Industrial Waste Reduction Programs
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
- ABSTRACT This report presents the results of Jacobs Engineering Group’s waste audit study of the thermal metal working industry, The goal of this study was to identify waste reduction techniques available to the industry. The report focuses on source reduction, recycling, and treatment methods for j businesses performing thermal metal working with specific focus on casting and heat treating. The processes examined include melting, mold and core making, shakeout, Land case hardening by means of thermal and/or chemical methods. Support operations which may be found at thermal metal working businesses, but have been explored in previous studies, include machining operations, metal parts cleaning and stripping, metal surface treatment and plating, and paint application. Three thermal metal working plants were surveyed as part of the project: a ferrous metal foundry, a heat treating plant and a non-ferrous foundry. Waste reduction and treatment techniques were identified and analyzed based on the information collected during these surveys, as well as from detailed literature review and discussions with industry representatives, The results include a waste reduction assessment format for generators to perform their own waste reduction opportunities assessments. Source reduction techniques, recycling and resource recovery techniques appear to offer high promise of minimizing waste generation. A waste reduction index was developed for use by foundries to measure waste reduction effectiveness. The index compensates for variation in production activity. Examples are developed here for brass foundry sand waste, iron foundry sand waste, and iron foundry baghouse waste. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. would like to acknowledge the efforts of Mr. Benjamin Fries, Mr. Bal Lee, and Mr. Eric Workman of the Alternative Technology Division and various individuals at the cooperating thermal metal working firms for their assistance in this study. The Jacobs project manager for this study was Dr. Michael Meltzer. The principal author and investigator was Dr. Maria Zdunkiewicz. Mr. Carl Fromm and Mr. Michael Callahan provided quality assurance and control. This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract No. 88-TO326by Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. pursuant to a contract between Jacobs and the Department of Health Services. Work for this Final Report was completed as of December 1990. ii DISCLAIMER The statements and conclusions of this report are those of the Contractor and not necessarily those of the State of California. The mention of commercial products, their source, or their use in connection with material reported herein is not to be construed as either an actual or implied endorsement of such products. CONTRACTOR’S DISCLAIMER This report was prepared by Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. as an account of work performed for The State of California DeDartment of Health Services (client). Neither Jacobs Engineering Group Inc., nor any persons acting on its behalf; (a) makes any warranty or representation, expressed or implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of the information contained in this report, or that the use of any information, cost estimate apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report may not infringe privately owned rights; or (b) assumes any liabilities with respect to the use of, or damage resulting from the use of, any information, cost estimate, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report, including consequential or other indirect or contingent liabilities whether due to the negligence of Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. or otherwise. Any person, entity or third party using this report or its contents or relying thereon does so at its own risk and does hereby release, defend and indemnify Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. from and against any liability, cost or expense such person, entity or third party may incur as a result of said use, or reliance. REGULATORY CAVEAT All text pertaining to law and regulations contained within this report are provided for general information only. That information is not reliable for use as a legal reference. The generator must contact the appropriate legal sources and regulatory authorities for up-to-date regulatory requirements, and their interpretation and implementation. CONTRACTS Contract No. 88-TO326 provided $27,000 to prepare this report. No subcontractors were involved in its preparation. iii CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii DISCLAIMER iii CONTRACTOR’S DISC LA1 MER iii REGULATORY CAVEAT iii C0 NTRACTS iii 1.O SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 1-1 1.1 Regulatory Aspects 1-1 1.2 Waste Streams and Reduction Measures 1-2 1.3 Waste Reduction Eccnomics 1-2 1.4 Waste Reduction Assessment Format 1-2 1.5 Waste Reduction Index 1-6 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 2-1 2.1 Metal Casting 2-1 2.2 Heat Treating 2-1 2.3 Waste Reduction Alternatives Assessment A - Non-Ferrous Foundry 2-2 2.4 Waste Reduction Alternatives Assessment B - Heating Treating Plant 2-2 2.5 Waste Reduction Alternatives Assessment C - Ductile and Gray Iron Foundry 2-3 2.6 Regulations 2-3 2.7 Advancing Technology 2-3 3.0 INTRODUCTION 3-1 3.1 Study Purpose 3-1 3.2 Industry Overview 3-1 3.3 Project Approach 3-1 3.4 Focus 3-2 3.5 Forging, Tempering, and Rolling 3-2 4.0 WASTE REDUCTION PROGRAMS 4-1 4.1 Environmental Benefits 4-1 4.2 Program Requirement 4-1 4.3 The Waste Minimization Opportunity Assessment 4-2 5.0 REGULATORY ASPECTS 5-1 5.1 Regulatory Caveat 5-1 5.2 Laws, Regulations and Ordinances 5-1 5.2.1 Land Disposal Restrictions (Existing and Proposed) 5-1 5.2.1.1 Treatment Standards for Foundry Sand 5-2 5.2.1.2 Treatment Standards for Solid Wastes with Metals 5-3 5.2.1.3 Proposed Treatment Standards for Baghouse Waste and Gas Scrubber Waste 5-6 iv C 0N T ENTS (continued) Page 5.2.2 Waste Storage 5-6 5.2.3 Waste Transport 5-7 5.2.4 Waste Reduction 5-7 6.0 WASTE REDUCTION AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR THE METAL CASTING INDUSTRY 6-1 6.1 Description of Hazardous Waste Generation Processes 6-1 6.2 Input Materials and Hazardous Waste Characterization 6-6 6.2.1 Input Material Characterization 6-6 6.2.1.1 Mold and Core Materials 6-6 6.2.1.2 Melting Materials (Furnace Charge) 6-8 6.2.1.3 Blast Cleaning Materials 6-9 6.2.1.4 Cleaning Solutions ar;d Coating Materials 6-9 6.2.1.5 Oils 6-9 6.2.2 Hazardous Waste Characterization 6-9 6.2.2.1 Spent Foundry Sand 6-1 1 6.2.2.2 Cleaning Room Wastes 6-1 3 6.2.2.3 Dust Collector and Scrubber Wastes 6-1 3 6.2.2.4 Slag Wastes 6-1 3 6.2.2.5 Miscellaneous Wastes 6-1 4 6.3 Waste Reduction and Treatment Options for Baghouse Dust and Scrubber Wastes 6-1 4 6.3.1 Source Reduction 6-1 4 6.3.1.1 Alter Raw Materials 6-1 4 6.3.1.2 Install Induction Furnace 6-1 4 6.3.2 Recycling 6-1 4 6.3.2.1 Recycle to the Original Process 6-1 5 6.3.2.2 Recycle Outside of the Original Production Process 6-1 5 6.3.2.3 Recycle to Cement Manufacturer 6-1 7 6.3.3 Treatment 6-1 7 6.3.3.1 Cement-Based Chemical Stabilization 6-1 7 6.3.3.2 LimelPouolan-Based Chemical Stabilization 6-1 8 6.3.3.3 Chemical Reduction 6-1 8 6.3.3.4 Solubility Control 6-1 8 6.3.3.5 Polysilicate Treatment at the Cupola Furnace Stack 6-1 8 6.3.3.6 Sulphating Process for Zinc in EAF Dust 6-1 8 6.3.3.7 Thermoplastic Binding 6-1 9 6.3.3.8 Encapsulation 6-1 9 6.4 Waste Reduction and Treatment Options for Hazardous Slags 6-19 6.4.1 Source Reduction 6-1 9 6.4.1.1 Alter Feed Stock 6-1 9 6.4.1.2 Alter Desulfurization Agent 6-19 6.4.1.3 Alter Product Requirements 6-20 6.4.1.4 Improve Process Control 6-20 6.4.2 Recycling 6-20 6.4.2.1 Recycle to Process 6-20 6.4.2.2 Recycle to Other Process tines 6-20 6.4.3 Treatment 6-21 CONTENTS (continued) Page 6.4.3.1 Mixing of Treated Desulfurization Slag with Furnace Dust 6-21 6.4.3.2 Improved Treatment Methods 6-21 6.5 Waste Reduction and Treatment Options for Spent Casting Saw; 6-22 6.5.1 Source Reduction 6-22 6.5.1.1 Material Substitution 6-22 6.5.1.2 Waste Segregation 6-22 6.5.2 Recycling 6-23 6.5.2.1 Screening and Separation of Metal from Sand 6-23 6.5.2.2 The PMET Process - Metal and Sand Reclamation 6-24 6.5.2.3 Sand Reclamation by Wet Washing/Scrubbing 6-24 6.5.2.4 Sand Reclamation by Dry Scrubbing/Attrition 6-26 6.5.2.5 Thermal Reclamation of Sand 6-26 6.5.2.6 Reuse of Detoxified/lmmobilized Sand as Ingot Molds 6-27 6.5.2.7 Use of Sands as a Construction Material 6-28 6.5.3 Treatment of Sand 6-28 6.5.3.1 Sodium Silicate/Lime Immobilization (Furness Process) 6-28 6.5.3.2 Sodium SilicatelPoualime or Portland Cement Immobilization (Trezek Process) 6-29 7.0 WASTE REDUCTION AND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR HEAT TREATING INDUSTRY 7-1 7.1 Description of Hazardous Waste Generation Processes 7-1 7.1.1 Furnace Operation 7-1 7.1.1.1 Heat Treating Other Than Case Hardening 7-1 7.1.1.2 Case Hardening 7-2 7.1.2 Quenching 7-3 7.1.3 Descaling 7-3 7.1.4 Parts Cleaning and Surface Coating 7-3 7.2 Hazardous Waste Characterization 7-4 7.2.1 Case Hardening Baths and Salt Pots 7-4 7.2.2 Quenching Wastes 7-8 7.2.3 Parts Cleanir- and Coating 7-9 7.3 Waste Reduction ana ,-ieatmentOptions for Case Hardening Baths and Salt Pots 7-9 7.3.1 Source Reduction 7-9 7.3.1.1 Alter Raw Materials (Bath Composition) 7-9 7.3.1.2 Clean All Work Placed in the Bath 7-10 7.3.1.3 Use Graphite Cover on the Surface of a Cyanide Bath 7-10 7.3.1.4 Dry Work Completely Prior to Liquid Case Hardening (Safety) 7-10 7.3.1.5 Remove Impurities (Sludges) 7-10 7.3.1.6 Minimize Dragout 7-10 7.3.1.7 Replace Pot Lining 7-1 1 vi CO N TE NTS (continued) Page 7.3.2 Treatment 7-1 1 7.3.2.1 Chemical Treatment 7-1 1 7.3.2.2 Electrochemical