r/EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Off ice Of
The Administrator
(A-101F6)
171-R-92-002
February 1992
Pollution Prevention In
Delaware, Maryland, And
West Virginia
#90-6801
A Survey Of
Industrial Facilities
Printed on Recycled Pap*
-------
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION IN
DELAWARE, MARYLAND, AND WEST VIRGINIA
A Survey of Industrial Facilities
by
J. David Yeager
A report submitted in fulfillment
of the requirements for the
National Network for Environmental Management Studies Fellowship
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region HI
Philadelphia, PA
May 1991 U.S. Environmental P—'^ ASency
J Region 5, Library U
77 West Jackson I: :
Chicago, IL 60604-35'jj
-------
-------
Yeager, Jay David., POLLUTION PREVENTION IN DELAWARE, MARYLAND, AND
WEST VIRGINIA: A SURVEY OF INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES. Typed and bound
professional experience project report. 117 pages, 27 figures,'29 tables, 1991.
Abstract
In order to characterize pollution prevention activities by industrial facilities in EPA
Region ffl, a pollution prevention survey was mailed to all facilities which reported Toxics
Release Inventory data to EPA in 1988. Survey questions covered general ffacility information,
pollution prevention program information, and detailed process, waste generation, and financial
information on pollution prevention projects. While the survey return rate was not high enough
to discern state- or industry-wide trends, it is apparent that facilities across a wide variety of
industrial classifications have implemented projects to decrease their waste generation through
source reduction techniques. The most commonly reported source reduction method was on-site
recycling. Most reported pollution prevention programs were initiated in order to reduce waste
disposal costs.
Author's name in full: Jay David Yeager.
Candidate for the degree of: Master of Science.
Date: May 1991
Major Professor: Richard J. McClimans.
Department: Environmental and Resource Engineering.
State University of New York,
College of Environmental Science and Forestry.
Syracuse, New York.
Signature of Major Professor:
-------
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report was furnished to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency by the student identified on the cover page, under a National
Network for Environmental Management Studies fellowship.
The contents are essentially as received from the author. The
opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed are those of the author
and not necessarily those of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Mention, if any, of company, process, or product names is
not to be considered as an endorsement by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
-------
-------
CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS • i
LISTOFTABLES ii
LIST OFFIGURES • "i
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. METHODOLOGY 7
3. RESULTS: DELAWARE 11
4. RESULTS: MARYLAND 19
5. RESULTS: WEST VIRGINIA 27
6. COMBINED RESULTS: DE, MD, WV 35
7. POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDIES 44
REFERENCES 58
APPENDICES
A. SAMPLE SURVEY VEHICLE AND COVER LETTER 59
B. POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY DESCRIPTIONS ... 67
VTTA ' 117
-------
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
To James Hemby at EPA Region HI, for his knowledgeable guidance and boundless
support throughout this project
To Richard McClimans at SUNY-ESF, academic advisor, for his friendly and
enthusiastic support during my time at Syracuse.
To professors John Felleman, Robert Hennigan, James Karp, and James Nakas, for
their service on my academic steering committee.
And, finally, to the corporate representatives who volunteered their time to provide the
information in this report
-------
-------
LIST OF TABLES
** ' r
Page
1. 2-1 Manufacturing SIC Codes, 20-39 8
2. 3-1 Delaware: Responses from 57 Facilities 12
3. 3-2 Delaware: Scope of Pollution Prevention Programs 14
4. 3-3 Delaware: Pollution Prevention Program Initiation 15
5. 3-4 Delaware: Reason for Pollution Prevention Program 16
6. 3-5 Delaware: Pollution Prevention Method 17
7. 4-1 Maryland: Responses from 199 Facilities 20
8. 4-2 Maryland: Scope of Pollution Prevention Programs 22
9. 4-3 Maryland: Pollution Prevention Program Initiation 23
10. 4-4 Maryland: Reason for Pollution Prevention Program 24
11. 4-5 Maryland: Pollution Prevention Method 26
12. 5-1 West Virginia: Responses from 57 Facilities 28
13. 5-2 West Virginia: Scope of Pollution Prevention Programs 30
14. 5-3 West Virginia: Pollution Prevention Program Initiation 31
15. 5-4 West Virginia: Reason for Pollution Prevention Program 32
16. 5-5 West Virginia: Pollution Prevention Method 34
17. 6-1 DE, MD, WV: Responses from 360 Facilities 37
18. 6-2 DE.MD.WV: Scope of Pollution Prevention Programs 39
19. 6-3 DE, MD.WV: Pollution Prevention Program Initiation 40
20. 6-4 DE, MD.WV: Reason for Pollution Prevention Program 41
21. 6-5 DE, MD, WV: Pollution Prevention Method 43
22. 7-1 Quantity of Wastes Reduced, by State 45
23. 7-2 Case Studies, Average Reductions, by SIC 47
24. 7-3 Quantity of Wastes Reduced, by SIC 48
25. 7-4 Quantity of Wastes Reduced, by Method ' 50
26. 7-5 Quantity of Wastes Reduced, by Reason 51
27. 7-6 Wastes Reduced, from 48 Case Studies 54
28. 7-7 Average Costs, by Method (43 Case Studies) 56
29. 7-8 Average Savings, by Method (43 Case Studies) 57
-------
-------
Ill
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1. 3-1 Delaware: Responses from 57 Facilities 12
2. 3-2 Delaware Facilities Contacted and Completed Surveys, by SIC ... 13
3. 3-3 Delaware: Scope of Pollution Prevention Programs 14
4. 3-4 Delaware: Pollution Prevention Program Initiation 15
5. 3-5 Delaware: Preferred Pollution Prevention Reason 16
6. 3-6 Delaware: Preferred Pollution Prevention Method 17
7. 4-1 Maryland: Responses from 199 Facilities 20
8. 4-2 Maryland Facilities Contacted and Completed Surveys, by SIC ... 21
9. 4-3 Maryland: Scope of Pollution Prevention Programs 22
10. 4-4 Maryland: Pollution Prevention Program Initiation 23
11. 4-5 Maryland: Preferred Pollution Prevention Reason 24
12. 4-6 Maryland: Preferred Pollution Prevention Method 26
13. 5-1 West Virginia: Responses from 104 Facilities 28
14. 5-2 West Virginia Facilities Contacted and Completed Surveys, by SIC ..29
15. 5-3 West Virginia: Scope of Pollution Prevention Programs 30
16. 5-4 West Virginia: Pollution Prevention Program Initiation 31
17. 5-5 West Virginia: Preferred Pollution Prevention Reason 32
18. 5-6 West Virginia: Preferred Pollution Prevention Method 34
19. 6-1 DE,MD,WV: Responses from 360 Facilities 36
20. 6-2 DE, MD, WV Facilities Contacted and Completed Surveys, by SIC . . 38
21. 6-3 DE.MD.WV: Scope of Pollution Prevention Programs 39
22. 6-4 DE, MD, WV: Pollution Prevention Program Initiation 40
23. 6-5 DE.MD.WV: Preferred Pollution Prevention Reason 41
24. 6-6 DE, MD, WV: Preferred Pollution Prevention Method 43
25. 7-1 Pollution Prevention Case Studies, by SIC 46
26. 7-2 Pollution Prevention Case Studies, by Method 49
27. 7-3 Pollution Prevention Case Studies, by Reason 52
-------
-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
This project was undertaken in the summer and fall of 1990 with the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region ED Office of Pollution Prevention. It was
initiated through the Agency's National Network for Environmental Management Studies
(NNEMS) program, a fellowship program designed to involve graduate and doctoral level
students in priority environmental science, policy, and management projects within EPA.
Specifically, this report was prepared in response to NNEMS research question # 90-6801:
What types of specific activities are industries in EPA Region III doing
to prevent pollution, in particular, recycling and waste minimization
efforts?
EPA Region III includes Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and
the District of Columbia.
The information provided in this report was gathered through a survey of industrial
facilities from three Region ffl states: Delaware, Maryland, and West Virginia; it represents
the first portion of a larger project to characterize pollution prevention activity throughout
the entire region.
Pollution Prevention and Source Reduction
"Pollution prevention", as an environmental protection strategy, focuses on efforts
to reduce the amount and/or toxicity of pollutants before they are generated. It represents a
fundamentally different approach from the end-of-pipe ^'pollution control" strategies which
have historically dominated U.S. environmental policy. Pollution control efforts have
successfully reduced many point source discharges of pollutants and yielded marked gains
in environmental quality over the past twenty years, but acute problems associated with
modem industrial society's generation of wastes persist Significant quantities of wastes
continue to be released into air, land, and water; according to EPA's Toxics Release
Inventory data, for example, more than 4.5 billion pounds of chemical wastes were
released directly into air, land, or water in 1988 (EPA, 1990). In light of such facts the
-------
consensus~opinion is that, despite past progress, traditional pollution control methods are
not enough to keep up with growing environmental challenges stemming from continued
chemical proliferation and increased scientific knowledge regarding the health and
environmental consequences of pollution. The attention of environmentalists, policy
makers, and industrial managers alike has shifted from the end of the pipeline to the
original source of pollutant generation, and pollution prevention has emerged as the
cornerstone of a more effective strategy for responding to contemporary environmental
problems.
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), in its 20th Annual Report, presented
the key aspects of the pollution prevention philosophy:
• Pollution Prevention means the reduction or elimination of
pollutants at their source so that waste is not generated; it contrasts with
"end-of-pipe", "collect -and-contain", or "release-and-dilute" controls
designed to treat or control releases and waste already generated.
• Pollution Prevention emphasizes the efficient, and therefore more
profitable, use of material and energy resources; it contrasts with the
costly treatment of resource wastes that often are byproducts of
inefficient use of materials or energy.
• Pollution Prevention reduces the total amount of pollutants in the
environment; it does not simply shift them from one environmental
medium to another, as so many pollution control strategies do (CEQ.
1990).
In an industrial setting, pollution prevention is primarily accomplished through "source
reduction", defined by Congress as
- Any practice which
- reduces the amount of any hazardous substance, pollutant, or
contaminant entering any waste stream or otherwise released into the /
environment (including fugitive emissions) prior to recycling,
treatment, or disposal; and
- reduces the hazards to public health and the environment associated
with the release of such substances, pollutants, or contaminants.
-------
"Source reduction" does not include any practice which alters the
" physical, chemical, or biological characteristics or the volume of a
hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant through a process or
activity which itself is not integral to and necessary for the production of
a product or the providing of a service.
"Source reduction" includes: in-process recycling; equipment .or
technology modifications; process or procedure modifications; reform or
redesign of products; substitution of raw materials; or improvements in
housekeeping, maintenance, training or inventory control (Pollution
Prevention Act of 1990).
The six general approaches to source reduction listed in the definition above are described
here in greater detail. Each will not be applicable in all industrial situations, and they are
often used in combination to attain the most suitable pollution prevention scheme for a
particular process or situation:
In-process recycling • Valuable materials can be recovered and saved
by introducing collection systems and/or closed loops within processes
to facilitate on-site recycling of compounds that would otherwise be
discarded as wastes.
Equipment or technology modifications - In some cases, production
equipment may be altered, or new equipment may be introduced to
increase efficiency or optimize raw material use.
Process or procedure modifications • In some cases, processes may
be altered so as to be less chemical- or waste-intensive.
Reform or redesign of products - Manufacturers can also prevent
pollution by redesigning end products so they are less hazardous and
their production is less chemical-intensive.
t
Substitution of raw materials - Source reduction can be accomplished
by substituting for a toxic substance a chemical that is less toxic or non-
toxic. This is sometimes referred to as "toxics use reduction".
/
Improved housekeeping • This refers to better process management to
minimize leaks, spills, vaporization, mixture errors, and bad production
runs, all of which result in misused raw materials that must be discarded
as wastes. Tighter inventory controls, preventative equipment
maintenance, and employee training can help ensure proper handling of
materials, discourage wasteful practices, and significantly reduce a
firm's waste stream.
-------
The terms "pollution prevention" and "source reduction" are used throughout this
report in keeping with the definitions above. Most pollution prevention strategies applied
in industrial settings will fall into one of the six general categories which constitute source
reduction. Pollution prevention could conceivably take other forms, however, and is not
limited only to source reduction methods.
The inclusion of off-site recycling among pollution prevention methods has been a
controversial issue. At the time this study was undertaken, off-site recycling was included
in EPA's Pollution Prevention Policy as a second preference to source reduction.
Consequently* it was included in this project for consideration as a possible pollution
prevention method. Since that time, passage of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 has
excluded off-site recycling from the definition of pollution prevention. In this report, off-
site recycling is included in the analysis, acknowledging however that it does not constitute
pollution prevention or source reduction as these terms are currently defined.
t
EPA'S Pollution Prevention Prnf ram
There are presently no regulations requiring industry to reduce its volume or
toxicity of wastes to any quantitatively-derived level. Consequently, EPA has been
pursuing pollution prevention as a voluntary program. In January, 1989 the Agency issued
its Pollution Prevention Policy Statement, creating a multi-media Office of Pollution
Prevention to work with the Agency's media-specific program offices. Key components of
the EPA program include:
• The development of institutional structures within each of EPA's media-
specific and regional offices to insure that the pollution prevention
philosophy is incorporated into every feasible aspect of internal
decisionmaking and planning;
• The support of state and local pollution prevention programs...One of
EPA's primary goals is to help states develop their own pollution
prevention programs;
• The development of an outreach program targeted at state and local
governments, industry, and consumers;
-------
• - The creation of incentives and elimination of barriers to pollution
prevention;
• The development of a multi-media clearinghouse to provide educational
and technical information; and
• The collection, dissemination, and analysis of data for the purpose of
evaluating national progress in multi-media pollution prevention (EPA,
1989).
This project is in accord with EPA's goals of collecting and disseminating information and
supporting the development of state pollution prevention programs.
Goals
This report is concerned with the application of pollution prevention/source
reduction techniques by industrial facilities in Delaware, Maryland, and West Virginia, with
particular regard to (1) the extent to which pollution prevention is being practiced, (2) the
particular ways the general methods presented here are being applied to specific industrial
processes, and (3) the level of effectiveness with which manufacturers have reduced their
waste streams by practicing pollution prevention. It is a first cut attempt at understanding
the industrial pollution prevention activity that is transpiring, qualitatively as well as
quantitatively. It is concerned also with the industrial community's vision of pollution
prevention and attitudes towards pollution prevention, reasons for industrial waste-related
decisionmaking, and the significance of pollution prevention activities in industrial
operations. Additionally, this report provides example of particular methods by which
pollution prevention has been achieved in a variety of industrial settings.
Limitations
The information reported here is illustrative of the types and nature of industrial
pollution prevention activity currently underway in Delaware, Maryland, and West
Virginia. It would be difficult, given the low response rate, to draw broad sweeping
conclusions regarding the overall level of pollution prevention activity in those states or
EPA Region m. A response rate of 8.1 % precludes the possibility of drawing statistically
-------
significant conclusions from the data for any state, industrial classification, or for the
Region as a whole. Nonetheless, the information gathered from active Region m facilities
may be useful in encouraging others to pursue pollution prevention. Additionally, the case
studies included here may be valuable tools for transfer of pollution prevention technology
to other facilities with similar processes.
All of the information presented in this report was provided vouluntarily by the
surveyed facilities. It has not been otherwise verified
t
Outline
This remainder of this report describes in detail the results of a survey project
concerning the pollution prevention activities of manufacturing facilities in Delaware,
Maryland, and West Virginia. Chapter two describes the methodology used in carrying out
the study. Chapters three, four, and five present the results of the attitudinal portion of the
survey for Delaware, Maryland, and West Virginia respectively. Chapter six presents an
aggregate analysis of these results for the three states combined. Chapter seven is a
detailed analysis of pollution prevention case studies provided by the surveyed facilities.
Appendix A contains a sample copy of the survey and cover letter. Appendix B is a
compendium of pollution prevention case studies reported by industrial facilities.
-------
CHAPTER 2
METHODOLOGY
Scope
The information presented in this report covers three of the states in EPA Region
m--Delaware, Maryland, and West Virginia. It represents the first portion of a larger
project to characterize pollution prevention activity throughout the entire Region. The three
states characterized in this report were chosen as a starting point because of their small size
relative to the two larger states in the Region, Pennsylvania and Virginia. Beginning with
these smaller states made the study sample more manageable in size and allowed an
opportunity to reevaluate the methodology before expanding the project to include the larger
states.
Data were gathered through a survey of industrial facilities in each of the three
states. A copy of the survey was mailed to each industrial facility in the three states which
reported Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data to EPA in 1988.
The Toxics Release Inventory
The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is a national database of information on toxic
pollution by manufacturing industries. It is maintained by EPA's Office of Pesticides and
Toxic Substances (OPTS) pursuant to the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-
t
Know Act (EPCRA) of October, 1986, also known as Title III of the Superfund
Amendments. All data reported to TRI is, by law, accessible to the public. At the time of
this study, the most recent TRI data available was from 1988. For 1988, TRI reporting
requirements covered 302 individual toxic chemicals and 20 categories of chemical
compounds and applied to releases of these chemicals by manufacturing facilities in the 50
states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana
Islands, and the U.S.Virgin Islands. Manufacturing facilities are those operating within the
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 20 through 39. The SIC code is an
industrial classification system used by the Department of Commerce for classification of
-------
JjWe 2-1. Manufacturing SIC Codes, 20-39. (EPA, September 1990)
20 Food and Kindred Products
21 Tobacco Products
22 Textile Mill Products
23 Apparel and Other Finished Products made from Fabrics and Other Similar
Materials
24 Lumber and Wood Products, Except Furniture
25 Furniture and Fixtures
26 Paper and Allied Products
27 .. Printing, Publishing, and Allied Industries
28 Chemicals and Allied Products
29 . Petroleum Refining and Related Industries
30 Rubber and Miscellaneous Plastic Products
31 Leather and Leather Products
32 Stone, Clay, Glass, and Concrete Products
33 Primary Metal Industries
34 Fabricated Metal Products, Except Machinery and Transportation Equioment
35 Industrial and Commercial Machinery and Computer Equipment
36 Electronic and Other Electrical Equipment and Components, Except
Computer Equipment
37 Transportation Equipment
38 Measuring, Analyzing, and Controlling Instruments; Photographic, Medical,
and Optical Goods; Watches and Clocks
39 Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries
economic activity. The SIC codes and industries covered by TRI reporting requirements
are presented in Table 2-1.
Manufacturing facilities within SIC codes 20-39 which met the following
conditions were required to report to TRI in 1988:
• They were engaged in general manufacturing activities;
• They produced, imported, or processed 50,000 pounds or more of any
of the 322 TRI chemicals or they used in any other manner 10,000
pounds or more of a TRI chemical; and
• They employed the equivalent of ten or more full-time employees (EPA,
1990).
Delaware, Maryland, and West Virginia facilities which reported to TRI in 1988
served as the sample for the present study. As of July 1990, 57 Delaware facilities, 199
-------
Maryland" facilities, and 104 West Virginia facilities had submitted TRI forms for the
reporting year 1988. These 360 facilities were used as the sample for the pollution
prevention survey. It is important to note that pollution prevention is not limited to the
manufacturing sector (SIC codes 20-39), and that by limiting the scope to TRI facilities,
this study deals only with one portion of the whole realm of applicability of pollution
prevention. Additionally, it is unlikely that all facilities which were required to file TRI
reports complied with the law, and therefore the study sample did not necessarily include
i
all firms meeting the threshold requirements for TRI reporting. A study done for EPA
estimated that for 1987, the first year of TRI reporting, only 65.8 percent of facilities
nationwide which should have reported actually did so (EPA, 1990).
Survey Methodology
Between July and October 1990, a survey and cover letter were mailed to each of
the 360 facilities. (See Appendix A for a sample copy of the survey and cover letter.)
Addresses, SIC codes, technical contact information, and telephone numbers for each
facility were taken from the TRI database for use in the survey mailing. Follow-up phone
calls were made to to each facility to verify survey receipt and to encourage compliance.
When a facility had not received a survey, or it was discovered that address or contact
information was incorrect, a new survey was mailed out to the updated address or contact
for that facility. All facilities were asked to complete and return the survey within one
month of its receipt
The survey was six pages long, containing one page of instructions and three
separate sections for providing information. It was designed to cover all aspects of
industrial pollution prevention, including the reduction of both hazardous and non-
hazardous wastes. The survey and cover letter are presented in Appendix A.
Section I, "General Company Information", was designed to gather basic
information on the facility: company name, address, four-digit SIC code, parent company,
chief products/outputs, number of employees, annual sales (most recent year), contact
name and position, and telephone number.
Section n, "Company General Pollution Prevention Information", was designed to
gather information on a facility's overall approach, reasoning, and philosophy regarding
-------
pollution prevention. Questions dealt with the nature and scope of the facility's pollution
prevention efforts, if any, including starting date, source of program initiation, reason for
the program, most important pollution prevention method(s) used, and a general
description of the program. Facilities were also encouraged to attach additional descriptive
information or relevant company literature.
Section m, "Pollution Prevention Processes", was designed to gather detailed
information on specific pollution prevention techniques being used at the facility. Each
facility was asked to copy and complete this two-page section for each example of pollution
prevention currently employed in their operations. The questions were designed to gather
specific, detailed descriptions of normal facility processes, pollution prevention techniques
applied, quantity of waste(s) reduced (historical and most recent year) for the process,
costs and savings from implementation of the pollution prevention project, and the
reason(s) why the particular process was targeted for application of pollution prevention
technology. This section provided the "case studies" of pollution prevention activity
described in this report and presented in Appendix B.
-------
11
CHAPTERS
RESULTS: DELAWARE
Responses
A survey was mailed to 57 facilities in Delaware, all of the TRI reporters from that
state for 1988. The Chemical industry had the highest number of facilities contacted, with
24 (42.1 percent of total), followed by the Food industry with eight (14.0 percent) and the
Plastics industry (SIC 30) with seven (12.3 percent). The SIC distribution of Delaware
firms contacted is presented in Table 3-1 and Figure 3-2.
Of the 57 Delaware facilities contacted, seven (12.3 percent) completed and
returned the survey, three (5.3 percent) claimed it was not applicable to their facility, and
10 (17.5 percent) declined participation in the survey project. Thirty-seven facilities (64.9
percent) provided no response of any kind. These responses are summarized in Figure 3-
1.
Completed Surveys
The remainder of this chapter is based on results gathered from the seven completed
f
surveys returned from Delaware facilities. The seven facilities completing the survey
represented six different SIC codes; two (28.6 percent) were from the Chemical industry
(SIC 28), while there were one each (14.3 percent) from the Printing (SIC 27), Plastics
(SIC 30), Glass (SIC 32), Primary Metals (SIC 33), and Instruments (SIC 38) industries.
(See Table 3-1 and Figure 3-2.) The seven facilities which completed the survey ranged in
size from 65 to 500 employees, with annual sales ranging from $16.5 million to $950
million annually.
-------
Table
3-L Delaware: Responses
from 57
Facilities.
11 t 1 * 1 NOT I 1
«CU 1; CONTACTED jCOMPLETEDUpPLICABLd DECLINED 1
1 1 1 1 1
20
21
2 ?
2.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
TOT.
8
• o
2
0
0
0
. 3
2
24
2
7
0
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
0
57
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
o
5
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
o
o
0
0
10
•^•B^— «^_^^__
NO 1
RESPONSE!
6
v/
0
1
o
o
o
3
1
15
* *j
1
A
4
o
\j
0
\j
o
\J
2
1
1
A
2
A*
o
0
37
37(64.9%)
10(17.6%)
COMPLETED SURVEY
NOT APPLICABLE
DECLINED PARTICIPATION
NO RESPONSE
Figure 3-1. Delaware: Responses from 57 Facilities
-------
13
30
u
I
M ,
w - 1
Ex,
O
10-
FACILITIES CONTACTED
COMPLETED SURVEYS
j U
Q
111 mml • • I m
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
SIC CODE
Figure 3-2. Delaware Facilities Contacted And Completed Surveys, By SIC
Company General Pollution Prevention Information:
Responses From Survey Section n
Scope of Pollution Prevention Programs
Six of the seven facilities answered the question regarding the scope of their
pollution prevention programs. Of those, three (42.9 percent) had company-wide
programs in place, and two (28.6 percent) had programs at their individual facility only.
One facility (14.3 percent) reported some isolated pollution prevention efforts at their
individual facility, but no formal program. (See Table 3-2 and Figure 3-3.)
-------
Table 3-2. Delaware: Scope of Pollution Prevention Programs
* -, ^f^^t, * „ '*• -% * *.
EXTENT OF PROGRAM NUMBER PERCENT
COMPANY-WIDE PROGRAM IN PLACE 3 42 9
INDIVIDUAL FACILITY PROGRAM 2 286
SOME IMMVIDUAL FACILITY EFFORTS 1 14'3
PROGRAM PLANNED, NOT IMPLEMENTED 0 00
NO POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM 0 00
NO INFORMATION i 14'3
TOTALS 7 10Q1
1 (14.3%)
' ^
3 (42.9%)
^^^^^^^^^^^*fs^^*^^^.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^m
\ (14.3%)
X^^^^^^~ COMPANY-WIDE PROGRAM
INDIV. FACILITY PROGRAM
SOME IND. FACIL. EFFORTS
NO INFORMATION
Figure 3-3. Delaware: Scope of Pollution Prevention Programs.
Program Tnifiatinn
Six of the seven facilities responded to the question regarding the initiation of their
pollution prevention programs. Three (42.9 percent) reported that their programs were
initiated by corporate top-level management; two (28.6 percent) reported that their
programs were initiated by plant engineers; one facility (14.3 percent) reponed that its
program was initiated by mid-level management (See Table 3-3 and Figure 3-4.)
-------
Table 3-3. Delaware: Pollution
I , JfHP8""' '" ^ " -*" "
\ PROGRAM INITIATION
1- - "**
TOP-LEVEL MANAGEMENT
MID-LEVEL MANAGEMENT
PLANT ENGINEER
PLANT EMPLOYEE
OTHER
NO INFORMATION
TOTALS
Prevention Program Initiation.
1
1 NUMBER
1 »
3
1
2
0
0
1
7
II
PERCENT
•
42.9
14.3
28.6
0.0
0.0
14.3
100.1
1 (14.3 %)
2 (28.6 %)
3 (42.9 %)
1 (14.3 %)
TOP MANAGEMENT
MID-LEVEL MANAGEMENT
PLANT ENGINEER
NO INFORMATION
Figure 3-4. Delaware: Pollution Prevention Program Initiation.
Reason for Pollution Prevention Program
In question ni.4 facilities were asked to rank nine categories of possible reasons for
their pollution prevention programs in order of their importance to them (1 = most
important, 9 = least important) Six of the seven facilities provided rankings. The
rankings for each reason were averaged across the six survey forms. The highest ranked
reason was "Reduction of waste treatment/disposal costs" with an average rank of 2.08;
"Company environmental image" was second with an average rank of 3.33;
-------
Table 3-4. Delaware: Reason
•r I
RED. OF WASTE TREATMENT/
DISPOSAL COSTS
CO. ENVIRONMENTAL IMAGE
ENVIRONMENTAL REGS.
OTHER PROCESS COST RED.
INTERNAL WASTE AUDIT
TRI REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY
PRODUCT DISCONTINUATION
CUSTOMER REQUEST
NO INFORMATION
TOTALS
for Pollution
AVERAGE)
RANK fc
f -, f f. f
2.08
3.33
3.67
3.92
4.75
5.42
6.17
7.67
8.00
Prevention
f
'REFERRED
4
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
7
Program
PERCENT
57.1
0.0
28.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.3
100.0
1 (14.3%)
4(57.1%)
2(28.6%)
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS
WASTE DISPOSAL COSTS
NO INFORMATION
Figure 3-5. Delaware: Preferred Pollution Prevention Reason.
-------
17
Table -3-5. Delaware: Pollution Prevention Method.
17 | AVERAGE! # 1
MIOTOS 1 RANK |pREirERKEI>|
EQUIPMENTAECHNOLOGY
MODIFICATIONS
PROCESS MODIFICATIONS
RECYCLING/REUSE ON-SITE
RAW MATERIALS SUBSTrTUTION
RECYCLING/REUSE OFF-SITE
EMPLOYEE TRAINING
IMPROVED HOUSEKEEPING
PRODUCT REFORMULATION
NO INFORMATION
TOTALS
3.00
3.67
3.92
4.08
4.17
5.42
5.75
6.00
1
1
2
1
1
0
0
0
1
7
PERCENT
14.3
14.3
28.6
14.3
14.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.3
100.1
1 (14.3 %)
1 (14.3 %)
1 (14.3^%)
1 (14.3 %)
2 (28.6 %)
1 (14.3 %)
RAW MATERIALS SUBSTITUTION
ON-SITE RECYCLING
PROCESS MODIFICATION
TECHNOLOGY MODIFICATION
OFF-SITE RECYCLING
NO INFORMATION
Figure 3-6. Delaware: Preferred Pollution Prevention Method.
-------
"Environmental regulatory requirements" was third with an average rank of 3.67.
"Reduction of waste treatment/disposal costs" received the most #1 rankings with
four (57.1 percent). Two facilities (28.6 percent) reported "Environmental regulatory
requirements" as the most important reason behind their pollution prevention programs.
This information is summarized in Table 3-4 and Figure 3-5.
Pollution Prevention Method
In question III.5 facilities were asked to rank eight categories of pollution
prevention methods in order of importance to their operations (1 = most important, 9 =
least important) Six of the seven facilities provided complete rankings. The rankings for
each method were averaged across the six survey forms. The highest ranked method was
"Equipment/technology modifications" with an average rank of 3.00; "Process procedure
modifications was second with an average rank of 3.67; "Recycling/reuse on-site" was
third with an average rank of 3.92.
"Recycling/reuse on-site" received the most #1 rankings with two (28.6 percent).
"Substitution of raw materials", "Process procedure modifications",
"Equipment/technology modifications", and "Recycling/reuse off-site" each received one
(14.3 percent) #1 ranking. (See Table 3-5 and Figure 3-6.)
-------
19
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS: MARYLAND
Responses
^M^M^Ma^MMM >
A survey was mailed to 199 facilities in Maryland, all of the TRI reporters from that
state for 1988. The Chemical industry (SIC 28) had the highest number of facilities
contacted, with 53 (26.6 percent of total), followed by the Food industry (SIC 20) with 32
(16.1 percent) and the Fabricated Metals industry (SIC 34) with 25 (12.6 percent). The
SIC distribution of Maryland firms contacted is presented in Table 4-1 and Figure 4-2.
Of the 199 Maryland facilities contacted, nine (4.5 percent) completed and returned
the survey. This was the lowest positive response rate of the three states. Nine facilities
(4.5 percent) declined participation in the survey project, and 181 (91.0 percent) provided
no response of any kind. These responses are summarized in Figure 4-1.
Completed Surveys
The remainder of this chapter is based on results gathered from the nine completed
surveys returned from Maryland facilities. The nine facilities completing the survey
represented five different SIC codes, including two (22.2 percent) apiece from the
Chemical industry (SIC 28), Fabricated Metals industry (SIC 34), Machinery industry
(SIC 36), and Electronics industry (SIC 36). One completed survey (11.1 percent) was
from the Primary Metals industry (SIC 33). (See Table 4-1 and Figure 4-2.) The nine
facilities which completed the survey ranged in size from 50 to 500 employees, with annual
sales ranging from $500,000 to $100 million annually.
-------
Table 4.
1*1
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 ,
28
29 .
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
TOT.
•1. Maryland: Responses from 199 Facilities.
tAV}-^ - s A £ t m
fe>- * 1 * NOT
fCfONTACtED (COMPLETEDUPPLICABLld
L>« 1 1 1
. 32
0
3
0
8
1
5
4
53
• 3
9
1
7
10
25
5
15
13
3
2
199
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
2
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 NO 1
DECLINED! RESPONSE!
i
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
9
31
0
3
0
8
1
4
3
47
3
9
1
7
9
23
3
13
12
2
2
181
9 (4.5 %)
9(4.5%)
| COMPLETED SURVEY
H DECLINED PARTICIPATION
181 (91.0 %) , D NO RESPONSE
Figure 4-1. Maryland: Responses from 199 Facilities.
-------
21
60
50-
Cfl
S 40-
b,
30
20
10
.LI
i
FAdLITIES CONTACTED
COMPLETED SURVEYS
2021 22232425262728293031 32333435363738 39
SIC CODE
Figure 4-2. Maryland Facilities Contacted & Completed Surveys, By SIC
Company General Pollution Prevention Information:
Responses From Survey Section n
Scope of Pollution Prevention Programs
All nine facilities answered the question regarding the scope of their pollution
prevention programs. Of those, six (66.7 percent) had company-wide programs in place,
two (22.2 percent) had some individual facility efforts, but no formal program. One
facility (11.1 percent) reponed that it had an individual facility in place. (See Table 4-2 and
Figure 4-3.).
-------
Table 4-2. Maryland: Scope of Pollution Prevention Programs.
OF PROGRAM 1 mJMBBfc I PERCENT
COMPANY-WIDE PROGRAM IN PLACE
INDIVIDUAL FACILITY PROGRAM
SOME INDIVIDUAL FACILITY EFFORTS
PROGRAM PLANNED, NOT IMPLEMENTED
NO POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM
NO INFORMATION
6
1
2
0
0
0
66.7
11.1
22.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
TOTALS
100.0
2 (222 %)
1(11.1%)
(66.7 %)
COMPANY-WIDE PROGRAM
INDIV. FACILITY PROGRAM
SOME IND. FACIL. EFFORTS
Figure 4-3. Maryland: Scope of Pollution Prevention Programs.
Program Initiation
All nine facilities responded to the question regarding the initiation of their pollution
prevention programs. Seven (77.8 percent) reported that cheir programs were initiated by
corporate top-level management; one (11.1 percent) reported that their program was
initiated by mid-level management; one facility (11.1 percent) reported that its program was
initiated by plant engineers. (See Table 4-3 and Figure 4-4.)
-------
23
Table 4-3. Maryland: Pollution Prevention Program Initiation.
PROGRAM INITIATION I NUMBER
TOP-LEVEL MANAGEMENT
MID-LEVEL MANAGEMENT
PLANT ENGINEER
PLANT EMPLOYEE
OTHER
NO INFORMATION
7
1
1
0
0
0
PERCENT I
77.8
11.1
11.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
TOTALS
100.0
(77.8 %)
TOP MANAGEMENT
MID-LEVEL MANAGEMENT
PLANT ENGINEER
Figure 4-4. Maryland: Pollution Prevention Program Initiation.
Reason for Pollution Prevention Program
In question ni.4 facilities were asked to rank nine categories of possible reasons for
their pollution prevention programs in order of their importance to them (1 =^most
important, 9 » least important.) Eight of the nine facilities provided complete rankings.
The rankings for each reason were averaged across the eight survey forms. The highest
ranked reason was "Reduction of waste treatment/disposal costs" with an average rank of
1.50; "Environmental regulatory requirements" was second with an average rank of 3.00;
"Other process cost reduction" was third with an average rank of 3.56.
-------
Table 4-4. Maryland: Reason
l1!!^. ' 1
RED. OF WASTE TREATMENT/
DISPOSAL COSTS
ENVIRONMENTAL REGS.
OTHER PROCESS COST RED.
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY
CO. ENVIRONMENTAL IMAGE
TRI REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
INTERNAL WASTE AUDIT
CUSTOMER REQUEST
PRODUCT DISCONTINUATION
NO INFORMATION
TOTALS
for Pollution Prevention
AVERAGE!
RANK
1.50
3.00
3.56
4.25
4.94
6.00
6.00
7.69
8.06
Program.
*
PREFERRED! PERCENT
6
1
0
0
0
1
0
t
0
0
1
9
66.7
11.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
nil
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
100.0
1(11.1%)
6(66.7%)
2 (22.2 %)
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS
WASTE DISPOSAL COSTS
TRI REPORTING
Figure 4-5. Maryland: Preferred Pollution Prevention Reason.
-------
"Reduction of waste treatment/disposal costs" received the most #1 rankings with
six (66.7 percent). One facility (11.1 percent) reported "Environmental regulatory
requirements" as the most important reason behind its pollution prevention program;
Another cited "TRI reporting requirements" as its most important reason. This information
is summarized in Table 4-4 and Figure 4-5.
Pollution Prevention Method
In question III.5 facilities were asked to rank eight categories of pollution
prevention methods in order of importance to their operations (1 = most important, 9 =
least important) Eight of the nine facilities provided complete rankings. The rankings for
each method were averaged across the eight survey forms. The highest ranked method was
"Recycling/reuse on-site" with an average rank of 2.94; "Improved housekeeping" and
"Employee training" were second, each with an average rank of 3.63.
"Recycling/reuse on-site" received the most #1 rankings with four (44.4 percent).
"Substitution of raw materials" and "Employee training" each received two #1 rankings
(22.2 percent). (See Table 4-5 and Figure 4-6.)
-------
Table 4-5. Maryland: Pollution Prevention
1* LSir^''^ * - I AVERAGE!
METHOB 1 RANK fo
^•M- *" • 1*
v -WXvXvX- -w '• .- -El
RECYCLING/REUSE ON-SITE 2.94
EMPLOYEE TRAINING
IMPROVED HOUSEKEEPING
PROCESS MODIFICATIONS
RAW.MATERIALS SUBSTITUTION
EQUIPMENt/TECHNOLOGY
MODIFICATIONS
RECYCLING/REUSE OFF-SITE
PRODUCT REFORMULATION
NO INFORMATION
TOTALS
3.63
3.63
4.06
4.56
5.00
5.69
6.50
Method.
* 1
REFERRED!
4
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
9
PERCENT 1
44.4
22.2
0.0
0.0
22.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
99.9
3(33.3%)
RAW MATERIALS SUBSTITUTION
EMPLOYEE TRAINING
2 (22.2 %) •
• ON-SITE RECYCLING
Figure 4-6. Maryland: Preferred Pollution Prevention Method.
-------
27
.. CHAPTERS
RESULTS: WEST VIRGINIA
»
Responses
A survey was mailed to 104 facilities in West Virginia, all of the TRI reporters from
that state for 1988. The Chemical industry had the highest number of facilities contacted,
with 40 (38.5 percent of total), followed by the Fabricated Metals industry with 11 (10.6
percent). The Glass industry (SIC 30) and Primary Metals industry (SIC 33) each had 10
facilities contacted (9.6 percent). The SIC distribution of West Virginia firms contacted is
presented in Table 5-1 and Figure 5-2.
Of the 104 West Virginia facilities contacted, 13 (12.5 percent) completed and
returned the survey, the highest response rate of the three states. Five facilities (4.8
percent) claimed it was not applicable to their facility, and 21 (20.2 percent) declined
participation in the survey project. Sixty-five facilities (62.5 percent) provided no response
of any kind. These responses are summarized in Figure 5-1.
t
Completed Surveys
The remainder of this chapter is based on results gathered from the 13 completed
surveys returned from West Virginia facilities. The 13 facilities completing the survey
represented six different SIC codes; eight (61.5 percent) were from the Chemical industry
(SIC 28), while there were one each (7.7 percent) from the Plastics (SIC 30), Glass (SIC
32), Fabricated Metals (SIC 33), Electronics (SIC 36), and Transportation (SIC 37)
industries. (See Table 5-1 and Figure 5-2.) The 13 facilities which completed the survey
ranged in size'from 40 to 1408 employees, with annual sales ranging from $20 million to
$565 million annually.
-------
Table -5-1. West Virginia: Responses from 104 Facilities.
14* r '** * i * i NOT i i NO i
£U*§M C0NTACTEI* JCOMPLETEDUPPLICABLEJ DECLINED 1 RESPONSE
v«*hf § f » j 1 1
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 ,
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
TOT.
. 6
0
0
0
4
1
0
1
40
2
5
2
10
10
11
4
4
3
0
1
104
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
13
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
o
o
3
o
o
0
9
0
1
0
3
1
1
2
0
1
0
0
21
4
o
o
o
1
1
o
o
22
1
3
2
6
9
9
2
3
1
0
1
65
65 (615 %)
13 (12.5 %)
5 (4.8 %)
21 (20.2 %)
COMPLETED SURVEY
NOT APPLICABLE
DECLINED PARTICIPATION
NO RESPONSE
Figure 5-1. West Virginia: Responses from-104 Facilities.
-------
29
40
c/3
S 30
H
C
20
10
H FACiLrnES CONTACTED
fj COMPLETED SURVEYS
1
- li.Hl
ILL
20 21 2223 24 25 26 2728293031 32 333435 363738 39
SIC CODE
Figure 5-2. W. Virginia Facilities Contacted & Completed Surveys, By SIC
Company General Pollution Prevention Information:
Responses From Survey Section n
Scone of Pollution Prevention Programs
Twelve of the 13 facilities answered the question regarding the scope of their
pollution prevention programs. Of those, 11 (84.6 percent) had company-wide programs
in place. One facility (7.7 percent) reported that their program had been planned, but not
yet implemented. (See Table 5-2 and Figure 5-3.)
-------
West Virginia: Scope of Pollution Prevention Programs.
OF PROGRAM I NUMBER | PERCENT
COMPANY-WIDE PROGRAM IN PLACE
INDIVIDUAL FACILITY PROGRAM
SOME INDIVIDUAL FACILITY EFFORTS
PROGRAM PLANNED, NOT IMPLEMENTED
NO POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM
NO INFORMATION
11
0
0
1
0
1
84.6
0.0
0.0
7.7
0.0
7.7
TOTALS
13
100.0
1 (7.7 %)
1 (7-7 %)
11(84.6%)
COMPANY-WIDE PROGRAM
PLANNED, NOT IMPLEMENTED
NO INFORMATION
Figure 5-3. West Virginia: Scope of Pollution Prevention Programs.
Program Initiation
Twelve of the 13 facilities responded to the question regarding the initiation of their
pollution prevention programs. Eight (61.5 percent) reported that their programs were
initiated by corporate top-level management; three (23.1 percent) reported that their
programs were initiated by mid-level management; one facility (7.7 percent) reported that
its program was initiated by plant engineers. (See Table 5-3 and Figure 5-4.)
-------
31
Table "5-3. West Virginia: Pollution Prevention Program Initiation.
r^^~ , ,^,v-~ - j, „, ^,-^a v,
fRAMUstlTIATlON 1 NUMBER I PERCENT
TOP-LEVEL MANAGEMENT
MID-LEVEL MANAGEMENT
PLANT ENGINEER
PLANT EMPLOYEE
OTHER
NO INFORMATION
8
3
1
0
0
1
6 1 .5
23.1
7.7
0.0
0.0
7.7
TOTALS
13
100.0
1(7.7%)
1 (7-7 %)
3 (23 1 %)
8(61.5%)
TOP MANAGEMENT
MID-LEVEL MANAGEMENT
PLANT ENGINEER
NO INFORMATION
Figure 5-4. West Virginia: Pollution Prevention Program Initiation.
Reason for Pollution Prevention Proram
In question ffl.4 facilities were asked to rank nine categories of possible reasons for
their pollution prevention programs in order of their importance to them (1 = most
important, 9 = least important) Eleven of the 13 facilities provided complete rankings.
The rankings for each reason were averaged across the 1 1 survey forms. The highest
ranked reason was "Reduction of waste treatment/disposal costs" with an average rank of
2.00; "Environmental regulatory requirements" was second with an average rank of 2.56;
"Company environmental image" was third with an average rank of 3.78.
-------
Table 3-4. West Virginia: Reason for Pollution Prevention Program
|.tm.X.v^i»>»>K;.:.>w.w.v...-...................v.._.,.._._.J. . ..,,,. « - O *""
*i5w« | AVERAGE! *
"rgs801? 1 RANK PREFERRED PERCENT
'-.'<&*. , , i I I
RED. OF WASTE TREATMENT/
DISPOSAL COSTS
ENVIRONMENTAL REGS.
CO. ENVIRONMENTAL IMAGE
OTHER PROCESS COST RED.
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY
TRI REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
INTERNAL WASTE AUDIT
PRODUCT DISCONTINUATION
CUSTOMER REQUEST
OTHER
NO INFORMATION
TOTALS
2.00
2.56
3.78
4.50
4.56
5.67
5.72
7.83
8.39
4
*
3
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
2
13
30.8
23.1
7.7
0.0
7.7
0.0
7.7
0.0
0.0
7.7
15.4
100.1
2 (15.4 %)
3 (23.1 %)
4 (30.8 %)
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS
WASTE DISPOSAL COSTS
WASTE AUDIT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMAGE
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY
OTHER
NO INFORMATION
Figure 5-5. West Virginia: Preferred Pollution Prevention Reason.
-------
33
"Reduction of waste treatment/disposal costs" received the most #1 rankings with
four (30.8 percent). Two facilities (15.4 percent) reported "Environmental regulatory
requirements" as the most important reason behind their pollution prevention programs.
"Waste audit", "Company environmental image", and "Occupational safety" each received
one #1 ranking (7.7 percent). This information is summarized in Table 5-4 and Rgure 5-5.
Pollution Prevention Method
In question ni.5 facilities were asked to rank eight categories of pollution
prevention methods in order of importance to their operations (1 = most important, 9 =
least important) Eleven of the 13 facilities provided complete rankings. The rankings for
each method were averaged across the 11 survey forms. The highest ranked method was
"Raw materials substitution" with an average rank of 2.89; "Recycling/reuse on-site" was
second with an average rank of 3.06; "Employee training" was third with an average rank
of 3.44. (See Table 5-5.)
"Recycling/reuse on-site" received the most #1 rankings with four (30.8 percent).
"Substitution of raw materials" received three #1 rankings (23.1 percent)., "Employee
training", "Equipment/technology modifications", "Recycling/reuse off-site", and "Other"
each received one (7.7 percent) #1 ranking. The facility which listed "Other" cited all eight
methods as being equally important to their operations. (See Table 5-5 and Figure 5-6.)
-------
Table 5-5. West Virginia: Pollution Prevention Method.
I'^TftSWW* f, " f
£
RAW MATERIALS SUBSTITUTION
RECYCLING/REUSE ON-SITE
EMPLOYEE TRAINING
EQUIPMENT/TECHNOLOGY
MODIFICATIONS
PROCESS MODIFICATIONS
IMPROVED HOUSEKEEPING
RECYCLING/REUSE OFF-SITE
PRODUCT REFORMULATION
NO INFORMATION
TOTALS
AVERAGE
RANK
2.89
3.06
3.44
4.00
4.72
5.11
6.00
6.78
* 1
PREFERRED!
3
9
4
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
9
PERCENT
33.3
44.4
11.1
11.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
99.9
2 (15.4 %)
1 (7.7 %)
3 (23.1 %)
1 (7.7 %)
4(30.7%)
| RAW MATERIALS SUBSTITUTION
B EMPLOYEE TRAINING
H ON-SITE RECYCLING
0 TECHNOLOGY MODIFICATION
g OFF-SITE RECYCLING
QJ OTHER
INFORMATION
Figure 5-6. West Virginia: Preferred Pollution Prevention Method.
-------
35
CHAPTER 6
COMBINED RESULTS: DE, MD, WV
*
Responses
Surveys were mailed to a total of 360 facilities in Delaware, Maryland, and West
Virginia, all of the TRI reporters from those states for 1988. The Chemical industry (SIC
28) had the highest number of facilities contacted, with 117 (32.5 percent of total),
followed by the Food industry (SIC 20) with 46 (12.8 percent), and the Fabricated Metals
industry (SIC 34) with 38 facilities contacted (10.6 percent). The SIC distribution of all
firms contacted is presented in Table 6-1 and Figure 6-2.
Of the 360 facilities contacted, 29 (8.1 percent) completed and returned the survey,
eight (2.0 percent) claimed it was not applicable to their facility, and 40 (11.1 percent)
declined participation in the survey project. No response of any kind was received from
283 facilities (78.6 percent). These survey responses are summarized in Figure 6-1.
The inclusion of requests for detailed quantitative waste reduction and financial
information in the present survey may have had a negative effect on the response rate.
Several of the facilities which declined participation cited concerns over proprietary
operation and financial information; some expressed concern over the potential end uses of
voluntary information released to a regulatory agency. Others cited a lack of staff time and
resources necessary to compile the requested information as their reason for not
participating.
The overall response rate of 8.1. percent is similar to the response rate for voluntary
reporting of waste minimization information to EPA's Toxics Release Inventory. For
1988,9.8 percent of facilities nationwide which reported to TRI included voluntary reports
of their waste minimization activities. These optional reports include information on
quantity of waste reduced, method employed, and the reason for the action.
In contrast, survey projects not requesting detailed quantitative information have
realized higher positive response rates. A nationwide survey conducted by the Office of
Technology Assessment in 1986, requesting no specific process, waste generation, or
financial information had a 70.2 response rate (OTA, 1986). Similarly, a 1987 survey of
-------
hazardous waste generators in Tennessee, requesting only non-specific attitudinal
responses, had a positive response rate of 68.4 percent (Barkenbus and Barkenbus, 1989).
Completed Surveys
•
The remainder of this chapter is based on results gathered from the 29 completed
surveys. It is clear from these surveys received that there is an understanding of pollution
prevention concepts throughout the industrial community, and that facilities across a broad
range of industrial sectors have implemented pollution prevention projects as part of their
normal operations. The 29 facilities which completed the survey represented 10 different
SIC codes: The largest number of respondents came from the Chemical industry (SIC 28)
with 12 (41.4 percent), while there were three each (10.3 percent) from the Fabricated
Metals (SIC 33) and Electronics (SIC 36) industries. (See Table 6-1 and Figure 6-2.) The
29 facilities which completed the survey ranged in size from 40 to 1408 employees, with
annual sales ranging from $500,000 to $950 million.
29(8.1%)
(2.2%)
283(78.6%)
40(11.1%)
| COMPLETED SURVEY
n NOT APPLICABLE
| DECLINED PARTICIPATION
0 NO RESPONSE
Figure 6-1. DE, MD, WV: Responses from 360 Facilities.
-------
37
Table ~6-
1
I
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 ,•
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
TOT.
•1. DE, MD, WV: Responses from 360 Facilities.
t v.vw. sv •. 4 •. \ \ -iV. •<*"• •"• • "•*" • • °" ' » " .• % "^ "^ 1
\m--- f ; 1 t I NOT I I , NO I
£ONTACTED JCOMPLETEDUPPLICABLEI DECLINED I RESPONSE!
fe '„*.";, 'II 1 I 1
. 46
0
5
0
12
2
8
7
117
7
21
3
18
21
38
10
20
18
4
3
360
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
12
0
2
0
2
2
3
2
3
1
1
0
29
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
3
0
1
0
3
0
1
1
18
1
2
0
3
1
1
2
0
2
1
0
40
41
0
4
0
9
2
7
4
84
5
16
3
13
18
34
6
17
15
2
3
283
Company General Pollution Prevention Information:
Responses From Survey Section n
Scone of Pollution Prevention Programs
Twenty-seven of the 29 facilities answered the question regarding the scope of their
pollution prevention programs. Their responses indicate that the facilities which completed
the survey were all among those actively pursuing pollution prevention. None of the 27
respondents reported that they had no pollution prevention program in place. The majority
(69.0 percent) had company-wide programs in place. Three (10.3 percent) reported
programs at their individual facility only, three (10.3 percent) reported some isolated
pollution prevention efforts at their individual facility, but no formal program, and one
-------
120
100
CA 80
u
fib
§
60
40
20
FACTLrTIES CONTACTED
COMPLETED SURVEYS
jJjJilll
2021 22232425262728293031 3233343536373839
SIC CODE
Figure 6-2. Facilities Contacted & Completed Surveys, By SIC Code.
t
facility (3.4 percent) reported that its program had been planned, but not yet implemented.
(See Table 6-2 and Figure 6-3.)
Program Initiation
Twenty-seven of the 29 facilities responded to the question regarding the initiation
of their pollution prevention programs. A large majority (18, or 62.1 percent) reported that
their programs were initiated by corporate top-level management; five (17.2 percent)
reported that their programs were initiated by mid-level management; four facilities (13.8
percent) reported that their programs were initiated by plant engineers. (See Table 6-3 and
Figure 6-4.)
-------
Table 6-2. DE, MD, WV: Scope of
M'%'^X^^^^^^^::i!^-'J*' *^ r •
• ^''^sfipp^
I EXTENT OF PROGRAM
COMPANY-WIDE PROGRAM IN PLACE
INDIVIDUAL FACILITY PROGRAM
SOME INDIVIDUAL FACILITY EFFORTS
PROGRAM PLANNED, NOT IMPLEMENTED
NO POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM
NO INFORMATION
TOTALS
Pollution Prevention
'
NUMBER
20
3
3
1
0
2
29
Programs.
'
PERCENT
69.0
10.3
10.3
3.5
0.0
6.9
100.0
2 (6.9 %)
1 (3.5 %)
3 (10.3 %)
3 (10.3 %)
20(69.0%)
COMPANY-WIDE PROGRAM
INDW. FACILITY PROGRAM
SOME IND. FACIL. EFFORTS
PLANNED, NOT IMPLEMENTED
NO INFORMATION
Figure 6-3. DE, MD, WV: Scope of Pollution Prevention Programs.
Reason for Pollution Prevention Program
In question m.4 facilities were asked to rank nine categories of possible reasons for
their pollution prevention programs in order of their importance to them (1 = most
important, 9 = least important.) Twenty-three of the 29 facilities provided rankings. The
rankings for each reason were averaged across the 23 survey forms. The highest ranked
reason was "Reduction of waste treatment/disposal costs" with an average rank of 1.85;
"Environmental regulatory requirements" was second with an average rank of 3.00; "Other
process cost reduction" was third with an average rank of 4.02.
-------
Table 6-3. DE, MD, WV: Pollution
I % Siii&ijit' ^y''" %
r^^i&M irafATiojf
TOP-LEVEL MANAGEMENT
MID-LEVEL MANAGEMENT
PLANT ENGINEER
PLANT EMPLOYEE
OTHER
NO INFORMATION
TOTALS
Prevention Program
1% ,, -
NUMBER
18
5
4
0
0
2
29
Initiation.
1" \
PERCENT 1
62 1
17.2
13.8
0.0
0.0
6.9
100.0
: (6.9 %)
4 (13.8 %)
5 (17.2 %)
18 (62.1 %)
TOP MANAGEMENT
MID-LEVEL MANAGEMENT
PLANT ENGINEER
NO INFORMATION
Figure 6-4. DE, MD, WV: Pollution Preventin Program Initiation.
Financial and regulatory considerations provided the most common impetus for
facilities' pollution prevention programs. "Reduction of waste treatment/disposal costs"
was cited by 14 (48.3 percent) of facilities as the most important reason underlying their
pollution prevention efforts, whiled "Environmental regulatory requirements" was cited by
seven facilities (24.1 percent). "Company-initiated review/waste audit", "Company
environmental image", "TRI reporting requirements", "Occupational safety", and "Other"
each received one #1 ranking. This information is summarized in Table 6-4 and Figure 6-
5.
-------
41
Table 6-4. DE, MD, WV: Reason for Pollution Prevention Program.
1 iSorfr - ~ I
1 >,><^\ " ' :
RED. OF WASTE TREATMENT/
DISPOSAL COSTS
ENVIRONMENTAL REGS.
OTHER PROCESS COST RED.
CO. ENVIRONMENTAL IMAGE
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY
INTERNAL WASTE AUDIT
TRI REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
CUSTOMER REQUEST
PRODUCT DISCONTINUATION
OTHER
NO INFORMATION
TOTALS
[AVER AGE 1
1 RANK [PR
i 1
1.85
3.00
4.02
4.07
4.87
5.57
5.72
7.83
8.09
_
#
EFERRE
'
14
7
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
3
29
01 PERCENT 1
« •
48.3
24.1
0.0
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
0.0
0.0
3.5
10.3
100.2
7 (24.1 %)
14 (48.3 %)
B ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS
B WASTE DISPOSAL COSTS
B WASTE AUDIT-
ED ENVIRONMENTAL IMAGE
B TRI REPORTING
B OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY
H OTHER
r NO INFORMATION
Figure 6-5. DE, MD, WV: Preferred Pollution Prevention Reason.
-------
Pollution Prevention Method .
In question ffl.5 facilities were asked to rank eight categories of pollution
prevention methods in order of importance to their operations (1 = most important, 9 =
least important) Twenty-three of the 29 facilities provided rankings. The rankings for
each method were averaged across the 23 survey forms. The highest ranked method was
"Recycling/reuse on-site" with an average rank of 3.24; "Raw materials substitution" was
second with an average rank of 3.78; "Employee training" was third with an average rank
of 4.02.
"Recycling/reuse on-site" received the most #1 rankings with 10 (34.5 percent).
"Substitution of raw materials" received six #1 rankings (20.7 percent); "Employee
training" received three (10.3 percent); "Equipment/technology modifications" received two
(6.7 percent); "Recycling/reuse off-site", and "Process procedure modifications" each
received one #1 ranking (3.4 percent). "Product reformulation" was the least popular
pollution prevention method, indicating some concern by manufacturers that this option
could potentially jeopardize product quality. (See Table 6-5 and Figure 6-6.)
-------
43
Table -6-5. DE, MD, WV: Pol
I MSTTBOD I
RECYCLING/REUSE ON-SITE
RAW MATERIALS SUBSTITUTION
EMPLOYEE TRAINING
EQUTPMENT/TECHNOLOGY
MODIFICATIONS
PROCESS MODIFICATIONS
IMPROVED HOUSEKEEPING
RECYCLING/REUSE OFF-SITE
PRODUCT REFORMULATION
OTHER
NO INFORMATION
TOTALS
lution Prevention Method.
AVERAGE! f 1
RANK [PREFERRED 1
3.24
3.78
4.02
4.09
4.22
4.76
5.41
6.48
10
7
3
2
1
0
2
0
1
3
29
PERCENT
34.5
24.1
10.3
6.9
3.5
0.0
6.9
0.0
3.5
10.3
100.0
1 (3.5%)
10(34.5%)
7(24.1%)
3 (10.3 %)
RAW MATERIALS SUBSTITUTION
EMPLOYEE TRAINING
ON-SITE RECYCLING
PROCESS MODIFICATION
TECHNOLOGY MODIFICATION
OFF-SITE RECYCLING
/
OTHER
NO INFORMATION
Figure 6-6. DE, MD, WV: Preferred Pollution Prevention Method.
-------
CHAPTER?
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDIES
t
State Distrihii
Twenty-four of the 29 facilities which completed the survey submitted a total of 48
pollution prevention case studies, reported on Section m of the survey form. These case
studies are presented in Appendix B. The waste reduction figures presented in this section
are absolute reductions, representing the difference between wastes produced before and
after implementation of the pollution prevention project. The percentages expressed
represent the quantity of wastes reduced as a portion of the quantity of wastes potentially
generated. Historical waste reduction figures represent reductions realized since
implementation of the pollution prevention project; Most recent year figures represent
reductions realized over the most recent 12-month period, 1989-1990.
The 24 facilities and 48 case studies were distributed between the three states as
shown in Table 7-1. West Virginia facilities reported the largest number of case studies,
and the largest absolute reduction in quantity of wastes generated. Eight West Virginia
facilities contributed a total of 26 case studies detailing their pollution prevention efforts.
Historical waste reductions for these processes (reductions since time of implementation)
were 5,429,431,660 pounds, representing an 84.6 percent decline in the quantity of wastes
generated. Over the most recent yearly period, 1989-1990, the same processes accounted
for a reduction of 1,209,442,844 pounds of waste products, an 84.5 percent decline in
waste generation. One West Virginia facility reported a high percentage reduction for a
particularly large quantity of its process wastewater. Throwing that example out, the
remaining 25 West Virginia case studies accounted for considerably lower historical
reductions: 29,441,660 pounds, or 45.3 percent reduction in quantity of wastes generated.
Similarly, the figures for the most recent year were lower without this one case study:
9,442,844 pounds, or a 47.1 % reduction.
Maryland facilities reported the second highest amount of absolute reductions.
Nine Maryland facilities contributed a total of 1 1 case studies. Their total waste reductions
since the pollution prevention projects were implemented amounted to 1,028,023,817
-------
45
Table 7-1. Quantity of Wastes Reduced, by State.
DELAWARE 7
MARYLAND 9
W. VIRGINIA * 8
11
11
26
(25)
8,989,574
1,028,023,817
5,429,431,660
(29,431,660)
74.6
45.3
84.6
(45.3)
5,445,493 66.0
718,791,277 40.7
1,209,442,844 84.5
(9,442344) (47.1)
TOTALS*
24
48 6,466,445,051 74.4 1,933,679,614 60.3
(47) (1,066,445,051) (45.6) (733,679,614) (40.9)
* Figures in parentheses represent totals excepting one case study with a particularly large historical reduction of
5.4 billion pounds (85.0 %), 1.2 billion pounds (85.0 %) in the most recent year.
pounds, a 45.3 % overall reduction. In the most recent year, 1989-90, reductions from
these projects totalled 718,791,277, a 40.7 percent reduction in quantity of wastes
generated for that period.
Seven Delaware facilities contributed a total of 11 case studies. The historical
quantity of wastes reduced for these 11 forms was 8,989,574 pounds, which represented
an overall 74.6 percent reduction since implementation of the projects. In the most recent
year these 11 pollution prevention applications accounted for reductions of 5,445,493
pounds of wastes, a 66.0 percent reduction over that time period.
In sum, the 48 case study forms completed by surveyed facilities accounted for
historical reductions of 6,466,445,051 pounds of wastes, a 74.4 % reduction. Over the
most recent yearly period, 1989-90, those same processes accounted for reductions of
1,933,679,614-pounds of wastes, a 60.3 % decline in quantity generated
Industrial Distribution
The distribution of case studies across SIC categories is shown in Figure 7-1.
Chemical facilities (SIC 28) reported 22 pollution prevention case studies, the largest
-------
6(12.5%) 1(2-1%)
22(45.8%) • 27
• 28
6 (12,5
D 34
n 35
g 36
3(625%) Q 38
Figure 7-1. Pollution Prevention Case Studies, by SIC.
number from any one industry. The large number of Chemical industry case studies (45.8
% of total) reflects the fact that Chemical facilities made up the largest portion of the survey
sample (32.5 %) and respondents (41.4 %). Chemical facilities also comprised the largest
portion of nationwide TRI reporters: 19.4 percent of facilities and 28.3 percent of all
optional waste minimization forms submitted (EPA, 1990). Case studies from the
Chemical industry accounted for 1,058,099,129 pounds of wastes reduced, a 45.3 %
reduction over the history of the pollution prevention projects. For the most recent yearly
period, 1989-90, Chemical facilities reported reductions of 732,500,632 pounds of wastes,
for a 40.9 percent reduction.
Absolute reductions in the Chemical industry were second to those reported in the
Glass industry (SIC 32). Three Glass industry case studies accounted for historical
reductions of 5,400,314,300 pounds, an 85.0 percent reduction. This large quantity was
due to a particularly large reduction of "process water" from one facility. Putting that
example aside, total reductions from Glass facilities totalled 314,300 pounds, for a 71.0
percent reduction. In the most recent yearly period, Glass facilities reported reductions of
1,200,303,100 pounds, an 85.0 percent decline in their waste generation for the processes
reported. (See Table 7-2.)
-------
47
Table 3-2, Quantity of Wastes Reduced, by SIC.
illlll^MH^^mii^^
BJB"jf8E8H^^^^^^^^Biw»8E^^^^^^^^^^^^F^^^^^ •vFW^niiir 8C •^SrJwBStllillHoiiilMHiiKsK
20 ' 0
21 0
22 0
23 0
24 0
25 0
26 0
27 ' 1
28 22
29 ' 0
30 0
31 0
32* 3
(2)
33 3
34 4
35 2
36 6
37 1
38 6
39 0
TOTALS 48
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
3,600,000 92.0
1,058,099,029 45.3
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
5,400,314,300 85.0 '
(314,300) (71.0)
260,939 99.5
3,926,933 82.1
126,350 81.2
95,700 95.8
4,000 10.0
17.800 56.5
0 0.0
6,466,445,051 74.4
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
52,800 43.0
732,500,632 40.9
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
1,200,303,100 85.0
(303,100) (70.2)
965 43.0
656,247 93.9
126,350 81.2
22,420 90.6
4,000 10.0
13,100 51.9
0 0.0
1,933,679,614 60.3
* Figures in parentheses represent totals excepting one case study with a particularly large historical reduction of
5.4 billion pounds (85.0 %), 1.2 billion pounds (85.0 %) in the most recent year.
Historically, the largest average quantity of waste reduced per case study also
came from the Glass industry, due to the one especially large quantity reduction from
one case study. Excepting that example, the largest average historical reductions were
in the Chemical industry with 22 case studies averaging '48,095,410 pounds of
wastes reduced over the lifetime of the projects. (See Table 7-3.)
-------
Table 7-3.
^•aBmBM
tgggjjlJSJiflJl^^^^^^^^^^^gg
pm^ff
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 '
27 -
28 '
29
30
31
32*
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
TOTALS
Case
m(mv!g|flfll||B^^S
sSgSgS^KRHH
piii
46
0
5
0
12
2
8
7
117
7
21
3
18
21
38
10
20
18
4
3
360
Studies, Average
^K^S^S^i^g^^Stt^^^B^^^^^^^^™
^Eilffly^ffiSaB^Em^Wl'1!
B8SS33Si^w^w®w^^K:^ggfflHH8BSSSS*CT!
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
12
0
2
0
2
2
3
2
3
1
1
0
29
Reductions,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
7
0
0
0
1
2
3
2
3
1
1
0
21
by SIC.
5**yjga5f^SSBBSS8B|
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
22
0
0
0
3
(2)
3
4
2
6
1
6
0
48
(47)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.600,000
48,095.410
0
0
0
1,800,104,767
(157.150)
86.980
981.733
63,175
15.950
4,000
2,967
0
134,717,605
(22,690320)
* Figures in parentheses represent totals excepting one case study with a particularly large historical reduction of
5.4 billion pounds (8S.O %), 1.2 billion pounds (85.0 %) in the most recent year.
Pollution Prevention Methods
"Recycling/reuse on-site" was the most frequently cited pollution prevention
method (16 case study forms). These 16 examples accounted for historical reductions of
6,394,206,285 pounds, a 75.5 percent reduction in quantity of wastes generated. This
was the largest absolute quantity reduction of any pollution prevention method reported. In
the most recent year, 1989-90, "Recycling/reuse on-site" accounted for reductions of
1,905,699,685 pounds, a 60.7 percent decline in the quantity of wastes generated.
-------
Excepting the particularly large quantities reduced from one case study (5.4 billion pounds
historically, 1.2 billion pounds in the most recent year), "Recycling/reuse on-site" still
accounted for the largest absolute quantity reductions of,any method.
"Equipment/technology modifications" was cited on 11 case study forms,
accounting for historical reductions of 63,478,123 pounds (30.9 percent), and 23,258,352
(41.9 percent) pounds reduced in the most recent year. "Substitution of raw materials",
cited on nine case study forms, accounted for historical reductions of 499,250 pounds
(37.1 percent), and 179,650 (83.2 percent) pounds reduced in the most recent year.
Two pollution prevention methods, "Employee training" and
"Reformulation/redesign of product" were not mentioned on any of the 48 case study
forms. The distribution of case studies by method is shown in Table 7-4 and Figure 7-2.
In the 1988 TRI waste minimization forms, "Recycling/reuse on-site" was only the
second most prevalent method employed by facilities nationwide (cited on 17.4 percent of
all forms), behind "Improved housekeeping", cited on 20.6 percent of all forms submitted.
"Process procedure modifications" and "Equipment/technology modifications" were cited
on 14.2 percent and 12.0 percent of 1988 TRI waste minimization forms respectively in the
•
optional nationwide reporting (EPA, 1990).
3 (6.25 %)
9 (18.8 %)
11(22.9%)
8 (16.7 %)
1 (2.1 %)
16(333%)
RAW MATERIALS SUBSTITUTION
IMPROVED HOUSEKEEPING
RECYCLING/REUSE ON-SITE
PROCESS MODIFICATION
EQUIPMENT MODIFICATION
RECYCLING/REUSE OFF-SITE
Figure 7-2. Pollution Prevention Case Studies, by Method.
-------
Table 7*4. Quantity of Wastes Reduced
(^^^•BBBi
, by Method.
IIKP;< : ^V^^tS«JfPr^OT
RAW MATERIALS
suBSTrrunoN 9
IMPROVED
HOUSEKEEPING 1
EMPLQYEE
TRAINING 0
RECYCLING/
REUSE ON-SITE * 16
15
PROCESS
MODIFICATION 8
EQUIPMENT
MODIFICATION 11
PRODUCT
REFORMULATION 0
RECYCLING/
REUSE OFF-SITE 3
OTHER 0
TOTALS 48
499,250
2,560
0
6,394,206,285
(994,206,285)
7,644,533
63,478,123
0
614,300
0
6,466,445,051
37.1
40.0
*
0.0
75.5
(47.0)
38.7
30.9
0.0
82.7
0.0
74.4
179,650
1,280
0
1,905,699,685
(705,699,685)
4,137,547
23,258,352
0
403,100
0
1,933,679,614
83.2
40.0
0.0
60.7
(40.8)
53.5
41.9
0.0
75.8
0.0
60.3
*
-------
51
Table 7-5. Quantity of Wastes Reduced, by Reason.
TO REDUCE
PRODUCTION
COSTS *
15
(14)
TO INCREASE
PRODUCTIVITY
TO IMPROVE
PRODUCT QUALITY
VOLUME OF
WASTE PRODUCTS
TOXICTTYOF
WASTE PRODUCTS
OTHER
16
13
1
6,316.124,150
(916,124,150)
129,000,000
9,400
11,866,661
9,443,840
1,000
75.2
(44.8)
48.5
75.0
69.7
91.6
15.0
1,879,981,230
(679,981,230)
45,500,000
4,700
8,060,444
132,240
1,000
60.6
(40.2)
50.0
75.0
64.6
39.3
15.0
TOTALS
48 6.466,445.051
74.4 1.933,679.614
60.3
* Figures in parentheses represent totals excepting one case study with a particularly large historical reduction of
5.4 billion pounds (85.0 %), 1.2 billion pounds (85.0 %) in the most recent year.
Pollution prevention projects citing "Reduction of production costs" still accounted for the
largest absolute quantity reductions of any method.
The reasons cited least often were 'To increase productivity and/or efficiency" (two
forms) and 'To improve product quality (one form). The distribution of case studies by
reason is presented in Table 7-5 and Figure 7-3.
-------
13 (27.1 %)
1 (2.1 %)
15(31.3%)
16(33.3%)
2 (42 %)
1 (2.1 %)
| TO REDUCE PRODUCTION COSTS
• TO INCREASE PRODUCTIVITY
H TO IMPROVE PRODUCT QUALITY
0 VOLUME OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)
| TOXICTTY OF WASTE PRODUCES)
D OTHER
•
Figure 7-3. Pollution Prevention Case Studies, by Reason.
Wastes Reduced
The 48 case study forms provided by Region HI facilities reported 56 separate
reductions covering 43 different waste materials. Some pollution prevention projects
achieved reductions of two or more different waste materials, accounting for the higher
number of reductions (56) than case studies (48). Facilities used varying levels of
specificity in referring to their waste materials. Some reporters used specific chemical
names to identify their waste products; 16 of the 43 wastes were referred to by their
specific names. Of these 16, 12 were TRI compounds. The total quantity reduced for
these wastes was 8,827,368 pounds, with 2,169,487 pounds reduced in the most recent
year. Some facilities used EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers to identify their wastes (e.g.
"D008n, "K073", etc.). These identifiers pertain to waste categories defined under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); they may refer to particular waste
products or broad categories of wastes. Eight of the 43 wastes were reported as such, with
total reductions of 6,719,140 (617,742 in the most recent year). The majority of wastes
(24 of the 43) were reported under generic headings (e.g. "waste solvents", "process
water", etc.). These also had the largest quantity of absolute reductions, 6,450,909,767
overall and 1,930,889,309 in the most recent year. (See Table 7-6.)
-------
53
Specific Chemicals
t
Chlorine, cited on two forms, accounted for the greatest absolute reduction of any .
of the specific chemicals reported. Total reduction of chlorine was 5,849,000 pounds
(91.7 percent), while chlorine reductions for the most recent year, 1989-1990, were
76,400 pounds (35.2 percent).
Dichloromethane was the specific chemical cited on the largest number of forms
(three). Dichloromethane reductions totalled 47,565 pounds (84.9 percent), with a 5,649
pound reduction (51.0 percent) attributed to the most recent yearly period. (See Table 7-
6.)
EPA Hazardous Wastes
The EPA hazardous waste numbers reported and their definitions are shown in
Table 7-5. The largest reduction of any EPA Hazardous Waste was for K062 (spent pickle
liquor from the Steel industry, SIC 33.) One facility reported a 100 percent reduction of
K062 totalling 3,600,000 pounds reduced, including 600,000 pounds in the most recent
year. (See Table 7-6.)
Generic Waste Categories
In this category, the type of waste material most often cited was "waste solvents"
(four forms). The four reported reductions of "waste solvents" amounted to 12,112,500
pounds, for a 28.6 percent reduction. 4,905,500 pounds were reduced in the most recent
year, a decline in "waste solvent" generation of 42.2 percent. The largest quantity of any
waste reduced was for "process water". One facility reported a reduction of 5.4 billion
pounds (85.0 percent) of "process water" due to an on-site recycling operation. In the
most recent year the same operation accounted for a 1.2 billion pound reduction^ (85.0
percent) of "process water". (See Table 7-6.)
-------
Table 1-6. Wastes Reduced, from 48 Case Studies.
SPECIFIC CHEMICALS
1.1.1 TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1.1 TRICHLOROETHYLENE
ACETONE
BENZENE
CHLORIDE
CHLORINE
DICHLOROMETHANE
FREON 113 •
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
SODIUM HYDROXIDE
PERCHLOROETHYLENE
POTASSIUM CYANIDE
SODIUM CYANIDE
SULFUR DIOXIDE
TOLUENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
SUBTOTALS
EPA HAZARDOUS WASTES
D001 - IGNTTABLE WASTES
D002 - CORROSIVE WASTES
D007- CHROMIUM
D008-LEAD
F001 - HALOGENATED SOLVENTS
F006 - ELECTROPLATING SLUDGES
K062 - SPENT PICKLE LIQUOR
K073 - CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS
SUBTOTALS
GENERIC WASTES
ACID WASTES
AIR EMISSIONS
AIRPARTICULATE
IGNTTABLE LIQUID
LEAD/COAL MIXTURE
MINERAL SPIRITS
PAINTS
SOLID
SPENT CARBON
SPENT CATALYST
SPENT CAUSTIC
SPENT DESSICANTS
SPENT RAW MATERIAL
TOWER BOTTOMS
TRASH/CARDBOARD
WASTE SOLVENTS
WATER - PROCESS WATER
WATER - STORMWATER
WATER - WASTEWATER
SUBTOTALS
TOTALS
PMO
|§iii
BWWHKfcWHl
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
18
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
1
1
2
29
56
19.933 34
21.200 100
9.400 75
658.700 70
300,000 100
5,849,400 92
47.565 85
80.000 100
17.120 96
220,000 41
35.000 100
2,700 100
1.000 20
1,448,000 55
1,000 15
116,350 81
8,827.368 79
2.000 83
10.000 100
2.400.000 100
272,000 19
1.140 100
4,000 10
3,600.000 100
430,000 100
6.719.140 88
125,000,000 50
11,030 6
60,800 97
2.560 40
259.974 100
3.700 80
1,800 100
5.955.000 57
306,400 87
2.500,000 10
4,000,000 100
40,000 100
340,000 68
50.000,000 30
300,000 70
12.128.400 29
5.400.000.000 85
325.000.000 100
525.000.103 35
6.450.909.767 74
6,466.456.275 74
lia
20.647
0
4,700
27,500
300,000
76,400
5.469
8,000
17,120
105.600
35.000
2,700
1.000
1.448.000
1,000
116,350
2.169.486
2,000
IO.OOO
0
600
1,140
4,000
6oo!ooo
0
617.740
42,000,000
11,030
37,800
uoo
0
3,700
1,800
5,955.000
102,800
600,000
776,280
13.000
170.000
16.000.000
300.000
4.918.000
1.200.000,000
135.000.000
525,000.098
1.930.889.308
1.933.676.534
34
100
75
39
100
35
51
100
96
25
100
100
20
55
15
81
55
83
OJ
100
100
19
100
10
100
100
94
50
6
97
40
100
80
100
57
70
10
100
100
68
40
70
42
85
100
35
60
60
-------
55
Pollution Prevention Costs and Savings
Forty-three of the 48 case study forms provided information on costs and savings
related to the implementation of particular pollution prevention projects. Cost information
included startup costs plus costs associated with one year of operation; similarly, savings
figures were based on one year of operation. Total costs for the 43 projects added up to
$150,704,175. Total savings realized were $176,134,384. Twenty-two (51.2 percent) of
the 43 case studies providing financial information reported Total savings greater than Total
costs over a one year period. For those 22, the average surplus of savings over costs was
$2,191,547. Eighteen of the 43 (41.9 percent) reported Total costs greater than Total
savings, with an average difference of $1,807,821. Three of the 43 case studies with
financial information reported Total savings exactly equal to Total costs.
Total costs and savings were averaged for each pollution prevention method. Only
"Equipment/technology modifications" had average Total costs greater than Total savings.
Costs
Costs for each case study were broken down into three categories: Capital costs,
Operation & Maintenance costs (yearly), and Other costs (yearly). For the 43 case studies
with cost information, Capital costs ranged from $0 to $100 million. The average Capital
costs were $3,174,202. Yearly Operation & Maintenance costs ranged between $0 and
$12 million, with an average of $322,698. Other costs ranged between $0 and $165,000,
with an average of $7,849 for the 43 case studies. These three cost figures were summed
to determine Total costs, which represent the capital costs plus the costs of one year of
operation for each project Total costs for the 43 case studies ranged from $0 to $112
million, with an average of $3,504,749.
Costs were averaged for each of the pollution prevention methods. The least
expensive method was "Process procedure modifications" (six case studies), with average
Total costs of $83. The most expensive method was "Recycling/reuse on-site" (15 case
studies), with average Total costs of $9,705,587 for each project. "Recycling/reuse on-
site" had the highest Capital costs and the highest Operation and Maintenance costs of any
method. (See Table 7-7.)
-------
Table 7-7. Average Costs, by Method (43 Case Studies).
RAW MATERIALS
SUBSTITUTION
IMPROVED
HOUSEKEEPING
EMPLOYEE
TRAINING
RECYCLING/
REUSE ON-SITE
PROCESS
MODIFICATION
EQUIPMENT
MODIFICATION
15
11
PRODUCT
REFORMULATION 0
RECYCLING/
REUSE OFF-SITE 3
OTHER 0
$207 $4,929 $2,114
0 1,700
10.180
455
8,826,700 869,040
83 0
371,202 70,909
000
1,667 8,067 55,000
000
$7,250
1,700
0
9,705,920
83
442,566
0
64,734
0
TOTALS
43
3,174,202 $322,698 $7,849 $3,504,749
Savings
Savings for each pollution prevention case study were broken down into three
categories: Waste Disposal savings (yearly), Raw Materials savings (yearly), and Other
savings (yearly). For the 43 case study forms providing savings information, Waste
Disposal savings ranged from $0 to $79 million. Average Waste Disposal savings were
$1,886,087. Raw Materials savings ranged from $0 to $87 million, with an average of
$2,209,341. Other savings ranged from $0 to $20,000, with an average of $721. These
-------
57
Table" 7-8. Average Savings, by Method (43 Case Studies).
RAW MATERIALS
SUBSTITUTION
IMPROVED
HOUSEKEEPING
EMPLOYEE
TRAINING
RECYCLING/
REUSE ON-SITE
PROCESS
MODIFICATION
EQUIPMENT
MODIFICATION
15
11
PRODUCT
REFORMULATION 0
RECYCLING/
REUSE OFF-SITE 3
OTHER 0
$ 6,257 $ 6,649
7,000 0
0 0
5346,008 6.052,420
f
62,000 151,013
15,800 294,795
0
0
105,000
0
6,667
0
$0
2,000
91
0
0
0
$ 12,906
7,000
0
11,400,428
213,013
310,686
0
111,667
0
TOTALS
43
$ 1,886,087 $ 2,209,341
$ 721 $ 4,102,659
three savings figures were summed to determine Total savings, representing the savings
from one year of operation for each pollution prevention project Total savings for the 43
t
case studies ranged from $0 to $156 million, with an average of $4,096,149.
Savings figures were averaged for each of the eight pollution prevention methods.
The greatest savings were realized from "Recycling/reuse on-site" (15 case studies), with
average Total savings of $11,400,428. The lowest levels of Total savings were realized
with "Improved housekeeping" (one case study, average Total savings $7,000) and
"Substitution of raw materials" (seven case studies, average Total savings $12,906). (See
Table 7-8.)
-------
REFERENCES
Baikenbus, Jack N. and Belgin D. Barkenbus, 1989. "Industrial Response to a Waste
Minimization Survey in Tennessee", Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association
Volume 39, Number 7, pp. 921-926.
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 1990. "Environmental Quality: Twentieth
Annual Report", (Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1989. "Pollution Prevention Policy Statement",
Federal Register 54:6 (January 26,1989).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, 1990.
'Toxics in the Community: National and Local Perspectives", (Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office).
Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), U.S. Congress, September 1986. "Serious
Reduction of Hazardous Waste: For Pollution Prevention and Industrial Efficiency",
OTA-ITE-317 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office).
Pollution Prevention Act of 1990.
-------
APPENDIX A
SAMPLE SURVEY VEHICLE AND COVER LETTER
-------
-------
60
1*1990 ** SAMPLE COVER LETTER **
Plant Manager
Industrial Facility
P.O. Box 1234
Boomtown, WV 00000
Dear Mr. Manager
I am writing to request information for a graduate research project I am a student at State
University of New York-College of Environmental Science and Forestry, and am particularly
interested in the field of pollution prevention and hazardous waste minimization. Part of my
masters thesis project is to gain an overview of the current state of pollution prevention
activities in West Virginia and to identify successful examples of pollution prevention within
the state. 'Additionally, I hope to identify untapped opportunities through which West Virginia
industries may gain from pollution prevention. My research is being sponsored by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region III.
I would greatly appreciate your company's input for this project Enclosed is a short form
which I am asking you to complete and return to me by September 1, 1990. It should be
completed by an environmental engineer or other manager familiar with your firm's
environmental affairs. Part I is for general information on your company. Part II is for
information on particular processes and specific applications of pollution prevention
technology. Please copy and complete Part II for each pollution prevention project
underway at your facility. This detailed information is critical to the success of my research
project Part III is for general information regarding your company's pollution prevention
efforts.
I would also appreciate if you could send along any company literature or other information
you may have on pollution prevention and/or hazardous waste minimization in your industry.
Please send all materials to:
J. David Yeager - 3ES43 (215)-597-9343
U.S. E.P.A. Region III
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
I will be calling you within the next two weeks to follow up on this initial contact Please feel
free to call me at the above number If you have any questions. Thank you in advance for
your time and assistance with this study.
Sincerely yours,
J. David Yeager
enclosures
-------
-------
61
** SAMPLE SURVEY **
7
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER OR PLANT MANAGER:
The purpose of this study is to determine the current level of pollution prevention
activities across the state and across different industrial sectors, as well as to identify
successful applications of pollution prevention technology.
The term 'pollution prevention1 deals primarily with source reduction. Source
reduction is the prevention of pollution through the mufti-media reduction of pollutants at the
source. Source reduction may be accomplished through input substitution, improved
housekeeping, on-site closed loop recycling, process modification, and product reformulation.
Additionally, pollution prevention may be accomplished through environmental sound
recycling or participation in a waste exchange program.
For the purposes of this form, "pollution prevention1 refers to any efforts taken to
minimize at the source the amount of wastes generated which must be managed, disposed
of, or released into the environment. It does not include pollution control measures (e.g.
smokestack scrubbers, etc.) which are designed to manage wastes which have already been
generated.
Part I is for general company information.
Part II is for general information regarding your company's overall pollution
prevention program and philosophy.
Part III is for specific information on particular pollution prevention processes within
your facility. Please copy the blank form and complete for each separate pollution
prevention example within your facility.
Thank you for your time and assistance with this study.
-------
I, General. Company Information
1) Company Name:
2) Address:
3) SIC code: 4) Parent Company:
5) Chief Products/Outputs:
6) # of Employees:
7) Annual Sales; Year $:
8) Your Name:
9) Position:
10) Telephone:
******************************************************
-------
63
II. Company General Pollution Prevention Information
1) Check the options below that best describe your company's pollution prevention efforts:
Company-wide pollution prevention program in place.
Individual facility poll. prev. program in place.
Some pollution prevention efforts at individual
' facility level.
Pollution prevention efforts planned but not yet
implemented.
No pollution prevention efforts underway or planned.
2) How long has your pollution prevention program been in place?
Since (Month/Year): /
3) Who initiated the program?
Corporate top-level management.
Mid-level management.
Plant engineer or technical person.
Plant employee.
Other (please specify).
4) What has been the impetus for your company's pollution
prevention efforts? Please rank the following in order of
importance:
Environmental Regulatory requirements.
Reduction of waste treatment/disposal costs, or
potential future waste-related liabilities.
Other process cost reduction (e.g., reduced use of
feedstocks).
Company-initiated review/waste audit
Interest in improving company's environmental image.
Toxics Release Inventory reporting requirements.
Occupational safety.
Customer request
Discontinuation of product line.
Other(please describe).
-------
5) With regard to your company's pollution prevention activities
to date, please rank the following broad approaches in order
of their importance:
Substitution of raw materials (i.e. non-toxics for
toxics).
Improved housekeeping or inventory control.
Employee training.
Recycling/reuse on-site.
Process procedure modifications.
EquipmentAechnology modifications.
__, Reformulation/redesign of product.
Recycling/reuse off-site or participation in waste
exchange program.
Other pollution prevention technique (please describe).
7) Briefly describe further your company's pollution prevention
program; include history, structure, goals, impediments, and
general philosophy. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary.
-------
65
III. Pollution Prevention Processes
PIMM UM [pplii of B* «hMt to diicilhi Mdi pvttculv pollution fnntnton tKhnlqu* employ** * your facility. UM • Mpcrat* ihMt for MCTI
wh«r» ponutton prwnoon MchnlquM r*v« bMn lmptan»rt»d. B« M x»eff)e « poMlbte regarding procMi OMWlpoon, fM(Moclten tltorta ww« Into «ltoot)
Type of | Total | Total |
Waste(s) | IDS. reduced | % reduced |
1. _ I _ I _ I
2. _ | _ | _ I
3. _ | _ | _ I
4. ___ I _ I _ Ll
4) Quantity of wastes reduced, most recent year:
On ttiie eeetton, DIMM ilinMii* your wMte raduoboneet no** YMTTY p^ted tor which you torn d*ta,
noting Ow raiwanl pvtod to OOMM 1.)
Period | Type of | I
(Yearl to Year2) j waste(s) | Ubs. red. | % reduced
1 1 1
I I I :
I I I
I I I
-------
5) Pollution prevention technique(s) applied:
Substitution of raw materials).
Improved housekeeping or inventory control.
Recycling/reuse on-site.
Process procedure modification.
Equipment/technology modification.
Reformulation/redesign of product
Recycling/reuse off-site or waste exchange.
Other (please describe below).
6) Describe particular technique employed:
7 a) Costs: b) Savings:
Capital costs: $ Waste disposal: $
Oper. & maim: Reduced feedstocks:
Other costs: Other savings:
Total costs: $ Total savings: $ .
8) Payback period for investment: - months.
9) Why was this particular process targetted for pollution
prevention? Check the most appropriate and describe if
necessary. .
To reduce production costs.
To increase productivity and/or efficiency.
To improve product quality.
Volume of waste produces).
Toxicity of waste product(s).
Other (please describe). •
-------
67
APPENDIX B '
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY DESCRIPTIONS
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY # 1
SIC CODE : 27
PRODUCTS : Flexible packaging film, flexographic printing
OPERATION: Flexographic printing on plastic film
The printing process uses solvents (n-propyl alcohol
n-propyl acetate, ethyl alcohol) as a carrier of the
ink pigment. When a printing job is completed, the
individual printing decks must be cleaned using above
solvents, leaving waste composed of "dirty" solvents.
POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD: Recycling/reuse on-site
- "Dirty" solvents remaining after cleanup of printing
decks are distilled in-house to be used for future
- cleanups. The "sludge" remaining is sent to an
off-site recycler who uses it in a fuel-blending
program for fueling concrete kilns.
WASTE REDUCED: "dirty" solvents
QUANTITY (LBS.) PERCENT
HISTORICAL : 3600000 92
MOST RECENT YEAR : 52800 43
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS . SAVINGS
CAPITAL : 100000000 WASTE DISP.: 79000000
OPER. & MAINT.: 12000000 RAW MAT. : 87000000
OTHER : o OTHER : 0
TOTAL : 112000000 TOTAL : 156000000
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : TO REDUCE PRODUCTION COSTS
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY | 2
SIC CODE : 28
PRODUCTS : Pharmaceuticals
OPERATION: Quality Assurance Lab Testing
The QA labs perform various tests and assays .on the
raw materials and products from the production
processes. Many of these tests require organic
solvents. The waste solvents that are generated are
collected into 55-gallon drums and disposed of as
hazardous waste.
POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD: Process procedure modification
The procedures within the QA labs are routinely
reviewed for waste minimization. New procedures from
the R & D labs are also reviewed before being
implemented. This review targets not only reducing the
solvent waste but also substituting less toxic solvents
for the laboratory tests.
WASTE REDUCED: Alcohol waste solvent
QUANTITY (LBS.) PERCENT
HISTORICAL : 400 2
MOST RECENT YEAR : 800 13
WASTE REDUCED: Non-halogenated waste solvent
QUANTITY (LBS.) PERCENT
HISTORICAL : 2000 13
MOST RECENT YEAR : 400 8
*
WASTE REDUCED: Halogenated waste
QUANTITY (LBS.) PERCENT
HISTORICAL : 3100 32
MOST RECENT YEAR : 1300 41
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS SAVINGS
CAPITAL : 0 WASTE DISP.: 1000
OPER. & MAINT.: 0 RAW MAT. : 0
OTHER : 0 OTHER : 0
TOTAL : 0 TOTAL : 0
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : TOXICITY OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY # 3
t
sic CODE : 28
PRODUCTS : Chlorine, Caustic soda, Caustic Potash, Hydrogen
OPERATION: Continuous manufacturing
Raw materials: salt, water, electricity.
Electrolysis of brine to produce chlorine, NaOH, KOH,
• and H2. Processing units to purify for shipment.
POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD: Equipment/technology modificati
Solid waste - Installed dewatering system to recover
liquids and concentrate solids.
Process changes to operation made for air and water.
WASTE REDUCED: Solid
QUANTITY (LBS.) PERCENT
HISTORICAL : 5365000 68
MOST RECENT YEAR : 5365000 68
WASTE REDUCED: Air
QUANTITY (LBS.) PERCENT
HISTORICAL : 206 ~1
MOST RECENT YEAR : 11030 6
WASTE REDUCED: Water
QUANTITY (LBS.) PERCENT
HISTORICAL : 103 i
MOST RECENT YEAR : 98 1
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS SAVINGS
CAPITAL : 1200000 WASTE DISP.: 0
OPER. & MAINT.: 200000 RAW MAT. : o
OTHER : o . OTHER : o
TOTAL : 1400000 TOTAL : ' 0
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : VOLUME OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)
-------
71
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY # 4
SIC CODE : 28
PRODUCTS : LINEAR ALKYLBENZENE, SODIUM TOLUENE/XYLENE SULFONATES
OPERATION: FACILITY SURFACE RUNOFF
Surface runoff (stormwater) 'is collected and .used as
plant process water to reduce purchased city water and
eliminate plant effluent to the river.
POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD: RECYCLING/REUSE ON-SITE
.The plant's stormwater is pumped into a 2 million
gallon tank. The water is recycled to plant processes
to reduce purchased city water and the cost of
installing a stormwater treatment system.
WASTE REDUCED: STORMWATER
QUANTITY (LBS.)
PERCENT
HISTORICAL :
MOST RECENT YEAR :
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS
CAPITAL :
OPER. & MAINT. :
OTHER :
325000000
135000000
1100000
50000
0
100
100
SAVINGS
WASTE DISP.:
RAW MAT. :
OTHER :
0
0
10000
TOTAL
1150000
TOTAL
10000
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : TO REDUCE PRODUCTION COSTS
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY f 5
SIC CODE : 28
PRODUCTS : LINEAR ALKYLBENZENE, SODIUM TOLUENE/XYLENE SULFO*
OPERATION: WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Treated wastewater is recycled to plant processes to
reduce purchases of city water and minimize effluent to
the city sewer
system.
POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD: RECYCLING/REUSE ON-SITE
Treated wastewater is recycled back into plant
' processes.
WASTE REDUCED: WASTEWATER
QUANTITY (LBS.)
PERCENT
HISTORICAL :
MOST RECENT YEAR :
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS
CAPITAL :
OPER. & MAINT. :
OTHER :
525000000 35
525000000 35
0
0
0
SAVINGS
WASTE DISP. :
RAW MAT. :
OTHER :
65000
0
20000
TOTAL : 0 TOTAL : 85000
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : TO REDUCE PRODUCTION COSTS
-------
73
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY # *6
SIC CODE : 28
PRODUCTS : LINEAR ALKYLBENZENE, SODIUM TOLUENE/XYLENE SULFONATES
OPERATION: LAB PRODUCTION FACILITY
Linear Alkylbenzene (LAB) is synthesized from Benzene
and C10-14 linear paraffins. The crude product is
distilled to produce LAB and various bottom streams.
POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD: EQUIPMENT/TECHNOLOGY MODIFICATION
Equipment was installed to reprocess bottom streams
and recover more product from these streams.
WASTE REDUCED: TOWER BOTTOMS
QUANTITY (LBS.) PERCENT
HISTORICAL : 50000000 30
MOST RECENT YEAR : 16000000 40
WASTE REDUCED: SPENT CATALYST
QUANTITY (LBS.) PERCENT
HISTORICAL : 2500000 10
MOST RECENT YEAR : 600000 10
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS SAVINGS
CAPITAL : 1450000 WASTE DISP.: 0
OPER. &MAINT.: 500000 RAW MAT. : 3100000
OTHER : 0 OTHER : 0
TOTAL : 1950000 TOTAL : 3100000
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : TO REDUCE PRODUCTION COSTS
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY # 7
SIC CODE : 28
PRODUCTS : LINEAR ALKYLBENZENE, SODIUM TOLUENE/XYLENE SULFO
OPERATION: BYPRODUCT HCL PRODUCTION
*
Byproduct Hydrogen Chloride gas is absorbed to
produce high grade (35%) Hydrochloric Acid. Scrubber
effluent from this process is recycled to reduce waste
acid.
POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD: RECYCLING/REUSE ON-SITE
Recycling of waste acid (low strength) to the HC1
absorbers to recover the acid as product.
WASTE REDUCED: WASTE ACID
QUANTITY (LBS.) PERCENT
HISTORICAL : 125000000 50
MOST RECENT YEAR : 42000000 50
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS SAVINGS
CAPITAL : 250000 • WASTE DISP.: 10000C
OPER. &MAINT.: 5000 RAW MAT. : (
OTHER : o OTHER : (
TOTAL : 250000 TOTAL : 10000C
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : TO INCREASE EFFICIENCY
-------
75
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY # 8
SIC CODE : 28
PRODUCTS : Carbofuran & Carbosulfan technical pesticides
OPERATION: Methylene chloride/carbon recovery
Methylene chloride is used as a contact coolant in
the manufacture of Carbofuran. Most of the DCM is
recovered and reused by condensing the vapor stream at
-25 deg. C and -40 deg. C. Any DCM not condensed will
be absorbed on activted carbon or emitted through a
registered emission point. The spent activated carbon
is regenerated by thermal regeneration.
POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD: Process procedure modification
The reduction in air emissions of DCM and spent
carbon was achieved by balancing and reducing the
process and ventilation and gas flows. This was
accomplished using existing equipment.
WASTE REDUCED: Spent Carbon
QUANTITY (LBS.) PERCENT
HISTORICAL : 6400 12
MOST RECENT YEAR : 2800 6
WASTE REDUCED: DCM to air
QUANTITY (LBS.) PERCENT
HISTORICAL : 400 58
MOST RECENT YEAR : 304 51
t
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS SAVINGS
CAPITAL : 0 WASTE DISP.: 8200
OPER. & MAINT.: 0 RAW MAT. : 0
OTHER : 0 OTHER : 0
TOTAL : 0 TOTAL : 8200
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : VOLUME OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY # 9
SIC CODE : 28
PRODUCTS : Carbofuran & Carbosulfan technical pesticides
OPERATION: Caustic scrubbers to abate air emissions.
The Carbofuran process vent stream and reactor area
ventilation air is routed through two caustic scrubbers
• to abate air emissions. As a result, sodium carbonate
concentration increases due to scrubbing carbon dioxide
from ventilation air and NaOH concentration due to
evaporation must be controlled by purging these
scrubbers.
POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD: Recycling/reuse on-site
The plant currently operates two caustic scrubbers
for abatement of air emissions. Caustic solution is
purged due to high sodium carbonate levels. The other
scrubber is purged due to higft NaOH concentration. The
first scrubber is now purged to eliminate Na2C03.
Caustic from the second scrubber is now used for make
up in the second scrubber rather than discarded as
wastewater.
WASTE REDUCED: NaOH
QUANTITY (LBS.) PERCENT
HISTORICAL : 220000 41
MOST RECENT YEAR : 108600 25
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS SAVINGS
CAPITAL : 2000 WASTE DISP.: 2200
OPER. & MAINT.: 0 RAW MAT. : 16000
OTHER : o OTHER : o
TOTAL : 2000 TOTAL : 18200
t
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : VOLUME OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)
-------
77
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY # 10
SIC 60DE : 28
PRODUCTS : Methylene chloride, chloroform, methyl chloride, CC14
OPERATION: Vapor scrubbing of hydrogen chloride and chlorine
Equipment depressuring for normal maintenance and
emergency scrubbing of hydrogen chloride and chlorine
in 15% sodium hydroxide solution. Catalytic
decomposition system was installed in 1986, eliminating
the need to dispose of spent caustic solution as a
hazardous waste.
POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD: Equipment/technology modification
Utilization of catalysts to prevent formation of
• sodium hypochlorite solution so that neutralization and
organic stripping can be done in-plant versus off-site
disposal.
WASTE REDUCED: Spent Caustic
QUANTITY (LBS.) PERCENT
HISTORICAL :
MOST RECENT YEAR :
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS
CAPITAL :
OPER. & MAINT. :
OTHER :
4000000 100
776280 100
t
SAVINGS
400000 WASTE DISP. :
10000 RAW MAT. :
5000 OTHER :
165000
0
0
TOTAL : 415000 TOTAL : 165000
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : TO REDUCE PRODUCTION COSTS
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY # 11
SIC CODE : 28
PRODUCTS : Methylene chloride, chloroform, methyl chloride,
OPERATION: Product scrubbing
Activated carbon is used in product purification. In
1986
spent carbon was initially sent off-site for
reactivation.
However, it must be noted that; spent carbon is
classified as
a hazardous waste even if it is reactivated and
,returned for
reuse and not disposal.
POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD: Recycling/reuse off-site
Off-site reactivation of spent carbon.
WASTE REDUCED: Spent Carbon
QUANTITY (LBS.) PERCENT
HISTORICAL : 300000 100
MOST RECENT YEAR : 100000 100
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS SAVINGS
CAPITAL : 0 WASTE DISP.: 255000
OPER. & MAINT.: 10000 RAW MAT. : 20000
OTHER : 165000 ' OTHER : 0
TOTAL : 175000 TOTAL : 235000
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : TO REDUCE PRODUCTION COSTS
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY I 12
sic CODE : 28
PRODUCTS : Methylene chloride, chloroform, methyl chloride, CC14
OPERATION: Product scrubbing and drying
A variety of dessicants are used for product.drying
arid impurities removal. In 1986 non-recyclable
desiccants were replaced with regenerable drying
agents.
POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD: Substitution of raw materials
Substitution of non-regenerable agents with material
that is regenerable.
WASTE REDUCED: Spent desiccants
QUANTITY'(LBS.)
PERCENT
HISTORICAL :
MOST RECENT YEAR :
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS
CAPITAL :
OPER. & MAINT.:
OTHER :
40000 100
13000 100
SAVINGS
0 WASTE DISP. :
30000 RAW MAT. :
0 OTHER :
34000
0
0
TOTAL : 30000 TOTAL : 34000
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : TO REDUCE PRODUCTION COSTS
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY # 13
SIC CODE : 28
PRODUCTS : Chlorine, caustic, chlorinated organics
OPERATION: Chlorine Manufacture
Chlorine and caustic are produced by the electrolysis
of brine. The wet chlorine gas is cooled, dried,
• compressed, and liquified.
POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD: Recycling/reuse on-site
K073, D008 - Cell materials modified to eliminate waste
source.
Chlorine in water - Replaced direct control cooling of
chlorine to non-contact heat exchangers. Installed a
vacuum stripper to recover and recycle chlorine for
streams containing chlorine.
Chlorine in air - Eliminated a stripper vent tothe
atmosphere. Added additional refrigeration capacity to
the til gas recovery unit.
WASTE REDUCED: K073 organics
QUANTITY'(LBS.) PERCENT
HISTORICAL : 430000 100
MOST RECENT YEAR : o 0
WASTE REDUCED: DO08 Lead Sludge
QUANTITY (LBS.) PERCENT
HISTORICAL : 2400000 100
MOST RECENT YEAR : 0 0
WASTE REDUCED: Chlorine in water
QUANTITY (LBS.) PERCENT
HISTORICAL : 4362200 90
MOST RECENT YEAR : 69200 33
WASTE REDUCED: K073 organics
QUANTITY (LBS.) PERCENT
HISTORICAL : 430000 100
MOST RECENT YEAR : 0 0
-------
81
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY # 13 , PAGE TWO
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS SAVINGS
CAPITAL : 26000000 WASTE DISP.: 627000
OPER. & MAINT.: 0 RAW MAT. : 120000
OTHER : 0 OTHER : 0
. TOTAL : 26000000 TOTAL : 747000
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : TOXICITY OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY # 14
SIC CODE : 28
PRODUCTS : Chlorine, caustic, chlorinated organics
OPERATION: Adhesive dispense system
An MDI-based adhesive is dispensed for bonding
automotive glass assemblies via six robotic dispense
systems. Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) is used as the
system flush solvent. The systems are flushed at
shutdowns to remove catalyzed materials from the mixing
chamber.
POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD: Recycling/reuse on-site
.The MEK solvent flush of the dispense system results
in a waste product with a content of approximately 70%
MEK and 30% adhesive. A 5 gallon distillation system
was purchased to distill and recover the MEK portion of
the waste. The unit is operated daily with the
previous day's waste material. The recovered MEK is
then returned to the system for reuse. All still
bottoms, which are about 10% MEK, are then stored for
disposal by incineration. Also aiding our decrease in
MEK usage was a change in plant operation from having
one 30 minute lunch break in which the entire plant was
shutdown to two 20 minute relieved breaks spaced
equally through the shift. This effectively eliminated
one shutdown per shift and halved our generation of
MEK/adhesive waste.
WASTE REDUCED: Methyl ethyl ketone
QUANTITY (LBS.) PERCENT
HISTORICAL : 17120 96
MOST RECENT YEAR : 17120 96
COSTS & SAVINGS:
•
COSTS SAVINGS
CAPITAL : 3500 WASTE DISP.: 12925
OPER. & MAINT.: 600 RAW MAT. : 10300
OTHER : 0 OTHER : o
TOTAL : 4100 TOTAL : 23225
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : VOLUME OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)
-------
83
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY # 15
SIC CODE : 28
*
PRODUCTS : Chlorine, caustic, chlorinated organics
OPERATION: Equipment degreasing
Compressor parts and miscellaneous machinery .are
solvent cleaned as part of maintenance procedures.
POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD: Substitution of raw materials
Changed to waste petroleum naptha for cleaning parts.
WASTE REDUCED: 1,1,1 Trichloroethylene
QUANTITY (LBS.) PERCENT
HISTORICAL :
MOST RECENT YEAR :
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS
CAPITAL :
OPER. & MAINT.:
OTHER :
21200 100
0 0
SAVINGS
0 WASTE DISP. :
4500 RAW MAT. :
0 OTHER :
4000
0
0
TOTAL : 4500 TOTAL : 4000
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : TOXICITY OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY # 16
SIC CODE : 28
PRODUCTS : Chlorine, caustic, chlorinated organics
OPERATION: Chlorinated benzenes plant
.Benzene is chlorinated to produce mono- and di-
chlorobenzenes. These are separated through
distillation and crystallization and then shipped to
customers.
POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD: Equipment/technology modificat:
1. Eliminated sample bottles, now using chromatograph
and sample
. ports.
2. Installed magnetic and double-seal pumps.
3. Installed refrigerated vent scrubber.
4. Eliminated tanks.
5. Installed leak resistant valves.
WASTE REDUCED: Benzene emissions
QUANTITY (LBS.) PERCENT
HISTORICAL : 658700 70
MOST RECENT YEAR : 27500 39
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS SAVINGS
CAPITAL : 100000 WASTE DISP.: (
OPER. &MAINT.: 20000 RAW MAT. : 75001
OTHER : 0 OTHER : (
TOTAL : 340000 TOTAL : 7500(
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : TOXICITY OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)
-------
85
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY # 17
SIC CODE : 28
PRODUCTS : Chlorine, caustic, chlorinated organics
OPERATION: Methylene Chloride Loss Reduction
Methylene chloride is used as a heat transfer fluid.
POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD: Equipment/technology modification
Equipment improvement - Teflon plug cocks have been
used to replace gate valves. Installed double-sealed
pumps with barrier fluids.
WASTE REDUCED: Methylene chloride
• . »
QUANTITY (LBS.)
PERCENT
HISTORICAL :
MOST RECENT YEAR :
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS
CAPITAL :
OPER. & MAINT. :
OTHER :
46200 87
4200 51
SAVINGS
0 WASTE DISP. :
50000 RAW MAT. :
0 OTHER :
0
1750
0
TOTAL
50000
TOTAL
1750
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : TOXICITY OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY I 18
SIC CODE : 28
PRODUCTS : Chlorine, caustic, chlorinated organics
OPERATION: Sulfur recovery unit
.Sulfur recovery unit converts hydrogen sulfide
by-product into sulfur for recycle to the process.
POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD: Recycling/reuse on-site
Installed additional recovery bed (3rd) and installed
improved catalyst in all three beds.
WASTE REDUCED: S02 to air
QUANTITY (LBS.) PERCENT
HISTORICAL : 1448000 55
MOST RECENT YEAR : 1448000 55
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS ' SAVINGS
CAPITAL : 1300000 WASTE DISP.: 0
OPER. & MAINT.: 0 RAW MAT. : 30000
OTHER : o OTHER : 0
TOTAL : 1300000 TOTAL : 30000
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : VOLUME OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)
-------
87
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY I 19
SIC CODE : 28
PRODUCTS : Chlorine, caustic, chlorinated organics
OPERATION: Calcium Hypochlorite Plant
Calcium hypochlorite is produced from lime, chlorine,
and caustic. Product is dried, milled, and packaged
. for sale.
POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD: Recycling/reuse on-site
.Installed a baghouse to recover and recycle
exctremely small particle product that had been
- escaping.
WASTE REDUCED: Non-hazardous solid
QUANTITY (LBS.) PERCENT
HISTORICAL : 590000 23
MOST RECENT YEAR : 590000 23
WASTE REDUCED: Air particulate
QUANTITY (LBS.) PERCENT
HISTORICAL : 60800 97
MOST RECENT YEAR : 37800 97
I
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS SAVINGS
CAPITAL : 2260000 WASTE DISP.: 0
OPER. & MAINT.: 390000 RAW MAT. : 1296000
OTHER : 152700 OTHER : 0
TOTAL : 2802700 TOTAL : 1296000
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : TO REDUCE PRODUCTION COSTS
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY f 20
SIC CODE : 28
PRODUCTS : Chlorine, caustic, chlorinated organics
OPERATION: Development Brine Recycle
Salt is dissolved from the strata located
approximately 7000 feet below ground surface nd used
for production of chlorine and caustic.
POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD: Equipment/technology modificati
When a new well is drilled the cavity must be
devweloped unitl it becomes large enough to produce
. high strength brine. In the past this weak salt brine
has been sewered. Equipment was purchased to allow
reinjection of this brine at 1000 psig into another
cavity where it will reach the required strength.
WASTE REDUCED: Chloride
QUANTITY (LBS.) PERCENT
HISTORICAL : 300000 100
MOST RECENT YEAR : 300000 100
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS SAVINGS
CAPITAL : 100000 WASTE DISP.: 0
OPER. & MAINT.: 0 RAW MAT. : 4000
OTHER : o OTHER : o
TOTAL : 100000 TOTAL : 4000
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : VOLUME OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)
-------
89
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY # 21
t
SIC CODE : 28
PRODUCTS : Silicons products
OPERATION: Silicons production
Batch chemical reaction in manufacture of silicons
POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD: Process modification
Change in process technology allows chemical reaction
to run safely and efficiently without reaction solvent
used in older
' technology.
WASTE REDUCED: Solvent
QUANTITY (LBS.)
PERCENT
HISTORICAL :
MOST RECENT YEAR :
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS
CAPITAL :
OPER. & MAINT.:
OTHER :
4000000 25
3500000 50
SAVINGS
0 WASTE DISP. :
0 RAW MAT. :
0 OTHER :
360000
880000
0
TOTAL : 0 TOTAL : 1240000
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : TO INCREASE EFFICIENCY
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY # 22
SIC CODE : 28
PRODUCTS : Silicone products
OPERATION: Solvent recovery
Solvents used in cleaning of reaction systems between
runs.
POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD: Recycling/reuse on-site
Waste Toluene reaction solvent distilled to recover
Toluene of acceptable quality for use in cleaning
reaction systems between campaigns of similar products
in batch reaction systems.
WASTE REDUCED: Waste solvents (to incineration)
QUANTITY (LBS.) PERCENT
HISTORICAL :
MOST RECENT YEAR :
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS
CAPITAL :
OPER. & MAINT. :
OTHER
4500000 20
1350000 30
SAVINGS
90000 WASTE DISP. :
450000 . RAW MAT. :
0 OTHER :
36000<
99000(
TOTAL : 540000 TOTAL : 135000(
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : TO REDUCE PRODUCTION COSTS
-------
91
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY # 23
SIC CODE : 28
PRODUCTS : Silicone products
OPERATION: Chemical reaction
Chemical manufacturing process which takes place in
reactor vessel.
POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD: Equipment/technology modification
Reactor was modified to provide additional residence
time and obtain more complete reaction. This resulted
in a reduced volume of volatile raw material fed and
less waste of same raw material.
WASTE REDUCED: Spent raw material
QUANTITY (LBS.)
PERCENT
HISTORICAL :
MOST RECENT YEAR :
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS
CAPITAL :
OPER. & MAINT.t
OTHER :
340000 68
170000 68
SAVINGS
250000 WASTE DISP. :
0 RAW MAT. :
0 OTHER :
0
42500
0
TOTAL : 250000 TOTAL : 42500
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : VOLUME OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY # *24
SIC CODE : 32
PRODUCTS : Science and consumer glass products
OPERATION: Trash disposal
Trash disposal for entire plant.
POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD: Recycling/reuse off-site
We used to send all loose trash, including cardboard,
to the landfill. We now compact it at a 4:1 compaction
rate and recycle all corrugated cardboard, which is/was
70% of all our trash.
WASTE REDUCED: Trash/cardboard
QUANTITY (LBS.) PERCENT
HISTORICAL : 300000 70
MOST RECENT YEAR : 300000 70
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS SAVINGS
CAPITAL : 5000 WASTE DISP.: 60001
OPER. & MAINT.: 13000 RAW MAT. : |
OTHER : o OTHER : <
TOTAL : 18000 TOTAL : 6000(
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : TO REDUCE PRODUCTION COSTS
-------
93
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY # 25
SIC CODE : 32
PRODUCTS : Science and consumer glass products
OPERATION: Glass forming
Water is used for cooling all hot glass tanks, all
air compressors, and all vacuum pumps.
POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD: Recycling/reuse on-site
Systems installed for recirculation and cooling of
process water, including a total of six cooling towers.
WASTE REDUCED: Process water
QUANTITY (LBS.) PERCENT
HISTORICAL : 5400000000 85
MOST RECENT YEAR : 1200000000 85
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS SAVINGS
CAPITAL : 575000 WASTE DISP.: 0
OPER. & MAINT.: 50000 RAW MAT. : 1300000
OTHER : 0 ' OTHER : 0
TOTAL : 625000 TOTAL : 1300000
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : TO REDUCE PRODUCTION COSTS
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY f 26
SIC CODE : 32
PRODUCTS : Science and consumer glass products
OPERATION: Painting and cleanup
.Painting is done throughout the plant. Solvents are
used in many areas of the plant for cleaning of
machinery, paint cleanup, etc.
POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD: Recycling/reuse off-site
Scrap paint and solvents use'd to be thrown away as
, trash; they are now saved and recycled off-site.
WASTE REDUCED: Solvents
HISTORICAL :
MOST RECENT YEAR :
WASTE REDUCED: Paints
HISTORICAL :
MOST RECENT YEAR :
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS
QUANTITY (LBS.)
12500
2700
QUANTITY (LBS.)
1800
400
PERCENT
100
100
PERCENT
100
100
SAVINGS
CAPITAL :
OPER. & MAINT.:
OTHER :
0
1200
0
WASTE DISP.:
RAW MAT. :
OTHER :
0
0
0
TOTAL
1200
TOTAL
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : TOXICITY OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)
-------
95
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY # 27
SIC CODE : 33
PRODUCTS : Wrapped electronic wire
OPERATION: Carbon filter system for Methylene Chloride emissions
All air emissions of Methylene Chloride will.be put
through a carbon filter system and reclaimed. This
will prevent pollution of atmosphere with Methylene
Chloride.
POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD: Recycling/reuse on-site
All emissions of Methylene Cloride throughout the
' plant will come to one stack containing the carbon
absorption system.
WASTE REDUCED:
QUANTITY'(LBS.)
PERCENT
HISTORICAL :
MOST RECENT YEAR :
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS
CAPITAL : 600000
OPER. & MAINT.: 85000
OTHER : 0
0 0
0 0
SAVINGS
WASTE DISP. :
RAW MAT. :
OTHER :
0
0
0
TOTAL : 685000 TOTAL :
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : TOXICITY OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY # 28
SIC CODE : 33
PRODUCTS : Wrapped electronic wire
OPERATION: Paint manufacturing
.Methylene chloride is mixed with powder and made into
paint. Paint is applied to a surface and leftover
paint is distilled to remove the methylene chloride.
POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD: Recycling/reuse on-site
Installed a methylene chloride reclamation system in
, 1986. Installed a second reclamation system in 1987
with piping and storage capacity.
WASTE REDUCED: Methylene chloride still bottoms
QUANTITY (LBS.) PERCENT
HISTORICAL : 965 43
MOST RECENT YEAR : 965 43
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS SAVINGS
CAPITAL : 200000 WASTE DISP.:
OPER. & MAINT.: 5000 RAW MAT. :
OTHER : o OTHER :
TOTAL : 205000 TOTAL : <
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : VOLUME OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)
-------
97
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY # 29
SIC CODE : 33
PRODUCTS : WELDED WIRE MESH, DRAWN WIRE, GALVANIZED WIRE
OPERATION: LOW-CARBON STEEL CONTINUOUS WIRE GALVANIZING
Low-Carbon steel wire ranging from 1/16" to 3/8" in
diameter is annealed, quenched, cleaned with HC1,
• rinsed, fluxed with Ammonium Chloride, and coated with
molten Zinc.
POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD: EQUIP*MENT/TECHNOLOGY MODIFICATION
Replaced molten lead annealing furnace with fluidized
' bed annealing furnace.
WASTE REDUCED: LEAD/COAL MIXTURE
QUANTITY (LBS.) PERCENT
HISTORICAL :
MOST RECENT YEAR :
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS
CAPITAL :
OPER. & MAINT.:
OTHER :
259974 100
0 0
SAVINGS
500000 WASTE DISP. :
0 RAW MAT. :
0 OTHER :
0
0
0
TOTAL : 0 TOTAL :
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : VOLUME OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY f 30
SIC CODE : 34
PRODUCTS : CUTLERY
OPERATION: AQUEOUS DEGREASER
POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD: SUBSTITUTION OF RAW MATERIALS
Replaced Perchloroethylene with aqueous-based liquid
soap.
WASTE REDUCED: PERCHLOROETHYLENE
QUANTITY (LBS.)
PERCENT
HISTORICAL :
MOST RECENT YEAR :
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS
CAPITAL :
OPER. & MAINT. :
OTHER :
35tOOO 100
35*000 100
SAVINGS
150 WASTE DISP. :
0 RAW MAT. :
0 OTHER :
C
C
C
TOTAL
TOTAL
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : TO REDUCE PRODUCTION COSTS
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY # 31
SIC CODE : 34
PRODUCTS : SCREW MACHINE PRODUCTS,
OPERATION: DECREASING
Parts are brought to degreaser from machines and
washed to remove oil and cuttings.
POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD: PROCESS MODIFICATION
Installed freeboard chilling systems, solvent
recovery still, modified cover, stopped removal of
solvent from tank, stopped unnecessary cleaning
'operations, and solvent is disposed of by fuel
blending.
WASTE REDUCED: 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
QUANTITY (LBS.) PERCENT
HISTORICAL :
MOST RECENT YEAR :
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS
CAPITAL :
OPER. & MAINT. :
OTHER :
19933 34
20647 34
*
SAVINGS
500 WASTE DISP.:
0 RAW MAT. :
0 OTHER :
0
6777
0
TOTAL : 500 TOTAL : 6777
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : VOLUME OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY # 32
SIC CODE : 34
PRODUCTS : Non-powered lawn and garden tools
OPERATION: Painting
Parts painted before assembly.
POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD: Substitution of raw materials
1. Purchase outside-manufactured subassemblies
prepainted.
2. Employee awareness.
3. Transfer of prepainting Ames Plant 1 subassemblies
from an
inefficient dip system to an electrostatic system
at Ames
Plant 2.
4. Conversion of lead/chrome-base paints to
lead/chrome-free
where feasible.
5. Conversion of steel parts requiring
painting/plating to
plastic where feasible.
*Records are not maintained on a per part/unit basis to
substantiate befor/after waste association and off-spec
paint that ends up as waste.
WASTE REDUCED: D002
QUANTITY (LBS.) PERCENT
HISTORICAL : 272000 25
MOST RECENT YEAR : 600 19
WASTE REDUCED: 0008,0007,0002,0001,FO05
. QUANTITY (LBS.) PERCENT
HISTORICAL : 0 0
MOST RECENT YEAR : 0 0
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : VOLUME OF WASTE PRODUCT
-------
101
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY I 33
SIC CODE : 34
PRODUCTS : Non-powered lawn and garden tools
OPERATION: Metal finishing prior to painting
In-house pickling was eliminated and replaced with
grit/shot blast cleaning.
POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD: Process procedure modification
In-house pickling was eliminated and replaced with
grit/shot blast cleaning.
WASTE REDUCED: K062
QUANTITY,(LBS.) PERCENT
HISTORICAL : 3600000 100
MOST RECENT YEAR : 600000 100
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : VOLUME OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY # 34
SIC CODE : 35
PRODUCTS : ROTORY COMPRESSORS FOR WINDOW AIR CONDITIONERS
OPERATION: DECREASING COMPRESSOR PUMP PARTS
Barren Blakesly degreaser is used to degrease
cdmpressor pump parts before assembly.
POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD: SUBSTITUTION OF RAW MATERIALS
Stopped using Trichlorofluoromethane, (1)
substituting water-based cleaners wherever possible,
and (2) using 1,1,1-Trichloroethane and charcoal
'filters where necessary. 1,1,1-TCE is restilled for
maximum use.
WASTE REDUCED: TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
QUANTITY (LBS.) PERCENT
HISTORICAL : 116350 81
MOST RECENT YEAR : 116350 81
ff
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : TO REDUCE PRODUCTION COSTS
-------
103
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY # 35
SIC CODE : 35
PRODUCTS : CORRUGATED FINISHING MACHINERY FOR THE BOX INDUSTRY
OPERATION: PAINTING
POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD: RECYCLING/REUSE ON-SITE
Waste paint solvent is distilled and reused, greatly
reducing waste by-products. Solvents are distilled
on-site. Clean solvent is returned to the process.
Still bottoms are shipped out as a hazardous waste.
WASTE REDUCED: WASTE PAINT SOLVENT
QUANTITY (LBS.) PERCENT
HISTORICAL : 10000 83
MOST RECENT YEAR : 10000 83
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : VOLUME OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY f 36
SIC CODE : 36
PRODUCTS : MICROCHIPS, SEMICONDUCTOR MATERIALS
OPERATION: HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL PACKAGING
Collect two waste streams (waste Isopropyl Alcohol
and Photoresist) in 55-gallon drums rather than lab
packing.
POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD: IMPROVED HOUSEKEEPING
Collect waste Isopropyl Alcohol and Photoresists in
separate 55-gallon drums to be reclaimed.
WASTE REDUCED: IGNITIABLE LIQUID .
QUANTITY (LBS.) PERCENT
HISTORICAL :
MOST RECENT YEAR :
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS
CAPITAL :
OPER. & MAINT. :
OTHER :
0
1700
0
2560 40
1280 40
SAVINGS
WASTE DISP. :
RAW MAT. :
OTHER :
7000
0
0
TOTAL : 1700 TOTAL : 7000
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : VOLUME OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY # 37
SIC CODE : 36
PRODUCTS : CERAMIC-TO-METAL SEALS, GLASS-TO-METAL SEALS
OPERATION: PARTS CLEANING/DEGREASING
Freon solvent used to clean/degrease parts in vapor
degrease is distilled and recycled to the process.
POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD: RECYCLING/REUSE ON-SITE
Solvent distillation.
WASTE REDUCED: FREON
QUANTITY (LBS.) . PERCENT
HISTORICAL
MOST RECENT YEAR
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS
80000
8000
100
100
SAVINGS
105
CAPITAL :
OPER. & MAINT.:
OTHER :
6000
0
0
WASTE DISP.:
RAW MAT. :
OTHER :
2000
24000
0
TOTAL
6000
TOTAL
26000
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : TO REDUCE PRODUCTION COSTS
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY # 38
SIC CODE : 36
PRODUCTS : Electrical metal raceways and fittings
OPERATION: Paint dipping system
Metal parts are placed on a hanger and dipped in a
tank of solvent-based paint containing lead and
chromium.
POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD: Substitution of raw materials
The process is the same. The new paint is a lead-
and chromium-free water-based paint that dries at a
-lower temperature. Also, the drip pan drains the paint
back into the tank.
WASTE REDUCED: D001, D007 & D008
QUANTITY (LBS.) PERCENT
HISTORICAL :
MOST RECENT YEAR :
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS
CAPITAL
OPER. & MAINT.:
OTHER
0 0
0 0
SAVINGS
0 WASTE DISP. ;
0 . RAW MAT. :
1200 OTHER :
1000
3542
0
TOTAL : 1200 TOTAL : 4542
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : TOXICITY OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)
-------
107
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY I 39
SIC CODE : 36
PRODUCTS : Electrical metal raceways and fittings
OPERATION: Coating brass parts with lacquer
Polished brass and aluminum parts were spray-rcoated
with a laquer in order to prevent corrosion
(discoloration).
POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD: Process procedure modification
It was determined that a protective coating was not
required for polished aluminum parts. Estimated
' reduction in volume is 80%.
WASTE REDUCED: DO01
QUANTITY (LBS.)
PERCENT
HISTORICAL :
MOST RECENT YEAR :
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS
CAPITAL :
OPER. & MAINT. :
OTHER :
2000 83
2000 83
SAVINGS
0 WASTE DISP. :
0 RAW MAT. :
0 OTHER :
1500
16300
0
TOTAL : 0 TOTAL : 17800
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : TO REDUCE PRODUCTION COSTS
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY # 40
t
SIC C*ODE : 36
PRODUCTS : Electrical metal raceways and fittings
OPERATION: Paint dipping system - Department 1500
Metal tubers are placed on a rack and dipped in a
tank of water-based paint containing lead and chromium.
POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD: Substitution of raw materials
The process is the same. However, the new paint is
chromium- and lead-free and bakes at 280 deg. F instead
of 350 deg. F.
WASTE REDUCED: D007 & D008
QUANTITY (LBS.) PERCENT
HISTORICAL : 10000 100
MOST RECENT YEAR : 10000 100
COSTS & SAVINGS:
C°STS SAVINGS
CAPITAL : o WASTE DISP.: 3000
OPER. &MAINT.: 0 RAW MAT. : 43000
OTHER : 13600 OTHER : 0
TOTAL : 13600 TOTAL : 46000
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : TOXICITY OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY # 41
SIC CODE : 36
PRODUCTS : Electrical metal raceways and fittings
OPERATION: Metal degreasing
Metal parts are placed on a danger and moved through
a'trichloroethylene degreaser.
POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD: Equipment modifications
The trichloroethylene vapor degreaser was replaced
with a hot water spray using an Oakite 86M.
WASTE REDUCED: F001
QUANTITY (LBS.) PERCENT
HISTORICAL : 1140 100
MOST RECENT YEAR : 1140 100
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS SAVINGS
CAPITAL : 73225 WASTE DISP.: 600
OPER. & MAINT.: 0 RAW MAT. : 19490
OTHER : 0 OTHER : 1000
TOTAL : 73225 TOTAL : 21090
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : TOXICITY OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY # 42
SIC CODE : 37
PRODUCTS : Overhaul & repair of small aircraft engines
OPERATION: Electroplating of metals
Plating processes which use copper, silver, chrome,
tin, and cadmium.
POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD: Process procedure modification
This system has been on line since 1988. We have
gained operating experience since that time which
allows us to operate more efficiently.
WASTE REDUCED: Waste sludge F006
QUANTITY (LBS.) PERCENT
HISTORICAL : 4000 10
MOST RECENT YEAR : 4000 10
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : VOLUME OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)
-------
Ill
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY # '43
SIC CODE : 38
PRODUCTS : Dental sundry products
OPERATION: Tubing
Vinyl silicons products are taken from the bulk state
and filled into tubes.
POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD: Substitution of raw materials
Toluene was used as a cleaning agent for the tubing
equipment. Stoddard Solvent was substituted for
Toluene due to its higher flash point. With the higher
flash point we are able to reuse the solvent.
This was done to improve occupational safety and to
• allow for reuse.
WASTE REDUCED: Toluene
QUANTITY .(LBS.)
PERCENT
HISTORICAL :
MOST RECENT YEAR :
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS
CAPITAL :
OPER. & MAINT. :
OTHER :
1000 15
1000 15
SAVINGS
800 WASTE DISP. :
0 RAW MAT. :
0 OTHER :
300
0
0
TOTAL : 800
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : OTHER
TOTAL
300
-------
1
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY # 44
SIC CODE : 38
PRODUCTS : Dental sundry products
OPERATION: Machine shop - Cleaning of metalworking machines
Cleaning of metalworking machines.
POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD: Substitution of raw materials
Metalworking machines require routine cleanouts. We
switched from a hazardous degreaser to a biodegradable
water-based cleaner for equipment cleanout.
WASTE REDUCED: Mineral spirits
QUANTITY (LBS.)
PERCENT
HISTORICAL :
MOST RECENT YEAR :
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS
CAPITAL :
OPER. & MAINT. :
OTHER :
3700 80
3700 80
SAVINGS
500 WASTE DISP. :
0 RAW MAT. :
0 • OTHER :
1500
0
0
TOTAL
500
TOTAL
1500
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : TOXICITY OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)
-------
113
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY # 45
SIC CODE : 38
PRODUCTS : Dental sundry products
OPERATION: Ground glass preparation
Silanation of ground glass.
POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD: Process procedure modification
Glass silanation technique was changed. The old
method was a wet silanation procedure using Acetone as
the diluent. The new method i's a dry silanation
technique with the use of no solvents.
WASTE REDUCED: Acetone
QUANTITY (LBS.)
PERCENT
HISTORICAL :
MOST RECENT YEAR :
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS
CAPITAL :
OPER. & MAINT. :
OTHER :
9400 75
4700 75
SAVINGS
0 WASTE DISP. :
0 RAW MAT. :
0 OTHER :
2500
3000
0
TOTAL
TOTAL
5500
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : TO IMPROVE PRODUCT QUALITY
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY # 46
SIC CODE : 38
PRODUCTS : Dental sundry products
OPERATION: Polymer washing
Methanol is used as a solvent in a polymer washing
operation.
POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD: Recycling/reuse on-site
We are in the start-up phase of a distillation
operation to recover the spent methanol. Thie
recovered methanol will be reused in the original
' processes. We hope to see a 50% reduction in the waste
• stream when fully implemented. This represents a
reduction of 35,000 pounds per year. Savings are
projected at $21,000/year.
WASTE REDUCED: Methanol
QUANTITY (LBS.)
PERCENT
HISTORICAL :
MOST RECENT YEAR :
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS
CAPITAL : 14000
OPER. & MAINT. : 0
OTHER : 0
0 0
0 0
SAVINGS
WASTE DISP. :
RAW MAT. :
OTHER :
21000
0
0
TOTAL : 14000 TOTAL : 21000
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : VOLUME OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)
-------
115
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY # 47
SIC CODE : 38
PRODUCTS : Dental sundry products
OPERATION: Copper plating
Copper plating of metal parts.
POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD: Equipment modification
The copper plating bath was removed from service and
replaced with a non-cyanide bath which performs the
same function. The new bath has not been in place long
-enough to evaluate any waste reductions. Any wastes
generated from this process will be lower in toxicity
than those generated from the old method.
WASTE REDUCED: Copper Cyanide
QUANTITY (LBS.) PERCENT
HISTORICAL : 0 0
MOST RECENT YEAR : 0 0
WASTE REDUCED: Potassium Cyanide
t
QUANTITY (LBS.) PERCENT
HISTORICAL : 0 0
MOST RECENT YEAR : 0 0
COSTS & SAVINGS:
COSTS SAVINGS
CAPITAL : 10000 WASTE DISP.: 0
OPER. & MAINT.: 0 RAW MAT. : 0
OTHER : 0 OTHER : 0
TOTAL : 10000 TOTAL :
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : TOXICITY OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY # 48
SIC CODE : 38
PRODUCTS : Dental sundry products
OPERATION: Metal plating
.Plating of metal parts.
POLLUTION PREVENTION METHOD: Process modification
Through discussions with our supplier of plating bath
chemicals we learned new techniques to prolong bath
. life. Our old methods involved removing and replacing
all of the fluid on a routine basis. New procedures
. allow us to recharge the bath and call for much less
frequent replacement.
WASTE REDUCED: Sodium Cyanide
QUANTITY (LBS.) PERCENT
HISTORICAL : 1000 20
MOST RECENT YEAR : 1000 20
WASTE REDUCED: Potassium Cyanide
QUANTITY (LBS.) PERCENT
HISTORICAL : 2700 100
MOST RECENT YEAR : 2700 100
COSTS & SAVINGS:
•
COSTS SAVINGS
CAPITAL : 0 WASTE DISP.: 7000
OPER. & MAINT.: 0 RAW MAT. : 0
OTHER : 0 OTHER : 0
TOTAL : 0 TOTAL : 7000
POLLUTION PREVENTION REASON : TOXICITY OF WASTE PRODUCT(S)
------- |