as u; $$0
HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION
AND COMMERCIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT CAPACITY
An Assessment
This publication (SW-894) was prepared by
Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc. and Putnam, Hayes & Barlett,
for the Office of Planning and Evaluation and the
Office of Solid Waste.
Inc.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1980
-------
An environmental protection publication \SW-894) in the solid
waste management series. Identification of specific firms in
this report does not constitute endorsement or approval by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does it necessarily
imply that these facilities have received Interim Status. Edit-
ing and technical content of this report were the responsibilities
of the contractor.
Questions concerning this report should be addi-essed to: Curtis
Haymore; Office of Management, Information, and Analysis (WH-562);
U.S. EPA; 401 M. St. S.W.; Washington, B.C. 20460.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report was prepared by Booz, Allen & Hamilton Inc. and
Putnam., Hayes & .Bartlett, Inc. The Booz., Allen effort was managed
by Ronald Kensicki and Patrick McCann under the overall direction •
of Alan Farkas, with support from Walter Mardis, Michael Sholder,
Lawrence Cahill, and Walter Eolman. The Putnam., Hayes & Bartlett
effort was directed by John Clement, with support from John Butler
and Barbara Seigal.
The EPA project officer., from the Office of Planning and
Evaluation, was Sam Napolitano. Review assistance was provided by
many members of the Office of Solid Waste staff, especially
Lawrence G. BUG and Curtis Haymore. Helpful information for the
Industrial Waste Generation section of the report was provided by
Dr. Douglas Shooter (Arthur D. Little, Inc.) and Jean Williams
(Pope Reid Associates). For the suitability of waste streams to
various, waste management options, additional support was provided
by Olin Braids (Geraghty & Miller, Inc.) and James Thomas" (Texas
A&M University).
We would also like to acknowledge the cooperation of firms
that participated in our survey of the hazardous waste management
industry. Helpful suggestions were provided by Dr. Charles Johnson
of the National Solid Wastes Management Association.
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Number
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PART I: INDUSTRIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION
I. INTRODUCTION TO PART I
II. APPROACH TO ESTIMATING INDUSTRIAL
HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION
. III. 1980 AND 1981 HAZARDOUS WASTE
GENERATION ESTIMATES
PART II: OFF-SITE HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
CAPACITY:
IV. INTRODUCTION TO PART II
V. PROFILE OF THE HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT INDUSTRY IN 1930
VI. FORECAST OF OFF-SITE HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT CAPACITY, 1981 AND 1982
VII. THE POTENTIAL EFFECT OF SELECTED RCRA
REQUIREMENTS ON OFF-SITE CAPACITY
PART III: ASSESSMENT OF DEMAND FOR AND SUPPLY OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT CAPACITY
VIII. INTRODUCTION TO PART III
IX. 1981 COMPARISON OF DEMAND FOR AND SUPPLY
OF OFF-SITE HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
CAPACITY
X. IMPORTANT FACTORS FOR ASSESSING OFF-SITE
CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS BEYOND 1981
via
1-1
II-l
III-l
IV-1
V-l
VI-1
VII-1
VIII-1
IX-1
X-l
v
-------
Page
Number
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A -
Estimation of Industrial Hazardous
Waste Generation, 1980 and 1981
Most
1981
APPENDIX B - Methodology for Determining
Probable Off-Site Demand in
APPENDIX C - Projected 1985 Industrial Hazardous
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX E
Waste Generation by Industry
- Hazardous Waste List
- Interview Topics for Hazardous
APPENDIX F - Methodology for Estimating Volumes
and Capacities of Nonrespondent
Firms
APPENDIX G - Descriptions of the Six Major Types
of Hazardous Treatment/Disposal
Practices
APPENDIX H - 1985 National Forecast for Capacity
by Waste* Management Option
APPENDIX I - Methodology for Developing Capacity
Forecasts
APPENDIX J - Emerging Hazardous Waste Treatment
and Disposal Technologies
R-l
A-l
'B-I
C-l
D-l
Waste Management Facility Operators E-l
F-l
G-l
H-l
1-1
J-l
VI
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The regulations that the Environmental Protection-
Agency (EPA) is designing -under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) require that hazardous wastes are
managed so as -to protect public health and the environment.
These regulations may cause important changes in the
demand for and supply of hazardous waste management
services.
This study provides a picture of the hazardous waste
management industry and the potential demand for its
services in 1981, at the beginning of -the implementation
of RCRA. The EPA intends this report to serve as a base-
line against which the future effects of RCRA on the
hazardous waste management industry and hazardous waste
generators can be evaluated.
The study is organized into three parts:
In Part I, the study presents estimates of the-
amounts of wastes likely to be processed by
waste generators themselves and the wastes
likely to be treated or disposed by the hazardous
waste management industry at off-site facilities.
These estimates are based on a comprehensive
review of EPA-sponsored studies of industrial
hazardous waste generation and disposal.
In Part II, the existing and planned -capacity
of off-site facilities to manage hazardous wastes
is reviewed. Off-site capacity estimates are
based on a survey of 90 of the 127 known hazard-
ous waste treatment and disposal facilities
operating in June of 1980. For the 37 facilities
for which data could not be obtained, volume and
capacity data are imputed.
VII
-------
In Part III, the study concludes by comparing
the waste generation estimates with the off- ;
site capacity data, first nationally and then
for each EPA region.
There are important limitations to the use of these
data, which are described in the body of the report. :
These limitations must be understood so that the findings :
can be interpreted in the proper context. The remainder
of this Executive Summary highlights the study's major
findings.
1. IN 1981 MOST AREAS OF THE COUNTRY WILL HAVE SUFFICIENT
OFF-SITE CAPACITY TO MANAGE HAZARDOUS WASTE, BUT SOME ;
AREAS ARE LIKELY TO FACE SHORTAGES
For 1981, the best estimate of the nation's
off-site annual capacity, 18.4 million wet
metric tons (WMT), is almost 9 million WMT
over the estimated demand. Because of uncer-
tainty associated with the data, the difference I
between supply and demand could vary from a small :
surplus of 1 million WMT to a large surplus of
16 million WMT.
Sufficiency is better determined on a regional ;
basis because transportation costs discourage
shipping large volumes of wastes long distances.
EPA Region V is projected to have the laraest
capacity shortfall in 1981. The region gen- ;
erates over 2.5 million WMT of wastes demanding
off-site treatment or disposal, yet it has 2.0
million WMT of capacity. EPA Regions I, VII,
VIII and X- also are projected to have shortfalls i
but the shortfalls are not as large and excess
demand may be managed in neighboring regions.
Excess capacity in a region does not guarantee that
problems will not occur' for some waste streams.
Vlll
-------
1981 SURPLUSES ( + ) SHORTAGES (-)
(THOUSAND WET METRIC TONS)
NATIONAL TOTAL = 8,691
The accuracy of these conclusions depends
on the assumption, that generators who currently
process their own wastes will not shift signif-
icantly to off-site management of hazardous
wastes.
IX
-------
2. BEYOND 1981, UNCERTAINTIES MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO ASSESS
THE SUFFICIENCY OF CAPACITY
RCRA may cause important changes in both the
supply of and demand for off-site hazardous
waste management capacity.
(1) The Industry Plans to Expand the Supply of Off-Site
Capacity But Implementation of These Plans May Be
Difficult .
The industry plans an increase in annual off-
site capacity of 15 percent by the end of 1981
and an additional 6 percent by the end of 1982.
Over the next two years, there is planned
expansion for most types of waste management
options.
9/1
£*fr
i 20
g
o
1 16
LU
3 12
a
«u
_i
S 8
4
INCINERATION -*-
RESOURCE
RECOVERY "*"
18.4
- CHEMICAL =
= TREATMENT 3
.<•• • -— srr
E LAND d
: TREATMENT -
—
jjgi
^UNDFILL^
— -
- DEEP —
- WEIL —
E= INJECTION —
1980
V
^s"
t^"
f~
'm|
ANNUAL
GROWTH
RATES
21.1
TTi 1
1981
\
^
""-•-.^
22.3
==^=
=5i=!==
1982
Note: The capacities shown above do not reflect the variability
of the estimates. Furthermore, limitations in the forecasts
exist because not all resource recovery operations were
examined and the ability to increase landfill acreage
beyond "permitted" capacity could not.be fully assessed
by the industry participants.
x
-------
Public opposition to siting was reported as the
critical factor limiting expansion by the
hazardous waste management industry. In addi-
tion to thwarting many attempts'at siting new
facilities, intense, public opposition has
forestalled expansion of existing facilities
and brought about the closing of some opera-
ting facilities.
Future RCRA standards that will govern the
design of facilities may reduce the capacity •
of various treatment options if some facilities
are not able to meet the standards.
(2) Beyond 1981, Demand for Off-Site Capacity Is Difficult
to Estimate Because It Will Depend on Future Govern- .
ment Regulatory Activities and Industry's Responses
to the Regulations.
Demand for off-site capacity may increase as
EPA's definition of hazardous wastes expands..
Demand for off-site capacity may be reduced by
industry's efforts' to reduce the quantities of
waste generated. These efforts may be encouraged
by increased costs of treatment and disposal and
the liabilities associated with hazardous wastes.
The influence of shifts in on-site/off-site
disposal practices will be critical to the
future demand for off-site capacity. Because
most hazardous wastes are currently handled by
generators on their own sites, relatively minor
shifts -could mean large changes in demand for
off-site capacity.
XI
_
-------
-------
PART I
INDUSTRIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION
-------
-------
I. INTRODUCTION TO PART I
With the passage of the Federal Resource. Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA), there is a legal basis for snsuring
that all environmental media are protected from'pollutipn.
The coverage that the Clean Air Act provides for air anc; .:he
Clean Water Act gives to water is, now extended by RCRA to
land and groundwater. The regulations that are being estab-
lished under the new law prohibit the indiscriminate use of
the land as a final dumping place for wastes and require
that hazardous wastes be managed so as to protect the human
health and the natural environment.
The RCRA-based program relies on a "cradle to grave"
approach to the management of hazardous wastes—requiring
controls over the wastes from the point at which they are
generated; through subsequent transport of the wastes; and
finally to the point of ultimate, treatment, or disposal.1
The intent of, the RCRA-based program is to regulate hazardous
wastes produced in the future. The regulations under RCRA
cover the three distinct phases of the hazardous waste life
cycle: generation (RCRA Sections 3001 and 3002) , transport
(Section 3003), and storage,treatment, and disposal (Sections
3004 and 3005). The RCRA C rules resulting from the law provide
a means to identify hazardous wastes and set standards for
waste generators to follow in testing, labeling, ' storing,"'
and packaging waste materials. Most significantly, the
regulations.require generators of hazardous wastes to prepare
a manifest for all shipments of such materials describing
the nature and volume of the wastes being transported and
the destination of the wastes. The manifest must accompany
the wastes and a copy is to be returned to the generator, by
the operator of the treatment/disposal site. Transporters
of the wastes must comply with a variety of requirements
based largely on Federal Department of Transportation regu-
lations and are required to deliver hazardous wastes to the
specific site designated by the waste generator.
EPA is in the process of issuing RCRA C regulations.
In February 1980, the standards applicable to generators
and transporters of hazardous waste were issued by the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 Subtitle C - Hazardous
Waste Management.
1-1
-------
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In May 1980, EPA ;
then published the permit procedures and guidelines for the:
approval of state run programs, the initial phase of the
hazardous waste list and characteristics, as"well as the
first phase of the facility standards dealing primarily with
good management practices and requirements for closure and
postclosure care of facilities. A second phase of regula-
tions is expected in the Fall of 1980 that'will add additional
wastes to the waste list and set technical standards to allow
permits to be issued, based on the Agency's best engineering
judgment of the technical requirements for individual facili-
ties. A third phase of the regulations would be promulgated
later in the 1980's, dealing with the resolution of technical
issues and setting-out more definitive engineering control i
standards.
EPA officials recognize that these regulations may
cause several important changes in the demand for and supply
of off-site commercial hazardous waste management services:
Demand for environmentally adequate treatment andi
disposal capacity may increase. Generators who
currently utilize off-site facilities that do not
meet the requirements of RCRA will be forced to ;
begin transferring their wastes to facilities
that do meet RCRA requirements. Furthermore,
some generators who currently treat or dispose
of their hazardous wastes on site may not be able
to comply with the RCRA requirements and may be
forced to begin sending their wastes to off-site
facilities.
Supply of environmentally adequate treatment and
disposal capacity may decrease if some waste
management facilities are not able to meet the
requirements established by the RCRA program.
These changes are of concern to EPA because it has been
unclear whether there will be adequate capacity to treat and
dispose of hazardous wastes under the RCRA program. No com-'
prehensive analysis had examined the demand for and supply
of off-site hazardous xvaste treatment and disposal capacity :
in the post-RCRA setting.. Therefore, EPA decided to.under-.: .
take such an assessment and the findings of this assessment •.
are the subject of this report.
Part I provides estimates of industrial generation of
hazardous waste with an emphasis on the waste volumes that
currently and in the future will require off-site management.
1-2
-------
Part II focuses on the supply of off-site waste management
capacity, presenting estimates of the volumes processed and
capacity of the hazardous waste management industry.
A comparison of the demand for off-site hazardous waste
management services developed in Part I with estimates of
the available capacity presented in Part II is the subject
of Part III of this report. This comparison is made on a^
region-by-region basis to provide an assessment of potential.
off-site"capacity shortfalls in 1981. 'in general, all three
parts present major findings and conclusions. More detailed
data, supporting materials and descriptions of the estimation
methodologies used are contained in the appendices, which
follow Part III.
The following chapter will present the approach to
estimating industrial hazardous waste generation as well as
the scope of the demand assessment. A summary of the meth-
odology will be presented and. the limitations of the estimates
will be discus.sed.
1-3
_
-------
-------
II. APPROACH TO ESTIMATING INDUSTRIAL
HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION
The assessment of industrial hazardous waste genera-
tion requires estimates for each industry (according to
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes) and for
each EPA region. The estimates are calculated for the
total amount of hazardous waste generated as well as the
volume of wastes identified as requiring off-site disposal
for both 1980-and 1981. These estimates are presented in
summary form in Chapter III and are presented in greater
detail in Appendix A (Estimation of Industrial Hazardous
Waste Generation, 1980 and 1981).
1. ESTIMATES ARE BASED ON COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF EPA-
SPONSORED STUDIES OF INDUSTRIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE
GENERATION AND DISPOSAL
EPA has sponsored a number of studies of industrial
hazardous waste generation and disposal. The most compre-
hensive published effort to date supports the draft eco-
nomic impact analysis (DEIA) of the December 1978 Proposed
RCRA C Program. This work relies heavily on a series of
studies of the hazardous waste generation and disposal
practices of 14 industries (see references (1) through
(14) in the bibliography). Recent efforts in support of
the May 19, 1980 Phase I regulations improve on the pre-
•vious work and allow further refinement of industry esti-
mates provided in this study (see references (15) and (16))
Not all industries are analyzed in these studies,
however, so in addition to these studies, two other EPA
studies are used to fill the gaps:
Subtitle C, Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act of 1976.Draft Environmental impact State-
ment and Appendices, MITRE Corp.,
(reference 17).
January 1979
Technical Environmental Impacts of Various Ap-
proaches for Regulatory Small Volume Hazardous
Waste Generators, Vols. I, II/ TRW, December 1979
(reference 12) .
II-l
-------
Both of these studies relied on state-sponsored surveys
of hazardous waste generators. The second study also ob-
tained some information from trade associations.
The information available from these existing sources
is catalogued and adjusted into a consistent and traceable
overview of industrial hazardous waste generation. The
best waste generation estimate is selected and then ad-
justed to the 1980 time frame. This approa'ch is designed
to build up sub-industry and industry totals from detailed
waste stream information. This approach is used for a
number of reasons. First, much of the detailed industry ;
waste stream analysis in support of the EIA was being de-
veloped concurrently with this effort. It was necessary, :
therefore, to be able to readily adjust industry totals
as new information was developed.. Also,building industry
totals up from individual waste stream information provides
a basis for more detailed analysis of the waste generation
situation. Finally, the EPA Waste List published with the
Hazardous Waste Management regulations in May 1980 was
changing during the conduct of this effort. Therefore,
the approach enabled efficient adjustment of volumes in
the various waste categories as the regulations were mod- :
ified. A detailed description of the actual application
of this approach is included in Appendix A (Estimation of
Industrial Hazardous Waste Generation, 1980 and 1981).
All of the estimates of quantities of hazardous waste
are based on the assumption that the RCRA Interim Status
Standards (ISS), which take effect in November 1980, will- :
not cause any major shifts in the ratio of .on-site to off-site
disposal. This assumption is reasonable because it is :
believed that the ISS reaulations will not place a sub-
stantial burden on the industries regulated.
2. ESTIMATES ARE MADE OF THE AMOUNT OF HAZARDOUS WASTE ',
THAT WILL REQUIRE OFF-SITE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL :
For some industries, estimates of on-site/off-site
disposal volumes were not reported by any of the EPA -' ;
studies. Initially, these volumes were grouped into an :
"unknown disposal" category. This category is nearly as
large as the volume included in the known off-site category.1
The estimate of off-site capacity demand could vary sig-
nificantly depending on how the wastes in this "unknown ;
disposal" category are actually allocated between on-site
and off-site disposal. An attempt is made to allocate the
waste into on-site and off-site disposal and a "most prob-
able" off-site disposal category is created by adding these '
II-2
-------
wastes to the "known off-site" estimates. The methodology
used to allocate the "unknown disposal" waste volumes for
each-industry is presented in Appendix B (Methodology for
Determining Most Probable Off-Site Disposal in 1981).
3. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF DATA LIMITATIONS THAT SHOULD
'BE CONSIDERED WHEN USING THE RESULTS
All of the studies used as the basis for the assess-
ment have indicated problems in identifying and character-
izing hazardous waste streams and hazardous waste constit-
uents. For the most part, problems were the result of
data limitations due to uncertainty with respect to which
materials are actually hazardous, which materials are
present in different waste streams and the concentrations
and' interactions of the various constituents. Furthermore,
the different studies used different definitions of hazard-
ous wastes and hazardous constituents. Therefore, the
types and volumes of wastes, identified as hazardous,
varied among the studies.
Finally, the data in this report represent a nearly
comprehensive estimate of industrial hazardous waste gen-
eration; however, there are other hazardous wastes that
will be generated and need to be properly disposed of.
For various reasons a number of known sources of hazardous
wastes are not included in this assessment, including:
Hazardous Wastes From-Federal and Other Government
Facilities.No current volume estimates are
available.
Discarded Products, Off-Specification Products,
and Containers. In general, the analysis to
date has focused on process-related wastes
generated by primary industries. Some of the
wastes in the above categories may be included,
but in most instances, these wastes, especially
at the user level, are not included in the esti-
mate.
Spills and Abandoned Sites. Cleanup of spills
of hazardous materials and abandoned sites will
generate wastes that must be disposed of properly
under RCRA. In some cases this material could
go to commercial waste disposal facilities,
creating additional demand for off-site capacity.
II-3
-------
The volume of this material is not included in
the estimates presented, but could be substantial
in specific areas.
Polychlorihated Biphenyls (PCBs ). The responsi-
bility for insuring the proper disposal of PCS's ;
will be transferred to RCRA and is currently
regulated under the Toxic Substance Control Act
(TSCA). PCBs are an additional 15-35 thousand
wet metric tons (WMT) of wastes to be disposed
of off-site annually.
State-Designated Hazardous Waste. Some states
have their own definitions of hazardous waste
that may include materials in addition to those
identified under RCRA. In states where this is
the case, additional off-site demand may be
created, however, there is no evidence that the :
volume is significant.
Industry-Perceived Hazardous Wastes. Some in-
dustries may treat wastes as hazardous even ;
though they may not be included under RCRA. If
they choose to dispose of these wastes in an
RCRA-approved facility, the actual demand could
be greater than presented.
Mining Wastes. Mining wastes are not included
because they are generally handled on site.
Small Volume Generator Wastes.. For most of the
industry segments, hazardous wastes generated
by small volume generators (less than 1 WMT
per month) are excluded because this waste is
expected to go to sanitary landfills.
The total of these missing wastes could increase the de-
mand for off-site disposal, but at this time it is impos-
sible to determine the extent.
This chapter has discussed the scope and approach
of the industrial hazardous waste generation assessment.
The following chapter will present the findings of this
assessment and include estimates of total hazardous
waste generation by industry and EPA region. "Most
probable" estimates of off-site capacity demand are
also presented.
II-4
-------
III. 1980 AND 1981 HAZARDOUS WASTE
GENERATION ESTIMATES
This chapter presents results of the analysis of in-
dustrial hazardous waste generation. For the most part,
only the major findings are presented. Greater detail on
the methodology used to develop these findings as well as
more disaggregated generation estimates are included in
Appendix A (Estimation of Industrial Hazardous Waste Genera-
tion, 1980 and 1981). .Included in this chapter are:
Estimates of the total volume of hazardous waste
generated nationwide.
Estimates of the regional distribution of hazard-
ous waste generation.
Estimates of the most probable volume and regional
distribution of waste disposal at off-site facil-
ities.
Future trends in hazardous waste generation and
off-site demand.
This chapter presents estimates for. 1980 and 1981. Appendix
•C(Projected 1985 Industrial Hazardous Waste Generation by
Industry) provides a forecast of the generation picture in
1985. However, the 1985 forecast is subject to considerable
uncertainty.
1. ALMOST ALL INDUSTRIES GENERATE HAZARDOUS WASTES, 'BUT
THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY DOMINATES, GENERATING MORE THAN
60 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL
Exhibit III-l presents estimates of hazardous waste
generation by industry and waste category. Almost every
major industry generates hazardous waste. By far the
largest generator of hazardous waste in 1980 is the Chemical
and Allied Products.Industry, generating 62 percent of the
total (25,509 wet metric tons (WMT)) as shown in Exhibit
III-2. Other major contributors to the volume of hazardous
waste generated in 1980 include:
The Primary Metals Industry - 10 percent (4,061
thousand WMT)
III-l
-------
EXHIBIT III-l
1980 Estimated Industrial Hazardous Waste Generation by Industry, by Waste Category
(Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
H
H
H
I
SIC
22
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
—
INDUSTRY
TEXTILE MILL PRODUCTS
LUMBER AND WOOD PRODUCTS
FURNITURE AND FIXTURES
PAPER AND ALLIED PRODUCTS
PRINTING AND PUBLISHING
CHEMICALS AND ALLIED PRODUCTS
PETROLEUM AND COAL PRODUCTS
RUBBER AND MISC. PLASTIC PRODUCTS
LEATHER AND LEATHER TANNING
STONE, CLAY AND GLASS PRODUCTS
PRIMARY METAL INDUSTRIES
FABRICATED METAL PRODUCTS
MACHINERY, EXCEPT ELECTRICAL
ELECTRIC AND ELECTRONIC EOUIPMENT
TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT
INSTRUMENTS AND RELATED PRODUCTS
MISC. MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES
NON-MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES
TOTAL
EPA
WASTE LIST1
0
0
0
0
0
4,243
407
0
455
0
2,010
624
74
531
0
0
0
0
8,344
CHARACTERISTIC
WASTE2
203
0
0
0
0
17,902
1.712
0
19
0
905
46
0
87
0
0
0
0
20,874
UNKNOWN3
0
87
36
1,295
154
3,364
0
249
0
17
1.146
1,327
248
475
1,240
90
318
1,971
12,017
TOTAL4
203
87
36
1,295
154
25,509
2,119
249
474
17
4,061
1,997
322
1,093
1,240
90
318
1,971
41,235
Wastes listed on the EPA Waste List published on May 19, 1980 in Part 261 and wastes that EPA
intends to list. (See Appendix D for EPA Waste List used in the study.)
2
Wastes identified as hazardous by RCRA characteristics, but not included on the EPA Hazardous
Waste List. .i
Wastes not identified specifically enough (either by type or quantity) to determine their
waste category. ; . •; -
4 ~ ~~ ~ r~- "' " "~ '"" : "" ~ ~: ~-'-" ' " ' -'-.-•*---
These estimated are subject-to varying degrees of uncertainty. At the national level,1the
total generation estimate could vary,from 27,765,to 53,864 thousand WMT., .-- • ;
Source: Putnam, Hayes and Bartlett
-------
EXHIBIT III-2
Percentage of 1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code
Total = 41,235
thousand
WMT
SIC 26
PAPER AND
ALLIED PRODUCTS
NON-MANUFACTURING
5%
SIC 37
TRANSPORTATION •
EQUIPMENT
SIC 28
CHEMICALS AND
ALLIED PRODUCTS
62%
SIC 33
PRIMARY METALS
INDUSTRIES
10%
SIC 36
ELECTRIC AND
ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT
SIC 29
PETROLEUM AND
COAL PRODUCTS
SIC 34
FABRICATED
METAL PRODUCTS
'ALL OTHER
SIC 22 TEXTILE MILL PRODUCTS
SIC 24 LUMBER AND WOOD PRODUCTS
SIC 25 FURNITURE AND FIXTURES
SIC 27 PRINTING AND PUBLISHING
SIC 30 RUBBER AND MISCELLANEOUS PLASTIC PRODUCTS
SIC 31 LEATHER AND LEATHER TANNING
SIC 32 STONE, CLAY AND GLASS PRODUCTS
SIC 35 MACHINERY EXCEPT ELECTRICAL
SIC 38 INSTRUMENTS AND RELATED PRODUCTS
SIC 39 MISCELLANEOUS MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES
z NON-MANUFACTURING CATEGORIES:
SIC 5085 DRUM RECONDITIONERS
SIC 07 AGRICULTURAL SERVICES
SIC 5161 CHEMICAL WAREHOUSES
SIC 40 RAILROAD TRANSPORTATION
SIC 55 AUTOMOTIVE DEALERS AND
GASOLINE SERVICE STATIONS
SIC 72 PERSONAL SERVICES
SIC 73 BUSINESS SERVICES
SIC 76 MISC. REPAIR SERVICES
SIC 80 HEALTH SERVICES
SIC 82 EDUCATIONAL SERVICES
Source: Putnam, Hayes and Bartlett
III-3
-------
The Petroleum and Coal Products Industry - 5 per-
cent (2,119 thousand WMT)
The Fabricated Metals Products Industry - 5 per-
cent (1,997 thousand WMT).
The information in Exhibits III-l and III-2 are a sum-
mary of the detailed description of hazardous waste genera-
tion by industry and by waste category included in Exhibit
A-l, Appendix A. Exhibit A-l provides additional information
on the percent each industry contributes to the total volume
of hazardous waste to be generated nationwide, and upper ,
and lower bounds for each estimate. These estimates are sub-
ject to varying degrees of uncertainty - from plus or minus
100 percent to plus or minus 10 percent. The national genera-
tions estimate is judged to be approximately plus or minus
31 percent.
Only 20 percent of the total 41,235 thousand WMT of
hazardous wastes are known to be specifically included in
the EPA Waste List. The EPA Waste List used for this, study
was based on a March 1980 list which included those wastes-
listed on the May 19 listings, the planned summer of 1980
listings and the planned fall of 1980 listings.
2. EPA REGIONS IV AND VI WILL EXPERIENCE THE LARGEST
GENERATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE IN 1980
The generation of hazardous wastes within a region
reflects the particular makeup of the industry in that
region. For example, the chemicals industry is concentrated
in Regions IV and VI, whereas the primary metals industry
is concentrated in Region V. Exhibit III-3 shows the
distribution of hazardous waste generation by EPA region.
More than 50 percent of the total volume of hazardous wastes
generated nationwide will originate from Regions IV and VI,
with an additional 16 percent being generated from industries
within Region V. Regions IV, V, and VI combined will be
responsible for two-thirds of the nation's total volume of
hazardous waste generation. A more detailed profile of
the quantity of hazardous waste generation by industry, and
by region for 1980 is presented in Exhibit A-2, Appendix A.
3. APPROXIMATELY 23 PERCENT OF THE HAZARDOUS WASTES ARE
DISPOSED OFF-SITE ACCORDING TO A "MOST PROBABLE" ESTIMATE
Exhibit III-4 shows estimates of the regional distri-
bution of total hazardous waste generation, known off-site
waste disposal and unknown waste disposal for 1980. Also
III-4
-------
EXHIBIT III-3-
1980 Industrial Hazardous Waste Generation Within Each EPA Region
(Thousand WMT and Percent of Total Nationwide)
H
H
I
^PERCENTAGES MAY NOT TOTAL TO 100%
DUE TO ROUNDING
Source: Putnam, Hayes and Bartlett
-------
EXHIBIT III-4
1980 and 1981 Industrial Hazardous Waste Generation
and Most Probable Off-Site Disposal, by EPA Region
(Thousand Wet Metric Tons)
H
H
I
CTi
REGION
1
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
TOTAL
1980
TOTAL
1.104
3,113
4,354
10,353
6,428
10,536
1,201
318
2,838
995
41,235
OFFSITE
299
652
604
913
1,330
1,029
252
106
535
348
6,069
UNKNOWN
368
540
470
674
1,537
524
233
61
511
241
5,159
1981
TOTAL
1,131
3,216
4,507
10,697
6.611
11,025
1,231
325
2,925
1,023
42,694
OFFSITE
303
673
622
940
1,368
1.059
257
108
552
357
6,251
UNKNOWN
385
564
492
706
1,604
549
243
62
534
249
5.395
MOST
PROBABLE
580
1,022
922
1,358
2,517
1,346
440
154
896
503
9,738
Note: Detail may not add to total because of rounding.
Source: Putnam, Hayes & Bartlett
-------
shown in this exhibit is an estimate of the regional dis-
tribution of "most probable" off-site disposal for 1981.
These estimates have been developed for use in Part III
of this report which compares off-site capacity to demand
for off-site capacity in 1981. The "most probable" esti-
mate is that approximately 23 percent of hazardous wastes
will be disposed off-site in 3981.. The methodology used
to develop the "most probable" estimates for each industry
is contained in Appendix B (Methodology for Determining
Most Probable Off-Site Disposal in 1981). The methodology for
the most probable estimates for each industry, developed on a
nationwide basis, is also applied to develop regional generation
estimates.
Most of the waste demanding off-site disposal is
generated by Region IV,V and VI. Exhibit III-5 shows
that of the 9,738 thousand WMT of most probable off-site
disposal in 1981, 14 percent, 26 percent and 14 percent
will be generated within Regions IV, V, and VI respectively.
4. THE PRIMARY METALS, PETROLEUM AND COAL PRODUCTS,
AND CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES CONSTITUTE 34 PERCENT OF
MOST PROBABLE OFF-SITE DISPOSAL DEMAND IN 1981.
The industrial categories showing the largest percent-
ages of most probable off-site disposal are:
Non-Manufacturing Industries 15%
SIC 33 Primary Metals 14%
SIC. 28 Chemical and Allied Products 12%
SIC 34 Fabricated Metal Products 17%
SIC 29 Petroleum and Coal Products 8%
SIC 36 Electric and Electronic Equipment 9%
The chemicals industry while generating more than
60 percent (26,523 thousand WMT) of the total 1981 volume
of hazardous waste nationwide, represents only 12 percent
(1,165 thousand WMT) of the off-site disposal demand.
Conversely, the primary metals industry generates'only
10 percent (4,16,7 thousand WMT) of the national volume
hazardous wastes but represents 14 percent (1,398 thousand
WMT) of the most probable off-site disposal demand (see
Appendix A and B for details).
III-7
-------
EXHIBIT III-5
1980 Industrial Hazardous Waste Generation
Most Probable Off-Site Disposal, by EPA Region
(Thousand wet metric tons and percentage of total nationwide)
H
H
H
I
00
Source: Putnam, Hayes & Bartlett
-------
5. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF FACTORS THAT MAY AFFECT THE
VOLUME OF HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATED AND RESULTING
DISPOSAL PRACTICES
The overall growth of hazardous waste generation and off-
site disposal demand is based on an overall 3.5 percent pro-
jection of industrial growth.1 Certain industries will grow
at a faster pace, however, while others may experience little
or no growth. Actual differences in industry growth rates may
change the mix of hazardous waste generated. In addition to
the absolute growth in each industry, the increased control
of air and water pollution from existing plants and New
Source Performance Standards for new plants will result in a
larger volume of wastes generated that EPA may designate
as hazardous.
During the next few years there are a number of other
forces that will tend both to increase the, quantity of
hazardous wastes covered under RCRA and to'decrease the
volume of hazardous wastes, which include:
Additional waste streams, heretofore not
identified, will be added as the RCRA standards
for defining hazardous wastes become more fully
developed.
\
On the other hand, as RCRA regulations begin
to take hold, wastes will be brought into
the system and costs of handling the wastes will
increase. In addition, the manifest system
will increase the public visibility of waste.
Both these factors will increase the motivation
to reduce the quantities of hazardous waste
being generated by industry. Generators will
control hazardous waste generation through
segregation of hazardous and non-hazardous
waste streams, process changes, dewatering,
pretreatment and recycling of waste materials.
The following provides examples of four tech-
niques that are currently being used or con-
sidered:
In many cases it is possible to isolate a
hazardous waste stream, thereby preventing
it from contaminating non-hazardous wastes.
Analysis of the textile industry revealed
that the initial waste estimates could be
reduced by nearly 80 percent using this
approach.
Industry specific growth rates were applied to develop 1981 forecasts.
III-9
-------
Many Industrie's use hazardous chemicals
in their processes. In some instances, it
is possible to change to non-hazardous
chemicals. For example, the hazardous
oil used in cold rolling of steel could be
changed under proper conditions. The tex-
tile industry could also change to non-
toxic dyes.
Many industries could decrease the quantities
of hazardous wastes by dewatering. For
example, the electroplaters could reduce
the volume of certain waste streams 5 to
10 times by increasing the density of
solids from the clarifier from about 3 :
percent to about 25 percent. In addition,
acidic and basic waste streams can some-
times be neutralized thereby eliminating
their hazardous characteristics.
As the cost of disposal increases, the
economics of recycling becomes more at- :
tractive. For example, electroplaters are
beginning to recycle cadmium and lead from
their wastes.
As RCRA is implemented and the costs of proper disposal
of hazardous wastes are defined, the on-site/off-site_deci-;
sions of many firms will be re-evaluated. It is difficult
to draw broad conclusions as to the direction the trend
might take.l In fact it will be a local decision based on
a number of factors including: ;
The effectiveness of RCRA
The availability of local disposal facilities
and the cost of disposal.
However, even a slight shift in the off-site/on-site disposal
ratio could substantially change the off-site disposal_demand.
For example, if 2 percent of the approximately 30 million
WMT of wastes that are disposed on site were to shift to
off-site disposal, off-site demand would increase by 10
percent or 600 thousand WMT.
See Appendix C, Projected 1985 Industrial Hazardous Waste Generation
By Industry
111-10
-------
This part of the report has presented estimates of
industrial hazardous waste generation by industry and EPA
region. The findings presented in this part were based on
a comprehensive review of EPA-sponsored studies of industrial
hazardous waste generation. The next part of this report
will, present an assessment of the supply of commercial off-
site hazardous waste management capacity.
III-ll
-------
-------
PART II
OFF-SITE HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT CAPACITY
-------
-------
IV. INTRODUCTION TO PART II
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
(RCRA) authorizes the establishment of a national program
to regulate hazardous waste. -1- The EPA has begun issuing
regulations which establish a manifest system to track
and control hazardous waste from point of generation to
ultimate disposal. Requirements pertain to waste generators
managing their wastes on site, to waste transporters, and
to owners and operators of commercial facilities offering
treatment, storage, and disposal services% In February
1980, the standards applicable to generators and transporters
of hazardous waste were issued. In May 1980, EPA then
published the permit procedures and guidelines for the
approval of state-run programs, the initial phase of the
hazardous waste list and characteristics, as well as the
first phase of the facility standards dealing primarily with
good management practices. A second phase of. regulations is
expected in the fall of 1980 that will add additional wastes
to the waste list and set technical standards which will
allow permits to be issued based on the Agency's best
engineering judgment of the technical requirements that
individual facilities must meet. A third phase of the
regulations should be promulgated later in the 1980s dealing
with the resolution of technical issues and setting out more
definitive engineering control standards.
EPA officials recognize that these regulations may
cause several important changes in the supply and demand
relationship for commercial hazardous waste management
services:
Supply may be reduced if some waste management
facilities close because they cannot comply with
the regulations.
RCRA defines a hazardous waste as "a solid waste, or combination
of solid wastes, which because of its quantity, concentration, or
physical, chemical or infectious characteristics may cause, or
significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase
in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible illness; or
pose a substantial-present or potential hazard to human health or
the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or
disposed of, or otherwise managed." Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (P.L. 94-580), Subtitle A.
IV-1
-------
Demand for off-site capacity may increase:
- When waste defined as hazardous under RCRA
requires hazardous waste management in
accordance with RCRA C requirements rather
than by traditional disposal practices such
as sanitary landfills.
If hazardous waste generators shift from on-
site to off-site hazardous waste management.
Because of their concern over the capacity for environmentally
sound hazardous waste management, EPA decided to undertake an
assessment of the current and future off-site waste management
capacity. This effort represents an update of a 1976 study of
off-site capacity performed by this EPA contractor-.1 This ;
Part focuses on the supply of off-site waste management
capacity. Part I of this report presented the demand for off-
site hazardous waste capacity and :Part III will present a
comparison of supply and demand on a region-by-region basis.
The remainder of this introduction presents the scope,
approach, key assumptions and limitations of the study.
1. THE STUDY SHOWS CURRENT VOLUMES AND CAPACITIES OF
OFF-SITE WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES AND FORECASTS
CAPACITY TO 1985•
For 1980, the volumes and capacities 2 for off-site
waste management services are presented in terms of: •
Waste management options
- Incineration
Landfill
Booz, Allen and Hamilton, Potential for Capacity Creation in the
Hazardous Waste Management Service Industry, 1976.
Volumes refer to the amount of waste actually processed by the
industry. Capacity refers to the maximum quantities of wastes
that could be treated at existing facilities.
IV-2
-------
- Land treatment
Chemical treatment (includes chemical,
biological and physical processes)
Deep-well injection
Resource recovery
EPA Regions.
The capacity data for 1980 include only those facilities
whose owners thought they would comply with the Interim Status
Standards (ISS) of the RCRA C 3004 regulations. Because most
interviews with owners were conducted prior to the issuance
of regulations on May 19, 1980, the owners' assessment of
their compliance plans with ISS were based on their under-
standing of the proposed regulations of December 18, 1978.
Generally, the ISS as promulgated .in May 1980 are less
stringent than the proposed regulations of 1978.
2. THE STUDY IS BASED ON A COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FIRMS
The approach used during the study consisted of nine
steps:
Identify all commercial treatment and disposal
facilities in the U.S. based on EPA Headquarters.
data and interviews with the EPA Regional offices.
Obtain OMB Clearance (Number 158S75018) for
interviewing industry participants on a confiden-
tial basis (if desired by participants).
Conduct telephone or personal interviews with as
many waste management firms as possible to deter-
mine the participants, current volumes, 1980
capacities, and future expansion plans and to
discuss'types of wastes handled, innovative
technologies, and pricing strategies. (A table
summarizing the interview topics is included in
Appendix E).
Impute data for firms not interviewed.
Solar evaporation or ponding is included as land treatment'because
of the close interrelationship of the two techniques.
IV-3
-------
Aggregate the reported and imputed data by waste ;
management option and EPA region. ;
Consider the impact on future capacity of potential
new entrants to the industry,.emerging innovative
technologies, and RCRA requirements.
Forecast treatment and disposal capacities for
1981, 1982, and 1985.
Review the list of sites, findings and key
assumptions with several industry experts.
Document results of data gathering and analyses
in this final report.
Two lists of facilities engaged in the hazardous waste^
management industry were used as a starting point for"
identifying current"participants:.
Firms identified in Booz, Allen's study for EPA,
Potential for Capacity Creation in the Hazardous
Waste Management Service Industry, 1976.
A list of 110 organizations operating 155 facili-
ties compiled by the EPA in 1979,
Each of the firms listed in the two studies plus"any ' '
additional facilities identified during the course of this '.
study were contacted.- Potential additional facilities were:
identified from three sources:
Discussions with industry participants.
Telephone interviews with each EPA regional office.
Publications from the states of Missouri and ;
Connecticut listing hazardous waste disposal
sites.1
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities Available to Connecticut
Industries, State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental :
Protection, Facilities Available to Missouri Industry For
Hazardous Waste Management, Missouri Department of Natural Re-
sources.
IV-4
-------
About 15 of the firms on the EPA list, originally .thought
to be operating hazardous waste facilities were actually
only involved in hauling and an additional 12 firms had
gone out of business. Based on all the above sources,
127 facilities that as of June were engaged in the hazard-
ous waste management industry were identified. Data on
current volume, capacity, and future expansion plans, pre-
sented in this study, are based primarily on interviews
with these firms. The study data base was compiled through:
Personal interviews with 15 management firms
operating 43 facilities.
Telephone interviews with 40 firms and organiza-
tions operating 43 facilities.
Telephone interviews with selected state agencies
(such as California Water Quality Control Boards)
to supplement and verify reported facility data.
Data on an additional 3 organizations operating
4 facilities were obtained.
The remaining 35 participating organizations
representing 37 facilities were contacted but
did not provide data. It was assumed that these-
firms are treating hazardous waste, and data
were estimated for these firms (see Appendix F
for methodology).
3. LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA AND ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES
NECESSARILY RESULT IN POTENTIAL ERROR
The estimates for volumes presented in this report
refer to the estimated quantities of hazardous wastes
actually treated or disposed of by the hazardous waste
management industry in 1980. The estimates for capacity
refer to the 'estimated maximum amount of hazardous waste
which could be treated at existing facilities without under-
taking major capital expenditures. Since the actual capacity
of a facility often depends on the types of wastes being
treated or disposed, the current mix of hazardous waste is
assumed in defining capacity. Several additional•assumptions
were made during the course of this analysis which are
important to the proper interpretation of the results. These
assumptions are necessary to convert data to a consistent
basis, wet metric tons (WMT), when conversion factor estimates
were not available.
Volumes reported in gallons are transformed into
wet metric tons assuming that the waste has the
density of water at 8.34 pounds/gallon or 0.00378
IV-5
-------
metric tons/gallon. This conversion assumption
is also used by several firms in the industry. :
Volumes reported in cubic yards are converted
into wet metric tons assuming that the waste has
the density of water at 62.4 pounds/cubic foot or
0.76 metric tons/cubic yard where the density was
suggested by several landfill operators to make '.
the necessary conversion. •L
Volumes reported processed in landfills are
assumed to be bulk material unless specific dis-
tribution between drums and bulk was stated. :
Capacity reported in acres is converted to wet
metric tons by assuming each acre has 430,000
cubic feet of available capacity and 12,100 WMT ;
can be disposed of in each acre. In general, four
interrelated factors influence the capacity, as
measured in wet metric tons, that can be disposed
of per acre:
The overall size of the landfill. This defines
how much can be utilized for disposal and how
much must be used as buffer. The smaller the
landfill, the greater the proportion of acreage
which must be used as buffer.
The size of the trenches. A typical trench
may have surface dimensions of 100 by 200 feet
and have an average depth of 30 feet.
The percentage utilization within a trench.
The percentage of the trench utilized for
hazardous waste disposal depends on the
materials being disposed and the spacing
practices of the operator.
- The density of the material. There is signif-
icant variability depending on the actual
wastes being disposed. The assumption of ;
12,100 WMT per acre is based on the advice of
several landfill operators rather than
explicit assumptions about each of the
parameters that affect landfill capacity.
Some other industry participants suggested using a higher conversion;
factor (up to 0.90 metric tons/cubic yard or up to 18 percent higher
than the conversion factor applied). However, because landfills
currently handle such a wide variety of waste types, the more
universally accepted estimate of 0.76 is applied.
IV-6
-------
All wastes judged to be hazardous by the waste
management firms are assumed to be hazardous
as defined by RCRA. This assumption was veri-
fied by several key industry participants.
It is important to the proper interpretation of our
findings that the reader recognize that the capacity and
volume estimates presented in this report represent a mix-
ture of data obtained from firms interviewed and data
imputed for nonrespondent firms. In Chapter V of the
report, the volume data'reported and imputed for each waste
management option are presented. On a national basis, the
reported data as a percent of the total for each waste
management option varies from a low of 76 percent for re-
source recovery to a high of 97 percent for deep well
injection. Based on the percent of reported data and on an
assumption that all current facilities are identified, the
EPA contractor judges the volume and capacity data presented
in this report may vary as follows:
For national 1980 volume data, within + 12 percent
accuracy. The derivation of this range assumes1
that reported volumes have a variation of + 10
percent and that estimated volumes could vary by
+30 percent. Since 88 percent of the total
national volume is accounted for by reported data,
the range of accuracy for total volume on a
national basis is approximately + 12 percent.
For national 1980 capacity data, within an error
range of + 24 percent. The derivation of this
range assumes-^- that reported capacities are ac-
curate within +_ 20 percent and imputed capacities
could vary by +_70 percent. Reported capacity is
93 percent of the total estimate.
For national capacity projections and regional
volumes and capacities, data are subject to
further variations that will be discussed in
detail along with the findings in the following
chapters.
Although the basis of these error ranges is the con-
tractor's professional judgment, every effort has been made
to verify our results by comparing them to industry's best
Error ranges are based on professional judgment of the EPA
contractor. The validity of these assumptions was verified with
several of the industry participants.
IV-7
-------
estimates of volumes and capacity. Several industry partici-
pants agree that these assumptions are reasonable, however,:
we have presented the data in such,a way as. to facilitate
the use of alternative assumptions by the reader. :
The remainder of Part II presents the results of the
capacity assessments. In Chapter V, a profile of the waste
management industry is presented, describing the services
offered, the number and types of firms involved, current
volumes handled, capacities, and prices. In Chapter VI, the
focus is on forecasts of industry capacity. In Chapter VII,
the potential influence of some RCRA regulatory provisions
is presented.
IV-8
-------
V. PROFILE OF THE HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT INDUSTRY IN 1980
A definition of the hazardous waste management industry
in 1980 is difficult to formulate because the industry is
new and undergoing .rapid change. For purposes of this study,
the industry includes all facilities engaged in the treat-
ment and disposal of hazardous waste for a fee, but does not
include recovery operations, such as those buying and selling
solvents, or storage and transfer stations which may be
handling, wastes classified as hazardous. To be included
within this definition, a facility must have plans to
operate under the Interim Status Standards of RCRA. Based
on this definition, this study identified 89 firms, three
'municipalities and one quasi-public agencyJ- operating 127
hazardous waste management facilities.
Some of the key findings to be discussed in this chapter
are:
In 1980, approximately 7 million wet metric tons
(WMT) of hazardous- waste will be treated/disposed
by the industry for generators. A total of 7.2
million WMT will actually be processed because
some wastes require treatment by 2 waste manage-
ment processes.
Volumes and capacities vary greatly among the ten
EPA regions, with 44 percent of national volume
being managed in two EPA regions (VI and IX).
Currently on a national basis there is substantial
unused capacity.
The remainder of this chapter presents a profile of the
hazardous waste management industry in 1980 in terms of
participants, current volume handled, management and storage
capacity, and prices for services offered.
1. THE HAZARDOUS WASTE INDUSTRY IS YOUNG BUT HAS
EXPERIENCED RAPID GROWTH IN THE LAST DECADE
The hazardous waste management industry has experienced
rapid growth since its inception in the 1960s. Initially,
1
The Texas Gulf.. Coast Waste Disposal Authority.,,
V-l
-------
facilities utilized mostly incineration, landfill, and
chemical treatment technologies to service the needs of
local industries. Over time, some firms began offering a :
broader range of services to existing customers and pursued
new customers outside their immediate locale. In addition,
some firms in related businesses, such as hauling and sanitary
landfills, perceived the potential for high profits and
diversified into the industry. A smaller number of entrants
were_from totally unrelated industries. The major firms, in-
cluding Waste Management, BFI, Rollins Environmental Services,
and SCA, which today dominate the industry, did not enter the
hazardous waste management field until the early 1970s.
Revenues for the hazardous waste management industry
have grown rapidly over the past decade. During the period
1971 to 1980, revenues grew at a rate of approximately 20
percent per year. In 1971, revenues were estimated at $60
million and in 1980, revenues are estimated to be between :
$265 and $315 million.1
From 1975 to 1980, the total number of facilities
operating has increased, 110 facilities in 19752 compared to
127 facilities in 1980. However, a number of facilities have
been shut down for environmental, reasons. There has been a
trend of larger firms purchasing smaller firms that typically
own a single facility. Although the industry is still in the
early stages of development, the industry can be characterized
in terms of three groups of firms:
The majors, the largest four firms, account for :
approximately 45 percent of industry revenues and
waste management volumes. These firms operate on
a national scale and offer a broad range of waste
management services.
A second tier of eight or nine privately held,
regionally focused firms, some of which operate
full-service facilities, account for about 12
percent of industry revenues and volumes.
The 1976 revenue estimate based on: Booz, Allen & Hamilton Inc.,
Potential for Capacity Creation in-the Hazardous Waste Management '•.
Service Industry, 1976 for U.S. EPA.The 1980 revenue is an:.
approximation based on typical prices and the 1980 volume data
presented in this report^ Revenues are expressed in'nominal terms.
Booz, Allen & Hamilton Inc., Potential for Capacity Cxeation in ;
the Hazardous Waste Management Service Industry, 1976 for U.S. EPA.
V-2
-------
A third tier of mostly single facility firms
tend to utilize only one or two treatment
techniques. These remaining 80-81 firms and
organizations account for approximately 43
percent of industry revenues and volumes.
Exhibit V-l provides a profile of these three tiers including
number of facilities, estimated revenues, and waste management
services offered.
Specifically not considered part of the industry are:
Facilities operating only as waste oil re-refiners
or resource recovery operations1
Agents who offer brokering services but do not
actually treat or dispose of wastes themselves
. Operators of conventional sanitary landfills
Publicly owned wastewater treatment works.
Firms offering only resource recovery operations (solvent reclaiming,
waste oil re-refiners, etc.) are not included in the scope of this study.
Where firms offered resource recovery in addition to'treatment
disposal services, they appeared on EPA's list of hazardous waste
operations, and were included in the Booz, Allen survey. The data
for those firms are included in this report. One list available
from EPA lists approximately 100 additional firms that may be in-
volved in solvent reclaiming. It is suspected that these additional
facilities are highly waste specific and could not'make a substantial
impact or overall capacity because they do not have the. flexibility
to handle the wide variety of hazardous waste required by major
participants of the industry. This was confirmed by several key
participants of the industry who expressed the opinion that these
kinds of resource recovery facilities do not have the flexibility
required to'treat and dispose of most types of hazardous wastes.
Therefore the volumes and capacities for these resource recovery
operations have not been included. Because these facilities are
typically relatively small and have limited flexibility to handle
wastes, we do not believe they will have a significant impact on the
capacity of the industry.
V-3
-------
EXHIBIT V-l
Industry Profile of the Hazardous Waste
Management Industry as of June 1980
CATEGORY!
TYPE OF FIRM
MAJORS
•WASTE MANAGEMENT
iNC. (CHEMICAL
WASTE MANAGEMENT
INC.)
• BROWNING FERRIS
INDUSTRIES, INC.
• RLC CORPORATION
(ROLLINS ENVIRON-
MENTAL SERVICES
INC.)
• SCA SERVICES, INC.
SECOND TIER
THIRD TIER
TOTAL
ESTIMATED
HAZARDOUS
NUMBER OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
FIRMS/ NUMBER OF REVENUES
ORGANIZATIONS FACILITIES . {$ MILLIONS 1980)
4 26 135-151
101 44-502
9 34-372
4 29-313
3 2B-333
8-9 10-13 30-404
80-81 88-91 lOO-m^
93 127 265-315
WASTE MANAGEMENT
SERVICES OFFERED
ALL SERVICES
OFFERED
7 SECURE LAND-
FILLS, 5 CHEMICAL
TREATMENT, 3 DEEP
WELL INJECTION,
4 LAND TREATMENT,
2 INCINERATORS, RE-
SOURCE RECOVERY
3 SECURE LAND-
FILLS, 4 CHEMICAL
TREATMENT, 2 DEEP
WELL INJECTION,
RESOURCE RE-
COVERY
2 SECURE LAND-
FILLS. 3 CHEMICAL
TREATMENT, 3 IN-
CINERATORS, DEEP
WELL INJECTION,
RESOURCE RE.
COVERY
3 SECURE LAND-
FILLS, 2 CHEMICAL
TREATMENT, RE-
SOURCE RECOVERY
MOST SERVICES
OFFERED
TYPICALLY ONE
OR TWO TYPES OF
SERVICES PER
FACILITY
Waste management also has plans to operate a new facility in Denver,
Colorado.
%ased on annual report data forecasted to 1980 by Booz, Allen.
^Company estimates.
^Estimated from volume and average price data.
Note: Hazardous waste management revenues for the four major firms
represent between 7 and 10 percent of total corporate revenues.
Source: Booz, Allen & Hamilton Inc.
V-4
-------
(1) The Hazardous Waste Management Facilities May
Receive Wastes Directly From the Generator or
Through Waste Brokers
Many of the firms which operate treatment and dis-
posal facilities also offer transportation services to
the generator. This is especially true of the large firms
who stress their full-service capabilities. Other firms
rely on transporters to ship the waste from the generator
to their treatment/disposal facility.
Hazardous waste management facilities may also
receive wastes through waste brokers or agents. Hazardous
waste brokering services can take either of two forms:
Agents.• A firm or individual acts^as a
go-between for the generator and disposal
firm. Agents do not actually take possession
of the wastes and, as in other industries,
their facilities may consist of only office
space and telephones.
Brokers. A firm or an individual actually
takes possession of the wastes but does not
treat or dispose of the wastes. The wastes
are shipped by the broker to a treatment/
disposal facility. ' Some brokers have treat-
ment or disposal facilities and act as a
broker for wastes which they cannot handle
themselves.
The services offered by brokers and agents are
helpful to the efficient transfer of wastes within
the industry. Brokers and agents may make it easier
'for the generator to dispose of their wastes. Firms
which generate a variety of waste streams may use the
services of brokers or agents so that they have to deal
with only one firm or individual. Furthermore, brokers
are especially helpful to small generators who may not
generate wastes in sufficient quantities for economic
treatment/disposal. Brokers may combine the wastes with
similar wastes from other generators or accumulate the
wastes until a more economic volume is obtained.
V-5
-------
(2) The Financial Outlook for the Industry Is
Characterized by High Risk,, High Entry Costs,
and Potentially High Profits '.
The inherently high financial risk associated
with the hazardous waste management industry stems
from-both investment and liability risks. The invest-
ment risk reflects the likelihood that investment
funds can be lost because of unsuccessful siting
attempts or uneconomical facilities. Several firms
report investing over $1 million in single facilities
for legal and engineering fees before being stopped
from development by state or local agencies.1 in
addition, another concern cited by potential developers
is that a facility may prove to be uneconomical because
Although most
will gradually in-
of insufficient demand for services.
industry observers feel that demand _ ^
crease over the next several years due to"more strict
regulation, the rate and magnitude of this predicted ;
increase are uncertain. Unforeseen technical problems
can also introduce risk into the investment decision. '.
Start-up problems and operating problems can be a factor
especially for the more sophisticated technologies.
Probably even more significant than investment risk is .
the potential liability. Liability risk is perceived
to_be high because of the potential for civil or criminal
suits in the event that operating problems result in
damages or regulatory noncompliance.
In addition to the high financial risk associated
with establishing and operating a waste treatment
facility, a full-service facility is also capital
intensive. Capital requirements for establishing secure
landfills and high-temperature incinerators may limit
participation to only the largest firms in the waste !'
management industry. Other types of treatment options
such as chemical treatment are less capital intensive,
but_still require investments in excess of $2 million.
Exhibit V-2 presents an estimate of the cost of new
facilities. This exhibit also points out the engineering
and construction lead time required and "typical" size
of facilities by waste management option.
See Chapter VI for a detailed discussion of the influence of
siting problems on firms' plans for expansion.
V-6
-------
EXHIBIT V-2
Typical Costs and Engineering and
Construction Time for New Commercial
Hazardous Waste Facilities in 1380
Type of Waste
Management Services
Physical/Chemical/Bio-
logical Treatment—multi-
process3
Incineration
Secure Landfill,
Land Treatment
Resource Recovery
Lab Facilities
Median
Facility
Capacity^-
(Thousand Wet
Metric Tons
per Year)
50
20
varies
widely
" varies
widely
Approximate
Fixed Capital
Investment2
($ 1979)
$ 2,000,0004
$10,000,0004
Size dependent
Equipment
dependent
$ 500,000
Eng ine er ing
and Construction
Time Requirements
(years)'
1-2
2
0.5
0.5
1 . Median size of all facilities included in this study
2 For median size facility
3 Single process chemical 'treatment facilities are typically less than
$1 million and require six to nine months engineering and construction
time
4 Rollins Rescue, Rollins Environmental Services, Inc. Vol. 6, No. 3,
Summer 1979.
Source: Booz, Allen & Hamilton Inc.
V-7
-------
Although handling hazardous waste may entail '••'
risks and significant capital investment, the profit-
ability outlook for the industry is generally favorable.
Potentially high profits are possible because the de- ;
mand for hazardous waste management services is rela-
tively inelastic while the supply of additional ulti-
mate capacity may be scarce. Process changes and waste
reduction may be possible for some generators but demand
has not been very pricer-sensitive.1 Small and medium- ;
sized firms may not have the economies of scale to warrant
major investment in disposal facilities and alternative.
off-site facilities may be limited in their geographic '.
region.
(3) The Industry Utilizes Six Basic Types of
Treatment/Disposal Practice's
The six major types of treatment/disposal options
generally offered by the industry include:
Chemical treatment includes chemical, physical,
and biological processes designed to either
transform the hazardous waste into a non- ;
hazardous material and/or reduce the volume of i
hazardous waste needing ultimate disposal.
Resource recovery includes processes that are
generally closely related to chemical treat-
ment techniques but distinguished in that the
waste is partially transformed into a saleable '••
raw material and"anonhazardous waste.
Incineration involves thermal degradation of
solids, liquids, or gases to yield carbon
dioxide, water vapor, and inert ash as the
primary outputs.
Deep-well injection entails the pumping of
liquid waste into underground porous formations
isolated from potable water and mineral-bearing.
structures. Off-site services are only :
offered in Regions V and VI.
The finding stems from interviews conducted by Booz, Allen with
waste generating firms in the Delaware River Basin as part of a
study for the Delaware River Basin Commission.
V-8
-------
Secure landfills includes land burial operations
which have barriers, usually clay lined or
synthetic liners, and leachate collection and
monitoring systems. These facilities planned on
complying with the ISS standards of RCRA. A few
landfill operations interviewed did not currently
have leachate collection or monitoring in place,
but had plans to install them as required under
RCRA.
Land treatment/solar evaporation is a form 'of
biological treatment through soil incorporation.
Typically, organic wastes are applied onto or
beneath the soil and periodically mixed to aid ,
in aerobic decomposition of the organic material.
In this study, land treatment includes solar
evaporation and ponding operations. This combina-
tion of treatment options was necessary because
material that is land treated is often the
residual of prior solar evaporation. Because
these treatment methods may be considered subsets
of one process, they have been .combined into
one category.
Appendix G presents further details on the six major types
of hazardous waste management practices. Associated
services such as hauling, sampling, and laboratory
analysis are not included in this study.
2. IN JUNE, 1980, 93 ORGANIZATIONS OPERATE 127 HAZARDOUS
WASTE FACILITIES, WITH MOST OF THEM LOCATED IN EPA
REGIONS V, VI AND IX
The number and types of facilities vary greatly among EPA
regions, with EPA Regions V, VI, and IX accounting for 72 of
the total 127 or 57 percent of all facilities. Exhibit V-3
lists the identified participants by EPA region and Exhibit V-4
shows the geographic location of the facilities.1 No facilities
in RecrionVTII2 were identified as currently accepting hazardous
Two facilities have closed subsequent to this analysis. Data
for these facilities are included in the estimates presented,
but since they were both small facilities, they do not signif-
icantly affect the volumes and capacity estimates presented.
The contractor estimates they contributed to less than 1 per-
cent of the volumes and capacity reported here.
Based on an interview with EPA Region VIII, there may be some
facilities currently handling waste which may be classified as
hazardous under RCRA.. It could not be determined whether these
facilities would meet the RCRA requirements during this year.
V-9
-------
EXHIBIT V-3(1)
Hazardous Waste Management
Industry Facilities, Listed Alphabetically
by State Within Each EPA Region
June 1980
Company
Location
Region I
Solvent Recovery Services of New England Southington, CT
Liqwacon, Division of Yarway-^
Environmental Waste Removal
sea1
Cannon Engineering
Suffolk Services
Union Chemical Corporation
Landfill and Resource Recovery
Region II
Scientific Chemical Processing
Solvent Recovery Service
Rollins Environmental Services
Marisol Inc.
SCA1
Modern Transportation
National Converters
Chemical Waste Disposal Corp.
Chemical Pollution Control Inc.
CECOS International, Inc.
Frontier Chemical
Thomaston, CT
Waterbury, CT
Braintree, MA
Bridgewater, MA
Boston, MA
Union, ME
North Smithfield, RI
Carlstadt, NJ
Linden, NJ
Logan, NJ
Middlesex, NJ
Newark, NJ
S. Kearny, NJ
Union, NJ
Astoria, NY
Bay Shore, NY
Niagara Falls, NY
Niagara Falls, NY
V-10
-------
EXHIBIT V-3(2)
SCA
Haz-o-Waste Corp.
Region II (Continued)
Model City, NY
Wampsville, NY
Region III
American Recovery Corp.
BFI
American Recovery Corp.
Chem Clear
IU Conversion
Reclamation Resources
IU Conversion
U.S. Utilities
Industrial Waste
Liqwacon, Division of Yarway
Liquid Waste Disposal
Chemical Waste Management
Region IV
Southeastern Waste Treatment Inc.
SCA
Roebuck Systems
Caldwell Systems
LWD, Inc.1
Liquid Waste Disposal Inc.
Systech Waste
Baltimore, MD
Baltimore, MD
Sparrows Point, MD
Chester, PA
Honeybrook, PA
Lansdale, PA
Marcus Hook, PA
Monro evi11e, PA
New Brighton, PA
York, PA
Richmond, VA
Emelle, AL
Dalton, GA
Pinewood, SC
Roebuck, SC
Lenoir, NC
Calvert City, KY
Louisville, KY
Antioch, TN
V-ll
-------
EXHIBIT V-3(3)
Solid Liquid Waste Disposal
Environmental Systems
Industrial Liquids Recycling '
Chem Fuel
Region IV (Continued)
1
Dyersburg, TN
Memphis, TN
Mt. Pleasant, TN
Portland, TN
Region V
Envirotherm
Chemical Waste Management
EWR, Inc.
Tenco Hydro
Beaver Oil & Sludge
BFI1
Clayton Chemical
Trade Waste Incineration
Nuclear Engineering Co. Inc.
BFI1
Adams Sanitary Landfill
ILWD, Inc.
K.A. Steel1
American Chemical Service
By-Products Management
Four County Landfill
Prenco
Envirochem
Wayne Disposal Inc.l
Nelson Chemicals1
Environmental Waste Control1
Chicago, IL
Calumet City, IL
Coal City, IL
Countryside, IL
Hodgkins, IL
Rockford, IL•
Sauget, IL
Sauget, IL
Sheffield, IL
Waukeegan, IL
Ft. Wayne, IN
Indianapolis, IN
Gary, IN
Griffith, IN
Shererville, IN
Silver Lake, IN
South Bend, IN
Zionsville, IN
Belleville, MI
Detriot, MI
Inkster,' MI
V-12
-------
EXHIBIT V-3(4)
Region V (Continued)
Systems Technology
A-l Disposal
Liquid Disposal
Chem Met Services
Koski Construction
Erieway Pollution Control
Chemical Waste Management
Systems Technology Corp.
Chemical Waste Management
Chemline Corp.
CECOS of Ohio, Inc.
Hydrite
Waste Research & Reclamation
Chemical Waste Management
Rogers Lab
Land Reclamation LTD
Region VI
Ensco
Rollins Environmental Services
BFI1
BFI
Rollins Environmental Services
Chemical Waste Management
Royal Hardage
Muskegan, MI
Plainwell, MI
Utica, MI
Wyandotte, MI
Ashtabula, OH
Bedford, OH
Dayton, OH
Franklin, OH
Fremont, OH
Lisbon, OH
Williamsburg, OH
Cottage Grove, WI
t
Eau Claire, WI
Menomonee Falls, WI
Milwaukee, WI
Racine, WI
El Dorado, AR
Baton Rouge, LA
Lake Charles, LA
Livingston, LA
Plaquemine, LA
Sulphur, LA
Lindsay, OK
V-13
-------
EXHIBIT V-3(5)
Region VI (Continued)
C. J. Lambertson
U.S. Pollution Control
Chemiqal Waste Management
Sonics International
Sheridan, Disposal
BFI
1,5
Ocean Combustion Service, Inc.
(M.S. Vulcanus) '
Rollins Environmental Services
BFI"
Chemical Waste Management
BFI'
Texas Ecologists, Inc.
Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority
Malone Service
Tulsa, OK
Tulsa, OK
Corpus Christi, TX
Dallas, TX
Hempstead, TX
Houston, TX
Houston, TX
Houston, TX
Odessa, TX
Port Arthur, TX
Ranger, TX
Robstown, TX
Texas City, TX
Texas City, TX
Region VII
Kansas Industrial Environmental Services Wichita, KS
1
Wheeling Disposal Service"
BFI1
Bob's Home Service
Region IX
1
Environmental Protection Corporation
1
IT Corp.
Chemical Waste Management
Andrew'City, MO
Missouri City, MO
Wright City, MO
Bakersfield, CA
Benecia, CA
Coalinga, CA
V-14
-------
Fresno County Department of Public
Works '
IT Corp.'
EXHIBIT V-3(6)
Region IX (Continued)
Fresno, CA
IT Corp.
San Diego County Site
1,3
Casmalia Disposal Site
Richmond Sanitary Service'
3,4
Palos Verdes"
3,4
Calabasas Landfill"
Los Angeles County Sanitation District
BKK Corp.
4
Ventura Regional County Sanitation
District
Nuclear Engineering Co., Inc.
WES-CON
Chem Nuclear
Caran Chemical
Speede-way
Van Waters and Rodgers
Western Processing
Chemical Processors
Region X
Martinez, CA
Montezuma, CA
San Diego, CA
Santa Barbara, CA
Richmond, CA
Whittier, CA
Whittier, CA
Wilmington, CA
Ventura, CA
Beatty, NV
Grandview, ID
Arlington, OR
Manmouth, OR
Portland, OR
Portland, OR
Kent, WA
Seattle, WA
1 Companies for which interviews were completed.
2 Incineration ship whose general agent and major U.S. port are
located in Houston, TX.
3 Publicly owned facilities.
4 Data obtained from California Water Quality Control Boards.
5 Site has subsequently closed.
Source: Booz, Allen & Hamilton Inc.
V-15
-------
I
H
CT>
EXHIBIT V-4
Geographical Locations of all Identified Commercial
Hazardous Waste Management Facilities
June 1980
-'•For purposes of this study, the industry includes all facilities engaged
in the treatment and disposal of hazardous waste for a fee, but does not
include solvent buying, selling, or recovery operations or storage'and
transfer stations that may be handling wastes classified as hazardous.
Source: Booz, Allen & Hamilton Inc.
-------
waste for treatment or disposal although one full-service
facility is being developed in Denver, Colorado. The types
and number of facilities in each region are closely related
to the industrial bases of the regions. Exhibit V-5 displays
the number of facilities offering specific hazardous waste
services by EPA region.
3. IN 1980, THE INDUSTRY WILL TREAT AND DISPOSE OF
APPROXIMATELY 7 MILLION WET METRIC TONS OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE, WITH 69 PERCENT OF THE WASTES BEING CHEMICALLY
TREATED OR LANDFILLED
The hazardous waste management industry treated and
disposed of 7 million WMT .of waste for its customers. This
figure represents the amount of waste that will be treated
and disposed in 1980 by commercial waste management firms
utilizing the six major waste management treatment/disposal
methods. A total of 7.2 million WMT of wastes will actually
be processed because some wastes will require treatment by
two waste management options.
Exhibit V-6 shows the amounts processed by each waste
management option. These amounts include data reported by
firms interviewed during the study and estimates by Booz,
Allen for those firms which did not report data. As shown
in-Exhibit V-7, 88 percent of national volume was reported
and 12 percent estimated.
Reported data were obtained for.90 of "the 127 known
facilities. Current volumes for the other facilities were
estimated by Booz, Allen based on volumes of similar types
of facilities in the same geographic region. The methodology
used for estimating current volumes for firms that did not
respond is presented in Appendix F. The percentage of data
that had to be estimated also varied by region. Exhibit V-8
presents the volume imputed and reported for each waste
management option by regi'on. Because some firms reported
data only on a national basis, this data had to be allocated
to specific facilities using a technique similar to that used
for nonresponse firms (i.e.> based on similar type facilities
in the same region). Therefore, some of the data shown as
reported on a national basis appears as estimated on a regional
basis. The 1980 volume of hazardous waste processed by each
waste management option is discussed below.
(1) Chemical Treatment
Chemical, biological, and physical treatment
(commonly referred to as chemical treatment) accounts
for about one-third of the total hazardous waste
processed by the industry. However, some fraction
V-17
-------
EXHIBIT V-5
Number of Commercial Facilities Offering
Specific Hazardous Waste
Management Options
June 1980
Type of Treatment/Disposal Practice*
EPA
Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
< VII
£ vin
IX
X
TOTAL
U.S.
Landfill
1
2
3
2
11
10
3 .
**
10
2
44
Land treat-
ment/Solar
evaporation
0
0
0
1
0
3
0
0
6
_^L -
11
Incineration
3
1
1
7
6
6
0
0
1
0
25 '
Chemical
Treatment
3
8
8
4
16
3
1
0
2
2
47
Resource
Recovery
5
8
2
2
10
0
1
0
'-. 0
_5
33
Deep-Well
Injection
0
0
0
0
1
8
0
0
0
0
9
Total No.
of '
Facilities
8
13
11
12
37
21
4
**
14
_7_
127
* The sum of these numbers are greater than the total number of facilities because
.more than one treatment/disposal option may be available at a facility;
** Based on an interview with EPA Region VIII, some sanitary landfills may currently
be handling hazardous waste. As in other Regions these facilities are not included
-in ±he reported" data in this study. .--....- - ........... :- --
Source: Booz, Allen &-Hamilton Inc.
-------
EXHIBIT V-6
Estimated Hazardous Waste Volumes Treated/Disposed by Commercial
Off-Site Facilities by Waste Management Options
1980
(Millions of Wet Metric Tons)
INCINERATOR1
0.40
RESOURCE1
RECOVERY
0.42
DEEP WELL
INJECTION
0.79
\ND TREATMENT/
)LAR EVAPORATION
0.54
CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL
AND PHYSICAL TREATMENT
2.35 - TOTAL TREATED
2.12 • NET TREATED
SECURE LANDFILL FOR
CHEMICAL TREATMENT
WASTES (OVERLAP)
0.23
TOTAL
SECURE
LANDFILL
2.70
TOTAL WASTE VOLUME = 7.19
(INCLUDES LANDFILL/CHEMICAL
TREATMENT OVERLAP)
NOTE: DETAIL MAY NOT ADD TO TOTAL BECAUSE OF ROUNDING.
JOURCE: BOOZ- ALLEN & HAMILTON Inc.
MAY HAVE SOME RESIDUAL THAT MUST BE TREATED BY OTHER OPTIONS. THIS RESIDUAL IS BELIEVED TO BE
SMALL AND HAS NOT BEEN SUBTRACTED OUT OF OTHER WASTE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS.
V-19
-------
EXHIBIT V-7
Comparison of Reported and Imputed 1980 Commercial
Off-Site Volumes By Waste Management Option
(Thousand Wet Metric Tons)
Landfill
Land treatment/
Solar evaporation
Incineratio n
Chemical Treatment
Resource Recovery
Deep-Well Injection
Total U.S.
Percentage
1980
Volume
Reported
2,579
1980
Volume
Imputed
120
Total
1980
Volume
2,699
1,
6,
460
351
859
323
768
340
88%
77
47
487
101
20
852
12%
537;
398
2,346
424
788
7,192,
100%:
1 Includes all data reported on a national basis.
2 These are gross volumes and do include the 10 percent of wastes
that will require further treatment or disposal.
Source: Booz, Allen & Hamilton Inc.
V-20
-------
EXHIBIT V-8
Comparison of Reported and Imputed Commercial 1980 Off-Site Volumes
on a Regional Basis by Waste Management Option*
(Thousand Wet Metric Tons)
l:f'A
Landfill
Regjon
I
II
IT I
IV
V
vi •
via
VII I
IX
X
Reported
r.
375
170
100
335
478
02
** *
758
')
l.ind treatment/
Solar Evaporation
Incineration
Imputed Reported Imputed Reported Impu ted Reported
1.26
15
172
H4
50
118
82**
27
75
23
26
48
43
72
98
40
22
25'
C'lu.'niica 1
Treatment
tepor ted Imputed
58 = 23
596 23
411 56
72 85
156 330
146 ->
'" 36
Resource Deep Well Total Rrxjion.il
Recovery Iniection 1980 Volume
Reported
'l2
110
51
22
122
-
-
Imputed Reported - Imputed Reported
23 - - - 99
25 - - J.I 07
- - - 680
237
48 ' , - 152 665
7 / '362 273- 1,119
3 - - 98
Imputed
46
48
56
2 ,t 3 * *
570
527**
,i
254
6
40
1,350
- 20
.IH4
*
**
Reported data includes only firms reporting data on a regional basis.
Volume data from Region IV combined with-Region VI to prevent disclosure ~
of confidential data in Region IV.
*** Although some landfills in the regions may handle hazardous waste, it could
not be determined if these facilities plan to meet RCRA requirements.
Note: Detail may not add to total because of 'rounding
Source:- Booz, Allen & Hamilton Inc. ' •'-
-------
of the 2.3 million WMT processed by this waste manage-
ment option will require landfilling or incineration.
According to our interviews, this residual is usually
landfilled and varies between 5 and 15 percent of the
total volume chemically treated. An average value of
10 percent was assumed for this study. Therefore, the
amount of generated waste ultimately disposed of by
treatment processes is estimated to be 2.1 million WMT.
Wastewater and acids comprise about 50 percent
of the material processed by chemical treatment.
Approximately 20 percent of material chemically
treated are alkalines. The remaining 30 percent con-
sist of oily waste and sludges. Chemical treatment
services are used by a wide variety of industries
including:
Metal finishing
Steel
Textiles
Refineries
Petrochemical
Pharmaceutical
Automobile.
(2) Secure Landfills
In 1980, secure landfills are estimated to be
used to dispose of approximately 2.7 million WMT of
hazardous waste, 39 percent of the current industry's
volume. This estimate also includes a small amount
of material codisposed in landfills which also accept
nonhazardous waste. Currently, landfills are used to
dispose of a wide variety of waste because of their
low cost and general applicability.
(3) Land Treatment/Solar Evaporation
Land treatment and solar evaporation are two
closely related processes which have been used ex-
tensively in California and Texas to treat and dispose
of oil production-related wastes such as brines and
rotary muds. Although these wastes have not been
designated as hazardous under the RCRA regulations,
this process can also be used for some hazardous wastes,
For example, ponds can be used for physical separation
and dewatering and then sludges can be applied to the
land for biodegration. An estimated 0.54 million WMT
of hazardous waste will be disposed of through solar
evaporation and land treatment in 1980.
V-22
-------
4.
(4) Deep-well Injection
Deep-well injection will account for 11 percent,
or .79 million WMT of hazardous waste material processed.
This option can handle most types of aqueous, wastes
except chlorinated hydrocarbons. It is the least ex-
pensive form of disposal but only practiced in limited
geographic areas. Commercial deep-well disposal services
are only currently available in EPA Regions V and VI.
Deep-well injection is used by a broad variety of
industries in these regions especially refineries and
the petrochemical industry.
(5) Incineration
Incineration of hazardous waste will account for
6 percent of the total industry volume. The estimated
0.4 million WMT processed includes incineration at 7
large high-temperature incinerators and 18 smaller
units. The majority of the estimated waste volumes
incinerated are autogenous materials such as solvents
and oily wastes but sludges and non-autogenous solids
are also incinerated. Incineration services are also
used by a wide variety of industries. Petrochemical
and pesticide manufacturers account for a large portion
of the hazardous waste incinerated.
(6) Resource Recovery
The majority of resource recovery operations in-
volve the recovery of solvents through distillation
techniques. Other wastes may also be recovered if
they have a high Btu content or contain valuable metals.
The facilities which qualify within the scope of this
study processed 0.4 million WMT of hazardous material.
As noted earlier in this chapter, not all of the re-
source recovery operations in the United States are
included in this study.
STORAGE CAPACITY IS ESTIMATED TO BE 5'TO 10 PERCENT
OF 1980 VOLUMES PROCESSED BY THE INDUSTRY
The U.S. commercial capacity to store hazardous
materials prior to processing is estimated to be between
350,000 and 700,000 WMT in 1980.1 The current U.S. storage
capacity is estimated to be equivalent to 5 to 10 percent
(or 15 to 30 days) of the 1980 estimated volume processed
in all the waste management options except landfill.
For firms in this study; brokerage facilities are not considered.
V-23
-------
The majority of material is stored aboveground in
metal or concrete tanks and all are bermed. Lagoons or
ponds were not identified as a major source of storage
capacity by the hazardous waste management industry. Solar
evaporation ponds are used as a treatment/disposal option
and have been included in the land treatment category.
5. VOLUMES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE BEING MANAGED IN 1980
VARY- GREATLY AMONG EPA REGIONS WITH 44 PERCENT
BEING HANDLED IN REGIONS VI AND IX ALONE
The variation in volumes of.hazardous waste managed
among EPA regions is displayed in Exhibit V-9.
Region VI will treat and dispose of more hazardous :
waste via landfill and deep-well injection than any other
EPA region. Of the 1.65 million WMT that will be processed
(representing 23 percent of the U.S. total), 78 percent will
be handled by landfill and deep-well injection. These two
waste management options predominate partly because the
facilities in Region VI service large amounts of waste from
the petroleum and chemical industries.
In Region IX, the second largest region in volume
processed, the majority of the waste will be processed ;
through landfill and land treatment/solar evaporation.
These waste management options will account for 78 percent
of the estimated total'regional 1.6 million WMT processed. '-
Land treatment/solar evaporation is geographically con-
centrated in Region IX because the climate is conducive to
high net evaporative rates. The land treatment waste streams
accounted for in this study exclude large volumes of drilling
muds and oil field brines, which have been excluded from :
regulation under RCRA.
Regions II and V also process significant amounts of
hazardous wastes at off-site waste management facilities.
These highly industrialized regions generate large amounts
of wastewaters, contaminated solvents, and processed sludges
which are processed by chemical, physical, and biological ;
treatment.
6. CURRENTLY, ON A NATIONAL BASIS THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL
UNUSED CAPACITY AMONG ALL TYPES OF WASTE MANAGEMENT '•
OPTIONS i
Exhibit V-10 shows the capacity for each waste management
option as well as the current capacity utilization. The
V-24
-------
EXHIBIT V-9
1980 Estimated Volume of Hazardous Waste Material
Processed by Commercial Off-Site Facilities by Waste
Management Option in the U.S. EPA Regions
(Thousand Wet Metric Tons)
KI'A
Region
I
£1
III
IV
V
VI
< VII
s
IX
X
Landfill •
6
375
170
226
330
650
62
***
822
5')
lianci treat-
ment/Solar
evaporation
'
- .•
. - -
**
"
117**
:
345
75
Incineration
23
26
48
65
97
98
-
40
_
Chemical*
Treatment
81
619
467
157
486
- 146
36
294
62
Resource Deep Well
Recovery Injection
35
135
51
22
170 152
" - 635
3
-
8-
_
Total
Region
145
1,155
736
470**
1,235
1,646**
101
***
1 , 501
204
TOTAL
2,699
537
398
2,346
424
788
7,192
* These are gross volumes and include 10 percent that will require further
treatment ' . - . •
** Volume data from Region IV is included in Region VI to prevent disclosure
of confidential data.
*** Although some, landfills in the regions may handle hazardous was'te, it could
not be determined if these facilities plan to meet RCRA requirements.
Note: Detail may not add to total because of rounding.
Source: Booz, Allen & Hamilton Inc.
-------
'EXHIBIT v-io
1980 Total; Capacity
for Waste Management Options
Waste Management Option
Land treatment/Solar evaporation
Incineration
Chemical Treatment^
Resource Recovery
Deep-Well Injection'3
Subtotal
Landfill (lifetime)
Total, all waste management options
Capacity
(Thousand
Wet Metric
Tons)
2,437
670
"3,921
1,069
:4,657
Current
Utilization
(Percent of
Capacity)
22
59
542 *
40
17 .
12,754
27,604
40,358
10.2 years
2
3
Note:
..Since there is an estimated 10 percent overlap between capacity to
chemically treat and landfill material, the total capacity reported
here represents capacity less overlap.
Chemical treatment utilization computed on gross capacity of 4,357 WMT.
Although size of reservoir is many times larger, other factors such as
unloading, incoming trucks, filtration and pumping dilution water may
make it difficult to exceed 50 percent of the pumping rate according to
facility operators. Capacity is based on 50 percent of pumping capacity
or current utilization rate, whichever is highest.
Accuracy of capacity estimates is judged to be ± 24 percent.
Source: Booz, Allen & Hamilton Inc.
V-26
-------
capacity represents the maximum utilization rate of the
technical capabilities of the physical plant1 except land-
fill which represents the "permitted" capacity. Capacity
is measured on an annual basis for all options except land-
fills where the only logical measure is a lifetime capacity.
Landfill capacity reported is end of year 1980 capacity.
Exhibit V-ll presents estimates of total annual capacity
under several alternative scenarios of landfill utilization.
As the exhibit shows, annual capacity could vary from 15.5
to 22.0 million WMT depending on the assumption used for
landfill utilization. Five years is used for this analy-
sis because it represents a reasonable maximum utilization
for landfills according to landfill operators.
Most facilities reported capacity data on an annual
basis. In a few cases where capacity data was reported on
other bases, the EPA contractor assumed that these facilities
could operate in a similar manner for which data was reported.
It was assumed that incinerators could operate 75 percent of
the time, 365 days per year, 3 shifts per day. For other
waste management options capacity was assumed to be based
upon 300 days per year, one shift per day. Although some
management options such as chemical treatment equipment
may be capable of operating more than 8 hours a day, other
factors such as effluent limitations, handling and unloading
facilities, and permit restrictions can restrict operation
to 8 hours per day.
As discussed in Chapter IV of this report, capacity
estimates are judged to be within +_ 24 percent of true
capacity. This is based on the assumption that reported
data for capacity represents 93 percent of the 1980 capacity
data base. Exhibit V-12 shows the capacity reported and
imputed for each waste management option and Exhibit V-13
presents the same information on a regional basis. The
methodology for estimating capacity data for nonrespondent
facilities is presented in Appendix F. It is important to
Maximum rate of utilization.includes expansion of operating
hours, additional labor, additional equipment, and land usage
against technical constraints.
V-27
-------
EXHIBIT V-ll
Total 1980 Annual Capacity of the Hazardous
Waste Management Industry Under Differing
Landfill Utilization Rate Assumptions
(Thousand Wet Metric Tons)
Annual Fixed Capacity of Five
Waste Management Options Annual Capacity Rate
Land treatment/solar evaporation 2,437
Incineration 670
Chemical Treatment-^- 3,921
Resource Recovery 1,069
Deep-well Injection2 4,657
Subtotal . 12,754
Variable Annual Capacity of Landfills
Landfill Utilization at Highest of Current
Regional Utilization Rate or:
3-year lifetime 9,204
Total 1 21,958
5-year lifetime 5,675
Total 2 18,429
10-year lifetime 3,461
Total 3 16,215
20-year lifetime 2,758-
Total 4 . 15,512
1 Chemical treatment shown net of overlap. • . . •
2 Based on 50 percent of pumping capacity or current utilization
rate whichever is highest.
Note: Detail may not add to total because of rounding.
V-28
-------
EXHIBIT V-12 • •
Comparison of Reported and Imputed 1980 U.S.
Capacity of Hazardous Waste Management Industry
by Waste Management Option
(Thousand Wet Metric Tons)
Land Treatment/Solar
Evaporation
Incineration
Chemical Treatment
Resource Recovery
o
Deep-Well Injection
Subtotal
Landfill (lifetime)3
1980
Capacity
Reported
2,297
1980
Capacity
Imputed
140
Total
1980
Capacity
2,437
594
3,107
823
4,545
11,366
26,112
76
814
246
112
1,388
1,492
670
3,921
1,069
4,657
12,754
27,604
1 Since there is an estimated 10 percent overlap between
industry capacity to chemically treat and landfill material,
the total capacity reported here represents capacity less
overlap.
2 Based on 50 percent of pumping capacity or current utilization,
whichever is highest.
3 Lifetime capacity at• end of 1980.
Note: Detail may not add to total because of rounding.
Source: Booz, Allen & Hamilton Inc.
V-29
-------
EXHIBIT V-13
on f Rep°fted and ^puted Commercial Offi-site
on a Regional Basis by Waste Management Option^^980
(Thousand Wet Metric Tons)
i..,i,,ui 1
El',1
Ku.jU.n
1
11
III
iV
V
f V1
0 vu
Vlll
IX
X
(li tutjniu i-.i[.oi-ity
K.-1-.illi.-d
10
1,120
1 , I'M
1 , 500- ..
1.7U3
4,7ju
730
-
•l.buu :'
,bn
•it end
Imputi
-
-
-
4.1UO
ISO
5,565
-
-
'797.
500
I.jnd Ti i;.iliu^nL Incineration
'23
-13
j ;
- - 131
*" - 44 30
U2 52
UiuniJcul*
T re.it Ilittlll
Kuj-.rtud r.
53
1 , 1UO
521)
160
423'
ffiMt^
40
41
102
153
592
Hacovory " In].:..t.u.n
!«:!«". led liiipntud iu-i./i t..-d rnii.uu:
.36 60
461 49
51
43 - -
227 125 - 1-lb
2115
5
i.'d[uqity djta" fri,ii, ,m ., it.yU.,lU] L.^ja.
Ud'lu put^nt ovrla l,,.w.un industry ^|ul:
Ury uajuiiity tu UiuinUally liuul jnii ].,n.|l]Il uuiu-u^l,
m-hugion VI to prevent disclosing confident i'jl data on K^.jloi, IV
.
tr.-dted in«e,,l,...l l,.;>., i.,,|.r .^ut-, UK. c:apai:i ty less ovurldf..
n IV js coniljjMed witt daL
b^CJUb^ Ot ruUII'ijlltJ
'
-------
understand that, although unused capacity is available at the
national level, capacity may not always be transferable between
regions for several reasons:
Waste streams may not always be compatible with all
treatment or disposal options. All options have
some limitations on the types of wastes which can
be handled, although landfill and chemical treatment
appear to be extremely flexible.
Transportation costs may preclude shipping wastes
long distances.
The capacity estimates for each waste management option are
discussed below. It is also important to understand that
capacity in a region may not always be compatible with all
types of wastes produced in that region. Facility operators
may refuse certain types of wastes. Often the wastes excluded
are explosives, radioactive wastes, pesticides, cyanide wastes,
and PCBs.
(1) Landfill
For 1980, the landfill capacity of 27.6 million WMT
includes only that acreage in existing landfills which is
permitted during the.year. Since the permitting process
varies from one region of the country to another, a small
capacity in a region may not necessarily imply that short-
falls will be present in the future. Some firms included
in this study reported having large amounts of adjacent
land which may or may not be permittable. One national
landfill operator reported that the regional variation in
permitting procedures are related to the geology within a
region. For example, California tends to permit large
tracts of land for landfills. This is because the geology
of the area is very similar. On the other hand, New York
permits only small tracts of land reflecting that the
geologic makeup of the land may vary significantly over
relatively small areas. If current utilization rates
continue, permitted landfill capacity on a national basis
has an expected lifetime of 10 years. However, the future
utilization rate of landfills is a critical uncertainty to
the estimates of future capacity. Landfill operators
interviewed were not sure what the influence of RCRA
would be on the demand for their services. They also felt
that the rate at which they would utilize their existing
landfills would depend on their ability to site new land-
fills. There is also some difference of opinion among
the firms owning landfills as to the optimal rate of utiliza-
tion. Some firms plan to be very conservative in their
V-31
-------
use of landfills, perhaps limiting them to the residual
from their chemical treatment operations. Other firms
will be_fairly liberal in their use of capacity perhaps
reflecting cash flow requirements or optimistic expecta-
tions for siting of new landfill capacity.
(2) Deep-Well Injection
The annual capacity of 4.7 million WMT shown in
Exhibit V-10 is based on 50 percent of pumping capacity
or the current volumes injected, whichever is highest.
Although the capacity of the reservoirs into which the ,
wastes are injected is many times larger, other factors
such^as unloading, filtration, and dilution1 may make it
difficult to exceed 50 percent of the pumping rate
according to some facility operators. Commercial deep
wells currently are only available in EPA Regions V and,
VI. The current capacity utilization rate is only
17 percent.
(3) Land Treatment/Solar Evaporation
The 1980 capacity for land treatment/solar evapora-
tion is approximately 2.4 million WMT and is based on
the currently permitted capacity. Although 2.4 million
WMT of capacity are available, land treatment/solar
evaporation is also used extensively for nonhazardous
waste disposal such as oil field brines and drilling
muds. Annual capacity of land treatment/solar evapora-
tion is dependent on both the net evaporation during the
year and the maximum amount of waste that can biodegrade
in the acreage available.
(4) Chemical Treatment '.
The amount of ultimate chemical treatment capacity
available in 1980 is 4.4 million WMT. However, it is
estimated that approximately 10 percent2 of the volumes
handled through chemical, physical, and biological
According to one operator, the volume actually deep-well injected !
may be 30 to 50 percent greater than volume received because of ... :
dilution from rainwater and drainage. ;
Actual volumes of hazardous waste from chemical treatment operations
that were disposed in landfills or by incineration varied between ;
5 and 15 percent of waste process using chemical treatment. Based i
on this data, it was assumed that 10 percent of chemical treatment
volumes would be ultimately disposed in landfills.
V-32
-------
7.
treatment must be subsequently treated by other hazardous
waste treatment options prior to ultimate disposal. There-
fore, the chemical treatment capacity that represents ulti-
mate disposal capabilities is estimated to be 3.9 million
metric tons. Much of the chemical treatment capacity re-
ported is flexible in that various waste streams could be
treated; This is especially true of those facilities using
batch processes.
(5) Resource Recovery
The current capacity of resource recovery processes
at hazardous waste management facilities is approximately
1.1 million WMT. The utilization rate for resource re-
covery equipment was generally between 30 and 50 percent
•of capacity. Data were obtained for resource recovery only
if other hazardous waste treatment options were performed
at a site. Therefore, the capacity available at other
facilities not covered in the scope of this study is not
included and may be significant in terms of total resource
recovery capacity, although not significant considering all
six available waste management options.
(6) Incineration
The incineration capacity of the hazardous waste
management industry in 1980 is estimated to be 0.67 million
WMT. Included in this number are incinerators with and
without scrubbers. The current capacity utilization rate
is 59 percent, but many incinerators were operating at. near
capacity especially those able to handle chlorinated
hydrocarbons.
TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL CAPACITY IS CONCENTRATED BY
GEOGRAPHIC REGION
Hazardous waste management capacity is concentrated in
EPA Regions II, III, IV, V, VI, and IX, which parallels indus-
trial concentration in general. Exhibit V-14 shows the capac-
ities by region and waste management option.
Region VI has the major concentration of deep-well injection
capacity because it is best suited geologically for this type of
hazardous waste disposal.
Region IX has the largest concentration of land treatment
capacity in the United States. It contains 54 percent of the-
U.S. land treatment capacity. However,.the capacity likely to
be utilized is restricted by type of materials that can be
processed.
V-33
-------
EXHIBIT V-14
Estimated Capacity of Off-Site Hazardous Waste
Management Industry by Waste Management Option 1980
(Thousand Wet Metric Tons)
Region Landfill*
I
II
III
IV
V
< VI
U)
*• VII
VIII
IX
X
10
1,120
1,990
5,680
1,933
10,295
730
-
5,297
550
TOTAL 27,604
*
**
***
****
Land
'.Treatment
-
-
-
****
-
Incineration
23
33
131
74
:134
1,022**** _ 230
-
1,325
90
2,437
Lifetime capacity at end of
Since there is an estimated
.material, the total capacity
overlap.
.Assumes 5-year lifetime for
Capacity data from Region IV
in Region IV. ,_ \ '.'-'
-
45
_
Chemical
Treatment**
93
1,221
622
313
1,015
154
66
330
107
Resource Deep-Well
Recovery Injection
96
510 -
51
43
352 " 145
4,512
6 -
-
= -
11 !
Annual
Total***
218
2,139
1,202
****
1,566
2,028
7,981****
218
-
2,759
318 "
670 3,921 1,069 4,657 18,429
1980.
10% overlap between industry capacity to chemically treat and landfill
presented here that is chemically treated represents the capacity less
i • -: •
landfills or, current utilization rate, whichever is highest.
is[ combined ?with Region -. VI to prevent disclosure of confidential data
Note: Detail may not addlr to total liecause of rounding.
':: . :-"."- T . 3" ' : : ' J - i
Source: Booz, A3 len & Hamilton Inc.: ,;_ ; • ,
-------
Regions VI, IV, and IX collectively represent over 75
percent of the permitted lifetime capacity for landfills.
Natural geological formations and the corresponding permitting
process in these regions may be the major reasons capacity has
developed in past periods.
Very little secure landfill capacity was identified in
Region I. There was no hazardous waste management capacity
identified in Region VIII, although some sanitary landfills
may currently be handling hazardous wastes.
8. PRICES FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE SERVICE DEPEND ON A NUMBER
OF FACTORS INCLUDING METHOD OF TREATMENT OR DISPOSAL
AND WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
According to facility operators, the factors that determine
the price to be charged by the industry for handling and process-
ing hazardous waste materials include:
Type of disposal technique
Waste characteristics :
Degree of hazard
Demand for services.
Exhibit V-15 shows actual reported prices 'for treatment
and disposal of various materials by waste management option.
The price for disposal is a function of the characteristic of
the waste material and the risks associated with handling these
materials. The less toxic, easy-to-handle materials are less
expensive to dispose of. The more toxic material requiring
extra handling precautions are more expensive to dispose of and
may command premium prices. Generally, land treatment and deep-
well injection are the least expensive, and incineration, the
most expensive. The prices charged did not vary significantly
for each of the hazardous waste management options between
regions. However, the overall price of disposal does vary
significantly by region due to the different mix of methods used.
For example, treatment and disposal for a particular waste stream
may be less expensive in California than in the Northeast because
land treatment/solar evaporation, a relatively inexpensive option,
could be used. The prices presented in Exhibit V-15 are exclusive
of transporation costs.
Exhibit V-16 shows three alternative rules-of thumb used
by the industry to price transportation. Transportation costs may
represent 20 percent to 80 percent of the total costs of off-site
disposal depending on the method of hauling and distance shipped.
Unit costs may be higher for generators of volumes less than a
full transport load unless the hauler can make up a full load by
picking up waste from nearby generators or by utilizing transfer
stations.
V-35
-------
EXHIBIT V-15
Repotted Prices for Hazardous Waste
Management Services
1980
Price
Waste Management Option
Landfill1
Wastes which are not acutely
hazardous, including sludges
Highly toxic, explosives
or reactives
$/Metric Ton .
20-90
100-400
^/Gallon
8-34
38-152
Land treatment
5-25
2-9
Incineration
High BTU value, no acute
hazard
Highly toxic, heavy metals
50-300
300-1000
19-114
114-378
Chemical treatment >
Acids, alkalines
Cyanides, heavy metals,
highly toxics
15-80
'100-500
6-30
38-200
Resource recovery
50-200
19-80
Deep-well injection
Oily wastewaters
Dilute toxic rinse waters
15-40
50-100
6-15
19-38
1 By comparison, disposal in sanitary landfills generally costs
between $5 and $10 per ton.
Source: Booz, Allen & Hamilton Inc. "
V-36
-------
EXHIBIT V-16
Alternative Transportation Pricing
Rules of Thumb
Transportation^-
Pricing Method
Flat rate per hour
Price
$30 - $40
Flat rate per mile, round trip
$1.50 - $3.00
Fixed cost plus variable cost
(usually applied tp shorter trips)
$100 - $150 minimum charge
and $1.00 - $1.50 per mile
1 Based on standard load of 6,000 gallons for tank trucks and 80 drums
1 for flatbed trucks.
Note: These rules of thumb were obtained by Booz, Allen during the
interviews. Not all facility operators use these rules of thumb.
Source: Booz, Allen & Hamilton Inc.
V-37
-------
Most facilities interviewed did not charge for sampling
and testing or charged a minimal fee (less than $100) for :
an initial test and for new customers. However, with the
new manifest responsibilities under RCRA, more companies
expect to charge for sampling and testing.
This chapter has discussed the current volumes and
capacities of the hazardous waste management industry. .
Approximately 7.0 million WMT are expected to be treated/
disposed by the industry in 1980. Currently, on a national
basis, there is substantial unused capacity. The next ;
chapter presents the future capacity projections for 1981
and 1982.
V-38
-------
VI. FORECAST OF OFF-SITE HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT CAPACITY, 1981 AND 1982
This chapter presents a -forecast of capacity expansion
by the hazardous waste management industry. The industry
forecasts are based solely on the expansion plans of current
industry participants because it was found during the course
of this study that new participants (such as generators or
sanitary landfill operators) are not expected to have a
major impact on future off-site hazardous waste management
capacity during the 1981 and 1982 time frame. Capacity
expansion includes both additional capacity at existing sites
and new sites. It does not include ownership changes.
This chapter is organized to first discuss the factors
influencing future industry expansion plans and then present
the capacity forecasts for 1981 and 1982. The industry
forecasts are not projected beyond the 1982 time frame in
this chapter because very few of the industry participants
interviewed had specific expansion commitments beyond a
2-year time horizon. Forecasts to 1985 are included in
Appendix H.
1. PARTICIPANTS IN THE HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT INDUSTRY
CITED PUBLIC OPPOSITION TO SITING AS THE CRITICAL FACTOR
AFFECTING gXPAN'S'IONV ' NEW 'ENTRANTS' AND" EME'RGTNG
'TECHNOLOGIES ARE NOT EXPECTED TO INFLUENCE CAPACITY
SIGNIFICANTLY
Although many factors are seen as having an influence
on the future capacity of the hazardous waste management
industry, public opposition stood out as the most critical
factor. This section will discuss public opposition as well
as other factors which may influence the future capacity of
the industry.
(1) Public Opposition to Siting Waste Management
Facilities Was Almost Universally Cited as the
Most Important Factor Affecting the Industry' s"
Ability To Expand
In addition to thwarting many attempts at siting
new facilities,1 intense public opposition has forestalled
Examples of recent unsuccessful attempts include: (1) RLC Corpora-
tion's attempt to establish a secure landfill in North Carolina;
(2) SCA's attempt to develop a secure landfill on an operating con-
ventional landfill in Bordentown, New Jersey; (3) Waste Management's
attempt to establish a full service facility in, Kentucky; and (4) BFI's
attempt to establish a hazardous waste facility in Amsterdam, New York.
VI-1
-------
expansion of existing facilities and, in several in-
stances, brought about the closing of some operating
facilities.1 The opposition to siting new facilities
frequently encompasses pressure from the general public
which may delay or eventually postpone a permit, as
well as local zoning, construction laws, or other specific
statutes which can be~used to prohibit development of
new hazardous waste management facilities.
The intensity of public opposition to the siting of
new facilities varies widely across treatment/disposal
practices. The siting process is generally easier for
chemical treatment, resource recovery, and land treatment
facilities. On the other hand, secure landfills and in-
cinerators are more difficult to site because of the
highly toxic nature of the wastes processed and public
concerns over improper disposal practices and for land-
fills, proper post-closure maintenance of sites. For
example, secure landfills were "redlined" out of many
areas of New England through zoning laws.2
The recent historical experience in the siting of :
new facilities and the current perceptions of industry
members indicate that future successful siting attempts
are likely to be characterized by the following:
Significant importance of waste generating indus-
tries to the local economy
Reputation of the private waste management firm
or waste management authority in the local com-
munity
Existence of other well-managed hazardous waste
management facilities in the area :
Active state encouragement of new facilities
through assistance in overcoming local restric-
tions ,
Involvement of public officials and local
citizens early on in the site selection process
In a previous study, "siting of Hazardous Waste Management Fa-
cilities and Public Opposition," issued in 1979, EPA identified
and assessed 21 proposed and operating hazardous waste facilities
which were subject to varying degrees of public opposition.
In Massachusetts, local communities have passed ordinances
restricting the siting of hazardous waste facilities. Other
communities have established rigorous review processes which
encompass many government agencies including the Boards of
Health.
VI-2
-------
Location of sites away from major residential
areas, especially for landfills and incinera-
tion facilities
Exclusion of wastes perceived to be highly
toxic, such as PCBs
Demonstration of comprehensive technical
evaluation and planning for proposed sites
which encompass the need for the site,
safety precautions, and the impacts on the
local community.
In addition to public opposition to siting, the
hazardous waste management firms reported other factors
influencing their willingness and ability to expand
capacity.
Strong enforcement of hazardous waste
regulations.Many firms indicated that the
economic•viability of the hazardous waste
management industry crucially depends upon
effective enforcement. Such enforcement would
significantly reduce unfair competition from
illegal operations and would ensure a strong
demand for additional disposal capacity. Un-
fair competition does not necessarily imply
"midnight dumpers." If enforcement is lax,
waste designated as hazardous may be disposed
of in sanitary landfills. Without_strict
enforcement, hazardous waste facilities
cannot be price competitive. It is als'o
possible that strict enforcement could have
a substantial negative impact on capacity if
certain facilities are shut down that cannot
comply with the regulations.
Ability to comply with financial responsibility
requirements of RCRA.Many smaller firms,
based on their perceptions of the financial
responsibility requirements as originally
proposed under RCRA, were concerned about
their ability to remain economically viable.
They felt that the closure and post-closure
financial requirements would be prohibitive
to all but the largest firms. However, under
the Interim Status Standards, much of this
concern will have been lessened due to reduced
requirements.
VI-3
-------
Capital availability. Capital intensive
facilities such as high-temperature incinera-
tion and full-service facilities require
levels of external financing which are signif-
icant relative to the largest firms in the
industry. At the current time, public financing
assistance vis-a-vis the tax-exempt market,
is not, available to hazardous waste management
firms.1 Despite the relative size of the
financing requirements, the lack of'an exten-
sive track record of successful financing, and
the prohibition against the use of tax-exempt
debt, most firms reported that access to capital
was not a major constraint to,pursuing expansion
plans reporting that they were obtaining
financing.
Several additional factors were also cited by
hazardous waste management firms which may inhibit addi-
tions to capacity. First, some firms reported encounter-
ing .technical problems in the start-up of new facilities.
Second, bureaucratic problems in permitting facilities
tend to increase the legal fees and do extend the lead-
times involved. Finally, some firms were reluctant to
expand capacity because of the potential liabilities
associated with operation of a hazardous waste- facility.
(2) Over the Next Two Years, There May Be Some New
Entrants to the Hazardous Waste Management Industry,
However, Their Impact On Additional Capacity Is
Not Expected To Be Significant
There has been much discussion within the industry
that some major corporations have been considering
diversification into the hazardous waste management
field. The discussion has centered on three types of
potential new entrants:
Major hazardous waste generators with treatment/
disposal capacity suitable for handling '•.
hazardous waste who would offer services to other
firms.
Major'domestic industrial firms or sanitary :
landfills that would either build or convert
existing facilities to hazardous waste
management sites.
Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Service Code prohibits the
use of industrial development revenue bonds for the financing
of hazardous waste facilities.
'VI-4
-------
Foreign companies with hazardous waste
management experience abroad who would enter
the domestic marketplace.
Although there probably will be attempts from all
three types of potential new entrants, participants
of the hazardous waste management industry feel that
foreign companies may be the only significant new
entrants.
Major hazardous waste generators such as firms
within the chemical industry may begin to offer some
of their treatment capacity to other firms for a fee.
Typically, this capacity is waste specific and probably
not compatible with a wide variety of waste streams.
Therefore, although some chemical firms1 may offer
some types of hazardous waste management services they
are not seen as being a major factor in the near future.
However, industry participants feel that some chemical
firms may penetrate some local markets which probably
will have more of an effect on local pricing than on
volumes handled.
The second category of potential new entrants—
major industrial firms or sanitary landfills—have
expressed an interest in playing a more important role
in the industry. Over the past few years, several
large firms have considered entering the hazardous
waste management"industry with large scale facilities.
However, on closer examination some firms feel that the
investment risk may outweigh the profits.2
Industry sources suggest that the investment
and liability risks associated with hazardous waste
operations may continue to deter major new entrants.
In addition, potential entrants may perceive that
existing firms have a competitive advantage for
several reasons:
Ownership of land which is permitted for
hazardous waste operations and may be
suitable for expansion
Existing relationships with generators
The El duPont de Nemours Chambers Works facility in Deep Water,
New Jersey has recently announced that it will provide waste-
water treatment services.
Based on other studies, Booz, Allen knows of three major firms
that recently decided not to diversify into the hazardous waste
management industry.
VI-5
-------
Technical and operating experience
Familiarity with the regulatory environment.
The final category of potential new entrants is
foreign companies that would enter the domestic market-
place. Two foreign firms are currently in the domestic
marketplace:
Stablex Corporation—at several U.S. locations
Vulcanus—a vessel with incineration capa-
bilities that is based out of Houston, Texas.
Industry participants felt that these firms could be
a major influence in the U.S. marketplace in future
periods. However, the impact in the next 2 years is
probably minor, since up to 2 years lead time is required
for construction of a "grass roots" facility.
(3) Emerging Technologies Are Not Expected To Have
Major Impact On Hazardous Waste Management :
Hazardous waste technology research and develop-
ment (R&D) activities have increased substantially in
the past few years. Some waste management firms are
actively pursuing modified technologies but it
appears that the principal actors involved in' R&D are
the U.S. EPA-Cincinnati, universities, and waste
generators. In addition, a considerable amount of
research is being undertaken in Europe.
Typically, recent technology developments have
been driven by one underlying philosophy; no hazardous ;
waste should be buried without undergoing the maximum
amount of detoxification or destruction feasible. Thus,
a variety of traditional technologies (e.g., incinera- ,
tion) and more exotic chemical and physical detoxifi-
cation technologies (e.g., microwave plasma) have
received great emphasis. Most technologies, however,
are in the very early stages of development and will
require several years of development before the
commercialization opportunities can be fully assessed.
Appendix J presents a synopsis of thirteen
emerging technologies that were identified during
interviews, as having potential to impact future
processing or disposal techniques employed by the
industry. The emerging technologies are either ;
highly waste specific or require lengthy development
programs prior to commercialization. These emerging =
technologies are not expected to have a significant
impact on the industry in,the next 4 years. .
VI-6
-------
As discussed in this section, neither innovative tech-
nology nor new entrants are expected to have a significant
impact on new capacity in 1981 and 1982. • Therefore, the
capacity forecasts which are presented in the next section
do not account for potential new'entrants or major tech-
nology shifts.
2. THE HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT INDUSTRY PLANS SIGNIFICANT
CAPACITY INCREASES OVER THE NEXT TWO YEARS. THE MOST
AGGRESSIVE PLANS ARE FOR INCINERATION AND CHEMICAL
TREATMENT FACILITIES.
This section first presents a brief summary of the metho-
dology employed to develop the capacity forecasts for 1981 and
•1982 and should be clearly understood so that the forecasts may
be properly interpreted.1 Then the capacity forecasts are pre-
sented for each type of waste management option.
In essence, four types of capacity additions were used in
building our forecast of capacity for 1981 and 1982.
Firm commitment—reported capacity additions planned
for those companies that are in the process of purchas-
ing, or have purchased land and/or equipment; are per-
forming engineering designs; or are proceeding with the
permitting process when the interview took place.
Although considered a firm commitment to expansion,
these additions may not take place as planned if public
opposition or permitting problems are encountered.
Under study—reported capacity additions planned for
those firms that have completed or are about to complete
technical and economic studies for well-defined expan-
sion possibilities.
Crystal ball—reported capacity additions planned for
those firms that expressed a desire to increase capac-
ity but have committed neither time nor money to formal
planning.
Inferred—inferred capacity additions for 37 facilities
for which reported data were lacking on all topics' and
23 facilities for which planned capacity expansions
could not be obtained but other data were gathered.
The addition to capacity of these facilities was es-
timated based on the expansion plans of similar facil-
ities in the same region.
•Appendix I presents a more detailed description of the
methodology.
VI-7
-------
The sum of these four types- of capacity expansions is
used to form a baseline estimate of capacity for 1981 and
1982. Probable upper and lower bounds of the baseline
capacity forecasts were developed to appropriately reflect
the major uncertainties implicit in the capacity estimates.
These bounds are not absolute limits on the capacity additions
but instead are used to form a range which accounts for the
inherent uncertainties of the forecasting., The lower bound
of potential error is based on two adjustments:
Subtract 24 percent of the baseline estimate to
reflect the uncertainty associated with the 1980
capacity estimates. The' derivation of 24 percent
is described in Chapter IV.
Subtract an additional amount to reflect the un-
certainty associated with using inferred estimates
for capacity additions. This "sampling error"
proxy was developed for each waste management
option and is based on the percentage of capacity:
additions imputed versus reported.
The upper end of the range was derived using a similar
procedure by adjusting the baseline estimates upward by the:
appropriate percentages.
The ranges for capacity of each waste management option
are shown in Exhibit VT-1. Incineration, chemical treatment,
land treatment, landfill, and resource recovery are all
forecast to experience increases in capacity by 1982, while
deep-well injection is expected to incur no growth.
The next part of this section presents for each waste
management option:
The forecasted growth in capacity
The influence of uncertainty on the forecasts
Regional differences in the capacity forecasts.
The same methodology used to,develop national upper
and lower bounds on capacity was applied-at the regional
level. Appendix I provides a more detailed discussion of
the methodology.
VI-8
-------
EXHIBIT VI-1
Hazardous Waste Management Industry
Capacity Forecasts By Waste Management Option
(Thousand Wet Metric Tons)
H
I
Waste Management Option
Lifetime:
. Landfill1
Annual:
Land Treatment
Incineration
Chemical Treatment
Resource Recovery
Deep-Well Injection
1980
Lower
Bound
20,979
1,852
509
2,980
812
3,539
Baseline
27,604
2,437
670
3,921
1,069
4,657
Upper
Bound
34,229
3,022
831
4,862
1,325
5,775
1981
Lower
Bound
23,048
2,245
779
3,546
888
3,539
Baseline
30,334
2,972
1,037
4,787
1,184
4,657
Upper
Bound
37,619
3,695
1,295
6,028
1,478
5,775
1982
Lower
Bound
19,094
2,293
1,094
4,450
972
3,539
Baseline
25,124
3,034
1,490
5,910
1,287
4,657
Upper
Bound
31,157
3,774
1,886
7,370
1,602
5,775
Assumes regional utilization at 1980 rate or 5-year lifetime,whichever is highest, for
1981 and 1982 to determine lifetime capacity.
Source: Booz, Allen & Hamilton Inc.
-------
(1) I n c i n er a t ion
The baseline forecast for incineration shows a
55 percent growth by 1981 and an additional 43 percent
growth in capacity from 1981 to 1982 (Exhibit VI-2).
This expansion is equivalent to the addition of 30 to
50 new facilities, if they were of median size.1
Although this reflects the aggressive expansion plans
of several companies, few have made firm commitments
with respect to these expansion plans.
As Exhibit VI-2 shows, the majority of the expan-
sion planned is in the under study category. The 1982
planned expansion is dominated by IT Corporation's
plans to construct an $84 million hazardous waste
facility in Louisiana that will include significant
incineration capacity.2 On a regional basis, EPA
Regions IV and VI account for 69 percent of the increase
in capacity by 1982. Exhibit VI-3 presents the in-
cineration capacity forecasts by region.
(2) Chemical Treatment
The baseline forecast of capacity growth for ;
chemical, physical and biological treatment facilities
is 22 percent in 1981 and 23 percent in 1982 (see
Exhibit VI-4). This expansion is equivalent to the
addition of 30-50 new facilities by 1982, if all ex-
pansion were at new facilities and these facilities
were of median size. As in the case of incinerator
capacity, very little of the forecasted additions to .
capacity are based upon reported firm commitments.
In 1981, for example, only approximately 10 percent
of the forecasted capacity expansion reflects firm
commitments.
EPA Region V accounts for 42 percent of the
capacity additions in 1981, while the planned expansion
in Region VI accounts for over half of the capacity
additions in 1982 (Exhibit VI-5).
(3) Resource Recovery
Growth in annual resource recovery capacity is
forecast to be 10 percent in 1981 and $ percent in
1982 (see Exhibit VI-6). Only one company reported :
a firm commitment for capacity expansion over the
1981 to 1982 time frame. In addition, 50 percent of
the baseline capacity additions are inferred additions
in 1981 which makes these expansions less certain.
See Exhibit II-2 for median size facility.
Hazardous Waste Report, November 19, 1979, Vol. 1, No. 8, p. 16.
VI-10
-------
EXHIBIT VI-2
Hazardous Waste Management Industry
National Forecast of Incinerator
Capacity 1981 and 1982
v> 1.5
1.0
o
3
1.5
BASELINE
UPPER
BOUND
, LOWER
BOUND
1980
1981
1982
1.5
1.0
0.5
O
.^
E
TOTAL ANNUAL CAPACITY, BEGINNING OF YEAR
TOTAL PLANNED ADDITIONS DURING YEAR
•FIRM COMMITMENT ADDITIONS
•UNDER STUDY ADDITIONS
• CRYSTAL BALL ADDITIONS
• INFERRED ADDITIONS
BASELINE END OF YEAR CAPACITY
LOWER BOUND ON CAPACITY
UPPER BOUND ON CAPACITY
1980
' (MILLION- Vt
-
-
0.67
0.51
0.83
1981
IET METRI
0.67
0.37
0.19
0.11
0.01
0.06
1.04
0.78
1.30
1982
C TONS)
1.04
0.45
.37
.03
.05
1.49
1.09
1.89
NOTE: DETAIL MAY NOT ADD TO TOAL BECAUSE OF ROUNDING
SOURCE: BOOZ, ALLEN & HAMILTON Inc.
VI-11
-------
EXHIBIT VI-3
Hazardous Waste Management Industry
Regional Forecasts of Incinerator Capacity
For 1981 and 1982
(Thousand Wet Metric Tons)
H
I
EPA
Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
ix •
X
TOTAL
1980
Lower
Bound
17
25
100
56
102
175
• -
-
34
-
509
Baseline
23
33
131
74
134
230
-
-
45
-
670
Upper
Bound
29
41
162
92
166
285
-
-
56
-
831
1981
Lower
Bound
47
42
100
132
168
218
-
-
72
"
779
Baseline
62
55
132
178
224
291
-
-
95
-
1,037
Upper
Bound
77
68
164
224
280
364
-
-
118
-
1,295
1982
Lower
Bound
47
65
104
154
168
484
-
-
72
-
1,094
Baseline
62
86
132
202
259
665
-
-
84
-
1,490
Upper
Bound
77
107
160
250
350
846
-
-
96
-
1,886
Note: Detail may not add to total because of rounding.
Source: Booz, Allen & Hamilton Inc.
-------
EXHIBIT VI-4
Hazardous Waste Management Industry
National Forecast of Chemical Treatment
Capacity 1981 and 1982
V)
UPPER
BOUND
•BASELINE
-LOWER
BOUND
V)
3S
O
7
6
5
4
•3 Z
2
_1
-^
E
2
1
LU
1980
1981
1982
TOTAL ANNUAL CAPACITY, BEGINNING OF YEAR
TOTAL PLANNED ADDITIONS DURING YEAR
• FIRM COMMITMENT ADDITIONS
•UNDER STUDY ADDITIONS
• CRYSTAL BALL ADDITIONS
•INFERRED ADDITIONS
BASELINE END OF YEAR CAPACITY
LOWER BOUND ON CAPACITY
UPPER BOUND ON CAPACITY
1980
(MILLION,
-
-
3.92
2.98
4.86
1981
WET METR
3.92
0.87
0.09
0.55
0.05
0.18
4.79
3.55
6.03
1982
C TOMS)
4.79
1.12
0.04
0.61
0.26
0.21
5.91
4.45
7.37
Note: Detail may not add to total because of rounding
Source: Booz, Allen & Hamilton Inc.
VI-13
-------
EXHIBIT VI-5
Hazardous Waste Management Industry
Reqional Forecasts of Chemical Treatment Capacity!
For 1981 and 1982
(Thousand Wet Metric Tons)
<
H
1
M
>&>
EPA
Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
TOTAL
1980
Lower
Bound
71
928
473
238
771
117
50
-
251
81
2,980
Baseline
93
1,221
622
313
1,015
154
66
-
330
107
3,921
Upper
Bound
115
1,514
'771
388
1,259
191
82
-
409
133
4,862
1981
Lower
Bound
140
1,010
550
291
1,008
130
57
30
250
81
3,546
Baseline
185
1,330
739
427
1,375
178.
76
40
330
107
4,787
Upper
Bound
230
1,650
928
564
1,742
226
95
50
410
133
6,028
Lower
Bound
184
1,110
590
370
1,151
624
63
30
235
94
-4,450
1982
Baseline
242
1,464
784
484
1,518
842
83
40
330
123
5,910
Upper
Bound
300
1,815
980
600
1,885
1060
103
50
425
152
7,370
1 Adjusted to reflect 10 percent overlap which also requires some other form of
capacity for ultimate disposition.
Note: Detail may not add to total because of rounding.
Source: Booz, Allen & Hamilton Inc. "' " =
-------
1.75
1.50
vt , oc
z» 1.25
CJ
1.00
3 0.75
0.50
0.2F
EXHIBIT VI-6
Hazardous Waste Management Industry
National Forecast of Resource Recovery
Capacity 1981 and 1982
UPPER
r BASELINE
.LOWER
BOUND
1.75
1.50
1.25 i
o
1.00 £
LU
s
0.75 3
o
0.50 |
0.25
198Q
1981
1982
TOTAL ANNUAL CAPACITY, BEGINNING OF YEAR
TOTAL PLANNED ADDITIONS DURING YEAR
•FIRM COMMITMENT ADDITIONS
• UNDER STUDY ADDITIONS
• CRYSTAL BALL ADDITIONS
•INFERRED ADDITIONS
BASELINE END OF YEAR CAPACITY
LOWER BOUND ON CAPACITY
UPPER BOUND ON CAPACITY
1980
(MILLION W
-
__
—
—
—
1.07
0.81
1.33
1981
ET IWETRI
1.07
0.11
.05
—
.01
.05
1.18
0.89
1.48
1982
C TONS)
1.18
.10
_
.05
.02
.03
1.28
0.97
1.60
Note: Detail may not add to total because of rounding.
Source: Booz, Allen & Hamilton Inc.
VI-15
-------
The principal forecasts presented in Exhibit III-7
indicate that EPA Regions III and V are projected to
account for the majority of the increase in resource
recovery capacity, 22 percent and.48 percent, respec-
tively by 1982.
(4) Land Treatment
The forecasted annual growth in land treatment
capacity is 22 percent in 1981 and 2 percent in 1982
(see Exhibit VI-8). Significant increases in land'
treatment capacity have recently occurred in 1980. For
example, Region IX added over 300 thousand tons of land
treatment capacity in 1980. However, the firms reporting
expansion plans did not foresee a continuation of this
trend in 1981 or 1982. In 1981 almost all of the fore- :
casted capacity additions were based on firm commit-
ments. However, for 1982 no expansion plans were
reported. Because of the significant regional con-
centration of land treatment, 80 percent of the expan-
sion is forecast for Region IX. Exhibit VI-9
presents the regional capacity forecasts for 1981 and
1982.
(5) Deep-Well Injection
None of the surveyed firms reported any antici-
pated increase in pumping capacity for deep-well in-
jection. These firms reported that current capacity
should be sufficient to accommodate demand.
(6) Landfill '. "
In order to project available capacity for landfill
over the 1981-82 time frame, it was necessary to developi
forecasts of additions to capacity and capacity utiliza-
tion rate. For example, the available capacity at the
beginning of 1982 was determined as follows:
available
capacity
in 1982
(beginning
of the, year)
available
capacity - additions to
in 1981 + capacity
(beginning during 1981
of the year)
capacity
.utilized
during 1981
VI-16
-------
EXHIBIT VI-7
Hazardous Waste Management Industry
Regional Forecasts of Resource Recovery Capacity
For 1981 and 1982
(Thousand Wet Metric Tons)
H
I
EPA
Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI ;
VII
VIII
IX
X
TOTAL
1980
Lower
Bound
73
388
38
32
268
-
5
-
-
8
812
Baseline
96
510
51
43
352
-
6
-
-
11
1,069
Upper
Bound
119
632
64
54
436
-
7
-
-
13
1,325
1981
Lower
Bound
80
404
44
31
315
-
r
•j
-
-
9
888
Baseline
105
532
52
43
432
-
7
- -
-
13
1,184
Upper
Bound
130
660
60
55
549
-
9
-
-
17
1,478
1982
Lower
Bound
80
431
75
31
341
-
5
-
-
9
972
Baseline
105
564
98
43
457
-
7
-
-
13
1,287
Upper
Bound
130
697
121
55
573
-
9
-
-
17
1,602
Note: Detail may not add to total because of rounding.
Source: Booz, Allen & Hamilton Inc.
-------
EXHIBIT VI-8
Hazardous Waste Management Industry
National Forecast of Land Treatment Capacity
1981-1982
cc
LU
LU
o
ms
_j
s
UPPER
BOUND
BASELINE
.LOWER
BOUND
1980
1981
1982
TOTAL ANNUAL CAPACITY, BEGINNING OF YEAR
TOTAL PLANNED ADDITIONS DURING YEAR
• FIRM COMMITMENT ADDITIONS
•UNDER STUDY ADDITIONS
•CRYSTAL BALL ADDITIONS
• INFERRED ADDITIONS
BASELINE END OF YEAR CAPACITY
LOWER BOUND ON CAPACITY
UPPER BOUND ON CAPACITY
1980
(MILLION'
-
-
2.44
1.85
3.02
1981
WET METR
2.44
0.53
0.47
0.06
2.97
2.25
3.70
1982
C TONS)
2.97
0.06
0.06
3.03
2.29
3.77
Note: Detail may not add to total because of rounding.
Source: Booz, Allen & Hamilton Inc.
VI-18
-------
H
I
EXHIBIT VI-9
Hazardous Waste Management Industry
Regional Forecasts of Land Treatment Capacity
For.1981 and 1982
(Thousand Wet Metric Tons)
EPA
Region
I
II
III
IV*
V
VI*
VII
VIII
IX
X
TOTAL
1980
Lower
Bound
-
-
-
-
"-
777
-
-
1,007
68
1,852
Baseline
-
-
-
-
-
1,022
-
-
1,325
90
2,437
Upper
Bound
-
-
-
-
--
1,267
-
-
1,643
112
3,022
<
1981
Lower
Bound
-
-
-
I
-
777
-
33
1>368
70
2,245
Baseline
-
-
-
-
-
1,022
-
60
1,800
90
2,972
Upper
Bound
-
-
-
-
-
1,267
-
87
2,232
110
3,695
Lower
Bound
-
-
-
-
-
811
-
33
1,379
70
2 , 293
1982
Baseline
-
-
-
-
-
1,084
-
60
1,800
90
. 3,034
Upper
Bound
-
-
-
-
-
1,357
-
87
2,220
110
3,774
* The delta for Region IV have been included in Region VI to avoid disclosure
of confidential information.
Note: Detail may not add to total because of rounding.
Source: Booz, Allen & Ilami] tdn Inc.
-------
The vast majority of surveyed firms reported that the
significant uncertainties surrounding the impacts of
RCRA regulations on secure landfill precluded them from :
even "guesstimating" future utilization rates. There-
fore, in order to estimate the capacity utilized during
1981, it is necessary to make an assumption. For pur-
poses of the analysis performed in this report, it is
'assumed that landfills will be used at either the 1989
utilization rate for a region or a rate consistent with
a 5-year lifetime for the region's landfill capacity,
whichever is highest. This assumption reflects a fairly
rapid utilization of existing landfill capacity. To the
extent that landfills are utilized more slowly, this
assumption underestimates the available lifetime capacity
in 1981 and 1982. The resultant capacity forecasts do
not explicitly account for the significant uncertainty
related to utilization rates. Thus, in the case of
secure landfill, the calculated upper and lower bounds
understate the potential variability in the annual
capacity forecasts.
Based on these assumptions, the forecasted annual
growth in landfill capacity is 10 percent in 1981 and
-17 percent for 1982. As depicted in Exhibit V-10,
the overwhelming majority of 1981 additions to capacity I
come from EPA Region IV. Region III is forecast to have
a negative addition to 1980 capacity (50,000 wet metric
tons). This is the result of a landfill facility which
was reported by its owners to be voluntarily closing ;
due to noncompliance with RCRA-Subtitle C. One small
landfill in California may also stop accepting hazar-
dous wastes because of RCRA requirements.
VI-20
-------
EXHIBIT VI-1.0
Hazardous Waste Management Industry
National Forecast of Lifetime Landfill Capacity
1981 and 1982
40
30
20
10
UPPER .
BOUND ^
BASELINE).
LOWER
- BOUND"
34
28
21
1980
38
30
23
1981
31
25
19
40
30
V)
o
o
5=
20
10
1932
TOTAL ANNUAL CAPACITY, BEGINNING OF YEAR
TOTAL PLANNED ADDITIONS DURING YEAR
• FIRM COMMITMENT ADDITIONS
•UNDER STUDY ADDITIONS
•CRYSTAL BALL ADDITIONS
• INFERRED ADDITIONS
REDUCTION IN CAPACITY1
BASELINE END OF YEAR CAPACITY
LOWER BOUND ON CAPACITY
UPPER BOUND ON CAPACITY
1980
(MILLION \
-
-
2.70
527.60
20.98
34.2
1981
NET METRI
27.60
8.41
7.95
0.21
0.25
5.68'
30.33
23.05
37.62
1982
rfblsF
30.33
0.47
0.18
0.01
0.08
0.20
5.68
25.12
19.09
31.16
Assuming regional utilization at 1980 rate or.5-year lifetime
whichever is highest.
Source: Booz, Allen & Hamilton Inc'.:
VI-21
-------
H
I
NJ
EXHIBIT VI-11
Hazardous Waste Management Industry
Regional Forecasts of Lifetime Landfill Capacity1
for 1981 and 1982
(Thousand Wet Metric Tons)
EPA
Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
TOTAL
1980
Lower
Bound
8
851
1,512
4,317 .
1,469
7,824
555
-
4,026
418
20,979
Baseline
10
1,120
1,990
5,680
1,933
10,295
730
-
5,297
550
% 27,604
Upper
Bound
12
1,389
2,467
7,043
2,397
12,766
905
-
6,568
682
34,229
1981
Lower
Bound
4
578
1,137
7,877
1,118
8,427
448
-
3,109
350
23,048
Baseline
5
879
1,542
10,364
1,597
10,393
614
- '
4,441
500
30,334
Upper
Bound
6
1,180
1,942
12,851
,:2V076
12,360
780
-
5,773
! 650
37,619
Lower
Bound
_42
405
869
7,013
951
6,455
372
- -
2 , 646
304
19,094
1982
Baseline
-12
638
1,144
9,228
1,251
8,493
489
^
3,482
400
25,124
Upper
Bound
2
79 11
1,419
11,443
1,551
10,531
606 ~
-
4,318
596
31,157
1 Remaining capacity based on a'utilization rate equal to that of 1980 or'a 5-year
lifetime) whichever is highest. . : ": '
2 Represents landfill capacity] that will be needed from1 other regions if current^ rate
of-demand continues. 7.-- - - -7 .....__:_. _.._. ._ ....._,_. _ - ....... .. j_ .. • .
Note^ Detail may;not;;add toftotal because of rounding. • ;
Source: Booiz, Allen ^Hamilton Inc.- - -- •- -f , -
-------
Public opposition to siting is the critical factor
affecting capacity expansion according to participants in
the industry. However, .significant capacity expansions are
planned by these firms for 1981 and 1982, especially for
incineration and chemical treatment.
VI-23
-------
-------
VII. THE POTENTIAL EFFECT OF SELECTED
RCRA REQUIREMENTS ON OFF-SITE CAPACITY
The regulatory requirements and the enforcement of RCRA
are anticipated to have a major impact on the hazardous-waste
management industry. Although the final requirements of RCRA
have not been totally formulated, this chapter identifies some
key segments of RCRA and discusses the potential effect on
off-site capacity based on data from interviews conducted
during the course of this study. The chapter is organized
around three topics:
Future demand for off-site services.
Operational and financial liability requirements.
Technology requirements.
Each of these topics is discussed in detail in the remainder
of this chapter.
1. WASTE MANAGEMENT FIRMS EXPECT REQUIREMENTS TO INCREASE
THE DEMAND FOR OFF-SITE TREATMENT/DISPOSAL SERVICES
The RCRA regulations require generators of hazardous
waste to prepare a manifest for all shipments of such materials
describing the nature and volume of the wastes being trans-
ported and the destination of the waste. The manifest must
accompany the wastes and a copy is to be returned to the
generator by the operator of the treatment/disposal facility.
This manifest system may increase the volume of wastes being
received by off-site hazardous waste management facilities.
Waste management firms also expect RCRA permitting and
disposal requirements to result in more generators disposing
of their waste off site. In the view of these firms, many
types of waste may be classified as hazardous which today
are stored on site or receive conventional treatment. Rep-
resentatives of the industry believe that many generators
will prefer not to meet the control requirements necessary
to comply with Federal and state regulations and will thus
rely to a greater extent on commercial waste management
facilities.
Conversely, the RCRA regulations may increase the cost
of proper processing and disposal to a point where industries
may:
VII-1
-------
Alter manufacturing processes
Change raw materials
Neutralize waste residuals to eliminate or
reduce the amount of hazardous waste generated
Reuse or recycle materials.
Based on interviews with participants of the hazardous
waste management industry, the - trend over the next 5 years
will be for increased need for off-site treatment/disoosal
services. Industry participants are unsure of the timing of
increased demand, primarily because of the uncertainty over
when enforcement will be effective, but the industry expec-
tation is optimistic that demand for environmentally adequate
off-site treatment and disposal services will increase.
2. OPERATIONAL AND FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
MAY ENCOURAGE A FURTHER CONCENTRATION OF THE HAZARDOUS ;
WASTE MANAGEMENT INDUSTRY" '.
Compliance with RCRA will increase the costs of providing
hazardous waste management services. Several of the key
provisions which will increase operating costs include:
Operating requirements
Groundwater monitoring
Manifest system, recordkeeping and reporting
Closure and post-closure requirements
Financial responsibility requirements.
In general, industry participants believe that operating
and financial responsibility requirements may have a pro-
portionately greater cost impact on small operations. The
interim status requirements for liability insurance should
only have a severe impact on those firms who must pay a premium
rate because of poor operating'records. Nevertheless, in-
dustry participants felt these requirements, combined with
technological design standards, could further encourage firms
v.'ith small or medium sized facilities to sell out to major
firms but with a relatively minor impact on total industry
capacity. It was felt that very few of the existing sites
would cease operations totally because they would be purchased
by larger firms even if the current owners did not plan to
meet RCRA requirements. In addition, members of the hazard-
ous waste management industry feel that the operational and
VII-2
-------
financial responsibilities will deter smaller operations
from entering the industry.1
3. SOME OF THE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED IN DECEMBER
1978 COULD DETER FUTURE GROWTH IN CAPACITY FOR
INCINERATION AND LANDFILLS
The design requirements proposed in December 1978
dealing with each of the specific waste management options
may affect the future capacity of: facilities operating
incinerators or landfills. > The -following sections summarize
the potential effect of several design standards that were.
proposed in December 1978:
Incineration: There are a number of proposed
requirements now under reconsideration by the
EPA dealing with the air~pollution control
efficiencies of incinerators.
The owners of most of the 25 incinerators
covered during this study reported that they
were equipped or planned to be equipped with
scrubbers that could achieve the efficiency
requirements for toxic emissions removal.
However,'none of the incinerators were
reportedly equipped with collection equip-
ment to capture heavy metal contaminants
(i.e., electrostatic precipitors or the
equivalent for .particul-ate control) . Some
incinerator owners expressed concern over
the prospect that they might have to incur an
investment of several hundred thousand dol-
lors for particulate control equipment.
Others, however, felt that the particulate
control equipment was minor in relation to
the investment requirements for a scrubber
and had plans to install the equipment to
achieve a goal of no visible plume.
Landfills; Proposed requirements under considera-
tion by the EPA could reduce the effective capacity
of current landfills.
One large hazardous waste management firm stated that the financial
responsibility requirements probably will represent less than 1
percent of operating cost .for a larger facility ($5-10 million
annually).
VII-3
-------
Only two landfills identified did not
plan to install leachate and groundwater
monitoring systems which would comply with
the proposed RCRA standards . i
Many of these landfills currently handle
liquids, usually in drums, as well as solid
wastes. However, bulk or non-containerized
liquid waste or waste containing free liquids
will not be allowed to be disposed of in"
landfills unless the landfill has a special
liner, and leachate collection and removal
system or the liquid wastes are stabilized.
Although this restriction on liquid wastes
will not take effect until November 1981,
this will restrict the effective' capacity .
of landfills.
Stabilization techniques can be used to
contain the hazardous waste in lieu of
liners at unsecured landfill sites. Under
the proposed leachate tests (such as acetic
acid) currently being considered, many of
these stabilization techniques may not be
considered adequate to be applied at non- '
secure landfills. The amount of capacity
potentially affected by the final RCRA
standards would have to be determined for
each type of stabilization technique by the '
test method developed. 2
Chemical Treatment and Resource Recovery All of
the industry participants practicing chemical
thTS^o a?L^!SOurce rec°very planned to meet
the proposed RCRA requirements. Most of the
firms interviewed predicted that generators
y favor these types of
These two landfills are not included in the capacity estimates.
In 1980, stabilization techniques represented approximately 2
million metric tons of landfill capacity (lifetime). it cannot
be assessed what portion of this capacity might be affected by
proposed leachate tests.
VII-4
-------
Deep-well Injection; The injection of wastes
into underground formations will eventually be
covered by regulations developed under the Safe
Drinking Water Act.' The regulations will set
strict construction, operating, and abandonment
requirements for deep-well injection systems,
which are basically defined as encased wells
which inject wastes into formations below any •
potable aquifers or where no aquifers exist.
Until this program is in force, deep-well injec-
tion will be regulated under the RCRA program.
Although it is not within the scope of this
study to assess if the hazardous waste management
facilities currently have any technical problems
in meeting new standards, all the current capacity
for deep-well injection of hazardous waste included
in this report probably would be below potable
water aquifers or where, no aquifers exist. There-
fore, these standards are not likely to have any
impact on the capacity estimates presented in
Chapter V and VI.
RCRA regulations of hazardous waste will have a major
impact on the hazardous waste management industry. Demand
for off-site services should increase when RCRA permitting
and disposal requirements take effect. Furthermore, the
financial responsibility requirements of the RCRA Program
may tend to increase the level of concentration in the in-
dustry. Finally, design requirements could reduce the avail-
able future capacity that we now predict. We cannot estimate'
how much and it would not be useful to do so until the
Phase II standards are published.
VII-5
-------
-------
PART III
ASSESSMENT OF DEMAND FOR AND SUPPLY
OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT CAPACITY
-------
-------
VIII. INTRODUCTION TO PART III
The regulations that are being designed under_the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) prohibit
the indiscriminate use of land as a final dumping place
for wastes and require that hazardous wastes are managed
so as to protect the public health and'environment. However,
these regulations may cause substantial changes in the
demand for and supply of off-site commercial hazardous
waste management. These changes are of concern to EPA
because it is not clear if there will be adequate capacity
at off-site facilities to properly treat and dispose of
the hazardous wastes.
Parts I and II of this report assess the changes in
the demand for and supply of off-site capacity. Part I
presents a most probable estimate of. 9,738 thousand wet
metric tons (WMT) of hazardous waste going off-site for
disposal in 1981 (see Exhibit III-4). Part II assesses the
capacity of the hazardous waste management industry to
process hazardous wastes and presents an annual capacity .,
estimate of 18,429 thousand WMT for 1981 (see Exhibit V-14).~
This part of the report provides a preliminary assessment
of potential off-site capacity short-falls for 1981 on the
basis of comparisons of the demand for off-site hazardous
waste management services developed in Part I with estimates
of the available annual capacities presented in Part II.2
It provides gross comparisons of supply and demand in 1981
and provides an important perspective to EPA on the up-
coming situation during the initial implementation of the
RCRA hazardous waste management program.
Annual capacity estimate is a summation of reported capacities
of all waste management options except landfills. Landfill
capacity is ordinarily expressed on a lifetime basis. Therefore
to obtain a comparable quantity, we assumed either the current
utilization rate or 20 percent of lifetime capacity, whichever
is greater on a regional basis, for annual landfill capacity.
The capacities presented are those of the hazardous waste
management industry and do not include independent resource
recovery operations, because these facilities are typically
small and do not have the flexibility required to treat many
waste streams. Sanitary landfills are also not included, because
most of these facilities are not expected to receive regulated
volumes of hazardous waste and operate under the conditions of the RCRA
C Phase I regulations under Interim Status.
VIII-1
-------
Although this study represents the best and most
recent assessment of the capacity situation, this assess-
ment of waste management demand and capacity has certain
limitations that should be understood when using these
results.
Both the demand estimates presented in Part I
and the supply estimates presented in Part II :
are subject to uncertainty. In general, as the
level of disaggregation increases the potential
for inaccuracies in the data increases.
Actual regional markets are not used for the
analysis. EPA regions are used as the basis
for analysis because of data availability. We
could not quantify the amounts of wastes which
currently and in the future may be shipped between
regions. Ideally, comparisons would be made
based on markets determined by economics rather
than data availability. Although, we could not
measure the amounts of waste being shipped between
regions, we have tried to point out the regions :
in which this may be important and have presented
for each region a map which includes management
facilities and major generating centers in nearby
states.
The demand and supply estimates were developed
independently and it was not possible to trace
flows of materials from generators to off-site
disposal facilities. Therefore excess capacity
in a region does not guarantee that problems will
not occur for some waste streams.
In order to compare capacity to various waste streams,
it is necessary to know their compatibility. The percentages
of the various waste streams that could be treated by each :
of the six waste management operations were estimated based
on both technical and economic factors. It is believed
that most wastes can be treated by a variety of waste manage-
ment options. Chemical treatment and landfills are especially
flexible and are suitable to most waste streams.
The difficulty of assessing demand and supply of off-
site capacity nationwide is further complicated by the
uncertainty regarding generator's future decisions on
whether to dispose on site versus off site. In the short
run (1981), substantial changes are not anticipated because the
Interim Status Standards of RCRA generally do not place a
large burden on regulated industries. In the long run, how-
ever, some adjustments can be expected. Federal regulations
VIII-2
-------
eliminate a number of disposal options that were once avail-
able. Wastes disposed off site in 1981 should be.going to
facilities that are acceptable under the RCRA C regulations.
Some options that were available in 1980, such as sanitary
landfills will not generally be available in 19.81. The
RCRA C regulations may also indirectly reduce the quantities
of wastes going to publicly owned treatment works if these
facilities place restrictions on generators to prevent their
sludges from becoming hazardous. For purposes of.this as-
sessment, wastes estimated to be treated or disposed off-
site in 1981, are assumed to be processed by the hazardous
waste management industry.
The RCRA C regulations may also have other impacts
on the future availability and demand for off-site capacity.
First, some reduction in off-site capacity may occur due
to enforcement actions against off-site facilities. Second,
enforcement actions against on-site facilities may increase
the demand for off-site capacity. The permitting process .
for obtaining an operating license under the general status
standards that EPA is currently developing could produce
similar effects but the 'impact in 1981 should be limited.
All of these factors will ultimately affect the adequacy
of off-site capacity.
*****
The remainder of Part III presents the assessment of
off-site capacity for 1981, first at a broad national level
and then for each EPA region. The factors that will af-
fect the availability of capacity in the years beyond 1981
are also discussed.
VIII-3
-------
-------
IX. 1981 COMPARISON OF DEMAND FOR AND
SUPPLY OF OFF-SITE HAZARDOUS
WASTE MANAGEMENT CAPACITY
Although a comparison of supply and demand for off-
site hazardous waste management service can better be made
on a regional basis, some useful insights can be gained
by looking at the broad national situation. Total off-
site capacity in the nation at the beginning of 1981 is
expected to be over 18.4 million wet metric tons (WMT).
This compares to a projected demand for off-site treatment/
disposal of approximately 9.7 million WMT. This figure
may be somewhat misleading, however, as the region-by-
region analysis shows.
It is also important to remember that the discussion
which follows is based on the best estimates of both the
demand and supply assessments. The conclusions presented
are dependent on the use of these best estimates as the
following table shows:
1981 National
Supply of Off-
site Capacity
(Thousand WMT)
Best
Estimate
Worst
Case
Best
Case
18,429
14,006
22,852
1981 Demand
for Off-site
Capacity
(Thousand WMT)
9,738
12,720
6,557"
Difference
(Thousand WMT)
8,691
1,286
16,295
This table points out that the national comparison
could vary from a small surplus of 1,286 thousand WMT to
a large surplus of.16,295 thousand WMT.
1 Capacity estimates are judged to be-accurate within +_ 24 percent.
2 Assumes upper and lower bounds on most probable off-site demand
is proportional to upper and lower bounds on total hazardous
waste generation.
IX-1
-------
Furthermore, comparison of national capacity and
capacity demand may be misleading because as the regional
analysis indicates, neither demand nor capacity is evenly
distributed. For example, Region VI has almost 44 percent I
of the national off-site capacity. Conversely, Region VIII
currently has no capacity at all. Demand for off-site
treatment/disposal also varies among the regions.
Region V has in excess of 2.5 million WMT of off-site
capacity demand, while Regions VII and VIII each have less
than 0.5 million WMT of demand. The remaining regions all
fall between 0.5 and 1.4 million WMT of demand.
Comparison of the regional supply and demand estimates
indicates that some areas of the country appear to face
little or no immediate problem, while other regions may
experience capacity shortfalls. These localized shortfalls
could prove to be significant despite the general national ;
surplus, because transportation costs may be more than the (
cost of disposal for shipping large volumes of wastes long
distances. These costs may make transportation to available
capacity in another region economically difficult or. unfeasible
The potential for capacity shortages appears to be
greatest in Region V, which is projected to have an absolute
shortage in off-site capacity of almost 500 thousand WMT.
Regions I, VII, VIII, and X also project absolute capacity
shortages ranging from 154 to 362 thousand WMT, but the • :
actual significance of these projected shortages is difficult
to determine. Factors such as the availability of out-of-
region capacity and the likelihood of increased capacity
development in each region will ultimately determine' their .
significance. Exhibit IX-1 compares most probable off-site
capacity demand with estimated annual capacity for each EPA
region. Also shown in the exhibit are the projected capacity
expansion plans for each region. The hazardous waste
management industry plans to increase capacity in each of
the regions projected to have a potential shortfall.
Exhibit IX-2 provides a perspective on the magnitude of
the potential shortfalls by region. Shown for each of the ;
five regions projected to experience shortfalls are the
required number of additional typically sized landfills or
chemical treatment facilities needed to overcome the
shortfall. This is provided for illustrative purposes :
only, it is not intended to imply that these facilities
will be added or that the waste streams would be compatible.
Also shown in this exhibit are the number of truckloads
that would be required if all of the capacity shortfall ;
were shipped to other regions.
IX-2
-------
EXHIBIT IX-1
Comparison of 1981 Off -Site Capacity Demand and
Supply by EPA Regions and Projected Capacity
Expansions (Thousand Wet Metric Tons)
Estimated
EPA
Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI ,
VII
VIII
IX
X
TOTAL
Most
Probable
Off-Site
Demand
in 1981
580
1,022 ,
922
1,358
2,517
1,346
440
154
896
503
9,738
Annual
Capacity
at the
Beginning
of 1981
218
2,139
1,202
1,566 2
2,028
7,9812
218
-
2,759
318
18,429
Difference
-362
1,117
280
208
-489
6,635
-222
-154
1,863
-185
8,691
Projected
Annua 1
Expansions
for 1981
140
153
119
1,155
530
85
11
100
525
2
2,820
Computed as the increase in annual capacity in the region during
the year. The increase in annual landfill capacity is based on
20 percent of additions to lifetime capacity unless the 1980
utilization rate"is greater than the rate based on a 5 year life-
time, in which case no additional landfill capacity was projected.
The land treatment capacity of Region IV is included in the
Region VI estimate.
Source: Booz, Allen and Hamilton
IX-3
-------
EXHIBIT IX-2 •
Equivalent Number of Required Additional Facilities
or Truckloads Shipped to Overcome Capacity
Shortfall by EPA Region
1981
Projected
EPA Shortfall
Region (Thousand WMT)
I 362
V 489
VII 222
VIII 154
X 185
Equivalent
Number-'- of
50,000 WMT
Per Year
Facilities
7.24
9.78
4.44
3.08
3.70
Equivalent
Number of
Truckloads
Shipped to
Other Regions
15,961
21,561
9,788
6,790
8,157
Although some landfills may receive over 200,000 WMT of hazardous
waste per year a typical size may be 50,000 WMT per year. The
median size of chemical treatment facilities included in this^
study is 50,000 WMT per year and the median size of incineration
facilities is 20,000 WMT per year (see Exhibit V-2).
Based on a standard load of 6,000 gallons for tank trucks or
22.68 tons per truckload.
Source: Booz, Allen & Hamilton
IX-4
-------
The remainder of this section of Chapter IX details
the region-by-region comparison of off-site waste mange-
ment demand versus existing capacity. Most .orobable off-
site demand in each region is determined by adding known
off-site demand to an assumed off-site portion of the un-
known disposal category. Appendix B indicates how this is
determined. Capacity projections are taken directly from
Part II of this report.
1. REGION I
A relatively large shortfall in overall hazardous
waste capacity is projected for Region I but the signif-
icance of this shortfall is unclear. The volume of haz-
ardous wastes managed off-site relative to many other
regions is small. For example, the entire capacity short-
fjiift?1equiualent ^-the annual caPacitY of a single large
landfill. _The possibility -of locating such a large landfill
•in the region is questionable because of the geologic nature
of the region, but it does highlight - the significance of the
potential capacity shortfall. Furthermore, there are a
variety of waste management facilities located in Regions
II and III, near Region I generators, which might be able
to absorb a portion of the excess demand. 1 Existing waste
management firms also plan to add 140 thousand WMT of new
capacity in 1981.
The projected volume of hazardous wastes that will be
produced in _ Region I is 1,131 thousand WMT. It is estimated
that approximately 51 percenter 580 thousand WMT will be
disposed of at off-site facilities. Major generators of
hazardous waste in Region I and their estimated off-site
waste disposal volumes include:
Otner states near Region I have been identified as net importers
of hazardous waste and probably already manage some portions of
the Region I waste stream. New York, for example, estimates
that lt imports over 600 thousand tons of waste per year from
outside_the state. "An Inventory of Industrial Hazardous Waste
Generation in New York State, Department of Environmental Conser-
vation, June 1979, as reported in "Options for Establishing
S71? TlSr FaCllitieS'" B°°2' Allen — Hamilton,
IX-5
-------
Industrial Category
Fabricated Metal Products
Nonmanufacturing Industries
Leather and Leather Tanning
Transportation Equipment
Electric and Electronic-
Equipment
.Off-Site Demand
(thousand WMT)
141
86
85
73
57
These five industrial categories generate approximately
76 percent of the Region I off-site capacity demand. Ex-
hibit IX-3 shows the location of major industrial centers
producing these wastes, and the location of waste manage-
ment facilities in Region I and in nearby regions. As the
exhibit shows, many waste management facilities are located
near generating centers.
Projected 1981 off-site waste management capacity for,
Region I is small and is limited to relatively few techno-
logies. The overall annual capacity is expected to be
218 thousand WMT (see Exhibit IX-3) with no single manage-
ment option having more than 100 thousand WMT per year
capacity. Landfill capacity appears to be particularly
constrained with only a 10 thousand WMT estimated lifetime'
capacity at the beginning of 1981 and a 5 thousand WMT
capacity projected for the end of 1981. At the current
utilization rate, the region's landfill capacity will be
entirely eliminated by early 1982.
2.
REGION II
As Exhibit IX-4 shows Region II is expected to have
an overall surplus in waste treatment capacity for 1981.
The supply may be twice the demand but certain factors
may lead to some waste management problems. First, Region
II has been a fairly substantial net importer of hazardous
wastes from other regions and could continue in this role
in the future.1 Therefore, the actual demand for treatment
or disposal might be greater than indicated. Second much
of the Region II capacity is dependent upon the continued
Based on Booz, Allen interviews with waste management firms
in the regions.
IX-6
-------
EXHIBIT IX-3
Summary of Region I
Hazardous Waste Generation and Management
MAJOR GENERATING CENTERS AND
WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
PROJECTED DEMAND FOR AND SUPPLY OF
OFF SITE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL CAPACITY
(THOUSAND WMT)
H
X
I
:a
o
>
3,000
2.000
1,000
580
303
KEY
• WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
A MAJOR INDUSTRIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE
GENERATING CENTERS'
'BASED ON INDUSTRIAL CONCENTRATIONS Of" FABRICATED
METALS, LEATHER AND LEATHER TANNING, TRANSPORTATION
EQUIPMENT, AND ELECTRONICS AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT
INDUSTRIES. DATA ON GEOGRAPHIC CONCENTRATIONS OF
THESE INDUSTRIES WERE OBTAINED FROM THE 1976
ANNUAL SURVEY OF MANUFACTURES, U.S. BUREAU OF THE
CENSUS
DEMAND
IN 1981
KEY
ES KNOWN OFF SITE
CH ASSUMED OFF SITE
SUPPLY
AT THE
BEGINNING
OF 1981
Hi LANDFILL
EU LAND TREATMENT
SZZ2 CHEMICAL TREATMENT
E3 RESOURCE RECOVERY
(HI] INCINERATION
SHU DEEP WELL INJECTION
SOURCE: BOOZ'ALLEN & HAMILTON
-------
EXHIBIT IX-4
Summary of Region II
Hazardous Waste Generation and Management
MAJOR GENERATING CENTERS AND
WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
H
X
I
00
PROJECTED DEMAND FOR AND SUPPLY OF
OFF-SITE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL CAPACITY
(THOUSAND WMT)
3,000
2.000
-------
operation of a few large facilities. Several of these
facilities have faced problems and/or public opposition
in recent years and their future role in managing wastes
is uncertain.2 Planned expansion by all firms for 1981
is projected to be 153 thousand WMT of annual capacity.
The .total volume of hazardous wastes"produced within
the region for 1981 that may need off-site management
is 1,022 thousand WMT. Another 2,194 thousand WMT are
expected to be managed on-site by generating firms. Within
Region II, the industrial categories that in 1981 will
generate the largest portion of the off-site demand for
hazardous wastes capacity include:
Industrial Category
Nonmanufacturing Industries
Fabricated Metals
Electric and Electronic
Equipment
Transportation Equipment
Miscellaneous Manufacturing
Petroleum Re-refining
Batteries
Drugs
Off-Site Demand
(Thousand WMT)
243
160
124
62
54
45 '
43
35
Industries in these eight categories are exoected to pro-
duce approximately 75 percent of the off-site capacity
demand. ' This differs from several other regions where a
smaller number of key industries generate a laraer portion
of the total waste stream and suggests a greater degree of
diversity in Region II both in generating industries and
in probable hazardous waste streams.
The facility operated by CECOS International in Western New York
encountered significant opposition when it applied for a permit
to expand its operations. Similarly, the Rollins facility in
New Jersey has faced continuing community opposition since an
accident occurred at the facility (unrelated to the hazardous
waste).
IX-9
-------
The map in Exhibit IX-4 shows the location of major
manufacturing centers where the larger volume off-site
waste generators are located. The off-site waste manage-
ment facilities shown on the same map indicates that there
is off-site capacity near most of the generating centers,
but nearly all of the off-site landfill capacity in the
Region is located-in the western part of New York State.
Total off-site waste management capacity in the re-
gion is projected for 1981 as being 2,139 thousand WMT.-
Approximately 18 percent or 375 thousand WMT of this total
consists of annual landfill capacity which, if used at^its
current rate and not supplemented by new facilities, will
be completely filled within the next 3 years.
3.
REGION III
For 1981, it is projected that Region III should
have a slight surplus of hazardous waste management capac-
ity over demand. "Moreover, there is an apparent balance
within the region in terms of capacity of the different
waste management technologies such that there should be
a compatible form of treatment or disposal for all major
waste streams. The region is near regions II and IV which
also show probable surpluses in capacity. Also, planned ;
annual capacity expansion for 1981 is estimated to be
Il9 thousand WMT. !
Total 1981 hazardous waste generation in Region III
is expected to be 4,507 thousand WMT. Only 20 percent of
that total, or 922 thousand WMT, is projected to require
off-site management with the rest being disposed or treated
on site. Similar to Region II, Region III has a relatively
large number of industrial categories that make up approx-
imately 80 percent of the region's off-site demand:
Off-Site Demand
Industrial Category (Thousand WMT)
Fabricated Metal Products
Nonmanufacturing Industries
Nonferrous Metals
Batteries
155
128
95
82
See Exhibits V-3 through V-5.
IX-10
-------
Transportation Equipment
Ferrous Metals
Industrial Organic Chemicals
Electric Electronic Equipment
Petroleum Refinincr
68
61
54
53
46
These industries are concentrated in several areas
in the region. As Exhibit IX-5 indicates, off-site disposal
capacity appears to be contiguous with most of these in-
dustrial centers.
Region III is projected to have a total off-site waste
management capacity of 1,202 thousand WMT at the beginning
of 1981. Chemical treatment provides the largest portion
of this capacity but there is also substantial landfill
and incineration capacity.
There appears to be a significant surplus of chemical
treatment capacity within Region III. Approximately 263
thousand WMT of waste appears to be amenable to chemical
treatment, however, the'region has capacity for over 622
thousand WMT per year. Annual landfill capacity seems
somewhat below what the maximum that could be demanded
might require (400 thousand WMT of capacity versus a maximum
demand of 577 thousand WMT) , but a major portion of the
material 'that could be landfilled is also compatible with
chemical treatment, incineration or resource recovery.
Consequently, there do not seem to be any inadequacies in
the .overall ability of the region to manage its internally
generated hazardous waste.
4.
REGION IV
Waste management capacity in Region IV for 1981 appears
to be adequate. The region has substantial landfill capacity
as well as significant capacity for chemical treatment, in-
cineration, resource recovery, and land treatment. This
is coupled with a waste stream that in large part can be
effectively treated or disposed of by two or more alterna-:
tive technologies. This interchangeability increases the
flexibility with which wastes can be managed in the region
This capacity was based on a 5-year lifetime.
capacity is 1,990 thousand WMT.
The lifetime
IX-11
_
-------
EXHIBIT IX-5
Summary of Region III
Hazardous Waste Generation and Management
MAJOR GENERATING CENTERS AND
WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
PROJECTED DEMAND FOR AND SUPPLY OF
OFF-SITE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL CAPACITY
(THOUSAND WHT)
H
X
I
M
to
3,000
UJ
—1
> 2,000
LU
fr-
CC
I
1.QQO
1,202
KEY
• WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
A MAJOR INDUSTRIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE
GENERA TING CENTERS'
'BASED ON INDUSTRIAL CONCENTRATIONS OF FABRICATED
METALS. LEATHER AND LEATHER TANNING, TRANSPORTATION
EQUIPMENT, AND ELECTRONICS AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT
INDUSTRIES. DATA ON GEOGRAPHIC CONCENTRATIONS OF
THESE INDUSTRIES WERE OBTAINED FROM THE 1976
ANNUAL SURVEY OF MANUFACTURES, U.S. BUREAU OF THE
CENSUS
DEMAND
IN 1981
KEY
B8B KNOWN OFF SITE
d] ASSUMED OFF SITE
SUPPLY
AT THE
BEGINNING
OF 19B1
Bi LANDFILL
HH LAND TREATMENT
VTA CHEMICAL TREATMENT
RESOURCE RECOVERY
INCINERATION
EU DEEP WELL INJECTION
SOURCE: BOOZ'ALLEN & HAMILTON
-------
and could contribute to utilization of those management
options that are most suitable to any given waste. In
addition, the waste management industry plans to add 1155
thousand WMT of annual capacity in 1981.
The total 1981 waste volume generated in Region IV
is estimated to be 10,697 thousand WMT. Of that, approx-
imately 1,358 thousand WMT are expected to be disposed of
off-site. Major waste generating industries and their
projected 1981 off-site disposal volumes include:
Industrial Category
Industrial Inorganic Chemicals
Nonferrous Metals
Fabricated Metals
Nonmanufacturing Industries
Off-Site Demand
(Thousand WMT)
220
185
182
172
Industrial centers where there are major concentrations of
these generators are indicated in Exhibit IX-6. Most major
industrial centers in Region IV, with the exception of
central Georgia and central Florida, appear to be in reason-
ably close proximity to waste management facilities.
The total existing waste management capacity in Region
IV.is estimated to be in- excess of 1,566 thousand WMT per
year. Based on this, the region is projected to have suf-
ficient off-site capacity to manage its hazardous waste
stream for several reasons. First, as Exhibit IX-7 indicates,
a large portion of the wastes generated in the region are
suitable for landfilling, yet even at the maximum demand
levels for landfills, the region would still likely have
a landfill surplus. Second, the remaining 370 thousand
WMT of wastes that are not suitable for landfills appear
to be treatable by alternative management technologies
within the region.
The estimated surplus of capacity is supplemented by
two additional factors. The projection of annual capacity
of landfills in Region IV is based on an assumed operating
life of 5 years with the lifetime capacity equaling 5,680
thousand WMT. In reality, the rate at which the existing
landfills may be utilized may vary depending on demand and
certain other factors. Moreover, the total lifetime capac-
ity of landfills in Region IV may be substantially greater
IX-13
-------
EXHIBIT IX-6
Summary of Region IV
Hazardous Waste Generation and Management
H
X
I
MAJOR GENERATING CENTERS AND
WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
PROJECTED DEMAND FOR AND SUPPLY OF
OFF-SITE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL CAPACITY
(THOUSAND WMTI
3,000
2,000
<
1.000
>1.566
CONFIDENTIAL
1.358
KEY
• WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
A MAJOR INDUSTRIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE
GENERATING CENTERS'
'BASED ON INDUSTRIAL CONCENTRATIONS OF FABRICATED
METALS. LEATHER AND LEATHER TANNING. TRANSPORTATION
EQUIPMENT. AND ELECTRONICS AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT
INDUSTRIES. DATA ON GEOGRAPHIC CONCENTRATIONS OF
THESE INDUSTRIES WERE OBTAINED FROM THE 1976
ANNUAL SURVEY OF MANUFACTURES. U.S. BUREAU OF THE
CENSUS
DEMAND
IN 1981
KEY
Sffl KNOWN OFF SITE
I I ASSUMED OFF SITE
SUPPLY
AT THE
BEGINNING
OF 19BI
LANDFILL
gj LAND TREATMENT
T77A CHEMICAL TREATMENT
[^1 RESOURCE RECOVERY
rrm INCINERATION
E3 DEEP WELL INJECTION
SOURCE: BOOZ'ALLEN & HAMILTON
-------
EXHIBIT IX-7
Compatibility of Waste Streams with Management Alternatives
in Region IV
H
x
i
H
Ul
_
| 2000
u
S
1 1500
0
eo
o
fc
to 1000
LU
a
o
LU
| 500
LAND TREATMENT
—
MINIMUM POTENTIAL
_ DEMAND FOR ALTERNA-
TIVES TO LANDFILL1
/
—
_._.__
370
MAXIMUM
DEMAND
FOR LAND-
FILL
CAPACITY1
988
/
IV (CAPACITY CONFIDENTIAL)'
\--S. /
^•^x.
^*>^
CHEMICAL
TREATMENT
313
INCINERATOR
74
LANDFILL
CAPACITY
1136
r
^^ RESOURCE
RECOVERY
43
MAXIMUM EXISTING
ANNUAL DEMAND CAPACITY
1358 >1566
'ANALYSIS BASED ON SITUATION WHERE ALL GENERATORS WHO THEORETICALLY COULD USE LANDFILLS CHOOSE TO DO SO,
AND ONLY THOSE WASTES THAT ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH LANDFILLING ARE MANAGED BY OTHER TECHNOLOGIES.
CONVERSELY, THE ANALYSIS ALSO INDICATES THAT A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF REGION IV's WASTE STREAM COULD
BE TREATED BY TECHNOLOGIES OTHER THAN LANDFILL, THUS REDUCING THE NEED TO RELY AS HEAVILY ON LANDFILLS AS
A SOLUTION TO WASTE MANAGEMENT.
SOURCE: BOOZ'ALLEN & HAMILTON Inc.
-------
than indicated due to the potential for expansion. The
second qualification to the overall capacity projection is
based on the exclusion of data on land treatment capacity
in the region. A major treatment facility exists in
Region IV but its capacity cannot be .presented for reasons
of confidentiality. Projected 1981 capacities of each
treatment/disposal technology are shown in Exhibit IX-6.
5.
REGION V
Region V could face a potentially large capacity short-
fall in 1981. The region generates over 2.5 million WMT
of hazardous waste that may need off-site management yet
it has existing off-site capacity totaling just over 2.0
million WMT. Whether this ultimately will become'a problem
will depend on several factors including the ability of
the region to export some portion of its waste stream, the
success certain firms have in developing new capacity in
1981, and the degree to which deep-well injection can be
utilized to dispose of portions of the region's wastes.
The possibility for a shortfall in off-site capacity
exists because of,the overall limitations in capacity coupled
with potential mismatches among the waste streams and avail-
able off-site technologies. Part of the problem is that the
region appears to have excess capacity for some treatment
technologies and inadequate capacity for others.
Region V's problem may be alleviated by exporting
their wastes to other regions including, in some cases,
facilities near the generators. Also, up to 150 thousand
WMT more of waste conceivably could be subjected to re-
source recovery, given the existing waste stream and re-
source recovery capacity. Finally, according to waste
industry sources, as much as 530 thousand WMT of additional
capacity is projected to be available by the end of 1981.
In 1981, each of eight industrial categories will
generate in excess of 100 thousand WMT of hazardous waste
requiring off-site management. In Region V these eight
categories together produce over 2 million WMT of wastes,
accounting for 80 percent of the total off-site waste
treatment/disposal demand. They are:
The capacity of this facility is included as part of the total
national capacity estimates presented in Part II.
IX-16
-------
Industrial Category
Fabricated Metals
Transportation Equipment :
Nonmanufacturing Industries
Petroleum Refining and
Re-refining
Nonferrous Metals
Electric Electronic
Equipment
Machinery
Ferrous Metals
Off-Site Demand
(Thousand WMT) '
635
392
300
157
156
147
109
106
As indicated on the map in Exhibit IX-8, manufacturing
centers are located throughout the states of the region,
and the majority of these manufacturing centers are served
by some nearby off-site management facilities/ although
many of these facilities are'small or offer limited - services
No facilities have been identified in the entire State of
Minnesota.
6.
REGION VI
It is projected that Region VI will have the greatest
capacity surplus of any of the 10 regions. Moreover, the
region appears to have more than sufficient capacity to
cover most, if not all,of its various types of wastes pro-
duced. In addition, the waste management industry intends,
in 1981, to add up to 85 thousand WMT of new capacity.
The interest in developing additional waste management
capacity in the region is possibly based on the conclusion
by waste management firms that Region VI, because of topol-
ogy and climate, is especially suited to landfills, land
treatment, and deep-well injection. The industry expects
that excess capacity could potentially be utilized by generators
outside of the regions,
IX-17
-------
EXHIBIT IX-8
Summary of Region V
Hazardous Waste Generation and Management
MAJOR GENERATING CENTERS AND
WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
i
i-1
00
PROJECTED DEMAND FOR AND SUPPLY OF
OFFSITE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL CAPACITY
(THOUSAND WMTI
3.000
2.000
1.000
2.517
1,149
2.028
1,368
1,015
381
KEY
• WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
A MA JOB INDUSTRIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE
GENERATING CENTERS'
'BASED ON INDUSTRIAL CONCENTRATIONS OF FABRICATED
METALS, LEATHER AND LEATHER TANNING. TRANSPORTATION
EQUIPMENT. AND ELECTRONICS AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT
INDUSTRIES. DATA ON GEOGRAPHIC CONCENTRATIONS OF
THESE INDUSTRIES WERE OBTAINED FROM THE 1976
ANNUAL SURVEY OF MANUFACTURES. U.S. BUREAU OF THE
CENSUS
DEMAND
IN 1981
KEY
BH KNOWN OFF SITE
dl ASSUMED OFF SITE
SUPPLY
AT THE
BEGINNING
OF 1981
BH LANDFILL
LAND TREATMENT
5ZZ3 CHEMICAL TREATMENT
£253 RESOURCE RECOVERY
rrm INCINERATION
EE23 DEEP WEIL INJECTION
SOURCE: BOOZ'AILEN & HAMILTON
-------
The total volume of hazardous waste production in
Region VI for 1981 is projected'to be 11,025 thousand WMT,
the largest volume of any region. Of this total, however,
only 12 percent or 1,346 thousand WMT are expected to re-
quire off-site treatment. The remainder, which is mostly
chemical and petroleum industry wastes, will be managed
on-site.
Waste production in the region is very concentrated.
The five industrial categories which contribute the major-
ity of the off-site waste management demand include:
Industrial Category
Off-Site Demand
(Thousand WMT)
Industrial Organic Chemicals
Nonferrous Metals
Petroleum Refining
Fabricated Metals
Nonmanufacturing
Industries
296
275
251
218
128
The wastes produced by these five account for over 87
percent of the regional off-site waste stream. Moreover,
just three of the industries, nonferrous metals, industrial
organics, and petroleum refining, produce over 6.1 percent
of these wastes. As the map in Exhibit IX-9 indicates,
many of the large waste producing areas are served by one
or more waste treatment or disposal facilities.
Off-site disposal capacity in the region is expected
to total 7,981 thousand WMT at the beginning of 1981.1 Ex-
hibit IX-9 indicates the split of this capacity among treat-
ment/disposal technologies. In 1980, the region also
utilized deep-well inj-ection to dispose of 635 thousand .
WMT of wastes.
This capacity also includes the capacity for a land treatment
facility located in Region IV. Although this is a large facility,
it does, not substantially change the overall capacity of Region VI.
IX-19
-------
H
X
I
EXHIBIT IX-9
Summary of Region VI
Hazardous Waste Generation and Management
MAJOR GENERATING CENTERS AND
WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
8,000
3,000 -
2,000 -
1,000 -
PROJECTED DEMAND FOR AND SUPPLY OF
OFF-SITE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL CAPACITY
(THOUSAND WMT)
KEY
• WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
.4MAJOH INDUSTRIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE
GENERATING CENTERS'
'BASED ON INDUSTRIAL CONCENTRATIONS OF FABRICATED
METALS. LEATHER AND LEATHER TANNING, TRANSPORTATION
EQUIPMENT. AND ELECTRONICS AND ELECTRONIC EDUIPMENT
INDUSTRIES. DATA ON GEOGRAPHIC CONCENTRATIONS OF
THESE INDUSTRIES WERE OBTAINED FROM THE 1976
ANNUAL SURVEY OF MANUFACTURES. U.S. BUREAU OF THE
CENSUS
'CAPACITY FOR A LAND TREATMENT FACILITY IN REGION IV
IS INCLUDED IN THIS ESTIMATE TO AVOID DISCLOSING
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.
DEMAND
IN 1981
KEY
6§3 KNOWN OFF SITE
CU ASSUMED OFF SITE
SUPPLY
AT THE
BEGINNING
OF 1981
HI LANDFILL
HI LAND TREATMENT
EZZI CHEMICAL TREATMENT
E3 RESOURCE RECOVERY
HIDl INCINERATION
EH DEEP WELL INJECTION
SOURCE: BOOZ*ALLEN & HAMILTON
-------
Region VI is similar to Region IV in that it appears
to have more than sufficient capacity to satisfy its needs.
Even if all waste that could be landfilled were disposed
in this manner, capacity would be adequate. Even if land-
fills were used at only one-half of the 1980 rate, the
alternative technologies would still have more than suf-
ficient capacity to manage the remaining waste volume.
7.
REGION VII
Region VII is projected to have the second smallest
demand for off-site capacity among the 10 regions. Similarly,
its actual off-site capacity is small. The region is pro-
jected to have a total annual capacity of 218 thousand WMT
at. the beginning of 1981. Overall, the region shows almost
twice as much waste that may need off-site management
than its existing facilities will be able to accommodate.
The seriousness of Region VII's problem is difficult to
forecast however, and shortages may be tempered to some
degree by three factors. First, in absolute terms, the
size of the probable capacity shortfall is not great, 222
thousand WMT. Second, waste management firms have indicated
that during 1981, an additional 11 thousand WMT of annual
capacity will be available in the region. Finally, several
major generating centers in the region are located in
reasonable proximity to waste management facilities in
Regions IV, V and VI (see Exhibit IX-10).
The total volume of waste expected to be generated in
Region VII in 1981 is only 1,231 thousand WMT. Of this,
440 thousand WMT may need off-site management. No one
industrial category contributes a major portion of this
total and much of the total 'is made up of small volumes
from a relatively large number of industrial categories.
The contributors of the four largest industries include:
Industrial Category
Nonmanufacturing Industries
Fabricated Metals
Transportation Equipment
Nonferrous Metals
Off-Site Demand
(Thousand WMT)
86
78
68
49
IX-21
-------
H
X
I
to
EXHIBIT IX-10
Summary of Region VII
Hazardous Waste Generation and Management
MAJOR GENERATING CENTERS AND
WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
PROJECTED DEMAND FOR AND SUPPLY OF
OFF SITE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL CAPACITY
(THOUSAND WMT)
3.000
2.000
1,000
KEY
• WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
AMAJOR INDUSTRIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE
GENERATING CENTERS'
'BASED ON INDUSTRIAL CONCENTRATIONS OF FABRICATED
METALS. LEATHER AND LEATHER TANNING. TRANSPORTATION
EQUIPMENT. AND ELECTRONICS AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT
INDUSTRIES. DATA ON GEOGRAPHIC CONCENTRATIONS OF
THESE INDUSTRIES WERE OBTAINED FROM THE 1976
ANNUAL SURVEY OF MANUFACTURES. U.S. BUREAU OF THE
CENSUS
DEMAND
IN 19B1
KEY
SI KNOWN OFF-SITE
CH ASSUMED OFF SITE
SUPPLY
AT THE
BEGINNING
OF 1961
LANDFILL
LAND TREATMENT
CHEMICAL TREATMENT
E23 RESOURCE RECOVERY
Urn INCINERATION
EZ3 DEEP WELL INJECTION
SOURCE: BOOZ'AUEN & HAMILTON
-------
Together these four produce approximately 65 percent of
the region's off-site hazardous waste stream.
Capacity in Region VII is split almost entirely between
landfills and chemical treatment facilities. There are no
incineration, land treatment, or deep-well disposal facilities
identified and only a small amount of resource recovery
capacity. Exhibit IX-10 indicates the relative capacities
of each technology.
8.
REGION VIII
There are no existing facilities identified which
claim to be capable of providing hazardous waste treatment
or disposal services which will meet. RCRA standards (Exhibit
IX-11) , however, it is reported that one multi-service
facility will be developed in Denver, Colorado. !
The lack of capacity is mitigated to some degree by
the small volume of wastes requiring of f -site • management
which are produced annually in Region VIII. Moreover, by
the end of 1981, the waste management industry expects to
have 100 thousand WMT of usable capacity. Nonetheless,
given the current lack of facilities and the great distances
from Region VIII generators to waste management operations
in other areas, the region may face difficulties transport-
ing wastes • to other regions .
The actual volume of wastes projected to be generated
in Region VIII 'in 1981 is 325 thousand WMT. Approximately
154 thousand WMT of that total may need of f -site treat-
ment. Only nonmanufacturing industries (42 thousand WMT)
produce a significant portion of , the off-site demand. No
other single industry in Region VIII annually generates
more than 2.0 thousand WMT of wastes that may need off-
site management.
9.
REGION IX
Region IX presents another example of a surplus of
overall waste treatment capacity. Although the large size
of the region and the possibility of local imbalances may
result in some specific waste management problems, the
region indicates a general ability to satisfy its off-site
requirements. The one possible exception could be incinera-
tion which is in relatively short supply in the region.
Alternative technologies exist for most wastes however, and
a shortage, if it pccurs, is unlikely to be severe, at least
in terms of overall regional needs.
The Hazardous Waste News recently reported (October 27, 1980)
that this facility has begun operations.
IX-23
-------
H
X!
I
EXHIBIT IX-11
Sununary of Region VIII
Hazardous Waste Generation and Management
MAJOR GENERATING CENTERS AND
WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
PROJECTED DEMAND FOR AND SUPPLY OF
OFF-SITE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAl CAPACITY
(THOUSAND WHT)
3,000
2,000
«t
1.000
KEY
• WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
AMAJOH INDUSTRIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE
GENERATING CENTERS'
'BASED ON INDUSTRIAL CONCENTRATIONS OF FABRICATED
METALS. LEATHER AND LEATHER TANNING. TRANSPORTATION
EQUIPMENT. AND ELECTRONICS AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT
INDUSTRIES. DATA ON GEOGRAPHIC CONCENTRATIONS OF
THESE INDUSTRIES WERE OBTAINED FROM THE 1976
ANNUAL SURVEY OF MANUFACTURER, U.S. BUREAU OF THE
CENSUS
'WHEN THIS REPORT WENT TO PRESS THE HAZARDOUS
WASTE NEWS REPORTED ON OCTOBER 27. 1980 THAT ONE
FACILITY HAS BEGUN OPERATING IN DENVER, COLORADO.
46 f
154
1108
NO CURRENT2
OFF SITE
CAPACITY
DEMAND
IN 19B1
KEY
Btq KNOWN OFF SITE
EH ASSUMED OFF SITE
SUPPLY
AT THE
BEGINNING
OF 1981
•B LANDFILL
•I LAND TREATMENT
tZZ] CHEMICAL TREATMENT
E3 RESOURCE RECOVERY
CUD INCINERATION
DEEP WELL INJECTION
SOURCE: BOOZ«AUEN & HAMILTON
-------
The total off-site waste management demand in Region
IX is expected to be 896 thousand WMT in 1981. This rep-
resents nearly 31 percent of the total 2,925 thousand WMT
of wastes produced in this region. Five industry categories
account for approximately 70 percent of this off-site demand,
They are: • -•
Industrial Category
Nonmanufacturing•
Transportation Equipment
Fabricated Metals
Petroleum Refining
Batteries
Off-Site Demand
(Thousand WMT)
200
168
141 , '
74
46
As suggested in Exhibit IX-12, both waste generators
and waste management facilities are concentrated in coastal
and central California. The only off-site facility outside
California identified in Region IX is located in southern
Nevada.
The overall off-site waste management capacity in
Region IX is expected to be 2,759 thousand WMT at the
beginning of 1981. This is more than three times the pro-_
jected demand. Exhibit IX-12 shows the capacities of
various treatment/disposal types. As shown, land burial
and land treatment provide over 85 percent of all of
Region IX's off-site capacity.
In general, the match up between capacity and the
specific types of demand appear to be adequate. The sup-
ply of treatment capacity for three major technologies is
significantly greater than the potential maximum demand
for those technologies, and only for incineration and
resource recovery are there any indications of a possible
shortage. Because most wastes that would be incinerated
or recovered can be managed by other technologies, the
likelihood of an overall capacity shortage in the region
should be limited. The waste management industry plans
to add 525 thousand WMT of annual capacity in 1981.
Nonetheless, it is important to note that because of the
size of the region and the potentially great distances
between certain generators and possibly needed disposal/
treatment facilities, localized problems might occur.
IX-25
-------
EXHIBIT IX-12
Summary of Region IX
Hazardous Waste Generation and Management
MAJOR GENERATING CENTERS AND
WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
PROJECTED DEMAND FOR AND SUPPLY OF
OFF SITE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL CAPACITY
(THOUSAND WHT)
H
X
I
K)
3,000
2,000
in
1,000
2,759
896
344
552
KEY
• WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
A MAJOR INDUSTRIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE
GENERATING CENTERS'
•BASED ON INDUSTRIAL CONCENTRATIONS OF FABRICATED
METALS, LEATHER AND LEATHER TANNING. TRANSPORTATION
EQUIPMENT. AND ELECTRONICS AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT
INDUSTRIES. DATA ON GEOGRAPHIC CONCENTRATIONS OF
THESE INDUSTRIES WERE OBTAINED FROM THE 1976
ANNUAL SURVEY OF MANUFACTURES. U.S. BUREAU OF THE
CENSUS
KEY
DEMAND
IN 1981
KNOWN OFF SITE
ASSUMED OFF SITE
SUPPLY
AT THE
BEGINNING
OF 1961
BH LANDFILL
LAND TREATMENT
EZ3 CHEMICAL TREATMENT
E3 RESOURCE RECOVERY
OHO INCINERATION
EH DEEP WELL INJECTION
SOURCE: BOOZ'AUEH & HAMILTON
-------
10. REGION X
Region X is projected to show an off-site capacity
shortfall for 1981. This deficit is not expected to be
large and planned new capacity for 1981 is small (estimated
at 2 thousand WMT). Several 'factors may cause the shortfall
to pose a problem for the region. The distances between
most Region X generators and off-site management facilities
in the neighboring regions are great. Therefore, it is
difficult for any significant volumes of wastes to be shipped
these distances. While a small volume of wastes is now"
shipped to facilities outside of Region X, it will be
economically difficult for generators .to pay the transporta-
tion costs of shipping significant amounts out of the area.
For 1981, the estimated volume of wastes requiring
off-site management will be 503 thousand WMT, This rep-
resents approximately 50 percent of the total 1024 thousand
WMT of hazardous waste produced annually in Region X. One
industry, nonferrous metals, is responsible for over 304
thousand WMT of wastes, or 60 percent of the total. Two
other large generators are transportation equipment (50
thousand WMT) and, nonmanufacturing industries (42. thousand
WMT). These three industries account for almost 80 percent
of the projected off-site waste management demand.
Treatment facilities are highly concentrated in the
Seattle area of Washington and in northwestern Oregon.
Idaho, has one facility. (See Exhibit IX-13). Existing
off-site capacity in the Region is projected to be 318
thousand WMT for 1981.
This chapter presented a regional assessment of supply
of and demand for hazardous waste management capacity in 1981
This has been a snap-shot of the dynamic process of supply
and demand interactions. Only Region V appears to have a
significant capacity shortfall for 1981, .however 1981
planned additions to capacity in the region may be adequate
to offset the potential shortfall. Obviously, one must also
look beyond 1981 to consider the demand for and availability
of hazardous waste capacity. Factors that will .have an
influence on future shortfalls or surpluses are discussed
in the following chapter.
IX-27
-------
EXHIBIT IX-13
Summary of Region X
Hazardous Waste Generation and Management
MAJOR GENERATING CENTERS AND
WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
H
X
I
w
00
PROJECTED DEMAND FOR AND SUPPLY OF
OFF-SITE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL CAPACITY
(THOUSAND WMT)
3,000
2,000
1,000
KEY
• WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
A MAJOR INDUSTRIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE
GENERATING CENTERS'
'BASED ON INDUSTRIAL CONCENTRATIONS OF FABRICATED
METALS. LEATHER AND LEATHER TANNING. TRANSPORTATION
EQUIPMENT. AND ELECTRONICS AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT
INDUSTRIES. DATA ON GEOGRAPHIC CONCENTRATIONS OF
THESE INDUSTRIES WERE OBTAINED FROM THE 1976
ANNUAL SURVEY OF MANUFACTURES, U.S. BUREAU OF THE
CENSUS
DEMAND
IN 1981
KEY
ES KNOWN OFF-SITE
ASSUMED OFF SITE
SUPPLY
AT THE
BEGINNING
OF 1981
Hi LANDFILL
LAND TREATMENT
EZZ! CHEMICAL TREATMENT
ESS RESOURCE RECOVERY
fim INCINERATION
IS3 DEEP WELL INJECTION
SOURCE: BOOZ'ALLEN & HAMILTON
-------
X. IMPORTANT FACTORS FOR ASSESSING OFF-SITE
CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS BEYOND 1981
There is considerable uncertainty over the demand for
and availability of off-site capacity for managing hazardous
wastes beyond 1981.
Further extrapolation of the data in this study beyond
1981 is of little value, considering the uncertainty of the
effects of the major variables that will influence the
demand for and supply of off-site capacity. This chapter
.discusses a number of these variables that may affect supply
of and demand for off-site capacity. This discussion also
shows the complexity of analyzing these variables, which
include conflicting regulatory, economic, and social forces.
1. GOVERNMENTAL REGULATORY ACTIVITIES AND INDUSTRY'S
ACTIONS TO ADJUST TO THE RCRA PROGRAM WILL DETERMINE
THE DEMAND FOR OFF-SITE. CAPACITY
Although predicting the post-1981 demand for off-site
capacity is difficult, two major forces will dominate the
situation: First, governmental actions to control the
harmful releases of hazardous substances and second, the
responses of waste generators to effectively manage their
costs and to deal with the various risks a post-RCRA C
environment imposes. It is unclear how industry's response
to the RCRA C program will affect future off-site demand
because the complexity of the adjustment process for
thousands of waste generators must be considered.
(1) Off-Site Capacity Demand Will Increase as the
Government's Coverage of Materials Requiring
Proper Management as Hazardous Wastes Expands
By describing the characteristics of hazardous
wastes and listing specific hazardous waste streams,
the Phase I RCRA C regulations provide an initial
definition of which wastes are hazardous. Several
states have similar schemes for defining hazardous
wastes. The Federal RCRA C program will continue to
expand its list and identify wastes it believes are
hazardous. State-operated programs will have the
X-l
-------
same opportunity if they wish to control substances
beyond those specified under RCRA. The increasing scope
of the definition of a hazardous waste will increase
the quantities of wastes requiring off-site disposal.
Furthermore, government air and water pollution control
.programs will lead industrial facilities to reduce the
dispersion of their pollutants in these media by in-
stalling equipment to collect and concentrate them in
waste streams that EPA or states may consider hazardous.
The Phase I regulations already list as hazardous many
sludges resulting from treating wastewater and dusts/
sludges produced by controlling air emissions.1 Also,
the Toxic Substances Control Act empowers EPA to direct
the disposal of toxic substances produced during the
manufacture and use of chemicals. Already EPA has made
limited use of this authority with .PCB regulations,
which require special disposal of this chemical as a
hazardous waste.
(2) Off-Site Capacity Demand May Also Increase Because
Congress May Soon Enact Legislation for Federal
Cleanup of Hazardous Wastes at Abandoned Sites
Besides managing waste generated in the future, EPA
believes that the hazardous waste management industry may
be needed to treat or dispose of waste from the Federal
cleanup of abandoned sites. Congress- is now considering
several legislative proposals to create a "Superfund" to
finance this cleanup for at least the next 4 years.
Although the emphasis should be on on-site treatment
and containment, two types of sites will require off-site
actions: abandoned storage or treatment facilities
containing drums of waste that will need off-site
disposal, and land burial sites leaking wastes for
which the only acceptable environmental solution
will be to excavate the site and transport the material
to off-site facilities. Although EPA has not deter-
mined the extent to which these sites may increase
demand and cannot yet predict the timing of most of
the cleanup activity, it realizes their"potential
significance.2
The May 19, 1980 RCRA regulations list 22 wastewater treatment
sludges and 3 air emission dusts/sludges in the 85 generic and
process waste stream listings.
Based on an interview with William Hanson of the Office of Water
and Waste Management, EPA.
X-2
-------
(3) Demand For Off-Site Capacity Will Increase Because
The Government Has Augmented Its Regulatory Efforts
To Halt Inadequate On-Site Waste Management Practices
In assessing future off-site demand, government
regulatory efforts to halt inadequate on-site management of
•hazardous waste must be considered. Currently these efforts
exist through Federal and state enforcement programs. In
the future, EPA will also handle this problem through the
RCRA C waste manaaement facility permitting process.
On-site treatment, storage, or disposal operations
that EPA or state regulatory officials find improper for
managing hazardous wastes may be subjected to enforcement
actions that may close down these facilities. In many
instances, off-site disposal may be the only alternative
for these waste generators—for example, when no additional
land is available for building a secure landfill after
a poor facility is closed.
Through the permit process, EPA and state officials ,
will allow the continued use of adequate on-site facilities
and the use of those that could be upgraded to safely
manage the wastes they are designed to contain or destroy.
However, for certain facilities, especially disposal sites,
retrofitting may not be technically or economically feasible,
e.g., the natural geology under a landfill is so poor that
the costs to engineer an adequate site would be exorbitant.
These facility operators face off-site disposal as. their
only alternative. In addition, new industrial plants may
find that the permit process for siting a waste management
facility on site is too lengthy and may decide to dispose
off site to be able to begin operations sooner.
(4) The Industry Needs Time To Comprehend the Scope of
the RCRA Regulations and To Make Adjustments
The hazardous waste management program is a very
complex regulatory scheme that requires considerable time
to comprehend. The Phase I regulations are effective
in November, and a transition by industry towards better
practices of managing hazardous wastes is underway.
Despite the deadline, the transition depends more on how
well the industry realizes which wastes are in the RCRA
C system—particularly which of its wastes exhibit the
characteristics and are therefore hazardous although not
listed—and its acceptance of the program which will in
part be based on its expectation of and experience with an
X-3
-------
active enforcement program.! The slower the transition
to better waste management practices, the later any
expected future demand for off-site capacity will, occur.
(5) The Post-RCRA C Regulatory Environment Provides
Several Incentives for Waste Generators To Produce
Less Hazardous Waste:
Three factors provide incentives to generators of
hazardous wastes to reduce the total volume produced or
to reduce the volume that requires off-site disposal:
The increased disposal costs associated with
proper management of hazardous wastes manage-
ment under RCRA C
The liability risks of inadequate handling of-
the wastes
The danger of attracting bad publicity.
As pointed out in Part I of this report, when waste
disposal prices increase significantly, some industries
will likely make material substitutions to remove
hazardous constituents from their waste streams and render
them nonhazardous. They also will likely reduce the waste
volumes_they produce by engineering better process designs,
recylcling more of their by-products, and segregating
hazardous and nonhazardous waste streams because of the
wide differential in their disposal costs.2 In addition,
before sending waste off-site for disposal, industrial
facilities will give increased consideration to the
economic advantages of neutralizing and dewatering some
of the hazardous wastes they produce to reduce the volumes
that need off-site disposal. Those who already dewater
some of the wastes will consider the RCRA-induced increases
Part I shows the importance of industry's understanding and use
of the RCRA C waste characteristics by indicating that at least
51 percent of the waste that contractors estimated to be hazardous
in 1980 are not placed on EPA's waste list, but have at least one
of the characteristics.
Booz, Allen estimates it currently costs $5-10/metric ton to dispose
of- waste at a sanitary landfill, whereas disposal at a secure
landfill costs $20-400/metric ton. A chemical treatment facility
charges $15-500/metric ton and an incinerator charges $50-1000/
metric ton.
X-4
-------
in disposal costs and judge if more sophisticated de-
watering practices are economical.1 There is uncertainty,
however, over how quickly any significant waste reduction
will occur.
The overall effect of industry's attempts to reduce
waste volumes could be diminished, to some degree as many
industries continue to grow and have additional generators
producing hazardous wastes. Part I of this report
indicates that the hazardous wastes generated each-year
would increase by 3.5 percent, if the current industrial
growth rate continued and industries did not operate
differently in the future because of RCRA. '
(6) The Influence of Shifts in On-Site/Off-Site Disposal
Practices Will Be Critical to the Potential for*
Off-Site Capacity Shortfalls
The first chapter of 'this volume relied on the critical
assumption that the historical ratio of on-site to off-site
disposal would remain the same during the initial period of
the RCRA C program. EPA has commonly accepted this rate
to be about 4 to 1, on site to off site.2 However,
this assumption may be invalid after 1981.
All other factors remaining, the same, a small
change of this ratio, could dramatically affect the
capacity situation. If i'n 1981, generators were to
send to off-site facilities 5-10 percent of the wastes
now expected to be managed on-site, the requirements
for off-site capacity would increase 17-34 percent.3
The significance of such a change in the ratio must not
be viewed in isolation. If a significant number of
industrial waste generators were reducina their
2
3
Based on discussion with Dr. Douglas Shooter, Arthur D. Little, Inc.,
the primary RCRA. 'C ISS Economic Impact Analysis contractor, who
indicated that many facilities currently employ.simple rotary drum
dewatering devices to dewater sludges. Increases in waste disposal
costs could lead .these plants to purchase more sophisticated devices
such as filter presses.
Chapter II estimates 23 percent of the hazardous,waste produced in
1981 will be disposed off-site.
For 1981, we forecast 32,956 thousand metric tons managed on-site
and 9,738 thousand metric tons managed off-site.
X-5
-------
quantities of waste, a possible shift to a greater
percentage of waste going off-site could occur without
a great shift in the volume of waste going off-site.
Because of the present uncertainty regarding
generators' future decisions to manage waste on- or
.off site, it is difficult to judge the likelihood and
timing of a significant shift from on-site to off-site
disposal. A recent study by Booz, Allen and Hamilton, of
generators in the Delaware River Basin, indicates that
when generators decide how to manage their wastes, such
factors as off-site management reliability, the flexibi-
lity of off-site services available, public image, and
the management of a plant or corporation's overall
liability have greater importance than relative on-site/
off-site disposal costs.1 If this were assumed to be
generally true for all industry in the near term, one
would need much more information than is currently
available to determine what will happen in the future.
The relatively low importance of economics in current
decisions for managing hazardous wastes in the Delaware
River Basin may be largely due to the insignificance
of waste disposal costs compared to total industry
production costs today.2 Where RCRA's existing and
forthcoming regulations alter this situation, economics;
should become a much greater factor. In that instance,
RCRA-induced economies of scale that favor large-scale !
operations over small facilities could influence rela-
tively smaller waste generators to shift from disposing •
their wastes on-site to using larger off-site disposal
operations. This shift, however, may be mitigated by
price increases in areas where shortages of off-site
capacity develop. Importantly, EPA is concerned about •
any shift to off-site disposal that results in rapid,
large price increases that could produce a hardship for
some plants and the possibility of their noncompliance
or closure.
Support document for the Hazardous Waste Management Capacity
Development in the Delaware River Basin and New Jersey: A Program
Strategy/ Booz, Allen & Hamilton Inc., April 1980.
In the preamble of the Phase I RCRA C regulations published May 19,
1980 in the Federal Register, EPA pointed out that for 17 industries
it studied, the annual cost of compliance for'the Phase I standards
was less than 0.2 percent of the value of sales. ;
X-6
-------
2.
THREE MAJOR FACTORS WILL DETERMINE OFF-SITE SUPPLY
Expected profits, government regulatory efforts, and
public involvement in the facility-siting process will affect
the availability of off-site capacity. Again, the variables
will have conflicting effects that make long-range predictions
difficult.
(1) The Possibility of Large Profits in Operating
Hazardous Waste Facilities Successfully Should
Spur Investment in Additional Capacity
A number of strong incentives may influence exist-
ing facilities to expand their operations and to
construct new facilities. These include:
The presence of a large and growing" Federal
and state regulatory program for managing
hazardous wastes
The economies of scale that commercial
facilities could achieve in managing
hazardous wastes
The current limited number of facilities and
uneven geographical distribution throughout
the country.
Some insight into the influence of expected profits
is provided through Part II's forecasts of increases
of capacity in 1981 and 1982. By the end of 1982,
incineration capacity is predicted to increase by
122 percent from 1980, and chemical treatment capacity
will increase by 50 percent. Landfills will experience
additions of about 8.8 million wet metric tons (WMT),
so that the net capacity (assuming the continued cur-
rent utilization rate or a 5-year lifetime for land-
fills, whichever is highest, on a regional basis) will
be at least 25.1 million T*7MT by the end of 1982.
(2) Government Regulatory Actions Could Reduce the
Number of Existing Facilities or Dampen the
Incentive To Develop New Types of Off-Site
Capacity
EPA and state standards for managing hazardous
waste facilities may drive up the cost of operating or
building new facilities, and strict enforcement of the
RCRA C regulations may,lead to the closure of some
existing facilities.
X-7
-------
Although incinerator construction is already a sub-
stantial capital investment, there are large risks
associated with the additional investment in a permit
and operation of a site that could be subjected to
future liability claims.-'- Landfill operations face
.the same liability risks. Additional cost requirements
under RCRA Phase II regulations for these already risky
forms of investment could result in fewer facilities
being developed.
It is important to note that chemical treatment
is not as expensive a capital investment and does not
appear to bear the same degree of siting risk.2
Depending on how the technical standards relatively
affect various management options, the result may be ,
that government standards and the general operating
environment for the industry will shift investment to •
less costly and less risky types of facilities, e.g.,
from landfills and incinerators to chemical treatment.
The capacity forecast section of this report indicates
that the industry is already moving in this direction.
Final judgments must await the technical standards
that are under development for the Phase II regulations.
Strict enforcement of RCRA may lead to the closure
of some of today's existing off-site capacity for
managing hazardous wastes. Currently, the Federal
government has an enforcement case against one of the
127 facilities mentioned in Part II of this report, and
the State of Massachusetts is taking legal action
against another. Also, the RCRA permitting process for
these facilities could result in capacity reductions
if state or Federal officials uncover reasons to prohibit
or restrict the uses of these facilities.
(3) Public Opposition During the Facility-Siting Process
Is the Major Obstacle to the Addition of Off-Site
Capacity
If current public opposition to new facilities
continues, the siting of these facilities will be hind-
ered. The waste management industry reports that this
In Part II, a 20,000 WMT capacity incinerator was stated to have
a capital investment cost of $10 million.
A 50,000 WMT capacity chemical treatment facility was stated to
have a capital investment cost of $2 million.
X-8
-------
opposition is its greatest problem in developing
additional capacity. The current RCRA C new facility
permitting process will actively involve the public.
The opposing public have often found many avenues to
delay or prohibit the operation of new facilities in
certain areas.
Several states have efforts underway to reduce
the public's concern about properly designed hazardous
waste_facilities, to develop schemes that will help
the siting process, and to participate in developing
new sites.
The success of these efforts is important. The
1981, 1982, and 1985 capacity estimates made in Part II
are based on obtaining Federal and state permits. They
are based upon industry's own assessment of this situa-
tion and other factors. Because of public opposition,
increases in landfill capacity are expected to be
insignificant after 1981.
The factors that affect the future demand for and
availability of off-site capacity for disposing of hazardous
wastes are complex. When deciding how to regulate hazardous
wastes, EPA and the states will need to weigh these factors
carefully, to protect the public health while reducing the
possibility of shortages that would make the price of off-
site disposal prohibitively costly or induce noncompliance
with RCRA. EPA's awareness of all the factors discussed
above and its sound judgment in implementing the RCRA
hazardous waste program through' a period of transition to
better national waste management practices will be very
important.
X-9
-------
-------
REFERENCES
1. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices,
Leather Tanning and Finishing Industry, SCS Engineers,
Inc., 11/76.
2. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practice,
Special Machinery Manufacturing Industries, WAPORA,
Inc., 3/77.;'
3. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices,
Electroplating and Metal Finishing Industries — Job
Shops, Battelle Columbus Labs, 9/76.
, 4. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices,
Storage and Primary Batteries Industries, Versar, Inc.,
1975.:~~:;:
5. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices
in the Metal Smelting and Refining Industry, Calspan
Corp,, 1977.
6. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices,
Electronic Components Manufacturing Industry, WAPO RA,
Inc., 1/77.
7. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Management
Practices, Petroleum Rerefining Industry, John W.
swain,jr.,y//b.
8. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices
in the Petroleum Refining Industry, Jacobs Engineering
Co., 6/76.
9. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices,
Paint and Allied Products Industry, Contract Solvent
Reclaiming Operations, and Factory Application of
Coatings, WAPORA, Inc., 9/75.
10. Pharmaceutical Industry Hazardous Waste Generation,
Treatment, and Disposal, ADL, 1976.
11. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices,
Rubber and Plastics Industry, Foster D. Snell, Inc.,
3/78. '
R-l
-------
12. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices,
Inorganic Chemicals Industry, Versar, Inc., 3/75.
13. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices,
Organic Chemicals, Pesticides, and Explosives Industries,
TRW Systems Group,4/75.
14. Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste Practices,
Textiles Industry, Versar, Inc., 6/76.
15. Unpublished data in support of Economic Impact Analysis,
Pope Reid Associates, 3/80.
16. Unpublished data in support of Economic Impact Analysis,
ADL, 2/80.
17. Subtitle C, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of
1976. Draft Environmental Impact Statement and
Appendices, MITRE Corp., 1/79.
18. Technical Environmental Impacts of Various Approaches
for Regulating Small Volume Hazardous Waste Generators,
Vols. I, II, TRW, 12/10/79.
19. 1977 Census of Manufactures, Selected Statistics for
Industry Groups and Industries; 1977 and 1972, Bureau
of the Census, MC77-5-1(P).
20. Personal Communication with E.C. Jordan.
21. Census of Manufactures, 1972, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Vol. II Area Statistics,
8/76.
22. Draft Economic Impact Analysis Subtitle C, Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, ADL, 1/79.
23. 1979 U.S. Industrial Outlook, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Industry and Trade Administration, 1/79.
24. U.S. Statistical Abstract, Bureau of the Census.
25. Federal Register, Vol. 45, No. 98, 5/19/80.*
26. A Study of the Economics and Environmental Viability
of a U.S. Flag Toxic Chemical Incinerator Ship,
Global Marine Development, Inc., 12/78.
27. Cost of Complying with Hazardous Waste Management ;
Regulations, Draft, Battelle Columbus Labs, 12/77
R-2
-------
28.
29.
30.
Economic Impact Analysis of Hazardous Waste Management
Regulations on Selected Generating Industries, Energy
Resources Co.,Inc.,6/79.
Potential for Capacity Creation in the Hazardous Waste
Management Service Industry/ Foster D'. Snell, Inc., 8/76
Alternatives to the Management, of. Hazardous Wastes at
National Disposal Sites., ADL, 5/73.. ~~~ ~—:—~
R-3
-------
-------
APPENDICES
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
ESTIMATION OF INDUSTRIAL HAZARDOUS
WASTE GENERATION, 1980.. AND 1981
This appendix presents more detailed tables of hazardous
waste generation estimates as well as the methodology used
to develop these tables. It is intended as a reference-
showing where and how the data included in.Chapter III were
developed. The major portion of the appendix is a series
of -"industry summaries" that describe the derivation of the
1980 hazardous waste estimate, the disposal practices, and
the regional distribution of total waste and those disposed
off-site (or unknown as the case might be) for each industry
generating hazardous.waste. This appendix is organized into
three parts:
A discussion of the methodology used to select
and adjust the waste generation .quantities
A brief discussion of the limitations of the data
A guide explaining how the hazardous waste and dis-
posal volumes were derived/ which includes summary
tables showing 1980 estimated hazardous waste gen-
eration by industry and by waste category (Exhibit
A-l); summary tables of 1980 and 1981 industrial
hazardous waste generation showing disposal practices
by industry and by EPA region (Exhibits A-2 and
A-3); and industry summaries of hazardous waste
generation (Exhibit A-4) .
1. THE METHODOLOGY PROVIDES A COMPREHENSIVE OVERVIEW OF
GENERATION AND REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE QUANTITY,
OF INDUSTRIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE IN THE NATION
The methodology used during the course of the study
seeks to provide an in-depth analysis of particular industries
and develop the most reliable data base available concerning
hazardous waste generation in the United States. The follow-
ing approach was used to collect, analyze, and organize
existing information into estimates for the volume of hazard-
ous waste generated and the quantity of off-site disposal
demand.
(1) Specific Waste Stream Volumes Were Identified for
All Industries for Which Information Was Available
The sources of information used to quantify and
characterize the waste streams from the industries
A-l
-------
included in the study are shown in the bibliography.
The principal references used were the:
Draft Economic Impact Analysis (DEIA) Sub-
title C, Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) of 1976, Arthur D. Little, Inc.,
January 1979.
Unpublished data compiled in support of the
final Economic Impact Analysis of RCRA,
February and March, 1980. Referred to
throughout the remainder of the methodology
as the EIA backup.
Subtitle C, Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act of 1976, Draft Environmental Impact
Statement and Appendices, MITRE Corp., January
1979.
Technical Environmental Impacts of Various
Approaches for Regulating Small Volume
Hazardous Waste Generators, Vols. I & II,
TRW, December 10, 1979.
EPA-sponsored assessment reports of industrial
hazardous waste practices of 14 industries
by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
categories.
The detailed industry-by-industry and waste .stream-
by-waste stream analysis developed for the economic im-
pact analyses of RCRA was used as the primary source
of information. In cases where portions of an industry
were not analyzed as part of the EIA, data from the Draft
RCRA Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or the Small
Generator Study references were used to fill in the gaps.
(2) The Waste Streams Identified Were Assigned to
the EPA Waste List or Characteristic Category
as Appropriate
The waste list was based on a March 1980 listing
that contained the May 19, 1980 listings, the planned
Summer of 1980 listings (Appendix A of the preamble
to the rules) and the planned Fall of 1980 listings
(Appendix B of the preamble to the rules). In addition
to these listings, wastes may also be hazardous if they
exhibit the characteristics of, ignitability, corrosivity,
reactivity, or EP toxicity. Wastes judged to exhibit
these characteristics although not listed were placed in a
second category entitled Characteristic Waste.
A-2
-------
A third category of hazardous waste was used for
the study which included waste streams where sources
of information did not identify specific characteristics
of the waste stream, or in some cases, did not define
quantities of wastes by waste streams. A special "un-
known" category is used for these industrial waste
streams or portions thereof.
(3) Disposal Practices and Regional Distribution
of Each Waste Stream Were Determined
Utilizing the information contained in EPA-sponsored
industrial hazardous waste assessment reports, the type
of disposal and the regional distribution of each
waste stream was determined.
EPA regional distributions of the wastes were
also determined by different methods, depending upon
the availability of the data- for each industry.
The three methods used were:
t-
Waste Stream Basis. Hazardous wastes were
regionally distributed at the waste stream
level according to information presented in
EPA assessment reports, and then aggregated
to the industry level.
Industry Basis. Hazardous wastes were region-
ally distributed at the industry level (or
subindustry level for those reported separately)
as identified in the EPA assessment reports.
Allocation. In cases where a regional
distribution was not available, industry-
wide hazardous wastes were allocated to
regions based on the number of employees
from the SIC within each EPA region as
reported by the Bureau of Census in the
1972 Census of Manufactures^
(4) The Industries and Sub-Industries for Which' There
Was No Hazardous Waste Volume Information Reported
in Primary Sources Were Identified
Where there is a lack of information regarding
quantities of hazardous waste generated by a particular
industry, the RCRA EIS and TRW Small Generator Study
were reviewed and generation volumes were selected to
A-3
-------
fill the gaps. In general, the EIA was used when data
for a complete industry were not available (e.g., SIC
317). The Small Generator Study was used to identify
the types of waste when this was not available from
primary sources. In cases where the information com-
piled to support the RCRA EIA (EIA backup analysis)
considered only a portion of an industry, the genera-
tion rate for the total industry was developed by
calculating the ratio between production worker employees
hours from these segments to the total industry.
(5) The Volumes of Industrial Hazardous Wastes Were
Adjusted and Were Aggregated to Industry Totals
and EPA Regional Distributions
After developing industry totals for hazardous
waste generated by each industry, the totals were ad-
justed for coverage and growth. Many of the industry
analyses focused on only those plants in a particular
SIC code that produced a product as its primary output.
However, other plants may also produce the same product
but be classified in other SIC codes. To account for
this problem, the Bureau of Census adjusts the data
utilizing a coverage ratio factor. The coverage ratio
(CR) as defined by the Bureau of Census "is the propor-
tion of primary products shipped by the establishments
classified in the industry to total shipments of such
products by all manufacturing establishments."
Coverage ratios were applied to the industries to avoid
underestimating the quantity of hazardous waste gener-
ated by a particular industry; however, the coverage
ratio could not be used for all industries included in
the study. The coverage ratio was applied only in :
instances where the waste estimates were based upon the
census industry structure and available at the appro-
priate level (usually at the four-digit SIC level).
Since some industry estimates may already account for
total wastes from primary and other manufacturing
operations, coverage ratio use may allow for hazardous
waste generation to be somewhat overstated.
1972 Census of Manufactures, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau
of Census, MC72 GS-1, November 1975.
A-4
-------
In order to estimate the quantities of hazardous
waste to be generated in 1980 and 1981, growth pro-
jections were also used to adjust the total volume of
hazardous waste generated by each industry. Several
different methods for estimating growth were used: -
Assuming that the growth in volume of
hazardous waste generated is proportional
to the. industry's growth, projections in
real growth in value of shipments by an
industry reported in the U.S. Department
of Commerce's 1979 U.S. Industrial Outlook
(25), were applied at the four-digit SIC
level.
For those SIC categories where U.S. Industrial
Outlook data were not available, growth
projections were based on those reported
for hazardous waste growth in the EPA-sponsored
industrial assessment reports (see references
(1) through (14)).
Growth projections were also used as reported
for the growth in the number of production
worker hours between 1972 and 1977 by the
1977 Census of Manufactures. (See reference
(19)).
Growth rates were applied at either the waste stream, sub-
industry or industry level, depending on the available
data. The source(s) used for projecting growth in hazardous
waste generation are included where appropriate in the
"industry summaries" contained in Exhibit A-4.
In addition to adjusting the estimates for coverage
and growth, accuracy ranges for hazardous waste generation
estimates are given. Only a few of the existing sources
of information provided accuracy ranges concerning their
estimates. Therefore, several telephone interviews were
conducted with specific contractors involved with technical
analyses developed in support of the RCRA EIA. The tele-
phone interviews with these contractors and our professional
judgment provide the basis for establishing three levels of
accuracy:
+ 10% - Applied to estimates based on most recent
comprehensive industry analysis reviewed, generally
those used in the EIA backup analysis.
A-5
-------
2.
+25% - Applied to estimates based on relatively
older specific industry analysis conducted for
RCRA DEIA and drawn directly 'from original assess-
ment reports.
+50% - Applied to estimates based solely on Small
Generator Study and RCRA EIS that relied on state
waste generator survey data.
There were two industries that required unique
range estimates, SIC 26 Paper and Allied Products
and SIC 22 Textile Mill Products. The reason.for
the unique range selection is explained in the
individual summaries for these industries.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF LIMITATIONS INHERENT IN THE DATA^
Shortcomings inherent in the data which could not be
accounted for in estimating the quantity of hazardous waste
can be divided into three main areas:
Definition of hazardous waste
Determination of generation rates
Physical condition of the wastes.
The following is a brief discussion of these major
limitations of the data.
(1) The Definition of jUazardous Waste Was Changing
Throughout the Course of the Study
Some of the industry analyses and surveys were
completed without a clear-cut, uniform definition of :
a "hazardous waste". In fact, the fully operational
national definition of what was legally a hazardous
waste was not published until May 1980. It is not
clear whether this situation results in understatement
or overstatement of hazardous waste volumes.
(2) Several Different Sources Are Used for . ..,.'.
Determination of Hazardous Waste Generation Rates
Two basic waste generation estimating approaches
are employed. One, using the EIA study, relies on the
"model" plant or process approach to develop representa-
tive operating characteristics of a particular industry,
Individual plants within an industry may, however,
generate and dispose of wastes quite differently from
the model; that is, some may pretreat wastes or use
different disposal practices. This could cause in-
accuracies in any or 'all of total volume estimates,
on-site versus off-site disposal ratios, and regional
distributions.
A-6
-------
In addition to assuming the representativeness o.f
a model plant, the analysis also assumes that plants
would be in compliance with the Air and Water Pollution
Control, Regulations by the 1977-1981 time frame, thereby
increasing the estimated 'generation volumes to account
for wastewater treatment and air pollution control
•wastes. This may not be,the case; in fact, one estimate
indicates that in aggregate, industry currently is only
70 percent in compliance with the Water Pollution
Control Regulations.
The second approach uses data from state surveys
to develop industrywide generation rates. One source
(EIS) focused at a very high level of aggregation
(two-digit SIC) and lost some of the inherent process
differences within an industry. For example, SIC 31
(leather and leather products) has 11 subgroups. Of
these, only SIC 3111 (leather tanning and finishing)
generates any significant quantity of hazardous wastes.
The other survey based study (Small Generator Study)
focused on small volume generators of hazardous waste.
Industrywide estimates in this study are developed,
for the most part, by extrapolating the generation
rates of.small firms. In most cases, one would not
expect small firms, which represent only 1-3 percent
of the waste volume, to be truly representative of the
industry.
(3) The Solid Content of the Wastes Is Not Reported
Cons isten11y
Another factor that could have a major impact on
the estimated-volumes of waste for particular industries
is the pondition of the waste at the point the volume
was estimated. The EIA cites estimated waste generation
in "as disposed" condition, that is, in the form in
which it would be most economical to handle and dispose
of the materials (e.g., dewatered to 20 percent solids).
This is the appropriate way to quantify the waste
generation as it represents the wastes in a condition
that would .actually be sent to a disposal facility.
The condition of the wastes in the sources based
on state surveys from the EIS is not available.
A-7
-------
3. THE 1980 HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATION ESTIMATES WERE
DERIVED FROM INDUSTRY SUMMARY DATA
Exhibit A-l presents summary tables showing 1980 estimated
hazardous waste generation by industry and by waste category;
Exhibits A-2 and A-3 present summary tables of 1980 and 1981
industrial hazardous waste generation showing disposal practices
by industry and by EPA region; and Exhibit A-4 presents indus-
try summaries that provide an overview of hazardous waste
generation/ disposal practices, and regional distribution of
waste for 11 two-digit SIC industries. In addition, the following
industries are also presented in more detail :
SIC 28 - Chemicals and Allied Products
SIC 29 - Petroleum and Coal Products
SIC 33 - Primary Metals
SIC 36 - Electric & Electronic Equipment
Following the presentation of the 1980 volumes is an
explanation of the sources and assumptions used to develop
the estimates, including:
Source of generation estimate
Accuracy range
Coverage ratio
Growth projection.
The total 1980 hazardous waste generation volume for
each industry is calculated using the following relationship:
1980 HWG =
where:
CR
x (1 + GR)n
1980 HWG = 1980 Hazardous Waste Generation!
Basis = Amount of waste generated in base year
from the referenced source
CR = Coverage ratio factor . .
GR = Annual growth rate
n = Number of years between base year an.d 1980.
In addition, the industrial summaries include information
related both to where and how the wastes are disposed and
the EPA regional distribution of disposal practices (see
Exhibit A-4).
In many cases it is not possible to reconstruct the 1980 hazardous
waste generation figure by simply applying the coverage ratio and
growth rate to the basis number in the "industry summaries." The
reason for this is that many of the numbers are "built up" from
industrial waste streams or sub-industries and both the coverage
ratio and the growth rate presented in the industry summary are
rounded composites. a-n
-------
EXHIBIT A-l(l)
1980 Estimated Industrial Hazardous
Waste Generation by Industry, by Waste Category
(Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
Industry
Waste
Categcay
•natal
Percent
of
•Ebfcal
Range
lower
Bound
IDEAL
SIC 22
Textile
Products
SIC 24
Luiiber and
Wood Products
SIC 25
Furniture and
Fixtures
SIC 26
Paper and
Allied Products
SIC 27
Printing and
Publishing
Total
EE& Waste List1
Characteristic Waste^
Unknown-^
Total
EPA. Waste List
Characteristic Waste
Unknown
Total
, EPA Waste List
Characteristic Waste
Unknown
Total
EPA Waste List
Characteristic Waste
Unknown
Total
EPA Waste List
Characteristic Waste
Unknown
Total
EPA Waste List
Characteristic Waste
Unknown
41,235
8,344
20,874
12,017
203
0 '
203
0
87
0
0
87
36
0
0
36
1,295
0
0
1,295
154
0
0
154
100 27,765 53,864
0 203
44 131
18
54
0 1,943
77 231
Waste List - wastes listed on the EPA Waste List published on May 19,
1980 and announced on that date to be listed in the Summer 1980 and Fall
1980.
Characteristic waste - wastes identified as hazardous by RCRA characteristics,
but not included on the EPA waste list.
Unknown - wastes not identified specifically enough (either by type or
quantity) to determine their waste category.
Source: Putnam, Hayes & Bartlett
A-9
-------
EXHIBIT A-l(2)
jDidustry
Waste
C&tegocy
Total
Percent
of Lower Upper
Total
SIC 28
Chemicals ard
Allied Prcx3ucts
SIC 281
Industrial
Inorganic
Chemicals
SIC 282
Plastics
'•feiterials,
Synthetics
SIC 283
Drugs
Total
EPA Waste List
Characteristic Waste
Unknown
Total
EPA Waste List
Characteristic Waste
Unknown '
Total
EPA Waste List
Characteristic Waste
Unknown
Total
EPA Waste List
Characteristic Waste
Unknown
SIC 284, 2871, 2891 Total
Other Chemicals SPA Waste List
Characteristic Waste
Unknown
SIC 2851
Paints and
Allied Products
Total
EPA Waste List
Characteristic Waste
Unknown
25,509
4,243
17,902
3,364
62 18,292 32,728
8,072
1,056
7,016
0
769
0
769
0
106
73
33
0
3,364
0
0
3,364
125
110
15
0
SIC 286, 2879 Total 13,066
Industrial Organic EPA Waste List 2,997
Chanicals and Characteristic Waste 10,069
Agric. Chemicals Unknown 0
N.E.C.
excludes 2879, Agricultural Chanicals, NEC; 289 excludes 2892, Explosives.
A-10
-------
EXHIBIT A-l(3)
Industry
Waste
Category
IbtaL
Percent
of
Total
Lower Upper
Bound Bound
SIC 2892
Explosives
Total 7
EPA Waste List 7
Characteristic Waste 0
Unknown 0
SIC 29
Petroleun
and Goal
Products
SIC 2911
Petroleun
Refining
SIC 2992
Petroleum
Re-refining
SIC 30
Rubber and
Miscellaneous
Plastic Products
Total
EPA Waste List
Characteristic Waste
Unknown
Total
EPA Waste List
Characteristic Waste
Unknown
Total
EPA Waste List
Characteristic Waste
Unknown
Total
EPA Waste List
Characteristic Waste
Unknown
1901
407
1494
0
218
0
218
0
2,119
407
1,712
0
1,590 2,549
249
0
0
249
125 374
SIC 31
Leather and
Leather Tanning
Total
EPA Waste List
Characteristic Waste
Unknown
474
455
19
0
427 521
SIC 32
Stone, Clay
and Glass
Products
Total
EPA Waste List
Characteristic Waste
Unknown
17
0
0
17
26
A-ll
-------
EXHIBIT A-l(4)
IDxiustry
Waste
Category
l!btal
Percent
of
Tbtal
Range
Lower Upper
Botnd Bound
SIC 33
Primary Metal
Industries
SIC 331,332,339
Ferrous Metals
SIS 333, 3341
335, 336
ISbn-Ferrous
Matals
Total
EPA Waste List
Characteristic Waste
Unknown
Total 2,330
SPA Waste List 1,858
Characteristic Waste 249
Unknovn 223
Total 1,731
EPA Waste List 152
Characteristic Waste 656
Unknown 923
4,061
2,010
905
1,146
10
3,046 5,077
SIC 34
Fabricated
f-tetal
Products
Total
EPA Waste List
Characteristic Waste
Unknown
1,997
624
46
1,327
1,498 2,496
SIC 35
Machinery,
Except
Electrical
Total
EPA Waste List
Characteristic Waste
Unknovn
322
74
0
248
161 483
SIC 36
Slectric and
Electronic
Bquipmant
SIC 361-368
Electronic
Cbnponents and
Other Electric
Equipment
Total
EPA Waste List
Characteristic Waste
Unknovn
Total
EPA Waste List
Characteristic Waste
Unknovn
1,093
531
87
475
663 1,519
609
49
85
475
A-12
-------
EXHIBIT A-l(5)
Waste
Category
Ibta!
Percent
of
Oksfcal
Lower Upper
Bound Bound
SIC 3691,
Batteries
3692
SIC 37
Transportation
Equipment
SIC 38
Instruments
and Related
Products
SIC 39
Miscellaneous
IV&nufacturing
Industries
Total
EPA Waste List
Characteristic Waste
Unknown
Total
EPA Waste List
Characteristic Waste
Unknown
Total
EPA Waste List
Characteristic Waste
Unknown
Total
EPA Waste List
Characteristic Waste
Unknown
Non-manufacturing-'- Total
Industries EPA Waste List
Characteristic Waste
Unknown
484
482
2
0
1,240
0
0
1,240
90
0
0
90
318
0
0
318
1,971
0
0
1,971
620 1,860
45 135
159 477
986 2,957
Non-manufacturing industries include:
SIC 5085 Drun Reconditioners
SIC 07 Agricultural Services
SIC 5161 Chemical Warehouses
SIC 40 Railroad Transportation
SIC 55 Automotive Dealers and Gasoline Service Stations
SIC 72 Personal Services
SIC 73 Business Services
SIC 76 Misc. Repair Services
SIC 80 Health Services
'SIC 82 Educational Services
A-13
-------
EXHIBIT A-2(l)
1980 Industrial Hazardous Waste Generation,
Off-Site and Unknown Disposal Practices
by Industry, by EPA Region
(Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
Industry
SIC 22
Textile Mill
Products
SIC 24
Luriber and
Wood Products
SK 25
Furniture and
Fixtures
SIC 26
Paper and
Allied Products
SIC 27
Printing and
Publishing
Total !
Off-site2
Unknown3
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
Off-site
Unknown
•total
203
122
0
87
0
87
36
0
36
1295
39
0
154
0
154
1
27
16
0
4
0
4
2
0
2
130
4
0
11
0
11
2
24
15
0
3
0
3
4
0
4
272
8
0
25
0
25
3
4
3
0
7
0
7
4
0
4
130
4
0
19
0
19
4
132
79
0
20
0
20
9
0
9
156
5
0
19
0
19
5
10
6
0
10
0
10
7
0
7
324
10
0
38
0
38
6
6
3
0
8
0
8
2
0
2
77
2
0
10
0
10
7
0
0
0
3.
0
3
2
0
2
52
1
0
11
0
11
8
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
13
<1
0
4
0
4
9
0
0
0
9
0
9
5
0
5
117
3
0
13
0
13
10
o
0
0
21
0
21
1
0
1
25
1
0
3
0
3
•'•Total industrial hazardous waste generation.
2The quantity of hazardous waste disposed offsite.
3The quantity of hazardous waste generated by the industry for which onsite/offsite information is
unavailable.
Source: Putnam, Hayes & Bartlett
-------
EXHIBIT A-2(2)
I
H
Ul
Industry
SIC 28
Chemicals and
Allied Products
*SIC 281
Industrial
Inorganic Cheras.
*SIC 282
Plastics Materials,
Synthetics
*SIC 283
Drugs
*SIC 284, 287, 2S92
Other Chemicals
*SIC 2851
Paints and Allied
Profile ts
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
25509
1087
832
8072
3011
0
769
0
769
106
65
0
3364
143
0
125
120
0
1
185
12
31
0
0
0
31
0
31
4
3
0
138
6
0
3
3
0
2
1497
101
111
13
-------
EXHIBIT A-2(3)
i
H
Industry
*SIC 286, 2879
Industrial Organic
Chans. & Agric.
Chans., N.E.C.
*SIC 2892
Explosives
SIC 29
Petroleun and
Coal Products
*SIC 2911
Petroleun Refining
*SIC 2992
Petroleun
Re-refininy
SIC 30
Rubber and
Misc. Plastics
SIC 31
Leather and
Tjeather Tanning
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Tbtal
13,066
457
63
7
1
0
2119
769
0
1901
571
0
218
198
0
249
238
0
474
264
0
1
9
<: i
-------
EXHIBIT A-2(4)
I
H
-0
Industry
SIC 32
Stone, Clay, and
Glass Products
SIC 33
Primary Matal
Industries
*SIC 331, 332, 339
Ferrous totals
*SIC 333, 3341,
335, 336
Non-ferrous Matals
SIC 34
Fabricate! r-tetal
Products
SIC 35
Machinery, Except
Electrical
SIC 36
Electric and
Electronic Equip.
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
17
0
17
4061
1135
336
2330
216
0
1731
919
336
1997
536
1327
322
68
247
1093
431
475
1
1
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
204
55
103
26
5
20
67
15
48
2
2
0
2
185
47
13
117
11
0
68
36
13
212
57
125
31
7
24
156
59
73
3
1
0
1
791
134
27
652
60
0
139
74
27
172
46
132
28
6
21
183
91
48
4
3
0
3
434
159
53
163
15
0
271
144
53
172
46
132
29
6
22
82
18
60
5
4
0
4
1348
226
45
1118.
104
0
230
122
45
78L
210
513
127
27
97
334
139
133
6
2
0
2
452
219
79
47
4
0
405
215
79
137
37
110
24
5
18
65
28
24
7
1
0
1
74
39
14
0
0
0
74
39
14
96
26
62
20
4
15
28
5'
22
8
1
0
1
109
28
8
70
7
0
39
21
8
28
a
.. 15
6
1
5
,5
1
4
9
2
0
2
101
33
10
47
4
0
54
29
10
164
44
117
28
6
21
145
59
60
10
1
0
1
565
249
87
116
11
0
449
238
87
31
' 8
18
4
1
3
27
17
2
Denotes a sub-industr/ included in the 2-digit industry totals above.
-------
EXHIBIT A-2(5)
H
00
Industry
*SIC 361-368
Electric
Electronic Bjuip.
*SIC 3691, 3692
Batteries
SIC 37
Transportation
Rquipnent
SIC 38
Instruments and
Related Products
SIC 39
Miscellaneous
Manuf actor ing
Industries
Nbn-Manu fee tur ing
Industries
TOTAL
Total
Off-Site
Unknown
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
Off-sita
Unknown
Total
609
116
475
484
315
0
1240
0
1240
90
0
90
318
0.
318
1971
1380
0
41235
60691
5159
1
62
12
48
5
3
0
86
0
86
14
0
14
48
0
48
119
83
0
1104
299
368
2
93
18
73
63
41
0
73
0
73
21
0
21
- 66
0
66
335
235
0
3113
652
540
3
62
12
48
121
79
0
80
0
80
8
0
8
24
0
24
177
124
0
4354
604
470
4
77
15
60
5
3
0
106
0
106
6
0
6
42
0
42
237
166
0
10353
913
674
5
170
32
133
164
107
0
464
0
464
21
0
21
72
0
72
414
290
0
6428
1330
1537
6
31
6
24
34
22
0
80
0
80
3
0
3
18
0
18
177
124
0
10536
1029
524
7
28
5
22
0
0
0
80
0
80
3
0
3
12
0
12
118
83
0
1201
252
233
8
5
1
4
0
0
0
13
0
13
2
0
2
7
0
7
59
41
0
)18
106
61
9
77
15
60
68
44
0
199
0
199
11
0
11
24
0
24
276
193
0
2838
535
511
10
3
1
2
24
16
0
60
0
60
1
0
1
6
0
6
59
41
0
995
348
241
^Excludes 2395 103 MT of off-site ocean dumped waste.
*Denotes a sub-industry included in the 2-diyit totals above.
-------
EXHIBIT A-3(l)
1981 Industrial Hazardous Waste Generation,
Off-Site and Unknown Disposal Practices
by Industry, by EPA Region
(Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
Industry
SIC 22
Textile Mill
Products
SIC 24
Lumber and
Wxxi Products
SIC 25
Furniture and
Fixtures
SIC 26
Paper and
Allied Prodacts
SIC 27
Printing and
Publishing
Total1
Off-site2
Unknown^
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
Off -site
Unknown
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Ibtal
203
122
0
88
0
88
36
0
36
1334
40
0
159
0
159
1
27
16
0
4
0
4
2
0
2
134
4
0
11
0
11
2
24
15
0
3
0
3
4
0
.4
280
8
0
26
0
26
3
4
3
0
7
0
7
4
0
4
134
4
0
. 20
0
20
4
132
79
0
20
0
20
9
0
9
161
5
0
20
0
20
5
10
6
0
10
0
10
7
0
7
334
11
0
39
0
39
6
6
3
0
8
0
8
2
0
2
79
2
0
10
0
10
7
0
0
0
3
0
3
2
0
2
53
1
0
11
0
li
8
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
13
<1
0
4
0
4
9
0
0
0
9
0
9
5
0
5
120
3
0
13
0
13
10
0
0
0
21
0
21
1
0
1
26
1
.0
3
0
3
•'•Total industrial hazanlous waste generation.
quantity of hazardous waste which is disposed offsite.
e quantity of hazardous waste generated by the industry for which onsite/offsite information is
unavailable.
Source: Putnam, Hayes & Bartlett
-------
EXHIBIT A-3(2)
I
fO
O
Industry
SIC 28
Chemicals ard
Allied Products
*SIC 281
Industrial
Inorganic Chans.
*SIC 282
Plastics tutorials,
Synthetics
*SIC 283
Drugs
*SIC 284, 287, 289
Other Chemicals
*SIC 2851
Paints and Allied
Products
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
26523
1129
886
8302
310
0
820
0
820
111
68
0
3367
143
o -
130
125
0
1
188
12
33
0
0
0
33
0
33
4
3
0
138
6
0
3
3
0
2
1547"
105
118
13
4ll
0
115
0
115
57
35
0
615
26
0
20
19
0
3
2616
108
105
524
20
0
98
0
98
12
6
0
430
18
0
11
10
0
4
9058
352
216
5886
220
0
205
0
205
8
5
0
689
29
0
21
20
0
5
1918
119
142
664
25
" 0
140
0
140
23
15
0
700
29
0
38
37
0
6
9030
320
181
66
2
0
140
0
140
0
0
0
360
15
0
8
8
0
7
567
30
9
332
12
0
9
0
9
2
1
0
131
6
0
8
8
0
8
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
9
1470
74
42
817
31
0
40
0
40
4
3
0
239
10
0
18
17
0
10
126
5
40
0
0
0
40
0
40
.0
0
0
66
3
0
1
1
0
Denotes a sub-industry included in the 2-digit industry totals above.
-------
EXHIBIT A-3(3)
I
fO
H
Industry
*SIC 286, 2879
Industrial Organic
Chans.. & Agric.
Chems., N.E.C.
*SIC 2892
Explosives
SIC 29
Petroleun and
Goal Products
*SIC 2911
Petroleum Refining
*SIC 2992
Petroleun
Re-refining
SIC 30
Rubber and
trti.sc. Plastics
SIC 31
Leather and
leather Tanning
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
13,786
482
66
7
1
0
2138
786
0
1901
571
0
237
. 215
0
25S
244
0
465
259
0
1
10
-------
EXHIBIT &-3(4)
tsJ
K)
Industry
SIC 32
Stone, Clay, and
Glass Products
SIC 33
Primary Hfetal
Indus tries
*SIC 331, 332, 339
Ferrous Ntetals ••
*SIC 333, 3341,
335, 336
Non-ferrous Matals
SIC 34
Fabricated Matal
Products
SIC 35
Machinery, Except .
Electrical
SIC 36
Electric and
IClectronic Fbuip.
•total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
17
0
17
4167
1169
347
2381
221
0
1786
948
347
2047
549
1360
338
71
260
1154
452
507
1
1
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
^2
1
0
209
56
106
27
5
21
71
16
51
2
2
0
2
190
48
13
120
11
0
70
37
13
217
58
128
33
7
25
165
62
78
3
1
0
1
809
137
28
666
61
0
143
76
28
176
47
135
29
6
22
192
95
51
4
3
0
3
447
164
55
167
15
0 .
280
149
55
176
47
135
30
6
23
87
19
64
5
4
0
4
1380
232
46
1143
106
0
237
126
46
801
215
526
133
28
102
352
145
142
6
2
0
2
466
226
81
48
4
0
418
222
81
140
38
113
25
5
19
68
29
26
7
1
0
1
76
40
14
0
0
0
76
40
14
98
27
64
21
4
16
30
5
23
8
L
0
1
112
29
8
72
7
0
40
22
8
29
a
15
6
1
5
5
1
4
9
2
0
2
104
34
10
48
4
0
56
30
10
168
45
120
29
6
22
153
62
64
10
1
0
1
582
256
90
119
11
0
463
245
90
32
8
18
4
1
3
28
18
2
Denotes a siib-industry include! in the 2-digit industry totals above.
-------
EXHIBIT A-3(5)
I
K)
U)
Industry
*SIC 361-368
Electric
Electronic Fquip.
*SIC 3691, 3692
Batteries
SIC 37
Transportation
Equipment
SIC 38
Instruments and
Related Products
SIC 39
Miscellaneous
r-fenufacturing
Industries
Nbn-^fenu f actur ing
Industries
TOEfiL
Total
Off- Site
Unknown
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
Off-site
Unknown
Total
Off-site
Unknown
•total
650
124
507
504
328
0
1311
0
13L1
96
0
96
328
0
328
2042
1430
0
42694
6251
5395
1
66
13
51
5
3
0
91
0
91
15
0
15
50
0
50
123
86
0
1131
303
385
2
99
19
78
66
43
0
77
0
77
22
0
22
68
0
68
347
243
0
3216
673
564
3
66
13
51
126
82
0
85
0
85
9
0
9
25
0
25
183
128
0
4507
622
492
4
82
16
64
5
3
0
112
0
112
6
.0
6
43
0
43
246
172
0
10697
940
706
5
181
34
142
171
111
0
490
0
490
22
0
22
74
0
74
429
300
0
6611
1368
1604
6
33
6
26
35
23
0
85
0
85
3
0
3
19
0
19
183
128
0
11025
1059
549
7
30
5
23
0
0
0
85
0
85
3
0
3
12
0
12
122
86
0
1231
257
243
8
5
1
4
0
0
0
14
0
14
2
0
2
7
0
7
61
42
0
325
108
62
9
82
16
64
71
46
0
210
0
210
12
0
12
25
0
25
286
200
0
2925
552
534
10
3
1
2
25
17
0
63
0
63
1
0
1
6
0
6
61
42
0
1023
357
249
Denotes a sib-industry included in the 2~dijit totals above.
-------
FXHIBIT A-4(1)
Industry Summaries
SIC 22 — Textile Mill Products
SIC 24 — Lumber and Wood Products
SIC 25 — Furniture and Fixtures
SIC 26 — Paper and Allied Products
SIC 27 — Printing and Publishing
SIC 28 — Chemicals and Allied Products1
SIC 281— Industrial Inorganic Chemicals
SIC 282— Plastic Materials, Synthetics
SIC 283— Drugs
SIC 284, 287 (ex. 2879), 289 (ex. 2892)
— Other Chemicals
SIC 2852 -Paint and Other Allied Products
SIC 286, 2879
— Industrial Organic Chemicals and Agricultural
Chemicals, N.E.C.
SIC 2892- Explosives
SIC 29 — Petroleum and Coal Products1
SIC 2911- Petroleum 'Refining
SIC 2992- Petroleum Re-Refining
SIC 30 — Rubber and Miscellaneous Plastics Products
SIC 31 — Leather and Leather Tanning
SIC 32 — Stone, Clay & Glass Products
SIC 33 — Primary Metals1
SIC 331, 332, 339
— Ferrous Metals
SIC 333, 3341, 335, 336
— Non-Ferrous Metals
SIC 34 — Fabricated Metal Products
SIC 35 — Machinery, Except Electrical
SIC 36 — Electric & Electronic Equipment
— 361-368 Electric, Electronic Equipment
— 3691,3692 - Batteries
M.980 Hazardous waste generation summary only.
A-24
-------
EXHIBIT A-4(2)
SIC- 37 — Transportation Equipment
SIC 38 — Instruments & Related Products
SIC 39 — Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries
SIC — Non-Manufacturing Industries
A-25
-------
SIC 22
TEXTILE MJT.T. PRODUCTS
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 203
EPA Waste List: 0
Characteristic Waste: 203
Unknown: 0
Range: 0-203
Basis Quantity (Source/ Year) : 203 (EIA backup [ 15 ] - 1978)
The 6 hazardous waste streams identified consist of WWT
sludges and waste solvents.
Range:
Coverage Ratio:
Annual Growth Rate(Source)
-100% (It is possible that the
predominant wasta stream,
WWT sludge from woven
fabric finishing, may not
be hazardous)
Not applied (as PRA estimates
include all generators)
0% (EIA backup [ 15 ])
Current Disposal Practices
Off site: '' 60%
Disposal Methods: Lagoon, landfill, POTW
Source: EIA backup [ 15 ]
1980 Regional Distribution
Total :
Offsite:
1
27
16
2
24
15
3
4
3
4
132
79
5
10
6
6
6
3
7
0
0
8
0
0
9
0
0
10
0
0
Method(Source): Waste stream basis (OSW Assessment Study [14])
A-26
-------
SIC 24 -— LUMBER AND WOOD PRODUCTS
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 87
EPA Waste List: NA
Characteristic Waste: NA
Unknown: 87
Range: 44 - 131
Basis Quantity(Source/Year): 80 (EIS [17] - 1975)
Wastes include wood residues saturated with treating
chemicals; WWT sludges; tank residues (creosote, penta-
chlorophenol); paint sludges; solvents; coating/glueing
cleanup wastes. There is one EPA listed waste stream
(5117).
Range:
Coverage Ratio:
Annual Growth Rate( Source) :
±50%
Not available
1.6% (U.S.I.O. [23])
Current Disposal Practices
Offsite: Unknown
Disposal Methods: Landfill, incineration
Source: Small Generator Study [18]
198O Regional Distribution
Total :
Unknown :
1
4
4
2
3
3
3
7
7
4
20
20
5
10
10
6
8
8
7
3
3
8
2
2
9
9
9
10
21
21
Method(Source): Allocation (Bureau-of the Census [21])
A-27
-------
SIC 25 — FURNITORE AND FIXTURES
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 36
EPA Waste List: NA
Characteristic Waste: NA
Unknown: 36
Range: 18-54
Basis Quantity (Source/Year) : 36 (Small Generator Study [18]
1977)
Most generators are small (none larger than 5,000
kg/mo). Wastes include paint sludges and solvents.
Range:
Coverage Ratio:
Annual Growth Rate(Source):
±50%
Not available
0% (Bureau of the Census [19])
Current. Disposal Practices
Offsite: Unknown
Disposal Methods: Landfill
Source: Small Generator Study [18]
1980 Regional Distribution
Total :
Unknown :
1
2
2
2
4
4
3
4
4
4
9
9
5
7
7
6
2
2
7
2
2
8
0
0
9
5
5
10
1
1
Method(Source): Allocation (Bureau of the Census [21])
A-28
-------
SIC 26
PAPER AMD ALIPED PRODUCTS
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 1,295
EPA Waste List: NA
Characteristic Waste: NA
Unknown: 1,295
Range: 0 - 1943
Basis Quantity(Source/Year): 1,220 (BAT Contractor Estimates
[20] - 1978)
Generally WWT sludges; detailed waste stream information
has not yet been developed.
Range:
Coverage Ratio:
Annual Growth Rate(Source)
+50%
-100% (It is possible that some
or all of the wastes from
this industry may not be
hazardous)
Not available
3.0% (U.S.I.O. [23])
Current Disposal Practices
Offsite:
Disposal Methods:
Source:
3%
Lagoon
BAT Contractor Estimates [20]
1980 Regional Distribution
Total:
Of f site :
1
130
4
2
272
8
3
130
'• 4
4
156
5
5
324
10
6
77
2
7
52
1
8
13
<1
9
117
3
10
?.*>
1
Method(Source): Allocation (Bureau of the Census [21])
A-29
-------
SIC 27 — PRINTING AHD PUBLISHING
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 154
EPA Waste List: NA
Characteristic Waste: NA
Unknown: 154
Range: 77 - 231
Basis Quantity (Source/Year): 130 (EIS [17] - 1975)
Wastes include solvents, dyes, inks, oils, other organic
compounds, and photographic chemicals.
Range:
Coverage Ratio:
Annual Growth Rate(Source):
±50%
Not available
3.4% (U.S.I.O. [23])
Current. Disposal Practices
Offsite: Unknown
Disposal Methods: Solvent recovery, landfill, incineration,
chemical treatment, POTW
Source: Small Generator Study [18]
1980 Regional Distribution
Total:
Unknown :
1
11
11
2
25
25
3
19
19
4
19
19
5
38
38
6
10
10
7
11
11
8
4
4
9
13
13
10
3
3
Method(Source): Allocation (Bureau of the Census [21])
A-30
-------
SIC 28 — CHEMICALS AKD ALLIED PRODUCTS
(A.11 Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 25,509
EPA Waste List: 4,243
Characteristic Waste: 17,902
Unknown: 3,364
Range: 18,292 - 32,728
Note: The following individual segments are presented
1980 Regional
Total :
Off site:
Unknown :
SIC 281
SIC 282
SIC 283
SIC 2851
SIC 286, 2879
SIC 2892
SIC 284, 287, 289
Distribution
1 2 3.4 5 6
185 1497 2515 8763 1870 8577
12 101 104 342 115 306
31 ' 111 99 202 133 170
78 9 10
553 1 1426 123
30 1 71 5
8 0 40 38
Method(Source)t See individual industry segments following.
A-31
-------
SIC 281 — INDUSTRIAL INORGANIC CHEMICALS
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 8,072
EPA Waste List: 1,056
Characteristic Waste: 7,016
Unknown: 0
Range: 6,054 - 10,090
Basis Quantity (Source/Year): 1,595 (HIA backup [16] - 1978)
4,471 (EIA backup [15] - 1978)
Tonnage estimates are available for the following EPA
listed waste streams: 2010, 2011, 3003, 2013, 2014, 2015,
2006, 2007, 2004. No tonnage is available for: 2012,
2008, 2009, 2005, 5118. Eleven waste streams have been
categorized as characteristic waste.
Range:
Coverage Ratio:
Annual Growth Rate(Source):
±25%
.80
2.9% (U.S.I.O. [23])
Current Disposal Practices
Offsite: 3.7% (Excludes 2,395 103 MT of ocean
dumped waste
Disposal Methods: Landfill, lagoon, ocean dumping, deep-well
injection.
Source: EIA backup [16], [15]
1980 Regional Distribution
Total :
Of f site:
1
0
0
2
13
<1
3
510
19
4
5723
214
5
646
24
6
64
2
7
323
12
8
0
0
9
794
30
10
0
0
Method(Source): Waste stream basis (OSW Assessment Study [12])
A-32
-------
SIC 282 — PIASTIC MATERIALS, SYNTHETICS
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 769
EPA. Waste List: 0
Characteristic Waste: 769
Unknown: 0
Range: 577 - 961
Basis Quantity (Source/Year) -. 558 (EIA backup [16] - 1978)
Waste consists largely of miscellaneous organics
(phenols, resins), solvents, and WWT sludges.
Range:
Coverage .Ratio:
Annual Growth Rate(Source):
±25%
.82
6.6% (U.S.I.O [23] when
available; OSW Assessment
Study [11] for others.)
Current Disposal Practices
Offsite: Unknown
Disposal Methods: Landfill, incineration
Source: SIA backup [16]
1980 Regional Distribution
Total :
Unknown :
1
31
31
2
108
108,
3
92
92
4
192
192
5
131
131
6
131
131
7
8
8
8
0
0
9
38
38
10
38
38
Method(Source): Industry basis (OSW Assessment Study [11])
A-33
-------
SIC 283 — DRUGS
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 106
EPA Waste List: 73
Characteristic Waste: 33
Unknown: 0
Range: 80 - 133
Basis Quantity(Source/Year): 70 (EIA backup [16] - 1978)
Tonnages are available for three nonspecific EPA Waste
List streams: 3002, 4000, 4301. There is no tonnage
estimate for Waste List 6151. The remainder of the
wastes have been assigned to characteristic wasta and
include solvents, heavy metals, and organic chemical
residues.
Range:
Coverage Ratio:
Annual Growth Rate(Source):
±25%
.73
5.0% (U.S.I.O. [23])
Current Disposal Practices
Offsite:
Disposal Methods:
Source:
60%
Landfill, incineration
OSW Assessment Study [10] and SIA backup
[3]
1980 Regional Distribution
Total :
Of f site:
1
4
3
2
54
33
3
11
6
4
8
5
5
22
14
6
0
0
7
2
1
8
0
0
9
4
3
10
0
U
Method(Source): Industry basis (OSW Assessment Study [10])
A-34
-------
SIC 284, 287 (ex. 2879), 289 (ex. 2892)
OTHER CHEMICALS
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 3,364
EPA Waste List: NA
Characteristic Waste: NA
Unknown: 3,364
Range: 1,682 - 5,046
Basis Quantity(Source/Year): 3,355 (Small Generator Study1 [18]-
1977)
Wastes include solvents, miscellaneous organics, miscella-
neous inorganics, acids and alkalies.
Range:
Coverage Ratio:
Annual Growth Rate(Source):
±50%
Not available
0% (U.S.I.O [23] when
available; Bureau of the
Census [19] for others)
Current: Disposal Practices
Offsite:
Disposal Methods:
Source:
4% (SIC 28 average offsite
disposal)
All methods
Small Generator Study [18]
1980 Regional Distribution
Total :
Of f site :
1
138
6
2
614
26
3
430
18
4
688
29
5
699
29
6
360
15
7
131
6
8
0
0
9
239
10
10
66
3
Method(Source): Allocation (Bureau of the Census [21])
A-35
-------
SIC 2851
PAINT AND OTHER ALLIED PRODUCTS
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 125
EPA Waste List: 110
Characteristic Waste: 15
Unknown: 0
Range: 94 - 156
Basis Quantity (Source/Year): 111 (EIA backup [16] - 1978)
Following are listed waste streams: 4911, 2016, 5950,
5700, and 2017.
Range:
Coverage Ratio:
Annual Growth Rate(Source):
±25%
.96
4.0% (U.S.I.O. [23])
Current Disposal Practices
Offsite: 95%
Disposal Methods: Landfill, incineration, POTW
Source: Draft EIA [233 and SI A backup [16]
1980 Regional Distribution
Total :
Offsite:
1
3
3
2
19
13
3
11
10
4
20
19
5
37
36
6
8
8
7
8
8
8
1
1
9
17
16
10
1
1
Method(Source): Industry basis (OSW Assessment Study [9 ])
A-36
-------
SIC 286, 2879
INDUSTRIAL ORGANIC CHEMICALS
AND AGRICOLiTORAL CHEMICALS, N.E.C.
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 13,066
EPA.Waste List: 2,997
Characteristic Waste: 10,069
Unknown: 0
Range:
9,800 - 16,330
Basis Quantity (Source/Year): 922 (El A backup [16] - 1978)
10,815 (EIA backup [15] - 1978)
Waste streams with tonnage estimates included on the EPA.
Waste List are: 3021, 4102, 3009, 5181, 5123, 3012, 3023,
3006, 5120, 3007, 3014, 2018, 4302. A large number of EPA
listed waste streams have no tonnage estimates available
(3020, 5130, 3004, 3008, 3010, 3011, 5124, 5126, 5128,
3018, 3019, 5132, 5133, 3022, 2019, 5144, 5145, 5146,
5147, 5149, 5154, 5156, 5157, 5158, 5163, 2020, 5166,
5167, 5168, 6152, 6153, 5169). There are 20 other
hazardous waste streams.
Range:
Coverage Ratio:
Annual Growth Rate(Source):
±25%
.99
5.0% (U.S.I.O. [23] when avail-
able; OSW Assessment Study
[21] for others)
Current Disposal Practices
Offsite: 3.5%
Disposal Methods: All methods
Source: EIA backup [15] , [16]
1980 Regional Distribution
_1 2 3 4 5 678 9 10
Total:
Offsite:
Unknown:
Method( Source) : Waste stream basis (OSW Assessment Study [13])
9
<1
<^1
689
24
3
1459
51
7
2130
74
10
333
12
2
8014
280
39
81
3
<1
0
0
0
333
12
2
18
1
<1
A-37
-------
SIC 2892 — EXPI£)SIVES
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 7
EPA. Waste List: 7
Characteristic Waste: 0
Unknown: 0
Range: 5-9
Basis Quantity(Source/Year): 7 ( EIA backup [16] - 1978)
All waste included on the following EPA listed waste
streams: 6300, 2049, 7200, 4051. EPA Waste List streams
4103 and 3025 have no waste quantity estimates.
Range: ±25%
Coverage Ratio: .99
Annual Growth Rate(Source) : 0% (OSW Assessment Study [13.])
Current Disposal Practices
Offsite:
Disposal Methods:
Source:
15%
Open burning
OSW Assessment Study [13] and SIA backup
[16]
1980 Regional Distribution
Total:
Of f site:
1
0
0
2
0
0
3
2
<1
4
2
<1
5
2
•cl
6
0
0
7
0
0
8
0
0
9
1
•£l
10
0
0
Method(Source): Waste stream basis (OSW Assessment Study [13])
A-38
-------
SIC 29 — PETROI»EUM AND COAL PRODUCTS
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 2,119
EPA Waste List: 407
Characteristic Waste: 1,712
Unknown: 0
Range:
1,590 - 2,649
Note: The following individual segments are presented;
1980 Regional
Total :
Of f site:
SIC 2911
SIC 2992
Di str ibution
12345 6 78
0 122 165 90 384 878 99 61
0 64 58 47 152 289 33 21
9 10
258 61
84 21
Method(Source): See individual industry segments following.
A-39
-------
SIC 2911 — PETROLEUM REFIHIMG
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 1,901
EPA Waste List: 407
Characteristic Waste: 1,494
Unknown: 0
Range:
1,426 - 2,376
Basis Quantity (Source/Year): 1,882 (EIA backup [16Q - 1978)
Includes four waste streams on the EPA Waste List: 2023,
2024, 2025, and 2026. The remaining nine streams consist
of spent feedstocks, miscellaneous sludges, and bank
bottoms.
Range:
Coverage Ratio:
Annual Growth Rate(Source)
±25%
.99
0% (Bureau of the Census [19])
Current: Disposal Practices
Offsite:
Disposal Methods:
Source:
30%
Lagoon, landfarm, landfill, deep-well
injection
OSW Assessment Study [8 ] and EIA backup
[16]
1980 Regional Distribution
Total :
Off site:
1
0
0
2
76
23
3
152
46
4
57
17
5
323
97
6
836
251
7
95
29
8
57
17
9
247
74
10
57
17
Method(Source): Industry basis (OSW Assessment Study [ 8 ])
A-40
-------
SIC 2992 — PETROLEUM RE-KEFIHIBG
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
198O Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 218
EPA Waste List: 0
Characteristic Waste: 218
Unknown: 0
Range: 164 - 273
Basis Quantity(Source/Year): 81 (EIA backup [16] - 1978)
The three waste streams include acid and caustic sludges,
and spent clay.
Range:
Coverage Ratio:
Annual Growth Rate(Source):
±25%
.44
9.0% (OSW Assessment Study [7 ])
Current Disposal Practices
Offsite: 90%
Disposal Methods: Landfill ,
Source: OSW Assessment Study L 7 3
1980 Regional Distribution
Total:
Off site:
1
0
0
2
46
41
3
13
12
4
33
30
5
61
55
6
42
38
7
4
4
8
4
4
9
11
10
10
4
4
Method(Source): Waste stream basis (OSW Assessment Study [7 ])
A-41
-------
SIC 30 — ROBBER AHD MISCELIAHEOUS PIASTICS PRODUCTS
(A.11 Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 249
EPA Waste List: NA
Characteristic Waste: NA
Unknown: 249
Range: 125 - 374
Basis Quantity (Source/Year) : 220 (EIS [17] - 1975)
The wastes generated by SIC 30 include solvents, paint
wastes, contaminated floor sweepings, APC dust, etc.
Range:
Coverage Ratio:
Annual Growth Rate(Source)
±50%
Not available
2.5% (U.S.I.O. [23])
Current: Disposal Practices
Offsite: 95%
Disposal Methods: Landfill
Source: OSW Assessment Study [11]
1980 Regional Distribution
Total :
Off site:
1
22
21
2
28
27
3
22
21
4
39
37
5
83
79
6
17
16
7
11
10
8
2
2
9
22
21
10
2
2
Method(Source): Allocation (Bureau of the Census [21])
A-42
-------
SIC 31 — LEATHER TAHHIS8G & FIHISHING
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation.
Total Generation: 474
EPA Waste List: 455
Characteristic Waste: 19
Unknown: 0
Range: 426 - 521
Basis Quantity (Source/Year) : 484 (EIA backup [15] - 1978)
The following EPA Waste List streams are included: • 2044,
2045, 2047, 2048, 4750. No tonnage is known for the EPA.
listed waste stream 2046.
Range:
Coverage Ratio:
Annual Growth Rate(Source):
±10%
.98
-2.0% (U.S.I.O. [23])
Current. Disposal Practices
Offsite: 56%
Disposal Methods: Landfill, landfarm.
Source: SIA backup [15]
1980 Regional Distribution
Total :
Of fsite:
1
156
87
2
57
32
3
24
13
4
14
8
5
137
76
6
0
0
"7
38
21
8
5
3
9
38
21
10
5
3
Method(Source): Industry basis (OSW Assessment Study [1])
A-43
-------
SIC 32 — STONE, CLAY & GLASS PRODUCTS
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 17
EPA. Waste List: NA
Characteristic Waste: NA
Unknown: 17
Range: 9-26
Basis Quantity (Source/Year) : 16 (Small Generator Study [18] -
1977)
The typical wastes include solvents, alkalies, and acetic
wastes. .
Range:
Coverage Ratio:
Annual Growth Rate(Source)
±50%
Not available
2.7% (U.S.I.O. [23])
Current. Disposal Practices
Offsite: Unknown
Disposal Methods: Landfill.
Source: Small Generator Study [18]
1980 Regional Distribution
Total :
Unknown :
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
1
1
4
3
3
5
4
4
6
2
2
7
1
. 1
8
1
1
9
2
2
10
1.
1
Method(Source): Allocation (Bureau of the Census [21])
A-44
-------
SIC 33 — PRIMARY METALS
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 4,061
EPA Waste List: 2,010
Characteristic Waste: 905
Unknown: 1,146
Range:
3,046 - 5,077
Mote: The following individual segments are presented
SIC 331, 332, 339
SIC 333, 3341, 335, 336
1980 Regional Distribution
Total:
Of f site :
Unknown :
1
2
1
0
2
185
47
13
3
791
134
27
4
434
159
53
5
1348
226
45
6
452
219
79
7
74'
39
14
8
109
28
8
9
101
33
10
10
565
249
87
Method(Source): See individual industry segments following.
A-45
-------
SIC 331, 332, 339 — FERROUS METALS
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 2,330
EPA Waste List: 1,858
Characteristic Waste: 249
Unknown: 223
Range:
1,748 - 2,913
Basis Quantity(Source/Year) : 2,017 (EIA backup [16] - 1978)
209 (Small Generator Study [18]-
1977)
The EPA Waste List streams include: 2027, 4551, 2028,
4913, 4912, 4050, 2032, 2031, and 2030. Only one EPA
Waste List stream, 2050, has no associated tonnage. There
are two characteristic waste streams, tin plating sludge
and waste from ferrous foundries.
Range:
Coverage Ratio:
Annual Growth Rate(Source):
±25%
Not applied
2.2% (U.S.I.O. [23])
Current Disposal Practices
Offsite:
Disposal Methods:
Source:
9%
Lagoon, POTW
EIA backup D.6] and Small
Generator Study [18]
1980 Regional Distribution
Total :
Of f s i te :
1
0
0
2
117
11
3
652
60
4
163
15
5
1118
104
6
47
4
7
0
0
8
70
7
9
47
4
10
116
11
Method(Source): Waste stream basis (OSW 'Assessment Study [5])
A-46
-------
SIC 333, 3341, 335, 336 — NON-FERROUS METALS
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 1,731
EPA Waste List: 152
Characteristic Waste: 656
Unknown: 923
Range:
1,298 - 2,164
Basis Quantity(Source/Year) :
210 (EIA backup [16] - 1978),
525 (EIA backup [15] - 1978)
865 (Small Generator Study [18]•
1977)
The waste streams on the EPA Waste list are: 2034, 2051,
2036, 2037, 3024, 2051. The EPA Waste List streams which
have no associated tonnages are: 2033, 2035, and 2038.
The characteristic wastes include sludges, dusts,
residues, and slag.
Range:
Coverage Ratio:
Annual Growth Rate( Source) :
±25%
Not applied
3.2% (U.S.I.O. [23])
Current Disposal Practices
Offsite:
Unknown:
Disposal Methods:
Source:
53%
20%
Lagoon, landfill, POTW
Small Generator Study [18]
1980 Regional Distri.tHitJ.O5a
Total :
Of fsite:
Unknown:
1
2
1
0
2
68
36
13
3
139
74
27
4
271
144
53
5
230
122
45
6
405
215
79
7
74
39
14
8
39
21
8
9
54
29
10
10
449
238
87
Me thod( Source) : Waste Stream basis (OSW Assessment Study [ 5 ])
A-47
-------
SIC 34 — FABRICATED METAL PRODUCTS
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 1,997
EPA. Waste List: 624
Characteristic Waste: 46
Unknown: 1,327
Range: 1,498 - 2,496
Basis Quantity(Source/Year):
613 (EIA backup [16] - 1978)
1,196 (EIS [17] - 1975)
EIA backup estimates are used for SIC 3471. Two waste
streams from this segment are captured by the EPA Waste
List (2002, 3000). There is one characteristic wasta
stream. Eatimates from the EIS were used for the
remainder of the industry. The wastes consist of
solvents, paint wastes, acids, heavy metals, etc.
Range:
Coverage Ratio:
Annual Growth Rate(Source):
±25%
Not available
2.5% (U.S.I.O. [23] when
available; OSW Assessment
Study [ 3 ] for others)
Current. Disposal Practices
Offsite: 27%
Disposal Methods: Chemical treatment, landfill, incinera-
tion, POTW
Source: Draft EIA [21] and EIA backup [16]
1980 Regional Distribution
8
10
204
55
103
212
57
125
172
46
132
172
46
132
731
210
513
137
37
110
96
26
62
28
8
15
164
44
117
31
8
18
Total:
Offsite:
Unknown:
Method(Source): Industry basis (OSW Assessment Study [3]) and
Allocation (Bureau of the Census 121])
A-48
-------
SIC 35 — MACHINERY, EXCEPT EI^CTRICAL
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 322
EPA Waste List: 74
Characteristic Waste: NA
Unknown: 248
Range: 161 - 483
Basis Quantity(Source/Year):
65 (EIA backup [16] - 1978)
218 (PHB Estimates - 1978)
EIA backup estimates are used for SIC 355 and 357. All of
the waste from these industry segments are included on the
EPA Waste List. The listed waste streams ara: 3000,
3002, 4000, 4301, 4800, 2002, 4905, 2000, 4300. To
estimate tonnage for the remainder of SIC 35, the employee
hours for SIC 355 and 357 are ratioed to employee hours
for the total industry. Tonnage is increased using this
factor. The estimate therefore is based on the assumption
that the generation rates for SIC 355 and 357 and the
remainder of SIC 35 are the same.
Range:
Coverage Ratio:
Annual Growth Rate( Source) :
±50%
.97
5.1% (U.S.I..O. [23] when avail-
able; OSW Assessment Study
[ 2 ] for others)
Current Disposal Practices
Offsite:
Unknown:
Di spo sal Methods:
Source:
21% .
76%
Chemical treatment, landfill, incineration
OSW Assessment Study [2 ] and EIA backup
[16]
A-49
-------
SIC 35 - MACHINERY, EXCEPT ELECTRICAL
(continued)
1980 Regional Distribution
Total :
Offsite:
Unknown :
1
26
5
20
2
31
7
24
3
28
6
21
4
29
6
22
5
127
27
97
6
24
5
18
7
20
4
15
8
6
1
5
9
28
6
21
10
4
1
3
Method(Source): Allocation (Bureau of the Census [21])
A-50
-------
SIC 36 — ELECTRIC AHD EEiECTRCaillC EQUIPMENT
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation:
EPA Waste List:
Characteristic Waste:
Unknown:
Range:
1,093
531
87
475
668 - 1,519
Note: The following individual segments are presented
SIC 361-368
SIC 3691, 3692
1980 Regional Distribution
1234
8
Total:
Offsite:
Unknown:
67
15
48
156 183
59 91
73 48
82
18
60
334 65
139 28
133 24
28
5
22
5
1
4
10
145 27
59 17
60 2
Method(Source): See individual industry segments following.
A-51
-------
SIC 361-368 — ELECTRIC AND E3LECTRONIC EQUIPMENT
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 609
EPA Waste List: 49
Characteristic Waste: 85
Unknown: 475
Range: • 305 -914
Basis Quantity (.Source/Year) :
91 (EIA backup [16] - 1978)
426 (PHB estimates - 1978)
EIA backup estimates are used for SIC 367. All but one
waste stream, WWT sludges, are captured by the following
EPA list waste streams: 3002, 4000, 4301, 4905, 2000, and
4300.
To estimate hazardous waste generation for SIC 361-366 and
368, the employee hours- from 367 are ratioed to total
employee hours for the industry. This factor is then
applied to the waste quantity from SIC 367 to obtain the
total above. The estimate therefore is based on the
assumption that the generation rate for SIC 367 and the
remainder of SIC 36 are the same.
Range:
Coverage Ratio:
Annual Growth Rate(Source)
±50%
.97
6.7% (U.S.I.O. [23])
Current Disposal Practices
Offsite:
Unknown:
Disposal Methods:
Source:
19%
78%
Landfill, chemical treatment, incineration
OSW Assessment Study [6 ], Draft EIA [21],
and EIA backup [16]
A-52
-------
SIC 361-368 — ELECTRIC AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT
(continued)
198O Regional Distribution
Total :
Of f site:
Unknown:
1
62
12
48
2
93
18
73
3
62
12
48
4
77
15
60
5
170
32
133
6
31
6
24
7
28
5
22
8
5
1
4
9
77
15
60
10
3
1
2
Method(Source): Allocation (Bureau of the Census [21])
A-53
-------
SIC 3691, 3692 — BATTERIES
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 484
EPA Waste List: ' 482
Characteristic Waste: 2
Unknown: 0
Range: 363 - 605
Basis Quantity (Source/Year) : 442 (EIA backup [16] - 1978)
There are three EPA listed waste streams from the
manufacture of batteries, 2039, 2040, and 2041. Waste
estimates are available for one of these waste streams,
2039. The characteristic waste streams consist of WWT
sludges and manufacturing scrap.
Range: ±25%
Coverage Ratio: .99
Annual Growth Rate(Source) : 4% (OSW Assessment Study [ 4 ])
Current Disposal Practices
Offsite: 65%
Disposal Methods: Landfill, POTW
Source: Draft EIA [2Q and EIA backup [16]
1980 Regional Distribution
Total :
Offsite:
1
5
3
2
63
41
3
121
79
4
5
3
5
164
107
6
34
22
7
0
0
8
0
0
9
68
44
10
24
16
Method( Source): Waste stream basis (OSW Assessment Study [4 1)
A-54
-------
SIC 37 — TRAHSPORTATIOH EQUIPMENT
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
198O Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation:
EPA Waste List:
Characteristic Waste:
Unknown:
Range:
1,240
NA
NA
1,240
620 - 1,860
Basis Quantity (Source/Year) : 940 (EIS [17] - 1975)
Wastes include solvents, paint wastes, alkalies, cyanides,
and metal containing compounds.
Range:
Coverage Ratio:
Annual Growth Rate( Source)
±•50%
Not available
5.7% (U.S.I.O. [23])
Current Disposal Practices
Offsite:
Disposal Methods:
Source:
Unknown
Chemical treatment, landfill, incineration
Small Generator Study [18]
1980 Regional Distribution
123
8
10
Total:
Unknown:
36 73 80 106 464 80 80 13 199 60
86 73 80 106 464 80 80 13 199 60
Method(Source): Allocation (Bureau of the Census [21])
A-55
-------
SIC 38 — INSTRUMENTS & RELATED PRODUCTS
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 90
EPA Waste List: NA
Characteristic Waste: NA
Unknown: 90
Range: 45 - 135
Basis Quantity (Source/ Year) : 65 (EIS [17] - 1975)
Wastes include solvents, metal containing compounds,
acids, alkalies, paint wastes, cyanides, and miscellaneous
organics.
Range:
Coverage Ratio:
Annual Growth Rate(Source):
±50%
Not available
6.7% (U.'S.I.O. [23])
Current Disposal Practices
Offsite:
Disposal Methods:
Source:
Unknown
Chemical treatment, landfill, incinera-
tion.
Small Generator Study [18]
1980 Regional Distribution
Total :
Unknown :
1
14
14
2
21
21
3
8
8
4
6
6
5
21
21
6
3
3
7
3
3
8
2
2
9
11
11
10
1
1
Method(Source): Allocation (Bureau of the Census [21])
A-56
-------
SIC 39
MISCEI.I,fiNEOUS MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation: 318
EPA Waste List: NA
Characteristic Waste: NA
Unknown: 318
Range: 159 - 477
Basis Quantity(Source/Year): 270 (EIS [17] - 1975)
Wastes include solvents, paint wastes, acids, metal
containing compounds, cyanides, and alkalies.
Range:
Coverage Ratio:
Annual Growth Rate( Source) :
±50%
Not available
3.3% (U.S.I.O. [23])
Current: Disposal Practices
Offsite: Unknown
Disposal Methods: Chemical treatment, landfill, incineration
Source: Small Generator Study [IS]
1980 Regional Distribution
Total :
Unknown :
1
48
48
2
66
66
3
24
24
4
42
42
5
72
72
6
18
18
7
12
12
8
7
7
9
24
24
10
6
6
Method(Source): Allocation (Bureau of the Census [21])
A-57
-------
SIC — NON-MMJOFACTURING INDUSTRIES
(All Quantities in Thousands of Wet Metric Tons)
1980 Hazardous Waste Generation
Total Generation:
EPA Waste List:
Characteristic Waste:
Unknown:
Range:
1,971
NA
NA
1,971
968 - 2,957
Basis Quantity(Source/Year):
547 (EIA backup [16] - 1978)
1,245 (Small Generator Study [18]-
1977)
The industry segments included in the non-manufacturing
waste generation estimate follow. (The tonnage estimates
are for 1980).
5085 Drum Reconditioners 78
07 Agricultural Services 503
5161 Chemical Warehouses 5
40 Railroad Transportation 556
55 Automotive Dealers and
Gasoline Service Stations 126
72 Personal Services ' 321
73 Business Services 39
76 Misc. Repair Services 306
80 Health Services 30
82 Educational Services 6
Wastes include solvents, acids, biological wastes, heavy
metals, paint sludges, radioactive wastes and miscella-
neous organic and inorganic chemicals.
Range:
Coverage Ratio:
Annual Growth Rate(Source):
±50%
Not available
3.6% (Average industry growth
rate applied)
Current Disposal Practices
Offsite:
Disposal Methods:
Source:
70%
Landfill, landfarm, incineration, lagoon.
EIA backup [16] and Small Generator Study DS]
A-58
-------
SIC — NOH-MftNOFACTORING INDUSTRIES
(continued)
1980 Regional Distribution
Total :
Of fsite:
1
119
83
2
335
235
3
177
124
4
237
166
5
414
290
6
177
124
7
118
83
8
59
41
9
276
193
10
59
41
Method(Source): Based on population distribution data by state
(Bureau of the Census [24])
A-59
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING MOST
PROBABLE OFF-SITE DEMAND
IN 1981
As_explained in the text, it is not possible to
ascertain the disposal category for a large portion of the
total estimate for hazardous waste generation. This
appendix shows how wastes in this "unknown disposal" cate-
gory are allocated between on-site and off-site disposal.
Exhibit B-l presents the assumptions used for each industry
as well as the rationale for using the assumed off-site
percentages of.unknown disposal quantities. These assumed
percentages of off-site demand are also applied to unknown
disposal quantities at the regional level.
B-l
-------
0)
I
EXHIBIT B-l
Allocation of Unknown Disposal Quantities
Into Most Probable Off-Site Demand Category, 1981
(thousand wet metric tons)
SIC
oo
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Non-mf g .
Total
Unknown
Disposal
Category
o
88
36
0
159
886
0
0
0
17
347
1,360
260
507
1,311
96
328
0
5,395
Assumed %
of Unknown
Disposed
Off-Site
20
80
_
50
4
—
- _
_
30
66
80
80
80
80
80
80
-
Assumed
Off-Site
0
18
29
0
80
36
0
0
0
5
229
1,088
208
406 '
1,049
77
262 ,
0
3,487
Known
Off-Site
122
0
0
40
0
1,129
786
244
259
0
1,169
549
71
452
0
0
0
1,430
6,251
Most
Probable
Total
Off-Site
122
18
29
40
80
1,165
786
244
259
5
• 1,398
1,637
279
858
1,049
77
262
1,430
9,738
Basis for Assumption
1
TRW small generator study
TRW small generator study
2
EPA estimate
Chemical Industry
—
—
1
TRW small generator study
Industry average4
PHB estimate5
PHB estimate5
PHB estimate5
c
PHB estimate^
PHB estimate5
PHB estimate0
.
e •
Based on a description of: disposal practices for these industries "contained' in Technical;
Ejwirgnmental Impacts of Varioos Approaches for
Generators , : Vols . I , '-II , TRW, December 10, 1979.
Arbitrary 50 percent allocated off-site.
Source:
_
-Reported off-site-disposal percentage --for. chemical industry as a whole.. - •- :. :- , 5
L Off-si^e disposa^ratio;for;nonferrous fabricated metal products for which .disposal practices
. were knq>wri-. ; . - . , , i - . " .-....."
3 Professional judgment of Putnam J Hayes, and: Bartlett based on its review of •Industrial j
Aslessment reports for Industrie^ with similar manufacturing processes. ; .-; ^ j
Putnam, Mayes & Bartlett , ' - •• . . ' " ,
-------
APPENDIX C
PROJECTED 19Sb INDUSTRIAL HAZARDOUS
WASTE GENERATION BY INDUSTRY
Exhibit.C-l presents a 1985 projection of the range of
hazardous wastes that may be generated. The 'high estimate
is based on the industry growth rate used to calculate "the
1980 and 1981 estimates. The low estimate is based on a
reasonable estimate of the potential reduction in waste
generation. It was impossible to obtain reduction estimates
for each industry. A survey of technical contractors used
to support EPA RCRA regulation development indicated, how-
ever, that a 20 percent reduction was reasonable. The low
estimate represents a 20 percent reduction from the 1985
high estimate.
It is not our purpose to provide a projection of what
the growth in hazardous wastes might be, but rather to show
the effect of a range of growth rate assumptions on volumes
of hazardous waste.
C-l
-------
EXHIBIT C-l
Projected 1985 Hazardous Waste
Generation by Industry
(Thousands of wet metric tons)
Industry
SIC 22-Textile Mill Products
SIC 24-Lumber S Wood Products
; SIC 2 5 -Furniture S Fixtures
SIC 26-Paper S Allied Products
SIC 27-Printing S Publishing
SIC 28-Chemicals S Allied
Products
SIC 29-Petroleum & Coal Products
SIC 30-Rubber & Misc. Plastic
r Products
1
SIC 31-Leather S Leather Tanning
SIC 32-Stone, Clay & Glass
Products
SIC 33-Primary Metal Industries
' SIC 34-Fabricated Metal Products
1 SIC 35-Machinery, Except
Electrical
| SIC 36-Electric S Electronic
l Equipment
SIC 37-Transportation Equipment
t SIC 3 8- Instruments S Related
Products
SIC 39-Misc. Manufacturing
Industries
Nonmanufacturing Industries
B
TOTAL
1980 Estimate
203
87
36
1,295
154
• 25,509
2,119
249
474
17
4,061
1,997
322
1,093
1,240
90
318
1,971
41,235
1985 Projection
Low-i-
162
75
29
1,201
145
24,564
1,789
226
342
15
3,699
1,807
330
1,145
1,309
99
299
1,882
39,118
High^
203
94
36
1,501
182
30,705
2,236
282
428 !
19 I
4,624
2,259
413
1,431
1,636
124
374
2,352
48,899
1
1 1985 volume projections based on the annual industry growth rate
(see individual industry summaries) and adjusted for 20% source
reduction.
2 1985 volume projections based on the annual industry growth rate.
Source: Putnam, Hayes & Bartlett
C-2
-------
APPENDIX D
HAZARDOUS WASTE LIST
This waste list is based on a March 1980 listing that
contained the May 19, 1980 listings, the planned Summer 1980
listings (Appendix A of the preamble to the rules), and the
planned Fall 1980 listings (Appendix B of the preamble to
the rules)..
D-l
-------
EPA Hazardous
Waste Numbers
Hazardous Waste
OLDJ
NEW 2
3000
F001
Spent halogen.i ted to t rachloir ue t liy leue , carbon
tetrachlorlde, methylene chloride, trlchloro-
ethylene, 1 , I , 1- t r toll l.o r oe t hunu , trlchloro-
fluoromethanu and the sludges froia tlie re-
covery of these solvents Croin degreaslng
operations
4905
2000
4300
4800
3001
4000
4301
3002
F017
F018
F014
F015
F003
F004
F005
F002
6150
Paint wastes (such as latex sludge, spent
solvents)
Water-based paint wustea
Waste paint and varnish remover
Spent or wu site cyanide salt solutions or
sludges
Spent: or waste complex cyanide solutions or
sludges
Non-halogena ted solveutii and solvent
recovery still bottoms (.specific solvents
will be listed)
Mon-halogennted solvents and solvent
recovery still bottomu (specific solvents
will be listed)
Halogenated solvents and solvent recovery
still bottoms (specific solvents will be
listed)
Leachate from hazardous waste dls'posal
The hazardous waste numbers appearing on EPA waste list used for the
industry summaries.
? .
'The hazardous waste numbers published in the Federal Recrister on May 19,|
19BO.
D-2
-------
EPA Hazardous
Waste Numbers
OLD
NEW
Hazardous Waste
2002 F006
F007
F008
F009
F010
F011
F012
F013
5101
5102
5103
5104
Electroplating wastewater treatment sludges
Spent plating bath solutions from electro-
plating operations
Plating bath sludges from the bottom of
plating baths from electroplating operations
Spent stripping and cleaning bath solutions
from electroplating operations
Quenching bath sludge from oil baths from
metal heat treating operation's
Spent solutions from salt bath pot cleaning
from metal heat treating operations
Quenching wastewater treatment sludges from
metal heat treating operations
Flotation tailings from selective flotation
from mineral metals recovery operations
Reactor clean up wastes from the chlorina-
tion, dehydrochlorination or oxychlorination
of aliphatic hydrocarbons
Fractionation bottoms' from the separation
of chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons
Distillation bottoms from the separation
of chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons
Washer wastes from the production of
chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons
D-3
-------
EPA Hazardous
Waste Numbers
OLD
NEW
Hazardous Waste
S105
3106
5107
5108
5109
5110
5111
5112
5113
5114
5115
5116
3502
F016
Spent catalyse from Lhe production of
chlorinated aliphatic hydcoca ebons
Reactor clean —up wastes from the e-hlori-
natlon or oxychiocLnation of cyclic aliphatic
hydrocarbons
Fractionatton bottoms from th« separation
of chlorinated cy«:ll«%. aliphatic hydrocarbons
D ( u i i ! I it r I » u Itt» I. I itni:: f r 11111 I tic ii •• |>:i r a 1 I o u
of chlorinated cyrlli: a I I pha I. I <: hydro-
carbons
Washer wastes from the. production of
chlorinated cyclic aliphatic hydrocarbons
Spent catalyst frum i In* p c ndue I. I o n oC
chlorinated cycll«: aliphatic hydrocarbons
Batch residue.-! from I: hit production of
chlorinated polymers
Solution residues from the production of
chlorinated polymers
Reactor clean-up wastes from the separation
of chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons
Fractlonatton bottoms from the separation
of chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons
Distillation bottoms from the separation of
chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons
Washer wastes from the production of chlori-
nated aromatic hydrocarbons
Po lychlorInated Illpht-uyls (PCH) and I'Cli
items as dellned In At) Cl-'K Part 761
Dewatered air pollution control scrubber
sludges from coke ovens and blast furnaces
D-4
-------
EPA Hazardous
Waste Numbers
OLD
NEW
Hazardous Waste
6925
Containers or Inner ll.ner» removed from a
container that ha:t been 'triple rinsed to hold
any hazardous wuute listed in this Sulrpurt,
unless the con taint; r ha:> been triple rinsed
using a solvent c tip al>Lt> of removing the
hazardous wu:ite or has been c loaned by
another method that ha:; been shown in the
scientific literature, or by tests conducted
by the generator, to achieve equivalent
remova1.
[Comment: The hazard code to be used by the
generator for de I lat I ng containers or inner
liners will be the same a:> the hazard code
of the hazardous wu;; t e. wh Ich Is removed from
the container or inner liner.)
D-5
-------
EPA Hazardous
Waste Numbers
OLD
NEW
Hazardous Waste
7000
7001
7002
7003
4906
4907
4908
4909
4910
2003
5117
K070
KOO:
Sub-ore from underground and surface mining
of uranium, overburden from surface mining
of uranium and watjte rook from underground
raining of uranium with a radium-22d a'ctLviUy
in excess of 5 pCl/g
Leach zone overburden and discarded phosphate
ore from phosphate uurface mining and a limes
from phosphate ore bonefLcLat Ion
Slag and fluid bed prills from process ing
phosphate ore t.o produce elemental
phos pho roua
Waste gypsum from processing phosphate ore
to produce phosphoric acid
Wool fabric dylni; and Mulshing wa r. t is wa t e r
t readme, ni: « 1 udge«
Woven fabric dying «»»«' finishing waatewatec
treatment sludge.';
lv.ii I t. fabric ilylnj'. .i.i.l I I u I n li I n r. w.i M I. «• w.-t t n r
L real me nt » I \ui\\u >i
Yarn and stock dying and finishing waste-
water treatment sludges
Carpet dying and finishing wasstewater treat-
ment sludges
Wool scouring wa a t ewa t is r treatment Kludges
Bottom sediment Kludge from wood-treating
process
D-6
-------
EPA Hazardous
Waste Numbers
OLD
NEW
Hazardous Waste
2004
K071
2005
5118
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
K072
K073
K074
K075
K076
K077
K005
Mercury bearing sludges from brine treat-
ment and mercury boa ring brine purLf1cutLou
muds from the mercury cull process In
chlorine production
Wastewater treatment sludge from diaphragm
cell process using g r.i ph I te anodes In
production of chIo r I ne
Chlorinated hydrocarbon hearing wastes from
d I a p h r a g m cell process using g r a p h 1t e anodes
In chlorine production
Wastewator treatment. H Indies 1° rom the
production o C T li>2 P I ;'.»>'-' '*'• using chromium
bearing ores by the chloride process
Wastewater treatment u I. u p I )•. IIHMI I u>:lii|> chromium
bearing o re n by I It <• :; u I I .1 I i: |> i or, i: :i:;
Arsenic bearing slu
-------
EPA Hazardous
Waste Numbers
OLD
NEW
Hazardous Waste
3003
2013
2014
2015
6151
5700
4911
5950
2016
K007
K002
K003
K004
K084
K078
K079
K080
K081
2017
3004
3006
5120
K082
K009
K010
K011
K012
Waatewater treatment :ilud|*e from r.lie ma'uu —
facture of Leon blue plgmentH
Wastewater L rea tme nl .-; fudge from the manu-
facture of chrome yellow ami orange pigments
Wastewater t rua two n i: sludge from Che manu-
facture of ran Ly bila 11! or.inge p I gme n t «
Wastewater treatment sludge from the manu-
facture of %:! lie yellow p I gme nL s
Arsenic or o rg a no-a r sen I c contalnlnj; waste-
water treatment sludj-os from production of
ve te r ina ry pha rmar.eu t l«*.a Is
Solvent cleaning wautew from paint production
'Water cleaning wusteu from paint production
Caustic cleaning waatew from paint
produc t ton
Waatowater treatnu;nt sltidgeu from paint
production
Air pollution control uludgcs from paint
production
DiatlLlatlon t>o t torn:) from I. he production of
acetaldehyde from ei.hylene
Distillation side cuts from the production
of acetaldehyde from ethylene
Bottom stream fn>iii wa ;s t ewa t e'r stripper In
production of .tc try I on 1.1 r I Lc
Still bottoms from final purification of
ac ryIon i t rI le
D-l
-------
EPA Hazardous
Waste Numbers
OLD
NEW
Hazardous Waste
3007
3008
3009
3010
3011
5123
5124
3012
5126
5128
2018
3014
K013
K014
K083
K085
K015
K016
K017
K018
K019
K021
Bottom stream from the acetonitrile column
in the production of acrylonitrile
Waste stream (column bottom:;) from
acetroultrtie purification In production
of acryloultrlle
StLLL bottoms.from aniline production
Distillation residues from separation of
chlorobenzenes
Still bd'ttoms from the distillation of
benzyl chloride "~ ;'~~" "
Heavy endu or d i >• l. 1 I I a I. Ion residues from the
carbon L e t r a c li I o i: L <> t t: oiiis ) f r um the fraction-
ator In the pr oduc t Ion of ep Ichl o roll yd r In
Heavy end:; from f rue l; Lona t Ion In ethyl
chloride production
Heavy ends from the distillation of ethylene
dichlorlde In ethyleiu; dlchlorlde production
Spent catalytic from the fluorlnatlon reactor
in the production of l: luo rome thanes
Heavy enda from the production of glycerine
from allyl chloride
Lead slag from lead a Iky I production
Vacuum utlll bottoms from the production of
ma J.e Ic anliy <1 r l«| t;
D-9
-------
EPA, Hazardous
Waste Numbers
OLD NEW
Hazardous Waste
3018
3019
3020
3021
5130
4302
4102
5132
5133
3022
5181
3023
K022
K023
K024
K025
K026
K027
K028
K029
K030
K020
Heavy tars from the production of phenol/
acetone from cumenu
Distillation re a I duea from the production of
phthallc anhydride from naphthalene
Aqueous effluent from scrubbing of spent
acid In nitrobenzene production
Purification column u.tutes from the pro-
duction of nitrobenzene
Still bottoms from th«; production of
p e ti t a c h 1 o r o n 11 r a b e n z <: it e
S t r l-p p 1 n u still (all:; It o m t: Ik o p r o d u c t I o n of
methyl ethyl pyr 1 d lni;:i
Centrifuge residue from toluene dllsocyanate
production
Spent catalyst from I: he hy d rochlo r Ina t o r
reactor in the production of 1,1,1—-
trichloroetliane
Waste from tlte product stream stripper In
the production of I , I , I- t r Iclt ioroe t bane
Column bottom:; or In-.ivy rud:; I'rom tin: pro-
duction of trlch I ororihyIene
Column bottoms; of heavy undti from the
production o f pe r •• h I o r oe I h y I e ne
Heavy e nils I' rout (In- .1 I :; I I I I a I I o n o I' vinyl
chloride In the production of vinyl chloride
from ethyl cite d Ich I. o r l-.le
D-10
-------
EPA Hazardous
Waste Numbers
OLD
NEW
Hazardous Waste
2019
5144
5145
5146
K031
K032
K033
K034
By-pro
Wastewater Lreatiuent sLndi>ei; from tlie
production of creosote
2,6-D waute by-produc l..s from thu production
of 2,4-D
Unro<:over«id trlestcr I i <,m t!»e production of
disulfoton
Still bottoina from toluene reclamation
dint Illation in t;he production of disulfoton
Waatewater treatmeni s Indues from the
production of dlnuif.oton
WaHtewater treatnu-ui :ilud|'t>ii Irom i li«
pfoduc t. Ion o( uii> | hum y |
By-producta «alta In the production of MSMA
D-ll
-------
EPA Hazardous
Waste Numbers
OLD
NEW
Hazardous Waste
5166
5167
6300
2049
7200
4051
4103
3025
K038
K039
5168
6152
6153
5169
K040
K041
K042
K044
K046
K045
K047
Liquid and solid wastes from dm washing,
stripping and filtering of phorate In
phorate production
Filter cake from the filtration of diethyl-
phospho»:odithor Ic acJd In the production of
phorate
Wastewater treatment sludges from the
production of phorate
Filter cake from the filtration of toxa-
phene solution In production of toxaphene
Wastewater treatment .sludges from the
production of toxaphcne
Heavy ends of d I :H: I I I a l I on n:s» « dunis from the
dint Illation ol to l raoh I orobon/.ene In the
production of 2,4,!>-T
Waatewater L ritaCuuui. i8lud»;«ii fruia the manu-
facture of oKi»lo«lv««: and |> r .>,x-U a n t
compounds
Wastewatur tre;itinent sludges from die pro-
duction and LAI' Initiating compounds
Waoteu from acetic auld recovery in the
production oE RUX/HMX
Catch baaln materials In RUX/IIMX production
Spent carbon columns u««d In the treatment of
wastewater LAP operations
Red water and pink watc.r sludges from TNT
production and LAP operations
D-12
-------
EPA Hazardous
Waste Numbers
OLD
NEW
Hazardous Waste
2021
K086
2022
5900
2023
K048
2024
K049
2025
2026
K050-
K051
Sludges/wastes from tub wa ahes ' de r I veil from
ink formulations containing feedstocks- or
pigments of lead, chromium, barium, cadmium,
arseuIc or mercury
Wash water/sludges from Ink pi'lnllng
equipment clean-up containing feedstocks
or p I gmen L s o t a r !i ..- u I .-. , lia r I un , c. a
Dissolved air flotal:lou
-------
EPA Hazardous
Waste Numbers
OLD
NEW
Hazardous Waste
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
4750
4912
4050
4913
2027
4551
2028
K052
K053
K054
K055
K056
K057
K058
K059
K087
K060
K061
K062
K063
Tank bottoms (leaded) from che petroleum ?. ,
refining industry
Chrome (blue) t r I mm I nj', " l:rom leather
tanning ami f Ln 1 uli I i»r. 'M»«' '" •• ' ' """
Chi-omc ttlinvlugii from leather tanning ami
finishing operations
Buffing dust from leather tanning and
finishing operation:}
Sewer screenings from leather tanning ; and
finishing
Waatewater treatment: iiludgt: from leather
tanning and f In IslH nj', ope rat louts except
for d e h a I r I n g
Wautewater treatment sludge from d eh a I ring
operations in leather tanning and finishing
operations
Coking: Decanter tank l.a r / p I C ch/ s ludge
Coking: Cauatlc n«u I. ra 1 l/.a t Ion waste
ng: Ammonia :; I I I I I Into :;lu.l|'<-
Emission control dii t: I / n ludge s 1: row the
electric furnace production of ateel
Steel Finishing: Uasl:<: pl<-.kl«t liquor
Steel Finishing: Wa.-ii..» pl.:kle liquor treat
me n t s I u A g e
D-14
-------
EPA Hazardous
Waste Numbers
OLD
NEW
Hazardous Waste
2030
2031
2032
2050
2033
2034
2051
2035
2036
2037
3024
K090
K091
K092
K089
K064
K065
K066
K067
K068
K088
2038
2051
K069
Emission control du ;j I. / 'a i ud j«e from ferro-
chromeH I llcon (l-'eCrSi) production
Emission control dus I:/ o lud |-e from ferro-
cUromc (l-'eCr) p c odur S I <> n
Emission control du;j t / a ludtju from ferro-
inauganti.se (KeMii) production
Lead-bear injj wnutewatcr t run time n t • s lud
from gray Iron fotuidrlei;
coatrul du;; I. / i> I. lulyti from reverhera-
tory furnace and r.oa vc rt u CH from primary
copper p r o d u c. t: I o n
Wastewater and/or acid plant Slowdown
treatment s lud ye/ i nj'.xjn KolLdsj from
primary copper p r odur I I on
So lid a from aiirf.u-. <• i m point dniunt M at lead
smelters from primary lead production
Process wastewatcr and/or acid plant blowdown
from primary zinc production
Eleccrolytlc anode « I i me :: / aludj-e :> from
primary zinc product Lou
Cadmium plant leaclial:-: residue (iron oxide)
from primary zinc production
Spent potltners ( ca tltode :j ) from primary
alumluum reduction
Em I s.'i Ion . con c ro 1 du:; i / a 1 u d j.t, from .secondary
lead smelting
Waste leaching solution from acid lencltlng
of omiafilon control du H I: / s lud }•<» from
secondary lead umulti. n|>
D-15
-------
EPA Hazardous
Waste Numbers
Hazardous Waste
OLD
NEW
2039
2040
2041
HnatuwnLor I fen Litu: nl s I titl (•«; s Irom' load actd
O hat I: ttry p r oil IK- I I «>u
Cleaii-ui> wafilirn I mm ..illn«l<- .iml anniU: jiautt;
proJuc I: I on from l.'.ul u- I il halt cry |»r oduc t I on
Wa ii titwa I "• i I r«-ii I tin- u I -i I «i«l j-f :: Irom nli-.lc«'l-
catlmLum batLufy |> roiluo l. I on
D-16
-------
APPENDIX E
INTERVIEW TOPICS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT FACILITY OPERATORS
Type of~ Data
Detail Requested
Facility description
Volumes treated or disposed
Current capacity
Future capacity
Critical factors
influencing expansion
Innovative technology
Financial
Services offered.
Wastes processed/refused
Storage capability
Compatibility with proposed
ISS standards
By waste management option
Ultimate disposition
By waste management option
Capacity utilization
Factors related to maximum
• utilization
Capacity not meeting ISS
By year (1981-1985) and
degree of commitment
By waste management option
New facilities
Expansion at existing
facilities
Technical
Financial
Legal
Social/political
Emerging technologies
Advantages and disadvantages
Current R&D effort
Economics
Commercial viability
Prices by waste management
option
Sales (if not proprietary) .
E-l
-------
-------
APPENDIX F
METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING VOLUMES AND
CAPACITIES OF NONRESPONDENT FIRMS
Data on volumes and capacities for 90 of the 127
identified hazardous waste management facilities were
obtained through both personal and telephone interviews!
Volume and capacity data for the remaining 37 facilities
were estimated using the following three-step process:
Identify the services offered and the waste
streams accepted from the list of identified
industry participants provided by EPA.
Identify a proxy facility, for-which volume
and capacity data was collected in the same
EPA region, which most closely parallels the
services offered and waste streams accepted
by the facility to be estimated. If there
was not a similar facility in the same region,
then a facility from an adjacent region was
used.
Assign the volume and capacity data of the
proxy facility to the facility for which
data were not available.
This approach was selected because it relied on current
data for facilities faced by similar market conditions.
Furthermore, no alternative current data exists in either
an aggregate or disaggregated form.
For example, of the eight facilities identified in
Region I, six-provided data on volume, capacity, type
of waste management services offered and types of wastes
handled. The remaining two facilities were contacted but
.did not respond to inquiries. The data for these two
facilities were estimated through the following three-step
process:
The facility descriptions provided by EPA
identified both facilities -as resource re-
covery operations accepting solvents and
providing chemical treatment of wastewaters.
F-l
-------
A similar facility was identified in Region-I
to estimate the volumes and capacities for
resource recovery operations. For the chemical
treatment operations, no similar facility existed
in Region I, but a suitable proxy facility in
Region II was identified.
The data for the similar facilities were used
to estimate the volumes and capacity data for
the two nonrespondent facilities.
F-2
-------
APPENDIX G
DESCRIPTIONS OF THE SIX MAJOR TYPES
OF HAZARDOUS TREATMENT/DISPOSAL PRACTICES
Chemical, physical and biological treatment includes a
host of different processes which are designed to either
transform the hazardous waste into a non-hazardous material
and/or reduce the volume of hazardous waste to be ultimately
disposed. The choice of the appropriate process depends on
the chemical composition of the waste, the relative economics
and the relevant state and .Federal regulations. For simpli-
city, the term chemical treatment is used to refer to all
treatment processes. Exhibit G-l, on the following pages,
provides a capsule summary of some of the various treatment
techniques in use.
The second waste management option considered in this
study—resource recovery—is closely related to chemical
treatment techniques. The only distinguishing characteristic
is that the hazardous "waste" is partially transformed into
a usable raw material rather than a non-hazardous waste.
Solvent recovery operations and waste oil re-refiners were
included in this study only if they also performed some
other waste management service. In practice, there are
believed to be hundreds of other firms and individual entre-
preneurs involved with buying, selling and recovering waste
that will probably be classified hazardous.
The third waste management option considered is inciner-
ation. Incineration of hazardous materials involves the
controlled burning of solids, liquids or gases. The thermal
destruction of the hazardous waste yields carbon dioxide,
water vapor and an inert ash as the primary outputs. The
types of wastes incinerated are generally classified as
autogenous and non-autogenous materials depending on
whether auxiliary fuel is required for sustained combustion.
Typical types of wastes which are incinerated include
•oily wastes, chlorinated hydrocarbons, solvents and pesti-
cides. Several basic incinerator designs are used and
numerous configurations and design adaptations have
been developed by waste management firms. Incinerators
which are capable of burning solids typically combine a
rotary kiln with a secondary combustion chamber.
G-l
-------
EXHIBIT G-l(l)
Types of Chemical, Physical and Biological Treatment
Type of
Treatment
Description
of Process
Examples of
Wastes Treated
Chemical Treatment
Neutralization
Oxidation
Coagulation
Precipitation
Reduction
Neutralizing agents
are reacted with
wastes to adjust
the pH level
Mixing of an oxi-
dizing agent with
waste to combine
with another com-
pound
Destabilization and
aggregation of
smaller particles
to make settling
easier
Addition of chemi-
cals to cause sep-
aration from a sol-
ution or suspension
Reduce the oxida-
tion state of a
material
Acids and alkalines
from chemical; pe-
troleum and metal plat-
ing industries
Reduced ferrous iron
from steel industry
Heavy metals
Electroplating wastes
Hexavalent chromium
salts
Source: Booz, Allen & Hamilton Inc.
G-2
-------
EXHIBIT G-l(2)
Type of
Treatment
Description
of Process
Examples of
Wastes Treated
Physical Treatment
Sedimentation
Distillation
Evaporation
Flotation
Removal of settled
suspended solids
Boiling a mixture
of liquids to ex-
tract a vapor of
the lower boiling
components
Concentration of
solids by boiling
off the solvent
Floating materials
to the surface by
attaching them to
air bubbles and then
skimming the surface
Biological Treatment
Aerobic
Anerobic
Microorganisms which
require oxygen for
their existence are
used to treat wastes
Microorganisms
which do not require
oxygen for their
existence are used
to treat wastes
Dissolved solrds
Halogenated and non-
halogenated solvents
Rinse waters from
metalplating
Organics
Sludges
High strength
organic waste
Source: Booz, Allen & Hamilton Inc.
G-3
-------
One of the major problems faced by incinerators is
their ability to meet current air emissions standards.
Typically, incinerators must be equipped with trace toxic
contaminant removal equipment and operate at very high
combustion temperatures.
Deep-well injection is the fourth waste management
option considered. This option involves pumping liquid
wastes into underground porous formations isolated from
potable water and mineral bearing strata. The material is
intended to be permanently stored in these formations.
This practice has been used extensively by the petroleum
industry to dispose of brines produced and separated from
the oil. The applicability of deep-well injection to
hazardous waste disposal is somewhat controversial. Pro-
ponents argue that deep-well injection is a safe option for
a diverse variety of wastes. However, some states have
strict limitations on the types of wastes which can be
injected via deep wells, limiting, such wastes as chlorinated
hydrocarbons.
Secure landfill is similar to deep-well disposal in
that the hazardous nature of the material is not changed,
rather it is isolated from human contact. Land burial, by
definition, includes sanitary landfills and secure landfills.
Secure landfills, by definition, are those which have been
designed with the intent of accepting hazardous waste. These
facilities have an almost impermeable barrier such as
a liner', and a leachate collection and monitoring system.
Land treatment, land farming or land spreading is a
form of biological treatment through soil incorporation.
The application of this technology was pioneered in the
petroleum industry. The liquid wastes are applied onto or
beneath the soil and periodically mixed to aid in aerobic
decomposition of the organic material. Plots can be rotated
and reused. Land treatment and solar evaporation have been
combined into one category for purposes of this study because
of the sometimes inseparable nature of these processes. For
example, some hazardous waste treatment facilities use ponds
for physical separation such as oil skimming and dewatering
by solar evaporation. Then after the sediment has settled
and the water removed, the bottoms of the ponds are dredged
and the material is spread on land for biological decomposition.
G-4
-------
APPENDIX H
1985 NATIONAL FORECAST FOR CAPACITY
BY WASTE MANAGEMENT OPTION
This appendix presents a forecast of off-site hazardous
waste management capacity for 1985. These data have been
included as an appendix because the quality of these fore-
casts are not as good as the 1981 and 1982 forecasts.
The industry is changing so rapidly and there are
so many uncertainties involved that forecasting to 1985
becomes very imprecise. The expansion plans reported by
the interviewed firms reflected a "wait and see" attitude
because of uncertainty over final RCRA requirements.
Furthermore, most firms interviewed reported that they did
not plan beyond 1982. .This limited planning horizon.may
introduce a significant downward bias in the capacity fore-
cast. To attempt to account for this, upper bounds on
the forecasts were developed extrapolating the 1980-1982
growth rate out to 1985. Exhibit H-l presents the national
forecasts of capacity and Exhibit H-2 shows the regional
breakdown of these forecasts. The methodology used to
develop these forecasts is described in Appendix I.
H-l
-------
EXHIBIT H-l
1985 National Forecast for Capacity
By Waste Management Option
(Million Wet Metric Tons)
"V
/ !/
Total capacity, 1982 25.12 3.03
Total additions 1983-1985 0.23 0.35
. firm commitment
additions 0.01
. under study additions
. crystal ball
additions - 0.14
. inferred additions 0.22 0.21
Baseline end of year
capacity for 1985 8.311 3.38
-------
EXHIBIT H-2
Hazardous Waste Management Industry
1985 Baseline Regional Forecast for
Capacity by Waste Management Option1
(Million Wet Metric Tons)
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
TOTAL
LIFETIME
LANDFILL2
-0.023
-0.493
-0.053
5.87
0.14
2.39
0.05
-
0.35
0.07
8.31
ANNUAL
LAND TREATMENT
-
-
-
-
1.30
_
.06
1.94
.09
3.39
INCINERATION
0.06
0.13
0.13
0.22
0.32
0.90
. - "
"
0.31
-
1.87
CHEMICAL
TREATMENT
0.46
1.79
1.11
0.60
2.86
1.34
0.13
0.04
0.40
0.14
8.87
RESOURCE
RECOVERY
0.11
0.59
0.10
0.04
0.45
-
-
-
-
-
1,29
DEEP-WELL -
INJECTION
-
-
-
-
0.15
4.51
-
-
-
-
- 4.66
IAS described more fully in the text there is considerable uncertainty associated
with these forecasts.
2Assumes landfull utilization rate based on 1980 utilization or 5-year
lifetime, whichever is highest. If landfills _are not used this
quickly, the capacity estimates will be underestimates.
^Represents landfill shortage that may shift to landfill in the region.
Source: Booz, Allen & Hamilton Inc.
-------
-------
APPENDIX I
METHODOLOGY FOR DEVELOPING CAPACITY FORECASTS
This appendix to the report discusses the methodology
used to develop the required capacity forecasts by treatment/
disposal method and region for the 1981-85 time frame. The
capacity forecasts for 1981 and 1982 were presented in '
Chapter VI and the 1985 forecasts were presented in Appen-
dix H. The methodology encompasses both the development
of point estimates of future capacity and the representation
of the level of uncertainty associated with these point
estimates. Exhibit 1-1 presents an overview of the methodology.
The details are explained in the following paragraphs.
(1) Capacity Forecasts for the 1981-85 Time Frame Were
Developed on the Basis-of Reported Data on Expansion
Plans From Respondent Firms and Estimated Data for
Nonrespondent Firms
As depicted in Exhibit 1-1, reported data from the
firm interviews encompassed expansion plans in many but
not all cases. Of the 90 .facilities where the survey
yielded reported data on most topics, no information
was available for 23 facilities with respect to planned
capacity expansion over the 1981-85 time frame. These
23 facilities were combined with those 37 facilities
where reported data was lacking on all topics.
The technique used to infer the additions to
capacity for each of these facilities required two steps:
Calculate the average capacity growth rate
for similar type facilities, in the region
Apply this growth rate to the 1980 capacity
for the facility.
The capacity additions which had to be estimated
by this technique are reported separately in Chapter VI
under.the category inferred additions.
(2) Upper and Lower Ranges of Capacity Levels Were
Developed To Reflect the Major Uncertainties
Implicj.1: in the 1981-85 Capacity Estimates
As depicted in Exhibit H-l, a range was developed
for the capacity forecasts for the 1981-85 -period to
1-1
-------
EXHIBIT 1-1
Overview of Methodology Used to Develop
Capacity Forecasts for the Period 1981-1985
H
M
Reported Data On
Current Capacity
and Expansion Plans
(67 Facilities)^
Reported Data on
Current Capacity
(23 Facilities)
Estimated Data
on Current
Capacity
Estimated
Expansion Plans
for Non-Reporting
Facilities
Baseline
Capacity
Forecasts
(1981-85)
Adjustments
for Potential
Error Sources
and Major
Uncertainties
Capacity
Forecasts
(1981-85)
(37 Facilities)
-------
appropriately reflect potential sources of error and
uncertainty implicit ..in the original point estimates.
Upper and lower bound estimates were developed to encom-
pass three of the four major categories of potential
error or uncertainty. These include the following:
Data deficiencies
Sampling data
Limited planning horizons of individual firms
.' Impact of other forces through time on the level
of uncertainty.
Each source of potential error is discussed below.
As previously'" discussed in Chapter IV, data
deficiencies are suspected in the 1980 capacity figures
reported by the surveyed firms and estimated for the
non-surveyed firms. Since these data served as the ,
basis for the developed capacity estimates for the
1981-85 time frame, the suspected or potential errors
will also be found in these capacity forecasts. There-
fore, the estimated error, + 24 percent of baseline,
should be reflected in the capacity estimates for each
year of the 1981-85' period. .
Estimation of the capacity levels over the 1981-85
time frame for nonrespondent firms on the basis of
reported data from respondent firms introduces a second
potential source of error. To the extent.that the two
groups of firms (facilities) are dissimilar with respect
to future capacity expansion rates, the resultant
industry capacity estimates will be biased. Because
the conducted survey was based upon a voluntary as
opposed to scientifically selected sample, such as random
sample, the potential sampling error could not, of course,
be quantified. However, the importance of.this potential
error source can be assessed by determining the sensi-
tivity of the resultant capacity forecasts to assumed
levels of sampling error. A maximum sampling error of
+ 20 percent was selected for the purpose of sensitivity
analysis. Since the sampling error cannot be accurately
defined, the data ha_s__been presented in such a way as
to facilitate the use of alternative assumptions for. the
sampling error. The assumed sampling error of + 20 per-
cent was applied to the annual growth rate estimates for
each waste management treatment disposal option. The new
growth rates (upper and lower bounds) were applied to the
nonrespondent firms. Because this 20 percent sampling
error is only applied to the portion of capacity inferred,
1-3
-------
the impact on the error range for total capacity is
much less. For example, only 7 percent of landfill
capacity was inferred and the sampling error is calcu-
lated as follows:
;Sampling\
error I
/
(0.014)
_ /Inferred \/Sampling'
~ ( capacity ]( error
\additions/\ /
(0.07) x (0.20)
The limited planning horizon of most surveyed firms
introduces another potential source of error or
uncertainty in the developed capacity forecasts for each
hazardous waste treatment/disposal option. In essence,
we have developed capacity forecasts through 1985 while
most surveyed firms reported that their current planning
horizon for new and/or expanded facilities does not go
beyond 1982. To focus properly on the potential signifi-
cance of this source of uncertainty, we developed capacity
forecasts for 1983-85 based on two scenarios:
Scenario 1: Firms (facilities) were assumed to
have no capacity expansion above that which was
reported or inferred for the period 1983-85.
The baseline capacity forecasts incorporated
this scenario.
Scenario 2: Firms (facilities) were assumed
to expand capacity over the 1983-85 period at
the same rate shown for the 1981-82 period.
This scenario was employed to calculate the
extrapolated upper bound on the capacity forecasts.
The fourth potential source of error cannot be
quantified and is generic to all forecasts. The un-
certainty associated with forecasts increases as a
function of time; therefore, forecasts for 1 year in
the future are more certain than for 3 years in the
future. We have also assumed that existing facilities
will continue to operate in the future. Clearly then,
the proper reflection of increased, uncertainty over ;
time would entail a further widening per year of the
upper and lower limits on the capacity estimates from
1981-85. Although there is no theoretical or empirical
basis to quantify this uncertainity, the EPA contractor
recognizes this phenomenon and states that its potential
influence was not explicitly factored into the capacity
ranges presented.
1-4
-------
To quantify the range of error, the methodology
accounts for data deficiencies, sampling error, and
error due to the limited planning horizon as displayed
in Exhibit 1-2 on the following page. Using the esti-
mated growth rates presented earlier as the baseline
forecast, the upper bound of potential error is derived
in accordance with the following steps:
Data deficiency: Add 24 percent of base.line
Sampling error: Add 20 percent times the
inferred additions
Planning horizon error: Add an extrapolation
of growth rates for the 1981-82 period.
The lower bound of potential error is based on the
following calculations:
Data deficiency:
baseline
Subtract 24 percent of
Sampling error: Subtract 20 percent times
the additions to capacity inferred.
1-5
-------
EXHIBIT 1-2
Impact of Error Source on Baseline
Capacity Forecasts
Capacity
Forecast upper
bound
Error due to
limited planning
horizon
Sampling error
Data deficiency
error
Baseline forecast
Data deficiency
error
Sampling error
Forecast lower bound
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1-6
-------
APPENDIX J
EMERGING HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT
AND DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES
Past reliance on land disposal of hazardous waste has
resulted in serious environmental and health problems through-
out the country. EPA estimates that perhaps 2,000 land
disposal sites could pose unacceptable threats to the neigh-
boring populations.1 The difficulties associated with simply
"storing" hazardous waste on these sites has stimulated
research toward development of new technologies that will
either destroy or detoxify the wastes.
This chapter will briefly discuss 13 of the more
promising technologies now emerging as a result of recent
research and development efforts. The technologies are
listed alphabetically below:
Cement kilns
Chlorinolysis
Co-mingling
Fluidized-bed incineration
Incineration-at-sea
Land treatment
Microwave plasma destruction
Molten salt combustion
Molten sodium decomposition
Ozonation
Solidification
UV radiation
Wet air oxidation.
The purpose of the chapter is to give some sense of
technology trends and how they might affect the future mix
of treatment and disposal methods. Although few quantitative
conclusions can be made on exactly how disposal capacity
might be increased as a result of the commercialization of
innovative technologies, the chapter provides a perspective
on this issue as a preface to the discussion of individual
technologies.
The approach applied has been to review the literature
and to rely on both phone and face-to-face interviews with
staff of waste management firms and U.S. EPA. A bibliography
and list of interviewees (beyond these people interviewed as
part of the other tasks on the overall assignment) are in-
included in Exhibit J-l.
Hazardous Waste Information, U0S0 Environmental Protection Agency,
February 1980.
-------
EXHIBIT J-l
Additional Interviews Performed
To Identify Emerging Technologies
1. Thomas Baugh
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio
2. Barbara H. Edwards
Ebon Research Systems
Washington, D.C.
3. Gene Krumpler
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
Washington, D.C.
4. George Kush
National Solid Wastes Management Association
Washington, D.C.
5. Kent E. Patterson
Environmental Resources Management, Inc.
West Chester, Pennsylvania
6. Irving Susel
Sobotka and Company, Inc.
Washington, D.C.
7. Leo Weitzman
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio
J-2
-------
1. RECENT R&D EFFORTS HAVE BEEN AIMED TOWARD DETOXIFICATION
AND DESTRUCTION. ALTHOUGH MANY EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
SHOW PROMISE, MAJOR COMMERCIALIZATION IS QUESTIONABLE.
Hazardous waste technology research and development
(R&D) activities have increased substantially in the past
few years. Some waste management firms are actively pursuing
modified technologies but it appears that the principal actors
involved in R&D are the U.S. EPA-Cincinnati, universities,
and waste generators. In addition, a considerable amount of
research is being undertaken in Europe. In this country,
research activities conducted by the EPA will probably have
the widest applicability since waste generators typically
develop technologies (or perhaps more appropriately treatment
systems) which are designed to treat a very specific waste
stream. The EPA's technology program historically has
viewed wastes more generically than this. However, the EPA
program has received a recent change in emphasis. Future
efforts will focus on waste stream characterization as a
result of the promulgation of the RCRA Section 3001 regulations.
It is probable that because of this shift toward analyzing
and, characterizing specific waste streams, the technology
development program will move more toward designing systems
to treat individual not generic classes of"wastes.
Typically, recent technology developments have been
driven by one underlying philosophy; no hazardous waste
should be buried without undergoing the maximum amount of
detoxification or destruction feasible. Thus, a variety of
traditional technologies (e.g., incineration) and more
exotic chemical and physical detoxification technologies
(e.g., microwave plasma) have received great emphasis.
Most technologies, however, are in the very early stages
of development. Exhibit J-2, on the following page, shows
that even some of the more traditional incineration technologies
(e.g., fluidized bed) have not been developed beyond demon-
stration scale for the treatment of hazardous wastes. The
more exotic and sophisticated technologies are even less
developed, most being tested presently at bench scale.
Although many technologies do show promise, there are
several factors that would lead one to believe that major
commercialization of innovative technologies is questionable..
Existing technology—Most major waste manage-
ment firms believe that existing technologies
will handle the great majority of wastes in
an environmentally acceptable fashion. These
firms believe that investments in other areas
(particularly siting) will be more lucrative.
J-3
-------
EXHIBIT J-2
Approximate Commercialization Status of
Emerging Hazardous Waste Treatment and
Disposal Technologies
Commercialization Status
Bench-scale
Technologies •
Molten sodium decomposition
Chlorinolysis
Ozonation
Wet air oxidation
Microwave plasma destruction
Ultraviolet radiation
Pilot plant
Land treatment (except for
petroleum and pharmaceu-
tical wastes)
Cement kilns
Molten salt combustion
Demonstration facility **
Fluidized-bed combustion
Commercial operation
Solidification (in Europe),,
Co-mingling (in California)
Incineration-at-sea
RSD at the laboratory stage.
Differs from pilot plant status in that the types of hazardous
waste handled at a demonstration facility represent actual rather
than simulated conditions (subject to the variability of incoming
types of wastes) and the major equipment is operated consistent
with commercialization goals (i.e., continuous processing if
applicable and sized at or near a commercial operations capacity).
Source: Booz, Allen & Hamilton Inc.
J-4
-------
Siting—Most new technologies will do little
.to alleviate siting as the major issue sur-
rounding hazardous waste management. Although
the technologies do for the most part detoxify
the wastes, there is still the problem of
transporting the wastes to the site and the
problems associated with operating safety and
the probable inability to guarantee 100 percent '
destruction.
Cost—It is probable that emerging technologies
will become somewhat more price competitive with
traditional disposal as RCRA design standards take
effect.- However, it is unlikely that this will
happen within the 1980-85 time frame.
Waste purity—Unfortunately, as discussed later, many
of the technologies require very "pure" wastes to worK:
effectively. That is, the operation of the
physical or chemical process can be inhibited
or upset if a noncompatible waste is present
(e.g., organic materials present in a waste
being stabilized to cement-like consistency can
weaken considerably the strength of the
resultant solid). Thus, some technologies
require significant waste separation prior to
use. This reduces the applicability of the
method where waste separation is infeasible and
increases the costs where separation is feasible
and practiced.
Reliability—Reliability is a key factor in
considering the potential for commercializa-
tion of any technology. Unfortunately,
reliability can only be tested under actual
operating conditions. Since by definition there
are no historical reliability data for emerging
technologies, waste management firms are often
disinclined toward purchasing or developing a
particular technology given the extent of the risks
and the size of the investment.
J-5
-------
Timing—The difficulties in moving a technology
forward from a bench-scale operation to full
commercialization are many, and in some instances
have proven insurmountable. If municipal solid
waste resource recovery technology is any indi-
cator, many of the emerging technologies could
take 10 to 20 years before full-scale operation
is proven feasible.
In summary, there is a moderately promising future, for
emerging technologies. With the enactment and more recently
the implementation of RCRA, proper disposal techniques will
be in demand ever more frequently. Yet because most of the
emerging technologies are at very early stages of development,
it appears that the more innovative technologies will not
penetrate the market to a significant degree in the next
5 years.
2. MANY OF THE EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES ARE HIGHLY WASTE
SPECIFIC, AND THEIR EVENTUAL MARKET'POTENTIAL MAY BE
LIMITED
Thirteen technologies have been selected for review
because of their market potential. Some technologies are
exotic, some not, some were developed particularly for
hazardous waste disposal, and some were transferred from
other applications. The technologies are presented here in
alphabetical order making no judgments on ultimate worth or
commercialization success. As stated previously, the
technologies are designed principally for hazardous waste
detoxification or destruction. -The reviews are designed
to be brief. The list of references in Exhibit J-3 provided
the basis for the findings and should be consulted for
further information.
(1) Cement Kilns
The Canadian government has demonstrated that
chlorinated hydrocarbons can be used as a boiler
fuel in the manufacture of cement. In 1974, at
St. Lawrence Cement Co. in Ontario, 330,000 gallons
of waste lubricating oils were successfully burned
in a cement kiln. In 1976, PCBs and other chlorin-
ated organic wastes were destroyed. Similar tests
in Sweden have demonstrated a PCB destruction
efficiency of 99.99998 percent. As a result, cement
kilns have received considerable attention recently
as a reliable method which can handle a variety of
wastes. However, because of liability issues there
is hesitancy on the part of the cement industry to
use the wastes. Moreover, local opposition is a
problem typically and" it is not yet clear which
classes of wastes are compatible.with the cement-
making process.
J-6
-------
EXHIBIT J-3
References Presenting Additional Details
on Emerging Technologies
2.
5
6.
9,
10,
11,
Berkowitz, J.B., et al., Unit Operations for Treatment
of Hazardous Industrial Wastes, Noyes Data Corporation,
Park Ridge, New Jersey, 1978.
Booz, Allen Applied Research, Inc., "A Study of
Hazardous Waste Materials, Hazardous Effects and
Disposal Methods," NTIS Report PB221466, July 1973.
Edwards, B.H. and Paullin, J.N., "Emerging Technologies
for the Destruction of Hazardous Wastes," presented at
the Sixth Annual Hazardous Waste Research Symposium,
Chicago, Illinois, March 1980.
"Hazardous Waste News," published by Business
Publishers, Inc., Silver Spring, Maryland, multiple
issues.
"Hazardous Waste Report," published by Aspen Systems
Corporation, Germantown, Maryland, multiple issues.
Henry, D.L., "Incineration at Sea," presented at six
Seminars on Disposal'of Hazardous Wastes, sponsored
by the Chemical Manufacturers Association, November 1979-
March 1980.
Landreth, R.E., et al., "Promising Technologies for
Treatment of Hazardous Wastes," U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Report PB 238 145, November 1974.
Maugh, T.H., "Hazardous Wastes Technology Is Available,"
in Science, Vol. 204, June 1, 1979.
Maugh, T.H., "Incineration, Deep Wells Gain New
Importance," in Science, Vol. 204, June 15, 1979.
Maugh, T.H., "Burial is Last Resort for Hazardous
Wastes," in Science, Vol. 204, June 22, 1979.
Novak, R.G. and Clark, J.N., "Impact of RCRA on
Hazardous Waste Incineration System Design," presented
at six Seminars on Disposal of Hazardous Wastes spon-
sored by the Chemical Manufacturers Association,
November 1979-March 1980.
J-7
-------
EXHIBIT J-3 (Continued)
12. Pojasek, R.B., "Solid Waste Disposal: Solidification,"
Chemical Engineering, 86(17),-pp. 141-145, August 13,
1979.
13. Powers, P.W., How to Dispose of Toxic Substances and
Industrial Wastes, Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge,
New Jersey, 1976.
14. Ross, D., "The Burning Issue: Incineration of Hazardous
Wastes," in Pollution Engineering, August 1979.
15. "Technology for Managing Hazardous Wastes," a report
prepared by Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute for the
New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation,
September 1, 1979.
16. Weitzman, L. , "Alternative's to Land Disposal,"
presented at six Seminars on Disposal of Hazardous
Wastes sponsored by the Chemical Manufacturers
Association, November 1979-March 1980.
J-i
-------
(2) Chlorinolysis
Herbicide orange, still bottoms from organic
manufacturing processes, and pesticides can be con-
verted by chlorinolysis to carbon tetrachloride.
The technology involves adding chlorine to the waste
in a special nickle-stainless steel reactor under
certain temperatures and pressures. The severe
oxidizing and corrosive environment requires these
special reactor materials, increasing the cost of -
this method substantially. in addition, impurities
in the'waste stream, particularly sulfur at extremely
low concentrations, can cause either unwanted by-
products or system poisoning. Further studies are
underway to determine the .ultimate feasibility of
this technology.
(3) Co-mingling
The practice of co-mingling hazardous waste
with nonhazardous wastes in land burial sites has
been widespread for years. If done improperly or
arbitrarily-severe problems can result. However,
in California the practice has been refined such
that only compatible wastes are disposed of together
and that in all other cases extreme steps are taken
to assure isolation. The results on this method
are not yet conclusive. California officials have
expressed some concern because the:process kinetics
of the mingling and the ultimate disposition of the
hazardous wastes are not known for sure.
(4) Fluidized-bed Incineration
Fluidized-beds have been used in petroleum
refining since the 1920s, but it is only recently
that hazardous wastes have been combusted in them.
The process has been used to destroy oil refinery
wastes, carbon black, spent pulping liquor, chlor-
inated hydrocarbons, and phenol. This process
involves forcing the waste fluid or gas upward
through a bed of solid particles at a rate such
that the solids remain in suspension. The resultant
complete mixing enhances oxidation with a minimum of
excess oxygen and temperature. The most serious
disadvantage of this technology is the potential
for salt fusion and subsequent defluidization of the
bed. This is due to the formation of low-melting
point mixtures resulting from the incineration of
diverse materials. As with other incineration options
high construction costs are also a problem.
J-9
-------
(5) Incineration-at-Sea
There are now two functioning incinerator ships;
the Vulcanus and the Matthias II. The Vulcanus has
successfully destroyed chlorinated hydrocarbons and
dioxins. EPA monitored the tests and found destruc-
tion essentially complete with no hazardous by-products,
Since dioxin is among the most difficult wastes to
dispose of completely, and since air pollution control
measures are not required on these vessels, the success
of the first tests would seem to indicate a bright
future. However, potential regulatory problems with
discharges to the ocean (e.g., Clean Water Act Section
403(c) criteria) and the fact that sizeable port
storage facilities are probably required, the promise
of this technology remains questionable.
(6) Land Treatment
Landfarming of oily refinery sludges has been
practiced in this country for over 25 years. Other
materials that have been successfully landfarmed
include sludges from paper mills and fruit canneries,
pharmaceutical wastes, and some organic chemical
wastes. The practice involves the spreading of or-
ganic wastes onto land and subsequently mixing the
waste with surface soil to aerate the mass arid expose
the waste to soil microorganisms which will decompose
the waste. The 'technical requirements of RCRA will
probably constrict the use of landfarming to suitable
hydrogeological areas. Also, landfarming does require
large areas of land and the technology is not appro-
priate for wastes containing significant quantities
of heavy metals or other contaminants that are not
biodegradable.
(7) Microwave Plasma Destruction
Microwave plasma has been evaluated in the
laboratory as a means of destroying pesticides and
other highly toxic materials. Destruction rates
range from 99 percent to 99.9999 percent. In this
technology electrons are accelerated in a cavity
such that the average electron has sufficient energy
to dissociate a molecule or fragment on collision.
The problems with this technology are that it is
only in its early development and thus far, only
very small cavities can be constructed.
J-10
-------
(8) Molten Salt Combustion
In this process, waste and air are continually
introduced under the surface of molten sodium car-
bonate which is kept at a temperature of 800°C to
1-, 000°C. The intimate contact of the air and waste
with the hot salt produces immediate and complete
combustion. The process has been tested with a
variety of organic wastes and some low-level radio-
active wastes. Destruction rates greater than 99.99
percent have been observed. Unfortunately, the
technology is only in the experimental stage and
the costs could be prohibitive.
(9) Molten Sodium Decomposition
Scientists at the Franklin Research Center have
found that molten sodium metal, in the appropriate
solvent medium, can function as a broad-based chemical
reactant. In tests to date the technology has demon-
strated complete combustion of PCBs and experiments
are underway to study kepone destruction. This tech-
nology is also in its infancy.
(10) Ozonation
For years ozone (03) has been used a-s an oxidiz-
ing/disinfection agent in wastewater treatment,
particularly municipal systems in Europe. -A procedure
for evaluating chemical compounds susceptible to oxone
oxidation has been developed by Fochtman and Dobb-s. The
applicability of.this technology to hazardous waste is
still being studied.
(11) Solidification
A great amount of private R&D has gone into
the chemical solidification of wastes—the develop-
ment of .techniques to bind the wastes into a coherent
mass before burial so that leaching of toxic materials
into the groundwater is minimized. This method is
particularly appropriate for "dirty" inorganic wastes
such as industrial sludges. Four techniques are
available: cement-based techniques, lime-based tech-
niques, thermoplastic binders, and organic binders.
Solidification is used very little in this country
but has experienced greater utilization in Europe.
Unfortunately, long-term monitoring of this method
is needed to determine the ultimate disposition of the
solid material. In addition, organic contaminants
can weaken significantly the cement or other solid
material.
J-ll
-------
(12) UV Radiation
UV radiation has been used in conjunction with
other treatment technologies to destroy hazardous
wastes. The Atlantic Research Corporation_has
developed a process for breaking and reducing car-
bon-halogen bonds in wastes. The compounds are
dissolved in methanol and treated with UV radiation
and hydrogen. A high percentage of destruction was
reported for kepone and PCBs. Wastes have also
been degraded successfully using ozone and UV
radiation together. Thus, UV radiation shows con-
siderable promise as a supplementary technology.
(13) Wet Air Oxidation
Wet air oxidation has been used largely as a
method of conditioning wastewater treatment sludges,
and to a limited extent for the treatment of waste-
water as well. It does, however, have the potential
to be used as an alternative to incineration for
certain types of wastes. Wet air oxidation is accom-
plished by adding air to an aqueous mixture of organics
under pressure and elevated temperature. This tech-
nology is generally suitable for streams containing
about 1-30 percent organics by weight. Laboratory
demonstrations thus far show good destruction of
cyanides and chlorinated organics.
The technologies presented in this, appendix are not
meant to be a comprehensive compilation of all emerging
technologies or systems of technologies. Activated carbon,
ion exchange, and ultrafiltration are three examples of
other innovative technologies perhaps suitable for hazard-
ous waste. In addition, industrial waste exchanges have
shown some promise as a means to recycle or recover useful
components in waste. All of these technologies together
will form the future system of alternatives. The question
remains, however, as to the extent to which each technology
will penetrate the market.
pa 2004
SW-894
ttU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: I 980-341 -082/132
J-12
------- |