Environmental Geochemistry and Health 1994 16(3/4) page 159

The feasibility of processing lead-based paint abatement wastes through primary and secondary lead smelters Robert D. Putnam 1., Daniel L. Vornberg 2 and Rob Putnam 1 1putnam Environmental Services, Inc., P.O. Box 12763, 2525 Meridian Parkway, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2763, USA 2The Doe Run Company, 881 Main, Herculaneum, MO 63048, USA


This study was undertaken to determine the feasibility of processing soil and lead-based paint (LBP) abatement waste through primary and secondary lead smelting facilities. The main objectives were to determine the compatibility of soil and LBP abatement waste with lead smelting circuits; the costs associated with transporting and processing the abatement waste through a smelter; and a review of major environmental laws or regulations which may impact the lead smelting industry's ability to carry out this process. While not all categories of LBP wastes are suited for reclamation through lead smelters, sufficient classes are to make the effort worthwhile. Specifically, lead paint chips, dusts, heatgun sludge, soils and certain blasting abrasives appear metallurgically compatible with the lead smelting circuits. Additionally, there do not appear to be any current regulatory statutes that forbid the process from being carried out, so long as certain permit modifications are obtained. Finally, the estimated smelting costs seem to compare favourably with current treatment and disposal fees at approved landfills. However, despite the promise of these initial findings, a great deal of work remains to be done if the concept of processing lead paint wastes through lead smelters for reclamation is to become a reality.


Increasingly, lead paint is being recognised as a primary source of lead exposure to young children. As a result, considerable attention and resources are being brought to focus on abating lead-based paint (LBP) hazards. One obvious by-product of a large-scale national LBP abatement effort will be the generation of considerable quantities of abatement waste requiring disposal. Yet, there is growing concern that the nature and extent of this LBP abatement waste stream may overburden the rapidly diminishing land disposal resources in the USA. Moreover, a portion of this waste will likely be deemed hazardous under current hazardous waste regulations necessitating special handling and disposal. In an effort to explore alternative waste management options, this study was commissioned to determine the feasibility of processing soil and LBP a b a t e m e n t waste through lead smelting facilities in the United States.

*To whom correspondence should be addressed.

For many years, lead was used extensively in paint as a pigment, drier, and loss-of-dry agent. While the federal government, for abatement purposes, defines LBP as any paint with a lead content of 1.0 mg cm -2 or 0.5% lead by weight; certain paints contain concentrations of lead in excess of 40%. These higher concentrations of lead in paint resulted from the use of white lead pigments which were used extensively in interior and exterior residential paints up until the early 1940s when they were phased out in favour of titanium dioxide pigments. Residential paints with very high levels of lead >30% by weight) had mostly disappeared from the market by the early 1950s. Nevertheless, other types of lead pigments remained in use (though to a much smaller degree and at lower concentrations of lead) until their prohibition through the Lead Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (LPPPA) in 1978. Lead driers and loss-of-dry agents, although they make up a relatively small percentage of the paint formulation when compared to pigments, were widely used (primarily in oil-based paints) also until their prohibition in 1978 as a result of the LPPPA.


Processing lead-based paint abatement wastes

The principal effort in this study consists of determining the compatibility of the LBP abatement waste components with the material handling system and metallurgical processes at lead smelting facilities. An abundance of relevant technical information exists accurately to characterise the lead smelting industry, however, the same cannot be said of the LBP abatement (deleading) industry. The nation's deleading programme is in its infancy and many uncertainties remain concerning the nature and volume of the LBP abatement waste stream. The Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Interim Guidelines is still somewhat of a "working document" and revisions can probably be expected as more information is collected from LBP abatement projects. Methodology There is s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a t i o n available to characterise the types of wastes generated during a lead paint abatement project, though the waste will vary based on the abatement method selected. These categories of waste serve as the basis for our compatibility projections. HUD interim guidelines for lead-based paint abatement allow a number of different abatement techniques. The abatement techniques currently a c c e p t a b l e u n d e r H U D g u i d e l i n e s are: e n c a p s u l a t i o n / e n c l o s u r e , on-site and off-site chemical removers, flameless heat blower gun removers, contained water blasting, abrasive vacuum blasting, abrasive sanding (with HEPA filtered vacuum), hand scraping and removal and replacement. Certain wastes are common to all abatement techniques, such as protective equipment worn by workers, though other wastes are specific to a particular technique or circumstances, such as blasting abrasives or chemical stripper solvents. Each different abatement technique will result in a waste stream of different composition and volume. The general categories of waste likely to be generated under the range of abatement techniques currently allowed by HUD are as follows:

Paint chips and dust Paint chips result from paint that is in poor condition and peeling from the substrate, or abatement techniques such as hand scraping. Of all the different abatement wastes, paint chips will likely represent the highest percentage of lead-to-volume-of-waste and thus, are among the m o s t d e s i r a b l e o f the waste c a t e g o r i e s for processing through a smelter. Lead laden dust will result from paint "chalking", a form of paint deterioration, or as a by-product of many of the other abatement methods. General construction materials General construction materials include plaster and wallboard, exterior siding, windows and doors, both wooden and metal, cabinets, fireplace mantels, shelves and all types of trim pieces. Additionally,

there are floor coverings such as carpet and metal items such as radiators and air/heat vents, and any number of other architectural items that may have been covered with LBP. Under current HUD guidelines, general construction materials are likely to represent the largest fraction of the LBP abatement waste stream.

Caustic solvent sludge There are a number of commercially available chemical strippers designed to remove paint from a substrate. Generally the process involves applying a coat of gel-like material over the painted surfaces, allowing time to set, and then removing the film and adhered paint with a special cloth, vacuum, or wiping or scraping tool. Most require that the surface where the paint was removed be washed with a neutraliser to remove any residue. This chemical stripping process generally results in a mixed sludge of chemical stripper and paint, which can be p l a c e d into drums or other suitable containers. There is also the wastewater from the neutralising wash. Heatgun sludge Heatgun sludges result from devices which use a heating source to "blister" the LBP so that it can be wiped or scraped from the substrate. The resulting waste material is predominantly paint and similar in chemical composition to paint chips. This process usually requires that the surface where the paint was removed be wiped down with a substance such as tri-sodium phosphate and water to remove any paint residues. Soils The need to abate soils around the foundation of the structure could arise if the exterior LBP paint had chalked, peeled or flaked away and deposited near the base of the foundation in sufficiently high concentrations; or the containment measures used during the abatement project were not adequate and soil became contaminated with lead. Abrasive blasting materials Abrasive blasting is an abatement method more common to steel structures such as water towers and bridges, although it is a l l o w e d u n d e r H U D guidelines and has applications in residential LBP abatement. The technique works by blasting air or steam laden with silica or some other material such as plastic or steel beads against a painted surface. The impact loosens the paint which is then collected, along with the spent blasting abrasive, by vacuum or other containment system in a container for disposal. Wash water containing TSP With the possible exception of removal and replacement, most of the abatement techniques require that the surface from which paint was removed be wiped down with a substance such as tri-sodium phosphate and water to remove any paint residues. This liquid waste may contain lead dust and paint debris and will eventually require special

Robert D. Putnam, Daniel L. Vornberg & Rob Putnam

Ore Concentrate

Option I

Proportioning Bins

Option II

Sinter Plant

Option III _ [ LeadDrossing - ] Kettle

Blast Furnace



Drier [ (Optional)]

Reverberatory Furnace

Lead Bullion to Refinery




,~[ [

Spark Arrester Cupola/Blast Furnace








; Off Gases Discard Slag

Option IV Figure 1 Pathway through traditional primary lead smelting circuit.

Option I

,' Feed Material

handling to "de-water" or separate the solids from the liquids prior to treatment or disposal.

Battery Breaker

Miscellaneous equipment



Metallic I_e,ad Casing Chips


Lead Paste


Plastic -- Recycled


Metallic Lead


Option II

Rotary Drier

1 R~vcrberatory F~rnacr

I Slag

t Cupola Fumace

Discard Slag

Soft Bullion

Hard Bullion - ~


Figure 2 Pathway through traditional secondary lead smelting circuit.

Miscellaneous equipment is a catch-all category including sheet plastic, gloves, protective clothing such as tyvek suits, tape, mops, rags, respirator and HEPA filter cartridges, etc. Certain wastes in this category, such as sheet plastic, will probably be discarded in greater quantity than other items. The amount of waste that will be produced annually from lead-based paint abatement is not known. However, a 1988 ATSDR study estimated that 41,964,000 US housing units contain lead-based paint and, of these, 1,972,000 are in unsound condition (i.e. peeling paint, cracked plaster, etc.). A more recent HUD survey found that approximately 57,400,000 US homes contained LBP and that 13,800,000 were hazardous due to. the "non-intact" condition of that paint. Although there is no exact figure for structures in need of LBP abatement, clearly large quantities of lead c o n t a m i n a t e d wastes will be produced. Consequently, the finite annual processing capacity within the existing lead smelting industry must be taken into account. After establishing the general components of the LBP abatement waste stream, the next step is a consideration of the various metallurgical


Processing lead-based paint abatement wastes

Table 1 Compatibility of lead-based paint abatement wastes with smelter technology. Compatibility of LBP abatement materials with treatment technology Treatment technologies

LBP chips

LBP dust

Const. Caustic heatgun Matl. solvents sludge


Primary industry Secondary industry Waezl kiln Cement industry Steel-electric arc Experimental technology Flame reactor Stabilisation Leaching Feed preparation

Y Y Y ? ? Y Y Y ? N

Y Y Y ? ? Y Y Y ? N

N N N ? ? ? ? ? ? Y

Y Y Y ? ? Y Y . Y ?

Y N Y ? ? Y Y Y Y

Y Y Y ? ? Y Y Y ?

N N ? ? ? ? ? Y Y





9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9


operations available in the primary and secondary lead smelting industry. Currently there are four primary lead smelters/refiners and 22 secondary lead smelters in the USA. However, due to the locations of these facilities, smelter incineration of LBP abatement wastes is more feasible for some areas than for others. Both primary and secondary s m e l t e r s r e l y p r e d o m i n a n t l y on b l a s t and reverberatory furnaces for processing their feed material. However, the primary industry operates on ores and concentrates from mining and milling facilities, whereas the secondary industry operates on recycled materials such as scrap or spent lead acid storage batteries. There are four paths the abatement materials could follow through a traditional or primary smelter, depending upon their entry point into the circuit (see Figure 1). Option I The first option would be to pass the lead-based paint abatement wastes along the traditional pathway for ores and concentrates. This involves processing through the proportioning bins or feed preparation system for the sinter plant, allowing the raw feed materials to be blended. The blending of the feed with various fluxes is calculated to yield a good metallurgical sinter or feed for the blast furnace. Option H If the lead-based paint abatement wastes to be processed are intermittent and/or of low volume, they could be charged directly to the blast furnace along with the normal feed and coke. Option III The material could be passed through the reverberatory furnace, though it is probably not appropriate for processing soils. Reverberatory smelting of the remaining materials is possible, but requires close monitoring and control. Moisture content is also a concern if there is no drier in the feed system to the reverberatory furnace. The resulting slag chemistry is extremely important from the metallurgical point or operating parameter, since a fluid slag is essential to furnace condition, uniform operating rate and desired separation of metals and gangue material.

Abrasive Wash Misc. blasting water equip. 9 9 9 9 9 9 9


Option IV The material could be directly smelted in the cupola furnace used by most primary lead refining facilities for smelting miscellaneous slags to recover antimony and tin. The cupola is basically a miniature blast furnace and therefore capable of handling the same materials discussed above though in smaller quantities. There are two ways LBP abatement waste could be processed through the secondary smelting circuit (see Figure 2 Pathway for secondary smelting). Option I The pathway of choice would be to process the material along the normal feed path in a secondary smelter. In this option, the materials enter the f e e d s t r e a m in the f e e d s t o r a g e area, subsequently being charged into the rotary drier or kiln and into a reverberatory furnace. Option H This option is essentially the same as option four for a primary smelter in that the materials could be directly smelted in the cupola or blast furnace. As in the primary circuit the quantity of materials that could be introduced would be limited. Additionally, although not as widely used as the traditional blast or reverberatory furnace, there are a number of newer direct smelting technologies in operation outside of the USA such as the Kivcet, QSL, and Sirosmelt processes that would be capable of processing LBP abatement waste. Some of these new smelting technologies are advantageous in that they can be easily modified to meet a change in capacity and can be readily transported from one area to another. Results

D e t e r m i n i n g the compatibility of lead paint abatement wastes with lead smelting circuits is difficult without a thorough chemical characterisation of the LBP abatement waste components. However, through preliminary study, a number of materials were considered compatible with the primary and secondary smelting circuits.

Robert D. Putnam, Daniel L. Vornberg & Rob Putnam

(See Table 1 Materials compatible ) The materials deemed compatible with the traditional primary smelting circuits include: lead paint chips, lead paint dusts, heatgun sludge, soils and certain abrasive blasting materials. The same materials, with the exception of soils, were considered compatible with Smelting circuits within the secondary lead industry. There were a number of materials resulting from LBP abatement which were classified as not compatible with primary or secondary smelting circuits. Materials classified as noncompatible include: general construction materials (e.g., doors, trim, windows etc.), caustic solvents, wash water filtrate containing tri-sodium phosphate, chemical stripper neutralisers, and miscellaneous abatement equipment such as plastic sheeting and HEPA filter cartridges. The classifications were due to a perceived impact on the operation of the furnaces and the material handling problems they present. However, there are methods by which some of this material may be pretreated to render it compatible with existing primary and secondary smelting technologies. General construction debris General construction material has the potential to be generated in large volumes and the concentration of lead in relation to the total volume of material will be small. Additionally, this material is composed of irregular shaped items which could cause operating problems in semi or fully automated feed systems as well as h o u s e k e e p i n g and e n v i r o n m e n t a l problems. Separating general construction materials into categories such as wooden, steel and general debris would allow other options to be considered. For e x a m p l e ; in the case of w o o d e n materials, pretreatment such as incineration, chipping or shredding, might result in a material which could be processed through a smelter. The steel fraction could be chemically stripped b y commercial methods, shredded, and then recycled back through the steel industry or through the lead blast furnace a s a flux. The general debris may also be compatible with stabilisation or fixation technology. Caustic solvents Caustic solvents are a concern for the following reasons: (a) Effect on baghouse bags and air quality (b) Colour of acid produced (c) M o i s t u r e c o n t e n t vs. pyrometallurgical operations (d) Corrosive action on equipment Caustic solvents can be pretreated through a leaching or neutralisation process, yielding an effluent compatible to a water treatment plant and a solid containing the lead which could then be processed through a smelter. Wash water and chemical stripper neutralisers It may be possible to simply filter the wash water containing TSP (tri-sodium phosphate) and fine lead and wood dusts, to yield an effluent which is


non-hazardous and a solid compatible with the smelting circuits. This material could also be pretreated using a leaching or stabilisation process. The filtered sludge or cake could then be processed through primary or secondary circuits to recover the lead. Miscellaneous equipment Miscellaneous equipment such as sheet plastic, tyvek suits, tape and mops may pass the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure TCLP and be disposed of in a landfill. Additionally, if prepared and packaged properly and d e p e n d i n g upon economics, they may find a market as recyclables. Pretreatment of the miscellaneous materials such as shredding and/or incineration may also produce a product that could be processed through the smelting circuits. Having established that some components of the LBP abatement waste stream appear compatible with lead smelting circuits, the next step is to determine whether any environmental laws or regulations would prohibit this process from being carried out. While there are numerous federal and state regulatory requirements which directly affect the lead smelting industry, only a handful create foreseeable obstacles to this effort. At the federal level, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)will probably be the most significant hurdle to contend with. Specifically, the Burning of Hazardous Waste in Boilers and Industrial Furnaces Rule, may require smelters seeking to process LBP abatement wastes to comply with hazardous waste incinerator permitting and operating requirements. However, based on technical amendments to this rule it appears as though lead smelters may accept (without triggering applicable permit standards) certain LBP wastes. Because the exempted category is titled lead-based pigments and compounding pigment dust, it is unclear whether LBP chips and sludges would fall under this exclusion. If they do not, smelters would have to comply with the standards set forth in the final rule if they were to accept the LBP abatement waste for reclamation. If a lead-based paint abatement waste is deemed "RCRA hazardous," the RCRA provisions could impose costs or create other obstacles for lead smelters should they accept for reclamation LBP wastes. Storage and Permit Requirements would make LBP wastes incompatible with smelting facilities that are not permitted to receive hazardous leadbearing materials. Even for those smelters that can accept these materials, modifications to the permit may be required for LBP wastes. Industrial Boiler and Fumace Requirements would affect our feasibility study if any of the LBP wastes fail to be exempted from the rule. Smelters are exempt from RCRA Industrial Boiler and Furnace Requirements as long as they process only specified exempt materials. It is unclear whether or not all LBP abatement wastes fall under the "lead-based pigments and compounding pigment dust" category.


Processing lead-based paint abatement wastes

If they are not all exempt, LBP smelters would have to comply with the rule. Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) prohibit all hazardous wastes from land disposal. The smelting of lead-based materials results in three waste streams subject to LDR requirements. Lead-bearing dust is listed as a restricted waste and lead-bearing sludge and slag are other characteristic lead-bearing materials which must be tested for toxicity. Consequently, it is possible that LBP material would cause smelter sludge or slag to fail the LDR toxicity test and raise operating costs. To a lesser extent, the Clean Air Act (CAA) may be relevant to the smelting of LBP abatement wastes. The CAA regulates both criteria and hazardous air pollutants, its sections on air toxics, non-attainment areas, and permit requirements being of most specific interest for our study. Title III on Air Toxics requires that major hazardous air p o l l u t a n t s be r e d u c e d with the M a x i m u m Achievable Control Technology (MACT) and nonmajor pollutants with Generally Available Control Technologies (GACT). This is significant for LBP waste smelting because its processing may result in the emissions of new "listed pollutants". If LBP waste emissions cause the smelter to be in violation of MACT, the facility would then be required to gain Environmental Protection Agency EPA authorisation and install MACT for those pollutants. Title I on Non-attainment applies to the concentrations of lead in ambient air. Areas where lead concentrations in air exceed 1.5 gg m-3are considered to be in non-attainment with the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and are given an NAAQS deadline to achieve attainment. Smelters operating in non-attainment areas may be sharply limited in their ability to process LBP abatement materials. In addition, it has been proposed to lower the NAAQS for lead which would have a dramatic effect on facility attainment. The Clean Water Act (CWA), may also be relevant to the feasibility of LBP waste smelting. It gives the EPA authority to regulate pollutants discharged to surface or ground waters and allows them to administer the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The NPDES system requires all point source discharges of pollutants to be permitted. A smelter accepting LBP abatement waste would have to continue tocomply with or get modification of its NPDES permit. Many EPA regulations are implemented by its regional offices or are administered by state a g e n c i e s . T h e r e f o r e , the r e q u i r e m e n t s for transporting, storing, treating and/or processing LBP abatement wastes may vary by region and state. In addition to (EPA) regulations, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulates lead smelters as far as worker safety and lead exposure is concerned. If a new occupational exposure hazard should result from the smelting of LBP abatement wastes, OSHA regulations would come into play. However, nothing within the OSHA regulations is likely to prevent processing.

The remaining consideration in choosing a recycling method is that of cost. Since this study is still in its experimental stage, there is not enough information on volume, location, or chemical composition of the LBP abatement wastes to determine transportation and smelting costs with an acceptable degree of accuracy. Nevertheless, the costs cited here developed from discussions with members of industry probably bracket the actual costs likely to be incurred by transporting and p r o c e s s i n g L B P a b a t e m e n t material t h r o u g h smelters. Average transportation costs would run from $2.50 $5.00 per loaded mile for an average load (average load defined as 22 tons of material in a bulk container or 80 individual 55-gallon drums); while smelting costs would range from $200.00$400.00 per ton of material processed. The cost to treat and then land dispose the waste using a s t a b i l i s a t i o n p r o c e s s w h i c h mixes the LBP abatement waste with cement prior to disposal is estimated to cost $375.00 per 55-gallon drum, or $485.00 per ton for bulk loads. Assuming the LBP abatement waste requires t r e a t m e n t prior to landdisposal, the cost of processing LBP abatement waste through smelters c o m p a r e s f a v o u r a b l y w i t h t r e a t m e n t and landdisposal. An additional cost factor to keep in mind is that LBP debris material must compete for capacity with the pay charge or material containing precious metals such as gold and silver as well as g o o d m e t a l l u r g i c a l p r a c t i c e . T h e r e f o r e , in comparison, the value of recovered lead will probably be negligible and will not noticeably impact overall costs. Conclusions

The feasibility study determined that certain LBP abatement materials are metallurgically compatible with the lead smelting circuits, particularly lead paint chips, dusts, heatgun sludge, soils, and certain blasting abrasives. Pretreatment technologies may broaden the list of LBP abatement materials that may be processed through smelters. Additionally, some of the newer direct smelting processes are relatively portable and offer the possibility of establishing a processing site close to the project(s) on a temporary basis. This is an important capability since material handling is a major factor in economic considerations. Overall, the estimated smelting costs seem to compare favourably with current treatment and disposal fees at approved landfills. These conclusions regarding the feasibility of processing LBP abatement materials through s m e l t e r s p r i o r to a t h o r o u g h c h e m i c a l characterisation and field demonstration are, at best, tenuous. The characterisation and trial burn is a necessary step to determine true metallurgical compatibility between LBP abatement waste and existing circuits as well as the materials impact on smelter emissions, and other waste streams such as baghouse dust, slag and sludge. This type of

Robert D. Putnam, Daniel L. Vornberg & Rob Putnam

information is critical for determining the need for additional pollution control measures or permit modifications. Care should be taken during the trial burn to closely monitor the costs associated with the p r o c e s s so that smelting costs could be better estimated. Overall, however, the opportunities provided through alternative waste recovery technologies such as smelting appear promising when weighed against traditional methods of land disposal. There do not appear to be any current regulatory statutes that forbid the processing of LBP abatement waste from being carried out, so long as certain permit modifications are obtained. However, clarification regarding the breadth of the lead-based pigments and compounding pigment dust category exemption under the industrial boiler and furnace rule are needed. Further discussions should be held with EPA representatives to determine the breadth of the lead-based pigments and compounding pigment dust category exemption .under the industrial boiler and furnace rule and also to determine w h e t h e r permit modifications, if necessary, would be granted to smelters operating in areas not in attainment with the lead National Ambient Air Quality Standard. It will also be important to project yearly quantities of LBP abatement wastes, given the finite smelting capacity within the United States (estimates are nearly impossible at this early stage). This information is crucial for planning future disposal needs. References

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1988: The Nature and Extent of Lead Poisoning in Children in the United States: A Report to Congress, US Department of Health

and Human Services, Public Health Service, VI-13. Arizona Department of Health Services, Division of Environmental Health, Bureau of Sanitation, 1976. Lead-Based Paint: Report of Findings to


American Paint Journal, Vol. 56, Number 40.

Cellini, Mark. 1991. Personal Communication, Clean Harbor of Kingston, Inc, Quincy, Massachusetts. Hall, William, and Ayers, Tyrone. 1974. Survey Plans and Data Collection and Analysis Methodologies: Results of a Pre-Survey for the Magnitude and Extent of the Lead-Based Paint Hazard in Housing. US Department of

Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, NBSIR 74-426. Hofmann, W. 1952. Lead and Lead Alloys. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, New York. 1972. Home Painting Goes Lead Free. Chemical Week, June 14. Smith, Jerome F. Lead Industries Association. 1991. Personal communication. Lynch, J.E. 1972. How to Get the Lead Out (of your Paint). American Paint Journal, June 19. Mackey, T. S. and Prengaman, R. D. 1990. Lead Zinc "90. The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society, Warrendale, Pennsylvania Shier, Douglas, and Hall, William G. 1977. Analysis of Housing Data Collected in a LeadBased Paint Survey in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Parts I and II. US Department of Commerce, National

Bureau of Standards. NBSIR 11-1250 and 77-1293. US Department Of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 1990. Lead-Based Paint: Interim Guidelines for Hazard Identification and Abatement in Public and Indian Housing.

Federal Register, Vol. 55, April 18. US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 1990. Comprehensive and Workable Plan for the Abatement of Lead-Based Paint in Privately Owned Housing: A Report to Congress. December 7.

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1991. Government/Industry Subcommittee Meeting on Hazardous Waste Disposal Issues. Washington,

D.C., February 1. Weismantel, Guy. 1981. Paint Handbook. New York, NY.

the State Legislature.

Banov, A. 1972. FDA Adopts 0.06 Lead Limitation, Effective Jan. 1, 1974 - Industry Ponders Fate.

(Manuscript No. 325: accepted after revision October 30, 1993.)

The feasibility of processing lead-based paint abatement wastes through primary and secondary lead smelters.

This study was undertaken to determine the feasibility of processing soil and lead-based paint (LBP) abatement waste through primary and secondary lea...
735KB Sizes 0 Downloads 0 Views