Sector Assessments

An Analysis of Pollution Prevention Opportunities and Impediments in the Wood Products Manufacturing Sector in Georgia

Waste Stream and Generation Characteristics of Georgia Wood Products Manufacturers

The 1993 TRI and Hazardous Waste Large Quantity Generator (LQG) reports provide a list of chemical releases and waste generation; this information is summarized in Table 3. Companies providing TRI or LQG reports represent a small number of the total wood products companies. Some results of the TRI and LQG reports are provided below.

• Only companies with more than 100 employees provided LQG or TRI reports.
• Wastes released are primarily paint, cleaning, or glue related solvents.
• Total 1993 TRI releases were 2,102,266 pounds; almost all are air releases.
• Reported hazardous waste generation was much less, totaling 297,828 pounds.
• TRI reported releases are by 17 of the 619 companies.
• TRI reporting companies employ 10% of the 20,000 total employees.

TABLE 3 - 1993 REPORTED TRI EMISSIONS AND LQG HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION

Plant visits to wood products manufacturers indicated the wastes reported in the TRI and LQG reports are common byproducts of the wood products industry. The difference between the companies that provide TRI and LQG reports and those that do not is size. Smaller companies typically use the same processes and the same chemicals, but fall below reporting limits. It is improper to assume that waste generation is then actually ten times more than reported on the TRI based on the number of employees. However, it is reasonable to assume that releases of TRI-listed chemicals are greater than reported due to the fact that most of the companies fall below threshold amounts for reporting yet still use similar processes and chemicals as the larger manufacturers.

Toxic Releases

The specific chemicals reported released by these industries are shown in Figure 1 as reported in the 1993 TRI. Formaldehyde and phenol releases are found mostly within SIC 2493 and 2435 which manufacture plywood and particle board. These materials are components of the glues and resins used in manufacturing. The majority of other chemicals are paint-related solvents released by SIC codes 2511, 2521, and 2431.

FIGURE 1 - 1993 TRI RELEASES BY THE GEORGIA WOOD PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING SECTOR (Pounds)

Non-Toxic Solvents

Non-toxic solvents such as mineral spirits are not reported on the TRI, but are used in coating and gluing operations. They are significant as volatile organic compounds (VOC) that are photoreactive and contribute to ground level ozone pollution. The toxic chemical releases shown in Table 3 are mostly VOCs and also contribute to ground level ozone pollution. Exact amounts of VOC releases are unknown from the wood products industry. From sealing, staining, and coating operations, total VOC emissions including TRI reportable chemicals ranged from 0.03 to 0.05 pounds per square foot of coated surface with at least 200,000 square feet coated per year. This figure is based on two facilities where estimations were possible. This information is summarized in Tables 4 and 5. Additional VOCs are released from the wood itself in situations where wood is chipped or significant wood dust is formed, and is in the range of 0.5 pounds per ton of wood. A large amount of wood has to be chipped before emissions are significant.

TABLE 4 -- SOLVENT USAGE IN A FURNITURE FINISHING SHOP

Application Equipment: High Volume - Low Pressure Spray Gun with Manual Application

TABLE 5 -- SOLVENT USAGE IN A CABINET SHOP

Application Equipment: Airless Heated High Pressure Spray Gun with Manual Application

Hazardous Waste

Reported hazardous waste is primarily generated from cleaning paint guns and related equipment. Rags and wipes used to apply stain are also disposed of as hazardous waste and reported by LQGs. Many smaller businesses also generate and dispose of these wastes as hazardous, but fall below reporting quantities. Rags from applying solvent-based stain are sometimes disposed of as solid, nonhazardous waste by manufacturers. Hazardous waste generation by nonreporting companies could not be estimated since records were often not maintained.

Particulate Emissions

Dust or particulate emissions to the air from sanding or sawing operations will become significant under Title V air quality regulations. Some wood products manufacturers who are not currently regulated will become Major Sources due to particulate emissions. Many of these manufacturers are not well informed on environmental regulations and do not have the in-house technical skills to handle regulatory matters.

Storm Water

Storm water may be affected by sawdust and sanding dust that escapes as fugitive releases or from dust collection systems. This material was obviously present on the ground around some wood products manufacturers visited. Storm water contamination with wood dust is not likely to cause long term problems such as ground water contamination, but can prompt complaints from neighbors, block storm drains, and foul standing water.

Solid Waste

Sawdust, short offcuts, knots, and sanding dust create a very costly disposal problem for large and small industries. Much of this material is disposed of in landfills. The companies visited with 50 to 150 employees generated between 80 and 180 cubic yards of solid waste per week. Disposal costs ranged from $1,500 to $5,500 per month. Depending upon the business, the nature of solid waste changed. Furniture manufacturers, cabinet manufacturers, and similar businesses tended to generate sawdust and offcuts of varying sizes as the largest portion of solid waste. Prefabricated housing manufacturers generate wood waste also, but a greater percentage consists of packaging waste and nonwood building materials such as gypsum, foam panels, and paper products.

Pollution Prevention in the Wood Products Industry Barriers, Sources of Assistance, and Waste Reduction Methods

The survey of Georgia wood products manufacturers collected information on common waste reduction methods, pollution prevention barriers, and sources of pollution prevention assistance. Table 6 reports barriers to pollution prevention identified by the survey. Table 7 lists the sources of assistance and information provided to companies about waste reduction. Table 8 provides a summary of the types of waste reduction efforts used by wood products manufacturers.

Pollution Prevention Barriers

TABLE 6 - BARRIERS TO POLLUTION PREVENTION

• Two-thirds identified barriers to waste reduction.
• Not economically feasible, limited in-house expertise, and insufficient capital were the most common barriers.
• The only specific regulatory barrier identified was related to hazardous waste management.

Small and large companies may see an economic advantage by allowing rags that are wet with solvent to air dry to avoid having to dispose of them as hazardous waste. If the rags are properly stored in air-tight containers to prevent air emissions, the company must ship them off-site as hazardous waste at $100 to more than $500 per drum. The solvent is then recovered or properly disposed. By allowing them to dry, air emissions are increased, but disposal cost is minimized. Companies that are doing a good job in handling solvent-wet rags are thus penalized.

Pollution Prevention Assistance

TABLE 7 - SOURCES OF POLLUTION PREVENTION ASSISTANCE

• One-third have received assistance.
• Two-thirds have received no assistance.
• Internal sources (vendors and corporate management) are the most common sources.

It is important to note that approximately two-thirds of the responding companies reported having received no assistance in reducing waste and two-thirds reported significant barriers to pollution prevention. The most common sources of assistance were sources that have easy access to manufacturers. Vendors and corporate experts typically know their products well, but may be unable to inform companies of other available technologies used by other industries. External organizations can help a company overcome barriers by identifying sources of waste and methods to reduce waste and cost. Government programs, university programs, and trade associations can provide this type of information at little or no cost. Consultants can provide this information plus more detailed design for a fee. Trade organizations exist for the benefit of industry and offer a wide range of services from information on laws that apply to their industry to new and innovative technologies. Since many wood products manufacturers are comfortable working with vendors, providing vendors with pollution prevention information may be one way of assisting these manufacturers. The benefit to the vendors would be enhanced service to their wood products customers.

Companies that have received help from external sources identified two major impediments to pollution prevention. Those are lack of economic feasibility (53%) and limited in-house expertise (46%). Those that had received help from vendors and corporate resources only evenly identified all barriers identified in Table 6 equally at approximately 20%. Manufacturers that have received no assistance also reported the barriers listed in Table 6 equally. This would tend to indicate that some of the concerns of reducing product integrity, technology limitations, and regulatory noncompliance can be reduced if companies use external assistance sources. There may be other explanations as well. The concern of limited in-house expertise is demonstrated clearly in the majority of the companies visited by the lack of engineering resources.

TABLE 8 - METHODS OF WASTE REDUCTION

Waste Reduction Methods

The methods used to reduce waste are listed in Table 8. Almost all companies reported minimizing waste in some manner. Plant visits did not identify any unique inventory control, energy conservation, or external recycling methods. Energy conservation primarily consisted of turning off equipment when not in use or using natural lighting. Larger facilities with boilers did recover steam condensate and cleaned boilers to improve energy efficiency. The most common method was reported to be inventory control. External recycling of waste primarily consisted of recycling steel packing material, cardboard, and aluminum cans, but not process wood waste which is often the largest waste stream. Several companies did recycle wood on-site by burning for energy recovery in wood-fired boilers. External recycling markets do exist for wood waste. The most unique waste reduction activity noted was substituting plywood for hardwood in a furniture framing operation to reduce waste. This is discussed later in this document under Solid Waste Reduction.

Visits also indicated that very few of these manufacturers have formal waste reduction programs in their facilities. While very interested in reducing cost and waste, few companies evaluate waste reduction opportunities using organized methods. Most companies can be characterized as having an informal approach to pollution prevention. These companies react to problems and vendor suggestions, but seldom actively assess waste reduction opportunities in their facilities. In general, the only companies having formal plans are hazardous waste LQGs that are required by law in Georgia to have a hazardous waste reduction plan. The companies visited that are LQGs report either reduction or attempted reduction of hazardous waste.