WORKING DUET

Georgia Tech Research Institute Project Number A-9150

Studv Team Members: B. Russell Ray, Team Leader James L. Walsh Jaime Castro, GTRI/EDL Carol Foley

Editorial Review: Leigh McElvaney

Inquiries about this report should be directed to:

Georgia Tech Research Institute Environmental Science and Technology Laboratory Environmental Engineering Branch Atlanta, Georgia 30332 (404) 894-3806

Revised August 27,1992

. '

'7

1

3 I

3

ASSESSMENT OF HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION BY LARGE QUANTITY GENERATORS

IN THE STATE OF GEORGIA

Executive Summary

The Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI) under contract to the Georgia Hazardous Waste Management Authority (GkwMA) conducted an assessment of the generation of hazardous waste by the large quantity generators (LQGs) in the State of Georgia. This assessment includes data analyses of the 1989 biennial reports submitted by the LQGs, a survey of the small quantity generators in the state, and other factors to determine the potential impact of source reduction on the quantities of waste that must be handled. This summary report provides a compilation of the results of this analysis as of the date of the report. We intend to update this report with further analyses and a review of the results of this report by others.

Pumse. The purpose of this assessment is to characterize hazardous waste generation in the state. The data and information generated is intended for the GHWMA for decision making related to hazardous waste management in the State of Georgia, contractors supporting the GHWMA decision process, and GTRI for targeting of source reduction technical assistance and applied research.

Pes- The key findings of the analyses of large quantity generators are:

Waste Management

- Approximately 40% of the hazardous wastes shipped off-site (50,000 tons) is the result of "media transfers" - removal of pollutants from air and water using pollution control equipment,

- Painting operations in the surface preparation and finishing source group, which account for approximately 8% (9,OOO tons) of the total waste shipped off-site, offer a potential for reduction,

- Clean-out of process equipment in the cleaning and degreasing source group and sludge removal in the one-time and intermittent processed group, which account for 12% (14,000 tons), also offer the potential for reduction,

- The amount of wastes produced by the general categories of cleaning and degreasing in the processes other than painting and degreasing group and surface preparation and painting in the one-time and other intermittent processes group, were essentially equal,

More than 60 percent of the hazardous waste shipped off-site (73,000 tons) comes from 25 facilities in the state, and the largest single generator produces more than 10 percent of the waste generated,

-

. ,

rl

More than 70% of the wastes shipped off-site are organic liquids and inorganic solids,

30,000 tons or 26% of the wastes shipped off-site are treated using thermal technologies such as incineration, energy recovery, and fuel blending (only 8,000 tons or 7% is incinerated),

The second most common system used for treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste is disposal in landfills which is used for 29,077 or 26% of the wastes shipped off- site,

The majority of the small quantity generator hazardous waste is accounted for in the 1989 biennial report, with less than 2,000 tons being directly shipped out-of-state.

Hazardous waste is shipped by Georgia generators to 148 sites, of which 29 are located in the State of Georgia,

The largest single receiver is the Chem Waste Management facility in Emelle, Alabama which receives more than 30% (36,000 tons) of all the waste shipped off-site,

30 facilities receive 99,571 tons or 86.7% of the waste shipped off-site,

The largest single method of treatment is landfilling at the Chem Waste Management facility in Emelle, Alabama which receives 25,529 tons per year or 22% of the total shipped off-site,

The second largest single method of treatment is metals recovery at the Zinc Corporation of America in Palmerton Pennsylvania which receives 8,428 tons or 7% of the total shipped off-site,

Waste M inimization/ Source Reduction

Only 229 of the 2,918 total reports of waste shipped off-site or 7.8% indicated waste minimization activity; thus there appears to be a large opportunity for waste reduction in significantly more industries,

The industries reporting waste minimization shipped off-site only 17,799 of the total 114,791 tons or 15.5% of the total waste shipped off-site indicating that the industries involved in waste minimization activities did not include many of the larger shippers of hazardous waste,

3,163 tons of 5,914 tons reported as reduced were due to process modifications indicating that actual changes in process technologies, in addition to good operating practices and maintenance procedures could be implemented.

Background

A large quantity generator (LQG) is a facility that generates more than 2,200 pounds (1,OOO kilograms) of hazardous waste in a month. In addition to the requirements for storing, labeling, shipping, and manifesting that are imposed on all generators of hazardous waste, LQGs are required to submit biennial reports on the generation, shipping, receiving, and reduction of hazardous waste. These reports are due on March 1 of the year following the two reporting ycars. The data is entered into dBasem sohare by the Environmental Protection Division (EPD) of the Georgia Depakment of Natural Resources. The most recent data available for analysis is the 1989 data which is the basis of analysis for this project. We will discuss selective analyses for the 1987 and 1991 data later.

The data is stored in five separate files corresponding to the five forms included in the biennial report. A list of the files and the corresponding biennial report forms is presented in Table 1. The files are compressed using PKZipm software to allow for storage on a 3 112" diskette. The P u p m software is also used to expand the files for analyses. While the original data is a dBasem file, FOXPROm software was used for data analysis.

Additional information utilized in this assessment were the 1987 biennial report, the 1991 biennial report from 25 facilities, the small quantity generator survey, and literature searches of pertinent source reduction information.

Methodology

The information for all of the data sorts conducted to date is found in the DBASEGM file which contains the information from the Waste Generation and Management form of the biennial report. Table 2 contains a listing of the fields (type of data stored) in the GM file and an identification of the information stored in the fields. The raw data from the data sorts is included in the appendices which are forwarded with this report under separate cover. A description of the sorts conducted is as follows:

Sort No. 1 - The objective of Sort No. 1 was to identify the processes that are the source of the waste that is shipped off-site. A copy of the raw data is included in Appendix A. The sort was conducted on the source code and only those facilities that shipped waste off-site were included. This eliminated those facilities that generated waste and treated the waste on-site with no residuals shipped off-site. The sort also reported the form of the waste by form code and the method of treatment by system type code. The form and system type were indexed and reported in ascending alpha-numeric order with the indexing conducted first on the form and then on the system type. The sort also included the total amount of waste generated and ihe number of reports for each source.

Sort No. 2 - The objective of Sort No. 2 was to identify the form of the waste that is shipped off-site. A copy of the raw data is included in Appendix B. The sort was

1

conducted on the form code and only those facilities that shipped waste off-site were included, eliminating the on-site treatment as was done for Sort No. 1. The sort also reported the source of the waste by source code and the method of treatment by system type code. The source and system type were indexed and reported in ascending alpha- numeric order with the indexing conducted first on the source and then on the system type. The sort also included the total amount of waste generated and the number of reports for each form.

Sort No. 3 - The objective of Sort No. 3 was to identify the method of treatment of the waste that is shipped off-site. A copy of the raw data is included in Appendix C. The sort was conducted on the system type code and only those facilities that shipped waste off-site were included, eliminating the on-site treatment as was done for Sort No. 1. The sort also reported the source of the waste by source code and the form of the waste by form code. The source and form were indexed and reported in ascending alpha-numeric order with the indexing conducted first on the source and then on the form. The sort also included the total amount of waste generated and the number of reports for each system type.

Sort No. 4 - The objective of Sort No. 4 was to identify the processes that are the source of the waste that is shipped out-of-state. This sort eliminated the "double count" where a waste is first shipped off-site to a facility in the state and later shipped out-of-state to another facility. This was accomplished by eliminating those reports which indicated that the identification number of the receiving facility begins with the letters GA. A copy of the raw data is included in Appendix D. The remainder of the information in Sort No. 4 is the same as in Sort No. 1.

Sort No. 5 - The objective of Sort No. 5 was to identify the form of the waste that is shipped out-of-state. This sort eliminated the double count. A copy of the raw data is included in Appendix E. The methodology for elimination of the double count was the Same as for Sort No. 4. The remainder of the information in Sort No. 5 is the same as in Sort No. 2.

Sort No. 6 - The objective of Sort No. 6 was to identify the method of treatment of the waste that is shipped out-of-state. This sort eliminated the double count. A copy of the raw data is included in Appendix F. The methodology for elimination of the double count was the same as for Sort No. 4. The remainder of the information in Sort No. 6 is the Same as in Sort No. 3.

Sort No. 7 - The objective of Sort No. 7 was to identify the facilities receiving waste shipped off-site by Georgia generators and the method of treatment utilized at these facilities. A copy of raw data is included in Appendix G. The sort was conducted on !he generator identification number of the facility receiving the waste generated and indexed in ascending alpha-numeric order. The sort also reported the method of treatment by system type code, the source of the waste by source code, and the form of

2

the waste by form code. The system type, source, and form were indexed and reported in ascending alpha-numeric order. The sort also included the total amount of waste generated and the number of reports for each system type.

Sort No. 8 - The objective of Sort No. 8 was to identify those facilities reporting waste minimization activity and the type of activity implemented. A copy of the raw data is included in Appendix H. The sort first identified those firms indicating waste minimization activity and then indexed the activity by activity code in ascending alpha- numeric order. Sin& the database allows for reporting of 4 codes, the sorting was conducted only on the first code reported, and the additional codes were indexed and included in the data. The sort also included the total amount of waste reported as recycled, source reduced, and shipped off-site and the number of reports for each activity code.

Sort No. 9 - The objective of Sort No. 9 was to determine the amount of waste shipped off-site from counties in the state.

SortNo. 1Q - The objective of Sort No. 10 was to identify those facilities reporting waste minimization activity the type of activity implemented by the source of the waste. The sort provides the same data as Sort No. 8 except the data is sorted by source code.

Sort No. 11 - Sort No. 11 was conducted on the DBASEWR file to determine the amount of waste received by Georgia facilities from both in- and out-of-state generators. The sort indexed the waste received by the state of the generator. The sort was manually conducted using Tables IV A and N B of the 1989 Biennial Hazardous Waste Report, but could have been sorted by computer using the DBASEWR file.

Analyses of the Waste Management Data

Source 0 f Waste Shipped Of f-Site - A summary of the source of the waste shipped off-site is presented in Table 3. The table presents data for individual source codes and for source code groups. The individual codes and the code groups are those identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency @PA) in the instructions for preparation of biennial reports. The table shows the number of reports and the amount of waste shipped for individual sources and source groups. It should be noted that 114,791 tons of waste shipped off-site is the same as the amount reported in Table III B of the 1989 Biennial Hazardous Waste Report for the State of Georgia.

A review of Table 3 shows that more than 50,000 tons or 40% of the total waste shipped off-site is produced by pollution control or waste treatment processes. T%is large percentage of waste from control equipment illustrates the problem with traditional "end-of-pipe" treatment where "media transfer" removes a pollutant from an air or water media and transfers it to a solid

J rl 3

'7

:1

- r '1

'I I -

media. The table also indicates that more than 12,000 tons or 10% of the total waste shipped off-site is from air pollution control devices.

The amount of wastes produced by the cleaning and degreasing, processes other than painting and degreasing, surface preparation and painting, one-time and other intermittent processes source groups were essentially equal. However, as indicated in the following sections, some pattems could be identified within the source groups.

Painting operations, one of the individual sources in the surface preparation and finishing source group, accounts for approximately 8% (9,000 tons) of the total waste shipped off-site. A number of waste reduction activities have focused on painting operations, and several new technologies have been developed including improvements in water-based and powder paints. There may be a potential for reduction of the waste generated by this source.

The clean-out of process equipment in the cleaning and degreasing source group and sludge removal in the one-time and intermittent process group account for 12% (14,000 tons) of the total waste shipped off-site. Since these two sources involve residual materials left in process equipment, improved operating procedures may reduce the amount of waste shipped from these sources.

As previously discussed, the raw data for the analysis of the source of the waste shipped off-site is presented in Appendix A. The form codes and system type codes for method of treatment are also included in the data. A review of the data was conducted to determine if there were any pattems that related source, form, and method of treatment. However, no pattem could be identified.

A further wsessment of the source of waste shipped off-site was conducted by an identification of the significant contributors. This analysis consisted first of identifying those source code groups which shipped more than 1,000 tons off-site, and then identifying the facilities that reported that source code and shipped more than 1,000 tons or were the largest shipper in that code group. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 4.

It should be noted that some sources listed in Table 4 show several facilities that reported significantly less than 1,OOO tons. These facilities were added to the significant contributor source list in Table 4 based on subsequent significant contributors analyses for waste form and treatment system type. For example, when the analysis of significant contributors by waste form was conducted (see Table 9), the list was first checked to make sure that all of the companies listed on Table 4 appeared in Table 9. It was noted that several additional companies appeared in Table 9 due to the regrouping of companies based on form code. It was decided to add these companies to Table 4 so that Tables 4 and 9 could be compared even though the company did not meet the original criteria for the generation of Table 4. A similar situation occurred during the analysis of the significant contributors by method of treatment in that an additional company appeared in Table 13 that did not appear in Tables 4 and 9. Therefore, Tables 4 and 9 were

4

7 "b

1

:1 .'I .

modified to add the new company such that Tables 4, 9, and 13 list the same 25 significant contributors.

A comparison of Table 4 and Table III C of the 1989 Biennial Hazardous Waste Report indicates that these 25 facilities ship more than 73,000 tons of waste off-site. The difference in the two tables (and subsequent tables in this report for significant contributors) is that only significant sources, forms, and treatment methods defined by the criteria previously discussed were used in the significant contributors analysis in this report. Limited resources for reduction of waste would dictate that the largest sources, forms, and methods of treatment be targeted frrst. A comparison of the significant contributors and largest shippers of waste is presented in a later Section. Table 4 does not show 25 different facilities since the data for some of the companies listed in Table 4 (such as Safety-Kleen) includes several facilities. A listing of the 25 facilities and their generator identification numbers (GINS) are presented in Table 5.

Further review of Table 4 revealed that several of the significant contributors were treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) such as Safety-Kleen, M & J Solvents, and Alternate Energy Resources. These TSDFs received wastes from other facilities, processed some of the waste, and then shipped the waste or residues to other facilities. In order to further assess the actual generators, the TSDFs were deleted from the list of significant contributors and the results of this deletion are presented in Table 6. The table indicates that more than 42,000 tons or 36% of the total waste shipped off-site is generated by the significant contributors excluding the TSDFs. The analyses of Tables 4 and 6 show that most of the waste is from a limited number of facilities.

A detailed breakout of the significant contributors is presented in Table 7. This table identifies the companies reporting each source, the waste code, the form of the waste, and the method of treatment of the waste. As shown in Table 7, the largest single contributor of waste is the Atlantic Steel Company. The waste produced is the electric arc fumace dust from its manufacturing facilities. The next largest contributors were the TSDFs facilities which produced a mix of different wastes from various operations.

Form 0 f Waste Sh iD-ped Of f-Site - A summary of the form of the waste shipped off-site is presented in Table 8. The individual form codes and the code groups are those identified by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the instructions for preparation of biennial reports. The table shows the number of reports and the amount of waste shipped for individual sources and source groups. It should be noted that 114,791 tons of waste shipped off-site is the same as the amount reported in Table III B of the 1989 Biennial Hazardous Waste Report for the State of Georgia.

As indicated in Table 8, most of the waste generated is in the form of inorganic solids followed closely by the organic liquids group. These two groups combined account for more than 70% of the total waste shipped off-Site. An analysis of the raw data in Appendix B did not indicate any pattem between the form, source, and method of treatment.

'1

7

11 '-I :I

11 ;11 i..

'I ,-

A further assessment of the form, of waste shipped off-site was conducted by an identification of the significant contributors. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 9. An analysis of the significant contributors excluding TSDFs was conducted and the results are presented in Table 10, and the details of the facilities including waste code, source, and method of treatment are presented in Table 11.

As shown in Tables 9, 10, and 1 1, the largest portion of the inorganic solids is soil contaminated with inorganics only which accounts for more than 27,000 tons or 23% of the total shipped off- site. The major contributots to this waste include the electric arc furnace dust from Atlantic Steel, wastewater treatment sludge from Lockheed (electroplating), and mixed characteristic waste from Hickson (wood preserving).

The organic liquids are produced from a variety of sources including several TSDFs. As indicated in Table 11, most of these wastes tend to be mixtures except for the ignitable waste from Safety-Kleen (most likely mineral spirits for parts washers). The method of treatment of these wastes tends to vary although thermal technologies (fuel blending, energy recovery, and incineration) seem to be the most common.

Method of Treat ment of Waste S hipped 0 ff-Site - A summary of the method of treatment of the waste shipped off-site is presented in Table 12. The individual system type codes and the code groups are those identified by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the instructions for preparation of biennial reports. The table shows the number of reports and the amount of waste shipped for individual sources and source groups. It should be noted that 114,791 tons of waste shipped off-site is the Same as the amount reported in Table III B of the 1989 Biennial Hazardous Waste Report for the State of Georgia.

There is difference in the number of reports by system type compared to the source and form code sorts. This difference is due to the fact that a single report can list as many as 6 separate locations to which the waste is shipped and in some cases the method of treatment specified by the system code can be different at different shipment locations. Therefore, the number of reports is higher for the system type sort.

As indicated in Table 12, more than 30,000 tons, or 2656, of the total waste shipped off-site is sent to disposal with most of this waste being sent to a landfill. The thermal technologies including incineration, energy recovery, and fuel blending account for a combined total of more than 39,000 tons or 34% of the waste shipped off-site. However, only about 8,000 tons or 7% was actually being incinerated. An analysis of the raw data in Appendix C did not indicate any pattem between the form, source, and method of treatment.

A further assessment of the method of treatment of waste shipped off-site was conducted by an identification of the significant contributors. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 13. An analysis of the significant contributors excluding TSDFs was conducted and the results are presented in Table 14, and the details of the facilities including waste code, source, and

6

"

method of treatment are presented.in Table 15. No significant conclusions could be drawn from the analysis.

Source of Waste S hipped Out - - of State - A summary of the source of the waste shipped out-of- state is presented in Table 16. As previously discussed, the sort was accomplished by excluding reports that indicated the waste was shipped to a facility in the state. The information in Table 16 is in the Same format as Table 3. It should be noted that 97,876 tons of waste shipped out- of-state is the Same as the aihount reported in Table V C of the 1989 Biennial Hazardous Waste Report for the State of Georgia.

-1

1.1

3

A comparison of the data in Tables 3 and 16 indicates that approximately 17,000 tons of the waste shipped off-site is being handled in the state. It is anticipated that solvent recycling accounts for a large portion of this capacity. There are no significant differences in the sources of waste shipped off-site and out-of-state in that pollution control and wastewater treatment is the primary source. An analysis of the raw data in Appendix D did not indicate any pattem between the form, source, and method of treatment.

The results of the significant contributors analysis is presented in Table 17. A comparison of Tables 4 and 17 was conducted to identify any differences. The only item of note is the large difference in waste shipped off-site and out-of-state by Atlantic Steel, indicating that a significant portion of this waste is handled in the state.

Form 0 f Waste Shipped 0 ut-of-State - A summary of the form of the waste shipped out-of-state is presented in Table 18. As previously discussed, the sort was accomplished by excluding reports that indicated the waste was shipped to a facility in the state. The information in Table 19 is in the same format as Table 8. It should be noted that 97,876 tons of waste shipped out- of-state is the Same as the amount reported in Table V C of the 1989 Biennial Hazardous Waste Report for the State of Georgia.

A comparison of the data in Tables 8 and 18 indicates that approximately 17,000 tons of the waste shipped off-site is being handled in the state, the same number determined for the out-of- state source analysis. There are no significant differences in the forms of waste shipped off-site and out-of-state in that organic liquids and inorganic solids are the primary forms. An analysis of the raw data in Appendix E did not indicate any pattem between the form, source, and ,method of treatment. The results of the significant contributors analysis presented in Table 19 shows no particular trends.

of Trea tment of Waste S hbped Out - - of State - A summary of the form of the waste shipped out-of-state is presented in Table 20. As previously discussed, the sort was accomplished by excluding reports that indicated the waste was shipped to a facility in the state. The information in Table 20 is in the Same format as Table 12. It should be noted that 97,876

7

c7

tons of waste shipped out-of-stabis the same as the amount reported in Table V C of the 1989 Biennial Hazardous Waste Report for the State of Georgia.

A comparison of the data in Tables 12 and 20 indicates that approximately 17,000 tons of the waste shipped off-site is being handled in the state, the same number determined for the out-of- state source analysis. There are no significant differences in the method of treatment of waste shipped off-site and out-of-state in that disposal in landfills is the primary method with combined thermal technologies also awunting for a significant portion of the waste shipped out-of-state. An analysis of the raw dah in Appendix F did not indicate any pattem between the form, source, and method of treatment. The results of the significant contributors analysis presented in Table 21. A comparison of Tables 13 and 21 shows no particular trends.

Dact of s mall Ouantitv Ge neram - A summary of the data from "Small Quantity Generators of Hazardous Waste in Georgia - A Study of their Hazardous Waste Generating and Management Practices " is presented in Table 22. The table shows the percent of generators reporting different waste codes waste sources, and treatment methods. The average amount shipped each year and the total amount shipped for each of the waste codes, sources, and treatment methods analyzed.

Based on the adjusted total number of small quantity generators in the survey (2,792), the total off-site shipment is estimated to be 6,536 tons. The survey also indicated that 72% of the f m s surveyed shipped to facilities within the state. Therefore, the addition to the 97,876 tons shipped out-of-state is estimated to be 1,830 tons. It is concluded that the small quantity generators do not have a significant impact on the waste generation in the state.

A secondary estimate of the waste shipped off-site by small quantity generators can be made using Table N B of the 1989 Biennial Hazardous Waste Report and the data in Table 23 described in the next section. Table IV B indicates that Georgia facilities received 24,161 tons from all Georgia generators in 1989. These shipments include large, small, and conditionally exempt small quantity generators. The total waste received by Georgia facilities from large quantity generators as indicated in Table 23 is 16,915 tons. The difference of 7,246 tons is the waste shipped by the small and conditionally exempt small quantity generators.

It should be noted that the 7,246 tons is 1989 data and the 6,536 tons is based on a 1992 survey. However, both data would indicate that the contribution by small (and conditionally exempt) small quantity generators is less that 10,OOO tons and would probably not impact the need or lack thereof for a facility.

Facilities Rece ivine Waste Sh ipped f rom Georgia Generators - A list of the facilities receiving waste ship@ from Georgia generators is presented in Table 23. The facility name, location by city and state, and the generator identification number of the receiving facility are included in the table. The table also lists the number of reports and the total tonnage shipped to each

8

facility. The table included facilities located in Georgia as well as out-of-state facilities. It should be noted that the 114,791 tons shipped off-site is the same as the amount reported in Table III B of the 1989 Biennial Hazardous Waste Report for the State of Georgia.

Several of the receiving facilities are identified as unknown in Table 23. This is due to a data problem that is discussed in the data quality section of this report. It should be noted that these facilities are also not identified in the 1989 Biennial Hazardous Waste Report for the State of Georgia.

As indicated in Table 23, hazardous waste is shipped by Georgia generators to 148 sites, of which 29 are located in the State of Georgia. The largest single receiver is the Chem Waste Management facility in Emelle, Alabama which receives more than 30% (36,000 tons) of all the waste shipped off-site. No other single facility receives more than 10,000 tons. The 29 facilities in the State of Georgia receive 16,516 tons. A review of Appendix G indicates that most of the facilities report several different methods of waste treatment.

In order to assess the major treatment methods used at the larger facilities, an analysis was conducted of those facilities receiving the largest shipment. The criteria for a large shipment was a facility receiving more than 900 tons per year of waste or more than 90 reports of waste shipment. The list of facilities receiving large shipments is presented in Table 24. The 30 facilities listed in the table receive 99,571 tons or 86.7% of the waste shipped off-site.

Table 24 also lists the treatment method at each facility by system type code and the amount of waste treated by each treatment method. The largest single method of treatment is landfding at the Chem Waste Management facility in Emelle, Alabama which receives 25,529 tons per year or 18% of the total shipped off-site. The second largest single method of treatment is metals remvery at the Zinc Corporation of America in Palmerton Pennsylvania which receives 8,428 tons or 7% of the total shipped off-site. All other single methods of treatment are less than 5,000 tons although the combined methods of incineration, energy recovery, and fuel blending exceed 5,000 tons at several facilities.

w o n of Waste Ge neration Centers - The amount of waste shipped off-site from each Georgia county shipping waste is presented in Table 25. As indicated in the table, 61,627 tons or 53% of the waste shipped off-site come from the 5 county metropolitan Atlanta area.

Waste Rece ived bv Georg ia Fac ilities - The amount of waste received by Georgia facilities is presented in Table 26. The table also identifies the amount of waste shipped to Georgia from each state. The total amount of waste shipped off-site by these Georgia facilities was also included in the table. Georgia facilities receive a total of 46,671 tons of which 24,161 tons is from Georgia generators and 22,510 tons is from out-of-state generators.

1 3

9

J

'1 An assessment of the amount of waste actually treated in Georgia was attempted by computing the difference between the amount received and amount shipped by those facilities that were thought to have some treatment capacity as opposed to storage-only sites. This computation indicated that approximately 7,790 tons were actually treated at Georgia facilities. It should be noted that OHM Resource Recovery was excluded from the computation due to large amount of shipments from the facility as compared to the amount received. The reason for this difference is not known.

t Shjppers of Hazardous Waste

A listing of the 30 largest shippers of hazardous waste is presented in Table 27. The data was obtained from Table III B of the 1989 Biennial Hazardous Waste Report. The table identifies if the facility was a "significant contributor" in previous analyses described in this report and presents the amount of the "significant contribution". The table also presents the total amount shipped for each facility. The final column in Table 27 shows the difference between the "significant contribution" and the total amount shipped.

As previously, the "significant contribution" was the amount of waste from a single specific source, form, or treatment system from a facility. These significant contributions would most likely be the first targets for implementation of a source reduction program at that facility. As seen in the table, the significant contribution accounted for the largest percentage of the total waste shipped for most of the facilities. The significant contribution accounted for of the waste shipped at three of the facilities. The major exception to this trend was Tri State Steel Drum.

The table dm shows that six facilities that were not identified in significant contributor analyses were were amoung the thirty largest shippers. An analysis of these facilities showed that source, form, or system type producing the waste at these facilities consisted of 3 to 5 different categories of 200 to 400 tons each. Therefore, these would not have met the significant contributor criteria. The only exception was Empac, Inc. which had a source consisting of 808 tons. A review of the data indicated that Empac was grouped with other facilities in the source, form, and system analyses that had reports in excess of 1,OOO tons. Since the criteria for a significant contributor was 1 ,OOO tons or the largest contributor in a group of more than 1,OOO tons, Empac did not meet the original criteria. However, this large significant source at Empac should probably be targeted for waste reduction activity.

a 10

J

Analyses of the Waste Minimiza tiodSource Reduction Data

Waste Min iwion Activities . . . .

The results of the assessment of waste minimization activities are presented in Table 28. The instructions for the biennial report provide individual activity codes to identify specific waste minization activities as well as categories and groups with categories to combine individual activities into common groupings. A listing of the categories and groups within categories shown in Table 28 is as follows:

RECYCLING ACTIVITY

SOURCE REDUCTION ACTIVITY Good Operating Practices Inventory Control Spill and Leak Protection Raw Material Modifications Process Modifications Cleaning and Degreasing Surface Preparation and Finishing

PRODUCT MODIFICATIONS

OTHER REDUCTION ACTIVITIES

Table 28 provides information on the number of reports, tons recycled, tons source reduced, and total tons shipped by the facilities reporting for each waste reduction activity code, group, and category. Based on the data in Table 28, the following observations were made:

1. Only 229 of the 2,918 total reports of waste shipped off-site or 7.8% indicated waste minimization activity. There appears to be a large opportunity for waste minimization in significantly more industries.

2. The industries reporting waste minimization shipped off-site only 17,799 of the total 114,791 tons or 15.5% of the total waste shipped off-site. This would indicate that the industries involved in waste minimization activities did not include many of the larger shippers of hazardous waste.

3. A total of 5,914 tons were reported as reduced. The largest part of this reduction was 3,163 tons was due to process modifications. This would indicate that actual changes in the production process rather than just maintenance or better operating practices can be used to achieve waste reduction.

I -3.

11

J

I /

Table 29 provides data similar to Table 28 except the sort was conducted by source code. A review of the table shows that percent of the number of reports of reduction for several source codes was as high as 42% (with the exception of a 100% reduction report for one code). However, the number of reports compared to the total are small compared to the total number of reports indicating a large opportunity for waste reduction.

Data Quality Assurance

One of the problems associated with data analysis is the quality of the data being analyzed. The biennial report data is provided by the generators of hazardous waste and input into the computerized database system by the EPD. Problems can result from incorrect data put in the form by the generator or an incorrect data entry in the database by EPD. Analysis problems could also result from computer programming errors by GTRI that incorrectly sort the data. In addition, generators can report incorrect codes for waste source, form, and treatment system type. The following are observations on the data found during the analyses reported in this summary and procedures implemented to assure data quality:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

The amount of waste shipped during each of the data sorts was added and compared to similar sorts and the summaries published in the 1989 Biennial Hazardous Waste Report for the State of Georgia. This procedure showed a difference in the amount of waste shipped out-of-state between the source and form sorts (Sorts 4 and 5) and system type sort (Sort 6). The problem was traced to a sort programming error which eliminated reports from generators that shipped only to facilities in Georgia but not generators that shipped to facilities both in and out of Georgia. The error was corrected and Sorts 4,5, and 6 now add to the correct total. Similar addition checks were conducted, but no other problems were found.

A review of Table 3 shows that 38 tons of waste were generated from non- existent source codes. Since the amount of waste is small, it should not effect the overall analysis.

A review of Table 8 shows that 12 tons of waste are identified as having a non- existent form code. Again, the small amount should not impact the overall analysis.

A review of Table 12 shows that 3 tons of waste are identified as being treated by a system with a nonexistent system type code. Again, the small amount should not impact the overall analysis.

A review of Table 23 shows that 10 of the facilities receiving waste are aunknowna'. The data on the generator and amount of waste shipped is in one file and the identification of the name and address of the receiving facility is in a second frle. The link between the two files is the generator identification number

r z;l 12

7 . _

If I

3

'"1

1 1 ..-

I

II '1 u

of the receiving facility. Due to a data entry problem by the generator or EPD the generators' idehtification numbers in the two files do not match and the receiving facility name and address cannot be identified. A review of the 1989 Biennial Hazardous Waste Report for the State of Georgia shows that the receiving facility for these reports are also not identified.

Additional Analyses

There are several additional analyses that were considered for inclusion in the final report. The following is a summary the status of these analyses:

- A sort on the 1987 biennial report data would repeat Sort No. 1 on the 1989 biennial report to determine the source of the waste shipped off-site. The objective was to determine any trends related to reduction between 1987 and 1989. The computerized data for the 1987 report is not currently in a dBasem format and would require significant additional effort to sort. ' In addition, a review of the information in the file does not show a source code, and thus the planned comparison would not be possible. The analysis is currently not planned.

- Review of 1991 reports from 25 significant contributors - The plan was to review 1991 biennial reports for the 25 significant contributors listed in Table 5 and identify any trends between 1989 and 1991. The data has been received from EPD. There is a problem in that some of the reports were submitted electronically and will require significant computer formatting before analysis. There is an additional problem in comparing data in the paper copies of the 1991 biennial reports received with the 1989 computerized data. The 1989 data on significant contributors includes only a part of the total shipment from a plant related to a specific source, form, or system type code. It is difficult to determine which data in the 1991 report directly corresponds the with 1989 data. In addition, the complete analysis of the 1991 reports should be available from EPD is a few months. The current plan is to analyze the complete EPD report when it is available.

- Literature Review on Source Reduction - Literature continues to be collected on source reduction activities. No data collected to date can be directly utilized for any definitive prediction of the impact of source reduction activities on waste disposal capacity needs.

'13

31

c

13

'7 . '

1

'I :1 A P W X I

SRQN 1 RE" 1 SRTON I m n A U C v T C I

1 IPACE NO I iaumw ~ w r n md in 1084 in Tom IDATE OR10 I IaUnWy 0.nmmd in 1WO in Tom !Sa;'- . .. .. . !

J 14

Tables 1 and 2

I .

3

J J 15

Table 3

TABLE 4. A N U I g l S OF SI~CICANTEONTRIEWTORS OF WASTE WlPPED OFF-SIlE BY SOURCE CODE

I IWarte IWasto Ishipped 1Stupp.d

I

I I 8.767 I

And apnU inp

~~

I I I

C*.nou(m8EUIlPWWlt 7,870 PPG kdurtns - Emt h n t 2,423 Tri State Stool Drum 1,451

mtim and F-hma I I 5,707 I

I I I I By-Rodud Roauinp I 2,5821 IChmrJ c m r # t m d u I 1,6321

Table 4

‘ I

LodOmod SU#atrl n fob1

TABLE 4. ANALYSlS OF SIONlFEANT CONTRIBUTORS OF WASTE SHRPED OFF-SITE BY SOURCE CODE

6,187 6,187

95.4%

I 1 1 I I

Table 4 Con’t

17

'7

-1

J Table 5

18

-7

‘I

’ , 7 , I

.1

. ’. ..~ I 3

,d 19

Table 6

I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I last'l I I u o y . d y ~ ~ u y L I y o

I

I I I 1 I I 1 I F

. . ...

I

Table 7 Con't

22

'I

.I

d

lunban I 16 I 161 1001 100 I I I I I

I I I I I I I 7 n n

I 701 I 45541 I I I I

Table 8

J 23

1 I I I I I

I I n u s

I I I I

I 11 I 01 11 0

I 1

I n ,r

24

Table 8 Con’t

I I 2.7s I

I I 1 103 1- k 4 d W U . W 1 21751

IPbbdraib-AU I n t I 1 , m I

1 1 I P h i ”UI or Pa- Dbblbbs I IPPGW I D ~ ~ s - E W Pdnt I 2. lpl

I ISTOY I 73.5Kl I I I I

I ISLToW I W.mbI I I I .I

25

Table 9

Table 9 Con’t

26

I I I im ICU tc 801th~~ w Maw w b Cy- I 1.261

IPPG Cdu+lr-ErtPoint I 6101

I I 1,011 I l r T o W 1 32.1*1 I I I

11 IPJ nl lUmr u P o W u m Dia Z l W r I 6.7561 IPPO Indubim-lrt Point I 24231 I

t IOmd Mo(on-Domilb I 758 I IStbW I 3.181 I ISTOW I 65.221 1 I

I I

I 1 a315

J 27

Table 10

I I I I I I 1

I I I I I IW't

I I I I 1 I 1-

I 1 I I I .U.M

w 0

I I I I I I I 1 - I

I I

L L

I I I I I I I I I I I I

3

31

Table 12

n 3

:1

I I I I 4 1 P I I

I bnp. I I 4321 I 0.28s

141 ITmrrfr F d l & S b n # 4321 I o.!lwi I I I I I I I 11 I 0

11 I 01 I I I I

Total I I 3.2061 1 114.791 I

II Table 12 Con’t

32

hot4

I I I &sa

ohr 1.470 P l W ~ d d b - A U h 1,161 SW0l.I 1.161

I I I 1 l k uou W u l D - L a solvmm I 5,7371

lPP0 hldu*-trt Pdn( 1 2.4231

18rb(ol.I %

I 74.211 I I

I 3.515 I I

To.oy

I k w l I I

I

I I I 111 I s ( l b u Q ~ 1 Fb lan I 2-1

I" I

33

Table 13

‘.

I I I 73.271 I I

ITOW &gMmnt d contlbubm IPwanl d Tool S h p W On-sile I 83.89bl I

Table 13 Con’t

34

SE

P r

c

I I I OOL I I a l P * I B F

I: I-: II

1 . 1

c

.. 1

1

111

3 'I

1.1

I I 42.1481 I

1 T h l SipnTmnl d M r * D c r IP.ron(dtoulShpp.dO)(-Si* I 367961 I I

Table 14 Con't

36

I I I I I I I I I I Isrs'c 1 I

I I

I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I #

I I I I I I I I I 4

I I I I I I I t I I I I I I 10~0'~E 1 I

I 1

I I I I I l6W'E I I l U 0 I I I

I I

00 m

I I I I 1 I I I I I I f o W s m d C a * l b llar I 73.2711 I I I IPNcMI d T 4 S h p p . d OU-Sk 1 e3.8Xl I I I ..

w W

I I I I I ” lunbam I 15 I 151 loo1 loo

Table 16

40

I

Aao Iclun0U)Proar Equtpmrnt I 3,0071 IPPC - EW Point 01 I

A10 0h.r cluninp D.pnuhp 4.650 8.loty-Khn Cap 3454 WtOtal 3.054 % Total 65.7% I I I

W.O. PIOambbn and Fidhirp 1 I 4.645

A21 Polntinp Woty-Khn Gorp 0 All En8rgy R.uwc*r 3.484 WtOtal 3,484 % T0t.l 51.5% r

I I I A22 I E- law l 2,367 I

1Un.r I I

I I I 7 I m p r o o r U q J d c R U n O d I 2.mp I

lshnrln WiIImms - Morrow 1,011 I I IWCabl I 1,0111

Iu TAW 1rl LU I I

Table 17

41

,A70 OOrr 7.te2 OHMRacn8wR.COY.w 1,420 OHM R w u a R.sovny 470 O H M R . u w o R . c a w y 2.407

Table 17 Con't

42

I I I I I I

43

Table 18

16 12 15 12 1 0

-I

YR , L I e1 -ydOz 0 01 8203 0 01

I Total 2232 I 97.676

I I I I I I 71 1 10 I !! I 21

44

Table 18 Con’t

. W W S OF 810NFlCANl COU"R 8VroRS OF WASTE OVI-OF -STATE BY FOIM COOE

I I w.cr I

I I -wto 0h.rkPrp. nic solid. I 4.8721

OHM R r o ~ Roccwo~y 2,1631 I 1.4261 .. .

I I I omurc Wlal I 3.128

I I 1% Totrl I

I I , 0, I ..L N 001 2.795 \Union Timber corp I 2.7261 ISlAtnhl 3?%l

I 1% Total I 97.5% I I I I

I I I

1 u n I . n I I lapuJc Paint OT I* I 1.SpI

Table 19 Con't

46

I I I I

13,1431 I I 2061 I 13.187

2bS1 I 1

I I I I I I I I J

Table 20

47

AND WPPW OcTT-ff -STATE BY SYSTEM W E CQ)E 1

Table 20 G n ' t

48

I I &mlJtrl% I 0.0% I I I I

u)51 Liq ddr 8.3541 A l ~ t b E n m g y R r o u a c 3 . m I Mvoc Ctmmiak 3,1281 Shmin Willim-M- 1.OllI -(old 7.6231 m(Ou % 81.511

I I I a.w I I 2.4071

~ ~ ~

I I I 1 I

49

Table 21

Table 21 Coo't

50

I I

I I I I 6.536 I I I I I

I I I I

I I I I I 6.536

51

Table 22

PABE 23. SIESRECEN UJG W A S E S H IPPED OFF-SITE I

Table 23

52

Table 23 Con’t

53

FABE 23. SITES RECEIVING WASTE SHIPPED OFF-SiTE

I I I I I 1481 3,2961 114,791

"

Table 23 Con't

54

I

I I I I k h m Fonman Q " c Phnt IFonman AK AKD(#lS12270 1 1,050 M053 I E ~ ~ - soh& I I 1.m1

I I I I I

a- cap. GmnCCmspKIp n ~ ~ ~ 0 0 1 3 1 3 1 2 I 10 5,347 L M ~ Incinetaten - bqui& 231 MOSI E m g v R.carny - Uquib 2.535 I MObl Fwl k @ n p 2,989 I I

I I I I I I I

I I I I Tridl R.cwuy spt- I Barlow I FI.1 Fu)oBO72!X¶01 I 1171 392

Table 24

55

Table 24 Con't

56

Table 24 Con’t

57

I I I I I I

I F n l ~ f t o n I PA1 PAw023858B71 I 21 8,428 I I I I 8,4281 I

I I

& M y Kkm c a p . M021 M022 Yo29

I I I I

mantcmnt I Hafbyville I SCI scDoo33516QQI I 41 2,212 MO51 IErwrgyR.camy - Liada I I I 1.02oI I

I I 2UI

Loun@on sc scDonooy88 24 3,636 sohmntR.oorny 136 sohmntR.oorny 3,492 SOhmltRamvofy 8

I

I 3 983 C P Chemid Sumpter SC SCD070371BB5 Mol4 M M k Recowry -0M.r 959 M O n tnorgnnic Tmtmnt I 23

50 2"" I I I I I I

-.-'ion I I I 3881 I II I I I 2,4641

Table 24 Con't

58

Table 25

59

ITablo 26. Hazadrws Warto Flocoivd By Gwrgia TSD Fadlitios 1 Amount 1 Total

R0c.iv.d R0c.iv.d From At Stat. Facility

FacilityIShipplng Stat. (tons) (tons)

Amount Amount Shippod Treat4

From At Facility TSDs (tons) (tons)

Wisconsin I 01 West Virginia 21

I I

~~ ~

I I I I I

Table 26

60

Table 26 Con’t

61

Amount Total Received Receivod

From At state Facility

FaulityIShipping State (tons) (tons) I

Amount Amount Shipped Treated

From At Facility TSDs (tons) (tons)

I

I I

lhtucky Mississippi North Cardina Ponnsylvania Swth Cardina

0 1 1 0 1

Alabama Arkansas Florida

Table 26 Con't

368 396 584

62

PPG Industries- East Point 10 9,271

Rorida 1 KanSaS 0 Louisiana 0

GOUQih 4

,Texas 5

'saf.ty Klm carp 3 019 22 61 3 598 15 GOUQia 41 1 ' h a m a 13 ! Tonnessoo 189 I

Table 26. Hazadrws Waste Recoivd By Georgia TSD Facilities 1

Facility/Shipping State

~~

Amwnt Total Amount Amount Received Received Shipped Treated

From At From At State Facility Facility TSDs

(tOn6) (tons) (tons) (tons)

I

w a y m m carp s 01 3 01 Georgia I 886

I

886 830 56

Table 26 Con’t

Safety Kleen Corp 3 179 01 Georgia South Carolina

63

I 577 466 111

498 79

Table 26. Haradrws Waste Rocoivod By Gwgia TSD Facilitios

I Amount I Total I Amount I Amount Received I bceived I Shipped I Troatod

- I -

Fadlity/Shipping State

From At From At State Facility Facility TSDs

(tons) (tons) (tons) (tons) I I 1 1 I- I

Totals Rocoivod from Goargia Rocoivd from Out-of-state

46,671 I 46,671 52,909 7,790 24,161 22,510

Table 26 Con’t

64

Numbor

Signficiant Othr Total Amount Amount Amount

Significant Shipped Shipped Shipped Company Name Identification Number Contributor (tons) (tons) (tons)

Table 27

Prtont of Total Shippod Off -Site

65

Totals 73.271 14,591 87,862 63.8% 76.5%

t i - - - - - d 222 d 2910 acml Tdd 7.0%

1,210 S.Pl4 17.799 I

Tdd Shbpd 114791 -- lS.5U

t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I