies ir! redL!cir; if;e.'r us? arid disposal of toxic and hfzardous materials. H\VRS manages ;i stz te - \ \ idc srzil!S
. - progrxx as well as a comprehensive technical assistance program.
/
i t
!"
t
& part of it's, mission to reduce pollution at its source, HWRS has re\ie\\zd cni.iror,xen:si dsts and has developed 3 method that can be used to asski jtzff i:: ;h?ir efforts :o rzrget technical assistance. This paper describes the analytical efforts undertnrcen by HIt'RS to help focus its finite technical and financial resources to areas of greztesr ensironmental concern. The method described:
e Analyzes environmental data from (1). EPA's Toxic Release Inventory, (2) the RCRA Biennial Report and (3) state Air Toxic and VOC regulatory programs,
0 Considers industry/gencration distribution patterns at the two-digit SIC code ievel, &
0 Gives special emphasis to high volume, toxic RCRA wastes. iA
Realizing the limitations inherent in all self-reported data, HWRS has sought to develop a general understanding and "snapshot" of statewide generation and chemical release patterns, Conclusions drawn from this exercise are intended only to "calibrate" program staff and &err program planners to areas of greatest significance. Data are organized into a series of tables providing the analyst with a unique perspective on chemicaI/wastc type, media releases and relative distribution patterns. it is not possible from this limited anaiysis, h e r , to draw definitive conclusions regarding specific industry sources, the inter-relatiomhip among sets of data and the relative risk posed by reported releases. This analysis is intended to sen% as a point of departure for a more detaiIed analysis of these types of factors.
~
~~
A task force comprised of HWRS staff and regulatory personnel from DEM's Division of Air & Hazardous Mattrials (Arc Hazardous waste and SARA regulatory programs) and Division of Water R1:sources was convened to assist in the data collection and analytical components of this project.
E
k F w
E: -
(1) Generator Biennial Report Records (2) Air Toxics program data base (3) VOC d3ta base (1) SARA 2 13 Tosic Chemical Re!ease ch:a
At the very oufset of this project, it was determined rh3t industry u*oaid be r ~ r g e t s d based upon generation and release data grouped by Standard Industrial Chsiiication (SIC) code. This appeared to be the best approach for Rhode Island's small stat'f since it would provide a priority ranking of industry by type and allow field personnel to rr.;rhodically build expertise in a given industry before moving on to the next. We have found that pollution prevention is highly process specific and that once generic solutions have been developed, the experience and technology can be transferred, at least in parr, to other compmies wi th simif ar processes.
HWRS used 1987 as the base year for hazardous waste generation and SARA Toxic Release Inveniory data analysis, The rational for using 1987 hazardous waste generation data was three-fold: (1) compared to 1985, the 1987 generator biennial report contains the earliest set of reliable data the state of Rhode Island has, (2) the 1987 generator data base represents the first set of data that contains Standard Industrial Classification (SIC Code) infbrmation, and (3) the Rhode Island Capacity Assurance Plan (CAP) and associated studies contain data, calculations and projections based upon 1987 hazardous waste management data; it was judged that information developed as the result of the CAP process would compliment and enhance HWRS's base year targeting initiative. 1988 data were used for the Air Toxics and VOC programs; these were the most reliable sets of data available. As a final comment, one of the principal objectives of his review was to use base year data to develop an analytical methodology that could then bt applied to data acquired in & reporting year.
. 4
-
~ - -
. . . I
3 I
1 Ixardous waste data were i z i M y grouped by chemic;tl;’\ru1;: type ~ z d t h e n r ank ordered by rross annual tonnage/pounds, Tabie 1.0. This :;!bulation served :o familiarize :ethnical assistance staff with rhc types and relative qmntities of \vasle mz!tsrials gene:a!tsd
t a: e \rid e.
I-IxxmJous iv3s:e generated 3fi 3 non-recurrent (once-only shipmenis), Tzble 2.0 u ere separated from those that were generated on a recurrent O i con:inuous bs i s , Table 3.0. Recurrent data were then subdivided into two major groups according to (1) !osici!y, Tzble 4.0, and (1) the exhibition of hazardocs charscteristics other t h a n :oxicity, TaSie 5.0. \\’zste generation data within each group \\.?re summed by state,’f&ral ivxste code and x ! n k ordered by two-digit SIC code accoiilirg to gross annual tonnage.
Recurrent toxic wastes, listed in Table 4.0, were culled out from the data base i f t hey met one of the followino four criteria:
. 9- _____ -
0 Listed in 40 CFR 26131, 261.32, 26133 (e) & (9 for roxicity, i.e. Hazard code: T=Toxic Waste, H=Acute Hazardous Waste and E=EP Toxic Waste, or for
a combination of toxicity and some other hazardous characteristic, + -
_ic
Wastes which are not listed but met the characteristic for EP Toxicity,
0 Wastes regulated by the state of Rhode Island as toxic: ROO1 Toxic Waste, ROO6 Extremely Hazardous Waste, ROO7 Polychlorinated Biphenyls, or
Wastes characterized as toxic by other state agencies as manifested by Rhode Island generators.
All other wastes that were nor toxic are grouped together and rank ordered in Table 5.0. Wastes in this category include:
0 Those listed in 40 CFR 261.31, 26131, and 261.33 (e) & (9 for ignitability, corrosivity or remiidity,
0 Wastes that are not listed, h t exhibit the federai characteristic of ignitability,
-
corrosivity or reactivity, * .
Wastes regulated by the 511117 i ) f Rhode Island 3s reactive, flammable, corrosive,
3
2.2.2 S:im Tn~ic Re!exe Jnvenrorv (TRI) Data
Tosic chemical release data were initially summed by chemical type and then rank ordered by \{.eight (pounds), Table 8.0. This tabulation semed to familiarize :he analyst n i t h [he types and relative quantities of chemicals 2nd chemical compounds ro be studied.
In Table 9.0, toxic release inventory data are grouped by SIC code; release and off site transfer data are summed and then rank ordered by total weight within each classificarion by four-digit SIC code. The total number of companies reporting in each SIC code, amount of release and media to which the release occurred are noted.
Table 10.0 presents a summary of the TRI data. Ail data are rank ordered by weight (pounds) &their respective two-digit SIC code. The number of companies reporting and cumulative percentage of toxics released are listed by industry type. A comments column is also provided where percent releases to each media (Le., DW = direct water discharge, FA = fugitive air emission, OS = off site transfer, LD = land, and SA = stack air release, P O m = publicly owned treatment works) and the types of chemicals representing the release is reported,
2.2.3 Air Toxics & VOC D a u
Air Toxics and VOC data are tabulated in the same format as the hazardous waste and Sara toxic release inventory data; Tables 11 and 12. Industries are rank ordered by total pounds of air toxics and VOC's emitted. Percent cumuiative and comments columns, indicating program priorities assigned by DEM's Division of Air & Hazardous Materials, are also presented.
3.0 DATA ANALYSIS
3
-3.7.2 Data Review b t
Table 1.0 rank orders all Rhode Island generated hxz rdous waste by w;lste code for both recurrent and non-recurrent generators. There were 62 unique types of hazardous waste generated in Rhode Island in 1957. It is interesting IO note that the top ten (10) waste streams represent 94% of all hazardous waste generated state wide. 'The top three codes ROlO waste oil, DOOl ignitable and DO08 lead contminated wastes, are generated primarily by the automotive repair and dealership industries. The ROlO waste code representing crankcase 02, DOOl representing water contaminated with gasoline, from underground tank cleaning and/or removal, and DO08 representing soils contaminated . with leaded gasoline from spill or tank removals represent 65% of all hazardous waste generated in the state,
The FOO6 waste code represents wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating D002 corrosive w a t s associated with these same plating operations. is a Rbode Island code representing wastes that may be detrimental to
human health and the environment but are not elsewhere classified. The majority of the waste reported under this code is not in fact hazardous wasie but consists mainly of nom hazardous waste waters, asbestos and empty drums manifested as hazardous wastes.
The R007 waste code is representative of PCB and PCB contaminated wastes. The sources of this waste are spread over several industrial codes, but may be assumed to be generated mainly from the removal of PCB transformers and spills of PCB contaminated oils.
Other wastes that collectively comprise greater than 11% of the total w s t c stream are the halogenated solvents FOOl and F002 and non-hlogenated soivents F003 alii! .?"05. The Fool and FOO2 wastes are generated as spent meia1 degressing liquid and sludgte W O O l ) and as spent cleaning agents (F002). The primary sources being electroplating, !)'sting,
I
5
Table 3.0 shows recurrent g e n m t o r d m oniy. 1,190 recurrent generarors produce 21.140 tons ( or more than 75%) of The hazardous waste generared s u [ e \i.Ide. Of the 56 i i 'aste streams listed, ten represent about 90% of the total tonnzge generared. This t;ltdes shows recurrent wastes generated statewide; Le., toxic, ignitable, reactive, etc.
Tables 4.0 and 5.0 subdivide rhe recurrent generator data shown in Txble 3.0. Table 4.0 Ik!s 322 recurrent toxjc wastes tha t were senerated in 19S7'. Table 5.0 lists all other wastes that were hazardous for reasons other than toxicity. The toxic hazardous wastes represent about 29% (or 6,037 tons) of the total tonnage generated on a recurrent basis; a11 other hazardous wastes produced by recurrent generators (Le., waste oils, ignitables, corrosives, infectious, irritating, and reactives) amount to more than 15,000 tons. Ninety-five percent of all toxic hazardous waste generated, Table 4.0, is comprised of ten waste codes; there are 46 differenttypes of toxic waste generated state wide.
Table 6.0 merges the top ten RCRA toxic waste codes with all SIC code data and ranks SIC codes by gross annual tonnage. This table show the relative distribution of the most prevalent toxic wastes across industry classification. Spent solvents (FOO1, F002, and FOOS), for exam&, are generated across more classes of industry than any other toxic waste. The toxic waste U012 (Aniline) was generated only by the chemical industry, SIC code 28.
Table 7.0 sums all toxic waste data presented in Table 6.0 by nvo digit SIC code. Data is rank ordered by tons with comments on the generic types of wastes generated by each industry class. By organizing data in the format of Table 7.0, a number of notable observations can be made, including:
1.) 1, 188 companies generated 5,404 tons of toxic hazardous waste in 1987.
2.) Eighty six percent of the toxic waste is generated by industry in nine SIC corks.
3.) Of all the industry categories listed, spent solvent and electroplating waste nre shown to be the most predominant.
4.) Of all SIC divisions, m;,:iufactures are by far:tht largest generators of toxic ;:-id hazardous waste. Four of the fifteen manufacturing codes, Figure 1.0 and Table 'I 3,
6
Table 8.0 shoivs that in 1957, Rhode Island industry reported releases and off site transfers of some 26,SS'4,469 pounds of toxic chenicals. Sevsnt!*-one chemicals and chemical compoufids were repoited. Of the 71 chemicals :cpoiwJ. eight constitu:e aSoLlt S S C of :he total amount. Of these six are jolvenls, one is 3n acid and one, sodium su!fate, has since been delisted.
- Table 8.1 ranks all chemicalreleases and off site transfers by total weight. The first five industry classifications coilectiveJy represent more than 90% of all releases. Each industry class contains data at the four digit SIC code ievel its well as information on the distribution of companies and releases. Within the chemical industry, SIC code 2S, for example, two companies (out of a total of 17) represent about 86% of the tota1.
'
As tabulated, the data will be most useful in seIecting specific iklustries for technical assistance.
Table 9.0 provides a summary of important toxic release inventory data: # of facili ties/SIC code, total tonnage of toxic chemicals released, cumulative percent, total percent of chemicals released to each environmental medium and predominant chemicals in each industrial classification. All data are rank ordered by gross annual tonnage.
Sixteen classes of industry have reponed 26,854,469 pounds of toxic chemicals released in 1987. Seventeen chemical manufacturers account for more thank 58% (7,514 tons) of all releases. Of this, 58%, however, some 5,392 tons (69%) arc releases of sodium sul fate.
.
Ninety percent of all reponed toxic chemicals are genemted by five industry types (chemical, textile, fabricatedmetal products, miscellaneous maniik%iring and transportation equipment) comprised of 106 individual facilities. Again, howwer, more than half of this 90% is sodium sulfate. Fugitive air releases of toxic solvents is high across most industrial classifications. c .
c \
chemical manufxturers, textile and food and kindrec! product companies report
7
8
3. ) To obtain an overall ranking for each industrial c : : e g o ~ , the r x k number Iron? each of ;he four data sets (i-e., Hazardous IVaste, TRI, Siir Tosics, and VOC's) n'ers :!c!di.d :ag2 :!I er.
4.) Industry types were then rearranged in order by "Rank Sum;" Le., the fabricated metals industry [34] had a total r3nk score of 8 and was therefore rmked 1st overall, whereas [he stone, clay and concrete industry [32] had a r3nk sum of 59 and \\'as 1is;ed !as! in 1h2 TaS!e.
5.0 COKCLUSIONS
The targeting protocol presented herein was developed to assist pollution prevention staff in their efforts to prioritize outreach and technicai assisrance work. I t is intended to be used as a general guide to help orientate staff to the sources and nature of waste generation and chemical releases.
As with all self-reported data, there are Ieveis of uncertainty end inaccuracy which must be considered in any analysis, Rccogniu'ng, though not attempting to quantify, errors that exist in the data sets subject to these analyses, it is still possible for informed analysts to draw meaningful conclusions.
From the data presented in this report, it is clear that thirteen (13) industry types generate the vast majority of toxic hazardous waste and chemical releases (85% - 98%). From a pollution prevention perspective, technical assistance staff can begin to focus technicai and financial resources to selected industries of greatest concern in some of these fi rs t r 21 i rt e en categories.
.. * .
In attempting to further refhe and prioritize industry based on the data presented in 'Mie 13.0, caution must be taken since little effort has been made to rank industry on the k s i s of relative risks posed by wastes and chemicals released. In this regard, the analyst wo:lld med to furhter consider the original data relative to the specific types of industry represented. Consideration would have to be givep\to (1) the media to which wastes,
mat,or:nl released, and (3) from a program implementation pelspective, the total number of
~
1 - ! chen:icnls and chemical compounds were reieased, '(2) the type, amount and hazard of I- r
9
Though the prin:ing indust ry ranks 4th in terms of ot,erziI w s t e Seneration and h x l i c d :eleases, 3 cioser inspection of Tables 7.0, 10.0, 11.0 2nd 12.0 shows that :I
rektively sma!ler invesment in staff rime and resources could potentially yield significant improvements in environmental health for the state of Rhode Island. In Table 10.0 for example, two (2) primers represent about 3% of the total toxic releases statewide. The commenfs column of this table also shows that 99% of the releases \\'ere in the form of fugitive air emissions of toluene and .CIEK. Table 11.0 shows a similar, though more significant, picture where 13 printers represent 33% of all air tosics generated; note that only one printer accounts for 32% of the 3353 total!
In general, data should be thoroughly analyzed before program directions are set. As a final exampie of this, consider the overall ranking of the chemical industry and its 1st. ~
-- -place-ranXiniihe SARA TRId=%% Table 10.0. In this Table the chemical industry represents 58% of total toxic releases in 1987. Eighty percent of rhese releases were in the form of direct discharges and consisted of principally sodium sulfate and sulfuric acids or its salts. From a technicai assistance eoint of view, this industry class may rank lower in the eyes of piogram staff than isqtherwise reflecte in Table 10.0.
_ _ _ -
In conclusion, the analyses presented in this report represent one way to look at waste generation and multi-media release data. The protocol developed is intended to help technical assistance staff appreciate overall pollution prevention challenges by inter-relating fo.ur separate data bases. In this way, multi-media releases can be viewed in a structured format, serving as a point of departure for a more detailed analysis of selected industries, chemicals and wastes.
-
.
. . . .
0 U
5 v)
0 a
............ ...- I__.....--
I! N
I n
U c
f # -
u X .c
2 .,u X
0 0 w c
" .I
0" c
0' .C
.4
J 0 0 0
I
waste No. Ccdc
31 f O t t 32 u211 33 UOJ6 34 Dol& 35 FOOL 36 ut54 37 KO52 38 U223 39 uo61
L1 PO30 L 2 U239 6% PO41 LC Ut67
65 u071 L?, PO01 C ? UlSl L8 0188
L7 Ull2 50 U201 51 F017 5.3 PO89 53 0013 54 RQOL
55 U121 56 Ul07 57 Ut13 58 f033
',Id YO06
cc) U165 : I c!4?
4 0 u220
3 ....e I I. " _ . .
Code
R,T 1
1 E 1 1 T 1 .R 1 I W
.T n t T 1(
7 r 1
1
- n 1
sc T
7
Hazard Oescrlption
Reactive, 70xIc CU Oth CLH IoxSc Toxic EP Toxic loxie Ioxic loxic Toxic . Reactive Toxic Toxic Acute f o r k Tosic Acute loxjc loxic foxic Acute l o x i c lozic 10XlC
Toric. Isnitable ' Toric
. . ,-
- Acute loxic loxic State Corrosive
Toxic Toric.
r.1 Toric, Ignitable
lttrachloronethJne thlorlane hthoxych 1 or Yon-Halsot McthylACcohol Pet- Ref- Ink Btmt Bmzm, 1.3-di isocyartatomethyl 001 Benzene, Methyla CW W.O.P. xytene Diethyl-p-ninophenyl phospato Alpha-Yapthy4 ai no Benzene, 1.5 - Dichtoro Uarf ar in PcntachlorM?thanc Phenol Acctic Acid, crhytester 1.3- Benzenediot
' i ! Aittw.: t
Ions
Phosphorethioic acid , o,o-diefhyl O-(&-nitrophcnl) ester
Corrosive Trfchlo~amonofluromethene 1.2 - Btnrenedicarboxitic Acid , di-n-octyl ester
Ethyl acrylate b
Radioactive Lead 'Phosparc , YepOW2
2.3,)-1P Silvex
3.26 3.03 2.93 2.%9 2.10 1.96
1-91 1.50 1 .40 1.29 1.27 1 .?7 1.01 0.97
0.U9 U . i t
0.bV 0 . L Y 0.55 0.23 0 . 4 2
0.37 0.30 0 . 2 7 0.25 0 . 2 3 0.23 0 2 \
0.10
0.06 0.(11
0.01
27.623.590
27.626.620 27,629 -550 27.632.440 27.63L.560 27.636.500 27,638.410 27.639.910 21,441 -310
27,642.600 27,6&3.070 27. LL 3.1 LO 27.656.150 27,667. I20
27,648.720 2 I , 669 .d. 10 27,t'J0.100 27.650.650 27.651 .0UO
27.65 1.500
27,651 -070 27,652.170 27,652.220 27,652.690 2 7.65 2.920 27,653.150 27.GJI 31!0
27,653.CUO 27,bi3.3CO 2T.65 5 . 5 5 0
27,648 -01 o
2 7.65 I . 5fA)
0.012 0.01 1 0.011
0.01u 0. Obt)
0.Uiii'
O.OC7 0.ucs 0.005 0.005 0 .Ob5 0 .0oi
0.COC 0.0cIL 0 GUJ o.L'u3 O.Ll12
0 . G U L
0. LO2
O.O(J2
0.002
: 221; s zit 2 0001 1 3 ROO? SI C ROO5 RlSY 5 0008 E 6 ROO3 SF 7 fO0S 1.7 8 0002 C 9 roo6 T
10 f O O 1 T 11 om7 E 12 t003 1 13 SO07 R.T 14 lo09 R,T
16 FQOZ T 17 FOIO R,l
i t ~ 0 0 3 n
i a u o s T 19 r m n,T 20 U061 'I 21 Dolt E 22 U Z Z I T 23 fOl7 24 UO13 1 25 fOOC f 26 U107 1 27 0006 E 28 Roo6 cn 29 D M U E
Stare Oil lgnr t ab\ e State Irritant Spec Uaste EP Toxk
I g n i t d h . toric Corroslve Toxic Toxic EP toxic Ignitable Reactive toric R e M t i W toxic R.Kt1W Toric
, . U.Utfv8 toxic , TOrttC
Reacttve toaic Toxic €P toxic Toxic
St8t. flwnrbh
Toxic Toxic Toxic LP toxic R I Est Uar EP Toxic
1 ' Table 2.0
Rhode lslend Non-Recurrent Ccnerators ( R I P ) 1897 Ceneretcd Ibzardouk Uaste by Uaste code
Oats Source: 1987 Manifest Data Be& ( A l l Units in Tons 1
uescr ipt ion
Uaste Oik 1snf table I r c i t s t i n g lntcct ious Lead f tlarpble ~ ( o n - n ~ i S ~ O V
Corrosive Olwtro Sludo. Hal Solvl Oce Chraniun
CY 6th Soln ttrip/Cln Eoln UCKttV.
no1 soiv CY CTH R.Si6. Chllorim P l t 0th Residue
Silver trichboroethleno
W O ~ I - H ~ 5 0 1 ~
OD1
Arrnuat
Ions
4.224 -500
585.110 169.230 111.850 50.250 24 .2%0 39.710 33.240 32.940 31 .a20
23.250 22.330 19.270 14.990
1,101 .so0
Cresol, Cresyl fc, W i tro Benrene 1.2- 8enrentdicarboxi\ic wid, di-n-octyl ester CBdnriUr Olsdiooctivc Arsenic
Key:
7.230 3.700 2.930 2.560 1.400 1 .$GO 0.690 0.220 0 - 300 0.250 0.230 0.200 0.100 0.070
Rum i rig
SUn
6.221. -500 5.332.000 5.917.110 6.066.340 b ,170.190 6,228.440 6.272.720 6,312 .GPO b.345 .'no 6,578.670 6.4 10 .C30
6,233 .?GO 6,456 . O m 6,275.340 6.492.350 6 .CO9.560 6,503.260 6.5O6.190 6.508.750 6.510.150 6,511.390 6,512.080 6,s 12 .SO0 6 ,s 12.800 6,513.050
6,533. Cn0
6,513.580 6,s 13.650
6,513 -280
I = Ignitable. E = EP Tonic, H= Acute Mererdws, T = Toxic, C = Corrosive, R = Reactive, SC = Stute Corrosivc,
RlSU = R I Special Hazardous Waste, SI = State of Rhode istend I r r i t a n t , S,Oit = State of Rhodc I s t a d 011,
SF = State fle"e!J!e, EH - State at R l Extremely Hatardous Uaste
1 d!. 1 c I >l
I i ' r ' C f l t
Pcrccntage C U ' I I U ~ . ~ ~ I ~ C
6 4 .a56 17.003
8.983
2 -291 1.717 0.771
0.680 0.611 o.Sia 0.506
0.4flY
0.357 0.343 0.2% 0.261
0.111. 0.057
0.065 0.039 u.021
0.019 0.011
0.006 0 .oos 0.004 0,OOG
0 .OOS
0.0ClL
0.001
.
I
1
.
Uas t e
h o . Code Code Xaterd 08scriprlon
Rhode Island Generated Hazardous Waste by Unste cotlc O.rto Sourcc
1987 Generator Biennial Report - Recurrent -Only < A l l Units in Ions 1
1 R O l O S,Oi1 Stat8 011 Masre Oil 2 0001 1 Ignitable 1gnlt.M. 3 0008 E EP Toxic Laad 4 f006 T Toxic Electro Sludge 5 0002 c Corrosive Corrosfva 6 R O B RISV SpCC. Waste Infect tous 7 ROO7 SI State Irritant Irritating . 8 (001 T Toxic Hal Solv1oaO 9 f005 1.1 Ignitable, Toxic Won-88.1 Solv
11 FOOZ 7 toxic Hal tolv 12 f007 8.1 Reactive, Toxic CN 6th Soln '13 lo09 R.1 Rcmctiva, Toxic StripICln toln
u012 1 Ioxle A n l 1 tnr
10 to03 I Ignitable Uon-Wal Slov
IS 0006 E E!!. I oxc c c.*tu 16 ROO1 ST Stmt) Toxlc Toxic I ? DO07 E EP Toxic Chrollium 18 0003 R Rsoctive Rear: t i ve I9 DO05 E E? 1 ~ 1 ; Bariua 20 UOOZ 7 l o x l c ACetorn 2 1 DO11 E EP Toxic Silver 22 u226 T foxlc Methylthlotofona t,
23 ROO3 Sf State flrunnablr flnmrbla iC DOQl f EP toxic Arsenic 25 1008 R . 1 Reactive. Toxic P l t Bth R e s i w 26 Ut22 1 Toxic F ormatdehydc
22 C??? - *%..A;c
33 rol l R,T Reactive, Toxic CN 8th CLN
? ? GO09 E EP Toxic Mercury Itich!oroethylene *-. .
?+ ,m? : i i r 4 1 .
b
Annual Rwwi ng % Ycr < rnt Ions Sun Per ceritage C u m u l ~ t l ~
6,297-60 6,297.600
1,804.20 12,562.500 1,570.80 16,133,300 1,527.90 15,661,200 1,278.60 16,939.000 974.05 17.913.850
514.66 19,214.910 459.16 19,676.370 446.39 20,120.760 180.66 20,301.220 175 ~ 2 3 20,176. SSO 101.31 20.577.7bO
91.02 2Q.671.780 83 -45 20,755.230 82.38 20,837.610
64 .V9 20.982.660 31.119 2'1,014.550 25 -70 21,040 .ZSO 17.90 21,058.230 17.22 21,075.450
7.46 21,094.720 4.79 21,09V.510 4.61 21,104.120
4.16 21,100.280 I 3.8'5 21,112.130
4,~60.70 ta.75a.300
786.60 ia.700.250
1
I
80.06 20.917.6ro
11-01 21,007.260
3.44 21.115.570
2P.7UIl 21.101 11.535 7.130
7.228 6.040 4.6UU 3.7m 2.&3; 2.173 2.112 0.8%
0 . ~ 2 ~ 0.6ZY
0.145 0,395 0.590 0.579
0.501 0.151 0.122 0.063
0.061 0.051
0.035 0.021
0.022 0.02ll
0.0\!1
U.UI(.
Waste
KO. Code Code Hazard Oescription
31 u211 1 32 0014 E
36 KO52 1 35 FOOC 1 36 U223 T,R
38 U239 T 39 PO30 M LO PO41 n L1 Ut67 T c 2 volt 1 L3 oc;: l!
14 Ulbs I LS U188 T 46 Ul12 1 47 U20I 7
4 0 PO89 H 49 ROO4 SC
50 U l t l I
33 unz t
37 1.1220
51 U113 ; , k
5 2 F033 - 5 3 U1C5 T 5 c Dot7 L 55 UlC2 1
56 0061 1
toxic 1.truhlararwthanc
Toric Mothy1 Altohot Toxic Pet- Ref- lnk B t u
Toxic Rcutive
EP T o * k rrthoydrlw
Toric yarw.lao\
Toxic "ne, Rethyla Toxic Xylene
DCCUM., 1.J-di isocyarwtoratthyl
*
Acytr Toxic ctl Y.O.S. Acute Toxic Toric Alphm-Ltspthyluai no Toric k n z m a , 1.3 - Ofchloro btm5 iox!c I Uutastn toxlc Pmtuhtoroethano Toxlc Phenol Toxic Acetic A d d , ethylester Toxic 3.1- aenrenedi01 Acute Toxic Stpte Corrosive Corros$vr Toxic TrIchloro"f1urolactharrc Toxfr. lgniteble ErhyL acrytote
0 i ethyl -pnlnophmyl phorpat c
Phosphorethiolc wid . o.0-diethyl O-(&-nitrcrphenl) ester
1 b
- - Toxic l e d Phospate EP Toric 2.3,S-TP Silvex
Toric K:cponc Toxic WT
3.03 2.89 1.96 t .91 1.85 1.50 1.29 1.27 1.27 1.01 0.97 0.89 0.71 0.69 0.69 Q.55 0.43 0.37 0.27 0.25 0.25 0.23 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.00
21.118.600 21,121.CPO 21,123.CSO 21,125.360 21,127.210 21,128.710 21.130.000 21.131.270 21,132.540 21,133.550 21.13t -520 21.135.41 0 21,136.120 21.136.810 21,137.500 21,138.050 21,138.CSO 21,138.050 21,139.120 21,139.570 21,139.600 21,139.830 21,139.8'10 21.139.900 21,139.910 21,139.910
0.014 0.01L
0.009 0.009 0.009 0.007 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.005 0.005
0.004 0.003 ,O .003 0.003 0.0ox 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001
0.001
0.001 0.000 0.009
0 - 000
0.000
h c / : I
1 = Ignitabte, E = EP Toxic, H = Acute Hazardous, T- Toxic, C = Corrosive , R = Reactive,' SC = , R = Wi*.lctivc, sc = S t a t e Car I C ' I V C .
VISU = R I Special Hazardous Uaste, SI = State of Rhode l s l d I r r i tant , S,Oi \= Stare of Rhode Island ut [ , 56 = S t a t e fieamable, EH = State of R I L x t r e r t y Hazardow Waste
.
='u&-suant t o a requirement for S t e p 3 Grant Applications a3 established by the US Environmental P ro tec t ion Agency i n 40 CFR Sec t ion 35 .2105 , I hereby c e r t i f y t ha t the Narragansett Bay Water Quality Planagement D i s t r i c t Commission has n o t used the se rv ice8 of any ind iv idua l , organization, cr unit of QoWrnment for f a c i l i t i e s planning o r desi93 work whose name aFpcrat-3 on t h e master list of debarments, 3u~penaions, and Voluntary exclusions ds issued by t h e US Environmental
Protection Agency pursuant to 4 0 CFR 3 e c t i o n 32,400, 'The Conmission certiffes only its own activities, it is not i n a position t~ certify the act iv i t ies cf any predecessor agency. z
4
ANTI-DRUG ABUSE ACT OF 1988
Drug-€re@ Work Place Certification for Federal Grant Recipients
The Narragansett Bay Water Quality Management District Commission hereby certifies that it will provide a drug-free workplace by meeting the requirements of the Environmental .Protection Agency promulgated to implement *Section 5153' requirements of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988.
.
.
*-zz4-. N L Authorized Agent
. .. .,. . . c
I I I
I 1 I
- 000'001
SI ooo'soz
--
Wid1 ii grant fnm DEM's 01Cicc of' knvirortmcntlil C h r - dinatroil, thc Rtuxlc Island Dcpmnicnt of Economic Dcvrlop- mcnt (DED) IS currcnlly pcrforming w3stc reducuon opponu- nity asscssmcnts wilhin a numbcr of Rhodc Island companics. Thc assessmcnfi arc dcsigncd 10 rcvicw a compmy's manufac- turing process and dctcrmine whcrc and how proccss changcs or chemical substitutions can reducc and minimizc rhc gencra- tion of hazardous was~cs.
Findings are compiled into a bound rcport and arc fhcn furnished to the participating companies. Report rccommen- dations provide vah~able information about alternate proccss techniques, less toxic chemical substitutions, new emerging technological changes and processing equipment.
To date, DED has completed ten a"entS of manufac- Wring processes such as: machine tooiing operations, electro-
photo chemical elchers. polypter and plastic films fms and an aluminum anodizing company.
In fiw of the ten fms, DED is widemking a more
.
dcuiilcd rcvicw of iniplcmcnlation slratcgics rccommcndcd I I I
initial reporb. I n thc machirtc tooling industry , DEI) is csbbl!qhing pilot scalc tcsiing of' vmous dkalinc. bascd S G ~ , ~ '
mixcd in w m r to clcan mcul pans of cut[ing oils, mcul chip, and shavings. In an clccvoplnting facility, DED is studying thc ncw tcchnology of clcclrodialysis cquipmcnt to CXUitit an11 recovcr spcnt nickcl from thc plant's wastewater prctrcatmcnl system. The recycling of valuable nickel back to the prwcss tanks should rcduce virgin nickel costs. while greatly diminich ing the amount of Nckcl discharged into sewers. In thc aluminum anodizing proccss, DED isfeviewing he implcm- entation of a new emerging technology called diffusion diaiysts which may assist in the recovery of spent sulfuric and other acids. Recycling spent acids would reduce the purchase of virgin acids, eiiminare both the discharge of spent acids to sewers and the need to purchase chemical buffering agents.
projects are expected to be completed by October. Results on the above-mentioned studies and other similar
Rhode Island sets standard with hard-to-dispose-of law Rhode island 's environment got a The !egislation also drew the for innovative hard-to-dispose-of reduc-
attention of Michael Deland, EPA tion, reuse and recycling projects; spose-of legislation. Industry Region I Adminis&", who said "It is Promotes workshops and training for overnor Edward D. DiPrete, only through aggressive actions towards industry, and; ~ - -
and elected officials agreed that the time the management of solid waste that Provides education and outreach to the is right to address the disposal of hazard- answers will be found. Rhode Island is a Rhode Island business community. ous waste and products. leader in these actions and is quickly - Save the Bay, the Manufacturing becoming a model for a11 states within ult is only through aggressive ac-
Jewelers and Silversmith's Association, the nation." fions towards the management of the Environmental Council of Rhode solid -&e that answers +will be Island, the Audubon Society of Rhode expands the Department of Environ- found. Rhode Island is a leader in IsJanU, Stanley-Bostitch, the League of mental Management's non-regulatory these actions and is quickly becom- Cities and Towns, and the Sierra Club of h;aanfous was& reduction program in ing a model for allsfdies wifhin ihe Rhode Island su~~ported the bars the following ways: nation. A
passage. Continues funding for grants and loans Michael Deland EPA Region I Administrator
boost with the passage this spring of
Passage of the landmark Iegislarion
Waste Reduction (Continued from page I)
Htvardous and Solid Waste Amend- ments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, the nation has tuned its focus toward prevention.
ardous waste reduction initiative are: State-sponsored wqte rcduction
workshops Roundtables to serve as training,
information and tcchnology transfer forums for quality circlcs and project icams
A statcwidc ncwslctlcr, and publication of outsunding cmploycc contributions to the ficld of waste reduction
Dcvelopmcnr and rwancc of a Govcr- nor's award Cor cxccllcncc
The basic elements of the new haz-
The money comes lmm a bmaden- Certificates of merit to rhe most Out- s m g Cimm"tions ofh-ous waste reduction Ixfect Idlnical asshmce to employee
efforts aimed at waste reduction, and Availability of $1.5 million in state
grant money and the futurc p m i s e of low loans to qualifying waste reduction projects.
Hazardous reduction couragcd lhmugh employee involve- ment A management commitment is required, as industry is called upon LO use its most valuable rcsourcc, employ- ces, to set goals, prioritizc opponuniucs and implcmcnt solutions. Thc colIccu\.c skills and knowledge of industry and govcmmcnt can rc.wl[ in an onprccc- dcnlctt rcduction in harttous w a w .
ing of the base of Rhonet I[siand,s existing litter tax to include hard to dispose of products. The advantage of the approach is that the very items to be taxed are those which c ~ ~ ( : Fees are - $3 fo~ , *ew vehicle titles, 50 cents per tire, 10 cents on a gallon of mti-frez, a nir ke.1 per quart of motor oil and 1/4 of ow. cent for each
vis i i i t r of A i r
Stanbey Bostitch employees team up to reduce waste -
i A group of five Bostitch employees
set out to minimize the usage of coating in the nail collation area. Nails arc coatcd IO facilitate penetration and with- drawal.
The existing coating application system was difficult to regulate, thereby often applying eithcr too much or too !ittlc coamg. Group members, using a systematic approach to problem solving, developed an altemative system.
The new system has been fully . implemented at a cost to the company of S 1500. The annual savings IO be ralized is $1 13,000 in the following rrreas: reduction in coating usage, dccreased disposal cdsts, scrap reduction, and increased machine utilization.
“MIDNIGHT NAILERS” Seated left to right are Jeanne Neill, Team Facilibtor; Karen Wood, Jennifer Ring, Linda Justice, Rogcr Bousquet, Joseph Stukus
Waste Reduction Workshop Schedded for October at Altlon Jones A two-day wbrkshop sponsored by the Association for Quality and Particip- tion, the Hazardous Waste Reduction Project, and the RI Deparunent of Envifonmental Management’s Office of Environmenlal Coordination is being
held a& the W. Alton Jones Campus, URI, West Greenwich. RI on Thursday, October 26th and Friday, October 27, 1989. 'lie goal of the workshop is to teach business the techniques needed to successfully implement employee
involvemcnt teams to reduce hajardous waste. The registration fee is S75. The fee includes admission to the workshops, materials, luncheons and coffee breaks. Contact Richard Enandcr, (401) 277- 3434 for reservation information.
Hazardous Waste Reduction Program Office of Environmental Coordination Depart men t of Envi ronmentaf Management 83 Park Street Providence, R1 0 2 9 ~ 3
State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations EXECUTIVE CHAMBER, PROVIDENCE
Bruce Sundlun Govetnor
July 22,, 1991
Fellow Citizen:
Many of Rhode Island's businesses and industries have demonstrated environmentally sound, cost-effective methods to reduce the use and disposal of toxic and hazardous materials. This leadership in pollution prevention helps to protect our environment and enhances our quality of life.
As a reflection of my commitment to continued programs in this area, I have established the Governor's Award for Excellence in Pollution Prevention. The first annual Governor's Award will be presented to the Rhode Island business, institution, government agency or individual whose efforts in pollution prevention have resulted in a significant .reduction in pollution at its source. Where several nominees merit recognition, Outstanding Environmental Achievement Awards will also be presented.
I invite you to help us identify those projects that deserve recognition. Any bus i nes s or industry , educational institution, local government, state or federal agency or public utility may apply for the award or be nominated for work done in the state of Rhode Island. Projects must be economically practical and must reduce the mass and/or the toxicity of waste generated. Detailed criteria are listed on the enclosed application form.
Please send completed applications by December 2, 1991 to: Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, Office of Environmcntal Coordination, 83 Park Street, Providence, Rhode Island O ~ 0 3 For more information o r additional application materials, call 1-800-CLEAN RI or 277-3434.
Best phrI:.Rnal wishes.
Enclosure nd 27N / R S darn * q
Sincerely,
. .
. ..
1991 GOVERhOR’S AWARD FOR EXCELLENCE IN POLLUTlON PREVEhTION
’The Awards Program
i
The purpose of the Governor’s Award for Excellence in Pollution Prevention is ____
to recognize those Rhode Island businesses and individuals that have made outstanding contributions to or progress in pollution prevention. The Awards program will publicly honor those that have achieved significant and practical reductions in the use;.release or generation of toxic and hakudous materials
- ~
through: , .
Individual
. . . Product Development Process or procedure improvement Substitution of raw materials Technology modifications Improved management practices
*
actions leading to improvements in pollution prevention policy/law, broad-based integration or institutionalization of pollution prevention practices in industry or business, or sustained leadership to the benefit of Rhode Island will also be honored. The Governor’s Award willkrecognize nominees from: business and industry, educational institutions, local governments, state and federal agencies, public utilities.
~ -
- Eligibility Criteria
--c
The Awards program is intended the reduction:of mass te generated that are economically prdcticd. nomine ominated for work done in the State of Rhode Island. Projects.related to wastes resulting from the cleanup or treatment activities at hazardous waste sites and applicants that are not in compliance with the law and environmental regulations or are not in possession
- _ _ _ -of a signediegulatory compliance agreement or consent agreement are not eligible for this program.
e& that have as their primary goal
Nomination Guidelines . . . .
1. .You may nominate any person, company organization in the Stat: of
2. Work on the nc:i.rrinated project and/or technical application may q9:*u a number of years, I owever, the nomination should be made no later th i a one year after compkt: xi of the project.
3. All nominatioiri must be received by the deadline specified on the application form. * . m e received after this date will not be considered
4. Presentations :i.r s f demonstrations by semi-finalists at the site to the jidges may be required.
’ Rhode Island, including your own.
i
I *
The Application Procedure
Candidates may submit any number of projects for Award consideration. To participate )n the Governor's Awards Program, candidates should follow the guidelines presented below.
-
entire NOMINATION FORM must be completed. All information ted will be public record and may be published as a pollution prevention
2. Additional documentation of cost savings, methods, materials or technologies used, and mass/toxicity reductions achieved may be submitted. All materials submitted as docum
3. Submit fiye copies of the application form and supplemental information to:
study by the Department of Environmental Management. -
tion, however, will not be returned.
Department of Em'ronmental Management Office of Environmental Coordination Hazardm Waste ion Section -
1 83 Park Street ~ I?Povidence,RI 02903'
1) CLEANRI @I only) r .
Award Categories .. I
* * mere are two award categories. One Governor's Award for Excellence will be
issued each year. Outstmding Achievement Awards will be issued if merited to
i Governor% AWd for Ekcellence I
II . .Award for Outstanding Achievement
Judging Critefi
ding contributio in pollution prevention. - 1 - . -
I
, L .. I ..
The Awards program will be administered by the Department's Office of Environmental Coordination. A panel of knowledgable persons will be appointed4y the Oovcrnor to assist in the selection of award recipients. The judging dteria for all submissions wil l focus on:
0 Btriefit to Rfiode'islbd Public 0 Environmental and Human Health Benefits
Mm@'oxicity Reduction AchievemenG 0 Potential Benefit to Other Organizations 0 E,cctromic Value
lniriative and Demonstrated Commitment to Pollutioiil Prevention 0 Aplicants Willingness to Disseminate Controlling Process Data
\
Norninee: a Rhode Island based business, institution, government agenq or individual that should be honored because of a contribution nade to pollution prevention. The nominee must demonstrate and document measured reductions in the use, release or Y nxeration of toxic and hazardous materials.
Date:
. I”FtFOR\LATfON ON NOMINEE:
Name/Ti tle:
Organization:
AdciresslTeIephone No.: -
_ _ I,NFORMATION ON PROJECT
TVpe of Organization/Produm Involved: 4
Project Start Date: Project Completion Date:
_. Project Location:. 7
The prcjec: has as its major technical goal reduction of the mass and/or toxicity of waste gensn t ed:
Both Mass and Toxicity Mass Only Toxicity Only - - - - 1
The proje?! has the additional major goal of benefit to Rhode Island ~ M c :
Rhode M Y E ~ Economy - -...__ i-iuman Health - Environmental Benefit
i
In order for the nomination to be adequately considered. ,ou must also complcte
each of the fullowing scctions so that the nomination can be proyerl! claluatcd. If
nccessav, YOU may attach additional pages for completion of each section. YOU bhotild undcrstand-that a presentation and demonstration may bc required of all w a r d winners.
1,) Specific Information
a,) Quantity of Waste reduced:
b,) Feedstock ChemicaI(s) Reduction (include water conservation):
c.) Pollutants/Wastes Produced by m e s s before Project Implementation (provide waste name, chemical ampositJon and quantities):
“ I
2.) Describe the waste/poUution generating process:
P Overcoming the Command The Stanley-Bostitch way - For easy and dean removal of 011s Z .
and Control Relationship eight years. Stanrey-Bostircn has I machine changeovers A ZeTz-. enjoyed a PaRicrparive approach to tion will be given by TasK force m.
S a : ? technica! assistance programs problem-salving. Thrs was a mturai bers to employees WOfKlFG I: :cF-
on 3c111i::3r s:even!icn anC minrmiza- extension tc an akeacy 'zpen'cul- areas to educate them on the or; ticn are. as a whole. tarfly new to ture When a joint venture was use and disposal of Speedy 2r 2 ~ n c ~ s t ; ) , and Sovernment. and as announced between the Oeoattment alternative absorbent materia's Such they are faced with overcoming of Environmental Management and a-:e:a:ionship between government the Association for Quality and Cutting cisposal cosrs Sy ',rleam,-g "): an6 ks iness that has historically Participation, the concept was processes.. . Parrs are currently 3een one of command and control. embraced, and two task forces were cleane&thruughout the manufacti
formed in September-of 1989.. One ing process, thus producing reg& Industry and government. for exam- would work to reduce the volume af waste fluids which'must be disposl ple. have not always given primacy to liquid waste generation. and the other of off-site a? ever increasing COS:^ pallutian preventiortover pollution would work to decrease the use of the company. The Objective of the control. Nor have we worked very "Speedy Dri" (an oil absorbent). Both "Liquid Waste Minimization" task hard at developing partnerships and projects were aimed at reducing dis- fm is to reduce, modify, or elimi- cooperative efforts directed toward posal costs. nate the practice of washing compc environmental improvement. So any nent parts where feasible, thereby new cooperative environmental For several months, these tasks - reducing the resulting waste by 25 improvement initiative really goes, to forces. which are compnsed of ope- percent. some extent, against our experience. tors. technical, and purchasing:- -
employees, havema teanatymmd Specially identified waste barrels Thr: path chosen by Rhode Island is implement solutions to this problem. have been placed in areas where to identify role models, quantitatively With the use of company facilitators, parts are cleaned with a soap and demonstrate improvements and then- each team has exceeded all expecta- water solution :o accumulate the
sfer the exp8rience. including tions. ed. Previously, thx process specific information and combined with I
technolow, to other companies. Cutting waste by stoppinp-tsalrs and. waste oil and coolants. As a result 01, s p i k . . The "Speedy Dri Usage'! task this segregation process, waste that
Stanley-Bosritch fnc. of East force was charged with the resporrsi- had previously w e n classified as qenwich, R-14ode Island was tit3 blt; of identifying the root causes of non-regulated rnatenal and shipped
mryjirst comparry to *accept W excessive Speedy On usage and mc- off-site can now be treated in-house challenge" of this new'hti ive. At ommending solutions which reduce To reduce codant spoilage in dor-
~
@ti@ .Iscation. Stanley-&stitch memu- this usage by 50 perbnt. Solutions, mant machines, vie operators have ~~
factures stapling, nailing and wire which have been successfully imp& been instructed to circulate the stttching machines. industrial !a:;fen- mewed to date, include the repair of coolant regularby, This team is cur- ers. staplers. and power tools. hy3:zuIic leaks on machinery and the rently testing aqiioous cleaners to
puri:r.,ase of a portable liquid wllec- eliminate the use of trichloroethane tion and dispensing unit to facilitate
_"
-
___
c - - .+n 'p$ eve 3f ,,,ne 2; '983 a c i r re r ~ ~ ~ p o s , ~ m C3rpie:e # / ' t i m l is~c ans Hazardous Waste Prevention Workshop Agenda ''X? tPt? 6'hOCC;' iSiar:: 2q:/yGrmOfiC TechnlaL,es 'r3m 'he qy ?bee rvd> ? re2.,c:,2f l I\,""nr'3flI!, ;?leC: ^ ^
involveme?: 'tela were :a;gnt I? 3ebeicpinp :neortes Cc:resi*a 6s: "eic :Z K ~ l c - ~ l f :re -e*& par!icrDa!lbii a,";;':3:? :3 haz- cc'ljunc:ion with fhe was:e mint-
"are!g xaiys:s,charts, 2 : ~ 3 ' 3 3 ~ 5 $ b cT,;aitci. G S S ~ S S G W ~ ; ~ procidures - -*-s ,f iazs ' i ?z~c! c a 3:,"c-
2a:a c~llecrron senaim :r , 'OrTer c '?C:Or 01 Rnoce described in the €?A Wasre c anc s i )eparqev! 2' S w v ' m ~ n ' a i M q , q / = a ! ! p 09popunq Assess- 2iia anatvsls
??. eloprnS sno selsc:tng S O ~ ~ : ~ O T S '.4z?agemenr ce~we'fc ' -e dey,- '? ??en! MarLai Foliowing IS a Srief overview ot :Re program agenda: GCS: jsstl?tca:ion zmress and US Reo.eserrarive
,.al;di~e S c V c 5s- x ; k e 3,- 3cil,- hl;ra;e~en! prese-:;: 3ps :Ion prevenrrcn from a 'aiicral per- spective
$?ate issusrj cerii:,;ars o f compl;!lor
ACP Zhaoter Drssi3ep: 3cn Nes:er and Ricnard Ecanae! Save :ne auci- ence of over 100 Rhcae Island busi- workplace - quality, safety, produc- task force members. as advlsors ness representatives aq overview of tivrty and resource conservation." A called in on an as-needed basis or :he joint tnrtrative ana n " d those second workshop is scheduled for as an information and technology present to attend a worKshop which September 5 and 6, 7990 resource. Regardless of the level of would train them in how IO begin a involvement on the Pan of the stare. panicipative pollution Dreventlon pro- Cooperation enhances govern- the company gains in terms of pro- gram. ment and business efforts - Given gram ownership and the lasting effect
the limited resources of most state achievements in pollution prevention Nearly four months later. on October programs. marshalling in-pfant will have on its corporate culture. 25 and 26, the Rhode Island AQP resources through the stewardship of chapter, the Narragansett Bay employee involvement teams makes The expected benefits to companies Prolet. a member of the US EPA's perfect sense (according to a that choose a panicipative approach Nattonal Estuary Program. and the National Governor's Survey (1 988), to hazardous waste reduction are Rho& Island Department of the two most common components of many and include: Environmental Management spon- state waste minimization programs . Improvements in environmental sored a formal. two-day workshop for are technical assistance and educa- health
' companies seeking to use employee tion: twenty-nine states are engaged involvmnt In their pollution preven- in each of these activities. On the Improvements in worker health and aon efforts. average most stare programs cost safety
abu t $1 50,000 (per year) and Economic, liability and public image workshop on El and pollution involve one or two staf! people ' benefits
according to the survey). The development of more knowl- rntlon - The banner which f a W participants of the workshop set the tone for this "hands-on" work- In Rhode Island, tlre employee
forget; I sae - I understand; I do - I the state's small business, o-ite remember." Deborah Pannutlo, dine technical assistance pwram. By uti-
\:tor of quality of Stanley-Bostitch Inc., lizing existing resources uwthin corn. ' and Don Nester, quality manager of parties, Rhode Island technical assis- HbWst Celanese Corporation, tance staff c8n effect greater assisted by John Tolento of Levitm reductions in the generation of haz- Manufacturing Co., led the workshop ardous waste in a shorter period of whoh ldllowed the agenda depicted time. Because pollution prevention hem. If enthusiasm is a good mea- effom typically require a multiakd- sure of success, the workshop was plinary approach, employee involve- vety successful. One attendee, €rich ment teams or task forces are the Satomon. environmental manager preferred choice for techncal assis- from Armbrust Chain said. "I highiv lance in the larger companies. Here. recommend this seminar It address- technical assistance staff can be ufi- es issues of equal tmponance to the k e d most efficiently as permanent
I - . e .
--"*I
-~
~~
Pl
EmpIo,,ee g o i e m e n t roies in ',cas;?
Group dynamics Meeting management
~
'eff ucrion ' > v i s ! ? 'E.$si::an .'.c'\ j'23
edgeable supervisors and workers
ments
port network
sw. The banner read: "I hear - I invokemnt initiative complements Establishment Of long-term commit-
The development of a program sup-
The benefits cited for companies also benefit Rhode Island's social, envb ronmental and economic health. For example, if an employee involvement team improves enVir0r"ntal quality, worker health and safety and reduces the cost of waste disposal at a panic- ular plant, then the whole community gains in terms of human and eco- nomic health and the environment for that locale.
The Journal for Quality and Panicipavon July August 1990
vention program in another Rhode :stand company will however 111~s- !rate a model we are following.
In this company. the chairman of the University of Rhode Island's chemical engineering department. and two state hazardous waste reduction pro- gram specialists were invited to become permanent members of a company-wide waste minimization !WM) task force. The WM task force is marred by the vice president of manufacturing and is comprised of four key professional staff people, from upper and middle management. 1 It should be noted. that when form= ing a WM task force. it IS necessary to include the right mix of technical competence and only the personnel Nho can contnbute in the most effgc. :ive manner. Task force members can then call on key personnel from the
'-e &asre :eaLctior :reme " a s 'eaily caugrr on. an0 several cbaitw 5:rc:eS 2 - 2 a,s3 aadresslng simliar 'ssires
T b e corsa-y s 3's: ' e 3 " z y j lsn ,+; .
:a.! bePe"!s IC !err: 5 ' :"e 3 r c r a ~ 3 e 31 aeas d y "forvar'cr Zeweeq w e v l s o ' z 2-c :be : ; ; ; c , - ;
q e n e n ! . Tbese w a : :-S,RIDS wii ; ;we fo be k e r y ~ m p c ~ z a r : ahen I:? :;me cores for prqec: vo1emen:a- ::on. On behalf ct all 'LOIVed :E charac:enze the SDI'II 3f coooera. :ion. trust anc commlr-enr among tke srate. :ne comgany ana Un1vers;:y 31 RkOdt? lsfand repessc:atives. as slmply cu!standlng.
A! S!anley-Bos:itcn *VP are very E! 3 S ~ 3 s o r : i e ~ ~ r r & :- d2cer m a r .
~ ' 3 ~ c c;i 3 ~ r aCc3E:(;irSRmer;i j io za!e We a% eqjoy S3mg Ocir oar: :o r * g r T m e r or.;anlra!ions 01 the aen-
sL1!s xa! can ce 5erwea thrcugn !ne 4SZ of j c r e 3asic arzbiefl-solvicg :echnicLeS :hat : m e 3L;r grea!esi
.;set. - os? ;eo:iei
Setting up waste minimization task forces - A number of oiher large xmpan!es are also acwery panicl- L'onrinuous mprovemec:: 73oei This paring In this new Inmarive. but It IS roo early to repon on specific acnievements. The start-up of a pre-
IS L z ~ r
:asK force. as well as dikers. have been using the waste mrnimizanon assessment procedure prescrrbed by €?A in its Waste Minim:zation Opportunity Assessment Manual. There are essentially 'our Saslc siecs to the assessment proceaure as out- lined in the accompanying chan. The assessment procedure 1s meant to be a continuous improvemenr process. Once the implementatlon step IS reached. the task force should then return to the assessment phase.
various departments, on an ulneed- ed basis. to pattictpate m the diag- nos& and remedial journeys)
Initial discussions have centered around issues reiated to waste stream prtontiratton. waste reductton goals. individual team tasks, potennai options, and data collection and anal-
. ysis. Infomatton and technology transfer. through technid assistance program staff to the company, is already proving to be a major benefit of this voluntary, cooperative effort. I
A Look to the Future The State of Ahode Island IS antici- pating significant achievements in pollution pmventron from other pro- gram participants who are currently working on waste reduction issues related to solid waste recycling and sourco reduction wopcts involving waste oils and hazardous waste. Efforts are cum@ underway to aggrewdy move toward increased company/AOP chapter involvement. case study develop". roundtable forums and the issuance of recognr- tion award$.
Our experitma with employee invohrement and pdlutton prevention in Rhode Island has been posittve. It is clear that pollution prevennon holds great promise for the future. It IS equally dear that employee involve- ment can and should play a major role in pollution prevenhon initiatives across the country. Not only can par- licipative waste reduction programs
--- - .
Resources and Releranhs: US Environmental trotectron Agency. waste Minimization OOpenunity Assessment Manual.' Publication No. fPA/625/748,003 Hazardous Waste Engineenng Laboratory Cncmnati. Ohio 55268
N. Hamson. R.T. Enander. D.J. Nester. 'The New Paradigm and Hazardous Waste. ' Journal for Uuality a d Panicqman. 801-8 West 8th Street. Suite 501 Cincinnatl. OH 45203 September 1989. C. Levewue. Options - A Newslener of the Rhode Island Hanmaus W a r t Reducrlon Prognm.''' Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management. Hazardous Waste Reduction Section Office 01 Environmental Coordination. 83 Park Street. Providence RI 02903. January 1990. R T Enander and 0 J. Nester. "A Structured Approach to Solid Waste Management ' Chemical Enginccfvrg Progress Amertcan rnshtute of Chemical Engineers (AIChEi 345 E 37th St New YOrk Y Y 10017 April '988
5 3
The Journat for Ouality a m Panrcipatlon Ju1y;August 1990
,-. .
< .
. . . .
. 4
' , L t . ' \ , ' : L t 4 L . L
60 The Excellence Paradigm = Quality and Participation
The New Paradigm - a-nd Hazardous Waste By Ned Hamson - AQP with Richard Enander - State of Ahode Island and Don Nester - Hoechst Cetanese
"Tonight marks the beginning of a new relationship. A new relationship no? only between industry and government, but a new relationship between the environmental and quality
Management, State of Rhode Island -- profeSSionS. ~ _ - - "- Richard - _. T. Enander, Department of Environmental
The evening's program seemed rather straight forward. The Rhode Island Chapter of fieXC!P was co-sponsoring a
Why was it iio important - SO important to thosacharged with fulfilling govem- mental mandates on hazardous waste
meeting presenting the idea that quality and partidpation techniques could be used by companies to tum state and fedsralli mandated hatatdous waste . control programs, into hazardous waste prevention processes. In additibn they were to be fold by representatives of the co-sponsoring parties -the AOP chapter and the Rhode Island Depart- ment of Environmental Management (DEM) - that training by the chapter, resources and some funding from Rhode Island's OEM and the US €PA would be available.
This still sounds fairly stratght bnvard - right. But it was important enough for the state director of the DEM and marty OEM staff members who had been working on containing and cleaning up a large oil spill lor the previous 72 hours 1s anend. And important enough for US house Representative Claudme Schneidsr of Rhode Island, a leader rn seeking ways to control hazardous waste naticnally, to fly in from the naiion's Capital for a three hour meeting to ilsteo and speak IO the conterees.
and those charged with monitoring hazardous waste in their state? Because this was the first time in the nationmat those who monitor this essential public poky and those who must comply with such poky met in an atmosphere of cooperation and participation instead of confrontation and control. It was the first public poiicy meebng held under what could be termed the excellence paradigm.
The Clash of the Old Paradigm with the New That the meeting was the first of its kind for this public and iridustnal c o n " is sufficient reason to eeerpt some of its proceedings for readers of this journal. To share with our readers the devu twist of quality teams as ha?8iaous waste prevention teams IS sl.ificient reason, as well. But there is one wore reason. This meeting and its piaye-s. Its potential results and the publlc policy impact illustrate an importar4 tnfolding or growth 01 the excellence paradrgm. The meeting also Illustrates a clav,c confrontation between an old paradlgm and the new
paradigm; one in which the new paradigm demonstrates its power and efficiency over the old paradigm in a very concise and obvious manner.
What I8 tho excdknce paradigm?- Is it a combination of everything that Peters, Crosby, Deming, Juran, Ishikawa, Feigenbaum, Dewar, Beardsley, Rieker and Donovan have written about quality, employee involvement. statistics and teamwork? If it is.people will respond justifiably with, Wow can I remember the whole thing?"
At its simplest. the excellence paradigm is this: the components of excellence, quality and Oariicipation, are inseparable and dependent upon each other. While pursuing each COmpoMMt separately may have its own value, if your goal is excellence, you must pursue and use both quality and pirlidpation 10 succeed. Words which con@ to mind and help in applying the parwgm are cooperation, prevention. partnership and participation.
What is the old paradigm? Control and confrontation. What words come to mind wth this paradigms Use rules to control, Jse devises to control, use penalties to :ontrol, use the courts or a rulebook 10
r---
I I
i . t?JLyfSt / / f l /I? AC!/L?l
I €2
i~VeSllgaliOn lhe represents a breakicrxg' ;ij
in reducing ivvasfe. * generating nearly
, materral. Alter the big and small in Rhode ls !xe ,A team found imagine the impact we couid nave on 7"'
i soluttons. the environmpnt if all had a similar I amount of material .participative approach. What we are
Waste
Sporadic Jump
BREAKTHROUGH i
govemment and our employees In October we are holding the first s:a+ewici
waste to trear and The View from the
er - Rhode Island
.
., Ilraprpvt"t mmgh 8 pampave
pevmtion we c a " w h r t is &ad7 'breakthrough' wJW bat8 b b lasting gains at a new and betterkvd, s m l
t0t)UrryEWpOftS-
to use their best resoufa, If& paopb. Taga onr). stst9 hlrmef dhan
N + waste after it is generaarL
moMinp of June 24, I knew that in order to bd sudceasful this program would
source.
Af Hoechsr CelandsB -A qwhty team ncerned with reducing clankation ste focused on 16depaiiment
producing tho q'ealest amount Of Waste
p
given the cmitment . the time. and the sktlls 10 make the prwosses
merit, the Departmen: of Economic
,
__ I l-
I
r
What good is half a quality process?
bevglopment, the Narragansett Bay Project, Brown University's Center for Environmental Studies and many of Ahode Island's industrial leaders. ... And I knew that with this combination of talent
rt, Ahode Island could soon elf as a national leador in the
r field of hazardous waste "n. It's opinion thi6 is exactly what's
! I
e . h a beenthe US . ."-I EnVirOflh6rft8l Protection Agews
s sf in- funding and in terms of professiondim Md getting the flghc peopltt togahor b do the job. And their c:r" tfirent h krm, d the WaMishment of a ih;aste Midmk&n eranch-in Cincimat. wd the establishment of a tztlonal, as wefl as regional pollutici: pre wittion offices.
IIu!io!l prevm&n. Their
put into practice measures involving administrative, mateWwechnology changes that result in decreased waste generation.' In part, this €PA document puts forth, for the first time, a model framework far the d e v e l o p " of participative waste redudon programs. By partidparive, I mean employees working together in an organized way to find and develop solutions to waste reduetlon problems. th, mthnrrt In haawdms waste poky and quality teams -And this is why we have gathered here toWM to discuss a new initiative - a new initiative direued faward mothmtfng and appryirrs the cu#eUM *iHs and k n w e d company emproveS to the challenging field of hatardous waste reductbn.
We came here tonight to talk aboMt a ww direction for existing participative '
& d EPAs mmt rcc.tnt source reductiw publica tiom, the €PA Manual tor Waste Miirimt.rattcse7 Oppottunity Assessments, 9mph.wim that the €PA approach, 'Concontrst*bs on procedures that molivate peeple. oiocedures that
programs and new OPp(utur,itieS for all involved including companies which haws yet to utilize thev employees in the torm of qualify circles or project teams.
This new inrtiattve, a particimwe
* means, in the broadest sense, not only utilizing employees for waste reduction projects within your companies but also utilizing government employees and resources as well.
Very few times in life does a cause come along so great that it attracts and draws to il the people with the vision to become involved in a new initiative of unprecedented proportions.
Tonight we are announcing such a challenge. A challenge in which there will be no losers, for all who participate will be viewed as winners, and we are calling upon the leaden of !hi3 Rhode Island business community to join with us and take pan in a program which can only result in a net benefit to all involved.
~~
The new team and partnership - We the Hazardous Waste kleducfion Project, OEM's Office of Envirorlmental __ Coordination, and rne I\ssociation for Quality and Participation are taking a very serious proactive role ir) hazardous waste reduction and In aotrg so we are calling
Plotivate people 10 s e m h . screen and approach lo hazardous waste re&f/orr.
Journal lor Quality and Paricrpatior; Seprclmher 1989
upon the collective sdls and knowledge
I A U I
C 3
J
as o'*s'te fac. t PS And I m ra ! c.. $5 jure i - 3 ~ many 31 JS I ? this 103'7
~ , - o c y ze this scene Sut I'm l a d y certa n !'-,at &v&!yone or m3S1 everyone has "ear6 cf love Canal A i d although w h a 3 S i t IS a most d'analic example it x e s bring home the amsssage of off-sr!e ability.
And a final, but less measurable benefit of waste reductlon are !Oose benefits eerrved from an improved image in the community and amon$ company employees as well.
Objectives: Encourage, Assist and support
Together, we are promoting actions which value pollution preventan a! !he source over the post generation management of '
I taxic and hazardous materials. I
I Y
and evaiua ting employee involvement strategies. I
Applications for Participative Managers
SO\: 6-1J, 1YY9 Chicago, Illinois _ _
Leading group decision-making requlres skills for influencing the group's productivity. While many managers have experience racilitating probiem- solving groups, few are trained in approprlate Intervention skills. Higher team performance will result by applying speclflc techniques.
Group Process Consuk7tion teaches the communication skills and in tensention strategies any process manager must have to be successful. Through one- on-one skill development, lecture, video, group exerases, role playing, and case studies, this program enabIes participants to develop their interactive abilities, to enhance cross-functional communication, and to realize their potential for accomplishing team activities.
As they learn how to coach team members, the participants themselves are coached and cntiqued by the instntctor, building their confidence to act as a process consultant to their own groups. Participants also identify their ob- jectives and outline a plan to implement upon returning to work. They meive Questionnaires and instruments for measuring team effectiveness
~
~
1 i
We, the HWRP, OEC, the Massachusetts Office of Safe Waste Management, and the AQP believe that by marshalling
I confemces on group dynamics, statistical process corttrcl, leadership and computersystew.
$695 b " b e r rate), $625 (member rate) - Indudes three days of training, lunches, and resource materialsc Location: Holiday Inn Mart Phqa, 350 North Orleans Street, Chicago, IIIinois 60654. The special AQP group rate is $95 per single/double, per night.
For registration information, contact: AQP Education Department
801-B W. 8th Street Cincinnati, OH 45203
I i ---- I I (513) 381-1959
in-plant resources, through quality circle and project team stewardship, state programs and participating companies can realize unprecedented redudions in waste generation.
~
~
__
Tonight we are calling upon companies to meet a most difficult challenge. We are calling upon the Rhode Island business community to help Rhode Island become a national leader in waste reduction.
Teamwork and recognifion -We are requesting that company management make a serious commitment to waste reduction and commission quality circles, project teams, committees or organized employee groups to work on selected hazardous waste reduction projects. It is projected that the active &p&ies 01 core group of industrial leaders will demonstrate successful waste reduction projects, and document each achieve- vent in terms of dollar savings, volume and toxicity reductions, improve-ments in worker health and safety and so on, and we the OEC, HWAP and AOP will recognize, publicize and formally award the most outstanding contributions to the waste reduction field.
Some topic areas covered include: Jndividual Behavior Assessment Self-Assessment: Understanding Your Style Working with and Understanding Other People Coaching, Mentoring, and Intervention Techniques Conflict Resolution
.-
?@krformance Teams, Dedsion Making Teams, koblem-Solving Teams Linking Teams for Oqpnizadonal Harmony and Success Designing Implementing, and Evaluating involvement Strategies
tionalAssessM
- - . - - - - It" 0, W m m Jo", JR. ~ - - - _ _ ~ ~
Ves johnson is a quality &des coordinator for the Burroughs Wellcome Com- my, a major research-based phaxmaceutical manufacturer. -Mr. Johnson erva on the materials review committee of the AQP and is the vice president
- -~ -~
Journal tor Quality and Panicipalion September 1989
I 1
000'00~ cm4 ? 8
. .
.- . , I . " " -..-
.^
WOW can the H WRP help n y firm. 3 /f Thc tcchnical assistancc propam of Lhc Officc of Enviroii-
mcnul Coordination has numcrous rcsourccs avulablc to firms frw, coilfidcntial rcsourcc individuals, firms am1 govcm- mcnt aqcncics sccking tccb AI i~formatron rcyarding h;imci
that wish to establish employec ~ m i s , acccss rcfcrcnccs, rcqucst in-plant waste reduction opportunity assmsmcnls, or oblain a frcc consultation.
In coopcntion with thc Association for QwJiIy and Par- ticipation, HWRP will sponsor hands-on worwlops to enablc busincsscs to idcntify problem arms. collect and analyzc &fa, detcrmine root causes, select corrective action, factor in costs, and implcmcnt solutions. These are central componcnls nuiessary to thc success of employee involvement m s .
The Hazardous Waste Reduction Information Center is a
ous wiste reduction. The c iter h3s computcriLed as well as hard copy resources availat :. p ~ ~ e d usin& hc toil crec I - K)
ation requests can bc RI hotlinc (R.I. only).
In the futurc, companic will bc able to acccss a computer- izcd data bast or cmbark on self-audit using a wastc rcduc- Lion advisory systcm devclopcd in Illitlois. Under the g u i d a n c r of Eugene Pepper, Senior Environmcntal Planncr, Rhode - .Island is one of three stales lo ficld test this computerized self- auditing tool. An extensive library is ciuTcntly king devel- oDed for use by individuais and team members;
Hazardous Waste Reduction Library will be reviewing litmature which
your feel yo” fmd
program development,
es information to formulate a plan, a&j guides your business through the “how to” of identifying and eliminat- ing waste. Assessment forms are provided.at the end of the manual to
lib- With Case Studies and dCkS that may be of interest to you. Pf&e feel free to contact us for specifii information
don’t have, you can‘ be certain ihat we ,
will be to provide a listing of significant manuals, bboks, and articles which are currently in stock in avail revigw.
llseful in
BOOK REVIEW eed regarding wage minimiaa-..;
desci’ption Of ~ O C - nu U.S. Environmental uce waste. These de-
ox. d that prioritize among waste streams and to
want something that we
scriptions ate subsequently used to
perfom economic fwibijity analysis on those wastes.
Copies of the manual are available,
The “I mmm the ’ h e Hgardous Waste Reducti-gam.
WWSSW u g s e m b l dm - now wh? one this sniaebook
you can do is follow assist fms in
ioc@ing mn- waste free ofc&ge while &e apply lasts, from
im of commitment from the top ,
ri il’bie f’or inb hazardous waste redvflion!
state are also con- sidcrcd.
There arc two catcgorics of grants rvaihblc: Rcscarch and construction grants. In Lhc construction grant program, grant mounts vary according lo UIC pmssing stcp for which application is madc: Stcp 1: Fcasibil~ry studics
ORtinnz r * ~ ~ v s l p f t p t Pnrtn 3
-2: Projectdesign
Robert L. Bendirk, Jr., Director Victor A. Bell, Chief .
A qmerly ncwsleltcr of thc Officc of Environmental Coordination’s Hazardous Wute Reduction Program. For information cdl(4Ol) 277-3454 or ilrc 1 - 8 0 CLEAN RI hollinc (R1 only). Editor: Cynthia Levcsquc. Dcsign: Fnn Segcrson. Conlribulon: Richard Enander, Donald Ncstcr, Dchmh P~nnullo. Eugcnc Pcppcr, John RicntIc;\u, Sally Sp;id.iro
*’ .:... .:. :. . . .
Options in waste management - from our desk to yours Welcome to the first edition of our newsletter published Island’s firms to reach a mutual goal - reduction of hmardous
waste. Each edition will publish the lalcst information on waste reduction technologies, keeping you informed of I4WRF”s future p h s and notifying you as we expand the availability of ourresources. A regular feature will repon employee achicvemcnts which have led to reduced waste gcn- cdons. By showcasing your successful waste reduction
by the Hazardous Waste Reduction P r o p of DEMs Office of Environmental Coordination. The newsletter will encourage a hee exchange of ideas and promote the positive value of source reduction.
The problem facing us is serious. In 1987, more than 27,000 tons of state and federally renuhted hazardous waste was generated in Rhede Island, not i&uding air and water emissions or household hazardous waste. Together. we can make a difference, reduce liability, maintain company good- will. incnase our ability to compete and be a major force in improving the Rhode Island environment.
This newsletter will open up lines of commication between industry and government and among Rhode
efforts, and enabling you to assess the benefits to comparable industries, we hop to inspire the Rhode Island business community to make a strong commitment to waste reduction.
Options is your newsletter! We need your input, success stories, and advice for future columns. To submit articles or suggestions, please contact the Hazardous Waste Reduction Program at 277-3434.
Waste reductipn helps industry. ..and the environment Using a team approach to reduchg hazardous waste was
tlre theme of a June dinner meeting attended by mode Island businbs3 and industry leaders. They were introduced to a new waste reduction initiative sponsored by the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management’s Office of Environmental Coordination, the Hazardous Waste Reduc- tion Rogram, and the Rhode Island Chapter of the Associa- son For Quality and Participation.
The purpose of the effort is to help Rhode Islarid busi- ncsw reduce hazardous waste through employee involve- ment By mobilizing in-plant resources to addrefs the output of hazardous waste, busincsses can expect to in.: r a s e com- pany profitability and competitiveness, while drcrcsing corporate as well as personal liability. Keyno% ,;.wker Robert L Bendick, Jr.,.DEM Director, said, ‘Riwe Island is the rust sfate to take a team approach in helping, !winesses to reduce hazardous waste through employee invn.v 1 r nient - a unique strategy certain to result in a signiiicu Iwiclion in hazardous wasic gcncration and to improvc our c~.:!ily of lifc.”
DEM’s Office of Environmental COordlnaimn, A* was dcvclopcd ;fs the nation shills iis priorities t o w t ~ * ~ T -ko!liition prcveiition. Historically, povcmmcnt and mh.:- $ 1 r h v c worked to adhiwc higher Icvcls of cnvironnitr~’ * S I xccuon ihrough implcmc.ntaiion of polluuorl control m:I,f ~ I ~ * S Siiicc 1984. howcvcr. with th,: p;i~s.~iy of ihc
The Hirzrtrdow Wastc Reduction Program t r.im from
I C ’ , l l l l l l l l l , ’ r j ( ’ ” I’!.!C 1)
BCET= Best Available Cost Etfective Technology
l e * 1 %
lnlo BCET NBC Permits
BAT= Bes! Avaihble r Technology
URI TECHNOLOGY
PROCESS ANALYSIS
DEVELOPMENT RULE
MODELS DEMOS
I -
t URI
CENTER FOR
POLLUTION PREVENTION
I
I INDUSI f 3IAl MATERiALs WAI E[{
SUPPLY I ' IA tJT I w b-
w 7 POLLUTION, At L TYPICAL
INDUSTRIAL PLANT COMMERCIAL MLDIA WAS1 E ---* @ e g AIriWdter PROCESSES Poilu tion
o l l P<XLUTW)N PR€V. *(sf'€ 7 W " G PROCESSES.
SpEciAc PROCESS PROBLEW. RhT
COMMERCIAL/ lNDUSTRt AL
..' e g Sludg~
TO SEWER IN NCE WlNBC FACILII IE S
SEWER SYSTEM COLLECTION
= NUC SAM6.I E S
= lJS€R S A k W F S
NBC SECONOAHY A1 LEAST (31 A N N U A L
STANDARDS SLUDGE.
FACILITY
I
A 1
SLUDGE. TREATMENT
FACILITY Ill@ I DISCHARGE
TO BAY
2 =SI I JIXI AtJAlYSI S
l O l I / Y l 1 0 / 1 / 9 1 7 1 1 1 9 2 I I I
I O , I l U
I
___-
PROGRAM ~MPLEMEN'TATIONIEVALUATION
I
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT r E sia bl ish Poliut ion Prevent ion Off ice H i r e Project Staff
I -
PROJECT EU3GET
PERSONNEL SALAFlY
Asst . Director of Policy, Plannmg 3 Reguaticn (546 of Projec:)
Senior Engineer ( 7 CCSb of Propc:)
(590/0 of Prolea) Engineering Technician
Word Processing Typist (10% of Project)
Public Relations Specialist (10% of Project)
2 Ind. Wastewater Control Tech. (10% of Project)
Enforcement Coordinator (1 0% of Project)
Lab Technician (30% of Project)
URI Chemical Engineer (50% of Project)
URI Chemical Engineer (10% of Projoct)
Graduate Student (1 00% of Project)
Chief, O f f l o of EnvlcanmenW Coordinatlon (20% of ProJoct)
6
$ 1 0.530
$ 120.000
530,300
$6.000
$6,000
$18,000
$9,000
$18,000
$75.000
$1 8,000
$81.900
30,000
intern Total Salrrloo
$7,200 $97,500 53Q2.100 $399,600 $30,000
PROJECT BUDGET
A s s t . 9irec:v of Policy. Plannmg 8 Fiegutarton ( 5 % o f Project)
Senlor Engrneer (1 0096 of Propc:)
Word Processing Typist (IOYO of Project)
Public Relations Specialist (5% of Project)
$36,000
$1.800
$1,800
2 Ind. Wastewafer Control' Tech, (10Y0 of Project)
$5.400
Enforcement Coordinator (10% of Project)
- . . Lab Tech. -: ' (30% of Project)
URI Chemical Engineer (50% of Project)
URI Ch'emical Engineer (10% of Project)
Graduate Student (100% of Project)
-L
62,700
55,400
522,500
$5,400
$24,570
$9,000 Chiof. Offke of Environmena Coordinrtlon (20% of Project)
totrl Fringo $29,250
.it-.
588,470 $1 77,720 $9,000
. .
P R 3 J E C f B U O C R
TRAVEL
Compurer Equpment 96.000
2 ea. desks. chairs 8 files $7.500
Total Equlpment S6.GCO $7,500 $0 $1,500
- c n ) l E R
Software Development $29.000
Printing $1 0,000
Outside -Training $3.000
Indirect Costs
Offico Supplies $1.413
Total Other $1,413
TOTAL ~~ ~ --
~ ~ - -
527.~07
$69.807 $71,220 $0 *
S 131,643 5468,357 $600,000 $39,000
l-
~Wloyed with the Norragmstt Bay ccmnission since its c r e a t i a
in I k e m b r 1980.
.
I .
bource rcducrion x7? io encoursgc commu:iic a r i o n a m o n g inlcrcsre? J n j J f f c . L r 2 d p a r r i e s .
Governors ^Award - Devclopcd i n 1931, rhc Govcmor's Award for Exccllence i n Pollation Prevention has been dcvelopcd to recognize outst~nding contributors 3 r innovdti)rs i n pollution prevention.
On-site Asscssmenis - Initiated in September i989, the HU'RP providcs on site : cchn ica l assistance LO industrics.
.4 Hszsrdous Waste Reduction Tcchnic3t Assist3nce Directory Uas dcvcloped for :hc j e w e l r y industry .
A HWRP computerized information center is being developed for abstracts of l ibrav data snd results of the assessments for case study development. . . S;niversitv of Rhode Island tURU -
In April 1991, L'RI's Chemical Engineering Depanment was designated by DEM as the Rhode Island Center for Pollution Prevention to provide technical assistance in reducing industrial hazardous waste and releases to all environmental media; URI currently has seven undergraduates, one graduate student and the Chairman of the Chemical Engineering Department assisting with waste reduction assessments and industry specific pollution prevention projects. These projects include product substitution, source reduction and recycling technologies.
5. IDENTIFIED MEASURES OF SUCCESS
NBC will calculate mass loadings before and after industries have implemented pollution prevention measures. The computer system would specifically be capable of monitoring reductions in five (5) of the seventeen (17) target chemicals listed in the EPA Toxics Release Inventory (TRI): cadmium, chromium, cyanide, lead, and nickel .
Funher, wastewater discharges from industrial users containing these five pollutants will be monitored throughout the grant period and compared to the TRI data. The goal of this analysis will be determining whether the actual reductions in pollution are occurnng or if the pollutants are merely being transferred from one media to another.
NBC also recommends that a data base be established to track the number of permit applications that are reviewed for for pollution prevention modifications and how many of these recommendations arc implemented. Similar data would be gathered for enforcement actions and waste audits.
6. DISSEMINATIOPI; OF PROJECT RESULTS.
Information, such as data on demonstrated source reduction technology and project results, will be disseminated through a number of channels. Information packets will be developed and distributed by NBC and other officials during site visits. NBC will also develop a bill insen to "advertise" its program. of NBC's quanerly newsletter will be devoted to source reductior, success stories and discussions of source reduction [echnological developments. NBC 31so proposes two
It is conceived that a column
7
Rhode Island Department of Envlronmental Management Telephone and TbD 401-277-6800
f OR RELEASE: January 9, 1991
CONTACT: Richard Enander, 277-3434
Fran Segerson, 277-6800 *.* ~
FOR POLLUTION PREVENTION EFFORTS
t
artment o f Environmentab Management announced today that
Miniature Casting Covoration of Cranston has been awarded a pollution prevention grant
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Miniature Casting has been working wi th
DEM's Hatardous Waste Reduction Program and the University of R h d e Island's
neering Department to reduce i t s use o f hazardous materials and generation ' q
o f waste since December o f 1989.
iature Casting leamed in late November that i t
By and For Small Business' Grant
administered by the Center for Hazardous Materials
wi l l receive $23,000 f rom EPA's
Program. The grant program is
Research at the University o f
Pittsburgh
With teckwical assistance fmm URI, the company wil l use the money to demonstrate
and evaluate the effectiveness of membrane technology on several o f i ts waste generating .
processes. Project staff w i l l also investigate t b potential for wastewater reuse, the
elimination of two types of hazardous materials used on site, and the recovery of
r ,
t recyclable f i t ; , * I
I M inia turn Casting, a 30-year-old conpar y which manufactures precision n i n i a tun? j
zinc die-casiinp, w i s one of I7 grant rccipients selected from 176
Offlce c f lnfomatlon & Educatlon, 9 H3yes Street, Providence, RI 02308
I
-2- ___
. applicants nationwide. The award letter to the Cranston f i r m said that the review
committee was 'impressed with the quality o f your proposal and eager to see your ideas
developed and implemented'
1 -I -
- _- - -I
Through the years, the f i r m has seen processes change from the original discharge of
all effluents of the diecasting process into the city sewer system to the mid-I 980's. when
a conscious effort was made to separate tubbing effluents from cooling discharge. When
the factory moved to a new location In 1988, care was taken in the constnrction and design
he; building to allow for a separate stream and collection area for each wastewater, so
could be processed accordinglyl. W i t h DEM's Hazardous Waste Reduction Program,
wi th increased social awareness and responsibility, and with the help o f the Univerrity o f
.:.
!
I I I
I
- i
--
Rhode Island, the f i r m came to realize that I ts lonpterm ~ goals __ must - -e be discharge
reduction and metals reclamation. r I -J I :
I !
ident of Miniature Casting, said 'Our purpose in applying for
the grant is to continue work that Pas k e n started in order to maximize our use o f *(I '1, - * q 1 1 pollution prevention technology. The receipt of this grant demonstrates the very best
, ;\:".',Q
that the voluntary, cooperative vesrtum between inchtry, OEM's Hazardous Waste 1 . Reduction Prcyaram and URI has to offer.'
I
rjFthout affecting t h e quality of the d i e - c a s t ?cirts, t h e z i x tcbbin5 operation was modified to recycle both wash water a n 2 r i x e water using s p i r a l wound car t r idges and an u l t r a f i l t r a t i o n necbrane. Use of mineral s p i r i t s as a cleaner was t o t a l l y e l in ine t ed . Although f l u i d discharge has not y e t b e e n needed a f t e r four m n t h s of operation, the removal of solids w i t h c a r t r i d g e f i l t e r s , ci tr ic acid, and bag f i l t e rs is t o t h i s p o i n t labor;- in tens ive and somewhat high i n f i l ter replacement c o s t s . Hydrochloric and citric acids were used for sludge s e t t l i n g and removal. Better se t t l ing was observed when HC1 was used; a film- l i k e suspension was formed with t h e citric acid. Citric acid appears t o chelate zinc into solution. Future work will i nves t iga t e 1.) other membrane technologies l i k e m i c r o f i l t r a t i o n and nanofi l t ra t ion, 2.) d i f f e ren t membrane conf igura t ions t o
, f a c i l i t a t e solids removal and eliminate any acid use, and 3.) incorporate other s o l i d s separation equipment l i k e a hydracyclone for better so l id s removal. .
I . .
.. . . * . . . , . * . . . . -,, . .
. .
. .
, . . ..,
. . . . ._
-.l : A - ?-.a 21 e Ljl-.A-uy _.._ _ _ . _ l , , c s ~ a n a n d wa te r as much zs poss ib le . pC’.*sr.ta?es m e r traditioKai Creatcent ,?.ct!icZs i n z l c d s 33 hcz t rdacs chcrr.ical use, less sludge generation, ana reduzecl Lischcrgz 3 2 w&stcwatar t c , t h e PO%;\‘. ? r e l i n i r i a r y tests w i t h membranes indicated
. pocen=i&l f o r soep/watsr recycle s n 5 z inc r e d u c t i o n in the e f f l u e i ; t f,f d i s c k e r g e was to be carried out. Long-term t e s t s would be n922ec) tz c ? e t e r z i n e sclids c o n c e n t r a t i o n behavior and t h e effect --I L b . - c ’ : l t r ? c ; n h ,__” ” _ . , _.,_ r r - - - L - - v . . r - r e s s .
._ ~
. *
Procec‘t’rs
, A f f o g r p l a n was designed and b u i l t according to t h e flow diagram on thp l a s t page.. Two tanks were used in an alternating .manner, one for recirculation of tubbing solution through 10 micron cqrtridge filters and t h e other for s e t t l i n g out solids with ac id .
, &prQximateZy every two weeks; one ta‘nk would be i s o l a t e d from the 1oop.gnd treated with aciq while the other tank would serve as the f;ubb&qg solytion -holding tank. The tank that was treated with ac id woqM then contain s e t t l e d solids. The c lear upper water layer is @mq%$@r&-ed to the membrane process tank, and the sludge scooped
fi2ter bags$for drying. For approximately two months, )IC1 was used; for the next two months, citric acid was used.
The .dug&- 4 0 micron cartridge filters were changed twice/week, and the 100 micron cartridge pref i l t er t o the membrane system was replaged approximately every three days. In order t o maintain a Y@xMng ‘ f l u i d $pH of drl, Oakfte M3 stripper was added daily to the
- Zinc tests were carried out on the water with a poxtable,zdne test k i t from Hach.
1v
9 op8raWtnb - . %
Results and Conclusion
The c l e a n e r called Oakite M3 Stripper w ; ~ ; able t o Clean all
2
and can remove much 0: t k e soap. Nost soaps wculd recpire nanofiltration for rinse water prociuction. Nevertheless, i t is i n t e n d e d to test- t h e perfornance of t h e other membrane technologies ; z i i c ro f i l t r a t ion and nanofiltrction) i n t h e tubbing ope ra t ion .
7'2s zecyclei i t z b b i ~ ~ selEtion, albeit effective i n c lean inq , i x c z z s ' 'erp 2 a r k in c o l o r 2s it r~i?s continuelfy r ec i r cu la t ed throx:,-r: t h e 1 0 nicron c z r t r i d g e filters. F i l t e r Sags 'were used a f t e r s e t t l i n g from pH-adjustzent w i t h acid. During t h e two nonth period when HC1 was used, no unusual problems occurred in t h e t u b b i n g and r ecyc l ing operations. Hach tests on t h e UF permeate
-revealed low ppm l e v e l s of z inc . However, i n order t o reduce the amount of hazardous mater ia ls used i n t h e operation, it. was decided to-experiment w i t h a non-hazardous acid like citric acid.
While preliminary results with citric acid appeared s a t i s f a c t o r y , t h e build-up of slimy suspensions and s o l i d s made it more d i f f i c u l t t o remove sludge from t h e system. The handl ing of t h e s o l i d s has become more labor-intensive and tedious. Slime build-up on top of t h e membrane module was also observed; this
;dccbmulatfon could po ten t i a l ly clog up the membrane flow channels and reduce flow rates. From the results of th8 two different a a i d s , it appears t h a t HC1 provides for better and cleaner s o l i d s separa t ion b u t is more hazardous than citric acid. It is
"r ankicipated t h a t a successful process t h a t does not involve any
Zinc tests on the UF permeate from the s f t r i c acid per iod very high solubi l ized z inc l e v e l s ( a l n w t 1000 ppm). The
h reading is a t t r ibu ted t o t h e chelat.ing ac t ion of citric acid and poss ib le interferences i n t h e test. ;sethod. Since t he -
f; . I d h a s been continuously reused f o r four. i?.mths, bu i ld up of other minerals has occurred and may interfere: r:ith t h e t e s t .
bYd is moat preferred. *
i
-
3
4
.
I
!- ~
i
I
i
1Oj.1 Tiiter 4. Al ternatin &de
Acid 1 Periodic Solids
Remoral
Acid 1 Periodic SoZids
RPmorrl
NOW'vfBER 4,199 I
.-
I: rT) m:L?.'
h the fustphase of testing, ulaafrltntion membrane techdology was used 10 geneme and iixycle Duiing-shutdown, the kompany empIoyed nanofiltration mcmb,me technology to remove ai1 solution fram 7 . the opention by discharging water and concentrating solids for ofcsite reclamation. The second phase of the pmj when nanofrlmtion membrane techndogy-was used to recycle rinsewater ahd HCl used to Solids. Fewer maintenance pmblems wen observed when HCI was used as
ater. Citric acid was also used to settle out solids in the zinc vibntory ojxration.
I
*,e. I . I
ody3lpaked to citric acid which had caused slime formation and fouling of the equipment. Occasional g of the zinc parts was observed and amr'buted to accidental overuse of the caustic cleaner.
samples from citric acid d i n g and HCI settling revealed little e same analyses indicated that neither sludge sample ,was hazardous. I
R&cht?y, b e opaation was further simplified to include the dimination of acid without aff'ecting pan 1
quality, A layout fortbe implementation of a hy&ocyIone was designed in an effort to better collect and remove solids. S ful khnology transfer has also taken place at other RI companies with
1
P." I
g/vibratory options.. ,
I !.
c \ I - I-
z5d . wo months, HCI w3s used ui:!ior;: m y szjor ?:at\lez:s.
2s ciF;c acid to lower the pH of solution from 1 I to 9. Zinc is leas: solcSle a: a p 3 of 9, and initial
results ifidicated that ciaic acid was effective in settling the zinc sludge. After a couple of months,
however, ~ slime ~~~~ ___ build-up on rhe cartridge and membrane filters m a r e d more mainienance problems.
Continued addition of citric acid, a chelator, resulted in an accumulation of citric acid in the system.
The high level of solubilized zinc (almost 1OOOppm) was attibuted to the build-upof citric acid. It is
Mwed that this accumulation was'nsponsible for the slime formation. In any case, it was
demonstrated quite well that sewer discharge could be virrually eliminated for sevcral months (0
gallons in four months vs. 300 gallOns&&y prior to the program) without afllecting the manufacturing
option. 100.250 gdons of solution could be continuously nused and the sludge shipped off site to
a reclamation facility. This first phase of the test program has pmvidedmsults that demonstrate that
the p a s can operate continuously for at least four months with no sewer discharge. Nevertheless,
it is believed that further impmemenu can be made to 1.) inmast the cycle time of the "closed-loop"
opention by using another acid and 2.) minimize maintenance by incorporating more efftcient solids
removal techniques such as a hydrocyIone.
'
* .
-
3 "
._ .
. .
c. schcme usx i in the frst phase were again sed iq &?is sec0r.d phase (see Prqpss kprt G i ) , I V.YI
(where ciric acid was used) and the second phase (where HCI was used) were andpzed far meul
in the membrane pemeate were measured with a Htch zicc tes: EL
In the last month (October, 91). acid use was eliminated altogether. A hydrocylone was
ricers. A layout was designed to incorpora!e the hyifrx),clone into the
h
4% Cczndtlsipn
Since the pores of the nanofiter %re s d e r than those of the duafiI ter, cleaner permeate was v
anticipated for nnscwater. In fact, during shutdown when all the fluid was removed, the nanofd ter
was used to generate water that containcd murid 1 lipm of Zn, Earlier results with the daafilter
indicated Zn IeveIs around 1OOOppm h fie perme;.:': from the same solution which contained cimc
acid. Normdly, without the presence of chelator:., zinc is not very soluble in a water solution in the
. .
I
1 "
I- \
t
' much soap resuiting in pH levels higher than I I . Ojxztion modifications h3ve k n recently
impfemtnted to alleviate this problem.
Ansyses were carried out on the sludge generated from the first phase (tick acid senling) and
on ha; sludge nccntly generated using HCI. The breakdown of the different meals are shown in
Table 1. Aluminum, cadmium, copper, and lead were also analyzed since these metals exist tis minor
components in $e dnc alloys used for die-casting. The type of acid used does nor appear to
si'gnificantlychange the 8 metal breakdown. About 15% of the sludge is pure metal, the remaining
859 vibratory media and other compounds such as hydroxides. This metal sludge is recovered by the
supplier of the zinc and nfined for resale. Since the totat concentrations of lead and cadmium are low,
a TCLP analysis is not requid; the sludge is not considend to be hazardous waste. . I
-
. Recently, opttatiOn without any acid use has been demorlsmted to be acceptable and actually
ler. It had bcen origindly believed that pH-adjustment from 11 to 9 would be necessary to
ye bes; settling characteristics for easy solids removal. But since the non-hazardous cimc acid
'crcatcd more main:enurce problenis than anticipated, it was decided to eliminate acid use altogether.
-
. \
Recently, a hycirocytone was obtained to more efficiently remove solids from the opmtion. A
flow scheme can be seen in Figure 2 Work has already been staned to pipe this solids separator inio
the present operation. Soli& removal efficiency will be smdied as well as the impact of reduced use of
carnidge filters.
W l c a feasiblt, cost.effcctivepnxess to ncycle vibratory-solution and recover metal has been - already demonstrated, further improvements can be made to reduce operating costs and inkease :he
cycle time of the rrcyCted fluid As a nsuh of this ongoing study, several other Rhodc Island
companies have alrtady begull to implement similar process schemes to recycle tubbing and vibratoj
solutions. Succcssfd technology tnrnsfer has already taken place. As improvements are made at
Miniature Casting, it is anticipated that the same modifications I \ can be easily applitd, if necessary, to
these other companies.
5
15600 mskg
Lead 85
135000
44
1 4 4 m
. . I - , . ,
. \ ,. .
C. , . , - b y - I I , ... .
Fii t er
u !
I I
1 Alternating
"" i .i
Periodic Sol ids Removal
i
Recycle
Periodic S o l i d s Removal
.-
I I 1 I .
reg., improtcmcnts in cnvironmental quality, product qualit?, worker health and safety):
. -
6.) Please describe whether the specific pollution prevention measures taken are directly applicable to others in Rhode Island or in the United States (include the basis for your conclusions):
. I
. , .
3.) Describe the pollution prevention processs and the measured and demonstrable quan t i t at i , e results:
c
4.) Provide an economic analysis of your pollution prevention effotts (include management costs before implementation of the source reduction effort, capital investment costs, operational costs, and savings)
Acid once used to settle out zinc sludge, ha been elimiiazed f" the vibratory solution recycling opemion. The 10 mimn cartidge filters, which were once Useci to clean the vibratory solurion, have been eliminated. The recycled solution contains more solids but cleans satisfactcdy for abut t@ee weeks. The xinsing step was dso eliminated since the zinc parrs were cltmer without the rinse water. Because of these operational changes, the membrane system is u s 4 much less; befahand, the "brant system provided recycled rinsewater. The elimination of the rinsing step has reduced the permeate dtmand to pviding only make-up water fmeach thn=e week cycle, thereby lowering membrane system operation by 90%. The hydrocyclone has been installed, but conclusive nsu1ts on scparafion cf€idency have not yet been obtained due to operating pmblems.
.
e
,-. ..I ..- . . .
. . I .
cicmer L~LY UF pemea:e. Earlier resulis with UF mabrane tezhnology showed that IIF pe.msare
wzs adqutc fm rinsing. As expected, NF permeate was a h effective in rinsing the pizts. FLzoch.plr
sin$iificr;5ons in the entire operation were pursued. . .
* The same floor plan and kyout used in the earlier tests WQC used &om November, 91 to
Februuy, '92 (see Figun 1). No acid was used to settle out solids. The uqrking pH of the solution
was maintained 10-10.5; soap (Oldtc M3) was added occasionally to keep the 10.10.5 pH. Ten
mimn filter camidgs once used in the recirctjlation foop, wen eliminated from the process (sec
filter bags, and shipped back to thc zinc mpplier with 0therm.p metaI from the dit-cast opention.
From November, 91, the rinsing step was eliminated. The membrane system was used only
to generate make-up water for the CIofosed-loop operation. .Zv& three wecks, when the sludge was
removed, the spent solution was dumped into the membrane process tank and new solution made u?
with mcmbranc permtsititc.
Because daic add, a non-hazzdous chemical, had w!d excess slim2 build-up on the
quipment, XC1, a hazardous chemical, was used instead. In order to sinplify thr: cpz5on further
and minimize worker exposure to hazardous materials, it was decided to determine whether or not
acid was truly needed for the process. No acid has been wed since Nov., '91, and the solution can
still be recycled without any major difficulties. Even though mort solids stay in suspension longer,
the end product quaiity is not adversely affected. The sludge is eventually =moved, but longer
senling times are required A sludge analysis is presently being carried out at a laboratory.
6 - 1
.
..
PH-adjustment is pertonned only with occasional addition of the caustic soap to maintain the
pH at 10-10.5. As parts an cleaned, the soap is consumed and the pH drops. Nevertheless, soap
+- I .
use has dropped from 30 gal&nonth to around 4 gallow'month. Fnsh tap water must also be added
periodically to make-up for evaporation.
It was obsesved that ,the solution would clean without filaticm for approxhately three
section). Even though mort solids arc suspended in scda don, the work is
osc thret we&. As a resuIt, maintenance has becn fm
three week cycIe timc for sludge mioval and other nlrrintenancc.
3
:!?~-xkcsS of the men! p r f s without rinsing. In fact, the pms are clcxr~r ti thoui the nnse step!
.The pzrts hzve to be immdiately'hot-air dried; the parts will szain if not dried immediately. The
m e m 3 a x svs:em, once cscd to generate rinse water, is used less often. At the er,d of the h e
wwk cycle, the solution loses cleaning effectiveness 2nd is then pmcessd through the m e m h e
sysrca. " h e aembrane permeate is now used only as make-up water for th vibrcctory soIurion
which lasts for another three weeks. Before, when rinsing was carried out, 20-30 gallons per day of
membrane permeate w m required. With the rinsing step eliminated, abut 59 gallons per month of
" h u e permeate (2-3 gaVday) an needed for make-up, a 90% reduction in the machhe use.
The reason why no rinsing is required has not yet been determined. While the parts had been
clean before, thm wen fewerrejmcd lots &thou the rinsing step. The cleaner membrane
permeate, when used as a rinsing agent, appeared tofeave %on residue on the pats. One
hypothesis is that the clean W a t e r l ~ n s solid fines that have coated the vibratory mcdia and
redeposits these fines onto the bnc parts. There my be mnger adhesion of these particks to the
ceramic and plastic stone than to the metat, As soon as cleaner Mse water is introduced, the
adhesion i s lost and the mail bccrnaes dirty.
In February, 92, the hydrocycIone was piped into the system as Seen in Figure 2. Tile purpose of using the hydrocyclone is to coIlect and concentrate the sdxk mon conveniently than in
the present opcration where manual labor is r e q u i d ro remove the sel?ied sludge. There has Seen
. \
. .
some difficulty in achieving the d e w hydraulic operating parameten. Back pressm of at Icast 20
~. .
S h e the Iast progcss report (1 1/91), several more companies have aken advmngc of the
~ s u l t s and success obtained at Min. Casdng. A recent miclc in the Business section of tFe
Providence Jmnal (local newspaper) described the project ar,d the a d v m q e s of wo,king,with the
?J D q ~ ~ e m i of Environmenral Management's R w d o u s H'zs:;: R&:z5or, -%+F-ZI ~ q ; ! L!C LXl Chemical Engineering Ikpmment As a resu!: of this article, 20-3 coqmies h ~ e alzady &T C Y tl
kquircd to DEM and Miniam Casting about possi ble technology m s f k
.
The'rejection rate of the find product has dencased since the recycling project began. Before - began, when all the process water came f " the tap Water supply and all the us& -
SaIutibn dischargcd,'more parts failed in-house quality assurance res&. Therefore, more savings in
production has d
1 1.
5
loop Filter
.
. .
Periedic So l ids Periodic Solids %"Val Removol ,
* - , _.I.., . ... . .
."" .
LA I