EPA/625/R-93/014
November 1993
GUIDES TO POLLUTION PREVENTION:
Wood Preserving Industry
RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY
AND
CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH INFORMATION
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
NOTICE
This guide has been subjected to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
peer and administrative review, and approved for publication. Approval does
not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names,
commercial products, or processes constitute endorsement or recommendation
for use.
This document is intended as advisory guidance only to the wood preserv-
ing industry in developing approaches for pollution prevention. Compliance
with environmental and occupational safety and health laws is the responsibil-
ity of each individual business and is not the focus of this document.
Worksheets are provided for conducting waste minimization assessments
of wood preserving plants. Users are encouraged to duplicate portions of this
publication as needed to implement a waste minimization program.
11
-------
FOREWORD
This guide provides an overview of the wood preserving industry and pre-
sents options for minimizing waste generation through source^ reduction and
recycling. Treatment with both oilborne and waterborne preservatives is dis-
cussed in this guide. However, because, in the United States, the majority of
wood is treated with chromated copper arsenate, the guide focuses on water-
borne preservatives.
Process wastewater, surface runoff water, and sludge are possible sources
of contamination in the wood preserving industry, although hi waterborne pro-
cesses the majority of wastewater is reused. Process wastewater includes
water from conditioning, kiln drying, treated wood washing, accumulations in
doors or retort sumps, preservative formulation recovery, and rinsing. Surface'
runoff water flows from nonprocess areas, such as treated wood storage yards.
Sludge consists of oil-water emulsions, water/debris mixtures, and wood
debris. Reducing the amount of mis waste will benefit both the wood
preserving industry and the environment.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This guide is based in part on waste minimization assessments (Waste
Minimization Practices at Two CCA Wood-Treatment Plants) conducted by
Battelle for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Battelle
expanded the CCA waste minimization report under subcontract to EPA
(USEPA Contract 68-CO-0003) to produce this guide. Battelle personnel con-
tributing to the guide include Bob Olfenbuttel, work assignment manager;
Leslie Hughes, task leader; Abraham Chen, technical engineer; and Bea
Weaver, production editor.
Paul Randall of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, was the
project officer responsible for the preparation and review of this guide. Other
contributors and reviewers include
Darrell D. Nicholas
Associate Director
Mississippi Forest Products
Laboratory
P.O. Drawer FP
Mississippi State, MS 39762-5724
Susan L. LeVan
Assistant Director, PMR
Forest Products Laboratory
USDA Forest Service
One Gifford Pinchot Drive
Madison, WI 53705-2398
Tom Kyzer
Manager, Environmental Services
Chemical Specialties, Inc.
One Woodlawn Green, Suite 250
Charlotte, NC 28217
William J. Baldwin, Vice President
Technical and Environmental
Services and
Jeff Meadows, Manager
Environmental Health
and Safety
Hickson Corporation
3941 Bonsai Road
Conley, GA 30027
. iv
-------
CONTENTS
Section
Notice .
Foreword
Acknowledgments
1. Introduction
Overview of Waste Minimization '.
Facility Planning for Pollution Prevention . ,. .
Planning and Organization Phase
Assessment Phase
Feasibility Analysis Phase
Implementation Phase
References
2. Profile of the Wood Preserving Industry
Industry Description
Process Description
Pressure Treating Processes
Non-Pressure Treating Processes
Waste Description
References
3. Waste Minimization Options for the Wood Preserving Industry
Introduction ,
Recycling and Source Reduction Options
Treatment Plant Design
Treatment Practices
Recycling Practices
Housekeeping Practices
Training Practices
Storage and Handling Practices'
Disposal Practices
Preservative/Process Alternatives
Page
111
IV
1
1
2
2
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
8
8
8
11
11
11
11
12
13
13
14
14
14
14
-------
CONTENTS
(Continued)
Section
Economic Considerations
References
4, Waste Minimization Assessment Worksheets
APPENDIX A:
Wood Preserving Industry Field Assessments: Case Studies
APPENDIX B:
Where to Get Help: Further Information on Pollution Prevention
Page
15
15
17
31
39
VI
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
This guide is designed to provide the wood pre-
serving industry with waste minimization options. It
also provides worksheets for carrying out waste mini-
mization assessments. The guide is intended for use
by the wood preserving industry and regulatory
agency representatives, industry suppliers, and
consultants.
In the following sections of this manual you will
find:
A profile of the wood preserving industry and
the processes used in it (Section 2)
Waste minimization options for the industry
(Section 3)
Waste minimization assessment worksheets
(Section 4)
Appendices, containing
Case studies of waste generation and waste
minimization practices of three facilities
Where to get help: sources of useful techni-
cal and regulatory information
The worksheets are the result of updating and
expanding a CCA waste minimization study by
Battelle (Chen and Olfenbuttel 1993). Waste genera-
tion and management practices were surveyed, and
potential waste minimization options were identified.
Overview of Waste Minimization
Waste minimization is a policy specifically man-
dated by the U.S. Congress in the 1984 Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments to the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). As the
federal agency responsible for writing regulations
under RCRA, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has an interest in ensuring that new
methods and approaches are developed for minimizing
hazardous waste and that such information is made
available to the industries concerned. This guide is
one of the approaches EPA is using to provide indus-
try-specific information about hazardous waste mini-
mization. The options and procedures outlined can
also be used in efforts to minimize other wastes
generated in a business.
In the working definition used by EPA, waste min-
imization consists of source reduction and recycling.
Of the two approaches, source reduction is usually
considered preferable to recycling. While a few states
consider treatment of waste an approach to waste min-
imization, EPA does not; and thus treatment is not
addressed in this guide.
Facility Planning for
Pollution Prevention
With the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, the
U.S. Congress established pollution prevention as a
"national objective." To encourage the adoption of
pollution prevention measures in industry, EPA pub-
lished the Facility Pollution Prevention Guide
(USEPA 1992) as a successor to the Waste Minimiza-
tion Opportunity Assessment Manual (USEPA 1988),
which was a general manual for waste minimization.
The Waste Minimization Opportunity Assessment
Manual explained how to conduct waste minimization
assessments, and develop options for reducing the
amount of hazardous waste generated at a facility.
The Facility Pollution Prevention Guide expands
the scope of the Waste Minimization Opportunity
Assessment (WMOA) Manual to emphasize "multi-
media" pollution prevention. It explains the manage-
ment strategies needed to incorporate pollution
prevention into company policies and how to establish
a company-wide pollution prevention program, con-
duct assessments, implement options, and make the
program an ongoing one. It is intended to help small-
to medium-sized production facilities develop broad-
based, multimedia pollution prevention programs.
Methods of evaluating, adjusting, and maintaining the
program are described. Later chapters deal with cost
-------
analysis for pollution prevention projects and with the
roles of product design and energy conservation in
pollution prevention. Appendices consist of materials
that will support the pollution prevention effort such
as assessment worksheets and sources of additional
information.
The method described in the WMOA Manual is
generally the same as the method for carrying out
facility pollution prevention planning. It is a systema-
tic procedure for identifying ways to reduce or elimi-
nate waste. The four phases of a waste minimization
opportunity assessment are planning and organization,
assessment, feasibility analysis, and implementation.
The steps involved in conducting a waste minimiza-
tion assessment are outlined in Figure 1 and presented
in more detail below. Briefly, the assessment consists
of a careful review of a facility's operations and waste
streams and selection of specific areas to assess.
After a particular waste stream or area is established
as the WMOA focus, a number of options with the
potential to minimize waste are developed and
screened. The technical and economic feasibility of
the selection options are then evaluated. Finally, the
most promising options are selected for
implementation.
PLANNING AND ORGANIZATION PHASE
Essential elements of planning and organization for
a waste minimization program are getting management
commitment for the program, setting waste minimiza-
tion goals, and organizing an assessment program task
force.
ASSESSMENT PHASE
The assessment phase involves a number of steps:
Collect process and facility data
Prioritize and select assessment targets
Select assessment team
Review data and inspect site
Generate options
Screen and select options for feasibility study.
Collect Process and Facility Data
The waste streams at a facility should be identified
and characterized. Information about waste streams
may be available on hazardous waste manifests,
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) reports, routine sampling programs, and
other sources.
Developing a basic understanding of the processes
that generate waste at a facility is essential to the
WMOA process. Flow diagrams should be prepared
to identify the quantity, types, and rates of waste gen-
erating processes. Also, preparing material balances
for the different processes can be useful in tracking
various process components and identifying losses or
emissions that may have been unaccounted for
previously.
Prioritize and Select Assessment Targets
Ideally, all waste streams in a facility should be
evaluated for potential waste minimization opportuni-
ties. With limited resources, however, the facility
manager may need to concentrate waste minimization
efforts in a specific area. Such considerations as
quantity of waste, hazardous properties of the waste,
regulations, safety of employees, economics, and other
characteristics need to be evaluated in selecting target
streams or operations.
Select Assessment Team
The team should include people with direct respon-
sibility for and knowledge of the particular waste
stream or area of the facility being addressed. Equip-
ment operators and people involved in routine waste
management should not be ignored.
Review Data and Inspect Site
The assessment team evaluates process data in
advance of the inspection. The inspection should fol-
low the target process from the point where raw mate-
rials enter to the point where products and wastes
leave. The team should identify the suspected sources
of waste. This may include the production process,
maintenance, operations, and storage areas. The
-------
The Recognized Need to Minimize Waste
PLANNING AND ORGANIZATION
Get management commitment
9 Set overall assessment program goals
Organize assessment program task force
Assessment Organization &
Commitment to Proceed
ASSESSMENT
Collect process and facility data
Prioritize and select assessment targets
Select people for assessment teams
Review data and inspect site
Generate options
Screen and select options for further study
Select New Assessment
Targets and Reevaluate
Previous Options
Assessment Report of
Selected Options
FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
Technical evaluation
Economic evaluation
Select options for implementation
Final Report, Including
Recommended Options
t
IMPLEMENTATION
1 Justify projects and obtain funding
1 Installation (equipment)
1 Implementation (procedure)
Evaluate performance
Repeat the
Process
Successfully Implemented
Waste Minimization Projects
Figure 1. Waste Minimization Assessment Procedure
-------
inspection may result in the formation of preliminary
conclusions about waste minimization opportunities.
Full confirmation of these conclusions may require
additional data collection, analysis, and/or site visits.
Generate Options
The objective of this step is to generate a compre-
hensive set of waste minimization options for further
consideration. Since technical and economic concerns
will be considered in the later feasibility step, no
options are ruled out at this time. Information from
the site inspection, as well as trade associations, gov-
ernment agencies, technical and trade reports, equip-
ment vendors, consultants, and plant engineers and
operators may serve as sources of ideas for waste
minimization options.
Both source reduction and recycling options should
be considered. Source reduction may be accom-
plished through good operating practices, technology
changes, input material changes, and product changes.
Recycling includes use and reuse of water, solvents,
rinsates, and other recyclable materials, where
appropriate.
Screen and Select Options for Further Study
This screening process is intended to select the
most promising options for a full technical and eco-
nomic feasibility study. Through either an informal
review or a quantitative decision-making process,
options that appear marginal, impractical, or inferior
are eliminated from consideration.
FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS PHASE
An option must be shown to be technically and eco-
nomically feasible to merit serious consideration for
adoption at a facility. A technical evaluation
determines whether a proposed option will work in a
specific application. Both process and equipment
changes need to be assessed for their overall effects
on waste quantity and product quality. A major con-
cern is the impact of any proposed changes on the
product license. Minor changes may be implemented
rather easily, but major changes may require review
and approval of the revised process. The time
required for this activity may make some options
impossible.
An economic evaluation is carried out using stan-
dard measures of profitability, such as payback period,
return on investment, and net present value. As in
any project, the cost elements of a waste minimization
project can be broken down into capital costs and
operating costs. Savings and changes in revenue and
waste disposal costs also need to be considered, as do
present and future cost avoidances. In cases of
increasingly stringent government requirements,
actions that may increase the cost of production may
be necessary.
IMPLEMENTATION PHASE
An option that passes both technical and economic
feasibility reviews should be implemented. The proj-
ect can be turned over to the appropriate group for
execution while the WMOA team, with management
support, continues the process of tracking wastes and
identifying other opportunities for waste minimization.
Periodic reassessments may be conducted to see if the
anticipated waste regulations were achieved. Data can
be tracked and reported for each implemented idea in
terms such as pounds of waste per production unit.
Either initial investigations of waste minimization
opportunities or the reassessments can be conducted
using the worksheets in this manual.
References
Chen, Abraham S. C. and Robert F. Olfenbuttel.
1993. Waste Minimization Practices at Two CCA
Wood-Treatment Plants. Report to U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Risk Reduction Engi-
neering Laboratory, Office of Research and
Development, Cincinnati, OH.
USEPA. 1992. Facility Pollution 'Prevention Guide.
EPA/600/R-92/088, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1988. Waste Minimization Opportunity
Assessment Manual EPA/625/7-88/003, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous
Waste Engineering Research Laboratory,
Cincinnati, OH.
-------
SECTION 2
PROFILE OF THE WOOD PRESERVING INDUSTRY
Industry Description
The wood preserving industry in the United States
is over a hundred years old. Preserved wood is used
primarily in the construction, railroad, and utilities
industries to prevent rotting when wood is exposed to
damp soil, standing water, or rain and as protection
against termites and marine borers. While wood may
be treated with either oilborne or waterborne pre-
servatives, over the years the industry has turned more
and more to waterborne preservatives. In 1988,
23 percent of the wood treated in the United States
was treated with oilborne preservatives. The volume
of wood treated with waterborne preservatives was
75 percent. Table 1 shows the volume of wood
treated in: 1988 by product and type of preservative.
Approximately 600 million cubic feet of wood are
treated with wood preservatives and fire retardants
each year (USEPA 1992).
Process Description
Historically, the wood-preserving industry has used
three major preservative systems: creosote, pentachlo-
rophenol (PCP), and waterborne inorganics. Creosote
and pentachlorophenol are the major oilborne preser-
vatives used in the industry. These organic preserva-
tives are used primarily for older processes, such as
for treating crossties, crossarms, and utility poles.
The most commonly used inorganic (waterborne) pre-
servatives are chromated copper arsenate (CCA) and
ammoniacal copper-zinc-arsenate (ACZA).
Creosote is an oily, translucent, brown to black
liquid. It is applied either at full strength or diluted
with petroleum oil or coal tar. Creosote is denser
than water and is produced from the high temperature
carbonization of bituminous coal. It contains approxi-
mately 85 percent polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs), 10 percent phenolic compounds, and 5 per-
cent nitrogen-, sulfur-, or oxygen-containing
heterocycles.
Technical grade PCP contains
PCP (85 to 90 percent)
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol (4 to 8 percent)
higher chlorophenols (2 to 6 percent)
dioxins and furans (0.1 percent).
CCA and ACZA derive, in part, from arsenic acid,
copper oxide, and chromic acid. Table 2 shows the
standardized formulations of CCA and ACZA and the
ranges in proportion of the chemical compounds they
contain.
Creosote was first used in the 1870s to treat cross-
ties with a full-cell treatment process, which was
developed in 1838. The first waterborne preservative
(acid copper chromate) was used in 1929, and soon
afterward a new oilborne preservative (pentachloro-
phenol) was introduced in 1931. Before the end of
the decade, two more waterborne preservatives (CCA
and ammoniacal copper arsenate) were developed
(Barnes and Nicholas 1992).
The majority of wood treated with waterborne pre-
servatives is treated with CCA. CCA is shipped to
treating plants as a 50 or 60 percent concentrate,
which is stored in a concentrate storage tank and,
when needed, is diluted with water in a work tank to
1 to 2 percent.
Wood can be preserved with creosote, PCP, and
waterborne preservatives using pressure treating
processes. Non-pressure treating processes can also
be used for some preservatives but are not used to
treat wood with CCA. Standard treatment specifica-
tions for various commodities and wood products are
found in the American Wood Preservers' Association
Standards (1992).
PRESSURE TREATING PROCESSES
Treatment in a pressure cylinder (Figure 2) is the
preferred commercial approach for preserving wood.
Pressure treating processes include full-cell or modi-
fied full-cell processes and the empty-cell process.
-------
Table 1. Production of Treated Wood in the United States, 1988a
Volume of Wood Treated (1,000 cu ft)
Creosote Pentachloro- Waterborne Fire
Products solutions'1 phenol preservatives0 retardants
Crossties
Switch and bridge ties
Poles
Crossarms
Piling
Fence posts
Lumber
Timbers
Plywood
Other products
Total products
1988
Total products
1987*
56,990
6,315
14,675
122
3,734
1,242
3,113
2,850
1,441
90,482
97,822
780
41,778
1,229
108
1,356
1,251
1,283
17
68
47,870
48,557
14,738
122
5,859
9,805
350,220
40,884
8,732
20,206
450,566
418,984
5,283
3,956
991
10,230
10,618
aEstimate based on reported production of 476 treating plants plus estimated produc-
tion of 100 nonreporting plants. 1987 production data added for comparison.
bCreosote, creosote-coal tar, and creosote-petroleum.
ฐCCA, ACZA, ACC. and CZC.
''Wood Preservation Statistics, 1987.
Source: USEPA 1992.
The full-cell process is used to obtain maximum, reten-
tion of preservative. The empty-cell process is used
to obtain deep penetration, with relatively low reten-
tion of preservative. Waterborne preservatives are
generally applied by the full-cell or modified full-cell
processes. For treatment with oilborne preservatives,
the empty-cell process is used whenever possible.
In the full-cell (Bethel) pressure treating process,
an initial vacuum is applied to remove air from the
cylinder and the wood cells. Preservative is then
transferred to the cylinder through piping from the
preservative work tank without breaking the vacuum.
Hydrostatic or pneumatic pressure is applied until the
preservative permeates the wood or until the desired
retention is obtained. The excess preservative is
returned to the work tank for reuse. Preservative tem-
peratures during the pressure period usually do not
exceed the temperatures specified below:
Oilborne Preservatives
Waterborne Preservatives
ACZA
CCA
200-210ฐF
150ฐF
Ambient
A final vacuum may be applied to remove excess
preservative. The treated wood is removed from the
cylinder and placed on a drip pad where it remains
until dripping has ceased. For waterborne preserva-
tives, all solution dripping onto the pad, as well as
washdown water, flows to a collection sump. It is
then transferred to a dilution water tank. The dilution
_
-------
Table 2. CCA and ACZA Formulations
Preservative
CCA
Type A
Standard
Range
Type B
Standard
Range
Type C
Standard
Range
ACZA
Standard
Range
Chromium (VI) as
Cr03
65.5
59.4-69.3
35.3
33.0-38.0
47.5
44.5-50.5
Compound (%)
Copper as Zinc as
CuO ZnO
18.1
16.0-20.9
19.6
18.0-22.0
18.5
17.0-21.0
50.0 25.0
45.0-55.0 22.5-27.5
Arsenic as
As205
16.4
14.7-19.7
45.1
42.0-48.0
34.0
30.0-38.0
25.0
22.5-27.5
Source: American Wood Preservers' Association 1992
vent high pressure
vacuum PumP
vent
vent
freshly treated
wood storage
process
water
paved contain-
ment area
Source: USEPA 1992
Figure 2. Waterborne Wood Preservative Pressure-Treating Facility
-------
water is blended with additional concentrate to make
fresh treating solution.
The modified full-cell process differs from the full-
cell process in that lower levels of initial vacuum are
used. The amount of vacuum is determined by the
wood treated and the final retention desired.
Two empty-cell processes are commonly used. In
the Rueping empty-cell process, air under pressure is
forced into the treating cylinder. Air penetrates the
wood before preservative is transferred to the cylinder.
Pressure is raised until the desired amount of preser-
vative has been absorbed. Surplus preservative is
removed from the wood with a final vacuum. The
process is the same in the Lowry empty-cell, process,
except no initial pressure is applied. In both pro-
cesses, air compressed in wood drives out part of the
preservative absorbed during the pressure period when
pressure is released (USDA 1987).
Prior to treatment, wood is usually seasoned in the
open air or conditioned in the cylinder. Wood is
sometimes incised to increase preservative penetration.
Open air drying is used to prepare large stock (i.e.,
cross ties, poles) for treatment with organic (oilborne)
preservatives. KUn drying is used primarily for water-
borne treatment. Steaming, heating, and vapor drying
are methods for conditioning wood prior to treatment
with oilborne preservatives (USDA 1987).
NON-PRESSURE TREATING PROCESSES
Non-pressure treating processes include thermal;
cold soak; and brush, dip, and spray methods. In the
thermal process, wood is immersed in hot preservative
(such as creosote or PCP) for several hours, followed
by soaking at ambient temperature. In cold soaking,
wood is immersed in a preservative (e.g., PCP) solu-
tion at ambient temperature. In the brush, dip, and
spray methods, liquid preservative oil is applied to
wood surfaces (USEPA 1992).
Waste Description
Figure 3 and Table 3 show possible sources of
pollution from oilborne and waterborne preservative
treatment processes, respectively. Waste generated
includes process wastewater, surface runoff water,
and/or sludges.
Process wastewater includes wastewater from con-
ditioning (retort condensate), kiln drying, treated wood
washing, accumulations in doors or retort sumps, pre-
servative formulation recovery, and rinsing. Surface
runoff water flows from non-process areas such as
treated wood storage yards. Plants treating wood with
oilborne preservatives produce large quantities of
wastewater, including process water and surface run-
off water. Waterborne processes produce little or no
process wastewater because drips, rainwater collected
in process areas, and water used to clean drip pads are
directed to a sump and reused to make fresh working
solution. As a result, no contaminated water is dis-
charged as hazardous waste.
Sludges produced by wood-treating plants con-
sist of oil-water emulsions or polymers, bark, saw-
dust, dirt, wood chips, and debris. The sludges, dirt,
and solid waste collected from the drip pads, rail
trench, cylinder door pits, and screens to the floor
sumps are drummed for disposal at a hazardous land-
fill. However, landfill disposal is becoming an
environmental issue, and restrictions may soon pre-
clude this disposal option (Barnes and Nicholas 1992).
References
American Wood Preservers' Association.
Standards. Woodstock, MD.
1992.
Barnes, H. M. and D. D. Nicholas. 1992. "Alternative
Preservative Systems: Pros & Cons." Arsenic and
Mercury Workshop on Removal, Recovery, Treat-
ment, and Disposal. EPA/600/R-92/105, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory, Office of Research and
Development, Cincinnati, OH, and Waste Manage-
ment Division, Office of Solid Waste and Emer-
gency Response, Washington, DC.
USDA. 1987. "Wood Handbook: Wood as an Engi-
neering Material." Agriculture Handbook Vol-
ume 72. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Products Laboratory, Forest Service, Washington,
D.C.
USEPA. 1992. Contaminants and Remedial Options
at Wood Preserving Sites. EPA/600/R-92/182,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk
Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Office of
Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH.
-------
POP Solids
(Blocks or Bags)
Carrier Oil
(Bulk)
Chemical Delivery
(Pallets-
Rail/Truck)
oil spills, drips
(Bulk
tankers)
Chemical Storage & Mixing
(Tankage/CHI)
Oil Solution
(Tankage)
Solution Storage
(Tankage)
Oil/water
Separator
Pressure Treatment
(Retort Cylinder)
Wastewater
treatment
Freshly-treated
Wood Storage
precipitation: oil spills, drips
Dry-treated
Wood Storage
(Ground)
Source: Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
Ada, Oklahoma
POTENTIAL CHEMICAL
RELEASES
DRIPS, SPILLS.....to ground
AEROSOLS, VAPORS to air
SPILLS to ground
AEROSOLS, VAPORS to air
SLUDQES.....to disposal
o AEROSOLS, VAPORS.....to air
CONDENSER COOLING WATER
to sewer
TREATED EFFLUENT.....to sewer
. SLUDGES
SPENT CARBON to regeneration
VAPORS to air
CONCENTRATED LIQUID.....to reuse
ป SLUDGES to disposal
DRIPS.....to ground
TRACKING.....IO ground
DUST.....to air
DRIPS.....to ground
DUST-^.to air
Figure 3. Possible Sources of Pollution from Oflborne Preservative
Treatment Processes
-------
ugh/
a>
in
CD LL
OC
8
I
o
Q>
I
O
3
S.
o
j
o
o.
5
1
o
T>
CO
.CO
>,
1
-S
*
~
o
jo
I
CL
"C ^-
Q 5
II
Q.-^
2ฎ
o
-------
Cincinnati OH, and Waste Management Division,
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Washington, DC.
Kitsch, F. William and J. Clifford Maginn, Jr. 1992.
Waste Minimization Assessment for a Manufacturer
Producing Treated Wood Products. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Risk Reduction Engi-
neering Laboratory, Office of Research and Devel-
opment, Cincinnati, OH.
Midgette, Robert W. and Kevin R. Boyer. 1992.
"Wood Preserving Industry Treated to New RCRA
Requirements." The National Environmental Jour-
nal. November/December, p. 21.
USEPA. 1993. Quality Assurance Project Plan for
Evaluating ACQ as an Alternative Wood Preserva-
tive to CCA. Prepared by Battelle for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
16
-------
SECTION 4
WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT WORKSHEETS
The worksheets provided in this section are
intended to assist the wood preserving industry in
systematically evaluating waste generating processes
and in identifying waste minimization opportunities.
These worksheets include only the assessment phase
of the procedure described in the EPA Waste Minimi-
zation Opportunity Assessment Manual and the EPA
Facility Pollution Prevention Guide.. A comprehen-
sive waste minimization assessment includes planning
and organization, gathering background information, a
feasibility study on specific waste minimization
options, and an implementation phase. For a full
description of waste minimization assessment proce-
dures, refer to the Facility Pollution Prevention Guide.
Table 4 lists the worksheets that are provided in
this section. After completing the worksheets, the
assessment team should evaluate the applicable waste
minimization options and develop an implementation
plan.
Table 4. List of Waste Minimization Assessment Worksheets
Number Title
1. Waste Sources
2. Waste Minimization: Treatment Plant Design
3. Option Generation: Treatment Plant Design
4. Waste Minimization: Treatment Practices
5. Option Generation: Treatment Practices
6. Waste Minimization: Housekeeping Practices
7. Option Generation: Housekeeping Practices
8. Waste Minimization: Storage and Disposal
Practices
9. Option Generation: Storage and Disposal
Practices
Description
Form for listing potential sources of waste
Questionnaire on design of overall treatment
facility
Options for improving plant design
Questionnaire on pretreatment, treatment, and
posttreatment of wood
Options for minimizing treatment waste
Questionnaire on housekeeping practices
Options for housekeeping improvements
Questionnaire on storing and disposing wood
preservatives
Options for storing and disposing preservatives
17
-------
Plant
Date
WORKSHEET
1A
Waste Minimization Assessment Prepared by
Chec
Proi. No. Shee
WASTE SOURCES
Waste Source: Plant Design
Poorly Designed Treatment Buildings
Inadequate Drip Pads
Inadequate Containment
Inadequate Floor Sumps/Pits
Inefficient Lumber Handling System
Decentralized Storage of Concentrate and Working Solution
Inefficient/Inadequate Preservative Mixing System
Inadequate Spill Monitoring
Improperly Unloading Perservative Concentrates
Unloading Preservative Concentrate in Uncontrolled Areas
Other
Waste Source: Treatment
Inadequate Quality Control Practices
Damaged or Failed Lumber
Wood that Is not Properly Conditioned
Treatment Practices that Permit Excessive Dripping
Inadequately Monitoring Treatment Process
Other
Waste Source:
Housekeeping
Leaks, Spills, and Drips
Dirt and Sludge
Wood Chips and Debris
Runoff Water
Dirty Floors and Drip Pads
Careless Lumber Handling
Other
-------
Plant Waste Minimization As^smAnt Prepared by
Checked bv
Date Proj. No. Sheet
WORKSHEET WASTE SOURCES
"| B (Continued)
Waste Source: Storage and Disposal
Poorly Designed Storage Facilities
Ineffective Containment Measures
Defective Waste Drums
Improper Storage and Mixing Practices
Inadequate Inventory Control
Lack of Containment in Storage Areas
Other :
'
[
.
of Paqe of
Significance
Low
Medium
t
High
19
-------
Plant
Date
Waste Minimization Assessment
Proj. No.
Prepared by _
Checked by _
Sheet of
.Page.
of
WORKSHEET
2A
WASTE MINIMIZATION:
Treatment Plant Design
A. Treatment Building
Are treatment facilities enclosed?
What kind of floors are in the treatment area?
D Yes D No
What type of containment is provided?_
Does the containment have a total capacity equivalent to 150 percent of the volume of the
largest chemical tank?
Do treatment facilities have a spill monitoring system?
B. Drip Pads
Are elevated drip pans used?
Do drip pads have liners and/or surface coatings?
Are drip pads cracked or deteriorated?
Are areas adjacent to drip pads paved?
Are chemicals tracked from the drip pad to surrounding areas?
Is there a dedicated forklift on drip pads?
C. Lumber Handling
How is wood moved into and out of treatment cylinders?
Automatic conveying system D
Forklift D
Rail and tram Q
QYes
DYes
DYes
DYes
QYes
DYes
QYes
QYes
DNo
DNo
DNo
QNo
DNo
DNo
QNo
DNo
20
-------
Plant
Date
Waste Minimization Assessment
Proj. No.
Prepared by _
Checked by _
Sheet of
.Page.
of
WORKSHEET
2B
WASTE MINIMIZATION:
Treatment Plant Design
D. Preservative Mixing and Storage
Are preservative concentrate and working solutions stored in a centralized area? ,D Yes D No
Do mixing and storage areas have adequate containment? . D Yes Q No
Is preservative concentrate unloaded at a confined area with proper unloading devices? D Yes D No
How are preservatives mixed? '.
Would computer-controlled mixing systems reduce the amount of
time workers need to be in the chemical storage area?
Are workers properly trained to handle hazardous materials?
E. Ventilating
How is the plant ventilated?
DYes
DYes
DNo
QNo
Is the plant designed to minimize emissions?
Are concentrate tanks, work tanks, and mixing tanks ventilated?
DYes
DYes
QNo
QNo
21
-------
Plan* Waste Minimisation As
Date Pro). No.
sessment
(
Drepared by
Checked by
Sheet of Page of
WORKSHEET OPTION GENERATION:
3 Treatment Plant Design
Meeting Format (e.g., brainstorming, nominal group technique)
Meeting Coordinator
Meeting Participants
Suggested Waste Minimization Options
A. Treatment Buildings
Enclose Treatment Buildings
Coat Concrete Floors with Impermeable Surface
Provide Sufficient Primary and Secondary Containment
Design Facilities so that Leaks and Spills are
Immediately Evident
B. Drip Pads
Use Elevated Drip Pads
Line Drip Pads
Curb and Slope Drip Pad Area
Pave Areas Adjacent to Drip Pads
Use Stationary Forkl'rfts at Drip Pads
Seal, Coat, or Cover Drip Pads
Add Leakage and Detection System
C. Lumber Handling
Use Automatic Lumber Handling System
Use Dedicated Forkl'rfts at Drip Pads
D. Preservative Mixing and Storage
Store Chemicals in a Centralized Area
Use Enclosed, Computer-Controlled Mixing Systems
Provide Containment Equivalent to 150 Percent of
Total Volume of the Largest Task
Provide Training Programs for Workers
E. Air Exchange/Venting
Use Air Exchange Systems
Vent Cylinders and Tanks
Currently
Done Y/N?
Rationale/Remarks on Option
22
-------
Plant Waste Minimi7a1
Date , Proj. No.
A.
B.
WORKSHEET WASTE Mi IS
4A Treatment
BEFORE TREATMENT
Is wood covered during shipment?
Is untreated wood inspected?
Where is wood stored prior to treatment?
Is wood for poles cleaned prior to treatment?
Is wood seasoned or conditioned prior to treatment?
If so, how?
DURING TREATMENT
What preservatives are used in the treatment process?
Describe the treatment process used.
ion Assessment Prepared by
Checked by
Sheet of Page of
IIM1ZATION:
Practices
D Yes D No
DYes QNo
QYes QNo
D Yes D No
Are strip pumps used to return residual chemical solution to work tanks? D Yes D No
Is chemical retention monitored for proper treatment? D Yes D No
How is the treatment process monitored?
23
-------
Plant
Date
Waste Minimization Assessment
Proj. No..
Prepared by _
Checked by _
Sheet of Page of _
WORKSHEET
4B
WASTE MINIMIZATION:
Treatment Practices
C. AFTER TREATMENT
How Is wood dried following treatment?.
How is treated wood transferred from drip pads to storage yard?.
Where is wood stored following treatment?_
Is wood covered when stored in an open yard?
D Yes D No
24
-------
Plant Waste Minimization Ass
Date Proi. No.
essment F
C
S
repared bv
Jhecked by
heet of Page of
1
WORKSHEET OPTION GENERATION:
5 Treatment Practices
Meeting Format (e.g., brainstorminq, nominal group technique)
Meeting Coordinator
Meeting Participants
Suggested Waste Minimization Options
A. Before Treatment
Inspect Untreated Wood
Cover Wood During Shipment
Clean Wood Prior to Treatment
Seaspn or Condition Wood Prior to Treatment
B. During Treatment
Use Treatment Process That Minimizes Dripping
Monitor Chemical Retention
Use Strip Pumps
Avoid Excess Pressure During Treatment
Use Dedicated Forklifts at Drip Pads
Wash Tires of Nondedicated Forklifts Before
Leaving the Drip Pad
Pave Area Adjacent to Drip Pads
C. After Treatment
Keep Wood on Drip Pad Until Dripping Ceases
Cover Wood in Open Storage Yards
Store Wood in Enclosed Areas if Possible
Avoid Tracking Preservative Out of Controlled Areas
Currently
Done Y/N?
Rationale/Remarks on Option
25
-------
Plant Waste Minimizal
Di
lie Proj. No.
WORKSHEET WASTE M1N
3 Housekeeph
inn ARRftRRment Prepared bv
Checked by
Sheet of Page of
IIMIZATION:
ig Practices
How is lumber stored?
How often are sump pits and drip pads cleaned?
How often are floors cleaned?
How often are filters cleaned?
How often are tanks checked for leaks?
How are leaks and spills handled?
Is chemical dripping intercepted?
Are recycling bins and containers clearly marked?
Are tanks kept clean?
How are empty preservative containers cleaned?
Is
rinsewater reused?
D Yes D No
D Yes D No
D Yes D No
D Yes D No
26
-------
Plant Waste Minimization Assessment Prepared by
Checked by
Date Proj. No.
Sheet of Page of
WORKSHEET OPTION GENERATION:
7 Housekeeping Practices
Meeting Format (e.g., brainstorm ing, nominal group technigue)
Meeting Coordinator
Meeting Participants
Suggested Waste Minimization Options
Stack Treated and Untreated Lumber Neatly
Wash Down Sump Pits, Drip Pads, and Areas
_ Around Cylinder Doors Regularly
Clean Floors Regularly
Clean Filters and Tanks Regularly
Inspect Tanks, Drip Pads, and Treating Cylinders
for Leaks Regularly
Intercept All Chemical Drips and Leaks
Mark Bins and Containers Ciearly
Use Filtration to Keep Tanks Clean
Triple Rinse Empty Waterborne Preservative Containers
Reuse Rinsewater as Process Water Diluent
Currently
Done Y/N?
Rationale/Remarks on Option
27
-------
Plant
Date
WORKSHEET
8A
How are preservatives stored?
Are chemicals stored in a way tha
How are other materials (wax, mo
How far are preservative storage
Waste Minimization Assessment P
C
Proi. No. S
WASTE MINIMIZATION:
Storage and Disposal
Practices
t minimizes leaks and spills?
Id nhibitors) stored?
areas from the property line?
Are hazardous chemicals stored separately from nonhazardous chemicals?
Are preservative storage areas isolated as much as possible?
Are chemicals protected from the weather?
How often are chemical inventories performed?
What is the total capacity of conta
Do storage areas have teak detec
Are storage areas inspected for le
How often are storage areas nsp
How are spills handled?
How is liquid waste stored?
inment?
tion systems?
aks and spills?
acted?
repared by
hecked by
heet of Paqe of
D Yes D No
D Yes D No
D Yes D No
D Yes D No
D Yes D No
D Yes D No
How is solid waste stored?
28
-------
Plant
Date
Waste Minimization Assessment
Proj. No.
Prepared by
Checked by
Sheet of Page.
of
WORKSHEET
8B
WASTE MINIMIZATION:
Storage and Disposal
Practices
How are obsolete chemicals disposed?
How is liquid waste disposed?.
How is solid waste disposed?.
Do storage areas have concrete floors?
D Yes D No
Waste Type?
29
-------
Plant Waste Minimization Assessment Prepared bv
Checked by
Date Proi. No.
Sheet of Page of
WORKSHEET OPTION GENERATION:
9 Storage and Disposal
Practices
Meetinq Format (e.q.. brainstorming. nominal arouo technique)
Meeting Coordinator
Meeting Participants
Suggested Waste Minimization Options
Locate Storage Facilities at Least 50 Feet
From the Property Line
Cover, Lock, Label, and Fence Storage Areas
Keep Containers Closed
Place Containers In a Base to Contain Leaks and Spills
Store Hazardous Chemicals Separately from
Nonhazardous Chemicals
Install Concrete Floors
Provide Containment Equivalent to 150 Percent of the
Amount of Liquid Stored in the Largest Tank
Inspect Storage Areas Routinely for Leaks and Spills
Clean Up Spills Immediately
Wash Liquid Spills into Sumps and Reuse
Drum Untreated Wood Scraps Separately from
Treatment Waste
Elevate Storage Containers
Build a Dike Around the Storage Area
Do not Accumulate Large Volumes of Waste
Properly Package and Label Solid Waste for Disposal
Currently
Done Y/N?
Rationale/Remarks on Option
30
-------
Appendix A
WOOD PRESERVING INDUSTRY
FIELD ASSESSMENTS: CASE STUDIES
In 1993, the EPA published a waste minimization
study (prepared by Battelle under contract to the EPA)
entitled Waste Minimization Practices at Two CCA
Wood-Treatment Plants (Chen and Olfenbuttel 1993).
The objectives of the study were to
Estimate the amount of hazardous waste that a
well-designed and well-maintained CCA treat-
ment plant would generate
Examine the possibility of using CCA more
efficiently.
This appendix presents summaries of the results of
the field assessments performed by Battelle, as well as
an assessment published in 1992 by the EPA (Kirsch
and Maginn 1992). The summaries presented should
not be taken as recommendations or endorsement by
the EPA; they are provided as examples only.
These field assessments focus on waste manage-
ment within the context of existing practices and
equipment. The plants described are not necessarily
typical, but they provide valuable insight into possible
techniques to reduce waste with minimum departure
from current practices.
References
Chen, Abraham S. C. and Robert F. Olfenbuttel.
1993. Waste Minimization Practices at Two CCA
Wood-Treatment Plants. Report to U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Risk Reduction Engi-
neering Laboratory, Office of Research and Devel-
opment, Cincinnati, OH.
Kirsch, F. William and J. Clifford Maginn, Jr. 1992.
Waste Minimization Assessment for a Manufacturer
Producing Treated Wood Products. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Risk Reduction Engi-
neering Laboratory, Office of Research and Devel-
opment, Cincinnati, OH.
31
-------
PLANT A
WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
Plant A has been in continuous operation at the
same location since 1959. The plant is located on a
75-acre lot in a rural area. The original thrust of
Plant A's business was supplying pressure-treated
agricultural fencing. Its main product is now CCA-
treated lumber. The company has 65 employees. In
1992, 50 million board feet of wood were treated.
In 1991, Plant A built a new treatment plant. The
company decided not to upgrade its old facilities
because they were poorly designed for efficient mate-
rial handling and because more stringent regulations
are pending. Compliance with these regulations by
retrofitting would cost more than building a new treat-
ment plant. The new plant is a single building that
covers 4-1/3 acres. The new facilities consist of three
parallel treatment cylinders, vacuum pumps, high-pres-
sure pumps, air compressors, and strip pumps.
The overall design for the new plant is based on
the concept of "containment, capturing, recycling, and
prevention" and incorporates many safety features that
are not expected to become law for several more
years.
Process Description
Lumber arrives at Plant A by truck at the receiving
area located in an open yard just outside the treatment
plant. The shipments are inspected to assure that they
are undamaged and that they meet the required speci-
fications. Plant A requires that lumber be covered by
tarpaulins during transit to reduce the amount of road
dust and grime reaching the lumber (which eliminates
3 to 4 drums of hazardous waste a year). If neces-
sary, the lumber is power-washed and debris removed
before it is forklifted into the untreated-wood storage
area in the treatment plant.
The modified full-cell method is used for most
treatments; the full-cell method is used for dense
materials and timber. Treatment conditions are con-
trolled by a computer programmed to achieve both
proper chemical retention and minimum drippage.
Before treatment, lumber is rebanded with plastic
strapping into lumber units of the appropriate size.
The tagged lumber units are then forklifted to the
lumber-handling system where they are placed parallel
to the treating cylinders. The untreated lumber units
are moved into the cylinders for treatment by an auto-
matic chain conveying system. After treatment, the
lumber remains on the conveying system for 1 to
2 days before being forklifted to drying sheds, to the
storage areas in the treatment plant, or to the open
yard.
Waste Generation
Plant A generated 9 55-gal drums of hazardous
waste in 1991 and 6 in 1992. Some of this was a
result of shutting down the old plant. The waste
volume projected for the new treatment plant in 1993
is 2 to 4 drums, or 0.5 to 1 drum every 90 days. The
waste is composed of sludge removed from the filter
bags, the pump screens, and under the cylinder door
traps; dust; tags; and miscellaneous items.
Waste Minimization Practices
Lumber is handled, treated, and dried, in enclosed
structures at Plant A, which protects chemicals,
treating facilities, freshly treated wood, and drip pads
from direct exposure to ambient weather conditions,
thereby reducing the possibility of contaminating the
environment.
A concrete floor covers the entire plant. The con-
crete floor has an impermeable surface coating. An
elevated metal drip pan on the drip pad intercepts
chemicals dripping from the cylinder doors and from
freshly treated lumber; therefore, no direct contact
between the chemicals and the concrete floor occurs
unless there is a major chemical spill. A recessed
floor under both the drip pans and the treating cylin-
ders functions as a secondary containment to retain
spills from the drip pad.
The unique design of the drip pan and the lumber-
conveying system at Plant A eliminates tracking
32
-------
chemicals from the drip pan and the drip pad.
Plant A's automatic lumber handling system and
power rollers transfer lumber units into and out of the
treating cylinders without forklifts or rail trams. The
treated lumber units remain on the conveyer until
dripping ceases. This method of lumber handling
eliminates any direct contact between people and
chemicals and between equipment and chemicals.
Drip pans are hosed down 3 to 4 times a year.
The solution is filtered through a 10-pm filter bag
before being recycled as makeup water. The recycled
solution is metered and the volume recorded so that
any problems may be monitore3, controlled, or elimi-
nated. The filter bags are cleaned daily; the solids
removed from the filter bags are disposed of as haz-
ardous waste (about 2 drums per year).
Plant A's tank farm has primary spill containment,
an elevated CCA concentrate tank, an enclosed chemi-
cal mixing system, and remote monitoring and control
capabilities. The tank farm is in a heated building
adjacent to the cylinder area of the treatment plant.
The building is completely surrounded by retaining
walls, which form the primary, containment. The
retaining .wall separating the tank farm and the neigh-
boring treating cylinder area has a weir to allow liquid
to overflow from the primary containment to the
secondary containment during major chemical spills
(such as tank rupture).
The primary containment hi the tank farm is capa-
ble of containing chemical spills equivalent to the
volume of a large CCA work tank. Overflow from
the primary containment can be spilled over to the
secondary containment. The total capacity of the
primary and secondary containments is equivalent to
the total volume of the liquid stored in the tank farm,
thus eliminating any possibility of chemical spills over
the uncontrolled areas. The concrete floor in the tank
farm has an impermeable coating and is lined with an
underground liner. The lined area is monitored for
chemical leakage by six detection systems.
The elevated CCA concentrate tank has a cone-
shaped bottom, which facilitates inspection and allows
visual reference in case of a leak. The CCA concen-
trate can be unloaded from a chemical tanker in the
tank farm through an unloading point next to the
concentrate tank, thus preventing release of chemical
spills to the uncontrolled areas.
Chemicals are mixed in a computer-controlled
enclosed system. In addition, the tank farm has auto-
matic temperature, pressure, and safety switches for
remote monitoring and control. This design eliminates
the need for workers to enter the tank farm on a regu-
lar basis, thus reducing worker exposure to the chemi-
cals.
Plant A's treatment building has eight roof fans
that exchange air completely every 15 minutes. The
tank farm is used as a single point source for all
venting from the cylinders and chemical tanks.
Because the plant design minimizes mist or droplet
emissions from the cylinders and work tanks, no addi-
tional air pollution control devices have been installed
in the tank farm.
The treatment processes at Plant A are carefully
controlled to ensure proper chemical retention and
minimal dripping. Several process control methods
are used:
Treatment processes are computer-controlled
and monitored.
Lightweight products that drip less are produced
using rapid cycle treatment. Treating cylinders
are fed with CCA work solution at rates up to
8,000 gpm. CCA chemicals are pushed into
wood cells in less than 4 minutes, allowing time
for chemical fixation.
High pressure at 150 to 165 psi over a period of
5 to 8 minutes is applied, which eliminates
excessive dripping.
After the high-pressure treatment, a slow-pres-
sure release follows immediately and lasts for
8 to 19 minutes, which also results in less
dripping.
Large vacuum pumps pull vacuum up to
27 niches Hg within 1 to 2 minutes. The final
vacuum lasts up to 2 hours, which again reduces
the amount of dripping from the treated
products.
Oxides are used to enhance chemical fixation in
wood.
33
-------
Strip pumps continuously return residual chemi-
cal solutions to the CCA work tank. This
results in less dripping when opening the cylin-
der doors and in more exact control of final
retention.
Treating cylinders are slightly tilted toward the
work tank to reduce dripping when opening the
cylinder doors.
Treated products are analyzed for chemical
retention using an X-ray fluorescence analyzer.
Proper chemical retention is monitored to ensure
that treatment specifications are met and that
overtreatment does not occur.
Research and development and operator training
programs are provided for continuous improve-
ment of treatment controls and skills.
Plant A considers housekeeping an integral part of
its waste minimization effort:
The concrete floor in the treatment building is
vacuum-swept daily and manually swept when-
ever necessary.
Plant A regularly inspects the concentrate tank,
work tanks, automatic chemical mixing system,
treating cylinders, drip pan, lumber-handling
system, and spill containments for chemical
leaks and spills.
The unused mold inhibitor drums and wax totes
are stacked neatly in an open area in the tank
farm.
A plastic container is hung under the concen-
trate unloading point to intercept chemical
dripping.
Lumber, treated or untreated, is stacked neatly
on the lumber-handling system, in the treatment
building, or in the open storage yard.
All recycling bins, dumpsters, and containers are
clearly marked and placed at locations away
from frequent traffic.
Wooden cross pieces are used to separate wood
units and to avoid forklift damage.
The lumber stacks in the open yard are covered
with paper to provide protection from direct
exposure to rain. This reduces the amount of
arsenic and chromium being leached into storm-
water runoff.
Plant A is a zero-discharge facility that recycles
chemical drips, spills, rinse water, and washdown
water as a process water. Plant A also recycles most
of its nonhazardous solid waste and chemical
containers.
34
-------
PLANT B
WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
Plant B has been in business continuously since
1988. The plant operates two shifts and employs 35
people in the winter and 60 in the summer. The
plant's 15-acre lot is located in a rural area Plant B
treats 55 million board feet of wood a year.
The treatment plant is composed of a cylinder
room, a conditioning building, and a process control
room. The cylinder room contains one treating cylin-
der, one rectangular combination tank, one primary
work tank, pumps, pipes, and an underground pit. A
rail/trench system divides thie conditioning building
into two areas: the lumber loading area and the drip
pad (or conditioning area).
The concrete trench dividing the conditioning
building slopes toward the cylinder room. Two rails
are on top_ of the trench. Trams loaded with untreated
or treated lumber are pulled into or out of the cylinder
by a motor cable. The control room includes a set of
visible volume meters, a process control panel, and a
small laboratory bench.
Process Description
Untreated lumber arriving in bulk units by railroad
car is tagged and stored in the unpaved open yard.
The lumber is restacked by a stacker, banded with
plastic strapping, and left in the open yard until treat-
ment. Lumber units to be treated are forklifted to the
treatment building and placed parallel to the rail/
trench. The units are then loaded onto trams by fork-
lift, fastened with heavy-duty belts, and pulled into the
treating cylinder by a motor cable. Treatment condi-
tions at Plant B are similar to those used by Plant A,
except that the pressure release after the high-pressure
treatment lasts for only 3 minutes and the final
vacuum lasts for 20 to 30 minutes.
The modified full-cell method is used to treat most
wood at Plant B. Treated products are analyzed for
chemical retention using an X-ray fluorescence ana-
lyzer. After treatment, the lumber units are pulled out
of the cylinder, forklifted to the drip pad, and allowed
to drip on the drip pad for 1 to 3 days. To facilitate
dripping, the lumber units are placed at a slight angle
on the drip pad. The treated wood stacks are then
transferred by forklift to one of the three drying sheds
or to the open yard.
Both people and equipment operate in the condi-
tioning area at Plant B, where a significant amount of
chemicals accumulate. As a result, chemicals may be
tracked from the conditioning area to surrounding
areas.
Waste Generation
Plant B generates 4 drums per year of hazardous
waste, or about one drum every 90 days. The waste
is collected from the bottom screen of a two-screen
setup and is composed primarily of sludge removed
from the trench and from under the cylinder door
traps. Wood" chips, debris, and other large items
collected on the top screen are disposed of as non-
hazardous waste.
Waste Minimization Practices
Plant B is housed in enclosed structures, which
provide shelter for chemical storage and mixing, lum-
ber handling and treating, process control, and lumber
drying. A concrete floor covers the entire plant. The
floor has an impermeable surface coating and liner.
The conditioning area is hosed down daily. Chem-
icals and washdown water are directed toward the
trench and filtered through a wire screen at the end of
the trench. The filtered solution flows into an under-
ground steel liner, which sits in an underground door
pit. Wood chips, debris, and sludge are intercepted in
the trench and shoveled weekly to the two-screen
setup for air drying. The air-dried solids collected on
the top screen are disposed of as nonhazardous waste
in a dumpster; the finer solids collected on the bottom
screen are disposed of as hazardous waste.
The treating cylinder and combination tank sit side-
by-side in the cylinder room. The cylinder lies on
four steel supports with a slight tilt away from the
35
-------
cylinder door. The combination tank sits on a con-
crete floor. Between the cylinder and the combination
tank is a narrow walkway. The cylinder and the com-
bination tank are surrounded by retaining walls on the
north, south, and east sides. The opening on the west
side connects the cylinder room to the conditioning
building. A wooden deck underneath the cylinder
separates the ground level from the underground pit
and an underground primary work tank.
The pit under the cylinder is concrete. Underneath
the cylinder door is another concrete pit with a steel
liner and a steel spillover extension. The pit is coated
with a sealer and lined with plastic. The steel liner is
directly under the cylinder door, and the overflow
from the liner is spilled into the spillover extension.
Pumps at the spillover extension, the steel liner, and
the door pit transfer the liquid to the primary work
tank for reuse.
The concrete pit is large enough to contain the total
volume of liquid in the combination tank and primary
work tank. For minor spills, the three pumps associ-
ated with the underground pit transfer the liquid to the
primary or secondary work tank.
The underground pit and primary work tank are not
readily seen from the ground level, making it difficult
to monitor chemical leaks. However, Plant B does
have a remote monitoring and control system.
Vents from the cylinder, combination tank, and
primary work tank are directed to the conditioning
building, which has electric fans in the side walls for
ventilation.
Plant B recycles chemical drips, spills, rinse water,
and washdown water as a process water, but disposes
of most of its chemical containers and the wood trim
strips from milling operations.
36
-------
PLANTC
WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
Plant C produces treated wood products. It oper-
ates 8,760 hours a year to process approximately
1,700,000 cubic feet per year of wood.
Process Description
The plant treats crossties and poles with creosote
and No. 6 oil in heated pressure cylinders. Lumber is
treated with 2 percent chromated copper arsenate
(CCA) solution in a pressure cylinder. The raw mate-
rials used are the wood products, creosote, No. 6 oil,
and chromated copper arsenate. Steam is used to
clean the surface of the wood in the creosote treat-
ment cylinders, and ozone is used to destroy phenols
in the steam condensate.
The following steps are involved in treating the
wood products:
Crossties and poles are trimmed on the ends and
stacked on rail trams, which are pushed into a
pressure treatment cylinder.
A heated mixture of 50 percent (v/v) creosote
and No. 6 oil is pumped into the cylinder and
pressurized to force the liquids into the wood
cells.
The liquid is drained from the cylinder and held
for reuse.
The cylinder is flooded with steam to clean
excess creosote and oil from the surface of the
wood. A vacuum is drawn on the cylinder to
enhance removal of the liquid from the wood
and the cylinder.
Steam condensate drains to a blowdown tank.
Residual creosote and oil that drains when the
cylinder is opened is pumped to the blowdown
tank. The creosote is separated from the con-
densate and held for reuse.
Lumber is treated as follows:
Lumber is stacked on rail trams, which are
pushed into a pressure treatment cylinder.
A closed-loop process with 2 percent CCA is
used for treatment. The cylinder is pressurized
to 125 psig.
Solution drained from the cylinder is held for
reuse.
Steam condensate from creosote treatment is
treated with a flocculant to settle contained creosote,
and the pH is adjusted to 3.6 to 4.0. An ozone
treatment is used to break down phenols in the steam
condensate before it is discharged as industrial waste-
water. Creosote wastes are also generated from peri-
odic steam cleaning of the treatment cylinders. No
steam is used in cleaning the CCA cylinders.
Accumulated waste containing CCA is disposed of as
hazardous waste.
Waste Generation
Residual spent CCA solution is collected when
cleaning the CCA pressure cylinder and disposed of as
hazardous waste. Steam condensate from cleaning
creosote-treated crossties and poles to remove excess
creosote is treated with a flocculant, settled and
decanted, treated with ozone and caustic soda, and
discharged as industrial wastewater.
Cleaning the creosote treatment cylinders results in
a creosote sludge, part of which is shipped for use as
boiler fuel, and the remainder is disposed of as haz-
ardous waste. Chips, bark, and wood trimmings are
stored in an open area on leased property before
disposal.
37
-------
Waste Minimization Practices
Cylindrical tanks holding creosote and CCA
have been fitted with conical bottoms for
accumulation of sludge, minimizing the need for
periodic cleaning.
The pressure cylinder does not require steam
cleaning, lessening the quantity of contaminated
waste.
Storage tanks are heated to maintain proper
viscosity and reduce sludge formation.
38
-------
Appendix B
WHERE TO GET HELP:
FURTHER INFORMATION ON POLLUTION PREVENTION
Additional information on source reduction, reuse
and recycling approaches to pollution prevention is
available in EPA reports listed in this section, and
through state programs and regional EPA offices
(listed below) that offer technical and/or financial
assistance in the areas of pollution prevention and
treatment.
Waste exchanges have been, established in some
areas of the United States to put waste generators in
contact with potential users of the waste. Twenty-four
exchanges operating in the United States and Canada
are listed. Finally, relevant industry associations are
listed.
U.S. EPA Reports on
Waste Minimization
Facility Pollution Prevention Guide.
92/088.*
EPA/600/R-
Waste Minimization Opportunity Assessment Manual.
EPA/625/7-88/003.*
Waste Minimization Audit Report: Case Studies of
Corrosive and Heavy Metal Waste Minimization Audit
at a Specialty Steel Manufacturing Complex. Execu-
tive Summary. EPA No. PB88-107180.**
Waste Minimization Audit Report: Case Studies of
Minimization of Solvent Waste for Parts Cleaning and
from Electronic Capacitor Manufacturing Operation.
Executive Summary. EPA No. PBS7-227013.**
Waste Minimization Audit Report: Case Studies of
Minimization of Cyanide Wastes from Electroplating
Operations. Executive Summary. EPA No. PB87-
229662.**
Report to Congress: Waste Minimization, Vols. I and
II. EPA/530-SW-86-033 and -034 (Washington, D.C.:
U.S. EPA, 1986).***
Waste MinimizationIssues and Options, Vols. I-III.
EPA/530-SW-86-041 through -043. (Washington,
D.C.: U.S. EPA, 1986.)***
The Guides to Pollution Prevention manuals*
describe waste minimization options for specific
industries. This is a continuing series which currently
includes the following tides:
Guides to Pollution Prevention: Paint Manufacturing
Industry. EPA/625/7-90/005.
Guides to Pollution Prevention: The Pesticide For-
mulating Industry. EPA/625/7-90/004.
Guides to Pollution Prevention: The Commercial
Printing Industry. EPA/625/7-90/008.
Guides to Pollution Prevention: The Fabricated
Metal Industry. EPA/625/7-90/006.
Guides to Pollution Prevention for Selected Hospital
Waste Streams. EPA/625/7-90/009.
Guides to Pollution Prevention: Research and Educa-
tional Institutions. EPA/625/7-90/010.
Available from EPA CERI Publications Unit (513) 569-7562,
26 West Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH, .45268.
Executive Summary available from EPA, CERI Publications
Unit, (513) 569-7562, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive, Cin-
cinnati, OH, 45268; full report available from the National
Technical Information -Service (NTIS), U.S. Department of
Commerce, Springfield, VA, 22161.
Guides to Pollution Prevention: The Printed Circuit
Board Manufacturing Industry. EPA/625/7-90/007.
*** Available from the National Technical Information Service as
a five-volume set, NTIS No, PB-87-114-328.
39
-------
Guides to Pollution Prevention:
Industry. EPA/625/7-91/017.
Guides to Pollution Prevention:
Industry. EPA/625/7-91/012.
The Pharmaceutical
The Photoprocessing
Guides to Pollution Prevention: The Fiberglass Rein-
forced and Composite Plastic Industry.
EPA/628/7-91/014.
Guides to Pollution Prevention: The Automotive
Repair Industry. EPA/625/7-91/013.
Guides to Pollution Prevention: The Automotive
Reflnishins Industry. EPA/625/7-91/016.
Guides to Pollution Prevention: The Marine Mainte-
nance and Repair Industry. EPA/625/7-91/015.
Guides to Pollution Prevention: The Metal Casting
and Heat Treating Industry. EPA/625/R-92/009.
Guides to Pollution Prevention: Mechanical Equip-
ment Repair Shops. EPA/625/R-92/008.
Guides to Pollution Prevention:
Industry. EPA/625/R-92/011.
The Metal Finishing
U.S. EPA Pollution Prevention Information Clearing-
house (PPIC): Electronic Information Exchange Sys-
tem (EIES)User Guide, Version 1.1. EPA/600/
9-89/086.
Waste Reduction Technical/
Financial Assistance Programs
The EPA Pollution Prevention Information Clear-
inghouse (PPIC) was established to encourage waste
reduction through technology transfer, education, and
public awareness. PPIC collects and disseminates
technical and other information about pollution pre-
vention through a telephone hotline and an electronic
information exchange network. Indexed bibliogra-
phies and abstracts of reports, publications, and case
studies about pollution prevention are available. PPIC
also lists a calendar of pertinent conferences and semi-
nars, information about activities abroad, and a direc-
tory of waste exchanges. Its Pollution Prevention
Information Exchange System (PPIES) can be
accessed electronically 24 hours a day without fees.
For more information contact:
PPIES Technical Assistance
Science Applications International Corp.
8400 Westpark Drive
McLean, VA 22102
(703) 821-4800
or
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Myles E. Morse
Office of Environmental Engineering and
Technology Demonstration
(202) 260-5748
Priscilla Flattery
Pollution Prevention Office
(202) 260-8383
The EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response has a telephone call-in service to answer
questions regarding RCRA and Superfund (CERCLA).
The telephone numbers are:
(800) 242-9346 (outside the District of Columbia)
(202) 382-3000 (in the District of Columbia)
The following programs offer technical and/or
financial assistance for waste minimization and
treatment.
Alabama
Hazardous Material Management and Resource
Recovery Program
University of Alabama
P.O. Box 6373
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-6373
(205) 348-8401
Department of Environmental Management
1751 Federal Drive
Montgomery, AL 36130
(205) 271-7914
40
-------
Alaska
Alaska Health Project
Waste Reduction Assistance Program
1818 West Northern Lights Boulevard
Anchorage, AK 99501
(907)276-2864
Arizona
Arizona Department of Economic Planning and
Development
1645 West Jefferson Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007
(602) 255-5705
Arkansas
Arkansas Industrial Development Commission
One State Capitol Mall
Little Rock, AR 72201
(501) 371-1370
California
Pollution Prevention, Public and Regulatory
Assistance Program
Department of Toxic Substances Control
California State Department of Health Services
P.O. Box 806
Sacramento, CA 95812-0806
(916) 322-3670
Pollution Prevention Program
San Diego County Department of Health Services
Hazardous Materials Management Division
P.O. Box 85261
San Diego, CA 92186-5261
(619) 338-2215
Colorado
Division of Commerce and Development Commission
500 State Centennial Building
Denver, CO 80203
(303) 866-2205
Connecticut
Connecticut Hazardous Waste Management Service
Suite 360
900 Asylum Avenue
Hartford, CT 06105
(203) 244-2007
Connecticut Department of Economic Development
210 Washington Street
Hartford, CT 06106
(203) 566-7196
Delaware
Delaware Department of Community Affairs &
Economic Development
630 State College Road
Dover, DE 19901
(302) 736-4201
District of Columbia
U.S. Department of Energy
Conservation and Renewable Energy
Office of Industrial Technologies
Office of Waste Reduction, Waste Material
Management Division
Bruce Cranford CE-222
Washington, DC 20585
(202) 586-9496
Pollution Control Financing Staff
Small Business Administration
1441 "L" Street, N.W., Room 808
Washington, DC 20416
(202) 653-2548
Florida
Waste Reduction Assistance Program
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
(904) 488-0300
Georgia
Hazardous Waste Technical Assistance Program
Georgia Institute of Technology
Georgia Technical Research Institute
Environmental Health and Safety Division
O'Keefe Building, Room 027
Atlanta, GA 30332
(404)894-3806
Environmental Protection Division
-Georgia Department of Natural Resources
205 Butler Street, S.E., Suite 1154
Atlanta, GA 30334
(404) 656-2833
41
-------
Guam
Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Program
Guam Environmental Protection Agency
IT&E Harmon Plaza, Complex Unit D-107
130 Rojas Street
Harmon, Guam 96911
(671) 646-8863-5
Hawaii
Department of Planning & Economic Development
Financial Management and Assistance Branch
P.O. Box 2359
Honolulu, HI 96813
(808) 548-4617
Idaho
IDHW-DEQ
Hazardous Materials Bureau
450 West State Street, 3rd Floor
Boise, ID 83720
(208) 334-5879
Illinois
Illinois EPA
Office of Pollution Prevention
2200 Churchill Road
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
(217) 782-8700
Hazardous Waste Research and Information Center
Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources
One East Hazelwood Drive
Champaign, EL 61820
(217) 333-8940
Illinois Waste Elimination Research Center
Pritzker Department of Environmental Engineering
Alumni Memorial Hall, Room 103
Illinois Institute of Technology
3201 South Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60616
(312) 567-3535
Indiana
Environmental Management and Education Program
School of Civil Engineering
Purdue University
2129 Civil Engineering Building
West Lafayette, IN 47907
(317) 494-5036
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
Office of Technical Assistance
P.O. Box 6015
105 South Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015
(317)232-8172
Iowa
Center for Industrial Research and Service
Iowa State University
Suite 500, Building 1
2501 North Loop Drive
Ames, IA 50010-8286
(515) 294-3420
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Air Quality and Solid Waste Protection Bureau
Wallace State Office Building
900 East Grand Avenue
Des Moines, IA 50319-0034
(515)281-8690 ,
Waste Management Authority
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Henry A. Wallace Building
900 East Grand
Des Moines, IA 50319
(515) 281-8489
Iowa Waste Reduction Center
University of Northern Iowa
75 Biology Research Complex
Cedar Falls, IA 50614
(319)273-2079
Kansas
Bureau of Waste Management
Department of Health and Environment
Forbes Field, Building 730
Topeka, KS 66620
(913) 269-1607
Kentucky
Division of Waste Management
Natural Resources and Environmental Protection
Cabinet
18 Reilly Road
Frankfort, KY 40601
(502) 564-6716
42'
-------
Kentucky Partners
Room 312 Ernst Hall
University of Louisville
Speed Scientific School
Louisville, KY 40292
(502) 588-7260
Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality
Office of Solid and Hazardous Waste
P.O. Box 44307
Baton Rouge, LA 70804
(504) 342-1354
Maine ,
State Planning Office
184 State Street
Augusta, ME 04333
(207)289-3261
Maryland
Maryland Hazardous Waste Facilities Siting Board
60 West Street, Suite 200 A
Annapolis, MD 21401
(301) 974-3432
Massachusetts
Office of Technical Assistance
Executive Office of Environmental Affaks
100 Cambridge Street, Room 1904
Boston, MA 02202
(617) 727-3260
Source Reduction Program
Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Quality Engineering
1 Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
(617) 292-5982
Michigan
Resource; Recovery Section
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 373-0540
Minnesota
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Solid and Hazardous Waste Division
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155
(612) 296-6300
Minnesota Technical Assistance Program
1313 5th Street, S.E., Suite 207
Minneapolis, MN 55414
(612) 627-4646
(800) 247-0015 (in Minnesota)
Mississippi
Waste Reduction & Minimization Program
Bureau of Pollution Control
Department of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 10385
Jackson, MS 39289-0385
(601) 961-5190
Missouri
State Environmental Improvement and Energy
Resources Agency
P.O. Box 744
Jefferson City, MO 65102
(314) 751-4919
Waste Management Program
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Jefferson Building, 13th Floorn
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102
(314) 751-3176
Nebraska
Land Quality Division
Nebraska Department of Environmental Control
Box 98922
Slate House Station
Lincoln, NE 68509-8922
(402) 471-2186
Hazardous Waste Section
Nebraska Department of Environmental Control
P.O. Box 98922
Lincoln, NE 68509-8922
(402) 471-2186
43
-------
New Jersey
New Jersey Hazardous Waste Facilities Siting
Commission
Room 514
28 West State Street
Trenton, NJ 08625
(609) 292-1459
(609) 292-1026
Hazardous Waste Advisement Program
Bureau of Regulation and Classification
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
401 East State Street
Trenton, NJ 08625
(609) 292-8341
Risk Reduction Unit
Office of Science and Research
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
401 East State Street
Trenton, NJ 08625
(609) 292-8341
New Mexico
Economic Development Department
Bataan Memorial Building
State Capitol Complex
Santa Fe, NM 87503
(505) 827-6207
New York
New York Environmental Facilities Corporation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12205
(518) 457-4222
North Carolina
Pollution Prevention Pays Program
Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development
P.O. Box 27687
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
(919) 733-7015
Governor's Waste Management Board
P.O. Box 27687
325 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
(919) 733-9020
Technical Assistance Unit
Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Branch
North Carolina Department of Human Resources
P.O. Box 2091
306 North Wilmington Street
Raleigh, NC 27602
(919) 733-2178
North Dakota
North Dakota Economic Development Commission
Liberty Memorial Building
State Capitol Grounds
Bismarck, ND 58505
(701) 224-2810
Ohio
Division of Hazardous Waste Management
Division of Solid and Infectious Waste Management
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
P.O. Box 0149
1800 Watermark Drive
Columbus, OH 43266-0149
(614) 644-2917
Oklahoma
Industrial Waste Elimination Program
Oklahoma State Department of Health
P.O. Box 53551
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
(405) 271-7353
Oregon
Oregon Hazardous Waste Reduction Program
Department of Environmental Quality
811 Southwest Sixth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
(503) 229-5913
(800) 452-4011 (in Oregon)
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Technical Assistance Program
501 F. Orvis Keller Building
University Park, PA 16802
(814) 865-0427
Center of Hazardous Material Research
Subsidiary of the University of Pittsburgh Trust
320 William Pitt Way
Pittsburgh, PA 15238
(412) 826-5320
(800) 334-2467
44
-------
Puerto Rico
Government of Puerto Rico
Economic Development Administration
Box 2350
San Juan, PR 00936
(809) 758-4747
Rhode Island
Hazardous Waste Reduction Section
Office of Environmental Management
83 Park Street
Providence, RI 02903
(401) 277-3434
(800) 253-2674 (in Rhode Island)
South Carolina
Center for Waste Minimization
Department of Health and Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
(803) 734-4715
South Dakota
Department of State Development
P.O. Box,6000
Pierre, SD 57501
(800) 843-8000
Tennessee
Center for Industrial Services
University of Tennessee
Building #401
226 Capitol Boulevard
Nashville, TN 37219-1804
(615) 242-2456
Bureau of Environment
Tennessee Department of Health and Environment
150 9th Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37219-5404
(615) 741-3657
Tennessee Hazardous Waste Minimization Program
Tennessee Department of Economic and Community
Development
Division of Existing Industry Services
7th Floor, 320 6th Avenue, North
Nashville,, TN 37219
(615) 741-1888
Texas
Texas Economic Development Authority
410 East Fifth Street
Austin, TX 78701
(512) 472-5059
Utah
Utah Division of Economic Development
6150 State Office Building
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
(801)533-5325
Vermont
Economic Development Department
Pavilion Office Building
Montpelier, VT 05602
(802) 828-3221
Virginia
Office of Policy and Planning
Virginia Department of Waste Management
llth Floor, Monroe Building
101 North 14th Street
Richmond, VA 23219
(804) 225-2667
Washington
Hazardous Waste Section
Mail Stop PV-11
Washington Department of Ecology
Olympia,WA 98504-8711
(206)459-6322
West Virginia
Governor's Office of Economics and Community
Development
Building G, Room B-517
Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
(304) 348-2234
Wisconsin
Bureau of Solid Waste Management
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 7921
101 South Webster Street
Madison, WI 53707
(608) 267-3763
45
-------
Wyoming
Solid Waste Management Program
Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality
Hersehler Building, 4th Floor, West Wing
122 West 25th Street
Cheyenne, WY 82002
(307) 777-7752
Waste Exchanges
Alberta Waste Materials Exchange
Mr. Jim Renick
303A Provincial Building
4920-51 Street
Red Deer, Alberta
CANADA T4N6KB
(403) 340-7980
FAX: (403)340-7982
B.A.R.TJE.R. Waste Exchange
Mr. William Nynas
MPIRG
2512 Delaware Street SE
Minneapolis, MN 55414
(612) 627-6811
British Columbia Waste Exchange
Ms. Jill Gillett
1525 West 8th Avenue, Suite 102
Vancouver, B.C.
CANADA V6J 1T5
(604) 731-7222 - General Information
(604) 732-9253 - Recycler Data Base
California Materials Exchange (CALMAX)
Mr. Dave Sparrow
Local Government Commission
909 12th St., Suite 205
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916)448-1198
FAX: (916) 448-8246
California Waste Exchange
Ms. Claudia Moore
Alternative Technology Division
Department of Toxic Substances Control
P.O. Box 806
Sacramento, CA 94212-0806
(916) 322-4742
Canadian Chemical Exchange*
Mr. Philippe LaRoche
P.O. Box 1135
Ste-Adele, Quebec
CANADA JOR 1LO
(514) 229-6511
Canadian Waste Materials Exchange
ORTECH International
Dr. Robert Laughlin
2395 Speakman Drive
Mississauga, Ontario
CANADA L5K IBS
(416) 822-4111 (Ext. 265)
FAX: (416)823-1446
Indiana Waste Exchange
Mr. Jim Britt
Recyclers Trade Network
P.O. Box 454
Carmel, IN 46032
(317) 844-8764
Industrial Materials Exchange
Mr. Bill Lawrence
172 20th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98122
(206) 296-4633
FAX: (206)296-0188
Industrial Materials Exchange Service
Ms. Diane Shockey
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
(217)782-0450
FAX: (217)524-4193
1 For-Profll Waste Information Exchange.
46
-------
Iowa Waste Reduction Center
By-product Waste Search Service
Ms. Susan Salterberg
75 BRC
University of Northern Iowa
Cedar Falls, IA 50614-0185
(800) 422-3109
(319) 273-2079
FAX: (319) 273-2893
Louisiana/Gulf Coast Waste Exchange
Ms. Rita Czek
1419 CEBA
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
(504) 388-8650
FAX: (504) 388-4945
Manitoba Waste Exchange
Ms. Beth Candlish
c/o Biomass Energy Institute, Inc.
1329 Niakwa Road
Winnipeg, Manitoba
CANADA R2J3T4
(204) 257-3891
Montana Industrial Waste Exchange
Manager
Montana Chamber of Commerce
P.O. Box 1730
Helena, MX 59624
(406) 442-2405
Northeast Industrial Waste Exchange, Inc.
Mr. Lewis Cutler
90 Presidential Plaza, Suite 122
Syracuse, NY 13202
(315) 422-6572
FAX: (315)422-9051
Ontario Waste Exchange
ORTECH International
Ms. Mary Jane Hanley
2395 Speakman Drive
Mississauga, Ontario
CANADA L5K 1B3
(416) 822-4111 (Ext. 512)
FAX: (416) 823-1446
Pacific Materials Exchange
Mr. Bob Smee
1522 North Washington, Suite 202
Spokane, WA 99205
(509) 325-0551
FAX: (509)325-2086
Peel Regional Recycling Assistance
(Publishes Directory of Local Recyclers)
Mr. Glen Milbury
Regional Municipality of Peel
10 Peel Center Drive
Brampton, Ontario
CANADA L6T4B9
(416)791-9400
RENEW
Ms. Hope Castillo
Texas Water Commission
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711-3087
(512) 463-7773
FAX: (512)475-4599
Southeast Waste Exchange
Ms. Maxie May
Urban Institute
UNCC Station
Charlotte, NC 28223
(704) 547-2307
Southern Waste Information Exchange
Mr. Eugene B. Jones
P.O. Box 960
Tallahassee, FL 32302
(800) 441-SWIX (7949)
(904) 644-5516
FAX: (904)574-6704
Wastelink, Division of Tencon, Inc.
Ms. Mary E. Malotke
140 Wooster Pike
Milford, OH 45150
(513) 248-0012
FAX: (513) 248-1094
47
-------
U.S. EPA Regional Offices
Region 1 (VT, NH, ME, MA, CT, RT)
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 565-3715
Region 2 (NY, NJ)
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212) 264-2525
Region 3 (PA, DE, MD, WV, VA)
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 597-9800
Region 4 (KY, TN, NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, MS)
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347-4727
Region 5 (WI, MM, MI, EL, IN, OH)
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 353-2000
Region 6 (NM, OK, AR, LA, TX)
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
(214) 655-6444
Region 7 (ME, KS, MO, IA)
756 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913) 236-2800
Region 8 (MT, ND, SD, WY, UT, CO)
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202-2405
(303) 293-1603
Region 9 (CA, NV, AZ, HI)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 744-1305
Region 10 (AK, WA, OR, ID)
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 442-5810
Industry & Trade Associations
American Wood-Preservers' Association
P.O. Box 286
Woodstock, MD 21163-0286
(410)465-3169
American Wood Preservers' Institute
1945 Old Gallows Road, Suite 500
Vienna, VA 22182
(703)893-4005
48
&U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1993 - 5SO-OOI/S03I3
------- |