For the National Generator Survey, a sample of 129 large quantity hazardous waste generators from North Carolina industry was chosen on the basis of stratified random sampling. The
distribution of the total population of North Carolina large quantity generators under each Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code matched the percentage distribution of the sample group. In addition, the sample group generated 8 1% of the hazardous waste reported by the total population of 716 large quantity generators in 1986.
(2) Technical Assistance
75% of all companies of the sample group indicated that they had received information or technical assistance on waste minimization since November 1984. 22% did not receive technical assistance (2% did not answer the question). A clear majority (85%) of companies that had received technical assistance actually applied it to develop or implement waste minimization practices. The three top ranking sources of information or technical assistance on waste minimization mentioned by companies were suppliers and vendors (53%), state government agencies (49%) and conferences and seminars (47%). Local governments (9%) and federal agencies (12%) as well as universities (13%) ranked comparatively low regarding the frequency at which they were noted as sources for technical assistance. Note that in North Carolina, many conferences and seminars on waste minimization are co-sponsored by universities.
(3) Financial Assistance
Almost all companies (92%) of the sample size had not applied for financial assistance from the North Carolina State government. Four of five companies from the sample group that had applied for this type of financial assistance, actually received financial assistance, loans, grants, or
preferential tax treatment from the State government. This response depends to a large extent on the particular regulations regarding financial assistance for waste minimization activities.
Regarding the application for financial assistance from the private market, only two companies out of the sample size mentioned that they had either applied or received financing from the private market.
(4) Waste Minimization Programs
Based on 119 companies of the sample group the majority of waste minimization programs in effect are not older than three years (55% of 119 companies of the sample group indicated one to three years). 20% of the 119 companies referred to four and five years of a waste minimization program and 10% mentioned having waste minimization programs in place for six to ten years.
11% of companies stated that they had no waste minimization program in place.
( 5 ) Current Waste Minimization Plans
The comparison of current waste minimization plans to actually implemented waste minimization practices on a company basis is interesting as current plans could be perceived as a waste
minimization potential from an industry point of view. The striking outcome of this method of evaluation is that with all waste minimization practices except "offsite recycling" (for the time p&r to '86), current waste minimization plans are much more frequently mentioned than actually implemented waste minimization practices in the two time periods. Compared to the number of implemented waste minimization practices in the time during '86, the increase in number of current waste minimization plans lies between 225% and 61%.
Economic reasons were primarily given by companies for planning, investigating or implementing waste minimization practices. Reduction of hazardous waste management costs (by 87% of all companies), reduction of production costs (by 59%) and availability of new technologies (by 31%). Lowest ranking justifications were the difficulty in obtaining liability insurance (2%) and the argument that competitors were conducting waste minimization programs (2%).
(7)
For companies of the sample group who noted barriers to the implementation of waste minimization, technical obstacles (42% of 77 companies who answered the question) and
economical obstacles (40% of 77 companies) were stated most frequently. In addition, 34% of 77 companies indicated that a lack of technical information was an impediment to the implementation of waste minimization practices. Liability provisions or manifest requirements were not
particularly relevant reasons for not implementing waste minimization practices.
Reasons for not Implementing. Waste Minimization Practices
Barriers for companies who reported to not having implemented waste minimization practices
a
to ’86 or during ‘86 were primarily : (i) lack of economic feasibility, (ii) concern for product quality decline and (iii) lack of technical information. Liability provisions and permitting burdens were reported to be the least important obstacles to the implementation of waste minimization practices. It seems to be that overall, economic and technical issues are the most relevant impediments.
(8) Overview of Waste Minimization Practices
Waste minimization activity can either be analyzed on a company basis or on the more detailed waste stream basis. An evaluation method on the basis of waste streams, however, offers a more detailed picture than the investigation of data aggregated on a company basis. The 129 companies of the sample group reported to have generated 553 waste streams in 1986.
For the time prior to ‘86 and also during; ‘86, an average of 61% of all companies of the sample group reported to have implemented waste minimization practices. About 37% of all companies of the sample group did
not
implemented waste minimization practices in either of the time periods.Twenty companies (16% of the sample group) did not implement waste minimization in any of the two time periods.
(9)
Evaluating the implementation of waste minimization practices on the basis of waste streams, it was found that companies reported to have been implemented waste minimization practices at 35%
of all waste streams for either prior to ‘86 or during ‘86. At around 65% of all waste streams in each of the time periods
no
waste minimization practices were reported to be implemented. At 30%of all waste streams minimization practices were implemented in neither of the two time periods.
At 18% of all waste streams minimization practices were implemented at both time periods. The number of waste streams at which waste minimization practices were reported to have been implemented decreased durinp ‘86 compared to the time period prior to ‘86 by about 30 waste streams. Note, however, that prior to ‘86 is a multiple year period reflecting information on an aggregated basis while during ‘86 refers to one year. Therefore, one should be very cautious in inferring tendencies regarding waste minimization activity.
Aggregating over all waste streams but scrutinizing the specific waste minimization practices implemented, the data analysis shows that “better housekeeping practices’’ (by around 23% of
Implementation of specific Waste Minimization Practices
waste streams of sample group) are most frequently mentioned at a waste stream as implemented waste minimization practices for both time frames. "Reformulation of products" (by around 3% of waste streams of sample group) shows to be the least frequently mentioned waste minimization practice. All other practices vary in frequency of implementation between the two time periods so that it is difficult to observe a pattern. Recycling activities seem to have been reduced for the time durinp '86 compared to prior to '86. This general frequency distribution of waste minimization practices can also be observed with a company based analysis.
(10) Implementation of specific Waste Minimization Practices bv SIC Code
Two criteria, waste minimization ratio and waste minimization percentage, were applied to analyze the waste minimization activities of the sample group. Note that due to several reasons, both criteria are not necessarily a tool to describe success in waste minimization unless a waste minimization goal on the basis of those criteria can be determined.
The waste minimization ratio as used in this report is a means to evaluate the overall waste minimization activity differentiated by industrial group. The waste minimization percentage is essentially a further differentiation of the analysis based on the waste minimization ratio as the specific waster minimization practices are analyzed by SIC code.
An analysis based on waste minimization ratio shows how different the implementation activities of the various industrial groups actually seem to be. Out of 13 different industrial groups analyzed, five industrial groups indicated an increase in the waste minimization ratio during '86 compared to the time prior to '86 and six indicated a decrease while the at two industrial groups waste
minimization ratio stayed constant.
Applying the waste minimization percentage approach, a strong fluctuation of the waste
minimization percentage of specific waste minimlzation practices over all industrial groups can be observed. Also, a fluctuation of waste minimization percentages among each waste minimization practices over the industrial groups becomes apparent. A particular pattern for a certain industrial group regarding an increases or decreases of waste minimization percentage pertaining to specific waste minimization practices or certain industrial groups could not be observed. Increases as well as decreases of waste minimization percentage could be detected over all waste minimization practices as well as industrial groups during '86 compared to the time prior to '86. Yet some industrial groups showed more changes in waste minimization percentage than others during '86.
The waste minimization practices "waste streams segregation", "better housekeeping", "equipment modification", and "offsite recycling" were the practices that most frequently encountered a
reduction of the waste minimization percentage during '86 compared to the time prior to '86.
(1 1) Industrial Processes at which no Waste Minimization Practices were Implemented
An additional approach to evaluate waste minimization practices of the sample group correlated processes to those waste streams at which
no
waste minimization practices were reported to have been implemented. Companies listed processes under this "no" waste minimization criterion which already have proven successful implementation of waste minimization like for example cleaning processes. Processes were listed under the "no" waste minimization criterion which do not seem to have been in the focus of many research projects on waste minimization and which do not seem to be addressed very frequently by State technical assistance programs. These are processes which are specific to a certain industrial group and are not very "ubiquitous" in the industrial community such as for instance "microfiche processing", "adhesive dispersion", or "organic pigmentmanufacturing". The process-based approach did not show tendencies regarding preferential processes for the implementation of waste minimization practices. The analysis rather presented a large variety of processes at which waste minimization practices were reportedly not implemented.
(12) Multi-Media Effects of Waste Minimization Practices
The important topic of multimedia effects of waste minimization practices was only broadly addressed in the National Generator Survey. The data was neither quantified nor tied to specific types of waste minimization practices implemented or to a certain time frame. Similar tendencies of the evaluation by industry could be observed over all environmental media (water and air -
measured by quantity and toxicity).
Around 60% of all companies indicated that the waste minimization practices implemented did not have any effects on any of the environmental media referred to in the questions. Around 22% of all companies reported that a decrease in the pollution of the respective environmental media was observed after the implementation of waste minimization practices. Pollution increases in the respective environmental media was stated by 5% to less than 5% of all companies.
(13) Effects of Waste Minimization Practices on Hazardous Waste
Regarding the effect of waste minimization practices on quantity and toxicity of hazardous waste, it can be observed over the two time periods that an implementation of waste minimization practices does not automatically result in a decrease in the quantity of hazardous waste. For around 30% to 40% of the waste streams the quantity of hazardous waste was not effected by the implementation of waste minimization practices.
(14) Costs of Implementinrr Waste Minimization Practices
60% of all companies of the sample size required capital investment for the implementation of waste minimization practices while the rest of the companies either indicated that no capital investment was needed. (Seven companies did not answer the question). 88% of the companies that did invest capital for the implementation of waste minimization practices reported that they intended to recover the costs by means of decreases in production costs or hazardous waste management costs.
Based on those companies who actually invested capital to implement waste minimization practices (74 companies), the most frequently mentioned pay-back period was one year (34%). A pay-back of two and three years was reported by 30% of the 74 companies, six and eighteen month reported by 17% of these companies and 19% of the companies noted a pay-back period of five or more years. This means that the large majority (82%) of these 74 companies indicated pay-back periods between 6 months and three years.
1 2 . CONCLUSIONS
The waste minimization section of the National Generator Survey is particularly valuable as for the first time a large data source covering all States is available in the United States. Having access to data from uniformly structured questionnaires on a national level presents a potential to evaluate waste minimization activities among industry in the United States. The outcome of this report on waste minimization practices among North Carolina industry can be taken as a screening study exploring the options for analysis of the available data on waste minimization.
One important realization could be confirmed through the analysis of waste minimization practices in North Carolina: It is problematic to decide on future targets of a State waste minimization program based on relatively detailed information like the one provided by the National Generator Survey without being able to determine waste minimization potentials. Determining waste
minimization potentials, however, is particularly difficult, as is should take into account the variety in process and production outcome of companies in different industries. So far, no studies have been conducted to provide evidence for industry specific waste minimization potentials equivalent to what is called "best demonstrated available technology (BDAT)" in the area of effluent
limitations. Furthermore, no political decisions have been made up to now, that express waste minimization goals. With neither waste minirnization potential nor waste minimization goals at hand, it is not possible to determine whether waste minimization percentages achieved by
companies in North Carolina are close to the maximum achievable level of implementation of waste minimization or whether a particular industrial group has not yet reached the level of
implementation of waste minimization which is technologically feasible
-
and, using a more comprehensive approach of cost and benefit calculation - also economically feasible.Two major problems appeared in the analysis of the North Carolina data on waste minimization from the National Generator Survey: (i) the problem of incomparable time frames and (ii) the problem of ambiguity of answers to questions. In the National Generator Survey companies were asked to report implemented waste minimization practices at waste streams for the time prior to '86 and for the time during; '86. This resulted in data on waste minimization for two different time periods, one multi-year period and one period covering only one year. Thus, the waste
minimization activities reported for the time prior to '86 are aggregated over an unknown number of years. Statements on progress in waste minimization practices can be made with little ambiguity only in those cases where an increase in waste minimization practices is indicated duriw '86 compared to the time prior to '86. In all other cases where either a decrease or no change in waste minimization activity is reported, progress in waste minimization cannot be inferred. Regarding the second problem, it turned that a number of questions resulted in too ambiguous answers which therefore could not be interpreted or only interpreted with great caution. For instance the answer that "no" waste minimization practices had been implemented at a certain waste stream does not necessarily mean that waste minimization practices were actually never considered for the particular waste stream. Companies might have investigated in waste minimization practices but decided against their implementation. Companies might have misunderstood the question and therefore did not mention a waste minimization practices during '86 as it was already implemented in the
previous time period. Finally, companies could have abandoned a waste minimization practices after several years of operation or could still be in the planning stage. Other questions regarding for example the average pay-back period were too ambiguous, as they did not clarify which cost factors each company included to determine the pay-back period of a certain waste minimization practice. To some extent, the ambiguities could have been avoided by asking for specification of the answers given.
Based on the evaluation of the sample of North Carolina industry from the National Generator Survey the most preferable method of analysis was based on waste minimization practices as reported by waste stream. Using the tool of waste minimization percentage, the highest degree of information was achieved by determining the specific waste minimization practices of each
industrial group of the sample population. This method presented a industry-based approach where companies with certain waste minimization percentages could be selected. In addition, it was useful to determine those processes generating waste streams at which waste minimization practices were reported to
not
have been implemented. As another option, a substance-based approach was suggested. This particular method correlated the specific waste minimization practices at a waste stream with the RCRA waste code characterizing the waste stream. In this way, hazardous waste types could be chosen which present an environmental problem in certain areas of North Carolina. The waste minimization ratio proved to be helpful to evaluate the overall waste minimization practices using either the industry-based or the substance-based approach.A number of question did not seem to reveal particular interesting and valuable information. These were mostly questions that were asked on a company basis not differentiating among waste
streams or specifying time frames or particular waste minimization practices. Not taking those questions into account it is interesting to notice that almost all of the remaining questions are also asked in the (Bi)annual Report forms of the States as developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) [for North Carolina the 1987 Hazardous Waste Report). Some differences, however, exist. First: while the National Generator Survey required companies to list all waste streams generated and report on waste minimization practices implemented as well as
not
implemented, the North Carolina annual Hazardous Waste Report was only asking for notification of implemented waste minimization practices. As this report showed, the information on waste streams where
no
waste minimization practices were implemented was considered valuable information. Second: an advantage of the waste minimization package of the North Carolina annual Hazardous Waste Report was, that companies were asked to report the multi-media effects of waste minimization for every waste streams at which they implemented waste minimization practices while the National Generator Survey only asked this question on a general company basis not differentiated by waste stream. Third companies were asked in the North Carolina annual Hazardous Waste Report to quantify the amount of hazardous waste prevented due to theimplementation of waste minimization practices. This was not required in the National Generator Survey. It seems to be useful to include this question as only less than a fourth of all companies in the 1987 Hazardous Waste Report were not able to quantity the amount of hazardous waste they reduced. Fourth: The waste minimization package of the North Carolina annual Hazardous Waste Report did not include a question pertaining to current waste minimization plans of companies nor did it include reporting of average pay-back periods. Particularly infomation on current waste minimization plans of companies was helpful as this could be regarded as a waste minimization potential from an industry point of view.
Overall it can be stated that an evaluation of the waste minimization practices of a sample of North Carolina industry taken from the National Generator Survey underlines the limits and problems
Overall it can be stated that an evaluation of the waste minimization practices of a sample of North Carolina industry taken from the National Generator Survey underlines the limits and problems