From the source [Vol. 4, no. 4 (Winter 1996)]

From ~C20.1~3 the
p1
Sb
tliume 4, Number 4

A Publication of the Georgia Pollution Prevention Assistance Division Winter 1996

Sector Assessments of Wood

National P2 Roundtable

Products and Pulp and Paper

Meeting

Industries Near Completion

by Susan Varlamoff, Outreach Coordinator

By Paul Crumpler, Pollution Prevention Engineer
Several months ago, P2AD began conducting in-depth sector assessments of industries in Georgia that are the

The National Pollution Prevention Roundtable Fall C?nference held in Miami, December 6-8, was a gathenng of leaders in government, business, and non-profit organizations
to learn the latest advances in pollution prevention from experts

most significant generators of toxic emissions. These high-prior- in the field and one another. Four hundred fifty people from ap-

ity industrial sectors include manufacturers of pulp and paper, proximately 25 states and several foreign countries traveled to

wood products, fabricated metal components, transportation equip- Florida for this event sponsored by the National Pollution Pre-

ment, printed material, rubber and plastic products, and chemi- vention Roundtable.

cals. The purpose of the sector assessments is to identify the key

The National Pollution Prevention Roundtable is the largest

issues relating to waste generation faced by these industries so that P2AD can provide meaningful assistance. The assessments

membership organization dedicated solely to pollution prevention. The voting membership is composed of state and local government

will include such information as the industrial processes that are pollution prevention programs, while affiliate members include rep-

responsible for waste generation, impediments to pollution pre- resentatives from federal agencies, non-profit groups, and private

vention, and pollution prevention solutions that Georgia indus- industry. The Roundtable hosts two semi-annual conferences which

tries have successfully implemented.

provide members a forum for exchanging the latest in pollution

The first of the sector assessments for the pulp and paper and wood products industries are near completion. The documents

prevention (P2) research, policy funding opportunities, and technical expertise.

are currently undergoing peer review. Once the reviews are com-

The topics at this conference included pollution prevention

plete, and appropriate updates made, key information will be pub- initiatives for printing/photo processing, coating, metal finishing

lished describing the industrial processes, waste concerns, and the and metal fabrication and the chemical industry. Others discussed

solutions to waste problems identified during the sector assess- the integration of pollution prevention into the regulatory agen-

ment. Some of the preliminary issues identified in these two sec- cies; outreach ideas for local and state governments and small busi-

tors are provided below. The Georgia pulp and paper industry is a large and very

nesses; agricultural P2; and evaluating pollution prevention at industrial facilities.

complex industry. More than 20 companies with almost 12,000

Often one subject such as P2 in Local Government was pre-

employees produce pulp or paper products. All of the companies sented by speakers from a variety of backgrounds such as the City

contacted during the study participate in some ongoing long range of Cincinnati; Dade County, Florida; Ontario, Canada; and the City

research efforts addressing environmental concerns. Many also of Portland. This diverse group provided the audience with an ar-

have working facility pollution prevention programs to identify ray of p2 possibilities for different regions and city sizes.

the sources of waste and implement solutions. Those mills that do

Each evening, workgroups were convened on most topics

not have facility pollution prevention plans should implement pro- discussed during the day such as regulatory integration, local gov-

grams to address some of the key issues provided below:

ernment, facility planning, research and technology, information/

i i i i i \ i : ~::r~~~~!~~~e~~~~o~euse tlStmE IBIS JSBIB ~~:s:r;;:~;~,;~~i~:~~:~i~:o~~:r~;~~~~~

~ E~!~~~~~?:~~=

:::~~;;;~;~;~~;:;;~;;;

~~::=~d;:~P;:~~~?~i 1~._.. !~!~:;i::S::~f~~~6~p~;;_moreinforsee Sector, page 7

Director's Column

by G. Robert Kerr

Why Pollution

Prevention Now?
The director's columns in prior issues have described new pollution prevention efforts of the division, or discussed our past successful events. I want to take a few minutes of your time with this column to reflect on some of the reasons for undertaking pollution prevention in your facility. A primary reason that many of our clients/partners start a pollution prevention program is the cost savings that can be realized. P2AD understands that cost/benefit is a major consideration in business decisions. Therefore, the staff strives to provide our clients with environmentally sound and cost effective solutions for management of their waste streams. Perhaps another reason to adopt pollution prevention as a component of your company's environmental management system is the current uncertainty in the U.S. about environmental regulations. The budgetary problems and political changes in Washington are contributing to this uncertainty. Also, the number of environmental law pages in the Congressional Federal Record (Volume 40 of the CFR) has increased by over 9,000 pages since 1988. The sheer amount of new regulations to comply with is causing many companies, particularly small businesses who have not been previously regulated, to feel unsure about their environmental situation. Pollution prevention techniques offer companies of all sizes the possibility of falling below certain regulatory thresholds. Achieving this obviously leads to reduced liability concerns and reduced costs associated with environmental compliance. Less waste generation and more efficient management of raw materials and wastes can help you feel less uncertain about your environmental concerns. Let our staff assist you in identifying appropriate pollution prevention methods for your company.
Agricultural Pollution Prevention
Farms and related agricultural enterprises are increasingly being recognized by the general public as potential sources of surface and ground water contamination. In Georgia, currently there are insufficient standardized methods to assist farms in identifying and evaluating problem areas and farming practices that could potentially result in environmental contamination. We are pleased to announce that P2AD, along with the Georgia Soil and Water Commission, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the Cooperative Extension Service, is co-funding a program to encourage development of environmental assessment tools for farms. Georgia's self-assessment program will follow the model of the National Farmstead Assessment System

(Farm*A*Syst) program. Farm*A*Syst was originally developed in Wisconsin and Minnesota, and the program aids farmers in understanding and voluntarily identifying pollution risks associated with their farms by using a series of assessments. Dr. Mark Risse and Ms. Lisa Kelley will be the lead personnel for the Georgia Farm*A*Syst program. They can be contacted at (706) 5422154 for more information.
Weyerhaeuser accepted for Project XL
W eyerhaeuser's Flint River Pulp Operations in Oglethorpe, GA has been accepted into the EPA's Project XL Program. EPA created Project XL (eXcellence and Leadership) to offer a limited number of responsible companies the opportunity to obtain cleaner, cheaper, and smarter environmental results by testing alternative approaches to the traditional command and control regulations. EPA selected the Flint River Operations for the program based on Weyerhaeuser's commitment to multi-media Minimum Impact Manufacturing (MIM) as an environmental and business strategy for its facilities. The plant will continue to perform beyond regulatory requirements, and EPA and the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) will, in tum, provide more flexible regulatory management. Local community involvement and a stakeholder agreement are also a vital part of Project XL. Weyerhaeuser will work with the Pollution Prevention Assistance Division, EPA Region IV, Georgia EPD, the Lake Blackshear Watershed Association, and other interested stakeholders. All of these groups will participate in creating a formal agreement among the parties for implementation of the project. For more information, please contact Janet McElmurray (Weyerhaeuser) at (912) 472-5230, David Word (EPD) at (404) 656-4713, or Bill Patton (EPA) at (404) 3473555, X6898. Congratulations to Weyerhaeuser for being accepted to Project XL!

Page 2

Winter 1996

From The Source

An Approach To Solid Waste Minimization In The Paper Industry

Manfred K. Buder, Solid Waste Minimization Project Manager Weyerhaeuser Company - Tacoma, Washington

Since the late 1980s the paper industry has completed many success stories in the reduction of the solid waste it generates and disposes. According to a survey by NCASI (National Council for Air and Stream Improvement), in 1989 the industry generated over 13 million tons of process wastes, nearly all of which were landfilled. Most of this waste consists of effluent treatment solids ("sludge"), boiler ash, lime wastes, and wood debris. In recent years the industry has made inroads in shifting much of these residuals to useful alternative practices, such as energy recovery and land application. Weyerhaeuser Company ascribes to an integrated approach for managing the solid wastes from its manufacturing facilities. This means the coordination of a "full tool kit" of waste management options and their implementation across all of Weyerhaeuser's facilities. A key part of this strategy is to make progress in reducing the generation of and finding beneficial uses for these solid residual streams. There are five key drivers for the company's waste minimization efforts:
Environmental protection and tightening regulations
Stakeholder expectations
Company policy to conserve resources and minimize waste
Landfill depletion and high replacement costs

assistance to Weyerhaeuser's pulp, paper, paperboard, and wood products mills to minimize solid waste generation and disposal. This Solid Waste Minimization (SWMin) Team works with the mills and with sister entities at the corporate offices to obtain data, evaluate solid waste reduction opportunities at mills, develop mill SWMin plans, and stay abreast of pertinent technologies. At the heart of the program for the past several years have been the SWMin studies conducted at Weyerhaeuser manufacturing facilities. The SWMin Team, with the help of mill staff, obtains data on solid waste streams, and assists the mills in identifying and capturing significant waste reduction and utilization opportunities. Since 1990, SWMin studies have been completed for nearly all of the company's thirteen pulp, paper, and paperboard manufacturing sites. In the last couple of years Weyerhaeuser's SWMin Team has been busy working with various wood products facilities.
SWMin is a seven-step process (see Figure 1). The first step is the planning and coordination of the study with the mill. Second, the SWMin Team, typically two engineers and two technicians, conduct a week-long onsite survey to identify waste steams and their sources/destinations, glean facts and data, take samples, and obtain ideas and other input from mill staff. In the third step, the solid waste streams are screened down to a manageable number of key streams for which various short and long-term minimization alternatives are identified. Three screening criteria are used: annual disposal cost, annual recovered value of the stream, and

Economic benefits: avoided disposal cost and material recovery credits.
Accordingly, Weyerhaeuser's mills in Georgia have made and are continuing endeavors to minimize their solid waste streams. The Flint River pulp mill recycles scrap metal, office paper, and aluminum cans. The mill has also made significant strides to reduce fiber loss by not only conserving raw materials, but also decreasing the quantity of primary effluent treatment sludge that needs to be hauled to the landfill. Our composite panels mill at Adel provides another example of solid waste minimization. Instead of landfilling its sander dust waste, the mill sells it to a Florida utility company that uses it for fuel. Per unit of product, our sawmill at Barnesville landfills less of its manufacturing wastes than any other Weyerhaeuser sawmill. This is largely because of the mill's resolve to recycle these residuals as raw materials for particleboard manufacture (at Adel), for use by horticultural and landscaping companies, as a fuel (both internally and at Flint River), and for other beneficial uses. The Barnesville sawmill has also undertaken pollution prevention measures to reduce its generation of log yard waste to a level that is unmatched by similar mills within the company.
In support of this company wide effort, a technical team from the Corporate R&D group has been charged with providing

Figure 1: MILL SWMin Project Flow Diagram
Project Planning & Coordination 14----------,

In-Mill Solid Waste Survey

Alternative Identification
Opportunity Evaluation Goal Setting and
Implementation Planning Implementation Project

Periodic Reanalysis as Required

Documentation of Progress

See Paper Industry, page 8

From The Source

Winter 1996

Page 3

M any manufacturers in Georgia are replacing solvent-based painting systems with waterborne coatings. According to some industry estimates, 50% of the national finishing market is now comprised of waterborne coatings, including an impressive 70% of the architectural coatings market. Why are companies making this change? First and foremost, the impetus has been stricter regulations. Ensuing efforts by paint formulators have met these mandates while improving product quality. As a result, companies may receive further benefits (or headaches) from the change. In addition to meeting regulations, companies may encounter other incentives for switching to waterborne coatings including:
reduction of voe emissions at the source rather than by treatment
lessening (not elimination) of fire hazards associated with solvent-borne coatings
less odor compared to solvent-borne coatings
waterborne paint can be handled like solvent-based coatings which minimizes investment requirements
a wide variety of colors can be applied to a wide variety of substrates including wood, metal, and plastic
the change can be cost effective due to high solids content of some formulations
gloss and color retention may be better with certain waterborne paints.
Sounds great to this point! However, before jumping on the bandwagon, be sure you know what you're getting into. This article highlights some waterborne applications and suggests steps to include when evaluating their potential for your painting operation. What may appear to be a simple decision has the potential to be quite complex. Let's begin with a simple description of paints.
Organic surface coatings, or paints, consist of solvents, resins, pigments, extenders, and additives. The resins, or binders, provide the properties of the coatings and are often associated with the type of paint, i.e., epoxy, alkyd, vinyl, acrylic. Pigments provide color and some corrosion resistance properties. Extenders are similar to pigments, while additives are used to control drying, flow, and wetting. Finally, solvents dissolve the paint materials to form a liquid mixture that can be sprayed. Once applied to the part, the solvent evaporates, leaving behind the paint film. Water is frequently used as a solvent in waterborne coatings. Other common paint solvents include xylene, toluene, MEK, and N-butyl alcohol in solvent-based coatings. Many of these solvents are volatile organic compounds, or voes, which contribute to ozone creation (smog) when reacted with nitrogen oxides in the air. This characteristic of solvents has resulted in many of the current regulations.

A Primer on WatE
by Mike Garruto, P.E., Po/Ii
A typical solvent-based paint has a mixture of the paint materials outlined above including one or more solvents. Likewise, a waterborne coating has a mixture of the paint materials with a significant amount of water as a solvent. Contrary to its name, the waterborne coating typically includes other solvents, or "cosolvents," which can make up as much as 30% of the product.
Waterborne coatings have been around in one form or another for decades, but have demonstrated greatly improved performance characteristics in recent years. Some common waterborne resins include acrylics, epoxies, alkyds, and polyurethanes. See the chart below for some potential uses of waterborne paints.

Type of Waterborne

Coatings

Applications

Properties

Waterborne catalyzed food and beverage

epoxy

facilities; interior, high

maintenance areas;

finishing coat over a

variety of substrates

durable finish; resistant to corrosion, impact, and abrasion; low odor

Direct to metal acrylic new construction or resists corrosion,

maintenance; interior or chemicals, u/v light,

exterior; areas where fumes, some acids

color and gloss

and alkalis; excellent

retention are important adhesion to substrate

without primer when

using white finish

Waterborne acrylic, dry-fall coating

areas where high light reflectance is important; structural steel, wood, masonry

high flashpoint, minimal odor

Water reducible emulsion

interior wall paint, woodwork, and trim; semi-gloss or flat

available in white
only; zero voes;
easy to clean; mini-
mal odor; cannot tint

Water reducible alkyds

steel, aluminum, and plastics; general purpose primers and topcoats

similar gloss, flow, and leveling properties compared to solvent-based alkyd; easy cleanup

Aery lie-Epoxy hybrids

general metal finishing 36 hr pot life; requires

where hardness,

mixing of 2 or 3

flexibility, and

components

corrosion resistance are

desired

Polyurethane dispersions

primarily wood

can air/force dry at

finishing industry;

temperatures under

relatively new coating; 194 deg F; low VOCs

also for metals, textiles, achievable; coating is

leather, glass, and rigid polyurethane lacquer

plastics

dispersed in water

Page 4

Winter 1996

From The Source

~rborne Coatings

rtion Prevention Engineer

If you think you might have an application for waterborne coatings, here are some suggested evaluation steps.

1. What is the purpose of the present coating on your part? Is it for corrosion resistance, appearance, to meet customer specifications, or because it's what has always been used? Determine the specific minimum performance requirements for the coating, produce a specification from this, and make sure that the selected waterborne products meet all requirements. If there is not a cornrnercially available coating that will meet your specifications, a coating manufacturer may be willing to work with you on new formulations.

2. Request technical literature from the vendor including MSDS sheets, VOC content, regulations covering the product and its constituents, safe handling procedures, and equipment requirements. Specifically, you may want to request manufacturers' MSDS sheets for New Jersey since the vendor must list all materials making up at least 1% of the formulation when selling products in this state. Next, evaluate whether the new alternative is really safer, less hazardous, and reduces your regulatory obligations. Work through the VOC and hazardous air pollutants (HAPS) calculations for any proposed coatings.

3. Consider changes in transfer efficiency, coating thickness, and solids content using waterborne coatings, especially when estimating changes in purchasing and environmental reporting requirements. In electrostatic systems, there may be a lesser attraction between the part and paint when using waterborne coatings, therefore reducing transfer efficiency. Solids content may be higher or lower with the waterborne coatings and dry film thickness requirements vary. Also, research potential changes to surface preparation and drying temperature and time constraints.

4. Perhaps the biggest factor in a company's decision should be the evaluation ofretum on investment. P2AD is avail-

able to assist in documenting the true costs of wastes,

and to assist in the capital investment decision making

process. To compare strictly the total paint costs (TC1,

TC2) of the changeover knowing existing and proposed

paint costs per gallon t2), dry film thickness

(rCeq1,uCire)m,ternatnssf(edrl'edff2i)c,ieanncdievs o(te1,

content (V1, V2) the following equation may be helpful:

TC2($)

=

TC ($) 1

x

[C2($/gal)

x

d2 (mils)

x

V 1

(%)

x

t1

(%)]/[C ($/gal) 1

x

d (mils) 1

x

V2(%)

x

t/%)]

This equation incorporates only one aspect of the overall cost of the painting operation, but is a useful initial calculation.

5. Changing materials will require some modifications to existing equipment and operating procedures. These capital and operating cost changes should be included in your economic evaluation. As an example, drying times may increase with the change to waterborne coatings. This can affect conveying systems, ovens, throughput, and energy costs. Electrostatic spray systems must be isolated from ground because waterborne coatings are highly conductive. Recirculation systems may have to be replaced with stainless steel pumps and piping to avoid corrosion. Higher pressures may be needed to atomize the paint, which will in tum decrease transfer efficiency. A company should plan its implementation such that costs to ongoing operations will be minimized. It is recommended that the company work closely with a coatings and spray equipment supplier or a consultant to ensure the change is made effectively.
Waterborne coatings could be your best choice to reduce emissions and decrease costs. However, they are just one of several coatings options available including high-solids, 100% solids, u/v curable, co2 cosolvent, autophoretic, and powder coating. Each type has its benefits and disadvantages and there is no one perfect coating for any application. Keep this in mind when evaluating your options.
One company in Georgia that has effectively made a partial switch of their paint operations to waterborne coatings is Geiger International in Atlanta.
Geiger International was the recipient of a P2AD action grant allocated toward their pollution prevention initiative. Geiger is a manufacturer of high-end office furniture where product appearance is critical. Their conversion process to waterborne coatings was more difficult than anticipated and took a five year time frame, but the results have been outstanding. The company was able to substitute a two component water based polyurethane top coat for a solvent-based product. The VOCs per gallon dropped from 6.31 pounds to 0.32 pounds. Although the waterborne coating is more expensive, the increase in solids within the paint allows greater coverage and has greatly reduced their paint costs for this process. Additional benefits include the use of water for cleaning lines instead of solvents. Cindy Ivey, the company's environmental coordinator, stresses that they worked very closely with their coatings supplier. Despite their eventual success, there were some bumps along the road including performance shortcomings that needed to be remedied. Once the change was successfully implemented, the company continued their pollution prevention efforts by changing to high volume - low pressure (HVLP) spray guns. Currently, they are searching for a waterborne coating with an improved pencil hardness rating that will meet their desktop requirements.

From The Source

Winter 1996

Page 5

How P2AD Does Pollution Prevention Assessments

by Matthew Barcaskey, Pollution Prevention Engineer

This is the second in a series of articles about P2AD's services. P2AD provides free, non-regulatory assistance to Georgia industry. P2AD engineers will conduct voluntary onsite assessments for industries on request. Staff engineers are specially trained in pollution prevention and have past manufacturing experience. This service will also alert you to technology transfer opportunities from other industries, university, and government programs.

tance is in the form of an on-site assessment, some other examples of how P2AD has worked with industry are:
Assisted a company in developing their own P2 guidance document which is being used by their facilities to do self-assessments.
Assisted a company in developing a P2 program and training teams of their employees to do self-assessments.

Fundamental approach...
P2AD's objective in any pollution prevention (P2) or waste reduction assessment is to reduce waste in a manner that is costeffective. This can be best accomplished through a systematic approach common to any problem solving activity. The first step involves identifying the wastes. In doing this we ask the following questions: What is the waste? How much is there? How was it generated? and What happens to it? It is usually advantageous to capture this information in a flow diagram.
Next, we identify cost information associated with the waste generation. This information is crucial to finding economically viable alternatives to present activities. Examples of cost information considered would include value of lost raw materials, processing costs that do not result in salable product, waste handling costs, treatment and disposal costs, and management activities involving paper work and auditing.
With a thorough understanding of the wastes, we can begin to seek alternatives that will enable reduction, reuse, or recycling of the wastes. Many times, alternatives will become apparent during a site visit. Also, ideas may be generated from researching P2AD's in-house technical library or networking with other industry contacts.
Finally, alternatives are evaluated financially based on the cost information. P2AD will strive to provide the most cost-effective solutions to your waste problems.
Assistance tailored to your needs...
P2AD's intent is to provide whatever type of assistance will best enable you to meet your P2/waste reduction goals. To insure timely response, we often ask that you prioritize the areas in which you require help.
P2AD can assist with research, on-site assistance, developing P2 programs, P2 training, or waste cost accounting. Assistance frequently depends on a facility's size, complexity, and technical capabilities. For small to medium size plants, a one day, onsite assessment is usually sufficient. Larger facilities may require several days or a more limited agenda.
P2AD can also provide training so that a facility can develop the capability to do self-assessments. This is particularly effective for facilities with a large number of employees and technical staff. A team of employees assisted by P2AD can cover much more than a P2AD engineer working alone. While a typical assis-

Assisting a company in developing a waste management cost system which will be used in doing self-assessments.
Assessments are not necessarily a one-time service; in fact, several companies are using P2AD's services on a continuing basis.
Other resources available...
Many times a client requires help in areas beyond our expertise. Depending on the circumstances, P2AD's staff has several resources to call on for additional help.
When regulatory questions arise, we can refer the client to the Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI) or the Environmental Protection Division (EPD). GTRI has a program called TechWREC (waste reduction and environmental compliance) which provides free, confidential regulatory assistance.
The Economic Development Institute (EDI) at Georgia Tech has an Energy Analysis and Diagnostic Center (EADC) which provides energy conservation audits. The energy audits are similar to the P2 assessments. A team of engineers will evaluate all forms of energy consumption within the facility and provide dollar saving recommendations which will conserve energy.
Confidentiality...
The enabling legislation for P2AD provides for confidentiality of information used in pollution prevention assessments. This provision can be found in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Code 1981, 12-8-184). Any reports generated from an assessment are considered property of the company. If requested by the company, P2AD will not keep reports on file and/or will screen documents for confidential information.
If you are interested in an assessment, please contact Jancie Hatcher at 404-651-5120 or return the response card on page 7.
FROM THE SOURCE is printed on recycled paper with soy ink

Page 6

Winter 1996

From The Source

Pollution 8olutions

In the last issue, we asked readers how they recycled or managed steel or plastic drums. The following is a list of suggestions and comments.
A textile company in North Georgia has established a drum return program for their customers. The returned drums are reused at the facility. Plastic drums are refurbished by a local company, who in tum sells the drums back to the vendors.
Another company in Baxley, GA returns their empty steel, closed-head drums to the drum supplier on their truck. The company's empty steel, open-head drums are sent to a scrap steel recycler.
Several companies commented on the lack of steel drum recyclers in their area, which has created a growing problem for recycling or managing steel drums.

For the next issue, tell us how you have replaced or substituted a less toxic or lower VOC coating. Readers who have encountered problems with finding a suitable replacement are also encouraged to submit their experiences or responses.

Mail your response to P2AD, 7 MLK, Jr., Dr., Suite 450, Atlanta, GA 30334, e-mail to p2ad@ix.netcom.com or fax to (404) 651-5130 by April 15, 1996. Selected answers will be published in the spring issue of From the Source. The name of your company will not appear in the paper, unless you prefer that we include the name with your response. Your response is greatly appreciated and vital to the success of this project. Please include any ideas for questions that you would like to have addressed in future issues.

Sector, from page 1 _ _ _ _ _ __
employees. These companies range from one employee to more than 1,000. Products manufactured include such items as kitchen cabinets, mobile homes, plywood, and roofjoists. Very few wood products manufacturers have implemented formal pollution prevention programs. Companies that have facility pollution prevention programs have demonstrated significant waste reduction. Many of the wood products manufacturers do not have access to engineering resources; access to such resources may help identify technical solutions to some common waste problems. Some of the key issues facing Georgia wood products manufacturers are:
Waste from Spray Application of Coatings Alternatives to Solvent-based Adhesives Alternatives to Solvent-based Coatings Means to Reduce Industrial Solid Waste Georgia P2AD is committed to providing assistance to help address these key issues. Part of the commitment will be fulfilled by learning more about the technologies used by industry. This cannot be achieved without forming partnerships with industry to jointly address the problems and opportunities. One example of the partnership that can be formed is Project XL (see box on page 2 for description).

From The Source

Winter 1996

Page 7

Paper Industry, from page 3 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

associated environmental issues. Also, at this point in the process the SWMin Team surveys potential uses and users for selected residual streams as a reality check against some of the utilization alternatives being considered. In Step 4, the most promising combinations of waste streams and minimization alternatives are further developed and evaluated based on roughly estimated lifecycle economics. The "top" economic opportunities are ranked by their net present values and reported to the mill. These opportunities are reviewed and revised, as appropriate, with mill staff in the fifth step of the SWMin process. The purpose of this step is to select a reduction target, finalize the SWMin project roster, and develop a five-year SWMin plan. Step 6 is the implementation of this plan and Step 7 is the documentation of SWMin progress against the plan. The SWMin Team is available to the mills for technical support during the implementation and documentation phases. Of course, since costs, markets, production, and other things do change over time, it will be necessary to loop back and revisit some earlier steps in the process from time to time.
Typically, 50 to 100 solid waste streams, some of them very small on a relative scale, are identified at each company pulp and paper mill. Most of these wastes end up being landfilled, usually onsite. Others are burned, typically in the power boiler, or land applied. Secondary effluent treatment solids are impounded in lagoons for the most part, since few company mills use activated sludge treatment systems. Small, but growing, quantities of the mills' solid residuals are recycled.
The largest solid waste categories being generated by the mills are various wood wastes, boiler ash, effluent treatment sludges (primary and secondary), recausticizing wastes (dregs, grits,

lime, etc.), and general mill trash. Minimization of these types of streams is certainly challenging. As examples, the SWMin team and Weyerhaeuser mills have evaluated, and in many cases implemented, the following SWMin approaches:
Woodyard debris: (1) debris separation into hog fuel, rocks, and fines (soil supplement); and (2) woodyard paving.
Boiler ash: (1) boiler upgrade to improve combustion efficiency, (2) flyash screening and char reinjection, and (3) ash utilization as a soil supplement or construction material.
Primary sludge: (1) avoiding mixture of ash, lime, and other separable streams flowing into the primary effluent treatment system, (2) spill and leak control, and (3) recovery of fiber for internal or external use, or for energy recovery as a fuel.
Grits and dregs: (1) purchased lime quality control, and (2) washing and land application.
Although there are similarities among mills, the SWMin Team found the mills to be at different stages of waste management along the hierarchy of alternatives (i.e., from disposal up through recycling and source reduction). However, significant opportunities exist for cost effective improvement at each facility surveyed. One result of these studies has been to make the mills more aware of the solid wastes they generate, must manage, and can minimize through examination of the projected economic benefit. The risk mitigation "stick" and opportunity "carrot" are significant enough to encourage the mills to place higher priority on tracking their solid wastes and planning for their future reduction. It is interesting to note that those Weyerhaeuser mills that have made the greatest effort to improve and have realized the associated benefits tend to be the strongest advocates for further SWMin progress.

POLLUTION PREVENTION ASSISTANCE DIVISION Suite 450 7 Martin Luther King, Jr. Dr. SW Atlanta, Georgia 30334-9004 (404) 651-5120 1-800-685-2443

BULK RATE U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
Permit No. 02165 Atlanta, GA 30334

FROM THE SOURCE is a publication of the Georgia Pollution Prevention Assistance Division and is made possible by a grant from the Division of Energy Resources, Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority.
Design by: DOAS Graphic Design